In what is perhaps a rather interesting twist of events, the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) released a “fact sheet” regarding the U.S. Women’s soccer team as part of a lawsuit filed by the Women’s team against the USSF alleging pay discrimination due to gender. As it turns out, the U.S. Women’s soccer team was LOSING the USSF money for most of the past decade, but they still were paid more money overall than the Men’s soccer team.
 
Just so there is no confusion and contradiction to my other article regarding the Women’s team being paid, the USSF and FIFA are two different organizations. If you remember, FIFA pays its male players roughly $400 million and its female players $30 million. As I said from that other article, from that alone, you would think there was gender discrimination, but I asserted that the Men’s team generate more revenue than the Women’s team, so they have a larger pool of money to receive (and the Women are paid a larger percentage from the smaller pool than the Men do in the larger pool).
 
But the USSF is slightly different. Back in June, the Women’s team released info saying that they brought in more revenue than the Men’s team did ($50.8M vs. $49.9M, so barely any difference, but still enough to drive their point). However, there are a number of things that actually hurt the Women’s team in their suit.
 
First, as it stands, that number has not been confirmed, as far as I can tell. They COULD be right, but given some statistics that we will see later on, I have my doubts regarding this.
 
Second, there is one major difference between the Women’s team and the Men’s team that affects wages, and that’s that one receives a base salary of $100,000, plus bonuses of $67,500 to $72,500 for playing in a national soccer league, while the other is not paid a base salary at all. The gender that is paid a base salary and bonuses is the female gender. The men are only paid bonuses for games.
 
What’s more, the Women’s team receives other benefits such as a 401k, health insurance, which includes maternity leave and injury protection. The men don’t receive such benefits.
 
Third, the USSF claimed that they actually pay women more than they do men. According to The Daily Wire: “USSF claimed that it paid women $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses and ‘we paid our men $26.4 million – not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that our women’s players receive but which our men do not.’”
 
So if the USSF is correct, they are actually paying women MORE than men, simply due to salaries + game and other bonuses.
 
The USSF also claimed that the “hypothetical per game comparison” often used in Leftists’ arguments regarding gender wage discrimination (as far as soccer goes) isn’t exactly plausible because neither team has ever played 20 friendly matches in a year: “That said, if the men and women ever did play in and win 20 friendlies in a year and were paid the average bonus amount, a women’s player would earn more from U.S. Soccer than the men’s player – the women’s player would earn at least $307,500 (WNT and NWSL salaries, plus game bonuses) and the men’s player would earn $263,333 (game bonuses only),” according to the USSF.
 
But perhaps what is most damning for the Women’s case against the USSF is the following:
 
“From 2009 through 2019 – a timeframe that includes two Women’s World Cup championships – the Women’s National Team has earned gross revenue of $101.3 million over 238 games, for an average of $425,446 per game, and the Men’s National Team has earned gross revenue of $185.7 million over 191 games, for an average of $972,147 per game. More specifically, WNT games have generated a net profit (ticket revenues minus event expenses) in only two years (2016 and 2017). Across the entire 11-year period, WNT games generated a net loss of $27.5 million. Nevertheless, U.S. Soccer does not view these as losses, bur rather as an important investment in our Women’s National Team and in the long-term growth of women’s soccer.”
 
In other words, the Women’s team has LOST money for the USSF in most years in the past decade and STILL are paid more than the men are. And they dare to cry “sexism”?
 
But do you want to know what is honestly the saddest part of this? Reread the last sentence of the paragraph: the USSF did not see these net-loss years as losses at all, but as an investment in the future of women’s soccer. They are willing to take some years in the red for the sake of women’s soccer (which would usually be a bad thing for a business, but I suppose the Men’s team makes enough to make the USSF feel comfortable with such losses for the sake of women hoping to become professional soccer players). So basically, the Women’s soccer team, in their lawsuit against the USSF, is essentially acting like one of those spoiled kids who get everything they ask for and on their 16th birthday, are given a brand new and expensive car, but they cry and throw temper tantrums because “it’s the wrong color” or “it’s not the kind of car I wanted”.
 
Granted, I’m fairly certain most of those instances on those reality TV shows are fake, but there are a lot of comparisons here. The U.S. Women’s soccer team, as far as the USSF is concerned, makes MORE money than the Men’s team does, but they cry and whine and lie that they actually don’t.
 
Matter of fact, a spokeswoman for the Women’s team said that the USSF’s “fact check” was a “ruse” and a “sad attempt” at thwarting the lawsuit: “The USSF fact sheet is not a ‘clarification’. It is a ruse. Here is what they cannot deny. For every game a man plays on the MNT, he makes a higher base salary payment than a woman on the WNT. For every comparable win or tie, his bonus is higher. That is the very definition of gender discrimination.”
 
It certainly would be the very definition of gender discrimination if anything she said was actually true.
 
First, the Men’s team does not actually make more in base salary than a woman. They don’t make ANY base salary, as was just discussed.
 
Second, I highly doubt this is a ruse. USSF President Carlos Cordeiro wrote an open letter in which he stated that he ordered U.S. Soccer staff to perform “an extensive analysis of the past 10 years of U.S. Soccer’s financials.” This is what the fact sheet eventually turned into. He also said that the analysis was “reviewed by an independent accounting firm.” So while the USSF did an internal analysis of the organization’s financials over the last decade (largely because they are pretty much the only ones who can do that apart from a government agency), the analysis was also reviewed by an independent party, allowing for objectivity.
 
However, what does appear to be a “ruse”, or at least highly illegitimate and wrong is the U.S. Women’s suit against the USSF. They are suing under the claim that they are being paid less than the men are, but USSF financials show a completely different story – one where the Women’s team is actually paid MORE than the Men’s team due to having a base salary to accompany other bonuses that the men don’t get. And sure, while the men get paid more in bonuses than the women do, the reason for that is because they don’t receive a base salary.
 
Apart from the USSF, the Women’s team doesn’t have much of a case regarding gender discrimination in their wages either. As I discussed in the other article regarding the U.S. Women’s team, the only reason FIFA pays the women less money is because the Women’s division generates less revenue for FIFA than the men do.
 
The Women’s World Cup that took place in Vancouver four years ago only generated around $73 million in revenue, 13% of which went to the players. The 2010 Men’s World Cup in South Africa generated $4 billion in revenue, of which 9% went to the players. The Men’s World Cup in Russia back in 2018 generated $6 billion, while this year’s Women’s World Cup made roughly $131 million.
 
Over the last World Cups that were played, the Women’s World Cup only made a little over 2% of what the Men’s World Cup made. So in what world could the Women’s team at all be able to make anywhere near as much as the Men could? The Women already get paid a larger portion of the revenue from their World Cup than the Men do.
 
But getting back to the USSF, they are actually rather nice to the women, all things considered. The Women’s division tends to bring losses for the organization, but the idea of having a program for women who wish to become professional soccer players is noble enough to accept these losses, so long as they can offset them with the Men’s revenue (and the Women do sometimes bring in profits anyway).
 
The USSF pays women more than they do men, they tend to LOSE money regarding their Women’s team, give women more benefits and a base salary which they do not give to men, and the Women’s team, in their self-righteous and toxic mentality of victimhood still believe they are being discriminated against when NONE of the statistics show that to be the case?
 
Not a good look for the U.S. Women’s team.
 
1 Timothy 6:9-10
“But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 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.”
 
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.

Over the weekend, President Trump made a series of tweets regarding Baltimore and Rep. Elijah Cummings' (D-MD) work there that many on the Left have called out as "racist". However from what we will see in just a moment, they're far from racist - they're actually ACCURATE.

Let's look at a couple of his tweets and then I'll share some reactions - and LIES -  coming from so-called "journalists" such as Fox News' Chris Wallace. Here are the tweets:

Now let's take a look at what our "friend" on Fox News said - according to Breitbart: "This goes back to what happens with the four members of 'The Squad'. Nobody objects to the president defending his border policy, but this seems to be the worst kind of racial stereotyping. [...] Black congressman, majority-black district, I mean, no human being would want to live there? Is he saying people who live in Baltimore are not human beings?" 

No, Chris...that's not what President Trump said. Trump never mentioned race in his tweets, so where is he saying that no human being would want to live in a majority-black district? That's what YOU say, Chris - that no human being would live in a majority-black district, thus indicating that it's YOU who doesn't think black people are human beings. Again, Trump never said ANYTHING about race. He said no human being would want to live in the "worst run and most dangerous" district in America. It's YOU, Chris, who deducts that because it's the most dangerous district it can only be the home of a majority-black population. You, Chris, are the only one ASSUMING that because the district is dangerous, black people must live there and must be the criminals.

And check out what Wallace said next: "[T]here is a clear pattern here. The fact is before his inauguration the president tweeted about John Lewis, a black congressman. This is before his inauguration. 'He should spend time in his crime-infested district'. Then, two weeks ago he goes after these four members of 'The Squad', all women of color, and says they should go back to the crime-infested countries from which they come. Then he talks about Elijah Cummings, and he says his district is rat and rodent-infested. Infested, it sounds like vermin. It sounds subhuman, and these are all six members of Congress for people of color".

