Earlier this week, NRATV shared a minute-long video of Kim Corban, a woman who had been raped in her college dorm at the age of 20 and had since gotten a gun to protect herself and her family.
 
In the clip, she mentions her horrible rape, what she was thinking while it was happening, and states that “I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.”
 
The woman in the clip gives a very legitimate and fair reason to own a firearm and anyone who watched the clip could understand. However, in comes CNN host Chris Cuomo, replying with a simple: “Only in America” tweet.
 
Usually, that phrase “only in America” carries with it a sort of negative or mocking connotation. So the fact he tweeted that in response to a video of a woman who survived a rape and decided to get a firearm (Cuomo himself owns a gun, btw) and didn’t offer any further explanation for quite a few hours led some people to mock him.
 
Dana Loesch, a spokeswoman for the NRA, replied to Cuomo by saying: “Not sure what you mean by this. ‘Only in America’ can a rape survivor protect herself and her family against any future threat? This is bad how?”
 
Steven Crowder, host of the show Louder with Crowder, mocked: “Man mocks rape survivor who protects her children with firearm… Only on CNN.”
 
Steve Krakauer replied: “Only in America can a woman be raped and held captive for hours, tell her story, and subsequently be snark-tweeted by a CNN anchor so blinded by his own political agenda he can’t display basic humanity.”
 
Jarrett Stepman replied: “Yes, in America we preserve the right for women (in this case a rape survivor) to defend themselves and their families. God bless America.”
 
These are but a few of the kind of replies Cuomo received for his mocking tweet. And after a few hours, he had had enough and attempted to explain. Key word here is “attempted” because he failed gloriously at that too.
 
He first replied to a woman named Janice Dean, who tweeted at him the following: “You might want [to] explain this tweet a little better to those of us who’ve actually had to face predators in our own homes and defend ourselves without a big strong man like yourself?”
 
Cuomo replied with: “1/2 You are right. No offense intended. Too short on twitter. ‘Only in America’ are we still debating the legitimate right to protect oneself like you and many others vs sensible way to keep guns from wrong people. Only here can we not address the issues around school shootings.”
 
Yeah, not a good explanation at all there. It looks more like he’s trying to change the topic of conversation to school shootings and keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. Problem here is that the video does not address that and he acts as though it’s self-evident with his “Only in America” tweet.
 
He then replied to Janice with: “I am sorry for confusion. I take the issue and the stories of violence seriously. Muscles don’t stop bullets, as you know. Again, I have always been clear about the right to own and what needs to be improved. Apologize if you were misled.”
 
He still doesn’t acknowledge that his original tweet made absolutely no sense given the video and offers no real good explanation for the original tweet.
 
Then, when Janice replied with: “That’s a lot of explaining. Honestly I think you just need to apologize to Kimberly Corban. That would be a good start,” Cuomo got defensive: “Of course I apologized for this negative attention that was not intended. You asked a question and I answered. That’s what should happen. This place and sadly this issue brings out the worst in too many. No need. Not helpful.”
 
Oh, of course people asking for an explanation and asking that someone apologize to the person being targeted is out of line. How dare they question the great Chris Cuomo when he offered a shoddy explanation that changed the topic and offered an apology not to the woman he mocked but for not being more clear with his three-word tweet?
 
Basically, Wednesday night was a bad night for Cuomo, trying to explain things away (and failing miserably), trying to shift the subject and getting defensive over it. But despite what a lot of people were saying, I think the biggest problem here is simply that Cuomo did not watch the video he commented on… which is a pretty bad thing considering he’s supposed to be a “journalist” and it’s his job to look into this sort of thing.
 
I think what happened is that he saw the video was from the NRA TV Twitter account, saw that it was captioned: “’I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.’ – Kim Corban,” ignored the part about a predator or someone harming her or her family, focused on the part about “having to come through my firearm first,” which could be considered a threat (a good one, all things considered) and his mind went into auto-pilot and offered criticism towards the NRA and the woman.
 
Had he watched the MINUTE-long video, he would’ve likely not commented like that (or at all) and avoided making an utter fool of himself.
 
Sadly, given the current state of not just CNN but the entirety of the MSM, where things are reported on without the facts or before they come in (i.e. Covington Catholic, some e-mails that supposedly proved collusion but they got the dates wrong, really the entirety of the Russian collusion narrative, and most recently, a story about the USS John McCain’s name being covered up before Trump’s trip to Japan but was reported as having been covered up during it, etc.), this sort of anti-journalistic work is par for the course. There is good reason I largely don’t call them journalists anymore. They are propagandists and use the guise of journalism to pretend objectivity in their highly subjective reporting.
 
Chris Cuomo likely didn’t watch the clip (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here. If he did watch the clip, this makes it all the worse), made assumptions based on the source and what was captioned (even then, he had to have ignored the part about harm coming to her) and offered a rather vague, mocking criticism that has led (unsurprisingly) to people thinking he was mocking a rape survivor (which he was, but I don’t think he intended to do that).
 
Given his title as “journalist”, one would expect him to watch the video before saying anything about it. But this is the state of the media: facts be damned; if a story hurts Trumps/the Right, roll with it. And if the NRA has someone saying someone will “have to come through my firearm first”, mock that to oblivion without first checking to see who is giving that sort of threat and why. No investigative journalism, or even watching the video easily offered, is necessary. Just type away, criticize and be on your merry way.
 
This encapsulates the state of the media. They are not trying to report on reality but rather shape it. Facts will only get in the way of their reporting if the facts don’t agree with their narrative.
 
“A bunch of high school kids wearing MAGA hats are pictured, with one of them smiling at a Native American who is right in his face? Obviously it’s the MAGA kid’s fault and he’s a racist and white supremacist and clearly hassling the Native American! And it’s all Trump’s fault!”
 
“You’re telling me the Native American guy was accosting the high school kids and the kid at the center of the picture was simply smiling out of awkwardness of the situation, not knowing how to react to such a strange situation? You’re saying the kids were on a school trip, happened upon a group of racist black supremacists yelling obscenities at the white kids (and even the black kids of the group) and the Native American guy escalated the situation? And the Native American guy has a history of this sort of thing? Nonsense, put him on an interview where he will act like the victim. You mean to say he has done that in the past too? Bury the story and never admit fault. It’s still because of Trump that this even happened in the first place. There were no racial problems in America when Democrats were President.”
 
“We have a Congressman who claims he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia? Have him speak about it but don’t ask him to show the evidence at all. Just affirm our petty beliefs that Trump did collude with Russia and Saint Mueller is coming down from heaven to rescue our poor souls.”
 
And this is when they are not actively colluding with the FBI to report on a dossier even the FBI admits is not verified.
 
A CNN anchor opined on a topic he did not care to even slightly research. Only on planet Earth.
 
Proverbs 1:7
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
 
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 recent time, the Supreme Court ruled (7-2, which was surprising), that Indiana had the right to require “medical facilities” like Planned Parenthood to provide dignified burials or cremation for aborted children. And while that is a nice little win for pro-lifers, the Court decided against ruling on a supposedly controversial part of the law that prohibited abortions on the basis of race, gender or disabilities.
 
Justice Clarence Thomas, after the ruling, said in a statement that while “further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression,” and that the Court was smart to not rule on this part of the Indiana law, the Court cannot avoid this issue forever.
 
“Given the potential for abortion to become a tool for eugenic manipulation, the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s. So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination.”
 
He added: “Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope.”
 
The Indiana law in question largely focuses on the disabilities aspect, targeting abortions performed for the reasons of a baby having Down syndrome.
 
The law reads: “Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus’ race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.”
 
According to The Daily Wire, “Thomas referenced genetic screening in his concurrence, noting that a baby’s gender can be determined by an elective blood test given between 7 and 10 weeks, and that disabilities like Down syndrome can be detected before the end of the first trimester.” Thomas said that pairing these screenings with largely unrestricted abortion access leads us to “modern-day eugenics.”
 
Thomas ended by writing: “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement. In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination.”
 
All-in-all, I largely agree with what Justice Clarence Thomas is saying here except for two points. One, I do not think it was smart of the Court to pass up on not ruling on this part of the Indiana law. More time given to look things over when they ought to be clear as day allows for other states that do not have a similar law to perform the sort of ethnic cleansing Margaret Sanger often dreamed of.
 
