This past Sabbath, while Jews around the world were celebrating Passover, the Jewish holiday celebrating God freeing His Chosen People from the bonds of slavery in Egypt, an antisemitic, white supremacist (and I mean an actual white supremacist, not people who simply disagree with the Left) opened fire in a Poway synagogue, killing one and wounding three others.
 
And while this is a tragedy, as any loss of life is a tragedy, we can see the power of the Lord at work to defeat someone who is working for Satan through the actions of two brave men.
 
According to reports, a U.S. Border Patrol agent named Jonathan Morales and a former combat veteran who served in the Navy and the Army, named Oscar Stewart, kept the shooter (whose name I will omit as to not give him recognition for his heinous crime) from making that a much bloodier day than it already was.
 
The shooter reportedly went into the synagogue, shot at the Rabbi, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, blowing off two of his fingers, shot at an elderly woman who was trying to protect the Rabbi, killing her in the process, shot at an 8-year-old girl and her uncle, both of whom were injured, but have thus far survived.
 
In the midst of this, Stewart, the combat veteran, made the decision to run towards the gunman, knowing that the shooter’s AR-style rifle would not be effective within five feet.
 
He recalled: “I heard gunshots. And everybody got up and started trying to get out of the back door, so I – for whatever reason – I didn’t do that. I ran the other way. I ran towards the gun shots. When I came around the corner into the lobby area, I saw the individual with a gun, and he fired two rounds. I knew I had to be within five feet of this guy so his rifle couldn’t get to me. So I ran immediately towards him, and I yelled as loud as I could. And he was scared. I scared the hell out of him. And I yelled at him and I must have yelled very loud, and he looked at me, and I must have had a really mean look on my face or something, because he immediately dropped his weapon and turned and ran. And then I gave chase.”
 
There were reports that the gun had jammed before the shooter ran to his car, but Stewart noted that it was unlikely. “Full automatic weapons will jam. Semi-automatic weapons do not jam.” Stewart figured that the gunman’s magazine simply ran out of ammo, so he dropped the gun and ran to his car.
 
Stewart then reportedly ran towards the gunman’s car, started pounding on it before he saw the gunman reach for another rifle. However, Border Patrol agent Morales came running and “yelled for Stewart to get down because Morales had a gun.” According to reports, Morales shot at the car multiple times in the hopes of disabling it, but the shooter drove away. The two brave men then called the police to report the guy’s license plate, but the shooter turned himself in soon after, interestingly enough.
 
The entire situation, however, demonstrates the power of God over Satan. The shooter intended to cause great harm and damage to Jews. According to posts he made on 8-chan, a reportedly “far-right” message board site, the guy hates Jews and Israel, blaming them for supposedly “sealing the doom” of the “European race”, spoken much like Adolf Hitler, whom the shooter mentions as being his inspiration, alongside the Tree of Life Synagogue shooter and the Christchurch, New Zealand mosque shooter.
 
The shooter also reportedly blames the Jews for “persecution of Christians” for their role in the deaths of Jesus, as well as prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah… all of whom were Jewish, so I’m not so sure about that.
 
According to the Jerusalem Post, the shooter claimed he was carrying out the attack in order to be a “good Christian”, saying “My God understands why I did what I did.”
 
Suffice it to say, he was not being a good Christian. God certainly understands why he did what he did, seeing as He’s omniscient, but that does not mean He sees it as a good or righteous thing. Far from it. If the shooter were really a “good Christian”, he would understand NOT TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE among many, many other things.
 
Plenty of people use God in terrible, sinful ways. One argument the Left often makes regarding religion is that it was used to justify slavery. But it was also used to justify ending it. Slavery is not a Christian thing. It’s not what God wants. And before you point out the multiple times in the Bible where the word is used and it’s not taken as a bad thing, please understand that there’s a difference between indentured servitude and paying off a debt through labor.
 
It is nothing new to see Satan use the scripture to perform evil deeds. Satan used scripture to tempt Jesus, after all. So it’s not exactly new for someone who claims to be a Christian to use scripture to try to justify committing an evil act. However, it is important to note that such a thing is inherently anti-Christian. Just as any “Christian” trying to justify abortion, any “Christian” trying to justify the killing and persecution of Jews is not a real Christian.
 
The shooter blamed the Jews for what they did to Jesus, but what happened to Jesus was NECESSARY FOR OUR ATONEMENT! We are evil by nature and nothing we can do on our own accord justifies us or makes us righteous. What we need is a perfect being to be our substitute, to be punished in our stead and make us justified in the Eyes of the Lord. Jesus is that perfect substitute. What happened to Him is heart-wrenching and gruesome, but the ultimate blessing for those whom He calls.
 
To blame Jews, particularly today’s Jews for what the Pharisees and Romans did to Jesus is like blaming white people today for what white Democrats did in the past regarding slavery and segregation. Christians have no better ally in the world than the Jews and vice versa.
 
The power of God is clearly seen in the fact that the shooter likely ran out of ammo and was scared off by brave men, one of whom had a gun with him. Satan led the supposed “Christian” to commit this detestable crime against God’s Chosen People, but God kept the shooter from doing more damage than he could have.
 
Satan already knows he is finished, that he will not win. At this point, he just doesn’t want to be lonely by the time he burns in the lake of fire and sulfur, so he entraps people like this shooter. He loves nothing more than to bring people away from God, away from Christ. But his defeat was made concrete from the very beginning.
 
2 Thessalonians 3:3
“But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one.”

And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

This is something anyone with a functioning brain can figure out, but it is always good to have a study backing up such thoughts. Common sense and logic dictate that the Green New Deal, even if it worked as advertised, would do nothing to combat climate change considering it would only apply to the U.S. and there are other countries that pollute even more than we do.
 
But a study from the American Enterprise Institute looked into this sort of thing and found the same results: the GND, even if it worked exactly as advertised, doing everything it did financially effectively, would do next to nothing to combat climate change.
 
The study, written by Benjamin Zycher, begins by saying that the GND’s central goal is to implement policies that would “reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero, or to ‘net zero’, by 2050 in some formulations,” and that the way it would go about it is by “reducing sharply the economic value of some substantial part of the US resource base and the energy-producing and energy-consuming capital stock,” which the proposal claims would “increase the size of the economy in real terms, increase employment, improve environmental quality, and improve distributional equity.”
 
To Zycher, that is a “’broken windows’ argument: The destruction of resources increases aggregate wealth. It is not to be taken seriously.”
 
Zycher then notes that “the future temperature impacts of the zero-emissions objective would be barely distinguishable from zero: 0.173° by 2100, under the maximum Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change parameter… Under the assumption consistent with the findings reported in the recent peer-reviewed literature, the effect would be 0.083° by 2100, a policy impact not measurable against normal variation in temperatures.”
 
In other words, the impact of the GND on climate change would be pretty much unnoticeable even in 80 years. And considering we only have 12 years to live, according to the brilliant AOC, I’d say that’s not a good thing.
 
But Zycher does not simply end there. He also recognizes what the GND’s TRUE purpose is. It is not about fighting climate change, despite what the people supporting it will claim. It’s such a ridiculous and not-at-all well-thought-out proposal that one glance is all anyone needs to tell this wouldn’t work.
 
Replacing every single building in the country? Eliminating cow farts? Those two things alone are pretty darn impossible to pull off, let alone all the other junk in it.
 
No, its true purpose is to fundamentally change the United States into the definition of a socialist country: a country where the government owns the means of production. As Zycher puts it, the GND’s “real goal is wealth redistribution to favored political interests under the GND social-policy agenda and a dramatic increase in government control of resource allocation more generally.”
 
It is policy meant to give all the power to those in government while utterly decimating everyone else. Especially considering the GND’s electricity mandate, which would cost tax payers around $490.5 billion a year, and that’s a CONSERVATIVE estimate, or $3,845 per household. According to Zycher, this “impact would vary considerably across the states if the GND were financed through electricity rates rather than the federal budget. Under such a ratepayer finance assumption, the lowest household cost of $222 per year would be observed in Vermont. The highest would be observed in Wyoming: $17,103 per household per year.”
 
And just like that, Wyoming would lose pretty much all of its population. And considering they only have about 577,000 people in that entire state (I was honestly stunned at that number. There are more people in the city of Portland, Oregon than in all of Wyoming?), I’d say that state is particularly screwed by the GND.
 