Yes, there is a pattern here - a pattern in which Trump criticizes the Left (Cummings, Pelosi, De Blasio, AOC) and what they're doing to this country and the districts they represent and the Left uses the race card as a defense mechanism. But in doing so, they're the ones showing their racism. "Rodent-infested" means what it says - there are a lot of rodents, rats and the like, in that town. And it's true. The same is true for San Francisco where they even have feces maps so people can avoid those areas. What do you think human feces bring? RATS...rodents of all types. Do you think Chris Wallace doesn't know that? He's being entirely disingenuous here. Trump was referring to LITERAL RODENTS littering the streets of Baltimore, not the citizens of Baltimore. Chris was reaching for something that wasn't even there.

I think Chris Wallace is, quite honestly, simply auditioning for a job at NBC or CNN...we all know how that went for Megyn Kelly.

At any rate, there are two aspects to this discussion: first, the fact that Democrat-run districts/cities are a mess (much like Leftist-run countries), and Baltimore is just one example. Take a look at Los Angeles. Take a look at San Francisco. The second aspect is how the extreme Left (which now comprises all of the Democrat Party and the Never Trumpers like Chris Wallace who have joined forces with them) is trying to portray Trump, and by extension Trump supporters, as white supremacists. As if Trump and his supporters were just a bunch of racists when it's the LEFT that has historically supported Segregation, the mass-killing of black children through Planned Parenthood and so on. They are the white supremacists who need a permanent underclass to survive.

You can tell they're the racists by the fact that they make everything about race. Heck, didn't Congresswoman Ayana Pressley a few days ago say "we don't need any more brown faces that don't want to be a brown voice"? What does that even mean?? It means that Ayana herself is a slave driver driving slaves to the Democrat plantation. She doesn't want black or brown people to have a mind of their own - she wants obedient slaves...

The good news is that we, Trump supporters, know who we are and we know we're not racists or bigots. The Left, now led by "The Squad", is indeed a group run by a bunch of racist communists who want to destroy the freedoms that we enjoy in America. So calling them racists, murderers for their support of the genocide that is abortion and communists are all accurate expressions of who they are, based on what they say, on what they do and who leads them. The Left trying to call us white supremacists doesn't stick because we know who we are and we know we are not who the Left says we are. 

Now some facts about Baltimore: Look at the murder rate as compared to the rest of the country, according to statistics from The Baltimore Sun:

As you can see, not only are crime stats worsening but they're also 10 times higher than the national average.

And how about the poverty rate? Well, it stands at 22.1%, according to The Baltimore Sun in an article from earlier this year, whereas the State Average is 9.4%. So next time you hear anyone talk about Maryland's fabulous living standards, make sure to ask about "how about Baltimore?", because that particular district is far worse than the State Average. The devil's in the details, as they say. So always double check whether they're talking about the State or the District that Elijah Cummings represents...which is in a terrible state, just like anything Democrats touch. 

Proverbs 19:9
"A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish."

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: Danielle Cross

Over the past couple of years, we have heard plenty of the supposedly anti-fascist group called Antifa using violence and intimidation to advance a political agenda. And despite that literally being the definition of terrorism, we have seen the mainstream media defend this domestic terrorist group time and time again, saying they are “angels” and lying about their repeated use of cement-laden milkshakes that they throw at people and cause harm to them.
 
However, as time has gone on, and particularly as one Antifa member tried to destroy and cause harm to ICE agents and vehicles a few weeks ago, Sens. Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy have proposed a resolution that would label the group as an official domestic terrorist organization. Definitely the right thing to do, as I have explained in the past, but Campus Reform wanted to get the input of some college students, specifically those attending George Mason University, regarding the actual labeling of the radical Leftist group as being a domestic terrorist organization.
 
When Cabot Phillips and his associate, Gabriel Nadales, whom used to be an Antifa member himself, explained the definition of terrorism to the students, all of them said they thought Antifa is a terrorist organization.
 
One student, when asked if Antifa was a terrorist organization under the aforementioned definition, said: “I think if they’re starting violence and things… at Trump’s rallies then I think so because people get hurt… people get killed. Those rallies can get very dangerous, so if people are going there with the purpose to incite violence, I think that’s definitely a terrorist organization.”
 
This is a sentiment that all the students shared: if the purpose of Antifa’s presence in any particular place is to intimidate or incite violence, or actually commit violent acts, then they definitely fall under the category of terrorist organization.
 
Obviously, this isn’t to say that all of these students are conservatives or Trump supporters by any means. One of them specifically mentioned how she doesn’t support Trump but that violence wasn’t the answer here, and another mentioned how Antifa reflects poorly on Leftists like himself. However, what this shows me is their ability to reason and understand when a group is doing the wrong thing, even if they politically agree with said group.
 
If the situations were reversed and there was a right-wing group that would intimidate people and incite violence or commit violent acts, there’s no doubt in my mind that virtually every common-sense conservative would disavow such a group. So I would certainly hope that young liberals such as some of the ones featured in the Campus Reform video (it’s unclear the political leanings of some others, but one made an interesting observation that I will cover later) would have the rational capacity to understand how Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization under the definition of terrorism.
 
We can disagree all day long about whether or not they are actually the ones who are fascist (they are, but the Left has brainwashed almost everyone into believing fascism is a right-wing ideology, when anything that relates to big government stems strictly from the Left), but there should really be no disagreement about Antifa being terrorists. The only ones who would disagree are the Antifa members themselves who will explode and try and intimidate or commit a violent act on someone who disagrees with them at any capacity and perhaps the MSM and the elected Left, who see Antifa as their military arm like the KKK once was.
 
But as far as these college students go, they demonstrate more common sense than I tend to see in the media and in Washington D.C., for the most part.
 
Now, one of them initially disagreed with the notion that they are a domestic terrorist organization, but upon having explained to him what the definition of terrorism was, he couldn’t help but to ultimately agree that if that is what Antifa is doing (which it is, very much so), then they are definitely a terrorist organization.
 
This is important to note because for just about every other student, Phillips or Nadales started their dialogue by defining what terrorism was, but not with this particular student. So if this student, having originally been ignorant about the definition of terrorism, didn’t think Antifa ought to be considered a domestic terrorist organization, then I just have to wonder what these other students, or even other people in general, would say about it being equally ignorant about the definition. Without the definition of terrorism, would people say that Antifa ought to be considered a terrorist organization?
 
But this only further expresses the need to educate the masses. When people don’t have correct information in front of them, they will take what deceitful people say as the truth and as fact. Man-made climate change is a huge example of this, despite all the evidence showing us that climate change has been a thing ever since the planet was created and there is nothing we are doing that affects it positively or negatively, people are convinced we are killing our planet. Granted, part of this is an emotional attachment to the idea of “saving the planet” and a fearful response to the idea that we might be responsible for the death of our planet and our children will have to live with the consequences, but when an objective and logical person gets the facts on this, they will tend to understand how much of a farce man-made climate change is.
 
But getting back to the students, I was pleasantly surprised to see them agree that, given the definition of terrorism, Antifa ought to be considered a domestic terrorist organization. Of course, there will be those who, despite knowing the definition, will contend that they shouldn’t be considered as such because that would essentially be putting them on a similar level to ISIS and al-Qaeda, but all I have to say to that is: “Do we really want to wait until they commit massive terrorist attacks with bombs and guns – wait until they start killing people – to call them terrorists? One of them literally tried to assault an ICE facility with a gun and Molotov cocktails, so it’s not like things are being de-escalated here.”
 
Most logical people will understand what ought to be considered a terrorist organization, and considering what Antifa has been doing fits the definition to a tee, I perhaps shouldn’t be so surprised to see these college students agreeing as to what their label ought to be.
 
But in any case, I promised I would get to a particular observation, and that’s what I will do now.
 
Towards the end of the video, the first student that had been featured went on to make the following remark: “Fascism. I mean, it’s not like we had a revolution. President Obama was President, we had an election, and now we have a new President. The government didn’t change. The whole concept of fascism, that’s ridiculous… it’s like comparing Trump to Hitler. It’s impolite, rude. It’s not the right words.”
 
This is rather interesting to me because it poses a direct challenge to what Antifa *claims* to stand for. Antifa insist that Trump is basically Hitler, that he is a fascist and every single person who disagrees with them in any way is also a fascist. But the student is right, it is ridiculous. Trump was elected President of the United States fair and square. Despite the two and a half years of investigations and allegations about Trump-Russia collusion, absolutely nothing turned up to even insinuate that that’s what happened. The American people elected Donald Trump. As he said, this wasn’t a revolution, at least in terms of an armed coup against the Obama administration. It was the exchanging of power from one Party to another, as it has happened TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY!
 
