In another great video (below) from Campus Reform, Cabot Phillips traveled to Georgia, specifically to Savannah College of Art and Design, where there exists a building named after conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
 
At this college, a number of students have signed a petition to rename the building and remove Clarence Thomas from any association with the building and/or the school.
 
Cabot Phillips wanted to understand just why the students were signing the petition and just why they felt compelled to rename the building to something that is not associated with Justice Clarence Thomas. And if you think any one of them came up with even a remotely decent explanation, you’d be horribly wrong.
 
You see, none of them could really come up with a solid answer. Many simply shrugged their shoulders, saying “I don’t know” or “I haven’t done enough research.” So they can’t even clumsily point to Thomas’ sexual assault allegations that came up very similarly to Kavanaugh’s allegations back when Thomas was a nominee to the Supreme Court.
 
Of course, even pointing that out brings with it a share of problems, but not even one of them even thought of it. They literally would say or signify that they simply don’t know why they are against him, they just are.
 
Cabot went further, asking them if there was anything the students could point to as the biggest reason for wanting to remove Thomas’ name from the building. Once again, they could not come up with anything… except for one particular student who gave perhaps the single stupidest answer I’ve heard in a long time.
 
A student wearing a New Orleans Saints beanie said the following: “[Thomas] is a historical figure… so is Hitler.”
 
No, there was nothing in between the things I quoted. There was nothing else that he said. That ellipsis was not to cut out unimportant bits and focus on the important ones, that ellipsis was to signify the time spent from one part of the quote to the other, similar to dialogue.
 
The kid’s literal argument was that Clarence Thomas is a historical figure, and because Hitler was also a historical figure, Thomas should have his name removed.
 
Now, I will cut the kid some slack. He does appear to be smiling when he said that, as if to know he just said some seriously dumb crap, but still. That is hardly an argument.
 
I’ve heard some ludicrous comparisons to Hitler before. Comparisons between, say, Trump and Hitler. And the reasons given are wrong and ignorant. People will say “they are both white supremacists” or other ridiculous things. But those kinds of comparisons, though erroneous, are pretty subjectively understandable. People consider the concept of a wall to be racist, even though it’s only meant to protect the border and the rule of law, without interjecting race. However, this comparison, though not directed at Trump, has to be the dumbest one I’ve ever heard.
 
People can say Trump is a Nazi all they want; they’d be wrong. But that gives them some subjective reason to not like him. This answer does not even touch on similarities of ideology (of which there are none because Hitler was a socialist and Thomas is a conservative). It does not even touch on similarities of policy (again, of which there are none). The argument is: Thomas is a historical figure. So is Hitler. Therefore, Thomas bad man.
 
There is literally no logical steps taken to go from not liking Thomas to comparing him to Hitler in this instance.
 
There is this little analogy I use sometimes: A farmer has to wake up very early every day, and he’s tired of it. He notices that whenever his rooster starts clucking in the morning, the sun would rise. As a result, he kills the rooster so that the sun will stop rising. Of course, the sun still rises anyway.
 
You see, there was no direct relationship between the rooster clucking and the sun rising. It’s just that the rooster clucks to signify the sun is about to rise, but the rooster does not make the sun rise.
 
But the farmer in that analogy at least noticed some sort of pattern, even if he was ultimately wrong. No cause-effect relationship. The student here draws no pattern. His line of thinking is: Thomas is a historical figure, as was Hitler, so that CLEARLY means Thomas must be like Hitler.
 
Never mind the fact that OBAMA is also a historical figure. Never mind that Bill and Hillary Clinton are historical figures (Bill more than Hillary, I’d say). Don’t pay attention to any of that.
 
Now, again, the kid was smiling, almost laughing, when he said that. I take that as he knows what he just said is super dumb, so I will try to cut him some slack, but I hope he at least learns the meaning of constructing an argument.
 
Of course, we could also argue about Thomas being a historical figure, but that’s not the point of my rebuking of the Saints fan.
 
