Back in late May, I wrote an article about a top Obama economist predicting that the U.S. would see the “best” “economic data” in its history in the few months preceding the 2020 election. Some economists even predicted the economy to make a “V” shape following the heavy downturn as the pandemic hit and lockdown measures were put into place. Seemingly, the economists were right.
 
For the months of July, August and September, aka the third-quarter, the GDP grew at an unprecedented 33.1% annualized rate, which is utterly record-shattering. For reference, the previous post-World War II GDP record was in the first quarter of 1950 when the GDP grew at 16.7%.
 
Unsurprisingly, President Trump’s campaign celebrated this achievement (particularly as it’s so close to the election), saying in a statement:
 
“This record economic growth is absolute validation of President Trump’s policies which create jobs and opportunities for Americans in every corner of the country. The President built the world’s best economy once and he’s rapidly doing it again, proving that cutting taxes and reducing regulations and red tape clear the way for American ingenuity and our entrepreneurial spirit to thrive.”
 
“We have regained more than half of the jobs lost to the global pandemic in less than six months, while it took more than two years to regain half of job losses from a recession while Joe Biden was in charge. President Trump will continue to safely reopen the country, while Biden is the candidate of lockdowns, inviting another economic shutdown which would devastate working people and cause even more health problems above and beyond what the coronavirus has caused.”
 
The campaign also noted that Joe Biden “has been an economic disaster for nearly five decades in Washington, backing disastrous trade deals and putting China’s interests ahead of American workers. Biden’s plans for a $4 trillion tax increase and Green New Deal regulations on every person, business, building, and farm in the nation would kill this recovery while it’s already in full swing. For voters, the choice is simple: It’s a Trump boom versus a Biden depression.”
 
Director of the U.S. National Economic Council Larry Kudlow also gave great praise for these numbers:
 
“We’ve never had anything remotely close to this. And let me add, this thing was kicking on all cylinders. Automobile production, for example, up over 1,100 percent in the third quarter, big numbers on consumer spending, big numbers on housing, big numbers on capital equipment machinery and manufacturing and so forth.”
 
He also noted that inventories were depleted, “so inventories are going to be rebuilt. This quarter the momentum is going into the fourth quarter and will go into 2021, assuming policies are good. This is not a one time in fact this is going to go on. It’s a strong, strong recovery. The V shaped concept that I coined a while back, looking pretty good right now.”
 
While we are still not quite where we were before the pandemic hit, we are by far the closest to those levels out of any major country which has been severely affected by the Chinese coronavirus.
 
Comparing the U.S. with all European countries, we are definitely doing the absolute best out of everyone.
 
Italy is still at -11.2% from where they were economically before the pandemic hit them. Spain is at -10.9%. It’s no coincidence that these are also two of the hardest hit countries in Europe, but consider that the U.S. is number one in number of cases and deaths, with a far bigger population.
 
The Left can say whatever nonsense statement they want about Trump’s handling of the virus, but I am GLAD that I do not live in these poorly-run nations which are still locking people down and looking to impose even heavier lockdowns.
 
Out of all European nations, Poland is the closest one to being at pre-pandemic levels, and still, they are behind us at -4.6%.
 
This, frankly speaking, says plenty about how well Trump is doing at handling the virus and the economy as a whole. Keep in mind that these are the economic numbers we are seeing with states like California and New York basically being tied behind our backs.
 
In other words, these are the numbers we are seeing WITHOUT two of the most economy-influencing states in the country. New York used to be the financial capital of the world (it ain’t coming back until New Yorkers get rid of the economic policies that the Democrats have implemented which have destroyed the state) and California is also a massive financial center due to Silicon Valley and Hollywood, as well as other things.
 
Those two states are still imposing huge lockdown measures. Now imagine the numbers we’d be seeing if every state was fully open today. I could hardly imagine how well we’d do, but I believe we would easily get back to either meeting or exceeding pre-pandemic levels.
 
Also, while in the second quarter a lot of Leftists were blaming Trump for the GDP plunging some 30 percentage points (really, it was 9 points, which is still bad but nowhere near as bad and also it was pretty understandable given the circumstances), I have yet to see any Leftist giving Trump credit for the economy climbing back 33.1% in the third quarter (annualized rate, 7.4% quarterly). While the economy fell 9 points in Q2, it grew this quarter by 7.4. We are still not out of the woods, obviously, but we easily would be if the aforementioned states were reopening as opposed to looking to extend the lockdowns and telling people how many family members people can have for Thanksgiving.
 
At any rate, we are seeing the “V” shaped recovery that economists were expecting some time ago. It happened a little later than expected, perhaps, but happened nonetheless and this is largely because of the great policies that Trump has implemented (which led to the original economic boom for the first three years of his presidency) and because of some states coming to their senses and realizing that they have to re-open.
 
And following the election, provided that Trump wins again, we will see these great numbers continue and even improve henceforth. The Democrats will have no real reason to continue with the lockdowns if they are no longer helping them against Trump (they never did help them in that regard, but following a Trump win, they would come to realize this).
 
The media might still continue reporting on the virus just to have some ammo against Trump (and because Trump keeps saying that they will stop talking about it altogether after he wins, so they will be tempted to “prove him wrong”), but they will move on to other things to try and hurt him. If Trump wins again, their only option for getting rid of him will be through impeachment and removal, so they will begin cooking up another scheme which will undoubtedly fail if they do not have enough votes in either chamber.
 
So if Trump wins again, prepare yourselves for another round of impeachment b.s., this time for the next four years.
 
At any rate, it is fantastic that we are seeing these numbers, particularly so close to the election. Trump is rebuilding this economy and we will see even better numbers next quarter and especially the one after that, provided that California and New York (and other states) begin fully reopening.
 
Here’s hoping Trump wins again so that we may continue the economic boom where we left it off at the beginning of the year.
 
Proverbs 16:3
“Commit your work to the Lord, and your plans will be established.”

Among the many egregious running lies from the fake news media and the Democrats is the idea that Donald Trump has never denounced or condemned white supremacy and that he actually refuses to condemn white supremacists because he supposedly is one of them. This is, of course, a contemptible lie that has multiple times been debunked and Trump himself has recently debunked by sharing a video (below) of nearly 40 times that he has denounced white supremacy and racism.
 
Now, I could share each and every time he has done it, but I would like the focus of conversation to be on something else entirely. Of course Trump has condemned white supremacy time and time again! He’s not a racist! In a recent NBC News townhall, he repeatedly denounced white supremacy.
 
During the first presidential debate, he denounced white supremacy. Back in 2016, he said he “totally disavow[s] the Ku Klux Klan. I totally disavow David Duke.”
 
Time and time again, when the fake news media asked him to denounce white supremacy, he has done it without fail and without question. They have done this multiple times despite the fact that, for a long time, he has denounced white supremacy. They KNOW that he does not support it, but they have to keep up the lie that he has never denounced white supremacy and they do this by asking him again and again, as though it’s necessary.
 
I think Trump needs to change things up a little bit whenever he is asked that question. Of course, he should still denounce white supremacy, but he should push back against the fake news media for asking them over and over again (admittedly, he has done a bit of this particularly in recent time) and he should ask the fake news media if they will disavow the left-wing, Antifa and BLM violence that we have seen over the last few months and years.
 
There will not be any more debates, so he can’t ask Joe Biden directly if he will do this (which he won’t since these animals are his supporters) so he should ask the fake news media if they will do this, because they so far have not.
 
Following the death of George Floyd and the response to it from BLM and Antifa terrorists, the fake news media happily shared the riots that were occurring, though reframing them as “mostly peaceful protests” or “demonstrations”. They never went so far as to support the riots outwardly, but they sure as hell did all they could to make them look legitimate in the eyes of the people.
 