The way Antifa acts, it’s as though Trump came into power illegitimately and is preparing to exterminate millions of minorities, when nothing could be further from the truth. Antifa cries out that Trump is authoritarian and dictatorial, yet support candidates who are far-Left, to the point where they either are openly socialistic or communistic. No government on Earth has ever been more authoritarian than a government ruled by communism, because communism means that the government owns the means of production. In other words, the government owns just about everything and there is no private ownership of anything.
 
Antifa’s hypocrisy is, of course, their most tolerable aspect, considering how violent and extremist they are. There are plenty of hypocrites. The Left and much of the Republican Party are filled with them. Hypocrites, I can tolerate. Dislike heavily, but tolerate. People who would openly commit acts of terror against other people, for whatever cause, is something none of us should tolerate. And we shouldn’t wait until they start killing people to designate them as a domestic terrorist group, particularly considering they perfectly fit the definition of the word “terrorism”.
 
Major props go to Sens. Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy for standing up to such hateful terrorists. Here’s hoping their resolution succeeds.
 
Romans 2:9-11
“There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”
 
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.

Don’t you just love it when Leftists just hand you candy like this? As you may know, I found AOC’s doomsday clock of 12 years to be completely laughable, given the fact that it is yet another doomsday clock for something that isn’t happening (man-made climate change) and is close enough to our time to get people scared about it to take action but far enough away to be able to make adjustments and even to ignore it completely once the timer runs out, like Al Gore did in 2016 when his 10-year doomsday clock ran out and virtually no one talked about it.
 
But sometimes, Leftists give us jewels like this: Prince Charles, as well as other British climate “scientists” have all asserted that we only have 18 months to “save the planet”.
 
Matt McGrath, BBC News environment correspondent, told the BBC that “Now, it seems, there is a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical.” McGrath also cited the UN’s IPCC model, which in 2018, said that carbon dioxide emissions would have to drop 45% by the year 2030 in order to prevent global temperatures from rising 1.5 °C.
 
Of course, as I have established in a previous article covering man-made climate change (of which there are a lot, but this one talks specifically about this), the only place where CO2 raises global temperatures is in the IPCC models. This is because there has been a historical record where temperature has increased BEFORE CO2 levels did. For example, the Tropical Atlantic used to be around 7.5 °C warmer around 10 to 15 thousand years ago, when CO2 levels were around 220 ppm, which was roughly half the level they currently are.
 
So there is no correlation between CO2 levels and warming temperatures. Not that these agenda-driven hacks will admit to it publicly. The IPCC, despite its many flaws and errors, is considered to be virtually sacred amongst climatologists. To defy it would be risking your career and reputation, despite how wrong it often-times is regarding climate change. So people like McGrath and other climate “scientists” will go along with it, perpetuating the ridiculous and irrational lies it tells and passes them off as truths, while getting certain power-hungry politicians to take advantage of it and assert some sort of “need” for “action” against climate change which would do nothing to actually combat climate change (for a number of reasons apart from literal incapability) and will only serve to enslave entire populations (even AOC’s chief of staff admitted that the GND wasn’t about climate change but about changing the economy of the U.S. from capitalist to socialist).
 
But regardless of the insincerity of the IPCC, people like Prince Charles perpetuate the idea that we are killing out planet and we have a certain window of opportunity to do anything. As a result, he, alongside many others, will claim that we only have 18 months to do something about climate change. It’s an interesting long-con, all things considered. Prince Charles once claimed we only had around 96 months to “save the planet”. This was around July of 2009, so 10 years ago. In other words, that was 120 months ago and yet, here we are! Oh, but this time, we only have 18 months, according to this dishonest future king of England (sorry to all Brits in the audience). It’s obvious, then, that if it’s been 120 months since he sounded the alarm of only having 96 months to solve climate change (and if we haven’t done so, according to the Left), then surely he made brilliant adjustments to his brilliant calculations and we are all to agree on them, facts be damned!
 
Yeah, because that’s how science works: consensus over facts. The Earth used to be the center of the universe when there was consensus that that was the case and then it changed once the consensus was around the Sun being at the center (and then, of course, that it’s only at the center of the solar system, not the entire universe).
 
Give me a break. How dishonest can these people be?
 
As I’ve established time and time again, backed up by facts from ACTUAL CLIMATOLOGISTS WHO DON’T KOWTOW TO THE LEFT’S INSANE DEMANDS, there is no man-made climate change. There is no doomsday clock to actually watch out for. There is no period of time for us to be able to do something. We didn’t even CAUSE climate change in the first place, how can we possibly do anything to end it?!
 
And for those in the audience who will point out the current heatwaves in the U.S. and Europe, allow me to explain, in small words so that they might understand, what is currently happening: IT’S JULY! And I’ve made the recent scientific discovery that is certain to rock the entire scientific world: it gets hot during summer.
 
I KNOW, HOW CRAZY IS THAT?! But wait, it gets even crazier: it also gets colder during winter!
 
WHERE IS MY NOBEL PRIZE AND MY MILLION DOLLARS?! I SHOULD BE SHAKING HANDS WITH THE PRESIDENT!
 
In any case, getting back on track, in New York, recent data for the month of July shows us that, in Central Park, temperatures got as high as 95° F. Up there, but far from peculiar. The record high for Central Park is 106°. Want to know when it was set? 1936! And since 1870, that very temperature was either equaled or exceeded in at least 112 years. So in 112 of the last 149 years, these are the temperatures Central Park has recorded DURING SUMMER!
 
So the current heatwaves we are seeing are NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY! Not that Leftists will care. The fact that it can even get hot like this in the first place is proof enough to them that our capitalistic system is killing our entire planet (despite us not even being a top polluter) and we must enact socialistic policies in order to save our planet (while the politicians that enact this stuff laugh to themselves at how stupid some people can be to buy this crap).
 
Leftists will make ridiculous claims like “we only have 18 months to change this” when they already have, MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST, made similar assertions. The aforementioned Al Gore is one example of this. AOC is one of the most recent ones, of course. In 1989, the UN insisted that humanity had until the year 2000 to “save the planet”. They’ve issued “tipping-point” warnings ever since then.
 
And guess what? They have all been completely wrong about everything they said. Things like the polar ice caps melting, sea levels rising and causing flooding, and entire islands made of trash floating in the Pacific Ocean have all been b.s. Everything from those lies to how much time we have to “save the planet” has been bogus because there is nothing we are doing to the planet to cause it to warm up or cool down severely. Again, temperatures have been changing well before CO2 increased so much. There is nothing, collectively as humanity, that we can do to change these things and even THEY know that.
 
Again, even AOC’s chief of staff admitted the GND was about changing the economic system of the U.S., not fighting climate change. These people are in it to take power for themselves, not to make any meaningful and positive changes to our world.
 
So for Prince Charles and all these other “scientists” to make these assertions is to spit in the face of science. Shame on them.
 
Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
 
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.

While the rest of the country has largely gotten over the Russian collusion narrative that ended up being exactly what I thought it would be: a nothing-burger, House Democrats and Leftists tried to hang on to the ever-diminishing edge of a massive cliff that was the Special Counsel investigation into Donald Trump. After yesterday, the entire narrative fell off that cliff.
 
Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before both the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning and the House Intelligence Committee a few hours after the first hearing, which ran a little long. And I think it’s safe to say it was exactly the opposite of that the Left was hoping it would be and it’s not exactly what even I thought it would be.
 
For the Left, they thought Mueller was about to pull off a Deus Ex Machina and “save the day” at the last moment, bringing forth evidence of collusion and/or obstruction that he (somehow) did not include in his own report (and we’ll talk a little bit about the report itself in a moment).
 
They fully expected yesterday to have been a huge day for the Dems, and that they would finally be able to get rid of Donald Trump by hearing Mueller speak himself. And to the surprise of, I think, plenty of people, including myself, not only did Mueller not deliver the goods for the Democrats, he outright looked lost, confused and like he had no idea what was happening in the last 2 and a half years.
 
In the run up to the hearings, I expected Mueller to simply stick to what the report said and that he wouldn’t be contradicting what his report said all that much, certainly not enough to claim and definitively prove that Trump had done something, ANYTHING, criminal at any point in the 2016 election and beyond. But what I saw and heard here made me think the guy was just a figurehead for the Special Counsel and was not, in actuality, very involved with, much less in charge of, the Special Counsel and its investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian collusion.
 
Apart from repeatedly refusing to answer even the simplest of questions like the origins of the Steele dossier, he contradicted what he understood to be the definition of collusion being synonymous with conspiracy. The Mueller report read: “[A]s defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy,” and yet, Mueller went on record in front of the House Judiciary Committee that the two words were not synonymous.
 
Of course, I understand the reason he contradicted himself here is to keep the farce alive. Mueller can’t dispute that the Special Counsel didn’t find any actual collusion between Trump and Russia, and while that’s what he wrote in his report (which he may not have actually written, to be honest, but let’s say that he did for the sake of the argument), he doesn’t want the narrative of Russian collusion to end just like that. So, he insists that collusion and conspiracy aren’t synonymous to say to the Democrats: “I may not have found collusion, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t conspire to do something. Go get him on that.” That’s the whole point of that sort of contradiction. Of course, at the end of the day, it will not work either, but hey, they tried.
 