If one discriminates against someone based on any of these factors at any level, whether that be in business, in school, in sports, or in any other area, that person is punished to some capacity. Not allowing a black person to eat at your restaurant for the reason of his or her race is not allowed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 
Nowhere can someone openly discriminate against someone for the reason of race, sex, etc. except in the womb. Let us not ignore the fact that Planned Parenthood disproportionally targets black and Hispanic neighborhoods, with almost 80% of their facilities located within walking distance of minorities. Let’s not ignore the fact that 52% of African American pregnancies end in abortion or that roughly 1,800 black babies are aborted every day.
 
Let’s not ignore the fact that babies who are diagnosed with Down syndrome are 60 to 80% likely to be aborted, according to the Guttmacher Institute. And that’s just in the U.S. In Europe, Down syndrome is basically non-existent, not because they found a cure, but because they systematically abort babies diagnosed with Down syndrome.
 
And in places like China and India, unborn girls face a high probability of being aborted. The UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund. Yes, the letters don’t match, but that’s because they used to be called the United Nations Fund for Population Activities) says that “126 million women and girls were missing in 2010 due to gender-biased sex selection, which can include, for example, excess female mortality and prenatal sex selection.”
 
That last reason they give, “prenatal sex selection” is simply their Leftist way of acknowledging abortion is the cause without actually blaming abortion. But you can plainly see that abortion is at least partly responsible for over 100 million women and girls “missing” (not sure what exactly that is supposed to mean here, but I may have a few ideas).
 
Countries like India show quite an imbalance in sex ratios, where there are 110 boys born for every 100 girls from 2011-2013. But that is nothing compared to China, which had 115.9 boys for every 100 girls born in 2014.
 
So throughout the world, abortion is already very much a tool of eugenics. Matter of fact, it always has been! And that’s the second point that I don’t entirely agree with Thomas. Abortion does not lead to eugenics. Abortion is already a tool of eugenics and always has been.
 
Let’s not forget that Margaret Sanger saw black people as a “weed” to be uprooted and frequently employed Nazi sympathizers like Clarence Gamble and Lothrop Stoddard. And let’s not forget that there have been a plethora of eugenics-based organizations, such as the Eugenics Record Office, the National Conference on Race Betterment, and the American Breeders Association.
 
These racist organizations were so vile that one particular man remarked: “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.” And that “The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of clearest reason. If systematically executed, it represents the most humane act of mankind.”
 
And just who was this man who viewed American eugenics and abortion as “the most humane act of mankind”?
 
None other than the leader of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler. Yes, he absolutely adored American eugenics programs and sought to adopt them into his own German empire.
 
Margaret Sanger sought to utilize abortion as a eugenics tool long before there was even a Planned Parenthood. She sought to keep minorities, whom she considered “weeds” and “imbecilic” and overall “defective”, from reproducing as much as possible.
 
And given the statistics we see today, that sort of racial discrimination is not only alive and well, but outright THRIVING. We easily see the dreams of Margaret Sanger, Clarence Gamble, Lothrop Stoddard, and Adolf Hitler being carried out by Planned Parenthood and other abortionists throughout the world.
 
Already, 61 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. since 1973 and 1.5 billion in the world since 1980. Almost 20 million in the U.S. were black.
 
Justice Clarence Thomas is certainly right in drawing the links between abortion and eugenics, particularly in race-based, sex-based, etc. abortions. The problem is that abortion doesn’t lead to eugenics. Abortion IS eugenics. Now, not all eugenics are abortions, but all abortions are eugenics. The reasoning behind the abortions may not sound like eugenics, but at the end of the day, they are.
 
It’s not “women’s healthcare” or “liberation” for a black woman to kill off her own offspring (the literal definition of a fetus). It’s eugenics, through and through.
 
And Thomas is certainly right in saying that the Supreme Court can’t keep kicking this particular can down the road. Eventually, it will have to face the reality that this kind of abortion is outright discrimination and should be treated like any other kind of discrimination is today.
 
1 Samuel 16:7
“But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”
 
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!

For some time, I’ve been one to point out the dangers of globalism essentially being a more Trotsky-like version of communism, where the point is not to attach oneself to an individual nation-state (like Stalin did), but rather, to allow for the whole world to be inundated in communism under global leaders.
 
However, in recent time, we’ve seen a noticeable shift on the global scale regarding this. For example, look at the most recent E.U. elections, where despite the fact pro-EU parties reportedly maintained two-thirds of parliament seats, nationalist and other “euroskeptic” parties solidified their strength and made gains, indicating future challenges to the E.U.
 
In Italy, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini’s party, Lega Nord Party, won 28 seats, with Salvini himself celebrating this victory by saying: “A new Europe is born… As far as I’m concerned, if the League wins nothing changes in Italy, everything will change in Europe, starting from tomorrow.”
 
In the U.K., Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party (which was only 6 weeks old at the time of the election) had a nice victory, “securing a majority with 31.7% and 29 seats,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
In an interview with Good Morning Britain, Farage said that if the U.K. doesn’t leave the EU by October 31st, the Brexit Party would “go on to a general election and stun everybody there too.” He repeated his warning on Twitter by tweeting: “Never before in British politics has a party just 6 weeks old won a national election. If Britain does not leave the EU on October 31, these results will be repeated at a general election. History has been made. This is just the beginning.”
 
In France, Marine le Pen’s party slightly outperformed Macron’s party, winning 22 seats to Macron’s 21.
 
In Germany, Angela Merkel’s party had to hold “crisis talks” following the results of the election, where they were given their worst score in European election history thanks to the environmental party, the Greens.
 
Voter turnout also rose from the 2014 elections from 43% to 51%.
 
And this is just in Europe. Let’s not forget that just weeks before, Australia’s conservative Prime Minister Scott Morrison won a “surprise” re-election after national polls predicted he would lose (where have we heard that one before?). In Brazil some months ago, the Donald Trump of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, also won his election.
 
And of course, we can’t forget about the big one that has likely propelled, if not led, this sort of nationalist movement to occur throughout the world: Donald Trump being elected President of the United States in 2016.
 
There is a global nationalist movement occurring and it’s posing a massive challenge to the globalists.
 
Now, allow me to explain just why I say this is a new Cold War. As you know, the Cold War was a war of words and policy between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was capitalism vs. communism, with the two leading world super powers at each other’s throat under the threat of nuclear annihilation if either nation blinked.
 
While I wouldn’t say we are under quite such a threat here, the concept of a Cold War is simply in the fact that there is conflict between two (or more) entities where one could escalate things and get them hot, but the preference would be to fight each other through other means, because one party heating up the war would lead to certain mutually-assured destruction.
 
This new Cold War I am talking about isn’t between two countries. It’s not between America and Russia, or America and China, or America and North Korea, or America and Iran (man, there are a lot of countries that want us gone). Matter of fact, this hold America on both sides of the Cold War… as well as every other country in the world.
 
This Cold War is between Globalism and Nationalism, as I mentioned in the title. No, there is no underlying threat of total nuclear devastation, but it is still a struggle between two entities fighting for control of the populace.
 
You can call this battle between Globalism and Nationalism as more of a battle between communist-like elites who believe they know better than everyone else and believe should be in charge of how other people live, and the rest of us who wish to maintain our freedoms and autonomy at the national level.
 
Globalists, as the name suggests and as I have explained before, do not attach themselves to any one nation. They see nations as a way to divide people and would wish nothing more than to do away with them, forcing people to live how they want them to live, cultural differences, religious differences and overall differences that cannot be forcibly eliminated be damned. They want as much control and power as possible and nations limit them in their power.
 
So, entities like the European Union exist, where policy is made for the countries by people who do not live there. Don’t want migrants to be shipped to your country en masse? Too bad, you don’t get to make that decision. You want to leave the Union? Well, your leaders don’t and we don’t, so tough.
 
So the battle isn’t between two countries, but between two types of people: the stuck-up elites and the rest of us.
 
Donald Trump’s campaign (and subsequent administration) was/is about Making America Great Again, putting America First and overall prioritizing American interests. That was strictly a nationalist message, a message that sent globalists everywhere (and I do mean everywhere considering British agents tried to undermine a U.S. election) into a frenzy, feeling the direct challenge to their power.
 
Despite their best efforts, the U.S., even under 8 years of Obama, was still the most powerful and influential country in the world and such a radical change in Presidents – from one who would bend over backwards for their amusement to one who would take charge – would heavily disrupt their status quo.
 
