I hold the belief that the 2020 election cycle will be about the following things: immigration, the economy, and the very soul of this country. Granted, the first two things are usual in elections, especially in this day and age, but that last one ought to make people realize just what it is we are facing.
 
Much like 2016, we are at a crossroads: we either elect a conservative like Trump, who loves America, or we elect a socialist like (insert literally any of the Democrats currently running), who hates America as it was founded and wishes to turn it into a nation where the government controls just about everything aka a socialist country.
 
And if you’ve been keeping up with multiple polls, you see the terrifying rise of people who consider socialism to be better than capitalism. While those people are still the minority (roughly 40%), the trends are seemingly terrifying. But there is good reason I say “seemingly” in that sentence.
 
You see, according to Rasmussen, 84% of people have a favorable opinion of free markets and 41% say the same about socialism.
 
It is at this point that your brain might be trying to do some seriously challenging mental gymnastics to understand the logic behind that. The vast majority of people like free markets, but about 41% also like socialism? That doesn’t make any sense! And if we were strictly talking about economic ideologies, then yes, you would be correct. But that is not what we are talking about.
 
Before I get to that, however, let’s look at all the numbers.
 
Within the poll that talked about free markets, 87% of Republicans favored it, 85% of Independents said the same as did 81% of Democrats.
 
“Voters strongly believe that Free Markets are better than Socialism when it comes to promoting economic growth (55% to 12%), creating quality jobs (52% to 13%), and giving everyone a chance to succeed (44% to 19%),” according to Rasmussen. “Voters give Free Markets a more modest advantage on helping people in poverty reach the middle class (37% to 22%), creating a fair society (35% to 25%), and reducing poverty (33% to 24%). Voters are close to evenly divided on which system will be better at reducing health care costs: 30% say free markets and 26% socialism. However, it’s worth noting that there is very little support for requiring all Americans to get health insurance through a government program.”
 
So what is it that we are looking at here? We’re looking at people who, economically, agree with capitalistic, free market ideologies, but don’t think socialism is the opposite of those things. They don’t view socialism through the lenses of economic ideology, like you and I do, but through the lenses of the government being an avenue capable of helping people who are in need. They like the idea of government-issued health insurance like Obamacare, but largely do not like the idea of that being the only option.
 
So what we have here are a bunch of people who are largely misguided as to what socialism actually is. The definition of socialism/communism is the government being the one who owns the means of production. Meaning there is no such thing as private property because the government controls and/or regulates everything, from your home, to your car, to your job, to your phone. Absolutely everything is controlled and regulated by the government. You cannot get something that is outside of the government’s control. It’s part of the reason China is so adamant about getting Google to censor things in that region for their citizens.
 
But as we can plainly see, that is not the definition self-proclaimed socialist voters tend to follow. Matter of fact, when it comes to the economy, the less government involvement, the better. This is something even those “socialists” believe in, as we can see from how many people, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS, prefer free markets over socialism.
 
For the record, these self-proclaimed socialists do not include people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They know perfectly well what socialism is, that’s why they’re in the government. They get to expand their own power if they back socialism and in turn, deceive others as to what socialism is to make it more appealing. Why else do you think they adamantly avoid talking about Venezuela and even California? Apart from being precise examples as to what socialism does to a country or even a state, they will often claim that that’s not “real” socialism, and that “real socialism” has never actually been tried.
 
Of course, that’s a load of garbage, but people will believe it. That’s why there are people who call themselves socialists but will often times support capitalistic economic policies. They don’t truly know what socialism is.
 
Not that I blame them for their ignorance. Socialism was not really a topic that was covered when I was in school (likely because the term itself was still fairly taboo at the time) and I wouldn’t have learned about socialism had I not done my own research or talked with family about politics. Granted, I also have the advantage of having lived in a fairly socialistic country before (I’ll take “words that have never been spoken before in the history of the world” for 1000, Alex), so I know what socialism is like in a sort of first-hand manner, but still. Schools don’t tend to teach about socialism, and if they do, they don’t actually teach what it really is and what it has led to.
 
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: if people knew what socialism truly was, most people would completely drop it. We know this because Scott Rasmussen himself, in a recent interview with The Daily Signal, said that “only 1 out of 3 people who say they like socialism think it leads to higher taxes and a more powerful government.”
 
Meaning only 1 out of 3 people who say they like socialism actually know what socialism is. Still a scarily high number, but taking that in relation with just about everyone in the country, and the percentage of people who both like socialism and know what it is shows to be far lower than what polls show. That’s 33% out of the 41% of people who support socialism - that's only 13.5% people. One can easily see how truly few people there are out there who want to see this country be turned into the Soviet Union.
 
But for the most part, the vast majority of Americans far prefer the current economic system we have of free market economics, regardless of political party affiliation or political ideology. Most people are free-market capitalists and simply see government as an option, not as a deterrent, to that system. Really, that’s where the problem lies, as the more government there is, the less individual freedoms there are, including economic freedoms, and the task is really to educate people as to what socialism truly is (and most people are shocked when they find out what it really is, so that tells you something).
 
Of course, another problem comes in the fact that these people, despite their own personal opinions, will vote for those who actually are socialists and will implement actual socialist policies that intrude on people’s economic freedoms (and other types of freedoms) and that can cause severe harm to the country. The task then becomes properly defining socialism and exposing the fact that the people running for office are not the same kind of socialist the people voting for them claim to be. Bernie Sanders wants Medicare for All in the form of only the government being the option for health insurance. A lot of people like the term “Medicare for All” because it suggests an option for people to take, but recoil when they learn that it would actually take away people’s options for health insurance.
 
Actual socialism is not popular in this country, but what needs to be done is to properly define socialism. Most people who claim to be socialists aren’t actually socialists. They are just as capitalistic as you and me, just view the government as a force for good and not as a force for evil that can destroy economic and other kinds of freedom.
 
I just hope we can properly define socialism for the vast majority of Americans before we turn into Venezuela.
 
Colossians 2:8
“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

A little over a week ago, I wrote an article talking about how there was no link between extreme weather phenomenon and man-made climate change. Well, today, let’s talk about another ridiculous claim that the Left often makes: climate change leads to rising sea levels and will mean coastal cities will be flooded in a certain amount of time unless we employ more and more socialistic policies to “turn this around”.
 
When you put it that way, it’s hard to deny how much it looks like a scam… because that’s precisely what it is. And yet, many people buy into the idea that we are killing our planet through our cars and our air conditioners and our capitalism (somehow, despite China being one of the most egregious polluters in the world) and that in a certain amount of decades, places like Los Angeles, New York City, Miami, etc. will be uninhabitable for humans and land animals because they will be flooded.
 
This sort of cycle continues, as we still hear about this idiocy despite the fact that people have made predictions for today that are exactly like that and have failed to come true, such as Dr. James Hansen predicting back in the late 1980s that New York City’s West Side Highway would be under water within 20 years. Not quite sure why he chose to be so specific, but whatever the reason may be, he was obviously very wrong as it has been about 30 years since the late 1980s and no such thing has happened.
 
However, a recent study has shown that “trends in recent rates of shoreline change along the U.S. Atlantic Coast reflect an especially puzzling increase in accretion, not erosion,” according to Armstrong and Lazarus (2019) in a newly-published paper.
 
Notice the sort of language these guys are using. They are totally baffled at the idea that shorelines are actually expanding, because they are under the belief that sea levels are rising, which would naturally lead people to believe that shorelines would have to be decreasing. The authors try to attribute this “enigmatic pattern” to “beach nourishment” or infrastructure development to explain how this is happening even though sea levels are supposed to be rising.
 
As Climate Depot notes, “From 1830 to 1956, shorelines eroded at the rapid rate of -55 cm per year on average. Since 1960, the U.S. Atlantic coast has been expanding (accretion) at a rate of +5 cm per year.”
 
The real reason for this happening is not “beach nourishment” but rather because any scientist who is not paid off to spew Leftist garbage knows that geophysical processes are the reason for such sea-level variations throughout the entire world, not idiotic beliefs like glaciers melting causing there to be more water in the ocean.
 
Which really brings us to the main point this article is meant to tackle: the idea that melting ice caps (which are actually doing the opposite of melting) would cause sea levels to rise and coastal areas to get flooded. Anyone who has passed 6th grade science ought to know that ice is water in a different form and that melting of ice does not cause there to be more water out of nowhere.
 