In any case, that’s not even the worst part for the Democrats. Mueller appearing like a senile old man who barely knows much about his own investigation might destroy his reputation moving forward (with those who still respected him up to this point), but he completely wrecked one Democrat talking point they had been using since the Mueller report was released: that the only reason Trump was not charged with anything was because he is a sitting President.
 
Of course, anyone who is not dishonest could tell that that was not the case. Mueller didn’t charge Trump with anything not simply because he is POTUS but because Mueller couldn’t determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump had committed any crime. In the hearing, he corrected an exchange he had had with Ted Lieu earlier in the day about the reason for not charging Trump, saying: “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
 
That goes against what the media and the Left were saying. They were howling that the only reason Mueller didn’t charge Trump was because you can’t indict a sitting President. But Mueller has gone on record both in yesterday’s hearing and, as it should be painfully clear, in the Mueller report, that there was not enough evidence to determine that Trump had obstructed justice.
 
Multiple times, Mueller was asked if his investigation was impeded in any way, and every time, he said that it wasn’t. In the Mueller report, he alluded to there being suspicion of obstruction with a bunch of bologna arguments. As I said in my original article on the Mueller report, what the report cites as “evidence” of possible obstruction of justice (that did not amount to anything at the end of the day) were Trump complaining about the Mueller investigation being a “witch hunt” (which it was, considering the lengths they were going to frame Trump for a crime he didn’t do), Trump reacting to the WikiLeaks leaks regarding the Clinton campaign, how he reacted to the investigation of General Flynn, how the Trump campaign reacted to reports of Russian support for Trump, reports from the media about collusion with Russia, Trump firing FBI Director James Comey and Trump reportedly ordering the removal of Mueller as head of the Special Counsel, which didn’t happen in the end, anyway.
 
And as I said in that article, NONE OF THAT CONSTITUTES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Just from reading the Mueller report, one can make that logical assertion unless he or she is heavily biased against Trump and doing anything short of Trump breathing would constitute criminal activity in their eyes.
 
But the fact that Mueller went on record to clarify the exchange he had with Lieu about the reason behind not charging Trump being that they could not determine whether or not the President had committed a crime (which, again, is in the report) is utterly DEVASTATING for the Left.
 
Ever since the Mueller report was released, after the initial shock (for the Left) that Trump DIDN’T collude with Russia and it could not be determined whether or not he obstructed justice, the main points of attack against Trump (apart from calling him “racist” and a “Nazi” on a daily basis) were that the ONLY reason he wasn’t brought up on charges was because he was POTUS and that Mueller did not exonerate Trump of anything (which is irrelevant because prosecutors work to determine guilt, not innocence). This had left the Democrats with a path to charging Trump with *something* once he was out of office, whether that be in January of 2021 or January of 2025. This narrative gave them hope that they could’ve seen Trump behind bars once he was done being President of the United States (it would’ve likely failed, and the Mueller report would’ve been cited, but the attempt would’ve been made). But that is gone now. Mueller killed the Left’s last golden goose relating to the Russian collusion narrative.
 
Does this mean they won’t still go after him once he’s done being President? Doubtful. These people have hatred in their hearts, as I’ve asserted time and time again (and as they have proven time and time again), and with that comes vindictiveness. They have seen, for the past two and a half years, every single narrative and attack against Trump fail right before their eyes. They thought Comey was going to get him, then Mueller, then a porn star, then a porn star’s lawyer, then Trump’s own snake former lawyer, then a soccer player, and most recently, they circled back to Mueller.
 
ALL OF IT FAILED. In their minds, if they can’t get Trump kicked out of office, they will get him once he is out of office. If they can’t impeach him or even defeat him at the polls, they can at least try and charge him with every crime under the Sun until something sticks that lands him in jail for the rest of his life. This is how vindictive and evil they are.
 
Whether or not it will work, I don’t know. I know Trump hasn’t done anything that would warrant jail time, but the Ted Stevens and Enron cases ought to make people cautious about the Department of Injustice’s power. However, there is a VERY good case for Trump if he is ever actually brought up on any charges (which it’s likely he will, knowing the blood-thirsty Left).
 
In any case, all Wednesday was was a massive disappointment for the Left (which I’m always happy to see) and not exactly what I was expecting. Again, I thought Mueller would stick to things relating to the report, but it appeared as though he was barely in-the-know about what was in it, apart from the biggest talking points to come out of the report. It’s almost as though he was just a figurehead in the investigation and Andrew Weissman was really running the show, alongside other angry Democrats who all supported Hillary Clinton. I’m not even convinced, at this point, that Mueller had much to do with the actual writing of the Mueller report.
 
And while this might make some NeverTrump Republicans puff their chests and say: “see, Mueller isn’t the evil hack Trump made him out to be,” that doesn’t mean he still isn’t a dishonorable prosecutor. Any honorable prosecutor would’ve taken a look at what the Special Counsel was doing and either put a stop to it or bolted. You don’t have to be too involved in something evil like that for alarms to blare inside your head telling you that you should bolt. And it’s not like Mueller was Grandpa Simpson for these past few years. I refuse to believe he didn’t know of a little bit of what was happening in the Special Counsel. I’m certain he knew but still decided to stick around because he’s not exactly a fan of Trump and if anything turns up, he could claim credit for taking down Trump.
 
The fact that the Left was literally idolizing him didn’t help convince him that he shouldn’t stick around. He wanted the fame and the glory of taking down Trump, loved the attention and praise he was receiving both from Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans, and didn’t think it could’ve ended in this much of a whimper.
 
The Special Counsel investigation was still a witch hunt, with or without Mueller running it. And after two and a half years of constant yammering from the fake news media that Trump colluded with Russia, obstructed justice, and most recently, that he is not sitting in jail only because he’s the sitting President, this matter should, theoretically, be put to rest.
 
At the end of the day, there was no collusion, not enough to even get close to determining obstruction, and Trump being sitting POTUS isn’t the only reason he was not charged. Most of America has already moved on from this. The fact that Democrats can’t will hurt them come 2020.
 
John 8:32
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
 
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.

Generally speaking, while I love covering polls that have good news for people like Trump and other conservative Republicans, I tend to admit to the fact that the next presidential election is still quite some time away from us, in well over a year, so a lot of things can happen between then and now. However, there are certain items in the poll that I will show you that I have my doubts they have much of a chance of changing in the near future.
 
According to a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, conducted July 15-17 and with over 1300 respondents, President Donald Trump’s approval number sits at a comfortable 44%, the highest in the Marist poll to date. And trust me, there are a lot more numbers like this that ought to scare the Left for a number of reasons.
 
Now, you might be asking: “why is 44?% scary? It seems relatively normal.” And yes, you would be right when just thinking about the number in and of itself. However, this is from a poll where Democrats are polled far more than Republicans or other people. 33% of the respondents identified as Democrat, as opposed to only 27% of Republicans. There is a clear over-sampling of Democrats in this survey and STILL his numbers are that high.
 
But don’t worry. We are just getting started with the numbers shown in this poll. As it stands, 90% of Republicans support Trump’s job as POTUS, with 42% of Independents and 7% of Democrats. These numbers are also pretty good, particularly for the Independent vote.
 
39% of national adults said they would “definitely” vote for Trump in 2020, with 89% of Republicans and 33% of Independents agreeing. Keep in mind these are just national adults. Typically, the numbers go up when it comes to registered voters and likely voters. What’s more, as Josh Kraushaar points out on Twitter: “Trump definite re-elect % in July 2019: 39%. Obama definite re-elect % in August 2011: 40%.”
 
So Trump is basically polling as well as Obama was at the same time in his presidency and we all know Obama got re-elected with such numbers.
 
When it comes to the economy, 52% said they approved of Trump’s handling of it, which is similar to Obama until August of 2009, only 7 months after taking office. Following that, Obama’s numbers were never quite as good.
 
Now, Obama had different advantages that Trump doesn’t have, such as the fake news media and most outspoken people supporting him and that helped him get elected. But similarly, Trump has different advantages that Obama didn’t have in his own reelection bid, namely the success of the economy and other things that we will talk about momentarily.
 
But before we move on to the juiciest details of the poll (yes, THESE NUMBERS aren’t even the worst news for Dems), I will finish off this section by mentioning that the number of those who said they “definitely” will be voting against Trump DROPPED from 57% to 53% since January. Sure, that number is still up there, but it’s falling and it’s contradicting the ongoing narrative of the Left: that Trump is an unpopular President and he will be soundly defeated come November of next year. Less and less people are saying they would “definitely” vote against Trump. That doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote FOR Trump, but that could mean less and less votes for Democrats too. One of the things that hurt Hillary in 2016 was lack of Democrat votes for her. Many were angry that Bernie got screwed out of being the nominee (he still would’ve lost even without the Super Delegate system, but the race was still rigged against him) and decided to either vote for Trump as a result or simply not vote. If that number continues to drop, voter turnout might once again be a problem for Democrats.
 
