If you asked me to remember how many articles I’ve written attacking the Left’s lack of logic, I would not be able to do it, since almost every single article that discusses the Left either discusses how illogical they are, how evil they are, or both.
 
And in recent time, I have read two separate articles (both from the Daily Wire) highlighting the Left’s illogical nature. Granted, the Daily Wire often does this, but these two articles are more subtle about it.
 
One of them is titled: “’Cosmo’ Covergirl Is ‘Morbidly Obese’ Body Acceptance Model’” and the other one is titled: “SJWs Lose It After Peter Dinklage Cast As ‘Filipino’. There’s Just One Problem.”
 
Very briefly, I will try to go through each article.
 
In the first one, Cosmo magazine features Tess Holliday, a plus-sized model and activist. Everyone from Cosmo to Holliday herself, to even the Huffington Post celebrate her being on the cover of the magazine, with the HuffPo saying: “Tess Holliday is everything the fashion industry needs. She doesn’t conform to the (metaphorically and literally) narrow standard of beauty that’s been set by society, she’s a role model for others who have felt excluded in this way, and she’s downright honest.”
 
What kind of role model insists that it’s OK to be "morbidly obese", the most severe rank of obesity according to the CDC? What kind of model insists such a thing is beautiful when it's not even healthy?
 
Of course, Leftists have already come up with an “argument” against that. Self magazine Editor-in-Chief Carolyn Kylstra said: “You don’t know how healthy or unhealthy a person is just by looking at them, you don’t know what their health goals and priorities are, and you don’t know what they’ve already done or are planning to do for their health going forward.”
 
This is some of the stupidest garbage I have ever read. And trust me, I’ve read a lot of stupid garbage. In essence, the Left, with their relativistic world-view that everything is relative, is trying to say that you can get to decide whether you're healthy or not. Health is now relative too.
 
First of all, you can absolutely tell how healthy or unhealthy someone is based entirely on looks. For example, someone who is as obese as Tess Holliday is very unhealthy. Someone who is undergoing chemotherapy is fairly unhealthy. Someone who is as skinny as Freddy Mercury was by the end of his life is not healthy. Someone who is even skinnier due to malnutrition is not healthy.
 
So don’t give me crap like that. You can absolutely tell how healthy someone is by a simple look, particularly if they are extreme cases such as Tess Holliday.
 
Second of all, a simple look might not tell you about their health goals or priorities – that much is true. But in the case of Tess Holliday, I absolutely can tell her goals and priorities. She’s a plus-sized model, activist and, according to multiple people, a role model. She’s all these things precisely because of her obesity, which carries with it some unhealthiness by definition. She’s this famous and rich because of her obesity. If she were to slim-down, not only would she likely lose all of these things, but she would even feel as though she’s betraying her own values and fans.
 
As stupid as it is to sacrifice health for wealth and fame and adoration, this is what I see her future as. She’s not going to get healthier, unfortunately. She likely has no plans for it, if she has attained this despite her unhealthiness.
 
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, she’s doing just as much damage to teenage girls as those ultra-skinny models in other magazines. If the argument against featuring super skinny models is that girls will want to imitate that, then the same argument can be made against super fat models.
 
If Tess Holliday can be famous by being super fat, then what is stopping other girls from doing the same?
 
Girls have been willing to force themselves to be skinny by purging (the act of forcing oneself to vomit to lose weight) because that is the standard those super skinny models set for beauty. If Tess does the same but for obesity, girls will start to eat unhealthy amounts of food and get as fat as Tess.
 
How is that being a good role model?
 
It’s backwards logic.
 
And that’s just the first article. The second article covers “Game of Thrones” actor Peter Dinklage supposedly “whitewashing” a Filipino man for an upcoming HBO movie titled “My Dinner with Herve”. The movie centers around a man named Herve Villechaize, who was a TV actor who starred in the ‘70s show “Fantasy Island”.
 
The only problem here is that Herve is not actually Filipino. The Wikipedia page about him says he’s Filipino, but he’s actually French and was of German and English descent, according to the Daily Wire. Herve just LOOKED Filipino and Wikipedia took it to mean that he actually was.
 
And we all know how reliable Wikipedia is. Even Dinklage called it out, saying that there was a Wikipedia page about his daughter claiming her name is “Zelig” but his daughter’s name isn’t actually Zelig.
 
Now, you might be thinking “what’s the backwards logic here?” The fact that SJWs attack Dinklage for whitewashing a character who was not actually a minority. Yes, that’s irony, but it’s also backwards logic that revolves around playing identity politics.
 
Identity politics is really just “acceptable racism”. It’s where white people are told to shut up about everything because they somehow have led minorities to suffer. My friends, I’m afraid that’s Democrats who cause suffering. Not white people.
 
And the fact that SJWs attacked Dinklage for supposedly “whitewashing” a person who is white but looks ethnic is backwards logic, as well as deliciously ironic.
 
The backwards logic and the irony come in the fact that the SJWs are calling other people racist while they themselves have proven to be racist by assuming someone’s race based entirely on their looks (which is the primary way to know someone’s race but it’s somehow become a horrendous sin to do).
 
Being fat to the point you’re morbidly obese is, in the Left’s mind, completely acceptable and not something you should feel bad about to the point you want to do something about it. And attacking someone else for doing nothing wrong even if you think they’re doing something wrong is morally justifiable and acceptable.
 
Granted, the Dinklage example might be a tad extreme for this circumstance, since the people that accused him of being racist probably have egg on their faces right now but I digress.
 
Both of these things contain within them the underlying message that wrong is right and right is wrong. Now, I’m not saying it’s wrong to be fat. But when you’re so fat you take up two seats on a plane, that’s a problem. When you’re so fat you are considered to be at the most extreme rank of obesity according to the CDC, that’s a problem. And when you have no intention to get any slimmer and get any healthier, that’s a problem.
 
When you attack someone who isn’t doing anything wrong but is doing something wrong in your eyes, that’s a problem. Because even if Herve actually were Filipino, that shouldn’t be a problem whatsoever anyway. Peter Dinklage should still be able to play a Filipino man.
 
Racism has no place in entertainment, one way or the other. If Dinklage wanted to play a Filipino man, no one should try to stop him based on arguments of racism.
 
The Left’s backwards logic is the precise meaning for the Isaiah 5:20 verse saying: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
 
The Left are the ones who are saying Trump is a fascist when they were supporting someone who more accurately portrays a fascist: Barack Obama. The Left are the ones who say it’s okay to believe you are a different gender. (And don’t even get me started on sexual orientation. At this point, it must be hard for gay men because we can now realistically ask “when you say you are attracted to other men, do you mean men who are men, women who are men or men who are women?” I would honestly feel bad if I were gay and were asked such a question. Heck, I would feel bad about asking such a question in the first place because we know it’s now not strictly a joke).
 
Regardless, it all speaks to the Left’s backwards logic. They call evil good and good evil (Obama and Trump, Allah and Jesus, Socialism and Capitalism, etc.). They insist that they are not racist and claim others are racist when they are historically and actually the most racist people out there, whether they mean to or not. And they encourage people to believe they are the opposite gender from what they biologically are and encourage people that it’s okay to live unhealthy lives just to be a “nonconformist” in a society that is not entirely bananas.
 
This isn’t just backwards logic, it’s willful evil as well. They know the damage they are causing to people’s minds and souls. They are happy with it because as long as people are illogical and not thinking for themselves, they will vote the way the Left wants them to vote.
 
It should speak volumes to everyone who reads this that the Left requires people to be basically absent-minded for them to garner even a single vote.
 
Now, I’m not calling liberals stupid. There are plenty of Democrat voters and liberals who are smart. And precisely because they are smart, they will eventually switch sides. Just as you can’t be a Christian and a Democrat at the same time forever, you can’t be intelligent and a Democrat forever (unless you run for office).
 
My point is not to call Democrat voters stupid, but to show the Left REQUIRES people not to think independently and intelligently in order to succeed at any level in the government. Feeding false information is the primary way they do this.
 
Ephesians 4:18
“They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.”
 
And please, if you haven’t done so already, make sure to subscribe to our weekly newsletter. All you have to do is enter your e-mail address in the box on the right and click the “Subscribe to our free newsletter” box. You read that right, it’s 100% free. Unlike free healthcare, free college and free unicorn poop, you don’t actually have to pay for anything anywhere with this newsletter. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles for easy access to them, as well as easier access to our online store.

​Ever since President Trump announced his pick for replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy to be Brett Kavanaugh, the fake news media has gone into overdrive to find anything they can possibly use against him.
 