So the globalists in America – the American Left – launched effort after effort to destroy Trump and get him impeached, failing time after time. Globalists everywhere else deeply hated Trump. Rush Limbaugh largely chucks this deep hatred for Trump as him simply being so different from them in his mannerisms, his style and in the ideological differences between them. It goes farther than that. Trump presents a direct challenge to the globalists.
 
“America First” and “MAGA” are attacked precisely because they do as advertised: put America first and make it great again. Making America great again means making it powerful again. Making it powerful again means making it more independent again; more free again.
 
However, this has led (perhaps unexpectedly for some, but perhaps not so for others) to other countries’ people wanting their own governments to prioritize them. Such is the case for Brazil, Australia, and even the people of Great Britain during Brexit (which, yes, happened before the 2016 election, but that only tells you of how grand the desire for liberty against globalism is, and that is the reason I said Trump’s election likely propelled, if not necessarily led, the nationalist movement).

Throughout the world, and with more and more mounting evidence, we are seeing globalism being pushed back and nationalism taking hold. The EU elections were simply the most recent massive win and a great indicator of this.
 
This is a struggle between those who wish to be able to rule themselves (or at least their countries to be able to rule themselves and prioritize the citizens of the countries and not of another’s) and those who wish to be able to rule all people.
 
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the communists didn’t simply disappear. They regathered and planned for their rise once again. They invaded other countries not with guns but with papers and spread their communist ideals. And in time, communism took on a new name: globalism. Same basic concepts, same ideas, same end, but different means to those ends.
 
And now, they are facing a new challenge. In essence, they view Trump as this generation’s Reagan. And there exists the possibility of people like Bolsonaro, or le Pen, or Farage as being this generation’s Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. It was those three who largely helped destroy the Soviet Union. Today’s nationalist leaders could and likely will challenge the globalists.
 
At the risk of kind of sounding like AOC, I would have to say that this is our generation’s Cold War. A war not of guns and blood, but of ideology and words. Thankfully, there is no threat of nuclear annihilation (apart from some chicken nugget countries that like to puff up their chests and pretend they are big boys *ahem* North Korea *ahem* Iran *ahem*), but the struggle still exists.
 
It’s the elites vs. the rest of us and we are fighting back.
 
Galatians 5:1
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
 
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!

A recent story from North Carolina caught my eye. In all certainty, it won’t be reported on the mainstream news, or anything outside of the actual area where this is happening, but a North Carolina man, who has an extensive background in gun-handling and safety, is teaching children as young as six about gun safety.
 
Michael Pegram, founder of Echo Firearms Training in Mint Hill, North Carolina, told WBTV: “There was no other class like this. So, I decided to come up with it.”
 
The children of his class reportedly spend about four hours, both in the classroom and shooting. Pegram says that, “It’s the parents’ choice of what their kids should be around. I’m just offering a class to let them learn to be safe, if they’re going to be around them.”
 
Seeing as North Carolina is a concealed-carry state, this class makes a lot of sense.
 
But it should be noted that it’s not a class where kids simply are given “military-style” or “assault” weapons. Far from it, they work their way up from using and shooting a Nerf gun (that also happens to be how I started out) and eventually get to shoot nothing more powerful than a .22 or a 9mm.
 
Pegram says: “A lot of times they’re not shooting a nine-millimeter. But once in a blue moon, if they know what they’re doing, and I know they can do it, we have done that.”
 
WBTV also asked parents about this subject, with mixed results. Some parents were concerned about the program, while others were happy about it. A pretty normal result, all things considered.
 
One man said: “My daughter’s five years old. And thinking of her shooting a gun, it’s kind of crazy.” Another man said: “It seems like a bad idea.” But they were also open to the idea being a good one at least for older children. The same man who said he thought it was a bad idea went on to say: “If we’re going to have guns in this country, one of the things we need is really strict training classes.”
 
And the man who mentioned he had a five-year-old later said: “On one hand, maybe it’s good to teach gun safety. But then on the other hand, that would be my one concern, is it would make kids comfortable handling guns, and could lead to more accidents, possibly.”
 
Other parents, however, were happy with the idea of a course that taught young kids about gun safety, with one saying: “If we keep it away from the kids, they most likely will want to mess with it.”
 
One 9-year-old who recently graduated from the course told WBTV a little about what he learned, with things like: “If you see a gun, tell your parents,” and “Never point a gun at people.”
 
Pegram also mentions that the purpose of the course is to take away the unknown from the children. “And they have the knowledge to be safe when they do come across a gun.”
 
As mentioned earlier, Pegram has an extensive background in gun-handling and safety. He is an NRA-certified handgun instructor and range safety officer with over 30 years of experience handling firearms, has a concealed carry permit and is an instructor for those who wish to receive one of their own in North Carolina. He also reportedly has 24-hours of South Carolina Law Enforcement Department training and his company, Echo, provides courses for adults surrounding much of the same topics of firearms safety and handling, as well as self-defense and has a course for teachers about how to respond to an active shooter.
 
Suffice it to say, the man is well-qualified to be teaching firearm safety to children.
 
Now, what am I thoughts on all of this? Given the tone of the article thus far, you can guess that I approve of this.
 
Let’s review some of the comments made by the concerned parents.
 
But before that, I will say that I don’t blame them for their skepticism.
 
The idea of a five-year-old firing a gun can seem crazy. And to acknowledge the point of one of the parents, having kids be more comfortable handling guns could potentially lead to more accidents in as far as a child using a gun is more likely to get into an accident than a child not using a gun.
 
And that makes sense, as the likelihood of an accident occurring with a firearm increases with just the use of it. But then again, the whole point of these classes is to get kids used to handling a gun and handling it safely.
 
I’d much easier trust a child with a gun if he or she knows how to use it than I would trust an adult with a gun if he or she does not know how to use it. I often call guns “the great equalizer” not simply because they can be used by people who are physically weaker than their attackers but because they can be used by anyone who knows how to use them to great effect.
 
Children who learn how to use firearms safely and responsibly are more likely to grow up with that mindset, knowing perfectly well how to use guns to defend themselves should the need ever arise.
 
But what matters more than anything else, regardless of whether or not you agree that this sort of class is a good idea, is that children are taught the right things.
 
For example, one parent mentioned that kids might mess with guns if you try to keep them away from them. While he and I agree that this course is a good idea, that is not exactly a good argument. We keep alcohol away from kids too and no one suggests we train them on how to drink responsibly (until they are of legal age, at least). And besides, children can be kept from trying to mess with a gun by simply teaching them the right things.
 
For me, when I have children, I will teach them how to use weapons maybe around the age of 6, 7 or 8 (provided my wife also approves). Naturally, I will have at least one gun (likely more) in my house by the time I have children, so before I teach them how to use a gun, I must first instill the fundamental knowledge that a gun is not a toy and they are not allowed to mess with it, otherwise they could get hurt.
 
What is important is to teach them the right things the right way. My mother would sometimes tell me of how obedient I would be, even at an age when one wouldn’t think I’d be able to understand any command. When she would tell me not to do something, I would not do it. And while children often will vary in their obedience to their parents, I don’t doubt that I was raised the right way and will do the same with my own children.
 
Obviously, I would keep guns away from my very young children. Once they got old enough to ask why, I would carefully explain to them that guns aren’t toys and that if they were to play with one, they could get seriously hurt or worse. However, I would ensure them that guns aren’t inherently bad, but that they can cause some bad damage if one is not careful with them (and I would explicitly prohibit my children from actually holding a gun until me and my wife decide they are old enough).

Once they are old enough to be taught how to wield a gun, I would start them off with a Nerf gun, like I did and like how these children in Pegram’s course are. What is essential to be learned from the get-go about guns is to be safe with them and practice wielding a Nerf gun as one would a real one (gun pointed at the ground away from you but also away from other people, wielding arm at the side and pointed down, finger off the trigger at all times except when with the intention to shoot, correct hand and thumb placements of one over the other, correct stance, safety always on until you feel the need to fire, etc.)
 
Teaching gun safety is no easy task and it’s not to be taken so casually as teaching them how to read or write. A lot is at stake in this particular teaching course and it must be handled with extreme care so as to avoid accidents as much as possible.
 
I believe teaching children how to safely and responsibly wield and treat guns at an early age is a good thing, but it absolutely must be done the right way with the right measures being taken.
 
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!

If you asked me yesterday what the likelihood was that there was an illegal immigrant out there who supports Trump and believes illegal immigration to be a bad thing, I would’ve said that there was next to no chance at all that there would be any such person out there today. However, on Breitbart News Daily, a SiriusXM radio show, Sergio Eduardo Velasquez appeared telling his story about being a DACA recipient and supporting President Trump.
 