But it’s not just that number that might pose a problem for Democrat turnout in 2020. Let us now get into the actual policies that every Democrat has signed on to since even before the first debates took place: Medicare-for-All, open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration, giving free healthcare to illegals, and reparations for slavery.
 
Ryan James Girdusky highlighted the results of the poll pretty well:
 
“Voters asked if they support Medicare for All as a replacement for private health insurance (good idea/bad idea): Registered voters: 40/55. Democrats: 64/31. Republicans: 14/83. Independents: 39/55. Whites: 38/56. Non-whites: 46/49. Gen X: 35/61.”
 
The only people that have a more favorable view of Medicare-for-All as a replacement of private health insurance are Democrats, and even then, there is a decent number of those who think it’s a bad idea. The key words here are “replacement of private health insurance”. Usually, on its own, Medicare-for-All polls pretty well, somewhere in the 60s and maybe 70s. However, as you start to dive into what exactly it would mean, such as replacing already existing private health insurance plans, support for it drops like a rock. This is why people like Kamala Harris flip-flop on this issue.
 
When it comes to giving free healthcare to illegals, Ryan highlighted:
 
“Is free healthcare for illegal immigrants a good idea/bad idea: Registered voters: 32/62. Democrats: 60/32. Republicans: 6/93. Independents: 27/67. Moderate Democrats: 43/47. Whites: 28/68. Non-whites: 43/51. Millennials/Gen Z: 45/51.”
 
Let’s not forget that every single Democrat signed on to the idea of giving illegals free healthcare. Well, according to this poll, most people HEAVILY DISAGREE with that idea. But let’s specifically look at two demographics.
 
You might’ve noticed that Ryan included Moderate Democrats into the mix. That is because the poll asked those who identified as “moderate” Democrats this question, and there were more moderates in the Democrat Party that disagreed with the idea than agreed with it. This is another number that could haunt Democrats come 2020 if it doesn’t change, and I don’t see much reason for it to change in a positive direction for Democrats. The candidates surely are not going to change their minds about it and the moderates that don’t want this might choose to at least sit out of this election once again, if not outright vote for Trump.
 
Time and time again, I have mentioned how more and more people are leaving the Democrat Party because of how far to the Left they have gone in recent time. This is some proof of that statement. Plenty of Democrats don’t like the direction the Party is going and will at least consider leaving it.
 
The other demographic to look at is the youngest generations, the Millennials and Gen Z. For even THEM to think free healthcare for illegals is a bad idea ought to wake up the Democrats to try and at least pretend this isn’t something they want. But since they will continue to believe the lie that the fake news media feeds them – that Donald Trump is screwed almost no matter what proposal is brought up from the Democrats – they will have no reason to change course, even if they are defeated in a landslide. In reality, if Trump wins by a massive margin (or even at all), the Democrats will once again cry foul and say that “the Russians did it again!” or something equally as nonsensical.
 
Moving on to decriminalizing border crossings, we find: “Registered voters: 27/67. Democrats: 45/47. Republicans: 10/87. Independents: 24/68. Moderate Dems: 34/58. Progressive Dems: 54/37. Whites: 26/68. Non-whites: 28/63. Millennials/Gen Z: 31/59.”
 
Once again, only one demographic had a positive view on it and that’s Progressive Democrats, and even then, a full 37%, more than one-in-three, still disagreed.
 
Finally, we reach slavery reparations where we find the following data: “Registered voters: 26/63. Democrats: 46/40. Republicans: 3/89. Independents: 23/65. Whites: 19/69. Non-whites: 40/50.”
 
Again, only Democrats had a positive view on it and even then, 40% didn’t.
 
All of these are issues the Democrats are trying to bring front-and-center into a debate not only amongst themselves but also with Donald Trump. All of these are issues they perceive are popular with the vast majority of Americans, but even a poll that OVERSAMPLED DEMOCRATS has pretty terrible news for them.
 
Most people don’t think these proposals are in any way, shape, manner or form a good idea for this country. Basically every single newsworthy policy item the Democrats have brought up is very unpopular with most Americans. And promising people that if they like their health insurance, they get to keep it isn’t going to work when your last President promised pretty much the same thing, only with doctors, and shattered that promise into pieces. (And yes, I know Biden has literally promised the same thing and it’s also not going to work for him).
 
So when you have candidates that all say they agree with these very unpopular items, a fake news media that will coddle them and say “everything is fine” when they are not fine for them, and numbers that show Donald Trump’s approval ratings are only going up and up, you have a recipe for nuclear meltdown in the DNC once Trump wins re-election.
 
Again, I see no reason for these numbers to change for the better for Democrats. And if the economy continues roaring as it is today and Trump continues doing great things for this country and if the Democrats continue sticking to their guns on highly unpopular policy items, I see no reason for Trump to lose come 2020.
 
And once again, I feel obligated to mention that we are still over a year away from that election, but these aren’t items that I think will magically be considered to be good ideas in that time span. No one wakes up one day holding a completely different view on anything. You might begin to change your mind about certain things over time, but free healthcare for illegals doesn’t seem to be a bad idea one day and a good one the next (because it is one of the most idiotic ideas I’ve ever heard of).
 
So if these numbers continue to show up as we draw closer and closer to the 2020 election (as I think they ought to), I don’t see any reasonable way for Democrats to actually beat Trump. Regardless, that doesn’t mean we are afforded the luxury of complacency. We must continue to pray to God that Trump will continue making America great again and will defeat the Satanic Democrats come election time.
 
Matthew 7:7
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to 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 read my articles for some time, you know that my favorite sport is basketball. Outside of that, I don’t know much else about other sports or the players, unless they are household names like Tom Brady or Babe Ruth. So forgive me if I don’t know much about former New York Yankees relief pitcher Mariano Rivera.
 
What I may lack in understanding of his seemingly stellar career I have tried to make up for in understanding his devout Christian faith and seemingly right-wing views, especially when it comes to the State of Israel.
 
As such, I feel it is necessary to defend him from a pathetic man considering himself a journalist attacking the man for holding such beliefs.
 
Over the weekend, Rivera was unanimously elected into the baseball Hall of Fame, becoming the first player to ever achieve such a feat. Regardless of such an accomplishment, and regardless of the kind of career he had in the Major Leagues, a writer by the name of Robert Silverman chose to attack his beliefs and suggested he should be put to shame for having such beliefs.
 
“… over the past three years, he’s also served at the pleasure of a racist president, taken part in thinly veiled propaganda on behalf of a far-right government in Israel, and gotten chummy with outright bigots and apocalyptic loons. None of this will be inscribed on his Hall of Fame plaque. It should, even if much of the sports world would very much like to pretend none of it exists.”
 
Right off the bat, this guy shows some serious lunatic behavior and wording. Let’s start from the beginning of that shortened paragraph. “Served at the pleasure of a racist president…” From the way that sounds, it’s as though Rivera was scouting the Southern Border and shouting out towards Trump, armed with a shotgun, that some illegals were crossing the border. What it actually refers to is Rivera participating in a listening session about the opioid crisis. Nothing partisan, much less racial, about that topic. Taking part in “thinly veiled propaganda on behalf of a far-right government in Israel” is merely supporting a right-wing government in the only Jewish nation on Earth, which continually wins elections in a… wait for it… Democratic manner. But from what it sounds, it’s as if Rivera was writing the Nuremberg Laws.
 
And for having the audacity to listen to Trump talk about fighting the opioid crisis and supporting Israel, his Hall of Fame plaque, a plaque about his BASEBALL CAREER, ought to highlight that this man is not willing to bow down and submit to the Left’s ever-so tolerant views.
 
Later down the article, Silverman regurgitates Leftist talking points about how the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) was slaughtering innocent Palestinian protesters, all-the-while ignoring the fact that most of the people the IDF killed were Hamas terrorists, who own the region of Gaza and use human shields to get the IDF to kill innocent civilians and blame it on Israel, something the far-Left media happily follows.
 
And what is perhaps the last straw for Silverman, Rivera *maybe* supports Trump.
 
“Beyond Rivera’s pro-Israel activism, even though he’s never publicly given his endorsement, the Hall of Famer’s actions make it clear his sympathies lie with the Trump administration, which has backed all manner of far-right policies when it comes to Israel.”
 
What? You mean actually following through on the promise many US President have made in the past about moving the embassy to Jerusalem is considered a “far-right policy”? Actually defending Israel against theocratic fascists who have repeatedly stated their intentions to wipe them off the face of the Earth is far-right policy? Supporting Israel’s right to EXIST is far-right policy?
 