They literally had burning buildings in the background as they reported “slightly fiery but mostly peaceful protests.”
 
This was not reported by the fake news media, but as of August 19th, according to The Federalist, 30 people have died since the “mostly peaceful protests” erupted, and according to the Associated Press (so not exactly a right-wing source), “many of the people killed were African Americans, compounding the tragedy for black families.”
 
Many black people were killed during the “mostly peaceful protests”. And while the fake news media no longer covers them, that doesn’t mean they aren’t still happening. Philadelphia has been subject to further rioting following the police-involved shooting of an armed black man (who was charging at officers) and the only thing the MSM is reporting about it is the shooting of the black man, not the rioting that ensued.
 
And the ONLY reason they have stopped showing all of this is because they saw in numerous polls that people, quite unsurprisingly, were not exactly fans of all of the violence that the fake news media was assuring them was not happening as they were showing it.
 
With the Democrats either condemning violence in general or outright siding with the “protesters” in wanting to destroy law enforcement in this nation, the fake news media could not continue covering them because this would only have led to an easy victory for Trump. They switched back to the Chinese coronavirus because they believe Trump was far more vulnerable on that subject (and it’s also why each debate began with that discussion).
 
They have never outright denounced this Left-wing violence, and in some instances, have even tried to gaslight people into believing that it was TRUMP SUPPORTERS who were doing this.
 
While I think continuing to disavow white supremacy is a smart political decision, the truth of the matter is that he should not still be doing it because he should not still be asked to do so.
 
Again, the fake news media KNOWS that he has done this many times. Trump was asked by Chris Wallace during the 2016 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY DEBATES if he would denounce white supremacy, and yet, Wallace acted as though the first 2020 debate was the first time he asked that question. He unequivocally understands that Trump is against white supremacy and still acts as though no one has ever asked him to denounce it or as though he has always refused to do it.
 
Remember the Charlottesville “fine people” hoax? Immediately after he said the “fine people” part, he also said: “And you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
 
He said this in the same interview which the fake news media and the Democrats claim that he called white supremacists “fine people.” For the last three years, they ran with that lie – with that HOAX – as though he didn’t say what he actually said about not including the white supremacists as “fine people.”
 
Time and time again, he has denounced white supremacy whenever he was asked to do it. He should still do that (because God knows these people will not relent on this idiotic idea) but he should also go on the offensive on this.
 
At no point throughout these riots has the Left ever denounced the left-wing violence that we have witnessed. At no point did they denounce Antifa and BLM. In fact, they’ve done the opposite. Regarding Antifa, they maintain that it’s not a terrorist organization, or even an organization at all, and that it’s just “an idea.” An idea which has now killed multiple people, including Trump supporters.
 
Regarding BLM, because of its name alone, they claim it is a good thing. After all, you’re a bigot if you don’t support Black Lives Matter. If you don’t support them, that means you don’t think that the lives of black people matter. Despite the fact that they, too, have blood on their hands and have had people commit multiple crimes including arson, theft, assault (both on civilians and police officers), etc., etc.
 
We all know that these two Marxist organizations are terrorist organizations, now not too dissimilar from al-Qaeda and ISIS. The fake news media has refused to condemn these Left-wing terrorists, and will maintain that they are not actually violent or EVEN REAL in some cases, but that’s not a good thing for the Left.
 
Like I said, the only reason they stopped showing the riots is because the poll numbers showed that people didn’t like the violence and the violent people behind those acts. The fake news media is already pretty hated because they don’t even try to hide their partisan support for the Democrats. That they had to stop showing those riots is an indication that the people are not with them on this, and it further hurts them to not disavow the people committing these crimes.
 
The Democrats are pretty good at making emotional connections, like when Biden repeatedly talked directly to the camera during the debates to talk with people about how “because of Trump and his handling of the virus, you don’t have someone at your dinner table”, but the truth is that (apart from the fact that Democrat governors have directly been responsible for thousands of deaths) these riots have also led families to be broken up.
 
At least 30 people have died so far, meaning that 30 families have been broken. 30 families no longer have that someone at their dinner table or no longer can contact that person through their phones because they can’t pick up any more. What about these families, Leftists? Must these families be forsaken because “people are hurting” over the deaths of criminals and thugs who happen to be black?
 
Like the AP pointed out, many of the victims were black people. Must innocent black families suffer because these “mostly peaceful protesters” need “a way to vent their frustration and anger at systemic racism”?
 
Real people, real businesses, real families are being negatively impacted, in major ways, because of these riots. Businesses were already on the brink of collapse due to the unconstitutional lockdowns, and the riots are the final nail in the coffin for many of those businesses.
 
Why are Leftists ignoring the pain and suffering of these innocent people, many of whom are black? Why do Leftists refuse to disavow the violence that has befallen at least 30 families and hundreds if not thousands of businesses? Why do Leftists make excuses for these violent acts and outright gaslight people into believing that what is very clearly happening is not actually happening?
 
These are the kinds of questions I wish Trump would ask these heartless Leftist bastards because you and I both know they cannot give a good answer. Whatever answer they give will just be a parroted talking point that only further hurts them and at best, all they can do is sit in silence (which is something the Left never does anyway).
 
Trump should not have to be posting videos pushing back on the Leftist narrative that he hasn’t denounced white supremacists. But since the fake news media will continue to do so, it’s in his best interest to denounce white supremacy at every given opportunity. However, whenever it happens, he also needs to turn it back around on them and ask them if they will denounce the Left-wing violence which has so far led to 30 deaths, 30 families broken, and hundreds or thousands of businesses ruined.
 
Someone needs to hold these people accountable for their egregious actions and Trump should be the one leading that charge.
 
Proverbs 19:9
“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.”

The fake news media will lie about anything and everything if they think it would even slightly help the Democrats out, no matter how utterly ludicrous and divorced from reality that lie may be. This is seemingly what they have chosen to do recently regarding yet another Joe Biden gaffe.
 
During a campaign “rally”, Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden once again showed his senility and his early stages of possible dementia when talking about the election. This is what Joe said at one point in that “rally”:
 
“This is the most [consequential election], not because I’m running, but because [of] who I’m running against, this is the most consequential election in a long, long, long time. And the character of the country, in my view, is literally on the ballot, what kind of country we’re going to be.”
 
“Four more years of George, uh, George, uh, he, uh… gonna find ourselves in a position where if Trump gets elected we’re gonna be, we’re gonna be in a different world.”
 
It is clear where the guy made the mistake. Joe Biden mistakenly believed that George W. Bush was still president, not Donald Trump. At least, he did this for a brief moment but caught himself quickly enough and remembered that he was running against Trump, not Bush.
 
However, that is far too logical for the fake news media, who are seemingly willing to die on the hill that Biden was not talking about Bush, but about actor and “comedian” George Lopez, who has never even run for president.
 
Dave Weigel from The Washington Post said: “1.1 million views and a Fox story based on the premise that Biden was confusing Trump with George Bush. He was talking to George Lopez.”
 
While George Lopez was a part of the livestream, the context does not make any sort of sense for Biden to have been referencing George Lopez.
 
“Four more years of George…” Lopez? How is that better than Biden confusing Trump with Bush? At least if he was confusing Trump with Bush, he was confusing presidents, not a guy who never even has run!
 
And yet, this is what the idiots on the fake news media are running with. CNN’s Brian Stelter tweeted: “NBC has added an editor’s note to this morning’s ‘Today’ show segment that played a clip of Biden saying ‘four more years of George, uh…’ without noting that he was talking to George Lopez.”
 
Jake Tapper tweeted: “Lie after lie after lie,” siding with Weigel and attacking conservatives on this.
 
“No, you silly conservatives, Joe Biden wasn’t confusing Trump with George Bush, he was confusing Trump with George Lopez!”
 
Ah, ok, much better, then.
 