That argument can hardly be called an argument. And that is where I will leave that since that is mostly a tangent for the main purpose of this article.
 
Returning to the overall video, there wasn’t a single person who could come up with a reason at all to remove Thomas’ name. One of the students tried to make it about politics, saying that the campus is liberal and that Thomas “degrades” that, which can also hardly be considered an argument. Cabot makes sure to point out the hypocrisy of liberalism, saying that liberals are supposed to be “open-minded and tolerant”. The student replies: “I guess, but I think that’s just a way to twist the concept of liberalism.”
 
Sweetheart (the student is a girl), what does the Left tend to do to appeal to people? Aside from trying to be hipster and cool to appeal to millennials, they point to the “racism” of the Republicans and the “inclusive” nature of the Left. The Left is the ones who say they are “open-minded and tolerant”. Cabot isn’t twisting it, the Left is.
 
We know very well that the Left is not tolerant and open-minded (as evidenced by the fact that this student herself essentially argues against Thomas’ name for the building because the college is liberal and he is conservative), so if anyone is twisting the concept of liberalism, it’s the Left.
 
Now, thankfully, not every single student interviewed by Cabot said they should rename it. One of the students brought up that just because you disagree with someone, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify their accomplishments. So not every student there is being completely indoctrinated, but there are a good number of them who are.
 
And make no mistake, this is prototypical indoctrination. Those students believe the things they believe not because they arrived at those conclusions by themselves, but because other people have taught them to believe those things.
 
This much is clear when they sign a petition to remove Clarence Thomas’ name from a school building but cannot come up with any particular reason as to why, apart from that’s just the way they feel.
 
This is what comes out of indoctrination. Mindless pawns useful to the Left. Clarence Thomas, to these kids, is bad. Not because they know anything about him, but because other people told them he’s bad and they have no sense for wishing to learn more about him to verify the claims made against him.
 
Then, these kids grow up to “believe all women” whenever a Leftist woman accuses a conservative man of something, whether or not it’s proven he did it.
 
But in this case, I arrive at a dilemma. What is better? Being uninformed or being misinformed? I, for one, believe it’s better to be uninformed. These kids, given their answers, are largely uninformed about Clarence Thomas. Again, they didn’t point to the sexual assault allegations, and the one kid that compared him to Hitler made a very stupid comparison that is not even up for debate as to why it’s wrong.
 
So I think these kids are in a better situation than someone who would bring up the aforementioned things or would make a more common comparison to Hitler (which is largely becoming stale, regardless of who you direct the comparison to), because such a person would be largely misinformed and remain grounded in their beliefs, whereas someone who is uninformed can be properly informed and could perhaps be persuaded to our side.
 
However much this may be the case here, I don’t know. But there is at least some level of hope for these kids to be properly informed and help them understand why it makes no sense to wish to rename the building currently named after Justice Thomas.
 
Here’s hoping that is the case, because it could just as easily go the other way, unfortunately. This is academia, after all. It’s long ceased to be a place of higher education. It’s now a place for higher indoctrination.
 
Proverbs 18:15
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Now, I know we are about two years removed from the 2020 presidential election, but it is always good to see numbers that say something very good about Trump, particularly in his chances to be reelected.
 
And yes, I know that odds-making sites are not exactly national polls like Rasmussen (who have Trump at 50% approval) and other polls (that also have Trump with good approval ratings), but considering how often fake news interjects into national polls (not necessarily the case every time, but it happens often enough to take notice, particularly during the 2016 election) I would have to say that odds-making sites probably have as much credibility as polls do.
 
BetOnline, an odds-making site, recently released a list of favorites to win the 2020 presidential election, and currently have Trump at 7-5 odds to win the presidency. That is considerably ahead of the number two options, who are Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Beto O’Rourke, who both are at 10/1 odds to win the presidency.
 
Now, math is not my strong suit. I honestly had to look at these numbers for a while to understand just why these numbers were great. In my analysis, I noticed that the number for Trump, 7/5, translates to 1.4. And BetOnline had a column that read “American Odds”, which showed Trump was at +140, which makes mathematical sense.
 