Does this guy have any idea as to why we Republicans, conservatives, Christians support the State of Israel? Funny enough, he does know why:
 
“But the vast majority of Evangelical Christians also believe in a particular messianic biblical prophecy: Jews must rule the Holy Land before Christ can return. Whether Rivera ascribes to those beliefs entirely is unclear, but his support for Israel and the Israel Defense Forces is a matter of public record. He has traveled to Israel on multiple occasions, possibly beginning in 2013.”
 
The beginning part of that quote is what we’ll focus on for now. Of course, that is only one of many reasons why we support Israel. The fact that Jews must rule Jerusalem for Christ to return is, I think, the main one. But there are plenty of places in the Bible that show us just why we Christians support Israel.
 
Psalm 102:12-16 reads: “But you, O Lord, are enthroned forever; you are remembered throughout all generations. You will arise and have pity on Zion, it is the time to favor her; the appointed time has come. For your servants hold her stones dear and have pity on her dust. Nations will fear the name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth will fear your glory. For the Lord builds up Zion; he appears in his glory…”
 
Psalm 122:6: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem! ‘May they be secure who love you!’”
 
Isaiah 2:3: “… ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
 
It is important to note Isaiah is most notorious for being a very accurate descriptor of the first coming of Jesus and it is also important to note that one of Jesus’ titles is “the Word of God”, as John wrote in the beginning of his gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
 
And Luke 1:32 reads: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David…”
 
So there is plenty of reason for Christians to be supportive of Israel apart from, you know, THEM BEING THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF OUR GOD!
 
It’s not surprising to me at all if Rivera also believes this and it’s not surprising that he would, as a Christian, support Israel.
 
Rivera, in an interview with Sports Spectrum in 2010, expressed his Christian views and credited God for allowing him to create a deadly pitch in 1997 which would be a staple of his career moving forward: “It came from the Lord. Nobody taught me that but Him. It’s been tremendous since the first time that I used it. It’s been effective, so I thank God for that.”
 
Rivera also said: “I believe in Jesus Christ, and I cannot move without His direction. That doesn’t mean that I’m a perfect man. Now I wish I could tell you that I’m perfect, but I’m not. But I’m always trying to please the Lord, and that’s my goal.”
 
So it’s pretty clear to me that the man is very much a man of faith and places his entire faith and being into Christ’s hands. He follows the Lord, supports the people and State of Israel and does not bad-mouth the current President of the United States. For this trifecta of decency, he is marred as having essentially committed a capital crime against the Left, something that Silverman essentially accuses him of in his hit-piece.
 
Now, I’ve read my share of moronic pieces. Last week I even covered a moronic piece on Disney’s “The Lion King”, defending it from the accusation that it was some sort of fascist fantasy, but this I feel far more inclined to cover not simply because of the idiotic reasons behind the piece, but because of what exactly is being attacked.
 
I really couldn’t care much about someone saying “The Lion King” was fascistic apart from the stupidity of the claim because I’m not much of a Disney fan anymore. To remain objective and fair, I defended the movies (original and remake) but this is an entirely different matter. This is an attack on a Christian for the charge of BEING A CHRISTIAN!
 
Sure, Silverman throws in his support of Israel and his silence on the current President (because silence is violence, apparently), but it’s largely an attack on the guy’s overall views and beliefs, which stem from being a Christian.
 
As I said in an article last week, there is no reason for a Christian to not support Trump. You can disagree about his personal choices and his choice of words regarding various subjects, but there’s no disputing the fact that this man, flawed as he may be, loves the Lord and loves this country. Most Christians, certainly true Christians, will support President Trump, particularly over the borderline (or actual) Satanists on display in the Democrat Party. If Rivera is, himself, a Christian, it stands to reason he would support Donald Trump, at least in terms of his policies.
 
Of course, no one could blame Rivera for not being so outspoken about any support he may have of the POTUS. The media will attack him for NOT SAYING ANYTHING, so could you imagine what they would attack him for if he were to endorse the President? They intimidate and bully people into silence and even THEN they continue to bully and intimidate. Again, no one blames him for not speaking out about his potential support of Trump, but that is also in part due to the fact that Donald Trump isn’t the end-all, be-all of good fights.
 
Don’t get me wrong, I think supporting Trump is pretty crucial to our country, but for a man of faith, he will be far less ashamed of supporting the Lord. If someone is attacked for being a Trump supporter, not much happens. They may be targeted for attacks that last a week or so and their reputations might be a little stained in the eyes of people who don’t support Trump. However, if someone is attacked for believing in Christ, that person is blessed.
 
Matthew 5:11-12 says: “’Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
 
If we are attacked for our support of Trump, it doesn’t really matter. We deal with it and fight back. But if we are attacked for our faith in the Lord, we are blessed by Him. All things considered, I don’t care if Rivera never says he supports Trump because at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that he follows and loves the Lord Jesus and speaks and acts as God asks us to. He isn’t ashamed, clearly, of expressing his faith and he shouldn’t be.
 
Of course, that doesn’t make what Silverman is doing any better. The guy is attacking a Hall of Fame baseball player for holding beliefs that are antithetical to his own. That’s vile and disgusting and should be considered an example of what garbage journalism has become. But for Rivera, if he is attacked for his beliefs, specifically for his Christian beliefs, that is one of the best things you can do for him. And for any Christian, really.
 
Don’t misunderstand, Christian persecution is still terrible and an injustice, but if we are to be attacked for any given reason, let it be for our faith in the Lord, who is sovereign over all the universe.
 
This is the mentality of a Christian; the mentality of someone like Rivera. If we are to be persecuted for anything, let it be for the right thing.
 
Ephesians 5:11
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

While this may not be very surprising, but still disappointing to see, socialism is being viewed more and more favorably by some people, and the kind of college major one goes into tends to have some sort of impact on it, according to a recent survey from College Pulse.
 
The survey of over 10,000 college students, so a massive sample size, asked students a series of questions relating to socialism and their views on it. All in all, they found that 39% of college students have a favorable view of socialism, 39% have an unfavorable view and 18% are not sure. With these couple of numbers alone, I can say an awful lot. But I will simply say that that is both considerably less than what I expected (referring to the number of students who hold a favorable view) but also far too high for my liking.
 
But what kind of major a student chooses will seemingly have some impact as to what view they hold on socialism. According to the poll, 78% of philosophy majors have a favorable view of socialism (not very surprising at all, considering Marx was a philosopher more than an economist). That number is followed by 64% of Anthropology majors who view socialism favorably, 58% of English majors, 58% of International Relations majors, 57% of Sociology majors and 57% of Music majors.
 
However, there are four majors listed in the survey who have a more unfavorable view of socialism, and they are majors that maybe we shouldn’t be surprised to find here: Law/Criminology, who hold a 43% unfavorable view on socialism (compared to only 28% who favor it) and 29% who are unsure; Economics, with 61% unfavorable view of socialism; Finance, with 63% unfavorable view of socialism and Accounting, with 61% unfavorable view of socialism (and 20% are unsure).
 
This really shouldn’t surprise anyone for a number of reasons. First, socialism is an economic system. Those studying economics ought to have a much better understanding of socialism in comparison to capitalism than those who are not studying economics. Second, those who study economics understand that socialism is an economic system. Before you say that that is the same as my first point, allow me to elaborate. What I mean by that is in reference to an article I wrote about a month ago in late June about how even those who say they are socialist also favor free market economics, signifying that those people don’t view socialism as an economic system but as a government system where the government takes care of people that need help.
 
Obviously, for those who understand socialism, it’s not at all about that. Socialism is an economic system where the government owns the means of production, so everything that is made and sold goes through them and they benefit from it. A system where the government owns every industry and regulates things like prices and how much an employee makes in a government-owned industry.
 
For those who do not view socialism as an economic system, such as those who do not study economics or finance, they view socialism as government being good to people who need help and thus have to be funded by those who are already well-to-do anyway like the upper class and even the middle class.
 
And one can’t really blame people for holding this belief. Socialism is sold as a great system where everyone and everything is equal, where one doesn’t have more than another but doesn’t have so little that they can’t live or survive at all. And often, it’s sold as the idea that the government can afford to give everyone everything for free, including health care and insurance, phones, vehicles (eco-friendly ones, of course) and even fancy high-rise apartment buildings (that are also eco-friendly, of course) and we are not supposed to even question how it can all happen or where the government is going to get the money to do it. “The rich will pay for it” is the standard answer given, even though the rich, even by confiscating everything they have to the point where they are penniless, still can’t afford to pay for even Medicare-for-All, let alone every other socialist wish-list item.
 
Those who think in terms of philosophy will look at minimum wage and think “people should be paid more than this” even though they are looking at the MINIMUM of people’s wages, not the average. They will look at someone like Donald Trump (before he was President) and think “no one should be able to live like that without government assistance, so they must have stolen from someone else!” (That is literally the belief of many people who support socialism, that someone is rich only because they stole from other people, not because they worked towards becoming rich).
 
I mean, take a look at one student that College Pulse quoted: “Capitalism is a failure of a system. If you weren’t born rich, you [aren’t] gonna be rich, so we should be focusing on helping our neighbors,” adding that those who defend capitalism defend “a system designed to keep them poor and exhausted.”
 