But do you want to know what the cherry on top of all of that is? Not only would people be utterly financially screwed with an added tax to pay for this GND on top of everything else they need to pay, but this mandate alone would actually HARM the environment more than it would help it.
 
“Because of the need for conventional backup generation to avoid blackouts in a ‘100 percent renewable system’ and because those backup units would have to be cycled up and down depending on wind and sunlight conditions, one ironic effect would be GHG emissions from natural gas-fired backup generation 22 percent higher than those resulting in 2017 from all natural gas-fired power generation. And those backup emissions would be over 35 percent of the emissions from all power generation in 2017.”
 
In other words, because wind and solar are so unreliable when it comes to the energy they produce, the backup generators would actually heavily increase greenhouse emissions (you know, that naughty word?). It would actually be WORSE for the environment to switch to wind and/or solar, not to mention they also do not produce anywhere near the same amount of energy that fossil fuel does, so blackouts would be frequent almost regardless of conditions (depending on where you live).
 
So the GND literally cannot even TRY to work as advertised, that is, it cannot do anything favorable to fight climate change, as the electricity mandate alone would work against that goal, even if we could actually somehow afford it, which we definitely cannot.
 
The GND should be considered a complete and total joke, top to bottom, but there are some really stupid people out there who think this is a good idea. Well, once their homes stop having working electricity (and God knows the U.S. can’t literally replace all of its buildings even within a century), their supermarkets are emptied because the farming equipment we currently have would be outlawed so food production would severely decline, and you overall have massive famines and riots, then maybe people will stop thinking the GND is so great.
 
Seriously, the GND is national suicide. It would almost immediately destroy the country in every aspect. And all to perhaps help decrease global temperatures by virtually zero in 80 years.
 
What a great plan.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

In a similar way that I looked at the insane rhetoric from a truly insane person crying out that libraries are racist because of some insanely stupid reasons, apparently wanting a healthy body and being a fitness trainer makes you a Nazi. That is one of the dumb things a woman who calls herself a “Fat Sex Therapist”, actual name being Sonalee Rashatwar, claimed in a speech to St. Olaf College students.
 
I say “one of the dumb things” because among them, she also compared parents putting a child on a diet to sexual assault, fitness trainers to white supremacists, science showing the link between obesity and poor health “eugenic science” or “Nazi science” and encouraged the students to both challenge laws and police, even though I have no idea what those two things have to do with being fat.
 
She began by saying: “Tonight, we’re gonna start by talking about how to politicize our definition of body image because oftentimes we actually get stuck thinking of it from a white supremacist lens… white supremacy happens every day in all these little things.”
 
You know, I’d say I’m surprised that someone is actually arguing that wanting a healthy body is racist if I hadn’t already written an article about someone arguing that libraries are racist. At this point, the words “racist” and “white supremacist” are thrown around so often that every single thing anyone does is considered racist. Eventually, those words will lose all their meaning.
 
Rashatwar also said: “I truly believe that a child cannot consent to being on a diet the same way a child cannot consent to having sex.” Children also cannot consent to going to school, does that mean that forcing your child to go to school is equivalent to sexual assault? They also do not consent to being forced to take up a hobby like sports, martial arts, playing an instrument, etc. Does that mean that forcing your child to at least try playing soccer, take up Judo, or play the flute is tantamount to sexual assault?
 
Guess what? Parents tend to have authority over their children. Exercising that authority is not sexual assault (unless it literally is sexual assault).
 
When I was a kid, my dad would take me to either Judo classes or Aikido. And of course, my parents would take me to school. Neither of those situations are even remotely equivalent to sexual assault and claiming they are is an outright insult to children who ACTUALLY FACE SUCH HORRORS!
 
She then went off on science: “We should be critical of the use of science and the production of knowledge to continue promoting this idea that certain bodies are fit, able, and desirable… is it my fatness that causes my high blood pressure, or is it my experience of weight stigma?” It’s your fatness, lady.
 
Look, I myself used to have fairly high blood pressure. I was never fat, let alone obese, so you can have high blood pressure without being obese. But for me, that was the case only because I would often consume things with high sodium. Once I started eating things with considerably less sodium (sadly, that means no more mac & cheese for me), my blood pressure dropped to healthy levels. But when you’re obese, you will naturally have high blood pressure because your heart is working extra hard to pump blood through arteries that are tighter and clogged up due to the fat.
 
Now, I’m not saying we shouldn’t challenge science. Matter of fact, the only way science ever advances is by challenging the status quo – challenging what is known or thought to be known. Copernicus challenged the idea that everything revolved around the Earth and he was right. Columbus challenged the idea that the Earth was flat and he was right (though we seem to have gone backwards a bit on that idea, somehow). Darwin challenged the idea that God created Man and animals and everything. He was wrong, but what he discovered helped other scientists to find things like DNA (which ironically, further help prove God’s existence given its intricacies and complexity which suggest intelligent design).
 
However, challenging science regarding what is healthy and what is not for the sake of “wokeness” is adamantly stupid. We know what foods are good for us and which are bad. We have “Nutrition Facts” labels on our food for good reason. For example, taking a Coke that I drank recently, I can read the Nutrition Facts and find that that bottle (355 mL, so a very small one) contains 140 calories, 0% total fat, 2% Sodium and 39g of total carbs among other things. Not as healthy as, say, water, but not bad either on its own. What reason do I have to challenge what it says? Because it tastes good? Because I like it? Because I have the innate desire to have more of it? Or as this woman suggests, because the results will make me more “woke”?
 
The results will make me fatter and less healthy. Sure, I like the taste of it, but I am responsible with it. I don’t have multiple bottles of it every single day.
 
Anyway, the woman then went on to hilariously tie this sort of science to eugenics: “fatphobic [science] is often actually eugenic science… eugenic science is Nazi science.”
 
A few things to say. First, oh, goodie, “fatphobic” is now a thing. Second, does this woman know that eugenics often included killing and experimenting on people? I don’t think she knows this. The Nazis would perform eugenics on people like fetuses, twins and so on in the name of “science”. It was atrocious and a human rights’ violation. No one does this sort of thing to fat people. Not to mention that eugenics would often use unwilling test subjects. While experiments are done with people who are fat, those people CHOOSE to partake in the experiment. Otherwise, it would very much be illegal and unethical.
 
Then, she said something that is so wrong it’s actually funny: “intentionally pursuing weight loss… what we’re discovering scientifically is that that’s not possible.”
 
Give me a moment, because I really can’t hold in my laughter.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
Okay, okay. Umm, where to begin? Should I even say anything here? Does reality speak for itself here? Maybe I should say at least this: there was literally someone who was fat and lost weight in her audience.
 
Will Douty, a freshman at this college, was interviewed by Campus Reform after the lecture. He said: “The entire speech was very troubling for me. I know from personal experience that health is absolutely connected with weight… when you decide to give up and claim that doctors are lying to you and you’re perfect the way you are, all you truly end up with is repressed emotions and an early funeral… I can guarantee that maintaining healthy eating habits will help me live a much longer and healthier life than I was originally on track to have. Your life can only improve if you take responsibility for yourself.”
 
How is it that a 19-year-old has more common sense than a woman I’m assuming is somewhere in her thirties?
 
Also, I like that last part about your life only improving if you take responsibility for yourself. Guess what the speaker was telling people they shouldn’t do? Take responsibility for themselves.
 
Rashatwar claimed: “This conversation about pushing off our own well-being onto the individual is part of these 1980s Reagan era policies that again try to move that structural obligation of a system and this social safety net onto the individual… instead of thinking that there should be social supports that also help me to subsidize my food costs.”
 
First, that’s not strictly a Reagan thing. JFK, a Democrat, insisted that people think about what they can do for their country, not what their country can do for them. Second, is she for real? Is she actually saying we ought to help pay for her to gorge herself out with food so she would remain fat, unhealthy and “woke”?
 
It’s honestly ironic that she supports the type of policies that have led to some of the worst famines in world history.
 
She then called on students “to challenge all authorities, not just the authority that science has given but also legal authority… the same way I want us all to challenge laws, I want us all to challenge prisons and policing.”
 