That number is considerably smaller than the +1000 that Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke had, and things began to click a little.
 
You see, back when Kevin Durant joined the Golden State Warriors (yes, I’m talking about basketball to relate to this article), oddsmakers had the Warriors winning the championship at something like 2/3. I don’t remember the exact number, but the first number was smaller than the second, so I figured that the smaller the ratio is, the better the odds.
 
As a result, looking at these numbers for the 2020 election, I can see that Trump just SMOKES the competition.
 
Again, Harris and O’Rourke (who is here for some reason, despite having lost his Senate bid) have 10/1 odds at winning. They are tied for number two.
 
BetOnline also has Joe Biden at number three (12/1), followed by Bernie Sanders (16/1), Mike Pence (20/1), Cory Booker (25/1), Elizabeth Warren (25/1), Tulsi Gabbard (25/1), Amy Klobuchar (33/1), Kirsten Gillibrand (33/1), Michael Bloomberg (33/1), Ro Khanna (33/1, who is a congressman from California), Tom Steyer (33/1), Ben Shapiro (40/1) and finally, Michael Avenatti (40/1).
 
For reference, back in August, BetOnline had Trump winning with 3/2 odds, Harris with 10/1 (O’Rourke wasn’t even on the list), Sanders with 14/1, Biden with 16/1, Pence with 16/1 and Warren with 20/1.
 
So we can see fairly decent improvement for Trump, who already had pretty good odds back during the summer, and we can also see some bad drop-offs for Sanders and Warren. Recently, Sanders has been discovered to have spent $300,000 in a single month on private jet travel, further showing how hypocritical he is. Although, I do not necessarily think that alone would’ve caused this drop-off and this was discovered very recently.
 
However, Warren’s drop-off could probably be more accurately pointed out. In fact, I literally talked about this late last week, when I talked about a New York Times article basically casting doubt on her presidential chances.
 
The fact she showed everyone how not Native American she is and still tried to claim the results of the DNA test proved her heritage (and MSM went along with it for all of 5 minutes) is the likeliest cause for such a massive drop-off.
 
As far as Biden’s jump from 16/1 to 12/1, the Washington Examiner says that this movement comes after he said he was the “most qualified person to be president”. I don’t know if such a blatant (and wrong) statement would actually cause a shift, particularly such a massive one, but I do not really have much better of an explanation apart from the drop-offs for Sanders and Warren simply gave him the opportunity to rise.
 
But as far as Trump’s chances look, it might come as a surprise to some to see his chances only improving since the last time these odds came out. Matter of fact, he has actually widened his lead from number two. Again, Harris sat at number two back in August with 10/1. Her odds haven’t improved, though they are fairly good by comparison to those behind her. And yet, even despite the “blue wave” back in the midterms, Trump’s chances have only gotten better.
 
Not to mention that approval ratings have maintained a steady pace, if not growing, and his disapproval ratings fell from 58% back in December of last year to 52%, according to the RealClearPolitics average (which had pretty accurate polls for the midterms).
 
Now, again, we are two years away from the 2020 elections. An awful lot of things can happen in the span of two years. For example, back in 2014, no one had any sort of clue as to who would be the Republican nominee (people had a fairly good idea of who would be the Democrat one) and who could potentially become the next president.
 
Trump was nowhere in the picture at this time four years ago. Back then, the only people I could see running were Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, maybe Romney again, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul and maybe a few others. I truly had no idea who would be running and who would be the nominee. And then, Trump comes along and sets politics ablaze, crushing his Republican opponents in the polls and remaining the frontrunner throughout the primaries.
 
In the span of two years, we went from not knowing who would be running or even who would be the best person to run, to supporting one of the most influential and richest people in America to become President under the banner of “Make America Great Again.”
 