For example, fill a glass with ice and then fill it with water just before it begins to overflow. Leave that glass of water with ice alone until the ice melts (or put it in the microwave if you’re impatient) and see the results. According to the Left, the glass will overflow because the ice will melt. However, what we notice is something entirely different: the glass is still just as full as it was before, there was no overflow, but now there’s just no ice. That is because ICE IS WATER TOO! It’s just in a different physical state, but it will still take up the exact same amount of space. Whatever space the ice cube was filling before is replaced with the water that the cube was composed of. There is no displacement of water, so there is no overflowing of the glass.
 
How then, if the ice caps were to melt, would the world get flooded when all the melting of the ice does is change the physical state of the ice from a solid to a liquid?
 
What’s more, has any of these Leftists ever heard of the water cycle? You know, the cycle where water evaporates, goes into the atmosphere, precipitates as rain or snow (depending on the temperature), goes down into sewers, rivers, etc., makes its way back to the ocean and begins the cycle anew? Well, if the ice caps were melting, that means some of the ice would be turned into a gas too, go into the atmosphere and go through the process we just described, so there technically would be a little bit less water than when it was in its ice form anyway.
 
But returning to my main point, it is ridiculous to suggest that the ice caps melting (which isn’t even happening, for God’s sake) would in turn lead to coastal cities to get flooded. That’s not how any of this works.
 
If you don’t believe me, just ask Christopher Piecuch, Peter Huybers and literally six other scientists saying: “the majority of large-scale spatial variation in long-term rates of relative sea-level rise on the US East Coast is due to geological processes that will persist at similar rates for centuries.”
 
Climate change does not lead to rising sea levels. Trends in sea levels, whichever way they may go, have more to do with geological processes than climate change.
 
And if the study by the seemingly baffled scientists is in any way accurate, then we can clearly see this to be the case. Now, if you were to ask me exactly how it’s happening, then I have no clue. I’m not a geologist by any means. But I do understand enough about the world to know that it’s completely asinine to say that melting ice caps and glaciers, etc. would lead to massive cities getting flooded. Science itself denies that this is at all possible, never mind that shorelines around the world have been in a trend of growth for a number of decades.
 
Between 1985 and 2015, satellite observations showed that coasts all over the world have gained roughly 13,000 km2 more land area than it had lost to the ocean, according to scientists back in 2016. So all over the world, coasts have only gained land, not lost to the ocean.
 
Now just watch as the Left will spin that as “we are warming the planet up so much, we are drying up the oceans”. I wouldn’t put it past them to start claiming such a thing.
 
Psalm 36:3
“The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

This is far from the first time I have written about Hispanics supporting Donald Trump at any capacity. Given that I, myself, am Hispanic, I can at least fairly decently relate with credibility why it is that Hispanics are so willing to support the President. But to entitled Leftist elitists who view minorities as voting mules, Trump being supported by as many Hispanics as previous Republican candidates/presidents makes absolutely zero sense.
 
Take David Drucker from the Washington Examiner for example. While I wouldn’t necessarily call him a Leftist per se (what I have seen from him doesn’t paint him with the same brush as pretty much everyone else on the MSM), he does appear surprised at the fact that Trump is rather popular with Hispanics. In fact, the title of his article I will be quoting from is: “Hispanics stick with Trump despite tough border stance”.
 
Now, to me, I find that rather hilarious. “Despite” tough border stance? Try BECAUSE of tough border stance.
 
Keep in mind that exit polls back in 2016 showed that Trump garnered 28% of the Hispanic vote, which is admittedly lower than it is today. 28% is around the support other Republicans have received from the Hispanic population. Mitt Romney back in 2012 got 27% of the Hispanic vote.
 
So while you can attribute a strong economy causing his support to grow (something I do as well), there was still a decent portion of the Hispanic population that voted for Trump despite the fact he hadn’t done anything for the economy just yet (naturally, having not been POTUS at the time). Also keep in mind that his entire campaign centered around illegal immigration and building a wall at the southern border.
 
So you would think people would be able to figure out that a tough border stance is not detrimental for Trump when it comes to Hispanics. WE ARE TOUGH ON THE BORDER TOO!
 
But here’s what Drucker said specifically in his rather short article. He starts by noting that Trump’s initial remarks upon launching his campaign “mortified” Republicans, establishment and otherwise, fearing that nominating Trump, let alone electing him, would doom the GOP with the Hispanics. He also notes that it hasn’t quite worked out that way, given he has support around 30%, give or take depending on the poll.
 
Even Daniel Garza, a Koch brothers minion and former Bush official said: “[Trump] starts in a much better place for reelection than when he launched his 2016 campaign. One would think immigration would be a major anchor for him, but he’s turned it into at least a push.” Even Drucker notes that Garza’s comments are quite the turnaround from what he said back in 2015, shortly after Trump launched his campaign: “His positions are indefensible. I would actually rise up against him.”
 
In any case, Drucker then continues by citing a YouGov poll that shows Trump’s job approval rating among Hispanics sits around 29% and on immigration, which is, in Drucker’s mind “presumably a tougher issue for the president with this demographic”, is at 30%. Drucker then notes that 30% is rather usual for Republicans, as around 30% of Hispanics tend to be “die-hard Republicans”, as Joe Heck, a former Nevada congressman who usually was popular with Hispanics noted.
 
And then Drucker supposedly warns Trump and conservatives that roughly 30% is “dangerously low for competitive contests”, saying that “it can leave Republicans too reliant on the white vote, the largest segment of the voting population nationally but one that is declining.”
 
But wait, didn’t Trump get 28% in 2016? And wasn’t Hillary supposed to absolutely cream Trump? Virtually every poll out there said that Hillary was going to win, so if Trump ended up winning anyway, doesn’t that mean that 30% is at least decent enough for someone like Trump?
 
What’s more, we are seeing a strong economy today with the lowest unemployment rates for Hispanics (and other demographics, but the focus is on Hispanics) that we’ve ever recorded, so Trump has that going for himself, particularly with Hispanics.
 
But then, Drucker quotes Albert Morales, a senior political director for Latino Decisions (admittedly a group I have never heard of), that typically studies Hispanic vote patterns and other things. Morales said that, according to recent internal polling, 80% of Hispanics intend to vote in 2020, as though that is a massive warning for Trump.
 
“That figure ‘is usually around 50%,’ Morales said. Republicans hope a booming economy will supersede Hispanics’ lingering reservations about Trump over his crackdown on illegal immigration and aggressive tactics to secure the border…”
 
Ok, what? This article, up to this point, was talking about how despite Trump’s tough border stance, Hispanics still support him. And now, it’s likely going to be a problem for him that he’s hoping will be superseded by a strong economy? Did Drucker start writing an entirely different article in the middle of talking about how Hispanics don’t actually distance themselves from Trump because of his strong border stance?
 
I honestly don’t understand the logic here. Back in 2016, Trump garnered a fair bit of the Hispanic vote, a typical number for Republicans to garner. Despite the fact Trump centered his entire campaign around the idea of Making America Great Again (which is somehow supposed to turn off Hispanics because apparently we can’t be happy for America and hope it does well) and securing the southern border with a great and beautiful wall, these same ideas are likely going to sink him in his reelection bid with Hispanics?
 
What’s more, Drucker went on to say: “Morales was doubtful (about Trump superseding supposed Hispanic reservation about Trump’s tough border stance, which we just established is not really there), explaining that Hispanic anger at the president’s policies evident in the midterm elections has not dissipated. ‘I think that question needs to be posed to the 40 Republicans who lost their [House] seats,’ Morales said concerning whether the economy would be enough. ‘That’s what they were relying on last cycle, but it just wasn’t enough,’ Morales said.”
 
Are these people seriously forgetting that almost all of the seats the Republicans lost in the midterms was because the incumbents conveniently retired and incumbents tend to get reelected? Had fewer, or even none of the Republicans who retired last year not decided to retire and run again, it’s entirely certain Republicans would’ve lost far less seats and maybe would’ve even retained a majority in the House, even if it was a slimmer one.
 
And let’s not forget the rather suspicious manner in which some Democrats wound up winning their races, conveniently “finding” a whole bunch of extra ballots in the trunks of people’s cars that conveniently went to the Democrat candidate and counting those ballots WELL after the polls closed and some elections should’ve been decided. (Seriously, I highly doubt the elections in Orange County, CA, which originally went to the Republicans but after some of this crap went to Democrats, were in any way legitimate).
 
The only part about that “80% of Hispanics” that intend to vote in 2020 that scares me is the high chance some of them are illegal immigrants who intend to illegally vote for the Democrats that will allow them to stay where they are and will even go as far as to allow them sanctuary even if they commit heinous crimes against Americans.
 