Again, what does being fat have to do with police authority and laws? As far as I know, the only laws concerning weight have to do with a parent either not feeding their child or a parent feeding their child so much that they gain extremely unhealthy amounts of weight (both of which fall under the category of child abuse).
 
People can make the argument that cops are racist (largely wrong, but they can make it), but I don’t think anyone can make the claim that anyone has ever been pulled over, arrested or killed by a police officer because they were fat. I don’t think fat people get to make that argument. Of course, that is their First Amendment right, but that doesn’t mean they get credibility.
 
Rashatwar later trashed the ethics codes in her profession as a therapist, where she is not allowed, as a professional, to have physical contact or a relationship with her clients: “I will never live by a professional code of ethics that tells me what I am allowed and not allowed to do with my body.”
 
Can’t say I’m surprised that this woman is highly unethical. Didn’t need this part to understand that, quite frankly.
 
In any case, she then finished her speech by talking about the New Zealand mosque shooting: “I do not think it’s surprising that the man who shot up Christchurch, New Zealand was also a fitness instructor.” She also added that the shooting is “a clear communication that there’s still an idealized body. Nazis really love this idea of an idealized body, and so it makes a lot of sense to me that a fitness instructor… might also think about an idealized body in this thin white supremacist way.”
 
Yeah, I don’t remember one of the reasons listed in the guy’s manifesto being that he did this because he hated fat people. He may or may not hate fat people, but the reasons for shooting up the mosque did not include that.
 
But this woman must’ve had a bad run-in with a fitness instructor. This level of hatred for that particular career seems to stem from personal experience.
 
In any case, I find it is good to write articles like these, exposing just how lunatic many on the Left have become. To summarize what she claims: fitness instructors are Nazis, science that showcases the links between obesity and high blood pressure and overall unwellness is eugenic science aka Nazi science, putting your child on a diet is tantamount to sexual assault and we should pay for her to get even fatter and unhealthier.
 
You just can’t write this stuff.
 
James 1:5
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

That can perhaps be counted as yet another one of my “no, duh” titles, but it is important to note just why I am talking about this now. After all, Rush Limbaugh has had his show for 30 years and has been the “Big Voice on the Right” for pretty much all of these years, but I do not think I have ever specifically talked about him or things he said.
 
Obviously, there is not much point, as one can listen to his 3-hour-long radio show any day of the week and find what he said himself (unless you work for the MSM and can’t stand to listen to him and have to rely on what other people say he said). However, he sometimes appears on other shows, notably with Sean Hannity, Chris Wallace and other Fox News anchors. Earlier this week, El Rushbo appeared on Fox News’ “The Story with Martha MacCallum” to discuss a number of things ranging from the 2020 presidential election and Democrat candidates to the Mueller report and investigation.
 
Let’s begin with what he said about the Democrats’ chances at beating Trump in 2020: “Here’s the thing: Joe Biden is probably the best chance they’ve got, and he doesn’t have a chance. They’re probably… I mean, Joe Biden and Crazy Bernie and Mayor Pete? I mean, you’ve got three white guys, two of them are brontosauruses from Jurassic Park, and that isn’t gonna sit well with the rest of this party which has gone so far left. You know, Biden’s putting off this announcement. I don’t know how badly he really wants this, and you have to really want this if you’re gonna have any chance of winning it.”
 
I’ve already written an article about how I seriously doubt that the Democrats would nominate Joe Biden for those precise reasons. Of course, I could be wrong, but those reasons are still very important to the Leftist Democrat base. For the last few years, old, white people have been victimized, harassed and attacked simply for being old and white. Jussie Smollett blamed white people for his hoax of an attack, the Catholic Covington kids were attacked for being white and Trump supporters, there are hundreds of instances where a white person was attacked for being white (and/or supporting Trump). So for the Democrats to have a nominee that is old, white and male is not going to jive with many on their base. Whether or not that means they would skip voting on election day, I cannot say, but the fact Joe is an old, white male is going to be a problem for him because his party hates that sort of person now (and I believe secularists would call that “karma”).
 
Rush was then asked if Trump is “vulnerable” to Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, particularly when she promises “free” stuff like college debt forgiveness and other things.
 
Rush said: “’Fauxcahontas’ is not gonna be the nominee. But, you know, these Democrats are all in the process of trying to out-leftist or out-liberal each other, and they’re in a contest of who can give away the most. But with Elizabeth Warren, forgiving college loans – forgiving that debt – and then promising free college and Medicare for All and a Green New Deal? Why is anybody gonna need to go to college? Because nobody’s gonna need a job, because the Democrats are gonna be giving everybody a universal basic income. So why does any of this matter? None of this is real. None of this can happen. This is disinformation. I think it’s an indication of just how little they think of their own voters, that their own voters don’t even want to work. They don’t even want to achieve. They don’t want to pursue excellence. They just want to have their hands out and vote for whoever is gonna give them the most?... What a way to ruin a life. Nobody would raise kids this way.”
 
And he’s completely right (I know, what a shock). Back in the beginning of April, I wrote an article about how college students support socialism unless they are affected by it negatively, such as redistributing the good grades they were getting to give to someone else who was not doing as well. College kids strive (for the most part) to get good grades because they want the best scores and the best chance to earn a degree and hopefully get a good job (even if that’s not exactly the way things work now because just about everyone is getting a degree and the value of a degree is diminished due to its surplus. Supply and demand works in a lot of ways).
 
Most college kids try to work hard to earn good grades and don’t expect to simply be given good grades. In real life, most people work the same way. They work hard at their jobs to hopefully get a promotion or a raise. And what the Democrats think of their own base is that they are all lazy and need the government’s help to even stay alive. It’s disrespectful, even if some of them are this way.
 
There is value in hard work. And even if a lot of parents don’t teach that value to their kids, the kids will come to understand it eventually once they start working themselves. Again, with those college kids, they all understood the value of working hard for their grades: they worked and studied hard and receive good grades for it.
 
That’s the way things work, even in a society where the value of hard work is not necessarily taught anymore by parents. Those who are successful work hard, whether that success means millions and billions of dollars or getting an A on a term paper.
 
But anyway, let’s get back to the Dean of the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Rush was then asked about Hillary Clinton saying Trump should be “indicted” on obstruction of justice concerning the Mueller investigation, he said: “For Hillary – you talk about irony – for Hillary Clinton to be talking about impeaching Donald Trump… Hillary Clinton needs to be investigated, she needs to be indicted, and she needs to be in jail, and many of her co-conspirators in this whole sordid affair, which amounted to nothing more than a silent coup to overturn the election results of 2016.”
 
“Hillary Clinton demanding that Trump – you talk about sour grapes, this is a woman that’s been rejected by the American people twice, rejected by her party in 2008. She had to rig the primaries against Crazy Bernie in 2016 to get the nomination. [Hillary] is the last person who ought to be listened to about what ought to happen to Donald Trump. She hasn’t accomplished anything anywhere near what Donald Trump has accomplished. She is in no position to sit here and say what she saw in the Mueller – well, she can say it, she’s an American. But she doesn’t have any credibility on any of this as far as I am concerned. And I’m not alone here.”
 
And he’s right in many ways. Hillary is in no position to be saying anything here about obstruction, considering her own HUSBAND was impeached for obstruction of justice, which the media tried to bury and say it was about “sex” and Monica Lewinsky. And without even mentioning the fact that SHE IS THE ONE WHO COLLUDED WITH FOREIGN AGENTS TO RIG THE ELECTION IN HER FAVOR!
 
America’s Real Anchorman then continued, talking specifically about the Mueller probe: “there was never any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. The collusion, as I said, was Hillary, the DNC, and the Russians via Steele. But the Russians – when Mueller announced the indictments of the Russian troll farm – actually it was Rosenstein that went out and announced them. And nobody paid any attention to this, but he said at the end of the announcement, ‘Nothing in these indictments suggests a single vote was changed. Nothing suggests the outcome of any election was changed. No American is named in the indictment had anything to do with it.’”
 
“This was not even an investigation of Trump. What it was was an attempt to overthrow the 2016 elections… unelected people came close to actually pulling off what is a coup. And it should never, ever happen again.”
 
Once again, he is right in many things. The only thing I would add is that Mueller was not actually all that close to pulling off a coup. He was at the beginning, or at least was closer, but never actually all that close. What do I mean? Well, not to give anyone any ideas, but generally what is necessary for a coup is unity.
 