I don’t know what that kid’s major is, but I can almost guarantee it’s not Economics. What he says is adamantly untrue. Capitalism is the greatest economic system out there (not without its flaws, of course, but far better than what socialism does). People can, in contrast to what the kid was saying, become rich even if they weren’t born rich. Look at people like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs and virtually every single person that has had a high-level position of pretty much any company. Virtually none of them were born rich. Gates, Jobs and other entrepreneurs began their businesses from their parents’ garage. Others began their businesses in their kitchens. Others rose up the corporate ladder to reach high positions in companies and make multiple hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars a year.
 
Just look at someone like Intel’s current CEO, Robert Swan. According to Business Insider, he makes over $4.6 million a year in salary and can earn more than $28 million in stocks. That’s more than most of us will make throughout our lifetimes, isn’t it? So being the CEO of a massive company will make you a lot of money (go figure) almost regardless of your background.
 
So to say that if you aren’t born rich you will not be rich in the future is a nonsensical and untrue statement. And as far as the comment about capitalism being a system “designed to keep them poor and exhausted”, it absolutely does not do that. Capitalism is designed to help people who have the ambition, drive and work skills and ethics to amass wealth to actually do so without a pesky government stealing from them. It’s getting harder and harder in America to do so only because of increasingly more socialistic policies being put into place (minimum wage, for example).
 
In a pure capitalistic system, people’s financial fates are largely in their hands and not in the hands of others. In a pure communist system, there is no such thing as private ownership of anything (and it’s a system that literally cannot work for any amount of time, as Lenin saw when his new Soviet Union was collapsing hard with that system, so he had to allow for some private ownership of land).
 
Those who study economics tend to understand how capitalism works (and will not say stupid things like what the aforementioned student said) and will understand how socialism works, which is why most tend to not hold socialism in a positive light. They understand that the hardships that the Soviet citizens had to endure, and what the Venezuelan citizens currently have to endure, are not because of anything apart from their own, heavily-flawed systems of economics that only serve to destroy wealth, not create it.
 
And while there are those who will say: “No! The U.S. is the reason Venezuela is like it is now,” All I have to say is: if America can do something like that to Venezuela, why couldn’t it do it to non-socialist countries? If America had this sort of power to affect other countries, why have we only seen socialist/communist countries fail? And if it has this sort of power, how did it get such power in the first place? How is our economy or our government or military as powerful as it is when we’ve only employed capitalism, a system that is “clearly flawed”, a “failure of a system” and “designed” to keep people poor?
 
These are the types of questions that, when asked to these people, will get you punched in the face because they have no good answer to it and they will sometimes (not always) resort to violence because you’ve exposed the irrationality of their arguments.
 
But fair questions they most certainly are and not questions that will likely ever be answered in a truthful and non-b.s. manner. Because the truth is that a system of economics designed to destroy wealth is not going to work. A country whose government taxes people more and more money, takes away their freedoms and rights, takes away their private property and funds itself through a pie that is slowly but surely diminishing is going to collapse at one point or another. It’s the reason Margaret Thatcher once said: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
 
Those who study economics, finance, accounting, etc. (and history should also be on that list) will have a good understanding of what socialism actually is. Those who do not study it are more likely to fall for the bullcrap being spread around the media and college campuses.
 
It really is a shame that so many philosophy majors favor socialism, considering its once great ties to theology. Theology requires a very deep understanding of philosophy and logic (and considering philosophy literally means “love of knowledge”, that makes it even more disappointing because these students have no real knowledge of what they are talking about).
 
Still, I’m glad to see that there is at least SOME logic still applied in colleges around the country, even if those who study the major that most ought to be studying logic fail miserably at it.
 
Proverbs 2:2-5
“Making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of 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.

It’s one thing to ask people in the United States if they think illegal immigrants ought to be deported or allowed to stay here, but it’s an entirely different thing to ask people in Mexico if they think illegal immigrants from Central America making their way to the U.S. but end up settling in Mexico (either permanently or until they are allowed to enter the U.S.) should be deported or allowed to stay in Mexico. And as a recent Washington Post poll finds, a vast majority want these people out of Mexico eventually.
 
The Washington Post/Reforma poll asked people: “What should Mexico do with the migrants from Central America that cross through the country trying to reach the United States? Give them residency in Mexico, give them temporary residency while the United States decides if it will accept them or not, or deport them to their countries of origin?”
 
Before I tell you what the numbers show, let me point something out about the question. Notice how they don’t mention in what fashion these illegals enter the country? Often times, people from Central America hoping to enter the United States enter not just our country illegally, but the countries that are on the way was well, such as Mexico. Even by Mexican standards, these people are undocumented and are not there legally, but the WaPo doesn’t want to paint them as a people that ought not be there. These aren’t “illegal immigrants” just “migrants” in their minds. That attempts to erase the legal aspects of the entire endeavor and make it about “poor people hoping for a better life” rather than people breaking the laws of a nation to illegally enter and remain in a country they will economically take advantage of.
 
But in any case, let’s get down to the actual numbers of the poll. According to the poll, only 7% said that Mexico should give these illegals residency in their country. 33% said they would be fine giving them temporary residence in Mexico and an incredible 55% said they wanted these illegals deported out of the country.
 
So 55% of Mexicans want illegals deported ASAP and 33% want them gone eventually, making that 88% of Mexicans that want these illegals gone at one point or another. Keep in mind, this is a sample size of 1200 respondents, so not a small size by any means.
 
Furthermore, the poll asked: “With which of these phrases do you agree the most? The migrants strengthen our country with their work and skills or the migrants are a burden on our country because they take jobs and receive benefits that should belong to Mexicans.” 20% of respondents agreed with the first statement, about migrants (illegals) strengthening the country through their work and skills (don’t make me laugh) while 64% agreed with the second statement about migrants (illegals) being a burden.
 
So 88% of Mexicans want these illegals gone sooner or later and 64% of Mexicans think these illegal immigrants are a burden to Mexico. I distinctly remember asking this when Mexicans protested against illegals back in November of last year, but I might as well repeat myself: is the media going to call Mexicans racist now?
 
Considering they did not say a darn thing about the Mexicans saying the caravans were an invasion and agreeing with Trump, I highly doubt they will say much of anything about this.
 
The Post themselves had to admit their disappointment in the findings of their survey: “Those findings defy the perception that Mexico – a country that has sent millions of its own migrants to the United States, sending billions of dollars in remittances – is sympathetic to the surge of Central Americans. Instead, the data suggests Mexicans have turned against the migrants transiting through their own country, expressing antipathy that would be familiar to many supporters of President Trump north of the border.”
 
I would like to say something along the lines of “well, Mexicans don’t want invaders going into their country. What a shocker,” but polls going as far back as even just last year show us a shift between then and now. According to a Pew Research Center poll from early 2018, 57% of Mexicans said that immigrants made their country stronger, with 37% saying immigrants were a burden. That’s a 27-point jump for those who say immigrants are a burden and a 37-point drop in those who say immigrants strengthened their country.
 
I don’t honestly know what led these Mexicans to have such a major change in mind about illegals in the span of a single year, but it might be in part to changing asylum rules in the U.S. (though that’s very recent and the survey was conducted July 9-14, so there’s a bit of an overlap) that force more illegals to remain in Mexico for longer periods of time.
 
What’s more, a poll from last month by Mexican newspaper “El Universal” said that since October of last year, more Mexicans began to support stricter immigration enforcement to keep illegals from entering the country. 49% of Mexicans said tougher immigration was necessary back in October. That number now sits at 61%.
 
So more and more Mexicans are beginning to get tired of the illegal immigrants that enter their country, as well they should. Granted, many of them probably would like for those illegals to go into the U.S., just as long as they aren’t in Mexico, but still. They ought to understand how much of a burden illegal immigration can be on a country, and I think they are beginning to understand this with the major influx of illegal immigrants flooding their country to try and get to ours.
 
Still, this, alongside my November article discussing the protests and my multiple articles surrounding the topic, ought to be proof enough that illegal immigration and the desire to manage and impede illegal immigration is not a matter of race, but of rule of law and maintaining our country.
 
Tackling illegal immigration is not a “white supremacist” endeavor, otherwise they would have to call the vast majority of Mexicans “white supremacists” which is utterly ludicrous. As I’ve said time and time again, the desire to build a wall and mitigate immigration is not an effort to “make America white again”. I’m not white but I still support Trump, the Wall and the idea of maintaining the American culture, which is at risk from both illegal immigrants (and legal immigrants that refuse to assimilate into the American culture) and the bigoted Left who hates this country to their very bones.
 
And while I’m certain there will be those on the Left who will insist you don’t have to be white to be a “white supremacist” (which should be antithetical to the Jesse Jackson belief that minorities can’t be racist, but they’ll contradict themselves if they feel it benefits them) and will in turn attempt to call me a “white supremacist” for insisting that we protect the country from foreign invaders who wish to turn this country into something it isn’t, I will only laugh at the miserable morons that make such assertions - much like I laugh at those who insist Trump colluded with Russia and will call me Russian names if I defend him (one literally called me Vlad for saying that Mueller did not find collusion, which is a factual statement).
 