But seriously, how is that a better argument than just admitting the guy briefly confused Trump with Bush? It’s not like this is the first time Biden has confused people or gotten their names wrong.
 
During an Illinois campaign rally in 2008, after having been tapped to be Obama’s running mate, Biden said: “A man who will be the next president of the United States – Barack America!”
 
During an interview with CBS Evening News, Biden criticized Bush’s handling of the financial crisis, saying: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.”
 
Herbert Hoover was president during the stock market crash of 1929, not FDR, and there was no television back then.
 
Earlier this month, Joe Biden forgot he was running for president, not the Senate, and forgot Mitt Romney’s name, calling him “the senator who was a Mormon, the governor, ok?”
 
Following his Super Tuesday victories, Biden confused his wife for his sister and vice versa.
 
He has, repeatedly, forgotten where he is and outright confused states. He claimed to have gone to an exclusively black college in Delaware. And he has, repeatedly, forgotten who was president at any given time.
 
This is a pattern for Joe Biden and it’s all public, even though the fake news media never covers it. This close to an election, given how utterly biased the fake news media is, I expected them to try and cover for Biden’s gaffes to try and minimize them, but this is an utterly strange hill to die on.
 
How does it make more sense to claim that Biden meant George LOPEZ when talking about getting “four more years” of a person named George?
 
If the media is wrong (which of course they are), that just makes Biden look senile. If the media is right and Biden meant George Lopez, it makes him look like a moron. How is that a better alternative?
 
It’s not like Joe didn’t recognize his momentary gaffe. He immediately tried correcting himself and rather promptly got it right. This gaffe, had it been left alone, would have largely been swept under the rug. He has confused people many times before, as I have just shared. Yeah, it still makes him look senile, but claiming he was talking about George Lopez in the context of getting four more years, a context of presidential terms, would actually make the guy look even worse if true.
 
How is it better for Biden to have meant that George LOPEZ was president than for him to have meant that George Bush was president?
 
Not that I want these idiots to correct themselves, this kind of gaslighting and obvious attempt at protecting one candidate over another further proves to everyone how much of a partisan hack these people are, particularly this close to the election.
 
Instead, I shall relentlessly mock these fools for their horrid miscalculation which they will be far too proud and stubborn to correct.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

In Hellywood, it is extremely rare that we would see or hear of a major actor being unapologetically Christian and/or conservative. It isn’t because there aren’t any, but because the town is so owned by radical Leftists who have only grown more and more violent and vitriolic towards differing schools of thought that one could risk their careers being utterly ruined if they were to speak out against the things that they support or even not do things that the Left is supportive of.

As a result of such intolerance, Christians and conservatives usually opt to remain in silence about politics or religion, at least until they get so big they are basically uncancellable.
 
In some way, this is the level that Matthew McConaughey has reached, as he is such a major star that he could probably hit Leftist Hollywood like he did and not suffer greatly in his career moving forward.
 
During an interview with famous podcast host Joe Rogan, McConaughey recalled some times when fellow actors whom he has prayed with would sit in silence as opposed to clapping whenever the A-lister would thank God following an award win.
 
“I have had – and I won’t throw any people under the bus – but I have had moments where I was on stage receiving an award in front of my peers in Hollywood, and there were people in the crowd that I have prayed with before dinners many times, and when I thanked God, I saw some of those people go to clap, but then notice that ‘bad thing on my resume’ and then sit back on their hands.”
 
“I’ve seen people read the room and go, ‘whoa, that wouldn’t bode well for me in the future,’ if for getting a job or you’re getting votes or what have you. I have seen that; I’ve witnessed that… I don’t judge them for it, I just wish, you know – that it seems like a silly argument.”
 
It is not only a silly argument; it is a sad state of affairs that one’s very career in Hollywood could be in jeopardy if they were to CLAP when a fellow actor thanks God for his or her award win. But it is the reality in far-Leftist Hollywood, where the Left owns just about everything there. They own the studios which employ the stars. If a star is a conservative, they can get blacklisted for their beliefs. It happened to James Woods, after all, and perhaps even to some others as well.
 
Off the top of my head, here are the following actors whom either are conservative or whom I believe are conservative but have not really made any notable political statements that would indicate they would be a Leftist:
 
Chris Pratt, Matthew McConaughey (largely because of this on its own), Renee Zellweger, Vince Vaugh, Rob Schneider, Jon Lovitz, and Adam Driver (mostly because he keeps his private life more private and doesn’t really talk much about politics, as far as I have seen, which is usually a conservative trait in this hellish town).
 
Now, there might very well be others that I am missing, but this is the list of actors that I could think of that either are definitely conservative or strike me as fairly conservative (at least in relation to the rest of Commiewood).
 
Suffice to say, the list of far-Left radical actors is far bigger than this. And since they all have to work together in order to make a living, the more conservative actors have to keep a tight lid on what they say or do, and even that is beginning to not be a viable option, seeing as Chris Pratt was attacked for not attending a Biden fundraiser (though fairly liberal colleagues of his did come to his defense, including Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, whom I know to be far-Left people).
 
So while I won’t excuse those actors and actresses’ hesitation in clapping whenever McConaughey thanks God when receiving an award, seeing as Jesus was perfectly clear when He said: “But whomever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven,” in Matthew 10:33, and doing so is extremely dangerous, I can at least explain why it is that they do this. In my opinion, it is better to forsake one’s acting career than one’s soul (and I do hope those people repent for their sins following such an action).
 
Now, one could make the argument that they are not necessarily denying Christ, only not clapping when someone else thanks God but still acknowledging Christ as their Lord and Savior, but it’s a bit of a moral mess, if you ask me. They demonstrate a feeling of embarrassment about acknowledging God, or at least, demonstrate prioritizing their career over acknowledging God. Even if it doesn’t go as far as to denying Christ, it does still present a problem for the soul of anyone who does this, in my opinion. It is better for all Christians to appease God, even if that leads to making enemies of men, than to appease Man, if that leads to making enemies with God.
 
At any rate, McConaughey did not end there. He also hit the “illiberal” Left as being “condescending and patronizing” to half of the world.
 
“One of the things that… some people in our industry, not all of them, but there’s some that go to the Left so far – as our friend Jordan Peterson [says] – that go to the illiberal Left side so far that it’s condescending and patronizing to 50% of the world that need the empathy that the liberals have.”
 
Frankly, that is just about the only thing I slightly disagree with him on. Not the part about the far Left being condescending and patronizing, he’s right on the money there. I’m talking about the part about liberals having empathy. Some of them might, but for the most part, liberals have taken the word “empathy” and forced it to mean something else entirely.
 
Empathy is the ability to identify with or understand another’s situation or feelings. It’s a feeling all humans can have, even liberals, but liberals have largely taken it to mean “tolerance and supportiveness of something that is anti-Christian or anti-conservative.”
 
We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the transgender who is trying to rape a kid in a bathroom because we don’t know exactly how they feel. We’re supposed to feel “empathy” for the homosexual man because, despite the fact that the Bible is perfectly clear about it being a sin and that one who embraces sin and does not repent of it is not regenerate, we don’t “know how they feel” being so marginalized. We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the illegal immigrant who killed an American girl while playing around with a gun he is not legally allowed to have. We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the black thug who attempted to kill an officer with a car door or with a taser or even with a gun. All because each of these people is “marginalized”.
 
The Left has taken the word “empathy” to mean we have to be tolerant of their actions when their actions are as egregious as that. We can feel empathy for these people (not for the child rapist) without attempting to excuse their actions or even justifying them as somehow being correct. Isaiah 5:20 says: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter.”
 
You can feel pity for those who commit wrongdoing without justifying the wrongdoing. What liberals have done in the last few decades is justifying wrongdoing, but that’s not the definition of empathy whatsoever.
 