So we truly have no idea what will happen from this point to November 3rd, 2020. However, it’s pretty clear that the results of the midterm elections, despite Democrats regaining the House, do not show Trump’s favorability waning. His approval rating, as I said, is still holding strong, if not growing. So it makes sense that oddsmakers have Trump getting even better results and having even better odds at winning.
 
Now, this alone is not the end-all, be-all of the likelihood of Trump’s victory in 2020. Sometimes, you get surprises. For example, returning to a basketball reference to drive my point, the Miami Heat were the favorites to win the 2011 NBA title at -180, with the Dallas Mavericks winning it at +160, according to sbnation.com, a basketball site.
 
But, as those who follow basketball know, the Mavericks won in 6 games, winning 4-2. So even though the Heat were favorites to win, that did not happen. Of course, politics are different from basketball and I doubt Trump would disappear like LeBron did, but that does indicate we do not truly know what could happen.
 
Still, as the numbers are today, they suggest that Trump would OBLITERATE any opponent he were to face in the election. And if things continue like this, I see no reason for Trump not to get reelected in 2020.
 
I know very well I will be voting for him, and hopefully, he will get a little more help from Republicans in Congress that they might retake the House and perhaps even grow in the Senate again.
 
Here’s hoping that is the case.
 
James 1:17
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Shortly after releasing Warren’s DNA test results that proved she was actually less Native American than your average white person, and after most media sources tried to spin it as an actual victory against Trump who long questioned her supposed heritage, people realized just how badly Warren had messed up here. I even shared article after article showing the media basically turning their backs on Warren.
 
As a nice little reminder, let me show you some of the headlines from the MSM following the realization Warren was a fraud:
 

• WaPo: “Elizabeth Warren angers prominent Native Americans with politically fraught DNA test.”

 

• CNN: “Elizabeth Warren might have actually made things worse with her DNA gambit”

 

• Politico: “Warren stumbles with ‘Native American’ rollout.”

 
 
There were others which I pointed out in my article talking about the MSM essentially betraying Warren after her colossal failure of both believing being 1/1024th Native American makes you Native American and releasing the test results even though she knew that she is only 1/1024th Native American.
 
If you remember what I said in that article (don’t blame you if you don’t), I said “We will have to wait and see if this train-wreck properly derails Elizabeth Warren’s chances at a 2020 run.”
 
Well, it looks like the New York Times feels the same way.
 
Here’s what the New York Times had to say: “… nearly two months after Ms. Warren released the test results and drew hostile reactions from prominent tribal leaders, the lingering cloud over her likely presidential campaign has only darkened. Conservatives have continued to ridicule her. More worrisome to supporters of Ms. Warren’s presidential ambitions, she has yet to allay criticism from grass-roots progressive groups, liberal political operatives and other potential 2020 allies who complain that she put too much emphasis on the controversial field of racial science – and, in doing so, played into Mr. Trump’s hands.”
 
Obviously, this doesn’t necessarily mean Warren won’t run in 2020, and that’s not what the NYT is alluding to, but even the NYT expresses worries and doubts about her 2020 campaign. Were she to run in 2020, this would hang over her head for anyone to use, both Democrat and Republican.
 
More-so than the belief that she was Native American when she wasn’t, what would hurt her is the fact she BENEFITED from calling herself Native American. That is something that could particularly damage her. As a result, someone who was once considered a possible frontrunner for the Democrat ticket in 2020 has fallen to perhaps even being considered a liability to a political party that makes it a point to talk strictly about race. Frankly, if Warren weren’t a woman, I doubt she would consider, at this point, even running.
 
Her gender is the only thing that she has going for herself because she belongs to a party where that is actually important, not whether or not she would make a good leader.
 
But the mere fact that even the New York Times believes the test was such a failure for Warren that they honestly have doubts about whether or not she would run, and whether or not she would be the best person to run is quite astounding.
 
Again, the media initially ran with the story that Warren’s test results PROVED her Native American ancestry. Recently, while surfing YouTube, I came across a video (which I didn’t watch) from The Daily Show with Trevor Noah titled: “Elizabeth Warren Proves Her Native American Heritage.” This is the sort of story they ran… until a few days later when actually smart people noticed her results showed Warren is whiter than tooth paste.
 