But as far as Trump’s reelection efforts go, there really is no good reason for him to lose, both the election and Hispanic support. There are Hispanics such as myself who HATE the fact the Left is allowing illegal immigrants to cross the border without any sort of punishment or care for the rule of law. Legal immigrants like my family hate the fact Democrats give ILLEGALS special treatment despite whatever they may do.
 
Seriously, do you remember when the trial for Kate Steinle wrapped up? Where Kate Steinle’s murderer was acquitted of all charges except for the illegal possession of a firearm? And do you remember the trial for George Zimmerman?
 
When a delinquent African American kid is tragically killed because a half-Hispanic and half-white man defended himself, people were basically up in arms when Zimmerman was found not guilty. But when a poor white girl gets shot and killed by an illegal immigrant who had been deported FIVE TIMES in a case that should’ve at the very least found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter is acquitted of almost all charges, no one bats an eyelash.
 
Illegals essentially get this message from the Democrat Party: do whatever the hell you want, even kill people, because we are going to do everything in our power to keep you here in the States and protected from law enforcement.
 
No worse form of injustice or corruption could be found than in this. Kate Steinle’s murderer gets off scot free because he’s a precious little illegal immigrant who did nothing wrong and Kate was simply dumb enough to be walking on a walkway like a weirdo.
 
Legal immigrants such as myself go through the process the right way, waiting our time, paying our dues, etc. and illegals just get to walk past the border with zero documentation and can get away with anything and the Democrats allow this? Gee, I wonder why so many Hispanics support Trump.
 
Not that I’m asking that legal immigrants get any special treatment either. Far be it from me, a conservative, to wish to receive something from the government. What I am asking for, however, is that we observe and respect the rule of law.
 
If there is one thing I disagree with Trump about is when he said something along the lines that most illegal immigrants are criminals, coming here and raping or dealing drugs or killing, etc. Most of them are not criminals. ALL OF THEM ARE! It’s in the name ILLEGAL immigrant. Even if you want to use the stupid PC version of it, “undocumented immigrant”, that still poses a legality problem. You can’t be here WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION!
 
So for those who are here illegally, I want them out. They have no RIGHT to be here. If they wish to come back in, they have to go through the proper, LEGAL process, in which case, they absolutely would have the right to be here. But until that happens, they need to get the hell out of this country.
 
And if Trump can manage to do that (of course, he’ll need the help of typically spineless Republicans, so it’s a tough road for him), then he’d garner even more Hispanic support. Because we don’t support him “despite” his tough immigration stance. We support him PRECISELY BECAUSE of his tough immigration stance. Those that fail to understand that are nothing but arrogant Leftist snobby elitists who have a seriously annoying superiority complex and an ironic “holier than thou” mindset who think they are better than the people they claim to “support”.
 
Exodus 12:49
“There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

For those of you who have been reading my articles for some time, you know pretty well that I do not like Pope Francis. I mean, sometimes he says the right things, but most of the time, his socialist self can’t help but come out of him and use God to perpetuate the idea that socialism is good, as often do many Leftists who have absolutely no idea about the character of God and only use Him as a political weapon when they can all-the-while they treat Him like He is, at best, an imaginary friend for people who are “stupid”.
 
Pope Francis isn’t all too different, and recently, in a message for the third annual World Day for the Poor, the supposed head of the Catholic Church disparaged the idea of countries building walls, claiming it was to keep those poor, defenseless, oft-exploited immigrants out. Of course, that couldn’t be further from the truth as the purpose of walls is to PROTECT THE CITIES AND NATIONS THEY SURROUND! Just look at Israel. Is it wrong that they want to protect themselves from radical Islamic terrorists who daily promise they will destroy, sack, pillage and rape the nation of Israel until there’s nothing left?
 
But in any case, here’s specifically what the Pope said:
 
“We can build any number of walls and close our doors in the vain effort to feel secure in our wealth, at the expense of those left outside. It will not be that way forever… The ‘day of the Lord,’ as described by the prophets, will destroy the barriers created between nations and replace the arrogance of the few with the solidarity of many.”
 
Okay, a few things here. First of all, while I already talked about Israel’s wall, there is one wall that is close to home for Il Papa. Vatican City itself is surrounded by a wall. Technically, Vatican City is its own nation, as well. So why isn’t the Pope suggesting they tear down that oppressive and wealth-separating monstrosity that separates Vatican City from the rest of Rome? And if wealth disparity is as big a deal to this guy as he says it is, why doesn’t he open the doors of the Papal Palace (or Apostolic Palace, if you wish to call it that) and let all those poor, starving immigrants in?
 
Of course, the answer is obvious: he’s a socialist. Socialists don’t believe they have to live by the rules they set up. Other people have to take care of the less fortunate, not they themselves. Bernie Sanders doesn’t have to give up any of his three huge homes to any poor person because he’s a socialist. Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Gore and all these other environmentalist wackos don’t have to reduce their carbon footprint, one of the biggest “threats” to the planet, because they are socialist themselves. They tell other people they have to reduce their carbon footprint, so they don’t have to do it themselves! See? It’s only logical and equal! (Legit, I’ve seen that argument be made that they don’t have to do anything about their own carbon footprint because they are talking about other people doing it, completely missing the irony in that hypocritical acknowledgment).
 
But I believe there are a couple of Bible verses that ought to speak to the Pope’s heart if he truly is a Christian. First, Matthew 7:5: “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
 
I’ve used this one plenty of times when talking about hypocrites. But of course, hypocrites don’t think of themselves as hypocrites. When called out on it, they will vehemently deny it, thinking they are doing the right thing.
 
But this next verse really ought to make the Pope think, especially considering where he gets to live: Romans 2:3: “Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
 
You see, the Pope doesn’t gain the Grace of God by telling other people they are selfish and should be more welcoming of immigrants when he himself LIVES IN A LITERAL PALACE PROTECTED BY THE VERY WALLS HE SUPPOSEDLY IS AGAINST!
 
The Pope is the Holy Book definition (was going to say “textbook”, but thought this made more sense) of a hypocrite: he lives in a palace, a house that an elite and wealthy few can claim they have lived in, in a city that is technically its own sovereign nation and surrounded by walls.
 
Meanwhile, he dislikes the idea of other countries building walls? Trump shouldn’t build a wall at the southern border so as to not keep out the dangerous criminals that take advantage of the poor infrastructure and traitorous Democrat legislators? Israel shouldn’t have a wall so as to not keep out the radical terrorists who wish to destroy them?
 
And what’s more, God is supposedly going to destroy those walls come judgment day? Not evil, not the unrighteous, not Satan, but the walls? That’s the other thing I wanted to talk about with that quote about the day of the Lord.
 
Hey, here’s another Bible verse for you, Frankie: Matthew 15:7-9: “You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
 
Often it is that we see people like Pope Francis doing this sort of thing – teaching the commandments of men as though they were doctrine from God.
 
Now, let’s move on to what the guy said about the poor in particular. For the sake of time, I will only quote a few things that are important:
 
“The marginalization painfully experienced by millions of persons cannot go on for long. Their cry is growing louder and embraces the entire earth… The inequitable distribution of wealth created a significant number of poor people, whose condition appeared all the more dramatic in comparison with the wealth attained by a privileged few… the poor are always poorer, and today they are poorer than ever.”
 
Just what in the world is he talking about? Wealth did not create poor people. PEOPLE ARE POOR BY NATURE! When born, someone’s net worth is zero. They don’t get money until they either start working or they are lucky enough to have parents who will give them an allowance. People create wealth, not the other way around. Out of poverty comes wealth if a person works smart and hard for it.
 
The Brookings Institution reported late last year: “2019 will start with the lowest prevalence of extreme poverty ever recorded in human history – less than 8 percent. In all likelihood, this level will set the ‘ceiling’ for a new era of even lower single-digit global poverty rates for the foreseeable future.”
 
The international poverty line defines someone as living under extreme poverty as being someone who lives on less than $1.90 per day or its equivalent. Today, less than 10% of the world lives in extreme poverty compared to just 30 years ago (1990), where around 37% lived in extreme poverty and compared to 200 years ago when almost EVERYONE lived in extreme poverty. Beyond that, poverty itself ($10 a day) is lower today than it ever was. So the poor are not getting poorer, they are becoming fewer.
 
Pope Francis is not only a massive hypocrite for telling other people to take care of poor, little immigrants when he doesn’t have to make any adjustments for himself to live by that very example, but he is also completely wrong and inaccurate in his claims.
 