Sergio is a Turning Point USA activist, a student at Cal State Los Angeles, and a former Leftist who supported Bernie Sanders.
 
He said on the radio show: “In 2016, I supported Bernie Sanders. I fell into your typical leftist stereotype. I was self-entitled. I believed that more government was the answer to everything. I chanted racism. I failed to look at myself in the mirror and failed to consider that if there was an issue it might be not that society was the problem, but that I myself was the problem.”
 
He continued: “I think part of being a conservative, part of realizing that essentially conservatism is the way to go, a lot of it was growing up.”
 
The host of Breitbart News Daily, Alex Marlow, proceeded to ask Sergio about his own life, particularly since he is an illegal immigrant: “So let’s talk about you not just becoming right of center but ultimately becoming an activist particularly with your history because you would be someone who’s part of the group who is the dreamers, the DACA recipients. I assume you don’t know another home. But at least one of your parents was not here legally – so this is your home as far as you know, though your status as an immigrant is not a legal status aside from this DACA protection, but still Trump resonates with you, why?”
 
Sergio replied by saying: “Well first of all, I think that part of it is, it goes back to realizing that it’s one of those things where you have to realize you’re the problem. I have no problem with saying I’m an illegal immigrant, the term doesn’t offend me. And the thing is, I can recognize that illegal immigration is not a good thing. I can recognize that legal immigrants have to come first. America is a sovereign country. You don’t barge into someone’s home and tell them, ‘Okay, I’m here to stay, give me free stuff.’ Immigrants in general, we’re guests, I like to tell people that illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, no one’s entitled to everything. Immigrants owe absolutely everything they have to this country, and we need to stop this nonsense of entitlement.”
 
So what we have here is a young man who used to support Bernie Sanders and was by all intents and purposes a full-on socialist, with the idea that more government was the solution to every single problem there exists in this world, but then went on to recognize the fallacy of those ideals and came to recognize that conservatism, capitalism, is the way to go when it comes to solving problems and came to support Donald Trump, and even recognize that illegal immigration is not a good thing. There are plenty of other people who took at least a fairly similar path in life, going from liberal or Leftist to full-blown conservative. However, I would not really expect an illegal immigrant, even a DACA recipient, to undertake such a path.
 
The argument conservatives (especially myself) often make is that the only reason Democrats support open borders is to have a permanent underclass that would vote for them and help them take and keep power permanently. If they believed for one second that open borders policies had the potential to help their political opposition, they would pass legislation to fund and build Trump’s Wall in a heartbeat. And ironically, it looks like at least one illegal immigrant is willing to support the Democrats’ opposition.
 
Now, you might be asking what my own views are about this entire situation, particularly pertaining to the young man’s illegal status in this country. While I certainly agree with what he said (not everything, as I believe Americans ought to come first, not even legal immigrants), there is the awkward reality that he is in this country illegally due to the unconstitutional DACA executive action signed by Obama that protects people like him.
 
Marlow, the host of the radio show, mentioned that at least one of his parents was not here legally, suggesting that he may have been an anchor baby (I tried looking him up on TPUSA and outside of it, but could not find anything about his background, so that is all I have to go on) so one cannot really blame him for his illegal alien status anymore than one can be blamed for the family they are born into, the financial situation they are born into, or the country they are born into (assuming that he is, indeed, an anchor baby).
 
And while I am not about to backtrack on my belief regarding anchor babies and illegal immigration in general just because I found an illegal immigrant I actually like and agree with, I do empathize with the guy. He did not ask to be born into an illegal immigrant status, but the actions and decisions of one (or both) of his parents led him down that path.
 
But regardless of his unfortunate circumstances, I still stand behind the belief that any illegal immigrant is a criminal by definition. That’s not to compare this guy, or even other illegal immigrants, to murderers and rapists (except the illegals who do murder and rape), but that is to say that those who are here who are not legally allowed to be here are, by definition, law-breakers and as such, must face the appropriate punishment. For illegals, regardless of how they got here, that means deportation to their home countries (or the home countries of the parents for those who were born in the U.S.).
 
Because the main thing about this entire debate, this entire issue is, as I’ve said time and time again: the rule of law. We cannot simply twist and bend the rule of law to suit our own wishes and desires. Do I like this guy because he’s a conservative, a Trump supporter and (might be) a Christian? Yes, no doubt. I think he stands up for the right things. But softening my views on the issue of illegal immigration and DACA would only make me look like a hypocrite and make me no different from the Left.
 
I like the guy, but I still stand by the belief that all illegal immigrants should be deported to their home countries. Now, if they then go through the immigration process legally, pay their dues, wait their time, go where they are supposed to go and do what they are supposed to do, then this country welcomes them with open arms. What is expected of them is to obey our laws; if they don’t obey our laws in how they enter the country, why would we expect them to obey any other laws from that point on? What is expected of them is to obey our laws, respect them, and come to assimilate into the American lifestyle, because as Sergio says, immigrants (legal or illegal) owe an awful lot to this country. The least they could do is learn the language and adopt our culture as their own, without even necessarily abandoning their previous one.
 
That’s the way it should be, that’s the just way to do things, the right way to do things. I feel for the guy, and if he were to get deported to whatever country his parent(s) is/are from, I would hope he and his family would go through the right process to return to this country. Matter of fact, I would hope that for any illegal immigrant that is currently here. I don’t dislike them for being immigrants (I’m an immigrant myself, after all), I dislike them for being here illegally. If they go through the process the right way, they would be fine in my book (except the murderers and rapists, of course, but that generally goes for any murderer or rapist).
 
And while I don’t know for certain what the guy thinks or feels about being here illegally, he at least recognizes why illegal immigration is a bad thing. He recognizes why the things Leftists want are all bad things.
 
He used to believe the government was the solution to life’s problems. But the reality is that the government is the CAUSE for many of life’s problems (for example: want to get rid of student loan debt? Get rid of student loans in the first place and watch the stock of college degrees go up and tuitions fall down). We wholeheartedly agree on many things politically, including on illegal immigration. I just hope he recognizes that what is right here (and I think he does recognize this, as he admits he is part of the problem) would be to be deported and go through the immigration process legally to return to the country he was (likely) born in.
 
That’s what I want for any illegal immigrant, to be honest. But I am glad (as well as delightfully surprised) that there is at least one illegal immigrant out there who is NOT part of the Left’s permanent slave underclass.
 
May God bless this young man and guide him.
 
Isaiah 1:17
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”
 
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 thing that is so surprising about this is not the fact that the NYT found that the happiest wives in America are religious conservatives but that the New York Times actually reported on this at all. As far as their actual findings go, I say they make an awful lot of sense.
 
Researchers W. Bradford Wilcox, Jason S. Carroll and Laurie DeRose wrote that “Fully 73 percent of wives who hold conservative gender values and attend religious services regularly with their husbands have high-quality marriages.”
 
“When it comes to relationship quality, there is a J-curve in women’s marital happiness, with women on the left and the right enjoying higher quality marriages than those in the middle – but especially wives on the right,” read the report.
 
Yes, they found that following the 73% of religious conservative women who are happy with their marriages are their political counterparts: religious progressive wives. Basically, the categories are conservative women who are religious (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.); conservative women who are not religious; progressive women who are religious (which is kind of an oxymoron); and progressive women who are utterly secular.
 
The report finds that married couples who are in the middle, both in terms of religion and political ideology, are less likely to experience a high-quality marriage:
 
“We suspect that part of their relative unhappiness, compared with religiously conservative women, is that they don’t enjoy the social, emotional and practical support for family life provided by a church, mosque or synagogue. We also suspect that these groups are less likely to have husbands who have made the transition to the ‘new father’ ideal that’s gained currency in modern America – and they’re not happy with their partners’ disengagement.”
 
While 73% of religious conservative women are happy in their marriages, they are followed by religious progressive wives (60%), secular liberal wives (55%) and then comes the considerable minority of secular, non-political wives (33%).
 
The report says that the central reason for religious conservative and progressive wives’ happiness was devoted husbands and fathers:
 
“In listening to the happiest secular progressive wives and their religiously conservative counterparts, we noticed something they share in common: devoted family men. Both feminism and faith give family men a clear code: They are supposed to play a big role in their kids’ lives. Devoted dads are de rigueur in these two communities. And it shows. Both culturally progressive and religiously conservative fathers report high levels of paternal engagement.”
 