The result? Brett Kavanaugh is, without a shadow of a doubt, a pretty normal dude.
 
And in the latest news search for finding anything to say about Kavanaugh, the AP uncovered something incredible: he preferred basketball over politics while he was a student at Yale.
 
*GASP* THE HORROR!
 
The AP wrote: “In some ways, Kavanaugh was like many Yale students of his time: a product of a high-powered East Coast prep school who majored in history, then Yale’s most popular major, and headed for law school after graduating in 1987. Interviews with more than a dozen people who knew him in college and Yale Law School draw a portrait of a serious, but not showy student and sports lover whose drive and competitiveness helped him both on the court and in the classroom.”
 
The Daily Wire also tackled this story, saying: “[The AP] interviewed ‘more than a dozen people’ to learn: 1) he probably would have preferred to be an NBA player, 2) he belonged to an all-male ‘senior society’ called Truth and Courage, 3) he wasn’t outspoken about his political views, and 4) he keeps in touch with his law-school housemates.”
 
Now, there are a few different reasons I’m talking about this. First of all, this is basically proof of the nature of today’s mainstream media. Despite what people on CNN or other fake news media might say about the MSM not being biased as Trump claims, it’s stories like these that show that’s precisely what they are. This is only one of many stories about Brett Kavanaugh that end up making the guy seem completely normal.
 
There was also another story about him during a baseball game doing something no one ever expected: enjoying the game.
 
So no one can honestly tell me the fake news media is not fake news or is not biased. The biggest reason they search so much about Kavanaugh is to look for dirt, much as they have been looking to do with Trump, and have found absolutely nothing.
 
That’s the biggest reason for this article. The second reason is to point out precisely how normal the MSM is making Kavanaugh look, which is the exact opposite of what they want to do.
 
The MSM wants to make Kavanaugh basically look like a serial killer who’s out to take away women’s “right” to kill their own children. After seeing all of these stories, the biggest adjective I can use to describe Kavanaugh is simply: normal.
 
As it turns out, he’s not the blood-thirsty monster the media tries to portray him as. He’s a normal dude, living a normal life, and who’s gotten one of the biggest honors one can receive in the world of judicial law and that is to be nominated for a United States Supreme Court seat.
 
Whenever someone goes to a baseball game, they tend to enjoy it (unless you’re a Mets fan). And in college, or even at any other point in your life, it makes sense if you would prefer to be a basketball player in the NBA than just about anything else.
 
I know for a fact that, while I love doing what I do, I would absolutely LOVE being a basketball player, playing for my favorite NBA team and trying to win championships, all-the-while earning millions of dollars even if I’m garbage.
 
People tend to have such dreams of grandeur, and the fact that the AP is saying this is 1) not news whatsoever and 2) completely expected, even for someone back in 1987. If I could be a basketball player in the late 80’s and early 90’s, I would be, even if I got destroyed by the Celtics, Lakers, Pistons or Bulls.
 
But there’s also a different aspect that’s not quite as obvious as the basketball one. The story also mentions that he wasn’t outspoken about his political views. That is also perfectly normal, but beyond that, it even makes sense.
 
Kavanaugh is not a politician. He is not running for a Senate seat or a House seat and has never run for President. He’s a lawyer. And yeah, a lot of politicians get law degrees, but Kavanaugh himself likely never saw himself running for office. What he is, in his mind, is a lawyer and a judge.
 
I know that politics infects pretty much every aspect of people’s lives, but it really shouldn’t. That’s what is ruining a lot of things.
 
For example, I far prefer watching old t.v. shows and movies than current shows, with some exceptions. Why? Because for the most part, politics play a huge role in shows today, while they were only an underlying topic rarely brought up in shows of the past.
 
Today, you can hardly watch a show that doesn’t feature either a gay character or couple, a transgender character, or overall someone who is adamant in shoving their Leftist views down everyone else’s throats.
 
Like I said, there are exceptions to this. For example, Last Man Standing. That’s a show that is heavily political, but it often pokes fun at the topic. You have both liberal characters and conservative characters who often bicker at each other, but you like them all anyway and logic often appears in everything. The liberal character is not overly Leftist to the point he will cross-dress while wearing a pink hat representing the female genitalia and shouting that the conservative character is a fascist.
 
But the reason it’s a good show is because, in my opinion, it depicts a more normal situation in America. Most shows don’t offer the conservative side of things. They just feature a family full of Leftists that all agree that Trump is Hitler and conservatives need to die. That’s not what America really is. We are more varied and, to borrow the Left’s term, diversified than that.
 
So politics have basically ruined television shows in today’s era because they use politics almost 24/7 and take themselves completely seriously. The same thing goes for just about any Hollywood movie today (again, there are exceptions) as well as video games.

This politization of everything has also gotten into practicing, implementing and enforcing the law. Circuit court judges are overextending their authority by forcing Trump to keep DACA, a highly unconstitutional EO enacted by Obama. And why? Because such judges are not judges, but political activists who disregard the laws that they don’t like.
 
The assumption, in the AP’s mind, is that everyone has a political belief that they employ at work. Everyone from a Starbucks employee who refuses to serve police or military personnel to even district and Supreme Court judges.
 
But it shouldn’t be that way. Politics shouldn’t play into absolutely everything, and clearly, it doesn’t in Kavanaugh’s job. He doesn’t make rulings based on his own beliefs, but rather on what his best interpretation of the law is. Sure, he has beliefs and views and sure, he has certain convictions that almost undoubtedly play into his rulings. 
 
But he’s not a political activist. He’s not going to ignore the law entirely just to advance his own political agenda. And that’s the way every judge should act and is expected to act in a logical setting. There's a reason Lady Justice has a blindfold covering her eyes: a judge is supposed to be impartial. When presented with a case, he/she makes sure it’s up to the defense and prosecution to explain why they are right so that the jury can come to a verdict and the judge can make it the official ruling in the court.
 
When you have a judge that will 100% be against one side or the other, what you have is the opposite of justice. What you have is injustice and corruption.
 
From what we’ve seen and heard both from Trump and the media (when they’re not calling him a monster) is that Kavanaugh’s a perfectly normal guy with strong convictions and integrity. He will rule according to what the law says and according to his best interpretation of the law, not on what he WANTS the law to be.
 
Now, there can be problems, at times, with trying to use the best interpretation of the law. Naturally, interpretations are entirely subjective and people will naturally disagree on things. It’s tricky, but Kavanaugh seems to be the kind of guy to not willingly misinterpret the law and ignore what it says altogether just for his agenda’s benefit.
 
And given what the AP and other sources have shown about Kavanaugh, he seems like your Regular Joe with a Yale Law School degree.
 
A far cry from the image of the demon the Left wants to portray him as.
 
Philippians 4:8
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”
 
Also, if you haven’t already, please make sure to subscribe to our weekly newsletter. You can get a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as the opportunity to buy something from our store if you so choose to do. And the best part? It’s 100% free to do! Just input your e-mail address in the box on the right and click subscribe. Literally two steps and you’re done! It’s easy and won’t cost you even a single penny. And yes, I recognize the irony in me being a capitalist and not making money off of this and socialists like the NYT giving you three free articles to read before forcing you to pay a subscription to read more.

I seem to be falling into an interesting pattern of talking about different polls in different articles consecutively or at least in a short time span from one another. Back in June, I talked about a poll ranking Obama as the worst post-WWII President, followed by a poll saying that most Americans are distrustful of the MSM.
 
Yesterday, I talked about a poll saying that only a quarter of Democrat voters want to abolish ICE and today, I will be talking about a poll that says most people agree with Trump on revoking Brennan’s security clearance, as well as a couple other things regarding security clearances.
 
In a Harvard CAPS/Harris survey, which constituted of 1,330 registered voters on August 22nd and 23rd, comprising 37% Democrat voters, 32% Republicans, 29% Independents and 2% “other”, according to The Hill: “The survey showed 59 percent of registered voters felt Brennan should have lost his security clearance, while 64 percent said Comey and others at the FBI who were fired or demoted over their actions should lose their clearance.”
 
This is pretty incredible news for a couple of reasons.
 
First of all, logic seems to have a hand in all of this. Think about it. What have some people who have formerly worked with the federal government and thus received some level of security clearance done after leaving government work? Well, Brennan has gone on to become a consultant or news contributor, as, basically, has Comey.
 
And do you remember the ex-CIA official who freaked out at Trump supporter Paris Dennard over this very subject? He also has a security clearance.
 