Not that I think any of this will change his mind. I sincerely don’t think this guy is a Christian, just says he is out of convenience. He focuses far more on the works of Man than the works of God. Being socialist, he views governments as the solution to things like poverty, etc. He thinks it’s up to the government of other nations to take in these immigrants who will take advantage of the economic opportunities and not care to even try to assimilate into a new society and culture, clinging to their old ones and bashing the countries that take them in, harming its citizens, etc.
 
Newsflash: we are called to serve, not to be abused. I’d rather prioritize poor Americans over poor and ungrateful immigrants who are in all likelihood here illegally.
 
James 1:26
“If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

As we draw closer and closer to the 2020 election cycle, with all 200 Democrats getting ready for their first debates later on this month, pollsters are running their numbers again and pitting Trump against potential 2020 Democrat matchups and, surprise surprise, he’s “trailing” all of them by a significant deficit.
 
Quinnipiac University released their first 2020 matchup poll on Tuesday which has current Democrat frontrunner former VP Joe Biden leading the President by 13 points. Biden also leads Trump 60-34 among women and 47-46 among men. White voters are also split among them, but Trump leads Biden 47-46 here.
 
Biden also leads Trump among African-American and Hispanic voters, with Biden leading Trump 85-12 among African-Americans and 58-33 among Hispanics.
 
When it comes to the other Democrats, Trump supposedly doesn’t do much better. Crazy Bernie leads Trump 51-42, Kamala Harris leads Trump 49-41, Fauxcahontas leads Trump 49-42 and the Pence-obsessed South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Cory “Not So Smarticus” Booker lead Trump 47-42.
 
Non-college educated white voters are the only demographic where Trump seems to have a very solid lead against every Democrat candidate.
 
But looking at this poll as a whole, one might think that it’s over for Trump, right? That he’s going to get trounced. He’s finished. Done. Caput.
 
Well, there is a very good reason as to why I am so skeptical about polls that show these kinds of numbers, especially from Quinnipiac University. Well, reasons, not just one, but one major one.
 
Despite the fact it seems like Trump’s campaign will be swiftly defeated come November of 2020, there is one big factor at play here: this very same poll had Hillary Clinton winning by EVEN BIGGER MARGINS THAN THEY SHOW FOR BIDEN!
 
In this recent poll, Quinnipiac shows Biden leading Trump by 13 points. A good lead for Biden if that were to be the truth whatsoever. But the problem here comes in the fact that back in May of 2015, so basically the same time four years ago, Quinnipiac had Clinton leading Trump by 18 points (50-32).
 
What’s more, even among demographics like African-Americans and Hispanics, Hillary held more of the support than Biden does. Again, Biden supposedly has 85% of the African-American support. But Hillary had 88%. And when it comes to Hispanics, Trump’s numbers today (33%) are higher than they were in 2016 (28%).
 
So considering how astronomically wrong Quinnipiac wound up being in 2016, this current poll shouldn’t really elicit confidence for Trump haters. I imagine there will at least be some fairly rational Democrat voters who will remember how much of a “lead” Hillary had over Trump in 2016 and will be at least relatively skeptical about polls that show such wide margins between the two candidates. And yes, a decent portion of the Democrats will still likely be blaming the Russians for 2016 and will likely claim they helped Trump win re-election if he were to do so, but I am giving these Democrat voters some benefit of the doubt here. I don’t think they are all quite so stupid as to take these polls at face value, especially considering they’re even lower than Hillary’s were.
 
Now, that was only one of the components that leads me to be skeptical about these numbers. Not only was Quinnipiac SUPER wrong about the 2016 matchup, but these numbers are way too distant (in terms of time) from the actual election for them to hold any sort of meaning. You can run hypothetical matchups for any race even beyond the next one and that will matter very little.
 
And while we knew fairly well that Hillary was going to be the nominee in 2016, the answer is not quite so clear this time around. Sure, Biden is leading the other Democrats by a good bit but you never really know. Like I’ve said before in other articles, Hillary was in Joe’s place in 2007, leading the Democrat field, before she was beaten by Obama. So just because Biden is leading right now doesn’t mean he is a lock for the nomination in the first place.
 
This far out from the election, what these types of polls say don’t really matter all that much. I’ve even said the same of polls that show Trump winning. Like I always say, we’re still less than two years away from the election. A lot of things can happen between then and now and the vast majority of the things that will most heavily influence the election will not occur until a few weeks before the election takes place.
 
If the economy is roaring just as well, if not better, by November of next year, and if Trump can make the focus of the election about the economy as well, then he’ll almost certainly win. If you recall an article I wrote from March, I said that economists calculated Trump’s chances of victory and how many electoral and popular votes he is likely to garner (at least a percentage for the popular vote) and had him winning with a margin of 294 electoral votes, meaning he is likely to receive 416 electoral votes total (if the economists are correct, of course). In the history of the United States, there have been 14 elections where the total number of electoral votes was 538. 416 would be the sixth highest number in the 538 system, with only George H. W. Bush (who was riding on Reagan’s coattails), Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan twice getting more electoral votes.
 
So as far as the Quinnipiac poll (or any other poll) goes this early in the election cycle, to claim that Biden will likely beat Trump is mostly a pipe-dream. Again, Hillary’s numbers were far better than Biden is showing, had supposedly strong numbers all the way to the morning of election day where she was supposed to have like a 99% chance of winning and then wound up getting stomped.
 
What exactly will happen on election day only God knows. Of course, I pray to Him that He will allow Trump to be reelected, but as of right now, no one on Earth knows what will happen for certain.
 
With the way things are going, particularly considering Trump’s approval rating (which even Quinnipiac is showing a decent number at 42%, one point shy of his record in that poll) and given the current state of the economy, where even CNN’s polls show roughly 70% say it’s good, then there really is no reason for Trump to come out of the election a loser, especially considering he’s running on a strong economy and every Democrat is running on “we hate Trump”, which is hardly a unifying or beneficial message for the country.
 
Philippians 4:6
“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Yesterday, we looked at an argument the Left often makes about climate change, that man-made climate change causes severe weather events like hurricanes and the like. However, we found that nothing could be further from the truth and there is no actual link between climate change itself and extreme weather. Similarly, the Left makes the argument that abortion reduces crime rates, but that one is not only wrong (and we will see why that is in a moment), but is rooted in racism.
 
Dr. Brian Clowes is a pro-life researcher working for Human Life International and recently had an interview with LifeSiteNews discussing a research paper by economists John Donohue III and Steven Levitt titled: “The impact of legalized abortion on crime over the last two decades,” which is a paper that expands upon a study they published back in 2001 that essentially claimed the same things – that abortion reduces crime rates.
 
What the economists found is that crime rates dropped after 1973, which is something Clowes acknowledges in the interview. However, he asserts that the reason for this is “not because fewer people were born but because fewer people in the 25-40 age bracket were committing a crime. This was partly due, [Clowes] said, to improved police techniques and a reduction in the widespread use of crack cocaine.”
 
So there are two things to note here. First, older people were committing less crimes at least in part due to improved police techniques, improvements in technology and an overall reduction in the use of hardcore drugs such as cocaine, which really exploded in the 1980s. This much makes sense, as improving police techniques often leads to good results that impact crime rates in a good way.
 
The second thing to note is the actual age bracket used here: 25-40. Statistician David Murray, whom Clowes cites, confirmed that the majority of crimes committed in the U.S. are by males between the ages of 17 and 25. Both Clowes and Murray assert that if abortion truly did reduce crime rates, the number would have dropped in that age range first, not in older ranges, which is what the economists found.
 
Back in 2001, when the report was first released by the economists, Murray told Fox News that homicide rates did drop among that age group, but aggravated assault among that age group increased. While I don’t exactly have the data, it stands to reason that at least part of the reason for this is an improvement in the medical field to treat wounds that otherwise would’ve been fatal. And again, police techniques can also be attributed, at least to some extent. The point is that while one type of crime was reduced, a different type, which can often lead to the first type, increased significantly, rendering the economists’ findings irrelevant at best.
 
But there is one other major component that we must take into account when talking about this issue whatsoever. And that component is the simple fact that while the economists recorded a drop in crime rates int the U.S. since Roe v. Wade passed (which is really more correlation than causation, as far as we can see), similar data was not replicated outside the U.S.
 
What do I mean? Well, the United Kingdom legalized abortion in 1968. But according to LifeSiteNews, “Eighteen years later, crime was increasing across the country, precisely when Donohue and Levitt’s analysis would have predicted a decline.” The same could be said of Russia, which, despite the fact they have some of the highest abortion rates in the world (37.4 per 1000 women aged 15-44 as of 2010) with a peak of 5.5 million abortions performed in 1965, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, violent crimes in the country skyrocketed.
 