For decades, she was considered a Leftist star. And she very well may still be considered that, but definitely not to the extent that she was in the past. She used to pretend she is Native American. Now, she can’t do that, lest she be called out for appropriating their culture, which is something the Left loves to do to everyone else.
 
Now, all of this does not necessarily mean she is done for as a politician. She won her reelection bid in 2018 in spite of this (or because her district is heavily Democrat-occupied) so all is not lost for her. But there is no denying this test seriously has stopped any momentum she may have had into trying to become the 46th President of the United States.
 
That's not to say she won’t run, but that is to say that she has a lot to tackle were she to run. Maybe too much for her to believe she could overcome it.
 
And this NYT article does not mean they do not want her to run in 2020. But if even they recognize that she stepped on it, then I don’t think they have very much hope for her.
 
Now, this is largely a tangent that hardly has anything to do with the subject matter, but the NYT also says the following: “Ms. Warren has also troubled advocates of racial equality and justice, who say her attempt to document ethnicity with a DNA test gave validity to the idea that race is determined by blood – a bedrock principle for white supremacists and others who believe in racial hierarchies.”
 
While this doesn’t relate to Warren in 2020, it’s something that caught my attention and not something I felt I could simply ignore. Just what the heck else do you think determines race? Sure, skin color, but what determines someone’s skin color? DNA! Did these people not take science in school?! Take Barack Obama as an example. He’s half white and half black. How do you think that happens? His mother was white and his father was black. Pretty simple, right?
 
It’s the mixture of their genetic composition that made Obama look the way he does. And skin color is part of our genetic makeup. Thus, it’s part of our DNA. Thus, it’s part of our blood. To argue against this is to ignore science (though they have no problem ignoring science when it comes to gender, so why would I expect them to pay attention to science when it comes to race?)
 
I could talk more about this, but that would have to come in a different article. Again, that was largely a tangent and not really related to the point of this article, but it’s something that I felt necessary to share since it was also in the New York Times article discussing Warren in 2020.
 
The point of this article is that it’s quite astounding the sort of negative effect the test has had on Warren’s political career to the point where she went from a top Democrat star, ready to challenge Trump to having people doubting whether or not she will run or if she even should.
 
It’s also quite astounding the 180 the media did regarding Warren and her ancestry claims. Again, they fully supported her when she released the results, saying they proved her claims and made Trump look like an idiot. Soon after, they saw they couldn’t fool people quite so easily anymore when the facts are right in their faces and even in their own articles, so they flipped on her.
 
And almost two months later, the NYT thinks her chances of her 2020 run have “darkened”. If that is not an indication to the sort of free-fall Warren very well could be facing in the next couple of years as a Democrat star, I don’t know what is.
 
Ephesians 5:11
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Much in the same way that those who try socialism end up suffering because of it, women are now reportedly suffering in Wall Street due to the threatening effects of the #MeToo movement. What do I mean by that?
 
Well, according to Bloomberg, men all across Wall Street are “adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.”
 
“No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.” That was literally the opening paragraph of the Bloomberg article.
 
“In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is ‘an unknown risk’. What if she took something he said the wrong way?”
 
So because of the #MeToo movement, men in the financial industry are trying to protect themselves from unfound sexual harassment lawsuits that could destroy them. Of course, Bloomberg doesn’t mention that, instead choosing to basically attack the men for now becoming more discriminatory.
 
Now, I’m not saying this is a good response to the #MeToo movement. Doing this sort of thing can be detrimental to women in the work-place as well. But you can’t exactly blame these guys for fearing a sexual harassment or assault claim.
 
I know I’ve already talked plenty about Kavanaugh, most recently with outgoing Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill admitting Democrats’ handling of Kavanaugh might have hurt her in her election efforts, but he is a prime example of what the #MeToo movement could POTENTIALLY cause for men.
 