The reason they make these assertions is because they completely ignore logic. Of course someone who defends this country isn’t a white supremacist. But that doesn’t matter because the Left has demonized this country so much and insists it’s as bad as it is because it’s so white that defending it is tantamount to Hitlerian rhetoric. It’s nonsense, but these people couldn’t care less. They care about emotions and their emotions don’t let them think logically.
 
They see things like men get paid more than women, get pissed, and presume misogyny without caring about the facts presented to them. And once said facts are presented, they only get more pissed and begin to berate you and call you a sexist yourself.
 
They see things like an ICE facility and compare it to a concentration camp because a moron like AOC made that comparison, and as a result, one of them gets pissed off enough to try and attack it using Molotov cocktails and gets killed as a result, thinking he was being a hero and “fighting Nazis” when all he was doing is commit a terrorist attack. These people don’t think for themselves, and are led by others who don’t think for themselves either and will use emotion as a driving force for their actions.
 
Mass migration, be it legal or illegal, changes a country’s entire culture. I fully believe Europe will become a Muslim continent because of their insistence on bringing in Syrian “refugees”. In turn, those “refugees” demand European countries change their system to accommodate them. And if America continues bringing in more and more immigrants, especially in mass migration attempts, the culture of this country will also be fundamentally changed forever.
 
That is not a racist statement to make, but a logical one. Latin America has a vastly different culture from our own. Even within Latin American countries, there are different cultures. I can tell you for sure that the culture of Mexico and the culture of Argentina are very different from each other. Granted, as a kid, it was easier for me to adjust to a new culture, but the adjustment still needed to be made.
 
If Mexicans are to retain their culture, they have to give the boot to those illegal immigrants and have the legal ones assimilate to their culture. Similarly, we must do the same.
 
But as it stands, I am glad to see such an incredible shift in sentiment towards illegals from Mexicans themselves. The WaPo mentions a perception of how Mexico sympathizes with illegals because many Mexicans illegally immigrate into the U.S. and have done so historically, but it seems things are changing, and maybe for the better.
 
We just need to follow suit with Mexico (not something I ever expected to say or write) and insist we enforce the immigration laws we already have in place; insist that we not allow for states and cities to aid and abet criminals by making themselves “sanctuaries” for the law-breakers and ultimately deport as many illegals as we possibly can (and for those who will mock Trump for not deporting as many illegals as Obama did, let me remind you that Obama didn’t have over half of Washington D.C. keeping him from performing those duties of his office).
 
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.

This Saturday marks a very important anniversary for our country: the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. 50 years ago, the United States embarked on a historical adventure to reach and set foot on the moon before the communist Soviets, who had managed to reach outer space before us on April 12th, 1961. Despite that, the Apollo 11 Eagle lunar module set an even bigger milestone, allowing for Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins to be the first people to reach the moon, Neil being the first to set foot on it, Buzz being the 2nd and Collins staying behind to tend to the ship.
 
And while the entire expedition was iconic, virtually everyone who knows the minimal amount on this subject knows of the legendary words: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” However, other words could’ve also become rather iconic with those.
 
Buzz Aldrin, after the module had landed on the moon, sent the following message back to ground control: “I would like to request a few moments of silence. I would like to invite each person listening in, wherever and whomever he may be, to contemplate for a moment the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his own individual way.”
 
That message was sent to ground control, but NASA went on to censor this: “I am the vine, you are the branches. Whosoever abides in me will bring forth much fruit. Apart from me you can do nothing,” quoting from the Gospel of John, in the 5th verse of the 15th chapter. Aldrin would then open “two small packages containing consecrated bread and wine from his church in Texas,” according to The Daily Wire. Aldrin would later recall: “In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine curled slowly and gracefully up the side of the cup.”
 
One of the first things to have been done on the moon, apart from setting foot on it and walking on it and planting the American flag on it, was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, with the bread signifying the body of Christ and the wine signifying the blood of Christ, both of which were given up for our sins.
 
Do you have any idea just how important and magnificent it would’ve been to see and hear Buzz Aldrin lead that Sacrament ON THE MOON?! And yet, that historic moment was taken away from us, indeed from mankind, because of militant Leftist atheists.
 
You see, NASA had been fighting a legal battle against a woman named Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a militant atheist who was widely considered “the most hated woman in America” (wonder why) who, seven months earlier, had sued NASA for allowing Apollo 8 astronauts to read from the Book of Genesis on Christmas Eve during a broadcast sent from lunar orbit.
 
So because a militant Leftist atheist was annoyed that anyone would enjoy hearing the Book of Genesis THE DAY BEFORE WE CELEBRATE THE DAY OUR LORD WAS BORN, NASA eventually kowtowed to the woman’s will and censored the Lord’s Supper broadcast that Aldrin had given, robbing generations of a deeply important and incredible religious moment on the surface of the closet thing we have come to the heavens while alive.
 
Due to the misery of some people who can’t stand to see others enjoy the sincere joy and happiness of faith in Christ, the very people who were brave enough to send mankind to the moon wasn’t brave enough to stand up to a miserable, hateful woman who refused to allow others to think differently from her.
 
I get annoyed and agitated when these hateful bigots try to bully government officials into getting rid of the 10 Commandments on the grounds of government buildings or when they try to get rid of Christian symbols in places like cemeteries, etc., but this honestly tops all of these things. What I would’ve done to hear Buzz Aldrin reading from the Gospel of John and perform the Lord’s Supper WHILE ON THE MOON! To have heard and seen it, even if just on a YouTube video half a century later, would’ve been ecstatic. Just thinking about it gives me goosebumps.
 
And yet, because some miserable people hate the Lord and will bully others into also hating the Lord, we were robbed of that glorious moment. These people’s hatred knows no bound, does it?
 
Do you want to know what is rather ironic? The verse immediately following the one Aldrin quoted says the following: “If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned.”
 
It’s extremely easy to see the contrast between those who remain in Christ, such as Buzz Aldrin, and those who do not remain in Christ. Those who remain in Christ, as Buzz Aldrin does, bears much fruit. He is widely famous for being one of the biggest American heroes alive and is pretty much universally loved. Those who do not remain in Christ, such as Madalyn Murray O’Hair, do not bear any fruit and are like the branches that are thrown away and wither up. As it stands, Buzz Aldrin, if he still remains in Christ today, will bear far more fruit once he joins our Lord in Heaven. But as far as Madalyn goes, she passed away (murdered, tragically) in 1995, having led the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit which challenged mandatory prayer and Bible reading in Baltimore public schools in 1963, which led the way for getting God out of the classrooms.
 
I don’t know if the Lord ever reached her heart at any point late in her life, but I have my doubts that He did. And because she did not remain in Christ as a result of the Lord not reaching her, it’s almost certain that she is now suffering eternal damnation in Hell (and for those who will call me “hateful” or “judgmental” for saying that she is likely in Hell right now, do me a favor and pick up the Bible. What does it say about those who are unbelievers? What happens to them? I’ll give you a hint: they don’t go to Heaven).
 
And while it is tragic that she was murdered (by a former employee of the organization she founded), what is even more tragic is that, while she had her entire life to find the Truth of Christ that is made patently obvious by the very existence of the creation itself, she spent her life challenging said Truth and suffered both the first and second death as a result (in all likelihood). As Paul writes in his letter to the Romans, in chapter 1 verse 20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.”
 
Man really has no excuse for not knowing the Truth of God and of the Gospel. The very world around us is the proof of a Creator. I always say we were not created by chance because chance has no intrinsic power to do anything. Chance is simply a mathematical calculation of a probable outcome or effect of a cause. It has no power to affect the effect because it is not a cause in itself. For someone to say and insist that the universe was created by chance is to say a nonsense statement because chance can’t DO anything.
 
The Truth of the Lord is made patently obvious to all, and so Man has no excuse. No one can tell the Lord, upon receiving judgment, that they simply did not know Him or of Him because everything around them points directly to Him as the Creator. For this reason, Madalyn had no excuse not to know about the Lord, especially in a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles that acknowledges the Truth of God. She challenged the notion of an existing God and tried to bully others into rejecting Him as well, but I have no doubt that she knows of Him now. Unfortunate that it is too late for her.
 
But returning to the religious moment that was taken away from us by a hateful bigot and a spineless NASA, while it is a tragedy that Buzz’s words were never heard by those paying attention to the broadcast (apart from ground control) and while his actions were never seen or talked about much, we all know that God was there to witness it, and I know He was smiling at the event.
 
Just knowing of this in the first place makes me angry that NASA allowed itself to be bullied as they were, but happy that Aldrin did what he did where he did it anyway. I’m happy that the moon got a little taste of the Word of God.
 
John 15:5
“I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.”
 
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.