This one, I find interesting, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Despite the differences in political ideology, both feminist men and religious men have their own reasons to spend time with their kids. For feminist men, the reason is their belief that they ought to be perfectly equal to their wives, and that includes raising their children equally. For religious men (I will largely be speaking for Christian men, as I am not all that certain about how Muslim or Jewish families would interact, more so Muslim ones), the reason is that Scripture tells us we ought to be a big part of our children’s lives.
 
There are many places in the Bible where we are taught to teach our children, both in the Old and the New Testaments. Proverbs 22:6 says: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
 
Ephesians 6:4 says: “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
 
One of the most memorable verses and moments for this type of situation comes in the Book of Deuteronomy, in the 6th Chapter. Shortly after Moses delivered the 10 Commandments to the Jewish people, he said in Deuteronomy 6:6-7: “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk away, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”
 
So God commands us to teach our children the ways of the Lord, the Word of God, and to raise them right. As a result, a good, Christian husband and father will spend time with his children, which in turn makes their wives very happy. And as they say, a happy wife is a happy life.
 
But returning to the actual report, I think the biggest reason for such happiness is not necessarily because of the work the husbands do in the marriage when it comes to raising the children (though that plays a big factor), but because both religious conservative and religious progressive women set some sort of path, or purpose, within the marriage.
 
Matt Walsh from The Daily Wire puts it this way: “The secular understanding of marriage is that it’s a union between two people who love each other…” and he poses fair questions surrounding that belief such as “what happens when that love is no longer there?” and more specifically “why do you need marriage for love?”
 
Back when the issue of gay marriage was at the forefront of the political world, one of the arguments often posed is that we should “let people who love each other get married to show that love”. But the problem here is that marriage is not about a union of two people who love each other (and I’m hard-pressed to believe people aren’t conflating lust with love in this scenario). Marriage is a holy union (why it’s called “holy matrimony”) in the eyes of the Lord. That is where marriage comes from, after all. A marriage certificate isn’t what tells someone they are married (legally, yes, but not necessarily in the eyes of the Lord). A union that is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord is a marriage.
 
For example, look at Genesis 24:67, after Rebekah was taken to Isaac by Abraham’s servant: “Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her…”
 
It mentions that Isaac loved Rebekah, and I have no doubt that he did, but they literally just met and she became his wife because the Lord found it to be not only an acceptable marriage but entirely ordained as well. She was supposed to be Isaac’s wife that she might give birth to Esau and Jacob. I can assure you they did not receive a marriage certificate to make it official and their marriage was not simply a union of two people who loved each other.
 
Returning to Matt Walsh’s point, he says that “Religion grants a higher purpose to marriage. Religious people know that their vows have been consecrated by God; that they are now taking part in something bigger that themselves.”
 
And it’s that last part where we can also find another similarity between a religious conservative married couple and a progressive one. Both couples believe they are taking part in something bigger than themselves. To the religious conservative couple, that is holy matrimony in the eyes of the Creator and sovereign King of the universe. To the progressive couple, that is the union of two like-minded people who wish to be part of a larger global community (supposedly for good).
 
But one can still notice the considerable gap between religious progressive wives and religious conservative wives. A 13-point difference is hard to ignore. And while this comes as no honest surprise to me, there were plenty of people on social media who refused to accept this.
 
For example, one Twitter user replied to the NYT’s tweet by saying: “I know Christians from having been in the evangelical church for 20 awful years of my life. Several different ones, different denominations. But all the same. Full of hate. Full of fear. Pretending everything is okay for fear that being ungrateful will make them lose everything.”
 
While I am not sure I would count myself as an “evangelical” (though I do like Billy and Franklin Graham), they are Christians all the same and this really tries to speak for Christians as a whole, but it only shows this man’s own hatred. It is unfortunate that after 20 years of going to church he did not receive the Holy Spirit at any point (granted, some churches do suck so it depends on the pastor and the congregation, but still), otherwise he would understand that there is nothing but love to be had with Jesus Christ and the only fear Christians have is the fear of the Lord. But unlike what many think, it is not an unhealthy fear, but rather, a healthy one.
 
Similar to how you respect and fear your parents (especially the punishments you would receive upon doing something bad), we Christians hold nothing but respect for our Father and fear His Wrath, but know we would not receive it, and be spared, by receiving His Son, Jesus Christ, as our Lord and Savior. His Wrath only falls on unrepentant sinners, not on the repentant ones. What fear Christians have is not the same type of fear people in Venezuela or North Korea or Russia have, where they feel like they are under constant threat by an evil dictator who will punish them for the most ridiculous of reasons. God is Just, Man is not.
 
This is something Christians understand and find happiness and joy as a result. If people pretend things are okay when they are not, it is not out of “fear that being ungrateful will make them lose everything.” What will make people lose everything would be turning away from God, as this man has done.
 
Another Twitter user said: “This is hilarious. They all asked their spouses if it was ok to answer the survey in the first place. Then they made it a dinner table conversation to make sure they answered the questions correctly. I know evangelicals. Women do not have separate lives.”
 
Someone is rather salty that they are not as happy as religious conservative wives are. First, that’s rather insulting to the wives, isn’t it? The idea that religious wives are essentially slaves to their husbands is ridiculous (well, outside of Islam, at least). And as far as “separate lives” goes, I take that to mean separate lives away from their husbands and family, to which I would say: does a career make a woman happy? Happier than a happy marriage and family?
 
I can assure you the women that say their careers make them happy largely do not have families of their own. And what’s more, 66% of divorced couples in the U.S. do not have children, according to Smart Marriages. So children also bring about some unique happiness to wives. So they might not have “separate lives”, but the lives they do have are far better than many others’.
 
When a wife has a devoted husband, has children of her own and they are engaged in a marriage that is centered around God, the wife will tend to be considerably happier than people who are not in such relationships. As you can see, many people hate that and consider that to be fake news, but it makes complete and total sense to me.
 
When your life is focused on God, you tend to be happier than someone who is not focused on God. That happiness is multiplied when that focus is shared with someone else.
 
Again, not surprising to me.
 
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
“Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”
 
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!

One of the Left’s most often-used charges against Donald Trump, apart from the charge that he colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election, is that Donald Trump is a racist bigot who hates minorities and wishes to kick all of them out of the country, turning America into a sanctuary for white people.
 
Despite how utterly asinine that sounds, there are those who believe that to be the case and often look to Charlottesville as the proof of this (despite the fact that he is not a white supremacist and he disavowed it in Charlottesville too). Many on the Left, and indeed in the academic world, believed that racial tensions in the U.S. would only get much worse under the Trump administration.
 
However, Daniel J. Hopkins and Samantha Washington, a pair of University of Pennsylvania sociologists, ran a study measuring the “racial attitudes” of 2500 random Americans since 2008.
 
Even within the report, the pair admit they honestly believed they would see an increase in racist opinions within the study, stating: “Normalization of prejudice or opinion leadership both lead us to expect that expressed prejudice may have increased in this period, especially among Republicans or Trump supporters.”
 
In other words, they fully bought into the idea that Trump and his supporters are racist and fully expected there to be a rise in racism within the group that most supports the presumed-to-be racist POTUS. They even believed that such racism and prejudice was completely normalized, at least within a specific group of people on the Right.
 
However, they found the complete opposite to be the case:
 
“Americans, claim Hopkins and Washington, have actually become less inclined to express racist opinions since Donald Trump was elected. Anti-black prejudice, they found, declined by a statistically-insignificant degree between 2012 and 2016, when Trump was elected. But then, after 2016, it took a sharp dive that was statistically significant. Moreover, contrary to their expectations, the fall was as evident among Republican voters as it was among Democrats. There was also a general fall in anti-Hispanic prejudice, too, although this was more evident among Democrat voters.”
 
So there are a few things to discuss here. First, let us return to the previous statement, the one about the researchers expecting a certain result. They expected this, according to Spectator (the original source of this study) because they “had been led to expect this… through an extensive reading of recent literature in social sciences which, they say, supports the notion that racist attitudes lie dormant inside many people, waiting to be triggered by certain events…”
 
Basically, they fully believe there is a racist in all of us and certain events, like the election of a supposed racist, are supposed to let out that little racist demon in us, at least for some. And while I believe we are all naturally evil, I also believe racism is more nurture than it is nature. Most people don’t hate people that look different from them from the get-go. Even Hitler had to come to the belief that Jews were bad through nurture. He wasn’t born hating Jews and people aren’t born racist.
 