What do I mean by that? Well, there has to be unity from the people that want the coup and people outside of that group. Mueller and his special counsel and some people in the intelligence community wanted Trump gone. But not everyone in the intelligence community agreed.
 
Mueller was not above lying on his report. If he wanted to, he could’ve alleged things and charged Trump with b.s. He could’ve lied, but he didn’t. Why? Because he didn’t have the full support of the intelligence community. He wasn’t assured security for lying, which he would’ve needed, as he would’ve had to testify in front of Congress.
 
He was not sure he would be protected, so he did not lie, but still not telling the full truth either.
 
Beyond that, no coup can ever actually happen without the military. And that is where Mueller was doomed almost from the beginning.
 
I mentioned earlier that Mueller was at least closer to pulling off a coup earlier in the investigation than later on. What I meant by that is he could’ve gotten the military on his side (not all that likely, but certainly was possible). But when he destroyed General Flynn, he also destroyed his chances at getting the military on his side. And a coup has to have military force. Sure, the FBI and CIA have guns, but guns don’t beat tanks and planes and helicopters.
 
A silent coup was not going to succeed ever. Every coup that has ever happened in history has been a military one. Lenin had his Red Army to fight against the Czar’s White Army. Multiple Latin American countries have gone through coups where the military was used to usurp the sitting government. Argentina is particularly known for that sort of thing, having a history of successful and failed coups.
 
Rush is right in as far as this was definitely a silent coup, an attempt to overturn the 2016 elections, but that was not going to be successful without the support of the military. And that in itself was going to be insanely difficult even without destroying Flynn. The U.S. has never had an actual military coup. There is no precedent for it and it was unlikely the military would’ve just gotten on Mueller’s side even without destroying Flynn. But him destroying Flynn made it certain that Mueller was not going to be successful in destroying Trump.
 
Granted, can’t really blame the dirty cop here. He was not given a specific crime to investigate, but rather a person. I don’t doubt he fully expected to find SOMETHING that Trump did that can at least be somewhat considered to be illegal. And while he found things that people connected to him were illegal, Trump was pretty squeaky clean.
 
At best, Mueller got allegations of having an affair with a pornstar. Immoral, if true (which I doubt), but not exactly illegal.
 
This was indeed a silent coup against Trump, but one cannot overstate the magnificent failure that it was. At no point did Mueller actually get even close to beating Trump. Matter of fact, as time went on, his chances were diminishing. AG Barr telling him to wrap things up certainly did him no favors.
 
But anyway, it’s interviews like these that showcase how intelligent Rush Limbaugh is (apart from his show, of course). Kudos to Rush for speaking the truth and backing it up with facts.
 
And also thank the Lord that He protects Trump every single day. Let us continue praying to Him for his safety in every aspect conceivable.
 
Isaiah 54:17
“No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from Me, declares the Lord.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

Shifting our focus away from more serious matters and looking towards something of entertainment and comedy, we can find a short video of an adorable 8-year-old girl who bears a striking resemblance to the female lunatic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, even going as far as to tie her hair in a knot, put on glasses and don some red lipstick.
 
The video, filmed by her father, who says that many in their family noted the resemblance the girl and the Congresswoman have, shows the girl talking about climate change and socialism in a hilarious video that greatly mocks the lunatic and at least relatively showcases the girl’s superior intelligence (at least in the fact she was more than happy to give a very good mocking of AOC).
 
The video begins with the girl saying: “Like, I’m Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aka AOC, and like, I wanna talk about climate change…”, expertly mocking the fact that AOC talks like a teenage girl.
 
Continuing: “… because, like, there’s no doubt cow farts are making the climate change. Like, in July, the climate was 96 degrees and in February, the climate was 36 degrees. OMG, like that is a huge change in the climate in only…” she then proceeds to count using her fingers “four months! Like, at this rate, the world is gonna end in exactly 12 years, and, like, I’m only 29 years old now so the world will be over when I’m only…” again counts on her hand, “37 years old!” Obviously, the math is wrong, but that makes it all the funnier.
 
The girl mocks the type of climate alarmism cycle the media and the Left undergoes every six months. When it’s winter, they claim that it’s global cooling and it’s really cold because of climate change. When it’s summer, they claim it’s global warming and it’s really hot because of climate change. This is the same cycle we go through every single time we have summer and winter and it only highlights how unbelievably stupid these people are.
 
And not ignorant, but plain stupid. Ignorance would be not knowing that the Earth’s rotation around the Sun and on its own axis isn’t perfect, so we both get closer and farther away from the Sun and our planet moves between having the northern hemisphere receive more sunlight and having the southern hemisphere receive more sunlight. These are things that are taught (even if I didn’t explain them all that well) in elementary school. Even if I didn’t explain this very well, you know and can picture what I am talking about.
 
It’s hilarious that this little girl points out how unbelievably ridiculous it is for people to believe climate change has to do with the fact that it’s cold in the winter and hot in the summer. And for those who want to give the Left some leeway, yes, the Left largely talks about record highs and lows, not simply that it’s hot during summer and cold during winter, but considering there were far more record highs and lows a century ago than there are now, they ought to know just how little the climate is actually changing, at least in terms of drastic weather and temperature changes.
 
The girl then goes on to talk about socialism: “Like, I also wanna talk about socialism because socialism is so amazing! Like, socialism is actually short for ‘social media’. Did you know that? Like, I use social media, so I’m a socialist, and, like, three of the most successful countries in the world are socialist too. Venezuela, Facebook and Twitter are all very successful socialist countries. I have a lot of friends who moved to America from Facebook.”
 
Sadly, that is where the video ends, but it was brilliant through and through. I particularly loved the part where she mentions three successful countries that are socialist being Venezuela, Facebook and Twitter.
 
Apart from the fact that Facebook and Twitter are not actually countries (big shocker), I can’t help but think that she is right in as far as they are socialist. Ignoring the parts about power being centralized to one person or a small group of people because all businesses run that way, the companies are very socialist-leaning and employ censorship models that are very socialistic.
 
You can be put into Twitter or Facebook jail if you say something they don’t like or share something they disagree with. Exactly like the socialists and communists have done in the past and continue to do. I mean, remember when Jorge Ramos was detained by Venezuelan officials just because he dared show the evils that the Maduro regime was imposing on the Venezuelan people? Ramos is fairly close to Maduro in terms of political ideologies, but he showed him something he didn’t like and was treated like a criminal for it. How much worse off would a Venezuelan journalist have been in that situation? How much worse off would someone who is actually a capitalist have been?
 
And while Facebook and Twitter don’t physically put you in a jail to rot, they restrict your access and ability to exercise your first amendment rights to whomever you wish just because they disagree with what you are saying or sharing. Even if you are a feminist Leftist, if you dare criticize transgender women (men who claim to be women. Yes, it is sad that I understand the terminology and how it works) as not being actual women, you get put into Facebook or Twitter jail.
 
That’s socialism, or at least socialistic behavior.
 
Now, I don’t know if the girl had a script that was likely written by her parents, but there were parts that at least appeared like she was not reading from a script and was improvising. Like the part about telling people that socialism was short for “social media” sounded fairly improvised and something she thought up on the spot. Not to mention that even if it was all scripted, it’s clear to me that her parents are smart people, so there is good chance that the girl will turn out smart as well and recognize what she is saying here and find it funny too. Even if she doesn’t actually know what socialism is and was simply told by her parents to use that word in this context, she will know eventually and she at least has the potential to be smarter than the 29-year-old cartoon character of a Congresswoman.
 
According to the New York Post, the girl did not know who AOC was before she made the video, which is understandable considering I did not know or care about anyone of importance from the government when I was 8 apart from Argentina’s then-president Kirchner, and only then because my parents heavily disliked the guy and often talked about him. At that age, I did not care one wit about anything relating to the government or “adult” stuff and I only cared about cartoons, Power Rangers, my friends, and things kids care about. This also leads me to believe the kid does not, or at least did not, know about socialism, but again, her parents do know, so she has a good chance of being taught the right way and the right things about it and its horrors.
 
Still, the video is very funny and went viral on the internet, garnering over a million views. According to her step-father, the girl loves to act, so that might’ve been one of the reasons she went along with it.
 