These people work for the federal government at varying levels, receive varying levels of security clearances, and are trusted to not do anything with that security clearance after leaving those positions? That has the potential to be a HUGE security risk for the very reasons these people attack Trump: potential for collusion with a foreign government.
 
Dianne Feinstein has some level of a security clearance because she’s a sitting Senator and she had a Chinese spy working for her for decades. John Brennan was the head of the CIA under Obama, and thus, had a pretty powerful security clearance. James Comey was the head of the FBI under Obama and still has his!
 
And do you know what has been mentioned to be the biggest reason for revoking Brennan’s security clearance? An op-ed published on the NYT written by Brennan in which he writes things like: “Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash. The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of ‘Trump Incorporated’ attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets.”
 
Do you see what tone Brennan uses in this one paragraph alone? He speaks as though collusion is A MATTER OF FACT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN! And you’d think Brennan would be someone who would know this for a fact if it happened, right? Well, if that’s the case and it is a matter of fact, then why didn’t he mention this IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION STORY BECAME A THING?!
 
Surely, as head of the CIA under Obama, he would have the intel to know if collusion did happen. And yet, he didn’t mention it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017 or to the Special Counsel, as Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chair Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) points out. Why talk about Russian collusion as a fact in the New York Times but not an official government assessment that would definitely have led to Trump’s immediate impeachment, which is the whole point of this entire narrative anyway?
 
So he talks as though collusion definitely happened and had the security clearance, at that time, to definitely know it didn’t. With his mindset of destroying Trump, I wouldn’t be surprised if he had leaked some things or said things he had no right to say.
 
So the fact that most people agree that Brennan’s security clearance should have been revoked is a big win for logic. People who have the intent of destroying a sitting and duly-elected POTUS for the sole reason that “I don’t like him” should not have access to our very secret records.
 
The second reason this is incredible news is the fact that, pretty much as always, there were more Democrats surveyed than Republicans, but they still sided with Trump on this.
 
You’d be hard-pressed to find any Democrat voter agree with Trump on anything, particularly if they intend on voting for Democrats who will try to impeach Trump. And it’s not like the sample size was minuscule. Over a thousand people is quite the big sample to ask people questions. So to see so many people so much in favor of such a Trump action is quite endearing.
 
But returning to the larger point I wanted to make here: it’s ridiculous that people who no longer work for the federal government can keep their security clearances as long as they don’t do things that would warrant them being revoked (or at least getting caught doing such things).
 
Because it puts a lot of trust in people that should not be trusted. Hillary sold 20% of our Uranium supply to the Russians and had a private e-mail server with over 30k e-mails of confidential or classified information. Why does she still have her security clearance when she is, at the same time, willingly and inadvertently such a huge security risk for our nation? I mean, there was even a report from the Daily Caller that Hillary’s server was hacked by the Chinese throughout her tenure as Secretary of State!
 
And James Comey worked alongside Brennan, Hillary, the DNC and John McCain (whom I shed no tears for upon learning that he died) to plant a spy in Trump’s campaign, without telling him about it, and look for evidence of Russian collusion before the story broke out and before they even thought he would win but felt compelled to have an insurance policy in the case he won, allowed for the insanely bogus and unverified Steele dossier to be the foundation for the FISA warrants to spy on Papadopalous and Carter, as well as being the foundational document for the Mueller investigation (despite their denial of all this) and diligently worked to undermine and even overturn a Presidential election when it didn’t go the way they wanted it to.
 
So why does he still have his security clearance? Why does anyone keep their security clearance upon leaving government? That’s putting a lot of trust in a lot of people that have either proven or have the potential to be massive national security risks.
 
It’s asinine for anyone to keep their security clearance upon returning to civilian life. It’s illogical and makes no sense whatsoever.
 
And I, for one, am glad most people seemingly agree. Again, 59% of people agreed with revoking Brennan’s security clearance and even more people (64%) believe Comey and others within the FBI who were fired or demoted (*ahem* Peter Strzok *ahem*) should have their security clearances revoked as well and that, if those people become consultants or news contributors, 60% agreed they should have their clearances revoked.
 
In my opinion, even if they don’t plan on using the security clearance, they still shouldn’t have that clearance. I mean, if a former high-ranking official wanted to open up a bakery in Boca Raton, Florida, what would they need that security clearance for? Some secret Russian recipe for cupcakes?
 
The reality is that anyone with a security clearance will likely utilize it to some extent, otherwise it becomes irrelevant. Which is why it makes no sense to allow people to leave their government jobs and keep one of its best perks. Either you would use it for something shady like working for the media and using that intelligence to drive a story or you don’t use it at all, at which point it makes no difference if one has a security clearance or not.
 
So why risk our national security by letting highly untrustworthy people keep their security clearance upon leaving government? What sense does it make to have this as a rule? Either people will use it for evil or not at all.
 
Either way, I’m happy to see many people siding with Trump on this issue, which the Left has tried very hard to make it look unconstitutional in some way or another and that people aren’t buying what they’re selling. Here’s hoping we soon change the way things work and revoke the security clearance of anyone who no longer works in the government.
 
Romans 8:28
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”

Knowing that there is any number of Americans that wants to abolish ICE, in my mind, is not a good thing. However, let me explain why this is pretty incredible news.
 
A few months back, when the immigration debate somehow became a good thing for Democrats because of ICE policy of separating children from their parents (that was demonized as virtual kidnapping of foreigners), around 43% of Democrats said that they supported a bill that would effectively abolish ICE.
 
Interestingly enough, a few Democrats picked up on that and decided to make it a front-and-center issue for them, and it even led to some Democrats wanting to vote on such a thing in the House of Representatives, with Republicans calling their bluff on it, and the Democrats voting against bringing up the issue.
 
But regardless of this, separation of children at the border became a big issue for Democrats, with Elizabeth Warren even saying that that’s more important than Mollie Tibbetts being killed by an illegal immigrant. It was a big deal and a big topic. And clearly, at the time, Democrats thought immigration and ICE would be a good topic to rally a resistance to Trump in November.
 
It seems now, however, that such a thing might not be a very good idea. According to an Associated Press poll, “only a quarter of Democrats support eliminating the agency that carried out the Trump administration’s policy of separating immigrant children from their parents.”
 
With that said, that doesn’t exactly mean that ICE is starting to make some friends out of Democrats. According to the AP, around 57% of Democrats and 75% of people who are self-described liberals view the agency in a negative way.
 
Still, it’s interesting to see such a massive shift away from wanting to flat out abolish ICE. It seems that the only reason so many Democrats wanted to abolish ICE was because of the outrage they felt and the emotions they held about separation of children at the border. Once the outrage died down, it seems more Democrats were beginning to think a bit more and decide that, while they may not necessarily support or like ICE, they are a necessity for border security.
 
Of course, you could say: “But Freddie, I thought Democrats didn’t care about border security”. ELECTED Democrats don’t, because they get free votes with more illegals pouring into the country and never being negatively affected by it, given they feel safe and secure in their own homes.
 
However, while there are plenty of Democrat voters who might not care about border security and want open borders, there are enough of them to realize that such a thing would not be fantastic, as many criminals could also come in and wreak havoc upon Americans.
 
Democrat voters don’t want criminals on the streets. Democrat officials want anyone they can get to vote, regardless of criminal history.
 
Now, there is another observation I wish to make. Children separated at the borders seemed, for a time, that it would be a frontline issue for Democrats to tackle and run on in the upcoming midterm elections, with the abolition of ICE likely being part of it. However, as time has gone on and the dust has settled, less and less Democrats have begun to support the idea of abolishing the organization altogether. They may want to reform it in some way, which is the direction other Democrats such as Bernie Sanders (yes, he’s technically an Independent, but he’s a Leftist and Democrats are Leftists, so…) have gone, but not abolish it altogether, as people like Ocasio-Cortez have campaigned on.
 
This much is evident by what I have mentioned above. But the other thing I want to observe here is that it seems Democrats can’t hold on to numbers as well as Trump can.
 
What do I mean by that? Let’s compare the Democrats and President Trump.
 
The Democrats, once people have spent their outrage, have seemingly lost support for a key issue they may have wanted to tackle. Sure, Leftists like Bernie Sanders were against the abolition of slav… -er, I mean ICE, but there were Democrats that thought they could make this an issue to run on, as Ocasio-Cortez literally ran on such an issue to defeat Joe Crowley in the Democrat primaries in New York a few months ago.
 
So this is an issue the Dems want to go with, particularly since Ocasio-Cortez is now one of the faces of the Democrat Party. But given the numbers of Democrats who want to abolish ICE is now LOWER than it used to be, it’s clear that the Dems might not be able to hold large numbers for a long time.
 