Second, going back to the results that seemingly shocked the researchers, take note of the fact that racial tensions did not statistically (at least significantly to show any changes) get better at all during the Obama years. What was it that his election was supposed to end? Didn’t the Left promise that, through electing Obama, racism would end in America? That we would be proving to the world (because we apparently have to prove something) that we are no longer racist because we elected a black President (which is entirely ironic and actually racist if the only reason anyone voted for Obama was because he was black)?
 
On the contrary, Obama served to only make racial tensions grow worse. The Ferguson and Baltimore riots and the insistence that cops are racist for (unfortunately) killing a few black people in individual cases (some of which are entirely justified, as the suspect was either about to hurt the officer or in the process of doing so) only made us a more racially divided America, and it can be attributed, at least to some extent, as the big driver of a Dallas shooting of police officers in 2016.
 
Not to mention the fake news media constantly parrots the Democrat Party’s idea that Republicans are racists who “want to put [black people] back in chains”, according to the current Democrat frontrunner.
 
But put that in contrast with what they found during the Trump administration and you see that all of that was fake news. We are not unbelievable racists that jump at the chance to make any minority’s life hell. Quite the contrary, as the Trump economy has seen record-low unemployment rates for African-Americans and Hispanics, and the fact that Trump signed into law criminal justice reform as well as his desire to prioritize illegal immigration, which disproportionately hurts minorities in America.
 
The third thing I want to discuss here is that last bit about anti-Hispanic prejudice falling more on the Democrat side than the Republican side. That one I would like to challenge a little bit, at least in the definition of prejudice against Hispanics.
 
I take it the recent desire by many on the Left to open our borders to “asylum seekers” and “refugees” counts towards a sort of drop in anti-Hispanic prejudice. I would like to challenge this as not being a drop in anti-Hispanic prejudice but as being a drop in IQ points on the Left in terms of what makes America safe.
 
As I have often said in the past, the immigration debate is not about race, despite the Left’s best efforts to make it about race. We don’t deny entry to certain people based on the color of their skin. We deny entry to certain people based on certain qualifications such as not having proper documentation. Those who are here who do not have the right to be here simply should NOT be here. How hard is that idea to grasp?
 
It defeats the entire purpose of even having an immigration system at all if we are just going to let anyone in who wants to come in (since our current economy is thriving under this administration, I imagine many people want to come here). We are a nation ruled by laws. Ignoring our laws means we have no nation, certainly not a stable one. A nation must be able to control its borders and we don’t have much of that currently because of the Left’s incessant promise that they will get rid of Trump and open up our borders, leading whole caravans to start up (likely funded by people like George Soros because these caravans don’t just spring up out of nowhere with no leadership).
 
Just because we, conservatives, do not want our borders flooded by illegals doesn’t mean there is anti-Hispanic prejudice. And just because the Left wants our borders to be open doesn’t mean they are less prejudiced against Hispanics. Matter of fact, I would argue that they are FAR MORE prejudiced against Hispanics than conservatives are. Illegal immigration hurts minorities, including Hispanics. And yet, it’s exactly what the Left wants more of. They want open borders not to help poor, helpless Hispanics but to have a permanent underclass base, who will depend on the Democrats’ various government programs to take care of them in exchange for them voting for Democrats, whether or not they are legally allowed to.
 
They don’t care about the Hispanic population. They just want the Hispanic (legal or illegal) vote. They want Hispanics to be permanently dependent on their “help”. They don’t see us as humans (much like they never saw black people as humans), but rather, they see us as votes that can help them get and stay in power. Meanwhile, they pass law after law that makes it harder for people to prosper.
 
Wanting open borders is not a lack of anti-Hispanic prejudice. If anything, it only leads to more prejudice and injustice.
 
But in any case, these two researchers discovered what Trump’s supporters have known for years now: Trump is not racist. Or at least, racial relations are not worsening under Trump. I don’t think these researchers will give up on the idea that he is racist, but you never know.
 
What matters is that they at least had the integrity to release their study finding that America is less racist today than it was during the Obama administration. This is not something that will be reported by the fake news media, as it defies one of their most used narratives, but we know the truth. The only racism that one can find exists solely on the Left and the fake news media.
 
Hebrews 12:14
“Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see 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!

Much like the man-made climate change and “a baby in the womb is not a baby” arguments, the Left continually spreads the bogus lie that women are systematically paid less than men for the same work in order to slap some more socialistic regulations against corporations that could end up hurting women far more down the line than it would end up helping them.
 
And much like any other idiotic Leftist, 2020 Democrat candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Red Light District), announced earlier in the week a plan to “close the gender wage gap”, which the Left often claims is due to horrible discrimination against women (a ridiculous claim, but one they always make).
 
According to the Daily Wire, “Harris’ plan would require companies to report information about their pay policies and the pay of men and women in the company. They would also be required to spend time ‘applying for a mandatory Equal Pay Certification from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’, The Associated Press reported. Under Harris’ plan, if a company fails to receive this certification, it ‘would be fined 1% of their profits for every 1% wage gap they allow to persist for work of equal value.’”
 
There are a couple of things that really could be quite terrible for companies with what was just mentioned above. First, that “fined 1% of their profits” does not specify if that means quarterly or annual profits, which can make a difference. Second, what does “for every 1% wage gap they allow” mean exactly? Does that mean that the company would be fined 1% for every percent of a “wage gap” found in each individual case? Or does someone do the math to see how much men made on average versus women and fine the difference in percentage? It’s this sort of lazy, perhaps willfully incompetent wording that can really screw a company over. If terms aren’t well-defined, that can cause some major problems.
 
Now, that’s just the announcement. I would imagine the actual wording of the plan is not quite this asinine, but it’s the Democrats we are talking about here.
 
In any case, that’s not all that is included in Harris’ plan. That was just in case a company did not apply or receive an "equality" certificate.
 
According to the AP, “In Harris’ equal-pay plan, the campaign says, companies would be prohibited from asking about prior salary history as part of their hiring process, banned from using forced arbitration agreements in employment contracts for pay discrimination matters, and would be required to allow employees to freely discuss their pay. They would also be required to report the share of women who are among the company’s top earners, the total pay and total compensation gap that exists between men and women, regardless of job titles, experience and performance.”
 
Now, I’m no expert when it comes to hiring someone or seeking a high-paying job, but I cannot imagine any of these things are a great plan for people, especially for women.
 
Why would it help to not mention a prior salary in the hiring process? If a company is looking for someone to fill a position, they would look to see what sort of job they had before and roughly how much they were earning for that job (granted, I imagine people sometimes, if not often times, lie about how much they were earning in a previous position so they can negotiate for a considerably higher salary for the position being discussed, but still.) Not mentioning how much one was previously making doesn’t help anyone to earn more money in negotiations.
 
But regardless of my knowledge of the hiring process, I know very well that the last item is quite outrageous, as it would CREATE THE IMAGE OF A WAGE GAP EXISTING.
 
You see, while there is no wage gap, there is an earnings gap. But that has nothing to do with what the company policies are regarding a person’s salary. As a matter of fact, and something the Left always conveniently forgets, it is illegal under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to pay women less than men for the same position and amount of work. Key there being the amount of work put in.
 
The simple fact is that men tend to work longer hours per week than women do. A number of reasons for this can exist, such as a woman’s desire to spend time with her family, a woman’s ability to work for longer periods of time, etc. But what makes that last proposal even worse is that it not only ignores the hours spent in a work equal to a man, but also “compares the average or median earnings of men and women, without taking into account things like careers… or experience,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
Different jobs at different levels in different departments will vary widely in terms of pay. For example, a CFO, according to salary.com, will make, on average, around $370,000 a year. A COO, or Chief Operating Officer, will make $470,000. A Vice President of Sales will make, on average, $250,000, while a VP of Finance will make around $200,000.
 
Both a CFO and COO are the chief executives of their respective branches, both hold basically the same level of their departments, only being below the CEO in the company’s hierarchy. And yet, a CFO makes less money a year than a COO makes. A Vice President of Sales is basically on the same level as a Vice President of Finance, but the VP of Sales makes more money on average than a VP of Finance does.
 
So say you have a female CFO and a male COO. Based on what we just learned, is it fair to say there is discrimination here based on the money they each make, despite their basically equal levels in the company? What if the opposite were to be the case? What if the female COO makes more money than a male CFO? Is that also a problem of gender discrimination?
 