Regardless, again, it shows that the girl at least has the potential to be quite smart in the future, even if she doesn’t know what socialism is. Again, at that age, I did not know either. I was not paying attention to the world around me and was simply told stories and things from my parents, such as Argentina going into default and the government stealing people’s money (including my family’s). It was at that moment that I started to not like the government so much, at least the Argentine government.
 
But one can only hope that this girl will not grow up to be the dunderhead she is portraying in this short video. Here’s hoping and praying she will be properly educated (not indoctrinated) and will recognize the evils of socialism and the Left.
 
Proverbs 22:6
“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

The biggest story of the weekend was the fact that on Easter Sunday, the day when Christians around the world celebrate the rising of the Lord Jesus Christ from the grave, signifying His defeat over death, multiple bombs, most of which were suicide bombings, targeted churches and luxury hotels, killing around 300 people (and expected to increase) and wounding 500 others in Sri Lanka.
 
The attack is believed to have been perpetrated by a radical Islamist terrorist group called National Thowfeek Jamaath, which might have ties to ISIS.
 
Included in the death toll are over 30 foreigners and 2 Americans.
 
Obviously, this is a very big deal. The death toll is very high and the attacks were numerous, with reportedly 7 locations being targeted: three churches and four hotels. According to the Wall Street Journal, six of the attacks were suicide bombings and the other one was a failed car bombing outside the St. Anthony Shrine. Another bomb was also found near Sri Lanka’s airport, but was found and defused before it went off.
 
The Wall Street Journal also reports that 85 other detonators were found abandoned in a bus station, indicating that the attacks carried out on Easter were supposed to only be the beginning of more chaos, death and destruction.
 
Considering this is major news, influential people took notice and wished to share their thoughts. However, one must recognize the sort of language used by people like former President Barack Obama and failure Hillary Clinton.
 
Obama tweeted: “The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.”
 
Clinton tweeted: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.”
 
“Easter worshippers”?
 
And they’re not the only ones who used that odd term. Presidential candidate Julian Castro tweeted: “On a day of redemption and hope, the evil of these attacks on Easter worshippers and tourists in Sri Lanka is deeply saddening. My prayers today are with the dead and injured, and their families. May we find grace.”
 
Even ABC News tweeted: “Tourists, Easter worshippers lament the closure of Notre Dame.” Though that one was sent the day before the attacks, but still used that strange term.
 
Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? Because Christians are not “Easter worshippers”. I’ve seen many people tweeting at Obama, Hillary and others about how they can’t seemingly use the term “Christians” (maybe it burns them to mention Him) but they gloss over the fact that no Christian worships Easter. NO ONE worships Easter.
 
Do we celebrate Easter? You bet we do. But we do not worship it. We worship Jesus who rose again from the dead, which we celebrate on Easter Sunday.
 
It’s such a strange term to use in what is supposed to be a replacement for “Christians”.
 
But in any case, notice how they really can’t seem to be able to use that word. Why wouldn’t they note that Christians were targeted and killed on Sunday? Why would they use such a strange and erroneous term to replace the far-easier-to-type “Christians”?
 
These are really just rhetorical questions, of course. These people are themselves not Christians and absolutely hate Christians, so at any point where Christians are targeted, especially in such a grand and horrific way, they have to completely avoid mentioning it. To them, Christians are oppressors and vicious rulers, not victims and targets of persecution and execution.
 
Notice the sort of language they use to talk about multiple horrific acts of violence against Christians versus what they said about the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand.
 
Here’s what Obama said after the NZ shooting: “Michelle and I send our condolences to the people of New Zealand. We grieve with you and the Muslim community. All of us must stand against hatred in all its forms.”
 
And now Hillary: “My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”
 
Rightly, they were outraged over the New Zealand shooting that killed 50 Muslims in a mosque. But they have no problem pointing out that Muslims were targeted in that attack while they perform verbal gymnastics to avoid pointing out that Christians were targeted in Sri Lanka.
 
The Left has no problem pointing out hatred and violence against Muslims when it happens (unless it’s Shiites being killed by Sunnis, as both are Muslims) but makes it their mission to try and diminish the effect of a far more destructive and deadly event. Not to minimize the horror of the New Zealand shooting, any destruction of life is tragic, but this attack led to more deaths and injuries, not to mention it was supposedly only the beginning of more planned terrorist attacks, likely targeting Christians.
 
50 dead Muslims is a major deal to the Left (as it should be) but 300 dead Christians and they can hardly pretend to give a damn.
 
Not that I expected anything less from these people, but it is a reminder of the sort of vile that they are. Especially looking over Hillary’s tweets. She wanted the NZ shooter’s head on a platter, denouncing Islamophobia (how come no one talks about Christophobia? Is that even a term?) and “racism in all its forms”. She says that “white supremacists terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere,” and insists that that sort of “murderous hatred must be stopped”.
 
But when Christians are the targets: they don’t get mentioned and are even lost in the crowd. “On this holy weekend for many faiths…” while not exactly wrong, as it is also Passover for Jews, this is an attack that specifically happened on Easter, a strictly Christian holiday, with Christians being the targets of the attacks.
 
They insist that we must stand in solidarity with the Muslim community around the world when they are targeted (which is rare, again, unless it is Muslim-on-Muslim violence which is frequent) and condemn Islamophobia, while not calling for any solidarity with the Christian community around the world when we are targeted and there are no calls for condemnation of Christophobia or the targeting of Christians at all.
 
And while Christophobia is technically a term, it is never outright used at any point. When someone targets gay people, that’s homophobia. Fine. When someone targets someone for their skin color, that’s racism. Fine. When someone targets women, that’s misogyny. Fine. When someone targets transgender people, that’s transphobia. Fine. When someone targets Muslims, that’s Islamophobia. Fine. But when someone targets Christians, the Left does not even recognize that they are Christians and certainly does not recognize any sort of trend of hatred towards Christians. Not fine.
 
But what makes this even worse is the actual term they use instead of Christians. If it had been “Easter observers” or “Easter celebrators” or something like that, it might’ve been marginally better. But “Easter worshippers” just rubs me the wrong way. It insinuates that what we worship is not Jesus Christ Himself, but the holiday. That we worship and have reverence towards a simple day on the week and not the Lord who made this day special with the unique and unprecedented feat of COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD. That we worship something that is not God.
 
THAT is what ticks me off more than anything else. Again, I fully expected this sort of behavior from the Left. I’m not at all surprised that they gave every damn they had about Muslims being killed in New Zealand but couldn’t be bothered to pretend about Christians. That is expected, but that term is outright insulting.
 
What Christian worships Easter? Point one out to me and I will tell you that he or she is not a Christian.
 
This is the definition of passive aggressive behavior. Implicit disdain of Christians.
 
Again, not exactly surprising behavior coming from the Left, whose heart is filled with hatred and evil, but we are yet again reminded of the sort of hatred and evil that they harbor.
 
John 15:18
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

It is not often that I write a piece targeting someone who is not inherently a Leftist, but if one were to watch a recent interview of Ann Coulter with Firing Line’s Margaret Hoover, one cannot help but take note of the fact Ann Coulter is simply not a conservative anymore (if she ever was in the first place).
 
In an interview last week, Margaret Hoover asked Coulter the simple question of what she thinks of Sen. Bernie Sanders and what if the lunatic socialist were to go back to his original position on illegal immigration (which is surprisingly conservative), what would Coulter do?
 
Ann was quick in saying that if Bernie Sanders took a more similar position on illegal immigration that Trump has (and Coulter believes Trump has completely backtracked on that, so that tells you something), she’d be willing to vote for him, might work for him and she doesn’t “care about the rest of the socialist stuff,” according to Coulter herself.
 
And THAT right there is the moment we can see Ann Coulter completely abandoning conservatism, hell, even CAPITALISM.
 
Now, I knew Ann Coulter had a few screws loose, but this is stunning. She seriously considers the issue of illegal immigration to be more important than everything else? HOW STUPID CAN SHE BE?!
 
I understand that the issue of illegal immigration is of top priority in this country, but MAINTAINING THIS COUNTRY AS A CAPITALIST COUNTRY SHOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT! Because guess what? If this country does turn socialist, we really won’t have an illegal immigration problem anymore. BECAUSE EVERYONE WILL WANT TO GET THE HELL OUT!
 