So what does Trump have to do with this? Why bring him up? It’s not necessarily about the issue of immigration or anything of the sort. It’s about his approval numbers.
 
After the Helsinki summit with Putin, people expected his numbers to go down. They literally did the opposite, with Trump’s approval numbers RISING after the meeting and holding steady ever since.
 
After the Cohen and Manafort cases, which the Left touted as the beginning of the end for Trump, his numbers, according to an NBC/WSJ poll, have not really budged much, with his numbers being at 46% approval the day after the Manafort and Cohen convictions and 44% a couple of days later.
 
Yeah, some movement, but nothing as catastrophic as the Left would want, even in a relatively liberal poll. What was described as a horrible week for Trump has shown to be mostly nothing, since the biggest point of the convictions and the Russia collusion narratives have been about driving down Trump’s numbers.
 
The Left believes these convictions are Trump’s Watergate. The thing is that 1) these things aren’t about Trump that much (Manafort’s case has nothing to do with Trump and Cohen’s case was, seemingly, mostly about his own actions) and 2) what really destroyed Nixon was that his approval numbers were shattered in the time of the scandal breaking out and the time leading up to his resignation.
 
You see, impeachment is not about justice. While the grounds for impeachment are mostly about high crimes and misdemeanors and that’s what has to start impeachment proceedings that at least appear legit, impeachment is entirely about politics.
 
Take Nixon, for example. No, he was never impeached, but he was forced to resign to avoid impeachment because his numbers were so low (24% by the time he resigned, according to Gallup). So while he did do something wrong and illegal and should have been forced from office, the bigger point of Watergate was to drop his numbers to the point where virtually everyone in America wanted him gone, and it worked.
 
Now, take Bill Clinton, for example. Yes, he was technically impeached, but he still served the rest of his term because the impeachment was essentially taken back. And the reason he still served the rest of his term is because he enjoyed very high approval ratings. Most people did not want Clinton out of office, despite the fact that he committed sexual assault as POTUS and should have been forced from office.
 
So one of the biggest differences between Trump and Nixon is that (apart from the fact that Nixon actually did something wrong while Trump is being attacked because the biggest crime he committed was defeat the Left) Nixon’s numbers dropped significantly due to the scandal. Trump’s numbers have only gone UP since the collusion story and every little other thing that the Left wants to stick on Trump that severely discredits them.
 
Trump, despite what the Left is saying and doing, is only gaining popularity, even at times when it would seem like he is in trouble. The Democrats, on the other hand, cannot hold on to their popularity, at least on certain issues.
 
Again, abolishing ICE was something even elected Democrats and Leftists were divided on, but with drops in numbers like these in this amount of time, that tells me Democrats are entirely dependent on the reactions they can get out of people for certain things than on their own actions. This is nothing new, but that’s where Trump has them beat. His numbers aren’t dwindling because he’s Making America Great Again. His actions are the reason for his high approval rating.
 
But for Democrats, things don’t look so good. Again, this is one issue that even they were divided on, but drops like these are never a good thing, particularly for people like Ocasio-Cortez who campaigned on this issue.
 
However, don’t take this to mean that Democrats will be soundly defeated in November. They will only be defeated if Republicans go out to vote. Their base is energized with hatred for Trump, despite his approval numbers. So we better go out and match their energy. Trump may not be on the ballot, but he will be severely affected by the results of this election. If we want to keep Making America Great Again, we’re going to have to go out with the same energy that we did in 2016.
 
Otherwise, there really might be a blue wave (maybe not as big as the Left would want, but still) and that would mean Trump gets essentially derailed, if not altogether impeached.
 
Democrat voters want to kick Trump out. We have to ensure he remains with a Republican majority in Congress.
 
With that said, I am hopeful for the midterms. I tend to call myself a realist, so that should be an indication to what I expect will happen in November. Although, I must say this: what happens in July/August doesn’t necessarily affect what happens in November all that much. Which is why any numbers that give any indication to a blue wave today might not be there or very accurate by the time of the election.
 
Proverbs 16:7
“When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”

As I have mentioned in the past few articles from last week, one of the biggest stories of the past week was the finding of Mollie Tibbetts’ body and subsequent arrest of illegal immigrant Christian Bahena Rivera for her murder.
 
I have also mentioned that I was surprised the media was even talking about it, given it does not look good for their pro-open-borders stance. It still doesn’t, but the MSM is not always the brightest bulb in the shed. They have talked about her to some extent, of course, focusing more on Manafort and Cohen (and thus, Trump), but they have mentioned her. However, and this is what makes me think they’re not the smartest people out there, what they have said is either insensitive or moronic.
 
For example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said on CNN that Mollie’s death is sad for her family, but that “we need an immigration system that… focuses on what the real problems are. Last month, I went down to the border and I saw where children had been taken away from their mothers…”
 
In other words, what happened to Mollie Tibbets isn’t the real problem. Illegal immigrant children being briefly separated from their parents is the real problem.
 
Christina Greer on MSNBC dismissed Mollie’s death as some “girl in Iowa” that “Fox News is talking about.”
 
And later in the week, Salon writer Amanda Marcotte tried to steer the conversation away from an illegal immigrant killing a girl to a man, irrespective of his immigrant status, killing a girl. What I mean is that she wanted to blame men in general over Mollie’s death, not the illegal immigrant or our broken immigration system that allows these animals into the country.
 
And before you attack me for saying the word “animal” to describe the illegal murderer, know that 1) I couldn’t care less what the Left thinks of me and 2) I’m specifically referring to animals like him who attack, harass, violate, rape and/or kill innocent American girls.
 
But considering all of these things, one thing is quite clear: the Left only politicizes tragedies that benefit them and only them.
 
After the Parkland school shooting, the Left was, and don’t mind my pun here, basically up in arms about the shooting and calling for stricter gun control laws.
 
Their theory is that, if gun control can save one kid from dying from a gun incident, then it’d be worth it.
 
However, when it comes to a tragedy like this one, where a young girl in her 20’s disappears and is found dead, murdered at the hands of an illegal immigrant, the Left couldn’t care less.
 
Clearly, Elizabeth Warren couldn’t care less. If she cares more about the welfare and wellbeing of people who should not be here over the DEATH of an American girl who had her whole life ahead of her, that tells you how heartless Warren is.
 
Clearly, Christina Greer couldn’t care less. If she dismisses this tragedy as nothing more than some girl in a fly-over state being discussed on a rival network, that tells you how heartless Greer is.
 
And clearly, Amanda Marcotte couldn’t care less. If she wants to steer away from the conversation of the fact that illegals are more and more often killing and destroying Americans and their families, even saying that the animal is not an illegal immigrant because his attorney says he isn’t an illegal immigrant, despite the fact that both ICE and USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) both made it clear that he is an illegal, and trying to blame men in general for her death, then that tells you how heartless Marcotte is.
 
If you’re going by the theory that if gun control can save the life of a single kid, then we can theorize that if a wall at the southern border can keep a single American life from being taken at the hands of an illegal, then it’d be worth it.
 
The difference between gun control and a wall is that a wall would actually work, while gun control only endangers people, if Chicago’s horrific statistics for gun crimes and murder from the weekend prior to this last one is any indication.
 
I mean, over 60 people being killed in a single weekend in gun control-infested Chicago? You can’t tell me gun control works. And you can’t tell me it’s because they’re buying guns outside of Chicago. If that’s the case, then why aren’t the neighboring cities overrun with the statistics Chicago is seeing?
 
Regardless, I digress. What I’m trying to say here is that the Left never wastes a good tragedy, but they either ignore or straight up downplay a tragedy that doesn’t do them much good.
 
Do you remember the story about a compound in New Mexico training kids to be school shooters? Why wasn’t that all over the news? Because the people running the compound are Muslim extremists. If it had been run by NRA members (which would never happen anyway), the media would go into a meltdown. But because it was run by Muslims, crickets.
 
It’s roughly the same story for Mollie Tibbetts. She was killed by an illegal immigrant, someone who should never have even set foot in this country, and the Left couldn’t care less because they can’t capitalize on it.
 
They only politicize tragedies that will be beneficial to them. Now, I’m not saying the Right isn’t politicizing this tragedy as well. But the difference between this tragedy and school shootings or other tragedies that benefit the Left is that our proposals and ideas, such as building the wall and securing our borders, won’t actually serve to put more people in danger.
 