So not only do abortions not seem to cause a decrease in crimes, other countries in the world with far higher abortion rates and legalized abortion for longer periods found themselves with HIGHER crime rates than before. I won’t go as far as to say that abortions cause crime (though abortions help rapists get rid of the “evidence” of their misdeeds), but abortion seems to not have anything to do with decreased crime rates. Countries that have had legal abortion for longer periods of time than the U.S. and have higher rates of abortion don’t seem to see any drop in crimes at all.
 
And now, let’s get to the part about how that study is rooted in racism, shall we?
 
Clowes noted that murder rates among African Americans skyrocketed by more than 500% from 1984 to 1993 despite the fact that African American women have abortions three times more often than white women do. Yet another example of the rates absolutely going the opposite way that the pro-abortion economists claimed they would go.
 
Clowes then went on to assert that both studies reflect a “eugenics mentality”. Clowes even went as far as to say that “the racism of eugenics and Planned Parenthood advocate Margaret Sanger is revealed in the assumptions found in Donohue and Levitt’s study,” according to LifeSiteNews.
 
“The unstated assertion behind all of this is that black people supposedly commit more crime than white people,” Clowes said. And given not only the rates at which a black woman is more likely to get an abortion than a white woman, but also the amount of times PP clinics emphasize going to minority neighborhoods and also target minority women, as well as the fact that Margaret Sanger considered black people to be “weeds”, you can logically observe that the study that makes the claim that abortion reduces crime rates are heavily rooted in racism.
 
The claim alone, considering the rates at which minorities will be more likely to get abortions, sounds rooted in racism. Another way to write that claim would be: “Abortion of minorities leads to reduced crime rates!” So while the economists don’t explicitly talk about minorities, the claims they make (which are wrong anyway) suggest that it’s good that minorities are having so many abortions because they create less criminals.
 
Now doesn’t that sound wrong to your ears? Well, it should, given just how incredibly wrong these two economists (and by extension, all who use their research) are when it comes to their positions. Abortion does not reduce crime. Neither do we see that actually happen in the U.S. nor do we see that happen outside the U.S. in countries like the U.K. and Russia, which actually show an increase in crime. But beyond that, it is racist to claim that abortion reduces crime because the vast majority of people who get abortions are minorities.
 
So the next time someone cites these economists and claims abortion reduces crime, remind them that minorities get abortions more often than white people, so that is the same thing as to say that minorities cause more crimes and aborting them reduces those crime rates. In other words, you can (rather credibly) call them racist and have some data to back up that claim that often gets thrown around so much.
 
Romans 16:18
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One argument the Left often makes is that any particular hurricane or tornado (or any extreme weather event at all) that occurs is directly linked to climate change and we need to stop it otherwise we will all die. One such example was a tornado that hit some Southern states and devastated homes and lives, which people like AOC say it’s climate change’s fault (and by proxy, Republicans’ fault because we “deny that the climate is changing” when what we deny is that WE are the cause of it).
 
Apocalyptic stuff to be certain, but not backed by science at all.
 
And as a matter of fact, this much has been (or should have been) known for years now.
 
You see, Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist working for the University of Colorado and used to perform “world-leading research on climate change and extreme weather,” according to the Financial Post. Key word there being “used to”, as he has, since 2015, quit the field he was studying for reasons we will soon get to.
 
Roger Pielke Jr. was one of 31 other leading climate scientists who gathered in Hohenkammer, Germany to study research they had gathered relating to climate change and climate-related damages like extreme weather events. This is where the Hohenkammer Consensus Statement came from, as it was named after the German town. Keep in mind that this was in the year 2006.
 
The scientists ultimately concluded that any trend of rising “climate damages” were primarily due to increased population densities and economic activity in the path of storms and that it was, at this time, not possible to determine what portion of those damages can be attributed to greenhouse gases, which is something they don’t expect to change in the near future at least.
 
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report in 2007 which only sort of agreed with the findings of the Hohenkammer Consensus, but also included an unpublished study, going so far as to even highlight it in their Summary for Policymakers, according to the Financial Post, which suggested a link between greenhouse gases and storm-related damages. But interestingly enough, the author of the study (who was also the one who put the study into the IPCC report) later went on to admit his claim was incorrect, “and when the study was finally published, denied the connection,” according to the Financial Post.
 
So the IPCC looked at the Hohenkammer Consensus, took interest in the parts about the population and economic activity, ignored that they were the main culprits of storm-related damages and included an unpublished study that suggested there was a link between climate change and storm-related damages, something the Hohenkammer Consensus vehemently denies, and even highlighted that unpublished study so that policymakers, the people that actually can make any legislative changes, got to see that unpublished study specifically? Yeah, that totally doesn’t sound like the IPCC is in any way corrupt and biased.
 
For the record, that’s not to say that I am surprised by this at all. I merely am pointing this out because the argument Leftists often make about climatologists that don’t agree we’re killing our planet is that those climatologists are “paid off” by, say, big oil companies or some other such nonsense. Based on what we just read, we can see that the IPCC, while maybe is not necessarily being paid off (though they most likely are), is most definitely corrupt in some manner and wishes to highlight a particular narrative, even if the report they received and used for their own reporting completely disagrees.
 
But in any case, what is also interesting is that the IPCC in 2012 released another report called the “Special Report on Extreme Weather” which actually agreed with the Hohenkammer Consensus about population growth and economic changes being what can mostly be attributed to extreme weather events and that there is no statistical connection between climate change and extreme weather. So, for once, the IPCC did not act according to its rather corrupt nature. Kudos to them, I guess.
 
Regardless, returning to Pielke, because his story is not quite done here, he actually went before Congress to relay the information found in the IPCC (which the government tends to rely on and heavily trust). However, Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren, “accused [Pielke] of misleading Congress and launched a lengthy but ill-informed attack on Pielke, which prompted congressional Democrats to open an investigation into Pielke’s sources of funding (which quickly fizzled amid benign conclusions). Meanwhile heavily funded left-wing groups succeeded in getting him fired from a popular internet news platform. In 2015 Pielke quit the climate field.”
 
What we have read here is the story of a climate scientist who, with science and a source the government trusts an awful lot, challenged (and pretty much disproved) the idea that climate change causes things like hurricanes and other extreme weather events.

But that is not simply an idea that people have, it’s an outright narrative the Left will often use. “Oh, this state was barraged by a hurricane? That has never happened before this past century! Clearly we are killing our planet with our capitalism!” is what ill-informed nincompoops like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and virtually every other Democrat will spread so that they can cause people to fear something that is not actually happening (at least because of us) and lead people to vote for politicians who will claim to be Captain Planet and the Planeteers (a show which is really a by-product of this whole b.s.) and pass legislation that is supposed to combat climate change like it’s our generation’s World War II but does nothing but bankrupt people and the entire nation.
 
And the Financial Post says something that really makes a lot of sense: “The continual claim of such a link is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes. Powerful people get away with it because so few people know what the numbers show. Many scientists who know better remain silent. And the few who push back against the propaganda, such as Roger Pielke Jr., find themselves on the receiving end of abuse and career-threatening attacks, even though they have all the science in their corner. Something has gotten scary and extreme, but it isn’t the weather.”
 
That’s precisely right. People who continue to perpetuate the now-debunked claim only spread misinformation and are either politicians themselves, who often benefit from such misinformation with donation money and votes, or people who are equally as misinformed and simply believe this is the case just because other people say that is the case.
 
If these politicians had been around when Copernicus disproved Geocentricity, people would still go around thinking that the Earth is the center of the universe. And this is precisely why I say that the Left only does a disservice to science. Not only do they claim that genetics don’t determine someone’s gender and not only do they claim that a human fetus is not actually human, they claim that we are killing our planet and that climate change is the reason for hurricanes and tornadoes and wildfires and whatever else happens.
 
But none of that is rooted in science whatsoever. Simple biology tells us what determines someone’s gender: chromosomes. A male will have XY chromosomes and a female will have XX chromosomes. There’s no third option here.
 
A human fetus is, of course, human. It’s not a bird, is it? And matter of fact, there are far more laws protecting things like turtle eggs, which are basically the same thing as fetuses for turtles, but people insist that it’s okay to kill humans inside the womb? No one can credibly claim that a fetus is not human. If not human, then what is it? A car? A phone? An entirely different species?
 