One might try and argue that I’m a bigot because I *correctly* pointed out that homosexuality is a sin, but that is not a true statement whatsoever because, unlike the Left, I actually DO care about these people and do not want them to sin any more. Much as I do not want the prostitute or the adulterer to sin no more, I want the homosexual to sin no more.

This is about one’s salvation. Jesus justifies the person, not the sin. He justifies the person in spite of the sin, only if the person repents of their sin. This is not a popular take anymore in part due to the fact that many “Christians” would try and push back on this, but there isn’t a single homosexual person today who is regenerate. They may be conservatives and Trump supporters, ardently so, which is great. They might even acknowledge God and Christ and call themselves a Christian, but the full embrace of sin does not justify anyone.
 
We are all sinners, that is true, but we repent of those sins, even of the ones we are not aware of. A homosexual fully embraces a sin which does not lead to one’s salvation. The liberal has always pushed back on this idea because he hates God (while claiming he does not believe in God) and wants to be perfectly free to sin as much as he wants. He twists the definition of words like “empathy” and “tolerance” to mean things that they never meant purely for political gain.
 
The liberal is considered “tolerant” even if he venomously hates those who do not share his political view point, which as we all know, is the exact opposite of tolerance. The liberal is considered “empathetic” if he supports transgender bathroom laws or open borders. They give us sob stories about “poor migrants just trying to achieve a better life for themselves and their young ones” when talking about an illegal immigrant who has illegally crossed the border dozens of times and is on trial for murder.
 
The idea that these people are “empathetic” is a complete lie. They support whatever is good for their own political side. They hate this country and illegals vote for Democrats, so they support illegal immigration. If illegals voted for Republicans, Democrats would make a wall at the southern border and make the illegals build it before kicking them out.
 
At any rate, with that little tangent out of the way, McConaughey also hit the Left for cancel culture, pointing out their arrogance and hypocrisy, and noted that his openly Christian faith did not hinder his career.
 
At one point, Rogan and McConaughey got into a bit of a discussion about science and religion, with the award-winning actor noting that he is a believer and also believes in “science”, and pointing out that there is no contradiction between the two which is perfectly correct.
 
God would not reveal in nature something which contradicts what He says in scripture, and vice versa. The complexity of our universe, as scientists have discovered the smallest of subatomic particles and the biggest of galaxies, denotes that the only possibility for things existing is intelligent design.
 
The idea that the universe is a cosmic accident or that it created itself defies logic, as for something to create itself would require that thing to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship, which is a logical impossibility. Nothing can’t do something. Ex nihilo, nihil fit, or out of nothing, nothing comes. So the universe could not have come into being by itself. If anything exists, there has to at the very least be a being which exists within itself and is eternal.
 
No scientific discovery that has ever been made argues against the existence of God. Not even the theory of evolution argues against the existence of God, as the existence of that first amoeba – the first living organism – could not have come from nothing, as that defies logic, and could not have created itself. We also know it was definitely not eternal, as there used to be no Earth a long time ago, and it initially was a massive rock of lava before it cooled down; an environment which no living organism can survive in.
 
The only reason people believe there is a divorce in religious thought and scientific thought is because of the enlightenment era belief that “the God theory” was no longer necessary to explain the origin of the universe, which itself is a theory which has not been proven (and can more easily be disproven).
 
Atheists took that and ran with it, saying “see? Scientists don’t think God exists, so clearly He doesn’t exist.” But religion and science are not at odds with one another, as again, God would not reveal something to be true in nature which contradicts what He reveals in scripture, or vice versa.
 
I am glad that McConaughey pointed this out in his exchange with Joe Rogan, who is himself more liberal.
 
I just wish more people in Hollywood had the guts to say these kinds of things and be more open with their Christian faith and conservative beliefs, even if it goes against the mainstream of Hollywood and even if it could potentially cost them some amount of employment.
 
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

With a little over a week to go before the election, the last presidential debate certainly did no favors for Joe Biden, even as the debate topics and liberal moderators were favorable to the corrupt Democrat (admittedly, the moderator still did far better than Chris Wallace did, by a mile, even if she interrupted Trump far more than Biden and began to debate Trump later on in the night a bit).
 
There are a number of things that I could point to which likely could lead to Joe Biden’s landslide defeat being even grander, such as his slip up in noting that he would move away from fossil fuels (a remark which will cost him dearly in Pennsylvania), or his outright lie (of which there were plenty) regarding how “not one single person” lost their private health insurance once Obamacare was enacted, but his overall debate performance was outright awful and has led to some eye-opening post-election poll numbers, which I will get to in a moment.
 
Despite the fact that the Democrats have basically owned the black vote for the last 50 years (pun intended), that little safety net of theirs is beginning to not be so safe anymore.
 
For 50 years, the Democrats have promised black people economic prosperity, safety, justice reform, healthcare reform, and generally have promised black people that their lives would improve if only they would consistently vote for Democrats everywhere they could. They have been promising this for half a century and things have only gotten worse in places run by Democrats.
 
Let’s not forget that Joe Biden himself was the author of the 1994 Crime Bill, and his running mate is responsible for the incarceration of over 44,000 black people and almost 2,000 incarcerations were for marijuana-related offenses when she was California’s AG.
 
Now, if people commit crimes, they have to do the time. That is not my issue here, even with the marijuana stuff since I do not believe for a second that it should be made legal. However, the Democrats go around pretending like they’re doing this massive favor for black people and that they are making reforms and new laws that help black people when that has not shown to be the case whatsoever.
 
They claim that this country’s laws overincarcerate people and that the system is rigged against blacks and other minorities, when they are the ones writing and enforcing those laws. California has been a deep-blue state for a long time now and Harris was its Attorney General from 2011-2016. Democrats own California and yet, it’s not the socialist paradise that they claim we would have as a nation if we were to consistently elect them.
 
California is quickly becoming (if it isn’t one already) a socialist dystopia because that is all socialism can bring to anybody. So even if a Leftist were to make the excuse that “the reason things aren’t great for black people is because Republicans still get elected to the presidency and Congress,” it is nothing more than that: an excuse. This is because California has been very solid blue for decades now, their last Republican governor was not truly a Republican, and we can see what the Leftist ideology brings to all people, let alone black people: misery.
 
In Minneapolis, where George Floyd died during a police-involved event, Democrats have been in total control for ages. Same in Baltimore, where Freddie Gray died in police custody.
 
Wherever Democrats rule, people suffer, particularly black people. Perhaps that’s why it really shouldn’t be so surprising that Trump has such high likely voter approval numbers from black people. You see, according to Rasmussen Reports, National Daily Black Likely Voter Job Approval for Trump from October 19 to 23 has seen a fantastic rise.
 
On the 19th (a Monday), Trump’s black LV approval was at 25%, which is still pretty good, but could be better. It went down by one point the following day, but on Wednesday the 21st, it ticked up a good bit to 31%. The day of the debate, it went up to 37% and on Friday, following Thursday night’s debate, it was at 46%.
 
A good reason for this, in my opinion, is Trump’s Platinum Plan to economically assist black people who were heavily affected during the pandemic (a plan which was brought forth by Ice Cube who is not likely to vote for Biden after Sleepy Joe refused to work with Mr. Cube on this plan). That was fairly big news throughout the week last week, so the tick up to 31 and 37% made sense, as well as the 46% following the debate in which Biden began to slowly fall apart once he began to be pressed on Hunter’s emails.
 
These numbers ought to terrify Democrats, who have, like I said, enjoyed a safety net with black voters for half a century. LBJ himself once said that he’ll “have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years,” in discussions with fellow Democrat governors talking about the Great Society plan. As it turns out, he might have been right for the first 50 or so years, but the Democrats are beginning to lose this demographic.
 