The difference between gun control and a secured border is that a secured border isn’t meant to take away people’s Constitutional rights (and don’t you dare tell me illegals have such rights. They don’t). Gun control is meant to take away people’s guns, eradicate or nullify the 2nd Amendment and give the government no obstacles in its desire to grow and run people’s lives.
 
On the other hand, a wall at the border is only a detriment to those who wish to break the law by coming here the wrong way. Those who wish to immigrate here the right way will not be threatened by a big, beautiful wall.
 
As it turns out, only those who intend to break the law tend to fear the law. People like myself, a legal immigrant (now proud American citizen) have no reason to fear. Why? Because it’s not about the color of our skin. It’s about rule of law.
 
I have no problem with Cristhian Bahena Rivera’s nationality. I do have a problem with the fact that he murdered an innocent American girl in cold-blood when he shouldn’t have even been in this country.
 
I also have a problem with the fact that no one on the Left thinks this is a big deal whatsoever. It is, because this is not the first time an illegal has killed an American citizen and it won’t be the last.
 
Granted, even with a border wall and tougher border security, there will likely be cases of illegals killing people (largely because of unconstitutional Democrat messes like DACA), but the numbers, in theory, should go down. It should make things safer for people, particularly in the long-run.
 
And even though it’s a solution that would even help Democrats avoid situations like these, where they have to somewhat try to feign any sort of sympathy, they still won’t want it because it means less illegals voting Democrat. It means less illegals invading this country and trying to purge it from its foundation.
 
If a young girl with her whole future ahead of her is killed by one of these animals, that’s ok, as long as Democrats benefit at the ballot.
 
Why in the world would anyone want to vote Democrat when they so openly have not a care in the world about the very people that they should represent? When they so openly prioritize illegals who shouldn’t be here over American citizens and even legal residents who do have the right to be here?
 
Then again, answers to these questions require logic, something Democrats, the media and young socialist millennials seldom employ.
 
Ecclesiastes 12:14
“For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.”

The biggest stories in the news media for this week have been about Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and, surprisingly, Mollie Tibbetts. However, there was a story that came out before these things that I really should have covered then, but will cover it now because it really is a worthwhile story that I believe can stand the test of time.
 
That story, of course, is when New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo attacked Trump’s MAGA slogan, saying that America “was never that great”. Naturally, he received some backlash, even from the Left, but Campus Reform decided to take it to the streets of New York to ask people if they agree or disagree with the Governor’s statement. Specifically, Campus Reform asked college-aged millennials this question. (video below)
 
I think you can guess what they collectively thought.
 
Most of them said things like: “I don’t believe America has been great for all folks, ever, even today”, “I would have to agree with Governor Cuomo.”
 
When asked if they could point to a time when America was great, they said things like: “Not particularly”, as well as one particularly opined young man who had some harsh words to say: “The idea that there was a once great America is pointing towards this false sense of nationalism… What, it’s talking about white America? Yeah, it’s not great.”
 
It’s worth pointing out this particular young man is, himself, a white man.
 
Another young Millennial said something similar: “I think it has been great for straight, white men for a very long time.”
 
Overall, it is interesting to see the sentiment shared by these kids about how they feel about our country. However, it’s both surprising and not very surprising.
 
The reason it’s not surprising is because Millennials are not well-educated, even if they get degrees from Ivy League schools. They are indoctrinated into believing America sucks, has always sucked and always will suck unless we turn to socialism. And even then, they might still believe it sucks, since the Left is even attacking and hating America for at one time having allowed for slavery and segregation. That America is not great because we allowed those things in the past (guess which political party fought for those things) despite the fact that we have made true progress when it comes to those things.
 
So I’m not surprised at all that these young ignoramuses believe America was not great in the past and is not great now. And I shall return to this soon.
 
I also mentioned that I was surprised that they said this. Why? Because saying America was never great ignores the 8 years of Obama.
 
Of course, Obama spent 8 years to ensure America was as crappy as it could possibly be, so most of the country was seeing America not being great, which prompted Trump to use the “Make America Great Again” slogan. During Obama’s 8 years, America was not great. But when it comes to these socialist Millennials, you would think they would answer: “Yes, America was great, but only when Obama was POTUS” or something along those lines.
 
Saying that America was never great, as untrue as that statement is, completely ignores the Obama years in these Leftists’ own minds.
 
You would think they would bring up Obama in any way, or say that America was only great when Obama was running the show, but no. Not one mention of the communist traitor.
 
THAT is what has me the most surprised. Now, the video offered by Campus Reform is only 3 minutes long, and they didn’t get to that many people, but it is still surprising that even the few millennials who explained their reasoning apart from just saying “no, America was never great” did not think to mention Obama in the least.
 
Alas, that is mostly a tangent for this article. While still surprising and noteworthy, it’s not the main point of this article. As promised, I would return to why I wasn’t surprised these kids said America was never great.
 
Part of the reason these kids think this way, apart from being indoctrinated by academia and the MSM, is that they have all lived fairly privileged lives.
 
I would doubt any one of them has spent much time living and residing outside the U.S. or any other first-world nation.
 
The people who most often shout that we are an oppressive system have never experienced actual oppression. The people who most often shout that we are racists have never experienced actual racism. The people who most often proclaim guns kill people are the ones who are most protected by people with guns.
 
And the people who most often shout that capitalism kills people while socialism brings equality to people have never lived in a socialist country.
 
It’s no secret that I come from Argentina. It’s also no secret that I am fairly young. But just because I am young does not mean I cannot learn from history. And Argentina’s history is not a pretty one.
 
While America was being rebuilt and regaining its strength in the 50’s, Argentina experienced a military coup to overthrow their authoritarian president Juan D. Peron. However, this military coup led to a military dictatorship not very dissimilar to Peron’s own dictatorship. This lasted decades, until in 1973, Peron returned to power, only to die the following year, and his wife, who was elected vice president, took power.
 
The ‘70s were troubling times for Argentina, when they suffered terrorist attacks at the hands of communists, leading to another military coup that imposed martial law and arrested (and most likely executed) an unknown number of suspected communists.
 
Amidst all of this chaos, the country’s economy, naturally, was horrid, with inflation hitting 900% by 1983, according to a website called infoplease.com.
 
However, there was one point in Argentina’s history that isn’t all chaos and unrest. That point was the presidency of Carlos Menem, who was elected in 1989 and who was essentially Argentina’s version of Ronald Reagan. He did what no other figure in Argentina’s history thought to do: reduce the size of the government. He deregulated businesses and privatized industries that were owned by the state.
 
However, in 1998, the economy hit another recession, and in 2001, the country defaulted on $155 billion in foreign debt payments. The largest default in history. Then, in 2002, President Duhalde devalued the Argentine peso, which “had been pegged to the [American] dollar for a decade” according to infoplease.com. This devaluation sent the banking industry plummeting to a crisis and purged the savings of middle-class people, sending millions of Argentinians into poverty.
 
Like I said, I am young, but I remember very well what my family went through. We had lost just about everything. No, we were never on the streets, and I honestly do not know what my parents did to rebound us out of that financial trouble brought about by the government. But thank the good Lord they figured something out, otherwise, I don’t think I’d be here talking to you right now.
 
What the people of Argentina had been going through – THAT was oppression. What the people of Venezuela are currently going through – THAT is oppression.
 
What these college-aged millennial kids are going through is the world’s longest temper tantrum.
 
This is a country that knows how to do things the right way. The founders of this country built a near perfect system that is so hard to corrupt, it’s taken the Democrats centuries to get to this point. And even then, they haven’t completely won, if Trump’s election is any indication to their limited power.
 
The leaders of this country (at least most of them) fully understood that the government doesn’t rule the people, the people rule the government. The government works for us, not the other way around.
 
What happens when the people rule the government is what you see during Trump’s and Reagan’s and many other President’s administration: a nation that quickly grows into a superpower to be reckoned with.
 
What happens when the government rules the people is what you see in Venezuela, Argentina, China, North Korea, Russia, etc.
 
THOSE countries see oppression. THOSE countries are not great. THOSE countries can only be great if they employ capitalistic policies, not socialistic ones.
 
In all of Argentina’s history, the only period of economic stability, growth and PROSPERITY was during Menem’s administration, when he employed capitalistic policies of deregulation, denationalization of industries and reducing the size and scope of the government. Apart from that, Argentina has only seen economic instability, civil unrest, riots, violence, terrorism and military coups.
 
I don’t care if these kids spend an entire week non-stop telling me why America isn’t great and has never been great. I know for a darn FACT that America has always been the golden standard for exceptionalism in the world. America has always been better than other countries.
 