Ironically, a recent Google internal study found that the company tended to pay women more than men for the same work and had to pay $9.7 million to the employees who were paid less, which usually was men.
 
That was back in March and I didn’t hear about this from anywhere on the fake news media or any politician on the Left.
 
But considering Harris’ plan is meant to “help” women, I imagine Google paying women MORE than men actually would not have forced them to pay that 1% per wage gap that Harris is proposing. If men get paid less than women, that is either ignored or believed to be a good thing.
 
Oh, and to add to this entire situation, Harris’ plan “would also require federal contractors to close their wage gap within two years or they would not be able to apply for federal contracts worth more than $500,000.”
 
Considering this plan from Harris would do nothing to actually close that “wage” gap, as it is not up to the companies (much less the government) to determine how much money someone earns depending on the amount of work that they put in, that would largely mean that no federal contractors would be able to take on contracts that are massive in size, like building high-speed trains, or doing anything that the LEFT wants to do regarding tearing down old buildings and building new, environmentally-friendly ones if the GND were to pass (though federal contractors not being allowed to do that sort of thing would be the least of our worries in that hypothetical scenario). So this sort of policy would especially hurt Democrats who are all about spending as much money as possible, including things regarding to federal contracts.
 
What’s worse is that this sort of plan actually hurts women far more than it helps them. If companies would be punished for showing wage gaps between genders, what reason would they have for hiring more females if they would likely (certainly) bring nothing but trouble once they have to report the gaps – that would not go away – to the government and be fined for something they have no control over?

Men tend to work longer hours, so companies would look to hire people who can output more of a workload, especially if there comes a serious financial risk of hiring a woman at any position, if there would exist a gap regardless of career, experience and performance. Notice how I talked about the AVERAGE salaries of top positions. That is because the actual salary will vary depending on things like experience. So there will ALWAYS be a gap when an experienced man is paid more than an inexperienced female even within the same job and title.
 
The current CFO of Apple, Luca Maestri, makes $1 million a year, base. Microsoft’s current CFO, Amy Hood, makes $570,000 base (both make millions more through shares, but we are talking about wages here). Does that mean that Microsoft is more sexist than Apple? Or does that mean that maybe, just maybe, Luca Maestri has more experience in such a high position than does Amy Hood?
 
So even within the same job (albeit in different companies), people make varying wages DEPENDING ON THE THINGS HARRIS WANTS TO IGNORE TO “EXPOSE” (really, create) A WAGE GAP!
 
It would simply be too great of a risk for a company’s profit margins to hire women, when they would tend to be paid less than men even for the same job, simply because women tend to work less hours than men do.
 
It would actually hurt small businesses even more as well, as they are the ones less likely to be able to take such financial hits. The reason massive corporations are okay with raising the minimum wage is because they know they can afford it but their competitors might not. It’s crony capitalism at its worst and this wage gap myth falls in line with that.
 
It would especially become troublesome if the government were to pass a law that said companies had to have a certain ratio of male to female employees. At that point, smaller companies would be forced to take the “wage” gap hits.
 
The simple truth is that companies legally cannot pay men more than women ever since 1963, but that correlates to the amount of work actually done. If a man and a woman work the same amount of hours a week, they will be payed the same. If a man works more hours than a woman does (as tends to be the case, on average), then the man will be payed more because he worked more. If a woman works more hours than a man does (which isn’t typically the case), the woman will be paid more than the man because she worked more. THAT is equality, not this woke, SJW crap that serves nothing more than to score political points but would actually harm women more if actually applied.
 
Galatians 3:28
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
 
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!

These last couple of weeks have been absolutely fantastic for the pro-life movement. First, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law a bill that would ban abortions once a heartbeat has been detected in a fetus (around 6 weeks into the pregnancy), soon after that, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed into law the country’s most pro-life law, banning abortions outright, and criminalizing the act of performing an abortion (not receiving one, which is what Leftists often lie about) and the Missouri House of Representatives and Senate passed their own heartbeat bill.
 
Naturally, Hollywood and the Left went absolutely nuclear regarding these great news, though primarily on Georgia, considering how often movies tend to be filmed there thanks to the state’s fairly low tax on production (in other words, it is cheap to film there).
 
Hollywood Leftists decided to boycott the state, citing the heartbeat bill as the reason for it:
 
“This law would make Georgia an inhospitable place for those in the film and television industry to work, including our members,” the Writers Guild of America said in a statement.
 
“It should instead be called a ‘forced pregnancy bill’ – because it would outlaw abortion before a woman even knows that she is pregnant,” C-list actress Alyssa Milano said. “It’s the most anti-woman bill of its kind in the country, and it sends the exact wrong message about the kind of state Georgia’s leaders wish to create. In short, HB 481 (the official name of the bill) would make Georgia the most regressive state in the country.”
 
I personally have an awful lot to say about these things. First, regarding the Writers Guild’s statement, how exactly is outlawing the murder of an unborn baby creating an inhospitable place for the film and television industries? Not being able to kill a child makes the state inhospitable to these industries? Perhaps, then, it’s the industries’ problem, not the State’s, if they literally cannot live or work in a state where killing children in the womb is deemed illegal.
 
Second, regarding Alyssa Milano’s statement, half of the victims of abortion are women, or girls. Why isn’t that taken into consideration when discussing how a bill is “anti-woman”? And this is without even taking into consideration how truly heartless (pun not intended) you must be to understand that a fetus has a heartbeat, a rather strong indication of its viability, and still think it is okay to kill it.
 
Third, as far as “regressive” goes, I would think that the slaughter of the innocent for literally no reason is more regressive and barbaric than the pursuit of saving and preserving a life, one of the inalienable rights given to us by God as detailed in the Declaration of Independence.
 
But regardless of what Hollywood Leftists will say, claim and think, the vast majority of America actually disagrees with them, at least when it comes to the heartbeat bill.
 
According to a Hill/HarrisX survey, most voters think that six-week abortion bans are either “just right” or “too lenient”.
 
34% of voters said they believe six-week abortion bans are “just right”, while 21% believe they are “too lenient”, with 45% of voters saying the bans are “too restrictive”.
 
In other words, 55% of voters support these types of bans while 45% are against them, a 10-point difference.
 
What is interesting is the fact that younger voters are actually more supportive of these bans.
 
The Hill reports that 52% of “respondents 65 years of age and older said they believed that six-week abortion bans are too restrictive. Thirty-one percent said they were just right while 17 percent said they were too lenient.” That’s a 52-48 split, and a 4-point difference.
 
“Among voters between the ages of 50-64, 41 percent said the new laws were too restrictive, 38 percent said they were just right, and 21 percent said they did not go far enough.” That’s 59% of voters in that age range who support such a ban, while only 41% oppose it, an 18-point difference.
 
“A 45 percent plurality of voters between 35-49 said the laws were too restrictive, 36 percent said they were just right and 18 percent said they were too lenient.” That’s 54% in favor of the bans and 45% against it, a 9-point difference.
 
“The youngest voters polled, those 34 and under, were most likely to say the abortion bans did not go far enough, although far less than a majority – 27 percent – said this. Forty-three percent said the laws were too restrictive while 30 percent said they were just right.” That’s 57-43, a 14-point difference.
 
I cannot imagine how hard a pill this must be to swallow for the Left. Ignoring the fact that a majority of voters polled said they supported these types of bills, the younger generations all had considerably bigger gaps between those who supported these bills and those who did not support them.
 
Younger generations are the ones the Left most want to get their hooks on. It is often said that “children are the future”, so it stands to reason that the Left wants younger voters siding with them on such issues than they would care about older ones. After all, they’ve already cast out old, white men from their voting bloc. They don’t care about getting their votes, only younger generations’.
 
Why do you think the Left is so adamant about lowering the voting age to 16? Because a young person is more likely to believe the bull crap the Left spews than someone who has been alive for a long while, has life experience, and understands that what the Left is spewing is bull crap.
 
Winston Churchill is often attributed (though has never been confirmed) for saying: “If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.”
 
The quote (whether or not it’s Churchill’s) speaks at the fact that young people are often more emotionally-driven rather than intellectually-driven. Take climate change as an example. Young people are indoctrinated since Kindergarten now-a-days to believe we are destroying our planet. Obviously, that would not be a good thing if that were true, but because young people are TOLD what to think and will not often challenge such deeply-engrained beliefs, they go through life believing this sort of thing. After all, you would have to be a monster to be okay with killing our planet… if that were actually what was going on.
 