Now, this is something that must be pointed out: the Kavanaugh accusation was strictly political. You may believe the “survivors” in this case, but it’s plainly obvious that the biggest reason he was targeted is because of his political leanings, not because of anything devious he had done.
 
However, what I want to point out is the fierceness of the media in attacking Kavanaugh with these allegations, and more importantly, the substantial LACK of evidence that was brought about that still led to the fierceness of the media.
 
Like I said in the previous article discussing Kavanaugh, the media was essentially calling him an outright serial rapist. For weeks, the accusations were all anyone, including yours truly, was talking about in length. Story after story of Kavanaugh assaulting, harassing or flat out raping girls would come out. On the day of his hearing, he gave a very emotional, but appropriate response to the entire mess… and the media attacked him for that too, saying he was a lunatic.
 
The guy had essentially been a boy scout his entire life. Never really doing anything bad, or at least too bad. Always trying to do the right thing. Always keeping his hands clean. And upon being selected to the highest court in the land, a privilege only a select few will ever receive in their lives, he is attacked and barraged with accusations that went uncorroborated either by any evidence or witnesses.
 
Kavanaugh, thankfully, overcame that and was closely selected to become a Supreme Court judge. But not every man that is similarly attacked will be so lucky.
 
Sure, the media largely won’t go after the Regular Joe anywhere as fiercely as they did with Kavanaugh. Maybe not even at all. But the whole Kavanaugh debacle with the media highlighted the kind of world we are heading towards: Kavanaugh’s character was being destroyed by accusers who did not or could not bring forth any substantial evidence to their claims.
 
If ZERO evidence is all any woman needs to destroy a man’s career (and let’s not forget Blasey Ford heavily benefited because of this with a GoFundMe page that gave her over $600,000), then no man is safe in the work-place.
 
Now, again, the Kavanaugh smear was strictly political. But what reason does a woman have not to lay forth uncorroborated claims against a male colleague if she can benefit from it? Companies will surrender settlements for people not to sue, so in an age when evidence is pretty much unnecessary and “we must believe all women”, why would any woman not lay forth such claims?
 
It doesn’t even have to be all-out rape or even sexual assault. A simple sexual harassment claim will do because such a claim comes down to what is “interpreted” by the woman as harassment. Men are afraid of flirting with women due to how the woman might take that flirting and somehow claim it as harassment. I mean, in France, it’s a finable offense to wolf-whistle (kind of like in old-timey cartoons where a man will whistle at a woman’s attractiveness). That is being equated to harassment.
 
So when it’s so insanely easy to screw a guy over, men will look to protect themselves from this sort of thing by avoiding female interaction in the work-place. It may not be the best response, but it’s not something you can blame them for.
 
The #MeToo movement is basically trying to do away with due process. The phrase “believe all women” essentially symbolizes that desire. What if the woman is lying? “What, and let the guy get away with allegedly raping the girl that is lying? Never!”
 
It doesn’t help matters when women have the mindset of female over male, in the guise of equality. Allow me to explain. Back in November of last year, Teen Vogue columnist Emily Lindin shared the following: “Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”
 
If women like her believe that it’s okay to sacrifice innocent men just to further the Leftist agenda, that will lead men to take actions similar to the ones described by Bloomberg. That mindset is not about equality in the least. It’s not about undoing oppression, it’s about women BECOMING oppressors.
 
It’s for this reason that I find anyone who says “the future is female” to be a disgusting human being. They might think it’s a good thing, but it’s just as sexist as saying “the future is male”. That’s not undoing “oppression” (I argue there is no such oppression, but for the sake of the argument, let’s say there is). It’s changing who gets to be oppressors and who is made to be oppressed.
 
Such people do not strive for equality; they strive for supremacy and domination.
 
Such people are the ones who are more than okay with destroying an innocent man’s career, reputation and life for the sake of the feminist agenda. It doesn’t help women, it hurts them, as we can plainly see.
 