Yes, it’s had its dark past with slavery and segregation, but if you want to talk about that, talk about how it was the Democrat South that segregated for their “right” to own another person. Talk about how Democrats in the North opposed Lincoln and Republicans in the South supported him. Talk about how House Democrats tried to kill the 13th Amendment bill in 1864, but Lincoln’s reelection in 1864 and significant Republican control of Congress passed it in 1865, when the bill passed 119-56, with several Democrats abstaining.
 
Talk about how Republicans were unified in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while the Democrats were far more divided on it.
 
If you want to bring up the sins of the past, I will ensure you know they’re not America’s sins, they’re DEMOCRATS’ SINS!
 
America is known as the greatest nation on Earth for good reason. All other countries who do not employ capitalism and have an over-grown government ruling people’s lives absolutely suck.
 
The truth is: America is a blessing. America has always been great. It’s the Democrats who have never been great.
 
Ephesians 1:3
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.”

There were two big news stories told this week. One was the discovery of Mollie Tibbetts’ remains and subsequent arrest of an illegal alien suspected in her disappearance and murder, prompting many to bring up the urgent need of building a wall at the southern border with Mexico and the need to end DACA once and for all.
 
The other story, which I will be covering here (I wanted to mention the Tibbetts’ story because this happened at the same time as the trials and the MSM is either going to ignore this entirely or dismiss it as unimportant like the insensitive, heartless monsters they are) is the story of Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen being found guilty on several different charges.
 
Cohen was found guilty of violating campaign finance laws by paying off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, seemingly at the request of Donald Trump, while Manafort was found guilty of 8 charges of lying to the FBI and hiding his income, among other things.
 
These two cases have given the MSM a lot to talk about and hyped up the idea of finally moving to impeach President Trump. But there’s one problem with that. Actually, there’s multiple problems.
 
First, let’s focus on Manafort. If the Left thinks they can impeach Trump over anything Manafort related, they will be disappointed. What Manafort did happened well before Trump even decided to run for office. Nothing within the Manafort case implies Trump had anything to do with it. The point of the Manafort case was to get Manafort to flip on Trump, by applying pressure on him. Clearly, that didn’t work. Most likely because Manafort doesn’t have anything on Trump to flip on.
 
However, that does bring us to Cohen and the problem with thinking he could do much more than Manafort.
 
Cohen did flip on Trump. If you go by the train of thought that Manafort didn’t flip because he had nothing to flip on, then one can easily say that Cohen did flip because he DOES have something on Trump.
 
Here’s the problem with that train of thought, which really translates to the bigger problem for the Left in believing this will mark the end of Trump: even Mueller didn’t think there would be anything substantial here.
 
Granted, he could have misjudged, but the reason he sent the Cohen case to the SDNY is because there likely was nothing there for Mueller to use and wanted a lower court to look into it.
 
Now, this does bring us to Cohen’s and his lawyer Lanny Davis’ claims. Davis, particularly, told the New York Post: “Mr. Cohen has knowledge on certain subjects that should be of interest to the special counsel and is more than happy to tell the special counsel all that he knows.”
 
“Not just about the obvious possibility of a conspiracy to collude and corrupt the American democracy system in the 2016 election, which the Trump Tower meeting was all about, but also knowledge about the computer crime of hacking and whether or not Mr. Trump knew ahead of time about the crime and even cheered it on.”
 
This is music to my ears. Why? Because if this were poker, Davis just showed his tell for a massive bluff.
 
Here’s the thing: if Cohen did really have information that interests the special counsel, he already would have given it. Cohen knew that his affiliation with Trump and the supposed campaign finance laws he was breaking were going to get him a guilty verdict. He could save himself some jail time by giving Mueller what he wanted.
 
My guess is he doesn’t have anything on Trump. He clearly is a snake, given he has clearly flipped. If he had anything on Trump, he would have already given it to Mueller and saved his own skin. He has now been convicted of a crime, something he easily could have avoided (or made the punishment far less severe) if any of the tapes or any information he had could actually hurt Donald Trump.
 
Now, there are other claims, such as Cohen saying that he was acting under the orders of Trump to pay off the women. Trump claims he did not know about the payments. It’s a “he said, she said” and Cohen has a record for being a shady and untrustworthy character. Given he has nothing on Trump, it’s likely he has nothing to prove that Trump ordered the payments of Daniels and McDougal. If he did, given just about everyone with a double-digit IQ could tell he would be found guilty, he would have given the information to Mueller ages ago.
 
Again, it comes back to what he had on Trump. He can claim Trump is Osama bin Laden for all it matters. If he doesn’t have the evidence to prove it, Mueller and the Left have nothing to destroy Trump with.
 
Lanny Davis screwed up majorly here. He inadvertently revealed his hand is crap.
 
Sun Tzu once famously said: “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”
 
Davis here is showing a lot of strength and bravado, promising that Cohen has info for the special counsel relating to collusion and even hacking of the elections, which is a narrative the Left dropped a long time ago.
 
It’s simply too good for the Left to be true. And in all likelihood, it isn’t.
 
So where does this realistically leave us? Well, with Manafort, Trump might pardon him. It will tick off the Left but not bring up any realistic theories of obstruction, given the Manafort case had nothing to do with the election. With Cohen, given what he has sought in his guilty plea and the claims his lawyer has been making, he will have to prove his claims. And when he can’t, there will be Hell to pay. So chances are good that everything he says from this moment onward will be a lie, because that is the only way they can even hope to hurt Trump (at least in poll numbers) and even that is not likely to work given that's what the Left has been trying to do for ages and failing miserably.
 
So, at the end of the day, the Cohen and Manafort trials (more specifically Cohen) leave us with a Democrat Party more actively seeking impeachment, bringing it to the forefront of the midterms, and an energized Trump base ready to bring in a red wave. Granted, this can also energize the Democrat base, so it will likely be a battle, but historically, Democrats have been winning when Republicans haven’t been voting. That doesn’t bode well for a Democrat Party that is doing everything they can to win the House and Senate. If Republicans turn out to vote, there is little hope for any blue wave and impeachment.
 
I know for a fact that I will go out to vote for the Republicans that I can in my state and will help Trump remain in the White House. Because as it stands, no matter what the special counsel wants to subpoena from Trump, he can’t prove any collusion and can’t get him impeached without Republicans voting for impeachment.
 
Why? Because no one who is sane (or at least unbiased) would consider paying off women as part of “campaign contributions.” In fact, Bradley Smith, former FEC chairman, has said in a WSJ editorial: "Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense." In the editorial, he cites examples such as: paying a personal debt or buying a Rolex watch or a new suit... and even paying hush money... these payments are not campaign contributions, according to Mr. Smith.
 
Meanwhile, with these cases wrapped up, I’m sure the DOJ can now focus on the Uranium One deal and the illegality of the Steele dossier. I’m sure. (Sarcasm, in case that wasn’t clear).
 
Ephesians 6:11
“Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.”

In the time that Donald Trump has run and taken office, he has been called a slew of ridiculous names, among which are things like “Hitler” and “Nazi” and such names have even been transferred over to those who support him. However, Trump has done something that both Bush and Obama could have done but didn’t care to do: deport a former Nazi labor camp guard.
 
According to the Daily Wire: “The Trump administration announced early on Tuesday morning that it had arrested 95-year-old Jakiw Palij – the last known Nazi collaborator living in the United States – at his home in Queens, New York, and deported him to Germany.”
 
The Office of the Press Secretary released a statement following the arrest and subsequent deportation: “President Trump commends his Administration’s comprehensive actions, especially ICE’s actions, in removing this war criminal from United States soil. Despite a court ordering his deportation in 2004, past administrations were unsuccessful in removing Palij.”
 
The statement continues: “To protect the promise of freedom for Holocaust survivors and their families, President Trump prioritized the removal of Palij. Through extensive negotiations, President Trump and his team secured Palij’s deportation to Germany and advanced the United States’ collaborative efforts with a key European ally.”
 
And ABC News reported: “Trump told U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell to make Palij’s deportation his number one priority when he got to Berlin.”
 
In the statement by the Office of the Press Secretary, there is one particular paragraph that is in larger font than the rest of the statement. This is what it reads: “Palij had lied about being a Nazi and remained in the United States for decades. Palij’s removal sends a strong message: The United States will not tolerate those who facilitated Nazi crimes and other human rights violations, and they will not find a safe haven on American soil.”
 
The statement also summarizes Palij’s life, having been born in what was at the time Poland but now is part of Ukraine, immigrated to the U.S. in 1949 and became a citizen in 1957. During the process of immigration and naturalization, Palij had hid the fact he was a Nazi SS labor camp guard, saying that he spent the duration of WWII “working on a farm and in a factory.”
 