And climate change is not caused by people, as there have been extreme changes in the Earth’s climate LONG before people were around, certainly enough to supposedly be able to affect anything. And as far as the particular topic of extreme weather goes, as we have seen from multiple sources, there is no link between climate change and extreme weather phenomenon.
 
Not one of the hurricanes that have occurred has been a result of climate change. Not one tornado, not one wildfire, etc. Matter of fact, the last 50 years have been awfully quiet when it comes to hurricanes and we have only seen a DECREASE in hurricane flooding since 1965. As far as tornadoes go, 2012 to 2017 was below average, according to the Financial Post. And cold snaps and heatwaves are both also down, suggesting a more balanced climate rather than a volatile one.
 
Not that any of this will matter whatsoever. To politicians, any narrative they can spread that will make people fear the boogeyman and leads them to support said politicians will be pushed more and more aggressively. And the actual scientists who know this is a load of crap will either try and fight back against it, risking their very careers because powerful people disagree with scientific findings and want science to say whatever politicians want it to say, completely poisoning the very soul of science, while others will see what is happening to other scientists who speak and will simply choose to comply; get on board with the politicians for some extra money (be it in funding or something else) or will simply keep their mouths shut, not agreeing but not disagreeing either out of fear of the actual threat to the planet: the Left.
 
But the thing about the truth is that it is always revealed eventually. Lies can only be maintained for so long. I believe and certainly hope that the idea that we are causing the climate to warm up or cool down (or both, somehow) will be more directly challenged in mainstream society and that fake scientists like Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson eventually admit they were just shilling for the Left. Doubt that last part will happen, though.
 
Luke 8:17
“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I have often times drawn comparisons between abortion and slavery, making different points about the similarities between the people who claim abortion is a “right”, similar to how old Southern Democrats claimed slavery was a “right”, and other similar points. But I am 23 years old and only became this nuanced with regards to the topic some years ago. But in Raleigh, North Carolina during a city council meeting, a 13-year-old girl made her case for making abortion illegal and comparing it to slavery (video below).
 
The girl began: “My name is Addison Woolsey. I strongly believe that abortion is murder. I also believe murder is wrong, so I’m here to ask you to make abortion illegal in Raleigh. Abortion should be illegal because it’s murder. The definition of murder is the killing of one human being by another without justification and acting with intended malice. When mothers choose to slaughter their innocent babies they already have fingerprints, noses; they can recognize their mom’s voice. They can hiccup and their heart is beating… On ultrasounds the baby tries to run away from the disturbing instruments that try to kill the baby. The baby’s mouth opens wide in a scream when being killed. These babies are alive. They feel being killed. It hurts them and there is nothing they can do about it. There is no way around it. Abortion is murder.”
 
That in itself drew a few negative reactions from pro-abortion people in the crowd, which is to be expected. Even I was surprised at what the girl was saying.
 
Again, she is only 13 years old and is already so much wiser than probably 70% of the people in that room; certainly more-so than the pro-abortion crowd. She understands, at such an early age, just how horrific abortion is and fully understands that it’s nothing short of murder.
 
Do you want to know what I was mainly worried about when I was 13? Completing Grand Theft Auto IV. Finishing a video game was the most important thing for me at the time. I was aware that Obama was President, but I could not care less at the time. And while everyone was making a big fuss about him being the first black president, all I thought was “huh, cool, I guess. I mean, I don’t honestly care what his race is, but whatever,” and then went on with my day. Heck, even when I was 14, 15 and 16, I didn’t care all that much about politics (until around the 2012 election came around, at least).
 
My main priorities at the time were getting enough passing grades to graduate on time and getting a good kill/death ratio in the newest Call of Duty game. That’s it, and here we have a thirteen-year-old girl who is far more intelligent than I certainly was at the time and far more nuanced.
 
In any case, she continued: “There’s no way around it. Abortion is murder. So why is it if an infant is destroyed before birth there’s no problem but if killed after birth it’s considered a brutal murder? These babies aren’t ‘it’s’ or ‘fetuses’; they are human beings and they deserve to get the same human rights as any other person. As good ole’ Dr. Seuss said: ‘a person’s a person no matter how small.’”
 
She then also went on to quote scripture, specifically Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you a prophet to the nations.” And while obviously that verse was specific to Jeremiah, it does speak that God knows every single one of us before He formed us in our mothers’ womb. That part I liked a lot.
 
But later came the part that had the pro-abortion people shouting at her to stop talking and overall causing a ruckus:
 
“Abortion reminds me of slavery. Owners said that their slaves were their property and they could do whatever they wanted with them. Just how moms feel about their babies. My hope is that in a few years we’ll look back at abortion and think, ‘That was so cruel. I can’t believe we did that.’ Just how I look back at slavery. The question is, who will you be? The slave owner?... Rosa Parks? Or Abraham Lincoln? Who are you going to be? Make a choice. My choice is made. I’m here today standing up for what’s right. I’m here today speaking for those who can’t speak for themselves. Are you choosing to be like the plantation owner flogging the little black child?”
 
Absolutely powerful stuff that hits the nail right on the head. Many of the same arguments pro-abortion people make are the same ones pro-slavery people made back in the day. “It’s my body, my choice” is awfully similar to “it’s my property to do with as I wish.” “They are not humans, they’re fetuses” is as ridiculous as “they are not humans, they are property”.
 
And if you really want to take it one step farther, it is equally as easy to draw comparisons between abortion and the Holocaust.
 
The slave owners at least had the decency to not try and kill what they considered their property. But pro-aborts, like the Nazis, aim to kill groups of people.
 
Let’s not forget Margaret Sanger herself acknowledged her desire to rid the world of what she considered “weeds” and “imbeciles”: the black race. But of course, black people aren’t the only ones Planned Parenthood targets, similar to how Jews weren’t the only targets of the Nazis.
 
Planned Parenthood also targets Hispanics such as myself. The Nazis also targeted those who were not of the Aryan race. And even those Hitler didn’t kill he still held disdain for. He thought of the Italians as lesser people to the Aryan race because they were a darker skin tone; more Mediterranean.
 
Planned Parenthood also targets people with disabilities like Down Syndrome, autism, etc. Guess who were some of the first targets of the Nazis? Lame people; people with disabilities who were deemed to be holding back the human race.
 
But whatever you wish to compare it to, abortion is as horrific and wrong as those two things were.
 
Addison then continued speaking, even talking over some of the protests: “Are you choosing to be like the plantation owner flogging the little black child? Or are you going to protest even if it is going to cost you your life like Martin Luther King Jr.? Who are you going to be? If you think abortion should be illegal, would you please stand up? We need to change the law so that we can change the world. So let’s stand up and do it.”
 
An absolutely wonderful statement to make to her City Council. And again, she is just 13 years old. She must have pretty great and smart parents for her to not only be nuanced enough about abortion but to also be brave enough to go up to speak at a podium to the City Council, knowing full-well that there are others there who disagree and not knowing how they might react, but still speaking anyway.
 
One of the women in the pro-abortion side even started to yell at her after she finished about how she was being “inappropriate”. Odd that she finds that a thirteen-year-old comparing abortion to slavery is more “inappropriate” than the advocacy of infant slaughter.
 
If you go back to the beginning of her statement, she clearly remarked that babies in the womb have fingerprints, noses, heartbeats, can recognize their mom’s voice and can hiccup – many characteristics of something that is ALIVE. She also remarked that the babies FEEL BEING KILLED and have no alternatives; no voice; no personal choice to make. Their entire lives are being ended by a choice they did not make and could not make. They were being eliminated in the place where they ought to feel the safest and FEEL WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THEM AS THEY ARE MURDERED! They cry out in pain when they are being killed.
 
Comparing abortion to slavery is not inappropriate. ADVOCATING FOR THE SLAUGHTER OF CHILDREN IS! And at the end of the day, that’s exactly what is being advocated here. It’s not women’s rights; no man or woman has the right to kill another person including their unborn child. It’s not women’s liberation; no one is free by being enslaved by sin. It’s not women’s healthcare; healthcare is about helping and saving people, not killing them. It’s about people’s supposed “right” to have all the sex they want without repercussions. It’s about people’s supposed “right” to eliminate any life that is deemed inconvenient to them. It’s about women’s supposed “right” to be used and abused by men all their lives.
 
Abortion is one of the most anti-woman things that one can advocate for. It’s one of the most anti-woman procedures one can do.
 
The fact this little girl understands so well precisely what abortion is and how horrible it is truly warms my heart. And like her, I also hope one day we will look back at abortion with the same lenses as we do slavery, recognizing how utterly inhumane those things were.
 