Will a majority of black people be voting for Trump? Doubtful. But considering these are likely voters, if these numbers remain steady for the next week and a half (or at least they don’t drop well below 30%), that will give Trump a huge advantage over Biden and the Democrats.
 
And while I cannot possibly claim to be able to predict the future, I can say that this trend is not a good one whatsoever for the Democrats. It’s unlikely the GOP will ever see another Trump-like candidate, but if they can embrace Trumpism following Trump’s tenure as POTUS, this sort of trend will continue their way, maybe even to the point where a majority of black people will begin to vote for Republicans again like they did following the passages of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.
 
You know, when the KKK began to form and was terrorizing black people because they largely were targeting Republicans and black people were largely Republican back then?
 
I have long believed that Joe Biden was headed towards an embarrassing landslide defeat (again, no one get complacent here, there is still a job to be done) but if these numbers continue, Joe will lose by an even bigger margin than even I thought he would.
 
He easily sealed his defeat in Pennsylvania following his fossil fuel comments, but he might lose even worse in many other places.
 
Here’s hoping Trump will utterly CRUSH the communist Trojan horse and deliver a defeat that will bring Democrats flashbacks of 1984.
 
Ephesians 6:12
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”

In the current social and political climate, most people largely know where they stand: they are either in support of “anti-racist” or anti-capitalist Marxist organizations like BLM and Antifa, or they are against those terrorist organizations because anyone with at least a solitary brain cell can tell that these are not groups acting in good faith towards a noble and reasonable goal.
 
BLM and Antifa are terrorist organizations which have no qualms whatsoever about ending the lives of whomever stands in their way, be they people who openly stand against them or the wealthy, even if the wealthy are entirely with them (which will end as soon as they bring an actual working guillotine to the homes of people like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates).
 
In social media, you are supposed to “stand in solidarity” with these terrorist organizations or you have a higher chance of accidentally being suspended or banned altogether from Twitter, Facebook, etc.
 
The Left deludes themselves into believing that what they are doing is brave or courageous, but in reality, when corporate America endorses your ideology, you are not being brave and you are not “struggling”. What takes actual bravery and courage is to stand AGAINST this insanity and one black British Member of Parliament did exactly that recently (video below).
 
In a scathing retort to Labor MP Dawn Butler’s demands to “decolonize” history (another word for re-writing it to fit the Leftist ideology), Woman and Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch said the following:
 
“Our curriculum does not need decolonizing for the simple reason that it is not colonized. We should not apologize for the fact that British children primarily study the history of these islands, and it goes without saying that the recent fad to decolonize maths [sic], decolonize engineering, decolonize the sciences that we have seen across our universities to make race the defining principle of what is studied is not just misguided but actively opposed to the fundamental purpose of education.”
 
“What we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they were accepted fact. We don’t do this with communism; we don’t do this with socialism; we don’t do it with capitalism. And I want to speak about a dangerous trend in race relations that has come far too close to home to my life, and it’s the promotion of critical race theory, an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression.”
 
“I want to be absolutely clear: This government stands unequivocally against critical race theory. Some schools have decided to openly support the anti-capitalist Black Lives Matter group, often fully aware that they have a statutory duty to be politically impartial.”
 
“Black lives do matter; of course they do. But we know that the Black Lives Matter Movement, capital “BLM,” is political. I know this because at the height of the protest, I’ve been told of white Black Lives Matter protesters calling – and I’m afraid, I apologize for saying this word – calling a black armed police officer guarding Downing Street a ‘pet n*****.’”
 
“That is why we do not endorse that movement on this side of the House. It is a political movement, and what would be nice would be for members on the opposite side to condemn many of the actions that we see this political movement, instead of pretending that it is a completely wholesome anti-racist organization. There is a lot of pernicious stuff that is being pushed and we stand against that.”
 
“We do not want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt. And let me be clear: Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory as fact or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views is breaking the law.”
 
Could we please have some more of this everywhere, not just in the House of Commons or British Parliament in general? Could we have some House Representatives in the States, or some Senators, echoing these sentiments (which are right on the money, as anyone who has been paying attention for the last half a year can tell)?
 
Could we have some more bravery like this? Like I said, when corporate America endorses your ideology, you are not the one who is taking a brave stand. When the mainstream media and pop culture endorses your ideology, you are not the ones who are struggling.
 
Fighting back against the ideology endorsed by these seculars is courageous because just about everyone would pile on top of them as a result. For crying out loud, we’ve gotten to the point where largely apolitical celebrities like Chris Pratt get cancelled for NOT attending a Joe Biden fundraiser.
 
In the working environment, you can be scolded for not openly supporting BLM and Antifa on social media. Remaining apolitical is no longer enough for these people: either you stand with them or against the wall. Pushing back on these insane ideas and ideologies takes courage and Minister Badenoch has plenty of it.
 
And she is so right about everything she is saying!
 
The push to “decolonize” educational curriculum is a thinly-veiled attempt at restructuring things to fit the Marxist ideology to indoctrinate our children. Yes, they’ve been doing this for years now, but they are beginning to be a bit too comfortable with openly showing their hand for all to see.
 
The idea of “decolonizing” school subjects is entirely asinine and nonsensical. It’s a push to make those things “less white”, as though facts and being correct are strictly white things (which would be the racist talking point 50 years ago. Funny how woke people today so closely resemble old timey racists).
 
They want to push the idea that 2 + 2 could, if you wanted, equal 5 or 3 or 666, as long as that is what YOU believe it equals and that there are no right answers IN MATH.
 
And, of course, they do this kind of crap with race relations in general, pushing the idea, as Minister Badenoch pointed out, that white children are naturally guilty because of the color of their skin and black children are naturally victims for the same reason. It doesn’t matter if a rich black woman comes across a homeless white man, according to these people, the homeless man has more privilege because of the color of his skin and because of his gender (that is, of course, until we begin talking about transgender issues which largely run contrary to feminism and this idea that men have privilege over women, but that is a different ideological train wreck).
 
As far as BLM goes, I tip my imaginary hat to the minister because she is absolutely right and said something I had been saying myself for a while now: there is a noticeable difference between black lives matter and Black Lives Matter. The former is a logical and obvious testament that the lives of black people matter (because the lives of all people, naturally including black people, matter), and the latter is a self-admitted Marxist organization which seeks not the reparation of race relations throughout the globe but black, and more importantly, Leftist supremacy over everyone else.
 
Here is how the hierarchy goes in the Leftist mind: Leftist black (or other minority race) person, Leftist white person, conservative person.
 
Notice that I did not have to distinguish races for the conservatives, because to the Left, anyone who is not with them, regardless of race, is equally an enemy to them. Someone who is black but is a conservative is not really black, as Joe Biden so boldly declared. Such a person is a “race traitor”. Someone who is Latino but voting for Trump is not really Latino and is a “traitor to his Latinx hermanos and hermanas” (brothers and sisters). Someone who is a woman but is conservative is not really a woman and is a traitor to her gender.
 
The presupposition is that all these minority and “protected” classes have to be Leftist, otherwise they are an anomaly like a defective gene.
 
I am not the least bit surprised that white BLM terrorists would call a black officer guarding Downing Street a “pet n*****”. These racists have no qualms whatsoever about letting out some of their most racist sentiments (which they would scold others if they did the same to Leftists) against whom they perceive to be a political enemy: a black cop.
 
These imbeciles don’t stop to think that maybe the police aren’t so racist if they are willing to take in black officers and that black officers would be willing to lay down their lives for their fellow officers if need be, regardless of race.
 
And yes, I have no issue calling them imbeciles because these are the grunts. The top brass of these communist organizations are not the imbeciles because they get something out of it. They get wealth and power. They get to rule according to how they want. The politicians get elected and the BLM and Antifa chapter leaders get lots and lots of funding and under-the-table deals from which they can profit.
 