One idiotic argument the Left often brings up when talking about the Border Wall is that Germany built a wall in Berlin. Yeah, that was to KEEP PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNIST SIDE! It wasn’t to keep people out of East Berlin (the communist side), it was to keep those within East Berlin from getting out. And why would they want to get out?
 
BECAUSE OF THE SAME TYPE OF POLICIES BERNIE SANDERS WANTS TO IMPLEMENT HERE!
 
There is a reason so many people want to leave Latin American countries (be it legally or illegally) and come to the United States. The reason the Left often gives is that these people simply want a better life here in America. Gee, I wonder why they’d think they would have a better life in a CAPITALIST COUNTRY!
 
If socialism reigns supreme here, we’re screwed. Utterly and properly screwed. There is good reason Ronald Reagan once famously said: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”
 
If America is socialist, there is no other place to escape to. Sure, Israel is nice now, but with a socialist America that would likely support Iran, Israel is toast. A few European countries like Poland are nice, but the E.U. is globalist, or global communist if you will, and Poland is nowhere near superpower status.
 
If America is socialist, that’s all three world superpowers socialist or communist. If America is socialist, the same exact things that happened in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and all other socialist countries will happen here. All the despair, all the famine, all the death and destruction.
 
But we can be happy because we don’t have illegal immigrants pouring into our borders because they have no reason to leave one socialist hellhole for another. We may be left starving, struggling mightily, our economy collapsed, our healthcare system in shambles, and our people utterly screwed, but at least no more illegals, right?
 
This position is peak stupidity. Either that, or she hasn’t thought this through. And you know, I used to defend her when people called her stupid. I used to think they were completely wrong, particularly because at the time, she would defend mostly conservative stances. But she’s too far gone now and I can see she is either insanely stupid or insanely desperate for attention.
 
I can’t help but remember her tweets about “putting a fork in Trump” a few months into his presidency when it’d be unreasonable to believe he would’ve solved the world’s problems in a single moment. I can’t help but think back to the joke about “who doesn’t want him impeached?”
 
One either has to be seriously and properly moronic to think this way or be excruciatingly and pathetically starved for attention.
 
And despite how I might sound, I am not angry. I’m merely disappointed. And honestly, I feel sad for her. She is fixated on the issue of illegal immigration. And again, that is indeed an issue that ought to be at the forefront of everyone in Washington, with solutions at the ready to actually take care of the problem, not make it worse. But you do not throw the entire country towards the evil clutches of socialism for a singular issue.
 
There are more important issues at hand, namely things like abortion, in my opinion. You are free to disagree… for now. But even if I was promised that all abortion would end if I allowed socialism, I wouldn’t take the deal. Even if I was promised that everyone could become Christians if I allowed socialism, I wouldn’t take the deal. Namely because that would never actually happen. Immigration problems aren’t a thing in socialist countries because no one wants to go into one unless they plan to create trouble or to literally be terrorists. But as far as abortion and Christianity go, those two things would never be promised, much less delivered on, in a socialist country.
 
People aren’t considered people in socialist countries. Hell, people in the womb aren’t considered people here in America according to Roe and the Left. Why would I ever believe a socialist country would stop all abortions? Why would I believe they’d get people to convert to Christianity?
 
Much less the part about Christianity. Socialism is a system directly opposing Christianity. It replaces God with the government, or at least it tries to. It declares the government to have absolute power, absolute authority over everything. And since we know perfectly well that man is naturally evil, could you imagine a system where the government does this very thing? How horrible it’d be?
 
You don’t have to imagine it because THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED IN EVERY SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST COUNTRY!
 
Socialism and communism are adamantly anti-Christian. They hate the idea of a God being in control over everything including them. They think they ought to be the ones in control over everything. They think they should have the ability to tell you, a poor, uneducated and not-as-smart-as-them individual precisely what to do because you’re too stupid to figure it out on your own.
 
Socialism is a system the devil is in love with, as that is what he uses in Hell. To allow for America to become a socialist hellhole just to avoid illegals coming in is committing suicide for the country. Naturally, as I explained again and again in this article, a socialist country is not going to have illegal immigration problems. Who would want to go into a socialist country? Who would leave one to go to another that’s hundreds and thousands of miles away?
 
So while illegal immigration no longer becomes a problem, you have tiny, insignificant things like mass famines, no freedom, highest income inequality imaginable, destitution, man being brought to his knees and overall death. But thank the Lord Almighty we wouldn’t have illegals crossing the border.
 
That’s worth it, right?
 
Seriously, one cannot help but think Ann Coulter has utterly abandoned all semblance of not just conservatism or even capitalism, but sanity. But I honestly feel bad for the poor girl. The Left will never accept her because of her previous stances, and particularly because of her current stance on illegal immigration still being fairly conservative. And now, the Right won’t accept her because she’s completely abandoned it.
 
Fighting a two-front war is never a good idea. Now, that doesn’t mean I’ll start treating her like I do any other insane Leftist, but I really cannot consider her to be a conservative whatsoever. Not anymore.
 
Proverbs 2:6
“For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

After weeks of the Left crying up a storm about Barr being on Trump’s side and saying that Mueller did not find any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion and not enough evidence to definitively say that Trump obstructed justice (he didn’t), Attorney General William Barr has released the 448-page Special Counsel report on the investigation.
 
Now, I’m certain you can read the title and see my own opinion of the Mueller report. The reason I say it is sketchy is because it is largely written for the Left to try and continue to claim that there was collusion and that the President obstructed justice, even though it is explicitly stated that there was no conspiracy between Trump and Russia and even though it is explicitly stated that Mueller did not find enough that could constitute as criminal behavior regarding obstruction.
 
Let’s begin with what I consider the most important thing of Volume 1 (the report is separated into two volumes: one for Russian collusion and the other one for obstruction).
 
In page 2 of Volume 1, the Special Counsel ultimately determined that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
 
The Counsel did find that Russia did, in fact, try to interfere with the election, but the most significant and notorious effort of doing so came in the form of the hacking of the DNC servers, which the DNC refused to turn over to the FBI for investigation, instead opting to turn it over to a third-party organization.
 
The Counsel also had to clarify that the term “collusion” and even “coordination” do not have any actual definition in federal law. To collude with someone or coordinate with someone is far too broad of a term and can mean anything, not necessarily something criminal or nefarious. The term “conspire”, on the other hand, does have a definition and often carries with it the negative connotation that some nefarious scheme was concocted or executed. So the Counsel largely sought evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia, but ultimately did not find that such a thing occurred.
 
And while that easily can be summarized in less than a page, the Special Counsel still tried to at least make it look like there was some suspicious activity going on, especially when the report gets to the part about George Papadopalous, where it ignores the fact that Papadopalous had spoken with a member of the FBI whom suggested to Papadopalous that the Russians had Clinton’s e-mails, while Papadopalous then went on to try and boast about him having such exclusive information to other people.
 
The Counsel makes it look as though Papadopalous gained that information through means apart from the member of the FBI, suggesting that there was some form of collusion between at least a member of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
 
But despite how bad or negative Mueller may have wanted the report to look for Trump, with all the suggestions it brings up, and despite his efforts to try and keep the narrative alive for the Democrats and the media to use, he still can’t escape the unavoidable fact that Trump did not collude, coordinate or conspire with the Russian government to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton.
 
And the point of a prosecution and investigation is to find conclusive evidence that someone is guilty of a crime. Now, usually, a crime is investigated as opposed to a specific person with the purpose of finding a crime committed by said person, but the Left thinks we live in a banana republic.
 
In any case, the Mueller report, regardless of what is insinuated within it, ultimately finds no evidence of “collusion” between Trump and the Russians.
 
But then we get to Volume 2, the part about obstruction of justice, and that is where Mueller really wants people to suspect that there was obstruction even though he did not find anything.
 
In page 2 of Volume 2, the Mueller report has the following paragraph:
 
“… if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime it also does not exonerate him.”
 
Special Counsel, your job is not to determine someone’s innocence. Your job is not to exonerate the President of any accusations. Your job is to find evidence that would, without a shadow of a doubt, irretrievably conclude that the President of the United States succeeded or even attempted to obstruct justice.
 