But as people grow older and garner more life experience and start to develop their own line of thinking, they will come to challenge things they’ve been told in their youth and seek to find out if those things are actually true. That’s not to say that is what always happens, of course. Bernie Sanders was around when fire was discovered and he still thinks socialism is a great thing.
 
But what is expected of people is to learn basic truths about the world and shift from an emotional liberal to an intellectual conservative –  going from believing we are killing our planet to using logic and reason to understand that we could do no such thing, at least with the methods described as being the culprit of such fabled destruction.
 
However, as we find in the aforementioned poll regarding six-week abortion bans, those who are younger actually take the more pro-life stance than the boomer generation, which saw the 1973 Roe v. Wade case essentially legalize abortion.
 
And even the boomer generation’s statistics in the poll find that there is a slim majority of boomers who are against these types of bills. 52-48 is considerably closer than the Left would want.
 
But in any case, I am thankful to God that so many people are aware of the fact that there is a life growing inside the woman and that no “my body, my choice” argument seems to be effective in the least bit. After all, what we are talking about is not a woman’s body, but the body that grows inside a woman. A separate entity with its own genetic code that is its own individual, will have its own name, life, and everything else that is attributed to humans once it is born. The general understanding here is that life is growing inside the womb, something even some (rather evil) Democrats understand.
 
While the fate of these bills in court is not exactly certain (let’s just say I don’t trust Kavanaugh any more), it is clear that a good number of Americans do not fall in line with the Left’s barbaric thinking that women have the “right” to slaughter their own children growing inside the womb.
 
Thank God for that.
 
Ephesians 2:10
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
 
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!

As NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio joins the other 2000 candidates to run for President of the United States on the Democrat ticket, President Donald Trump is enjoying the best poll numbers he has had as POTUS.
 
According to a recent Zogby poll, President Trump is enjoying a job approval rating of 51%, the highest in his tenure as president in this poll. It is also higher than Barack Obama’s was at the same point in his own presidency, which was at 48%.
 
But that’s not the only thing that is great news for The Don. The poll also found, rather interestingly, that 51% of people in the age range of 18-29 approve of the job he is doing as president while 53% in the age range of 25-34 approve of him. In other words, a little over half of MILLENNIALS are approving of the job Trump is doing as President.
 
Zogby largely attributes his rise in numbers to the strong economic news we’ve had as of late with record-breaking stock market numbers, consistently low unemployment where there are virtually more jobs available than there are people to fill them, as well as consistently strong GDP growth.
 
Zogby writes: “President Trump’s job approval rating has seen a post Mueller report boost! We called it a few weeks ago. But that’s not the complete story as to why the president has reached a peak in his job approval rating. Trump is also riding high on positive economic news – a record high stock market, low unemployment, and solid GDP growth at home.”
 
Yes, they also attribute the Mueller report finding no collusion and no obstruction to Trump’s rise in his numbers, though they don’t quite count for everything. I hold the belief that those who completely bought into the idea that Trump colluded with Russia will never change their minds about the guy no matter what happens. Even when their supposed “savior” was supposed to deliver the goods, and failed to do so, they still hold firm to the belief that Trump colluded with Russia despite no evidence having popped up at any point in the two years of this “investigation” and despite Mueller’s findings that there was no collusion and flimsy, but ultimately not-good-enough, evidence that the POTUS obstructed justice (complaining about the unfairness of a so-called “investigation” is not obstruction, FYI).
 
The people who bought the collusion story hook, line and sinker were never going to be convinced that Trump was doing a good job as President. However, the vast majority of people, I believe, are completely exhausted of the entire narrative and are simply happy that there was no foul-play during the elections, at least not enough to actually alter the results (Russia did still meddle a bit, but even Rod Rosenstein said no votes were altered in the election, so the results of the election were not altered either).
 
But while the Mueller report finding no collusion or obstruction certainly helps Trump in the long-run, especially on the campaign trail when Democrats are entirely likely to still peddle the idea that he colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election (and will likely peddle the idea that he will try to do so again for 2020, especially if he wins), what really helps Trump’s approval numbers is the fact that “the new normal” of the Obama administration, 1% GDP growth, was absolute garbage and not a new standard which we would have to get used to.
 
Trump has shown that capitalist policies like low taxes, deregulation, etc. heavily boost the economy and provide millions of new jobs for people who were out of work, either seeking it or giving up on seeking it.
 
The boost in Millennial support is part of that, considering they actually have jobs now, at least many of them do. Rush Limbaugh theorized that the reason Bernie Sanders was so hot back in 2016 but not quite so much now is due to the fact that under Obama, these Millennials were out of work and Bernie was promising them a socialist paradise where they wouldn’t have to worry at all about that because the government would take care of every problem under the sun (seriously, I saw a Bernie Sanders poster on Facebook that said he would solve racism in America).
 
Millennials saw that they were in a poor financial situation, being the first generation likely ever to not be expected to do better than their parents’ generation. But instead of recognizing they were in such a poor state because of 8 years of Leftist, socialist policies from the Obama administration, they were led to believe that capitalism was the culprit, since there are those who are billionaires and were led to believe that under capitalism, there are winners and losers. They were led to believe the billionaires and rich people of America came to that sort of wealth by screwing the little guy and stealing from them. And who can blame them? Obama had been saying the same thing about America in general, about how America stole from other countries to build itself as a super power.
 
All a massive crock, but the Millennials believed it. But now, after only 2 years of a Trump economy that is so good Obama is envious about it and tries to claim it for himself, Millennials are noticing that they have jobs, their paychecks are increasing, they don’t have to pay as much in taxes (depending on where they live, at least) and are overall not quite in the same tight financial situation that they were in under Obama.
 
Now, despite all of that, many are still socialist and still support Bernie. He is, after all, in second place in a race that involves 20 other equally-as-Leftist candidates as him, with the only person ahead of him being the former Vice President to the former President many Millennials were indoctrinated to love (despite the fact he was the one who was constantly screwing them over financially). So while Bernie is not quite as hot as he was in 2016, he is not quite out of it yet either.
 
I don’t know who will be the Democrat nominee (despite what I have written previously, it looks like Joe Biden will be the nominee, but Hillary was in his place in 2007 before she was beaten by Obama, so you never know) but Bernie’s brand of socialism is still attractive enough to get him a decent place in the polls despite how many more Democrats are running.
 
But in any case, there is a majority of Millennials now who come to approve of the job Trump is doing as President, especially when it comes to the economy.
 
Zogby also reported that 58% of men approved of Trump while 48% of women approved of him. And while one will immediately notice the big difference in numbers between the two genders and claim that Trump is unpopular with women because “he’s a pig” or “he’s a misogynist” note that the number of women who approve of him is, while still a minority, pretty high, just not as high as the number of men who approve of him. Nearly half of women approve of Trump. Put that into a headline and watch as the fake news media goes haywire over the news.
 
When it comes to suburban voters, 48% approve of Trump while 60% of rural voters approve. That makes sense considering that rural voters tend to be more conservative and Trump’s economy really helps rural areas.
 
Zogby also added that, “One of the demographics to give Trump a very good job performance rating were self-identified social networkers (59% approve/40% disapprove – people who engage with social media)… The president also made strides with college educated voters (55% approve/45% disapprove), and saw support increase slightly with non-college educated voters (47% approve/50% disapprove).”
 
These numbers are fairly interesting to me. When it comes to the “self-identified social networkers” I don’t exactly know what to make of that. Who are “self-identified social networkers”? Does that mean people who use social media? Or people who have a heavy presence on social media like Ben Shapiro, Laura Ingraham, etc.? I imagine the former, which is still rather impressive, considering that the common belief is that the majority of social media users are at least Left-leaning and utterly Trump-hating (social media companies certainly want people to hate Trump and conservatives/conservatism).
 
And when it comes to the college educated voters vs. non-college educated voters, that one also surprises me. Considering college is the place where education goes to die and indoctrination is heavily engrained in young people’s minds, such strong approval of Trump is surprising.
 
But regardless, as Zogby says, the increase in approval rating is likely due to strong economic numbers. Numbers that you simply do not see under socialistic policies.
 
We must thank God for these great news and continually pray to Him that these numbers stay strong like this, improve, and that He would ordain for Trump to win re-election in 2020.
 
Philippians 4:13
“I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”
 
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!