The grunts going out to the streets are the useful idiots, so the distinction has to be made here.
 
At any rate, like I said before, I just wish more people would be willing to stand against this insanity as openly as Kemi Badenoch did here. What the Left is in pursuit of is a present and clear danger to the lives of the vast majority of people and they must be fought to the death (of the ideology, not the people) on this.
 
This is the cold war of this century, and sadly, it is being fought on the Homefront in many different ways.
 
Deuteronomy 28:7
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.”

​Over the years, I have written plenty about how God-awful colleges in this country are not merely for their Marxist indoctrination programs but simply because they are where education goes to die altogether. And sometimes, colleges do such idiotic and nonsensical things that I cannot help but to point them out and laugh at them.
 
This is one of those times.
 
You see, the University of California recently submitted student race and ethnicity data to the Integrated Post Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which they (and all other colleges) are required to do every year if they want to participate in federal student aid programs. The university gathered the data, but the data itself is not what I care to discuss here (largely because it’s nowhere to be found in the PDF I wish to talk about). I couldn’t care less about the demographical makeup of the college, since that hardly tells us anything other than perhaps some attempts at forcibly diversifying the campus via affirmative action.
 
What I care about, however, is roughly the way the college went about gathering said data. For the different races, the school had to sort of identify where each region fits for each race. For example, for those who are Hispanic/Latino, the school understandably pointed out that those who are of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Latin American, or other descent are all under the race of “Latino.”
 
This makes perfect sense and there’s really nothing peculiar about this.
 
For African Americans/Black, it is a bit more vague: they just have “African American, African, Black Caribbean” and “Other African American/Black.” To be fair, someone who is from Africa is most likely going to be considered Black or African American (if they are Americans), so it still holds up.
 
In the Asian category is where things start getting a tad bit strange, though not as much as in the White category, but we’ll get to that one in a moment.
 
In the Asian category, we find some fairly common types of people that we would recognize as being Asian: Asian Indian (this one is a bit of an asterisk since Indians kind of are their own thing, but I will let it pass for this one since they technically are, in some way, Asian), Bangladeshi, Cambodian, Chinese/Chinese American, Filipino/Filipino American, Hmong (a group of people in South East Asia), Indonesian, Japanese/Japanese American, Korean/Korean American, Laotian, Malaysian, Other Asian, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese/Taiwanese American, Thai, Vietnamese/Vietnamese American.
 
Now, you might be asking yourself: “Freddie, this looks perfectly normal. What’s the weird part?” A fair question. You see, I omitted the weird nationality from that original list for added effect.
 
The nationality that is in that Asian category that I omitted is: Pakistani.
 
Yep, Pakistanis are considered Asian by the University of California. Now, I understand that Pakistanis are not exactly the darkest of people (an excuse that will not be usable in a moment), but it’s a bit of a stretch to clump them in with Asians. And while I can somewhat understand including Indians here (though I’ve already kind of explained how they can be a separate ethnicity), the two really aren’t all that similar to the point where one could say that Pakistanis are reasonably Asians.
 
Pakistan is officially called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It’s part of the Muslim world. It’s pretty far east, considering it borders both India and China, but Afghanistan also borders China, as do Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, and no one would reasonably consider them to be Asian countries.
 
And while earlier in the PDF file where I found this data it says, “The categories do not denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins,” meaning they are not trying to redefine what each ethnicity is in terms of race, they still decided to organize them the way that they did, for some reason.
 
Keep in mind, this isn’t the strangest part of the entire debacle, we still have another race to go.
 
Finally, it’s in the category of White that we find the most head-scratching ethnicities put into this category.
 
They have the standard “European/European descent”, as well as Caucasian, which makes sense… and that’s where the logic ends because we find the following nationalities under the category of White:

• Afghan
• Algerian
• Armenian
• Assyrian/Chaldean
• Azerbaijani
• Bahraini
• Berber
• Circassian
• Djiboutian
• Egyptian
• Emirati
• Georgian
• Iranian
• Iraqi
• Israeli
• Jordanian
• Kurdish
• Kuwaiti
• Lebanese
• Libyan
• Mauritanian
• Moroccan
• Omani
• Palestinian
• Qatari
• Saudi Arabian
• Somali
• Sudanese
• Syrian
• Tunisian
• Turkish
• Yemeni
• Other North African
• Other Southwest Asian

 
Now, I can excuse a couple of them, such as Georgians since they are pretty light-skinned (and largely associated with Russia because of Stalin), and Israelis for also being rather light-skinned, but what in the world is JUST ABOUT THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST DOING HERE!?
 
Take a look at this picture:

​These are Somalis. Yep, definitely look white to me!
 
Are you really trying to tell me that Ilhan Omar is white, University of California? Is she Elizabeth Warren-ing us?
 
You’re telling me that Rashida Tlaib, daughter of Palestinian immigrants, is white?
 
No one in their right mind would consider any of these nationalities to be under the category of White. Look at that picture of Somalis again. Who would classify them as being White? The same goes for the vast majority of the ethnicities in that list. Sudanese are just as dark-skinned as Somalis, and everyone else is fairly dark-skinned as well, up to a point.
 
Again, I can understand Georgians and Israelis to an extent, but the ENTIRE Middle East?!
 
Like I said, it’s not like they are trying to redefine what it means to be White or Asian or whatever else and they are not trying to make a scientific argument (yet, at least, considering the scientific fact of two genders is being so heavily challenged because of woke-ism). But they are still classifying such people in such categories and are still gathering this data the way that they are.
 
In the Legend for the chart, they say that Pakistani was “Collected as ‘East Indian/Pakistani’ prior to 2010,” so they used to have a different section for that ethnicity, but they still decided to add it in Asian anyway and decided to omit an entire section to “Middle Eastern” which would’ve made a good amount of sense and would’ve spared them the mocking that I am delivering.
 
(As a side note, they have a “Pacific Islander” section as well, and the strangest one there was “Hawaiian”, seeing as it’s a State, but I can understand their logic for that one).
 
They also do not make any such clarification for all the Middle Eastern nationalities that they put under the category of White, so what’s their excuse there?
 
Now, one could try to argue that they are just trying to make classifications for race, not for nationality, but there are several problems with that.
 
First of all, they include, like I said, Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaskan Native. That denotes to location more than skin color or race.
 
Secondly, the PDF is literally titled: “Student Ethnicity Collection and Reporting at UC,” with “ethnicity” being synonymous with “nationality.”
 
Thirdly, again, LOOK AT THE SOMALIS! If this were strictly about classifications of race, someone REALLY screwed up big time somewhere along the way because no one can tell me that those people are white by race.
 
I have no idea why it is that the University of California decided to make this hilarious list of nationalities according to race, or rather, why they did it the way that they did, but I cannot help but to laugh at them. Again, it’s not that they are trying to redefine what these terms mean or try to make a scientific argument about it, but they still decided to collect their data in this manner, classifying people from the Middle East as either being White or Asian, and that is hilarious to me.
 
I just hope they aren’t telling their Middle Eastern students, particularly the more dark-skinned ones, that they are actually white according to their own data-gathering methods.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

Back in late September, I talked about the bombshell Senate report that spared no detail about the business dealings of the Bidens and the overall corruption of the Obama/Biden administration with regard to Ukraine and Burisma Holdings.

Well, a recent New York Post article drops another bombshell in the form of recovered emails between Hunter Biden and a top Burisma executive named Vadym Pozharskyi.
 
The details of this one are pretty juicy and Twitter thought them so damaging that they outright have been banning people that simply TALK about it, which only serves to bring more attention to a story which otherwise might not have led very many people to care about it (particularly as some people will vote for Biden no matter what).
 
According to the NY Post: “Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.”
 