In that same Bloomberg article, Lisa Kaufman, CEO of LaSalle Securities, said that men have to step up and “not let fear be a barrier,” in response to men acting this way as a result of #MeToo.
 
Again, can you really blame these guys for this? They’re just trying to protect themselves from an unnecessary risk. Is it the right response? I don’t think so, because it also causes women to suffer. But you have to understand that women in the #MeToo movement have to also step up and not insist that we “must believe all women”, because sometimes, women lie. Just as men lie, so do women.
 
And if a woman can benefit from destroying a man, what reason apart from her own conscience would she have to not do it? Again, companies are suckers for these sorts of things. They will give out settlements like Tic-Tacs to women who could simply claim harassment in an effort to avoid a lawsuit.
 
This is particularly the case for “woke” companies like Google, who will literally fire an employee for simply recognizing the basic DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.
 
Equality is, as it turns out, a two-way street. Making false claims for profit, or even to advance some sort of agenda, is not being equal. It’s just being an ass. Men should not sexually assault, harass and/or rape women. Men should not segregate themselves from women in the work-place. But women should also not take advantage of other people’s actual assault stories in order to further themselves or some sort of agenda. Women should not use “believe all women” to accuse a guy of something that he didn’t do.
 
Colossians 1:16-17
“For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Ok, class, let’s turn our attention to our book, titled: “No, Duh!”, where we will find Claire McCaskill, the outgoing Democrat Senator from Missouri, actually admitting that the way the Democrat Party handled the Kavanaugh confirmation process and his sexual assault allegations might’ve cost her her re-election.
 
McCaskill recently told NPR that “I don’t think my vote [against Kavanaugh] hurt me as much as the spectacle that occurred. There were mistakes made by my party in terms of how that was handled. I don’t think that communication [from Ford] to the judiciary committee should have been kept private as long as it was. The FBI deals with a lot of confidential information, and that would have absolved [Feinstein] of the very real perception that this was an 11th-hour attempt to gut a guy.”
 
Okay, there are a good amount of things to go through here.
 
First of all, I would argue that her vote against Kavanaugh did hurt her an awful lot. Those who voted against Kavanaugh’s confirmation (that is, all but 1 Democrat, who just-so-happened to win his race in November) essentially voted in favor of allowing someone’s entire career and life be derailed by the simple accusation of sexual assault. No evidence is necessary. No corroborating witnesses need apply. If a woman says a man sexually assaulted her, that guy should be thoroughly punished, evidence be damned.
 
Almost all Democrats voted for that sort of world when they voted against Kavanaugh (and this includes Lisa Murkowski, who is a supposed Republican. No, she didn’t vote against Kavanaugh, but planned to before abstaining). The Democrat Party’s mindset was the utter disregard and destruction of due process for the simple reason that they do not like the guy’s political leanings.
 
Second of all, the Democrat Party did not make “mistakes”. It was an outright assault on a highly-qualified candidate strictly for political reasons, and their murder weapon was a sloppily-constructed sexual assault allegation, a second, even more sloppily-constructed sexual harassment allegation, and a rape allegation that is so outlandish and unbelievable, it would be found in the fiction section of a library, were it to be written into a book. Granted, the same could be said for the other allegations, but that rape allegation was particularly incredible.
 
The Democrat Party did not make a mistake when it came to the Ford allegation, since Feinstein sat on it, waiting until the 11th hour to release it. It was a calculated plan of attack. Of course, they still did not have the proof for the claims, but that was not necessary in their minds. With the way the media was going along with it, flat out calling Kavanaugh a serial rapist, evidence was not something they thought they would need. And they came incredibly and uncomfortably close to succeeding too.
 
Frankly, the only mistake I could see regarding the whole thing was allowing the creepy porn lawyer to release an even more mentally disturbed person to make such outlandish allegations that they practically sunk the previous allegations made.
 
Turns out that not many people will believe a college-aged woman would attend high school parties in which the boys would regularly run rape trains on the girls and that said college-aged woman would ATTEND SUCH A PARTY TEN DIFFERENT TIMES!
 