God bless her and her family.
 
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Yesterday was the 75th anniversary of one of the most significant battles in world history. The landing at Normany Beach on June 6th, 1944 is remembered most often as D-Day. Even for those who know very little of World War II and the actual battles that took place, just about everyone knows what D-Day is and for good reason. All things considered, it was the battle that secured the world’s freedom, at least from Nazism.
 
And in remembrance of this day, President Trump delivered what is perhaps one of his best speeches as President. So good, in fact, that even CNN’s Jim Acosta and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinksi praised it.
 
“This is perhaps the most on-message moment of Donald Trump’s presidency today. We were all wondering if he would veer from his remarks, go off of his script but he stayed on script, stayed on message and, I think, rose to the moment as he was talking about the men gathered behind them he described them as being among the greatest Americans who have ever lived. That could not be more of a fact check true if we could have found one,” remarked Acosta.
 
He continued: “It was really one of those moments that Donald Trump needed to rise to in order to, I think, walk away from the cemetery, walk away from this hallowed ground and have people back at home saying, ‘You know what, no matter what I think about the current President of the United States, he said the right thing at Normandy. He did the right thing at Normandy.’ He really hit all of the right moments, I think moments, in that speech when he was paying respect to these heroes who were still with us.”
 
Mika remarked of Trump’s speech: “Trump’s speech… was very good, and measured up to the moment. It really was a true salute to the unity of this day. He spoke about not only the sacrifices that were made, but our allies and the importance of unity. It was a really good speech.”
 
Scarborough replied: “It did measure up to the moment, as you said. It seems that Ronald Reagan… really set the stage for these commemorations… Other presidents did not fare quite as well. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush come to mind. But Willy, the President, President Trump had several high moments. Of course, we’ll all be talking about the men that he spoke of. But there will be headlines from this speech. And certainly across Europe at least, among our allies, they will be positive headlines. The President again talking about British resolve and French valor, talking about the fighting Poles, talking about the intrepid Aussies, but also talking about an alliance that was forged in War, strengthened in peace, and was unbreakable today.”
 
He continued: “And there was one especially beautiful moment, and I loved the thought because any World War II documentary you see… they will tear up and they will say the heroes are the ones that never came back. Well, President Trump said that that’s what these heroes were saying. The heroes were the ones buried here. And yet, he went on to talk about the remarkable life that was created by this generation.”
 
There were also others like David Ignatius of The Washington Post who remarked that Trump “hit pretty much every note right.”
 
Now, while I won’t write word for word what Trump said in his roughly 5-minute speech, I will highlight some parts that I think were quite special.
 
First, and perhaps most importantly, he noted that the men who lost their lives, who shed their blood, did so “for their brothers, for their countries, and for the survival of liberty.”
 
In the moment, no one knows how significant something is. The storming of the beaches of Normandy was a massive pivotal moment in the war, planned for months by the top brass of many nations in the Allied forces, and executed with a decisive victory for the Allies. While many young men died in battle, their sacrifice helped ultimately rid the world of one of the world’s most evil empires. No one, except God, knew what would happen in the moment and what would come of it. But Trump is right in saying that this battle was one for the survival of liberty. Civilization itself was won there.
 
Next, Trump mentioned our allies during the war and the work our countries put in to ensure freedom:
 
“There were the British, whose nobility and fortitude saw them through the worst of Dunkirk and the London Blitz. The full violence of Nazi fury was no match for the full grandeur of British pride… There were the Canadians, whose robust sense of honor and loyalty compelled them to take up arms alongside Britain from the very, very beginning. There were the fighting Poles, the tough Norwegians, and the intrepid Aussies. There were the gallant French commandos, soon to be met by thousands of their brave countrymen ready to write a new chapter in the long history of French valor. And, finally, there were the Americans. They came from the farms of a vast heartland, the streets of glowing cities, and the forges of mighty industrial towns. Before the war, many had never ventured beyond their own community. Now they had come to offer their lives half a world from home.”
 
One of the points that even Joe Scarborough liked, Trump made sure to remember that what Normandy was was a battle between good and evil, a battle that saw countries who have had long histories of animosity towards one another (France and Britain being prime examples, the U.S. and Britain, etc.) forget the past so that they could ensure the world’s future. Their sacrifice ought to remind us what good we can do for the world.
 
Then, Trump made sure to remember the multitude of men who sacrificed their very lives to ensure Allied victory, going through the numerous battalions, regiments, and armed forces, remembering the words of soldiers who saw victory as the one and only priority, with Colonel George Taylor, of the 16th Infantry Regiment (a regiment that was part of the first wave) remarking when asked what would happen if the Germans stopped them right there: “Why, the 18th Infantry is coming in right behind us. The 26th Infantry will come on too. Then there is the 2nd Infantry Division already afloat. And the 9th Division. And the 2nd Armored. And the 3rd Armored. And all the rest. Maybe the 16th won’t make it, but someone will.”
 
What was important right then and there is not their survival, people’s most primal instinct, but victory for their countries. If the 16th Infantry Regiment didn’t succeed, someone else would, and would have to. That is how important this day was 75 years ago: failure was not an option.
 
Trump then went on to tell multiple stories of different soldiers and even of a farm wife who lived near to the beaches of Normandy, scared to death of the battle happening nearby and crying tears of joy when a soldier went into her house and said to her: “I’m an American. I’m here to help.”
 
Trump then said something that nearly brought me to tears (which would’ve been manly tears, I assure you):
 
“From across the Earth, Americans are drawn to this place as though it were a part of our very soul. We come not only because of what they did here. We come because of who they were. They were young men with their entire lives before them. They were husbands who said goodbye to their young brides and took their duty as their fate. They were fathers who would never meet their infant sons and daughters because they had a job to do. And with God as their witness, they were going to get it done. They came wave after wave, without question, without hesitation, without complaint. More powerful than the strength of American arms was the strength of American hearts. These men ran through the fires of hell moved by a force no weapon could destroy: the fierce patriotism of a free, proud, and sovereign people. They battled not for control and domination, but for liberty, democracy, and self-rule. They pressed on for love in home and country – the Main Streets, the schoolyards, the churches and neighbors, the families and communities that gave us men such as these. They were sustained by the confidence that America can do anything because we are a noble nation with a virtuous people, praying to a righteous God.”
 
The average age of a soldier during World War II was 26. I will be that age in less than three years and could not picture myself being in a land I had never seen before, fighting a terrifying enemy, being 99% certain that I was living my last day on Earth. The human mind cannot remain sane living with the thought and knowledge that it was about to die. We are not wired to think so much of our own mortalities and being faced with them so aggressively.
 
That is why this battle is so incredible. Bravery is not the absence of fear; it’s taking action despite fear. I have no doubt that most, if not all, of the soldiers there were afraid. But they made sure to put that fear aside to get the job done. Again, their survival was not their priority. For humans and animals alike, survival is the number one priority always. But not here. Victory came before survival. If they were going to forego their own lives, they were going to do so fighting for one of the best fights you can get involved with: liberty.
 
That generation is considered the greatest generation and for a very good reason. What we are today is a result of what they did back then. We owe a great debt to that generation that we simply could not repay if we tried.
 
Now if only the Left wasn’t actively trying to undo the sacrifices so many of the best Americans have made.
 
Hebrews 13:16
“Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

When it comes to the issue of morality, I will always reply with the ever-true statement that morality comes from God, as He was the one who created this planet and us, and thus decides what is considered morally righteous and morally bankrupt.
 
Of course, despite this, man is naturally evil. That is not to say we are horrible beings that always cause harm and do evil deeds no matter what, but we are totally depraved in as far as the original sin committed by Adam and Eve upon their disobedience to God lives within us all and we can only be forgiven by Jesus Christ. But of course, not everyone is forgiven by Him, so there are those who are often morally depraved but believe themselves to be morally in the right.
 
A recent Gallup poll shows this to some extent.
 
The poll covered a total of 21 topics relating to their moral acceptability; things like gambling, abortion, the death penalty, etc.
 
While the title focuses mostly on pre-marital sex and adultery, and while I will be covering those topics, I would like to explore as many of the 21 topics in the poll and talk in large about morality in general. I won’t get to every single one for the sake of time, just the ones that I believe I should talk about.
 
The topic that was viewed as most morally acceptable is birth control, with 92% of people saying they believe it is morally acceptable and only 6% saying it is morally wrong. Personally, I do not entirely disagree with this.
 