This goes against something that Joe Biden had been claiming for a long time now, that he has “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” We all knew for a long time now that that was an utter lie, but this only goes to further prove it, particularly as according to Politico, “Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule.”
 
For context, the Biden campaign had responded to the NY Post’s piece, obviously lambasting it, but only claiming that the former VP never officially met with the Burisma executive, meaning that the two had met in secret in an informal setting. This, suffice to say, does not look good for Biden at all, and I think this can somewhat be considered an October Surprise, but aimed at the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans.
 
At any rate, returning to the uncovered emails (which were not hacked, as some on the Left might claim. They were in a computer taken to a repair shop which was never claimed and the shop owner tried contacting the owner multiple times before looking through the contents of the hard drive, as the computer could now be claimed as his own, and found these emails. He then made a copy of the hard drive and set it to various places such as the FBI and Rudy Giuliani’s lawyers), we find some truly juicy stuff.
 
An April 17, 2015 email from the Burisma executive reads: “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure. As we spoke yesterday evening, would be great to meet today for a quick coffee. What do you think? I could come to you [sic] office somewhere around noon or so, before or on my way to airport. Best, V.”
 
Like I said, that email points to Joe Biden having met with an executive from Burisma, which Joe had been lying to people about for years.
 
Less than a year after that particular email, Joe Biden coerced the Ukrainian president and Prime Minister into firing the country’s top prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma Holdings’ executives, which naturally included Hunter Biden. This is something else that Joe is now lying about, despite the fact that there is video proof that he has outright BRAGGED about what he did, saying to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018: “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”
 
“Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”
 
Another email from Pozharskyi, which is a lengthy one so I will share the most important details, reads as follows: “Dear Hunter and Devon,… As previously pointed out on a number of occasions, the representatives of new authorities in power tend to quite aggressively approach N. Z. unofficially with the aim to obtain cash from him… After unsuccessful attempts to receive funds from our side, they proceeded with concrete actions… We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message/signal etc. to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions…”
 
A few things need to be made clear about this. First of all, this was an email sent to Hunter and his business partner Devon Archer (whom I’ve talked about at length in that other article) on May 12th, 2014… the same day that Hunter Biden, at least officially, joined the Burisma board.
 
I see Burisma didn’t take too much time to use their newly acquired influence.
 
Secondly, this was a bit of a murky period in Ukraine. The Revolution was still ongoing and President Viktor Yanukovych had fairly recently been removed from office in February. The country wouldn’t have elections until May 25th, in which Poroshenko succeeded the former president. So it’s a bit of a strange period and I do not know exactly who was in charge of the country in between the time Yanukovych was removed and Poroshenko was installed (which was in June). However, someone obviously was in charge and their short-lived administration clearly wanted some money from this “N. Z.” fellow, who is most likely Burisma’s owner Mykola Zlochevsky, as he is an oligarch with plenty of money and his name “Mykola” is a Ukrainian version of “Nicholas.”
 
It is a bit strange that Pozharskyi would refer to Zlochevsky as “N. Z.” instead of “M. Z.” since they are both Ukrainians, but given the context of those initials in Pozharskyi’s email, I can’t think of whom else he could possibly be referring to, as he talks about “the gaz [sic] production business of N. Z. …”
 
At any rate, the New York Post also noted that this email was sent on the same day that Burisma announced (and has since redacted) Hunter Biden’s addition to the board of directors, though they also say that “Hunter Biden actually joined the board in April 2014, according to multiple reports.”
 
So that is another possible lie from the Bidens in general, as Hunter was reportedly a part of the board of directors of the gas company a good bit before his official announcement. I wonder what else happened in between the time that he actually joined the board and the time that the announcement was made official.
 
There is more to this story in the New York Post, though I do not think many other details are all that relevant for me to share here, other than an email written by Pozharskyi and forwarded to Hunter by Archer about a proposed tax law which would have been detrimental to Burisma, but I did not get too much out of that exchange.
 
Like I said in my previous article regarding the dealings of Hunter Biden and his father, I want you to imagine the outrage from the Left if any person on the Right, such as Don Jr. or Eric Trump, or anyone from the Pence family, had been caught doing the things that Hunter was doing.
 
Hunter has taken millions of dollars from Burisma simply in exchange for his family name and the position of his father, has taken millions of dollars from other foreign sources such as the wife of the former mayor of Moscow, and has a detailed record of corruption. If a right-winger had done even one of the things Hunter has done, that would be all we’d be talking about for weeks, and all the way to the election.
 
But because it’s a story which damages the Democrat nominee, it has to be pushed back against and censored on social media, which like I said, only serves to draw more attention to the story. Some people might not care about the actual story involving Hunter Biden and the implications of Joe’s lying butt, but they will care about social media censorship and will want to look into exactly why it is that big tech giants are trying to suppress this story so badly.
 
Despite the fact that I imagine a decent number of Biden voters have already voted for the guy, I hope some people who were considering voting for Biden but have yet to do so change their minds about it after this. Stories which display the Bidens’ corruption would be shut down every single time if Biden were to win. Even now, we see that happening in large part because big tech bribes Republican congresspeople so that they can get away with this crap.
 
Here’s hoping this story will help a good amount of people recognize how utterly awful Joe Biden is and how important it is to keep him as far away from the Oval Office as possible.
 
2 Peter 2:15
“Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing…”

My friend, we all have a worldview that we support. We all have beliefs that we carry with us and affect everything we do and everything we are. Liberals have a worldview in which God doesn’t exist. The Judeo-Christian view holds a worldview where God exists and we’re accountable to Him.

When Christian judges are asked questions regarding their religious beliefs it presupposes a worldview: that there IS no God and therefore if they bring their worldview they cannot possibly be good justices. In other words, we’re expected to go along with their liberal worldview, where God doesn’t exist.

But, you see, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The Founding Fathers may not have agreed on doctrine, but they mostly agreed that God does exist and our rights are given by Him only.

A liberal worldview is mob-rule: if enough people believe it’s OK to kill kids with Down Syndrome, or the elderly or the sick, then that’s what they expect a justice on the SCOTUS to uphold. This way, God doesn’t give us rights, but rather Government. If Government changes its mind tomorrow, and Christians are to be burnt at the stake, then a liberal justice or judge is expected to go along with it.

But that’s not the way this country was founded. In the Judeo-Christian worldview we leave doctrine discussions for our private lives, but we know, for example, that murder goes against God’s law. And Government has the obligation to protect God’s creation – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Ideas have consequences. If you believe there is a God, you’re going to live a life that honors Him. And you honor Him by respecting other people’s lives and possessions – after all God says “you shall not kill” and “you shall not steal”. God is a capitalist. God approves of the Constitution of the United States.

If, on the other hand, you believe there is no God, then not only will you live as if you didn’t have to respond to Him, but you’re enabling others to do the same. So if someone kills you tomorrow legally, based on your race or your age or whatever other reason, liberals will be OK with it. Your life isn’t protected. Remember, in a mob-rule, if enough people vote to “cleanse” this country of “deplorables” and “undesirables”, you might fall under their category and there’s nobody to protect you.

Let me be clear – only one of these two worldviews has to be correct, from a logical standpoint. Two contradictory statements cannot possibly be both true – either God exists or He doesn’t. But, you see, the God I’m talking about is not some creation in our minds. We’re talking about a Being that exists APART from us – whether you believe He exists or not. He’s self-existent, eternal, immutable, holy, omnipresent, omniscient and almighty. He’s transcendent, in the sense that He’s SUPERIOR to us in order of being. This is God. All theists agree with this proposition. He is a necessary being, without whom nothing else could possibly be. We’re EFFECTS. And He is the CAUSE. Aristotle called Him “the first cause” of things. He knew that nothing that exists today could possibly exist if somewhere, somehow there wasn’t a being with the power of being within himself. If there ever was a time when nothing existed (no space, no matter, no God), what could possibly exist today? Nothing, of course.