The way the U.S. found out he was a Nazi labor camp guard is through a confession by Palij in 2001 to DOJ officials. He trained at the Nazi SS Training Camp in Trawniki, Poland. The same training camp that, according to court documents, trained SS soldiers who participated in “Operation Reinhard”, an op to kill Jews in Poland. The Trawniki camp is also famous for having incarcerated and executed around 6,000 Jewish children, women and men in a single day, November 3rd, 1943. It is known as one of the single largest massacres of the Holocaust.
 
According to the statement: “In August 2003, a federal judge revoked Palij’s United States citizenship based on his wartime activities, human rights abuses, and postwar immigration fraud. He was ordered deported in 2004, and his administrative appeal was denied in 2005.”
 
In other words, the request to be deported, despite it having been an order (the statement doesn’t clarify who gave the order in 2004), was denied by someone in the Bush administration for whatever reason.
 
No other order of deportation was issued by the Bush or Obama administrations and no action was taken to deport Palij, as evident by this week’s events.
 
Now, Ryan Saavedra of the Daily Wire, upon talking about this subject, opened his article by saying: “It will be interesting to see how CNN and MSNBC spin this.”
 
In my mind, there are a couple of things that could happen: either the MSM won’t cover it (to be fair, the Manafort trial is a big topic this week, so that will get the bulk of the screen time no matter what) or they will cover it and simply say it’s some form of virtue signaling, with Trump essentially saying to people “how can I be Hitler if I literally just deported a Nazi?” and spin it that way.
 
Of course, that still wouldn’t work because most people don’t believe the MSM anymore and we can have conversations about how the American Left and the Nazis are basically one and the same, only with different words and different targets for elimination.
 
The point is that they will either avoid covering it to avoid giving Trump or ICE, the agency that deported Palij, any sort of credit, even if inadvertently, or they will try to say it’s nothing more than virtue signaling. Kind of like whenever some sports star attacks Trump as being racist when 1) there is nothing you can point to that makes him a racist and 2) everyone else on the Left is doing it already and the attack has lost all its meaning and only serves to drive his supporters closer to him.
 
The difference between the actual virtue signaling of a sports star (or any other celebrity) calling Trump a racist and the “virtue signaling” of Trump deporting a Nazi is that Trump’s actions are more worthwhile than the manure that comes out of celebrities’ mouths.
 
Successfully extracting a former Nazi labor camp guard from U.S. soil, when both the Bush and Obama administrations had all the opportunity in the world to do, is a far stronger message to send to people than “Trump is a racist because reasons”.
 
We send the message that those who took part in or helped facilitate the egregious actions of an evil empire of the past are simply not welcome in the United States. If that is the message that the Left wants to own today, that ship has just sailed. Obama could easily have gotten some major props on both sides of the aisle in deporting the former Nazi guard, but was too busy running the country into the ground to do it.
 
Bush could have also done it but was too busy forging friendships with the establishment and promising to act like a scared kitten whenever Obama blamed anything he was doing wrong on him to do the job (granted, he had less time to do it, but still).
 
So if the MSM wants to spin it as virtue signaling, they will have to answer the question: “why didn’t Obama or Bush do it, then?” Or at least Obama, since they would then try to fully blame it on Bush and completely avoid the fact that Obama failed to act too.
 
James 4:17
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”

I have talked previously about NeverTrumpers after roughly a year or so of Trump’s presidency and that they were nothing but stubborn at best and flat out traitors to their core values at worst.
 
And this remains to be the case, with achievement after achievement in the Trump Presidency coming about and proving himself to be a strong conservative President.
 
But while the NeverTrump crowd may have had some argument against Trump’s actual conservative nature (meaning he had not quite proven himself as a true conservative at the time), after a year and a half, even NeverTrumpers agree that his policy has actually been conservative. But that hasn’t stopped them from remaining NeverTrumpers.
 
Most recently, NeverTrump “conservative” Jonah Goldberg posed this challenge for those who support Trump and follow him anyway: “Please come up with a definition of good character that Donald Trump can clear.”
 
So now, it’s not that Donald Trump isn’t conservative. He clearly is. What has people like Goldberg remain NeverTrump is the POTUS’s character. And at that point, if that is their argument, I can’t help but believe these people are nothing but crybabies.
 
Seriously? His character is the reason you don’t support him? Never mind the fact that Trump HAS proven himself to be a solid conservative, if inarticulate at times, and HAS passed multiple policies that would have any true conservative giggle like a schoolgirl. Never mind that Trump is the closest thing to Reagan we have had since the Big Dipper himself. Never mind all the actual progress we are witnessing economically, internationally, etc. No, all that goes out the window because Trump does not have good character in these people’s eyes.
 
Only problem is that they are wrong about him even with that “argument”.
 
David Horowitz tried to explain some good character traits, all of which I agree with, by saying: “He has an amazing family. He’s loyal to a fault. He loves the country that gave him a privileged life. He works around the clock for ordinary Americans & their security. He would never appoint a treacherous individual to head the CIA. Wake up Jonah. It’s a war & u can’t be neutral.”
 
Unfortunately, Jonah decided to act like a typical Leftist and flat out attack David: “This is total nonsense David. He’s not loyal to his wives. Read up on how he treated Roy Cohn ffs. He doesn’t work around the clock. He won’t read and won’t stop watching TV. I can’t tell if your head is up your ass or his.”
 
Civility going out the window is synonymous with Leftist behavior, so I’m not surprised a NeverTrumper said this. At this point, there are no NeverTrump conservatives, just people who used to be conservative but have switched sides effectively just because they don’t like Trump on a personal basis.
 
It’s pathetic.
 
David, in an article talking about this Twitter exchange, tries to clarify that his “loyal to a fault” example was about sticking with Omarosa despite other people saying she was no good, as well as sticking with Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions when he first entered office, saying that any other Republican would have thrown them under the bus, regardless of the truthfulness of any accusations against them.
 
David also defends Trump’s marriages, saying we all have our faults. And finally, David defends Trump by saying that no other Republican would stand up to the unending hatred of the Left and the media, and that no other Republican would stay the course of working for the benefit of the American people and keep his promises.
 
So I say kudos to David for this defense of Trump against someone who would rather see our country continue Obama’s stagnation than see Trump help heal our nation but with subjectively bad character.
 
However, I have my own response to Jonah’s original tweet.
 
Do you want to know Trump’s primary positive character trait? He is selfless.
 
Donald Trump was the last person in the world who needed to run for office. He had built a billion-dollar company, established a solid brand with his name, and set up his family to live in the lap of luxury for generations.
 
He owned multiple buildings with his name on them, lived in one of them in New York City, and was friends with both Democrats and Republicans, living as the golden standard for American exceptionalism and the American Dream’s fullest potential.
 
He was set for the rest of his life, his children’s lives and his grandchildren’s lives. The Trump name would likely go down in history among the Rockefellers as top American families.
 
And yet, despite him living in luxury buildings that he built; despite having a vast fortune; despite living with the knowledge that he had done enough work for his family to be set for a very long time despite the economic climates they may see, he still chose to run for office.
 
It wasn’t a financial decision. He would LOSE money running for office and donates the salary he is given as POTUS. It wasn’t a PR decision to heighten his image. If it were, he would have run as a Democrat or not at all.
 
It wasn’t a decision for the benefit of his own family. Like I said, the Trumps already had it made.
 
It was a decision to truly help out those who had been suffering the most after 8 years of Obama’s socialist policies.
 
It was a decision to help out the 99% of Americans who would be forced to pay for Obama’s social programs and ludicrous spending. It was a decision to Make America Great Again.
 
But why? Why him? He already had it made, and he stood the most to lose. By running Republican, particularly with such a message, he stood to lose just about everything. The very second he strayed from the Democrat Party’s slave plantation of thought (yes, all races are subject to their brainwashing tactics), he became an enemy of the Democrat Party.
 
Granted, the Left didn’t take him seriously at the time. But such words against Obama and the Democrats most certainly ticked them off. No doubt, he lost a lot of friends on Day 1 of the campaign trail.
 
So running for POTUS as a Republican and with such a message of Making America Great Again wasn’t going to help him make or retain friends within the swamp.
 
He knew perfectly well what he stood to lose. Had he lost the election, with how fervently the media and the Left were going after him (though somehow, they were less rabid than today), it’s likely that the Trump brand would have lost a lot of value for Democrats and Republicans alike.
 