You did not find such evidence, which is why you were forced to say “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime.” That overall statement is tantamount to saying: “well, I didn’t find that the subject did something criminal, but I also didn’t find that he didn’t do something criminal.” Do you see the logical fallacy here? The contradiction in that statement? If he didn’t find that Trump committed something illegal, then he can’t say that he didn’t find that he didn’t do something. Not finding that he didn’t do something is equivalent to not finding that he did something. If Mueller found that Trump did something, he would so state without “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime”. There are only two logical options here: either Mueller found something that Trump did that was criminal or he didn’t. He can’t say both are the case at the same time and in the same relationship.

Not to mention you also can't prove a negative. No one can prove that someone DIDN'T do something. There's no way to do that, that's why the system works as "prove guilt".
 
But do you see the intention from Mueller here? He knows very well that the job of any prosecutor is to PROSECUTE not exonerate. Yes, they have to present exculpatory evidence that they might find under the Brady rule, but the objective of a prosecutor is to prove guilt, not innocence. Matter of fact, that’s how our entire judicial system works: you do not have to prove innocence – you have to prove guilt. It’s “innocent until proven guilty” for a reason.
 
And while the court of public opinion (from the Left) might find Trump guilty of obstruction, collusion, and overall being a big, huge meanie to them, in the real judicial system, one must find that someone is guilty of a crime beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
Despite the fact that everyone and their grandmothers (myself included) think that O.J. killed his ex-wife and her friend, he was found not guilty by the court due to insufficient evidence. Say whatever you will about the entire case and the trial, but that is how the judicial system found him: not guilty of the crime.
 
And it is the prosecution’s job to get that guilty verdict. Bob Mueller was the prosecutor in all of this, his job was to find that Trump colluded with Russia and/or obstructed justice in the investigation and found neither.
 
The Google definition of “exonerate” is to “absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.” And if Mueller did not find guilt, even explicitly stating so, the only other option left is to find Trump to have been exonerated under this definition.
 
Now, that doesn’t mean that Mueller has to come out and say “Trump did nothing wrong! Everyone stop trashing him!” but that is basically what he ultimately found: TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG or at least anything criminal.
 
As far as obstruction of justice goes, the things that Mueller looked into are things like how Trump reacted to the WikiLeaks thing, how he reacted to the investigation of General Flynn, how the Campaign reacted to reports about Russian support for Trump, reports from the fake news media about Russian collusion, Trump firing Comey and supposed efforts to remove the Special Counsel.
 
NONE OF WHICH COULD ADEQUATELY CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
 
First, reactions to anything don’t matter at all. With the reports of Trump colluding with Russia, how exactly do you expect Trump to react? Of course he’s going to be angry! HE WAS BEING ACCUSED OF SOMETHING HE DIDN’T DO! It was being alleged that his election victory and subsequent presidency were illegitimate! Frankly, I would’ve been concerned if Trump did not react like ANY NORMAL HUMAN BEING WOULD UNDER SUCH A SITUATION!
 
Second, and perhaps most importantly since this is what people will largely point towards as evidence of obstruction, Trump has the authority, as head of the Executive Branch, to remove the head of the FBI, the CIA, and anything else that is technically within the Executive Branch. Trump firing Mueller would’ve been virtually no different to Trump firing Comey. HAD HE DONE SO, which he did NOT.
 
So while the Mueller report suggests that Trump at least tried to fire Mueller, it was within his authority to have done so, but ultimately DID NOT.
 
But again, Mueller is writing this report for the Democrats and the media to try and keep the narrative alive with a summary of all the b.s. lies they have spread over these past couple of years, even though within the report it very specifically says that the Special Counsel did not find evidence of “collusion” or enough to prove Trump obstructed justice.
 
By all accounts, the Mueller Report should be seen as something that has definitively ended the allegations and speculation, but Mueller wrote it with enough ambiguity for the media to keep the ball rolling and for Democrats to launch their own investigations into this manner, despite the report’s ultimate findings.
 
Not that it’ll matter in the end, as any subsequent investigation and report from the media will be bologna and will ultimately find nothing, just like Mueller did, but this ought to tell you what we are up against: these people are completely irrational and will stop at nothing to get their way.
 
Again, the report ultimately finds no collusion and not enough to conclude obstruction. That alone is enough for me to fight back against the b.s. that will surely come from the Left.
 
Proverbs 28:5
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

At this point in time, it might make more sense for someone to try and make a list of what is NOT racist in today’s culture, because “woke” Leftists are throwing everything at the wall, including the kitchen sink.
 
Now, I personally do not go to libraries. Matter of fact, I haven’t been to one since my high school days, and even then, I would use my school’s library, not a municipal one. But still, the argument that libraries are racist (and you’ll see momentarily just what the argument is) is completely asinine.
 
The Library Journal posted a quote from a blogger, named Sofia Leung, who is a self-described “intersectional feminist”, a “social justice warrior” and a fan of “Critical Race Theory”, the theory that the legal system aids white supremacy. In other words, the blogger is batcrap crazy.
 
The quote from Leung, that the Library Journal posted, reads as follows: “Library collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries.”
 
Leung also explains just how exactly libraries are racist:
 
“If you look at any United States library’s collection, especially those in higher education institutions, most of the collections (books, journals, archival papers, other media, etc.) are written by white dudes writing about white ideas, white things, or ideas, people, and things they stole from POC and then claimed as white property with all of the ‘rights to use and enjoyment of’ that Harris describes in her article. When most of our collections filled with this so-called ‘knowledge,’ it continues to validate only white voices and perspectives and erases the voices of people of color. Collections are representations of what librarians (or faculty) deem to be authoritative knowledge and as we know, this field and education institutions, historically, and currently, have been sites of whiteness.”
 
YOU JUST CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP! This reads like an idiotic teenager’s blog saying that the whole world sucks and is racist, while she listens to break-up music from boy bands or female pop stars.
 
But she’s not done. She also accuses that these collections “are paid for using money that was usually ill-gotten and at the cost of black and brown lives via the prison industrial complex, the spoils of war, etc.” Just what is this dribble?
 
Also, I like how she attempts to use the “prison industrial complex” and “spoils of war” rhetoric here to accuse LIBRARIES of stacking their collections with white authors’ works and then that they’ve stolen from people of color. It just makes absolutely zero sense.
 
One thing you just cannot miss in all of this is the simple fact that she does not use any actual evidence to back anything up.
 
First of all, there’s the accusation of libraries stacking their collections to promulgate whiteness. Yeah, you just have no way of proving that at all. As I’ve said in the past multiple times, there indeed is a white majority in America, with about 72% of the population in the country being white (including White Hispanics). So chances are that libraries will be filled more with works from white people than works from black people due to the fact that there are more white people on average.
 
Second, there’s the accusation that white people have stolen from minorities. Again, there is no actual evidence to back up these claims. In the writing world, if someone uses data from someone else, the author has an obligation to reference the source of the data. In non-fiction, you will always find a “references” portion towards the end of the book where the author will go through each and every single source that he or she used in their book. If an author fails to do that, they are subject to plagiarism.
 
Not to mention I have absolutely no idea what she means by “white ideas” or “white things”. What exactly constitutes as a “white idea”? An idea thought up by a white person? I really don’t know what this is supposed to accuse white people of, but then again, I’m a sane person who uses logic.
 
Something else I would like to mention is that she challenges the validity of the information presented by the books in any library as only supposedly being knowledge. “When most of our collections filled with this so-called ‘knowledge,’ it continues to validate only white voices and perspectives and erases the voices of people of color.”
 
Right, because works from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Maya Angelou, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Booker T. Washington and countless other black authors are made irrelevant because there are more white people in the libraries where their works are found.
 
And works from Copernicus, Einstein, Niels Bohr, George Orwell, and others ought to be made irrelevant because they are white.
 
Yeah, you didn’t know that? As it turns out, we can’t believe that the Sun sits at the center of the solar system because Copernicus was a white dude. Turns out that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is nonsense because he is white. Niels Bohr’s contribution to understanding atomic structure is null and void because he was white.
 
Give me a break.
 
But Leung wasn’t done there. You see, it’s not just the collections that are racist because they feature predominantly white authors, it’s the library faculties themselves who are racist.
 
Leung notes of an incident that happened at Barnard College fairly recently where an African-American Columbia student was denied access to the building. Leung makes the claims that the security guards didn’t want him in there because he was black.
 