Ideas have consequences. The Judeo-Christian worldview is the Western Civilization worldview. We remove God from our way of life, we become barbarians.

Here’s the exchange between Senator Graham and SCOTUS nominee ACB during the Senate Hearings:

"GRAHAM: Let's talk about the two Supreme Court cases regarding abortion. What are the two leading cases in America regarding abortion?
 
BARRETT: Most people think of Roe V. Wade, and Casey is the case after Roe that preserved Roe’s central holding but grounded it in a slightly different rationale.
 
GRAHAM: So what is that rationale?
 
BARRETT: Rationale is that the state cannot impose an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.
 
GRAHAM: Unlike Brown, there are states challenging on the abortion front. There’re states that are going to a fetal heartbeat bill. I have a bill, Judge, that would disallow abortion on demand after 20 weeks, the fifth month of the pregnancy. We're one of seven nations in the entire world that allow abortion on demand at the fifth month. The construct of my bill is because a child is capable of feeling pain in the fifth month, doctors tell us to save the child's life, you have to provide anesthesia if you operate, because they can feel pain. The argument I’m making is if you have to provide anesthesia to save the child’s life, ‘cause they can feel pain, it must be a terrible death to be dismembered by an abortion. That's a theory to protect the unborn at the fifth month. If that litigation comes before you, will you listen to both sides?
 
BARRETT: Of course, I'll do that in every case.
 
GRAHAM: So I think 14 states have already passed a version of what I described. So there really is a debate in America still unlike Brown versus Board of Education about the rights of the unborn. That's just one example. So if there is a challenge coming from a state, if a state passes a law and it goes into court where people say this violates Casey, how do you decide that?
 
BARRETT: Well, it would begin in a district court in a trial court. The trial court would make a record. The parties would litigate and fully develop that record in the trial court. Then it would go up to an appeals court that would review that record looking for error, and then again, it would be the same process. Someone would have to seek certiorari at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would have to grant it, and at that point it would be the full judicial process. It would be briefs, oral argument, conversations with law clerks in chambers, consultation with colleagues, writing an opinion, really digging down into it. It's not just a vote. You all do that. You all have a policy, and you cast a vote. The judicial process is different."
 
Psalm 14:1
“The fool says in his heart ‘There is no God’”

This year has so far been rather challenging, to say the least, for a lot of people. What with the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, the strict and idiotic lockdowns that came as a result of it, the social and racial unrest that has led to wanton destruction of property and numerous deaths, all leading up to an election which if won by Trump will almost certainly lead the Left to… continue doing the things they’ve been doing so the threat of riots is not quite as effective as it otherwise would have been.
 
One silver lining in this dark cloud of a year, however, is what I believe to be the potential revival of Christian America. It is often at our lowest point that we seek the Lord for comfort, and while some might be angry at God for allowing these things to happen, many more will come to God in search of refuge from the evil one. Many more people will begin praying to God, or pray more often, that their current situation – both personal ones and larger, social ones – will turn around. As a guest pastor for a church I often watch online said, “If it’s not good, God’s not done.”
 
This has not been a good year for many of us, but since it’s not good, that means that God’s not done. Good things will come out of all of this. We may not see it now, or understand how it could possibly come to be, but even while we don’t see a way, God most assuredly does.
 
Undoubtedly, there will be plenty of people who won’t change no matter what. Who will refuse to acknowledge God’s existence (for the most part; they acknowledge Him when they have something to be angry with Him about) and who will foolishly even declare themselves an enemy of God (as I have met one such fellow on Twitter who has outright said that he would kill God if he met Him, as though he had any power at all to stand against the omnipotent One).
 
Such people will reject and even mock prayer. We often see it whenever a tragic event like a shooting or natural disaster occurs, there are those who offer prayers and those who mock those who offer prayers, declaring it to be a waste of time and effort which accomplishes absolutely nothing and that we must seek evidence-based solutions to the problem.
 
The thing about prayer is that it absolutely works and multiple studies show it is an evidence-based solution to problems.
 
For example, one study of older adults found that “the negative effects of financial problems on health were significantly reduced among those who regularly prayed for others,” according to National Review.
 
In other words, the people who regularly prayed, and prayed for other people, were noticeably less affected by the strains of financial problems than those who did not pray. When you turn your trust and faith over to God, you recognize that your job is not your income source, the economy is not your income source, but God is your income source.
 
And hallelujah for that because of the following passage:
 
Luke 11:9-13: “So I tell you: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
 
One could say: “Well, Freddie, the context is clearly about the Holy Spirit, not about finances or other things.”
 
And one would be half right.
 
The context of the passage is clear: Jesus is talking about salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit. Indeed, whomever asks for forgiveness, they will be forgiven. The Lord is merciful to such people. But recognize that God doesn’t only give His children the Holy Spirit. In the rhetorical questions, Jesus talks about parents giving their children fish or eggs if they ask of it. While, obviously, human parents cannot give the Holy Spirit and Jesus needed an analogy that would be understandable to His audience, God also gives us many other blessings. The proof that God is happily willing to give other things to His children is in the fact that He DOES and we express our thanks to Him as a result.
 
Why else would we give thanks to God for, say, getting a new job or a promotion, or doing well on a test, or finding the love of someone’s life, if God only gave His children the Holy Spirit? When we ask God for things, a number of things can happen:
 

       1. God gives us exactly what we want. 

   2. God doesn’t give us what we want because what we want is not what we should have, or God is protecting us from something. 
 
     3. Or, God doesn’t give us what we want because He has something even better in store, giving us more than what we even asked for. 


God is delighted in giving us things that we ask for when those things help us achieve our God-given destiny. So when praying to God, He is even more delighted by the faith and trust that is placed on Him by us.
 
We pray not merely to ask for things like children asking for a new toy. We also pray for help, we pray for clarity, we pray for strength, for wisdom and understanding, as well as for others that they might get those things.
 
And studies have shown, like I mentioned earlier, that prayer is extremely helpful. One research study found that prayer is of great psychological benefit to those who perceive God to be a loving God. They also found that, on the flipside, it caused anxiety and distress for those who perceive God to be distant and uncaring.
 
Which is why it’s important to also know who God is. I remember seeing on social media a post that quoted someone about how many (too many, according to that person) Christians view God as all-loving, forgetting the wrathful side of God. The thing about that is, while God is wrathful, He is only wrathful to sinfulness which was not forgiven by Him; which was not asked to be forgiven.
 
God doesn’t express His wrath against His children. His children are forgiven! His wrath is reserved for those who are unrepentant and unsaved – those who deny Christ consciously or subconsciously.
 
In understanding who God is, putting one’s trust and faith in Him, and having been saved by His Son, prayer is a great reliever of stress and it helps people spiritually, psychologically, and often times, physically.
 
Like I said, there are a number of studies that show such things, and that National Review article I mentioned earlier talks about many of them.
 
I hope that in reading this, you will come to better understand (if you haven’t already) just how important prayer is. In terms of both helping people feel better, such as in a group of cancer patients who were instructed to pray focusing on thankfulness and concern for others and were found to have the least symptoms of depression, and in terms of better accomplishing tasks, such as a study which found that those who prayed for 10 minutes about a personal life issue (even those who are less religious) were better able to accomplish focus-driven tasks than those who were instructed to think about the personal issues or were distracted with a puzzle, prayer is a magnificent and efficient way to solve problems.
 
When ignorant people criticize prayer, they don’t realize that prayer actually has value and effectiveness which has been backed by empirical evidence.
 
Prayer is extremely helpful, not only for our own souls but also for life in general. I firmly believe that if we prayed more as a country, things would be a lot better than they are.
 
Mark 11:24
“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”