This still stands to be the case once he leaves office after the 2024 election. He will go back to living a private life, maybe trying to continue running his business, but even if he retires, his successor will have to deal with the attacks from the Left and some on the Right.
 
So why? Why risk it all to enter the most polarizing business known to Man? For people like you and me.
 
He’s not doing this for himself, or his family, or the elites in Washington or elsewhere. Whenever someone like LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Colin Kaepernick, etc. attacks Trump, I can’t help but to think these people simply do not get it.
 
Regardless of who wins presidential elections, people like the ones mentioned above will always be fine. Matter of fact, even people like Trump, regardless of who wins presidential elections, will always be fine.
 
As long as they don’t waste all their money and are smart with it, they don’t have to fear economic collapses (unless the government confiscates their money, and then, big government becomes a problem for them).
 
But most people are not in their position. Most people are severely affected by Presidential elections. Why? Because Democrats, particularly today, do not know how to handle and grow an economy. Obama certainly never tried to grow the economy. He HATES this country, why would he help grow its economic strength?
 
Democrats do not have good policy when it comes to economics. They only know how to spend money, not make it. They only know how to destroy wealth, not create it (unless it’s for themselves).
 
If Hillary had won, we would only have seen 4 or maybe 8 more years of stagnation. The unemployment rates would only go up and the regular Joe would be left to pay for the tab that Hillary and the Democrats would run up.
 
We had next to no voice in Washington. No one who would fight as fervently as Trump does. Sure, there were some conservatives like Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy, Rand Paul, etc. But none of them have the same fighting spirit that Trump has. None of them would fight so fervently against the Left as Trump does. They would fight, no doubt, but they would not believe we are at war, as David said, against the Left.
 
It’s a war for the future of our country. Either we will go back to our capitalist roots that helped build this country into the superpower that it is, or fall to socialism and see the world’s best hope for liberty fade away into history.
 
Trump exposed this war. But at the end of the day, he is the last person on Earth who needed to do this.
 
It’s also why, whenever people like Jonah Goldberg or Bret Stephens, who wrote that he still wishes Hillary were President, attack Trump for something as asinine as supposedly bad character flaws, I can’t help but think they miss the bigger picture.
 
That war that I just mentioned is the bigger picture. And in war, we need a General. I believe Trump, for the time being, is that General. No, Trump isn’t perfect. His past is not the best. But if someone’s past were the deciding factor of who we support, no progress would be made.
 
I can’t imagine a single Jew looked at Moses and thought they should remain slaves in Egypt because Moses killed an Egyptian guard and was a fugitive.
 
The point isn’t that someone’s past ought to deter us from liking or following that person. The point is that, if that person has changed, and I mean truly changed, knows that what they did was wrong, tries not to do it again, and depends on the Lord Jesus Christ to give him strength every day, then that person is worthy of forgiveness.
 
I don’t like what Trump did in the past, with his affairs and cover ups. But if he has since asked for forgiveness from the Lord, who am I to not then forgive him for those things? Who am I to judge him for his past? Matter of fact, who is Jonah or any Leftist to judge him for his past?
 
We all are sinful. It’s in our nature. None of us can possibly claim to be perfect. The only perfect being to have walked this Earth was Jesus Christ, who lived without sin, but died for ours.
 
Focusing on Trump’s past is simply a childish reason to still be against him. And focusing on his supposed character flaws is asinine. Because Trump is, I believe, a pretty good person to go through the Hell he’s going through and going through it with a smile on his face, knowing he’s doing the right thing in the eyes of the Lord – doing the right thing for the benefit of the United States of America, the country he loves with all his heart.
 
Any NeverTrumper that attacks him for “bad character” simply has no argument. They are simply self-righteous and stubborn people who either fail to see the war against the Left or altogether betray the Right, as Bill Kristol has done.
 
I simply hope, knowing that these people are supposed conservatives, that they will come around to the side of rationality and logic, knowing that there are more important things at hand than bickering about the way Trump does things rather than what he actually does.
 
Deuteronomy 31:6
“Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you.”

I have already written an article detailing the fact that Venezuela is the direction the Left wants to take us, not because they are prosperous, but because those within the government have all the power they want and the people depend on them for everything.
 
However, given that Venezuela is still a socialist country and likely will be for the foreseeable future, the fact that they are failing to deliver the promises the Left makes simply must be covered as an example of what happens when you have actual socialism running the country.
 
According to HotAir.com: “In the capital of Caracas, the Central Venezuelan University hospital (long recognized as one of the leading medical centers in the region) is almost entirely out of water. And so are the rest of the residents of the city, for that matter. That means that doctors can’t scrub up for surgery or even provide a sterile environment. Surgeries are being canceled and patients can’t even be kept hydrated in some cases.”
 
Now, it’s not that the entire country is running out of water. Venezuela enjoys 135 days of rain a year on average. However, the reason for this lack of water is that Caracas sits at an elevation of 2740 ft. so most of their potable water comes in through pipes from lower elevated lands. The problem resides in the fact that, according to HotAir.com, “With nobody left to do the maintenance on their hydraulic systems and no money to buy replacement parts and tools, the system is falling apart.”
 
Combine this lack of water to perform surgery on patients or even keep them hydrated with the fact that Venezuela is also running short on medicine, vaccines and food altogether and you have a recipe for disaster.
 
Which brings me to the main point of this entire article: what good are socialist policies if no one can afford them and they don’t even work when they are implemented?
 
Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Fauxcahontas, Low IQ Maxine Waters, and more all want universal healthcare. They all want guaranteed income, even if they don’t come right out and say it, and all want the power Nicolas Maduro currently wields.
 
What good is universal healthcare if we can’t afford to pay for it? And even if we can somehow afford to pay for it (don’t tell me “the government pays for it, not us”. That’s the argument of a legitimate moron), what good is it if the economy is so bad that the government can’t keep it running?
 
What good is it to implement social programs that simply don’t work? It’s certainly not for the benefit of the people. And it’s not like this problem is strictly Venezuela’s. Our own welfare systems are designed not to help lift people out of poverty but help people REMAIN in poverty. Thankfully, under Trump, millions and millions of people are abandoning certain welfare programs because they actually have jobs now, but under a socialist President, like Obama, the main objective of such programs has been to keep people poor and dependent on the programs aka the government.
 
I’ve said this time and time again: capitalism creates wealth, socialism destroys it. Socialism is never for the benefit of the people. It’s a farce whenever the Left attacks the rich and claims to support the poor. It was a farce when Lenin fought the bourgeoisie for the benefit of the proletariat. It’s the proletariat, the underclass, that suffers the most and the bourgeoisie, if they align themselves with those in power, remain the bourgeoisie.
 
Why else do you think people like Bill Gates support Democrats? It’s not like the Democrats have good plans to make the economy stronger. All of their ideas destroy the economy. He supports them because, if Democrats are in power, they will leave him alone. It’s like that one kid who is friends with the school bully and supports him. He’s just doing it so he would be left alone and wouldn’t be victimized by him.
 
Another great example would most likely be Donald Trump. He used to be besties with the Clintons, Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi, and all the other people who now demonize him and call him a Nazi. While it could very well be said that at one point he aligned himself more socially liberal, the biggest reason he was friends with these people is so that they would allow him to build in New York, which is filled with Democrats, and in other places.
 
Meanwhile, the regular Joe’s like you and me, and those who are already in the poor end of the spectrum suffer the most under socialism.
 
Socialism has never lifted anyone out of poverty. It’s only made people poorer. You don’t hear stories of people escaping the U.S. for places like Venezuela, Eastern Europe, Russia, etc. People don’t escape capitalism. They escape socialism. You’d think these Democrats would realize that people coming here from socialist countries are ESCAPING socialism, not looking to apply it here.
 
But of course, it’s not about the people, when it comes to Democrats. Fundamentally, the Democrats only care about themselves. They only care about their own power, wealth and well-being.
 
If Bernie Sanders were a true socialist, he would donate his three homes, give up his millions of dollars and live like a socialist: in a box in the streets, being taken care of by the government. He speaks like a socialist but lives like a capitalist. That is what Democrats are doing nowadays. Ocasio-Cortez is the exact same.
 
At the end of the day, the Left around the world does not care if their policies are a detriment to the very people that elected them. As long as they are the ones in power, and as long as the people are dependent on the government, thus giving them more power, they are more than okay. That’s why people like Maduro sit comfortably in their homes watching their countries fall apart.
 
As long as the elite are left unaffected by their own destructive policies, all is well.
 
This is the mentality of a narcissist. The mentality of the Left.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”