My biggest issue about birth control is that abortion is often considered to be a part of it. However, things like “the pill” or condoms I do not consider to be morally wrong, personally. That being said, of course, this issue is often at least somewhat tied to pre-marital sex, which I wholeheartedly disagree with (and we’ll get to that). However, I do not necessarily consider birth control options outside of abortion to be a bad thing. And as far as the Bible goes, well, you are not likely to find much about this at all. That is why I default to simply being against abortion under this circumstance because I know full-well that the Bible speaks often of the value of life and the love the Lord has for us on an individual basis.
 
Next came drinking alcohol, with 79% of people saying it is morally acceptable. This one I can bring the Bible to discuss. Obviously, getting drunk is a big no-no. Verses like Ephesians 5:18: “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,” and Proverbs 20:1: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise,” are only some that speak against drunkenness. However, particularly with verses like Proverbs, there appears to be at least some moral acceptance of alcohol, provided it does not lead someone to get drunk and debauch and to overall sin against the Lord, being led astray by it. Similar to how it is okay to seek wealth, as long as it does not lead you from the path of the Lord, I think drinking alcohol is okay so long as you are not led astray by it and it causes you to debauch yourself and others. And let us not forget that Jesus turned water into wine, so it is not morally wrong to consume alcohol. Personally, though, I would not drink alcohol because of the long-term effects it can cause to the body and its risk for addiction.
 
Then comes the issue of divorce, with 77% of people believing it to be morally acceptable and 20% saying it’s unacceptable. I know depending on the denomination, different Christians will hold different views on it. Personally, I think divorce is okay under the following circumstances:
 
   1) The marriage is abusive to either partner. If someone is being verbally, mentally or physically abused, then divorce is okay especially because of the following point. 
 
  2) One or more of the partners is not a Christian. If someone is abusive of another person, the abuser is not really a Christian, even if they were to claim to be so. If the marriage is not a union under the Lord, it is not a true, Christian marriage. Receiving a marriage certificate may make you and your spouse legally married as far as the country’s laws go, but that does not necessarily mean you are married in God’s eyes. A marriage is a holy matrimony; a union not only between two people, but among two people and God, with God at the head of the marriage. 
 
So when it comes to divorce, I believe it is okay under certain conditions, but I believe it should be avoided by two Christians if the reasons for them desiring to divorce are petty and fixable. Just saying “I don’t love him/her like I used to” is not a good enough reason.
 
Next comes sex between an unmarried man and woman, with 71% saying it’s acceptable and 28% saying it’s not. No doubt, the Bible speaks against this. This constitutes adultery. Having sex with anyone who is not your spouse is considered adultery, even if you do not have a spouse.
 
I am reminded of a twitter debate I have spoken of already around the time Alabama passed one of the most pro-life laws in the country, the topic of pre-marital sex came up (somewhat) and I was mocked for believing it to be good to not have sex until marriage and being darn proud of believing this. That only goes to show the kind of thinking the secular world has brought about.
 
Next comes gambling, with 68% saying it’s acceptable and 31% saying it’s not. Now, gambling is not explicitly covered in the Bible. It largely speaks about wealth and riches, with verses like Proverbs 13:11 saying: “Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it,” and 1 Timothy 6:10 saying: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
 
Again, it’s the love of money, not necessarily the pursuit of it, that is sinful and evil. So I am not quite sure about this one. Personally, I don’t mind if people gamble, but wouldn’t do it myself because of the risk of addiction (and I consider it a massive waste of money anyway).
 
After this comes smoking marijuana, with 65% deeming it morally acceptable and 33% disagreeing. As with other things, drugs are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. However, one verse in particular ought to stand out: 1 Corinthians 6:19-20: “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
 
This verse speaks highly of our own bodies. But beyond that, it speaks largely to Christians. The part about being bought with a price does not apply to non-Christians – to those whom God has not elected to be saved. If anything, the verse speaks about Christians not doing anything to their own bodies, for it is God’s. So if God decries doing such things to our bodies, the conclusion one must reach is that any intake of things that mess with it in such a way is morally wrong (yes, I know alcohol could technically count here too, but it largely becomes a problem for your body when you have too much alcohol in your system and when you have been drinking alcohol for a long time, leading to your bodily systems and organs to decay as a result. Drugs have a more immediate negative effect on your body, particularly the brain, and it’s more severe).
 
Afterwards comes stem cell research, with 64% finding it acceptable and 31% disagreeing. Obviously, this one falls in a similar category as abortion does in general (speaking of which, it is at an interesting 42% finding it acceptable and 50% finding it unacceptable, mirroring a recent poll from Harvard/Harris). Stem cell research stems (pun intended) from fetal tissue – more specifically, from a dead fetus. More often than not, aborted fetuses are used for this type of research, so don’t be surprised if the Bible deems this to be immoral.
 
Next is having a baby outside of marriage, with 64% saying it is morally acceptable and 34% disagreeing. Similar to pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex, considering the act of having a baby results on having sex, this is also morally wrong. That’s not to deem the baby to be less than human – he or she is still loved by the Lord – but having a child outside of marriage is not morally right.

In Genesis 38, we learn of Judah and Tamar. Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law, though a widow. At one point, Tamar went to Timnah, where Judah was also going to shear his sheep. While she was wearing her widow’s garments at the time, she had taken them off because her groom-to-be, whom she was promised by Judah, Shelah, Judah’s other son, was grown up and she desired to be ready for him. However, in taking off those widows’ garments and putting on a veil, covering her face, she made herself look like a prostitute of the time. Judah saw her, thought she was a prostitute, and slept with her, even conceiving with her (like I’ve said multiple times, the Bible is filled with sinners). When it was found out she was pregnant, Genesis 38:24 says: “About three months later Judah was told, ‘Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.’ And Judah said, ‘Bring her out, and let her be burned.’”
 
Yes, Judah is a hypocrite here, something he himself acknowledges later in that chapter when they discover the baby is his and they don’t burn her, but we can see clearly that child-conception outside of marriage is deemed to be morally unacceptable. Judah is a sinner here, as is Tamar, who accepted to lay with her father-in-law, and their child-making (though I doubt they intended to do it) was marred in immorality and unrighteousness.
 
Next comes gay or lesbian relations, with 63% believing it is morally acceptable and 35% disagreeing. This is the easiest one to make a case against. Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
 
Suffice to say that same-sex relations are not morally acceptable by any means. Now, while I would not wish to put to death people who do this, I understand that what they do is, indeed, an abomination that would lead them to the ultimate death, the second death, should they not repent of their sins. As I’ve said time and time again, homosexuality is a sin. All sins lead to death if not repented for and forgiven by Christ.
 
Now, while there are other topics that I would like to cover more, like doctor-assisted suicide, suicide in general, sex between teenagers, etc., the last item I will talk about is extra-marital affairs, with only 9% believing it to be morally acceptable and 89% saying it is not morally acceptable.
 
This, as with pre-marital sex, is morally unacceptable according to God. But all things considered, I’m not really all that surprised to see that people think pre-marital sex is fine but extra-marital sex is not. Extra-marital sex is a betrayal from one of the partners. No one wants to be betrayed like this. It’s more of an emotional issue to most people than necessarily a moral one.
 
But then again, many of these answers can be answered in a similar, emotional manner. Those who say things like pre-marital sex and same-sex relationships are okay do so with emotions in mind, be it their own or someone else's. Sex feels good and people don’t like it when you point out that it’s wrong to do so outside of marriage.
 
But this is why morality has to have an absolute source. Morality cannot be dictated by society, else morality fails to be morality and becomes normality – what is considered normal. In this day and age, pre-marital sex is considered normal, but that doesn’t make it moral. 71% of people deeming pre-marital sex to be moral does not actually make it moral.
 
Often times, people deem moral what is immoral and immoral what is moral. I know perfectly well that Hitler viewed his actions to be perfectly moral and acceptable. To him, he was getting rid of people who were holding humanity back. The search for the ubermench was seen as perfectly moral. But what he did was entirely immoral. It’s not simply that people would agree today that that was immoral, but that speaking in absolute moral terms, according to God’s morality, what Hitler did was abhorrent.
 
So that is why morality cannot be determined by society. What is moral today may not be tomorrow and vice versa. But that’s not absolute morality. Morality, as I’ve repeated countless times, comes from God.
 
As the Ruler of the Universe, as King, God is the one who determines what is moral and immoral. Man has absolutely no right to determine morality given our original sin. We sinned against God. We are God’s creatures. Who are we to determine what is right and wrong when we are NATURALLY EVIL!?
 
Isaiah 5:20
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet for bitter.”
 
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!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
​