In reality, the guy refused to show his ID and when questioned, became aggressive, according to the Daily Wire.
 
And do you want to know what the cherry on top of all of this is? A freelance writer named Jeryl Bier noted that the Law Journal, the people responsible for tweeting Leung’s post, is almost exclusively made up of white people.
 
Honestly, can’t say I’m surprised. Often the most ardent haters of white people are white people themselves. They have a strange victim mentality where they believe they have oppressed someone else when that has almost likely not actually happened. (And before anyone says anything, I of course am not talking about all white people, just the idiotic Leftist ones that buy into this sort of crap).
 
I find that those who are most critical about white people are white themselves. I think it stems from the belief that you can be exempted from being a “bad white person” if you submit to the ideology that white people are historically horrible, which is adamantly untrue.
 
Those who often blame white people for the slavery of black people often forget that many slaves that were taken from Africa were slaves in Africa as well – slaves to other Africans. They forget that the concept of slavery is not exactly an exclusively white thing. If slavery is something for which descendants of slaves ought to get reparations for, then one could easily argue that Egypt ought to pay reparations to Jewish people, as they used to hold Jews as slaves.
 
They forget that it was white Democrats that fought to keep black people as slaves while white Republicans largely fought to free black people. They forget it was white people in the U.K. Parliament that freed slaves. They forget that there currently exists slavery in the Muslim world and highly underdeveloped countries like India.
 
All things considered, white Leftists have historically been major antagonists to minorities, while white Christians and white people who have a conscience have been extremely beneficial to minorities.
 
So it’s not about someone’s skin color, it’s about their ideologies. It only makes sense that those who do not follow Christ, those who subscribe to ideologies where a central government ought to have as much power as humanly possible, are the ones who often are racist towards minorities, be it in their words, actions, or both.
 
In my last article, I mentioned that the only reason America does not heal from its “racist history” (which is the Left’s racist history) is because the Left continually keeps us from moving on by always bringing up the issue of race. It’s rhetoric like Leung’s that frustrates progress in America. The idea that white people today need to pay because of the sins of (Leftist) white people of the past is utterly moronic and does nothing to progress civilization.
 
Such an idea is tantamount to demanding a bribery; tantamount to theft. If you want to talk in medical terms, it’d be like trying to make a wound heal by trying to keep it open. It is entirely contradictory to its intention.
 
Real progress was the Emancipation Proclamation (which the Left protested). Real progress is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which the Left was largely divided on while the Right was largely unified behind). Real progress is not caring one wit about someone’s skin color, but the content of their character, as mentioned in Dr. King’s famous speech.
 
But the Left just can’t help themselves, can they? Racism flows through their blood and have to create problems that they say they will try to fix. Similar to the issue of man-made climate change, the Left has to create the issue of massive racism problems in America, when most people don’t actually care about someone else’s skin color.
 
The only racism that exists in America comes from the Left. Funny enough, that’s always where it has come from.
 
Amos 5:24
“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

Last week was a good week for humanity, when Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed a heartbeat bill, dealing a major blow to pro-abortion advocates in the State. But before the Governor signed the bill (which was twice vetoed by fmr Gov. John Kasich), one Ohio Democrat wanted to include in the bill an amendment that would exempt African-American babies from the security of the bill.
 
Ohio Rep. Janine Boyd (D), who is herself African-American, drafted an amendment that sought to exempt black babies from the pro-life legislation. And the reason for this? Well, because not killing black babies is tantamount to slavery, obviously!
 
No, really, that was her argument: “Black slaves were once treated like cattle and put out to stud in order to create generations of more slaves. Our country is not far enough beyond our history to legislate as if it is.”
 
Of course that’s her argument. It’s only been, what, 156 years since slavery was abolished (at least in the Republican North). Yeah, that’s definitely not enough time to heal. I mean, sure, there isn’t a black person alive in America who was a slave, not one who has had to pick cotton or do other menial labor for absolutely no pay, but sure, we have not healed as a country yet.
 
If so, the only reason we haven’t healed is because Democrats want to pretend we still live in those days. But that’s a topic for another time.
 
But returning to Boyd, man is that a seriously tone-deaf and painfully ironic, if not outright moronic, train of logic.
 
Black babies are specifically targeted by Planned Parenthood, what with most PP clinics being in urban areas closest to minorities. Not to mention Planned Parenthood’s very own founder thought of black people as nothing more than weeds to be rooted out of the planet.
 
I often use this argument when talking about the Left’s racism (when also discussing abortion), but it is adamantly important information that I feel not very many people have at their disposal, but here it is: Margaret Sanger literally wrote a letter to her associate, Clarence Gamble, saying: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister (a black man advocating for abortion) is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
 
Planned Parenthood’s very own objective (not that any of those working in it will admit or even acknowledge) is to eradicate the African American population from the face of the Earth. Such an objective can be clearly seen not just from Sanger’s very own words to one of her colleagues but in the fact that the African-American community suffers from a 38% national abortion rate, which is far higher than all other races.
 
Thankfully, the amendment was struck down and the bill was signed by Gov. DeWine on Friday. But still, both the Democrat Representative’s desire to exempt black people from the right to life and her reasoning behind it is utterly morally bankrupt.
 
Pro-life group Created Equal president Mark Harrington said: “To reference owning humans as a defense of dismembering them is moral myopia. If it is wrong to own humans, it is also wrong to intentionally kill them.”
 
And he’s certainly right. It makes no sense to advocate for the killing of black babies with the reasoning of “it’d be like slavery if we can’t kill them”. But of course, what one would have to acknowledge in this instance is that those babies are, in fact, alive. The Left has made it their mission to utterly dehumanize all babies (and as of late, including those who are newly born).
 
Like Hitler dehumanizing the Jews, the Left dehumanizes an unborn child, both for the same reasons: kill them all.
 
The Left has not changed one single bit since the days of Jefferson Davis, who was their president when they refused to acknowledge Lincoln as their president. They still target African-Americans and still find African-Americans who were lucky enough to escape from their grasp to be useful idiots to advocate for the deaths of their own kin.
 
It is outrageous what the Left seeks to do, all with the friendly face of “getting rid of a small, insignificant problem”. They are purposefully breaking the 6th commandment over and over and over again, multiple times a day. Already, 61 million babies have been killed since 1973 in the United States alone, with 18 million of them being African-American. This year alone, at only the mid-way point of the fourth month, over 270,000 babies have been killed in the U.S. And as of the time of writing this, well over a thousand have been killed today alone.
 
There is no other way to describe this apart from a complete and total holocaust; an utter genocide of mankind. And people like Boyd come along and think we should keep it going? People like Miley Cyrus, Robert DeNiro, Meryl Streep, Harvey Weinstein, Nancy Pelosi and countless others on the Left think this is a good thing?
 
You either have to be a complete and total monster to not be the least bit affected by these numbers or you have to be willfully ignorant, almost idiotic, in thinking that these are not actual people being slaughtered every single day of every single week of every single month of every single year.
 
This is among the reasons why if I come across someone who claims to be conservative but is also pro-choice, I can’t take them very seriously at all. Sure, they’d advocate for limited government, but they’d also advocate for the allowing of genocide to take place. This is advocating for restricting the basic right to life, afforded to us by our Creator, as detailed in the Declaration of Independence. Pro-choice conservatives don’t like it when the government restricts other rights and other freedoms, but somehow it is okay when it restricts the most basic of them?
 
But in any case, this is not an article meant to attack the few pro-choice conservatives in the world. This is meant to showcase just how little the Left has changed since the days of throwing a temper tantrum after the first Republican took office. They still wish to eliminate the black population, if they can. They, of course, will not broadcast it. Sanger herself mentioned that she doesn’t want people to find out what Planned Parenthood’s purpose is. But the objective remains the exact same: eliminate the black population.
 
Again, you need only look at the statistics. Even if you don’t think that Sanger’s letter is real, you at least have to accept the fact that black people are disproportionately targeted for abortion. This has been the Left’s objective from the beginning. That is because they have racism coursing through their veins. That is because they are evil by nature.
 
Now, we all are evil by nature, but some of us have been saved by Christ, while others adamantly reject Him. This routine genocide of people created by God is proof of that.
 
Revelation 21:8
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!