Not to mention that the entire thing pretty much fell apart when Swetnik flat out said she did not remember Kavanaugh actually participating in the raping of girls.
 
But aside from that, since the main focus was Blasey Ford, whom the Left elevated to the status of a survivor bravely sharing her story (*whispering* after pretty much not telling anyone for about 30 years), one can hardly say that the Democrats made a mistake here. They knew what they were doing and the media was in on it as well. After the test run that was the Iran nuke deal, the Democrat Party figured out they could literally tell the media that JFK was revived using unicorn magic and the suckers would buy it hook, line and sinker.
 
As a result, they knew that any allegation that the Democrat Party ran with, the media would run with it as well and even more strongly.
 
Lastly, and just about the only good thing I could say about this woman and what she’s saying, I can appreciate the fact that she is admitting that this was an “11th-hour attempt to gut a guy.”
 
I don’t imagine very many Democrats, even the ones that have since lost their elections, would be so willing to admit that the Kavanaugh witch hunt was just that. So I will give credit where credit is due.
 
Unfortunately, the damage has been done. Kavanaugh was so sought after with false allegations that were uncorroborated and unproven that his name will forever leave a sour taste in people’s mouths. Despite the fact that there’s been no evidence to prove even one of the allegations made, the Left, Hollywood, and Democrat voters will forever see Kavanaugh as a sexual assaulter and rapist.
 
That’s the sort of damage they’ve caused. Sure, he’s in the Supreme Court for life now, but there are a lot of other cases where a man is accused of something that he didn’t do and is punished for the mere allegation. In fact, Democrats are trying to challenge a bill that would return due process on college campus, allowing for people accused to be innocent until proven guilty as it works everywhere else in the country.
 
This is the path the Left wants to take. Their rampant “feminism” has led to the belief that all women, regardless of credibility or even evidence presented, must be believed at all costs. And the only time that doesn’t happen is when a prominent Leftist is being accused of it (*ahem* Neil DeGrasse Tyson *ahem*). Of course, in the case of DeGrasse Tyson, and even Michael Avenatti’s accusation of domestic violence, the two of them deserve due process and deserve to be seen innocent until proven guilty. That’s just the way it works and the way it should work, regardless of political leanings.
 
But the point here is that those very same people will ignore that if the target is someone to the Right of Marx.
 
And this double-standard goes farther than sexual assault or domestic violence. Paul Manafort is in prison for things a lot of Democrats have also done, but they enjoy their freedom. Now, Manafort SHOULD be in prison since he did break the law, but so should anyone else WHO BREAKS THE SAME EXACT LAWS!
 
Hillary Clinton sold 20% of our Uranium supply as Secretary of State, colluded with foreign agents to steal an American election, and wiped a server full of over 30k emails containing highly confidential information. She’s currently going on a coughing tour and selling tickets for less than the price of popcorn at a movie theater. And even then, the Clintons can barely sell any tickets. If I had any interest in going, I would buy a ticket and wear a MAGA hat just to tick them off.
 
But in any case, there exists a painfully clear double-standard in our injustice system (yes, I will call it that until I see some actual justice being served). Those who are helpful and an asset to the Left and the Leftist agenda are allowed to break more laws than Al Capone, while those who are a challenge to the Left, a liability, or even a good sacrificial lamb will be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and simple accusations, regardless of evidence or lack thereof, will be enough for them.
 
As for Claire McCaskill, she would not have come even close to admitting this had she won her election and especially had the Democrats gotten away with destroying the career and life of an innocent man. Only once the dust has settled and there is no more fighting does she come to accept the fact that this was a last-minute and last-ditch attempt at destroying someone they didn’t like.
 
For the record, I am a little bit surprised that she would admit this, considering she has nothing to gain from it, and I do give her credit for actually admitting this, which is more than I ever expected out of any Democrat, but the sentiment that maybe what they were doing wasn’t right shouldn’t have come in this late. Kavanaugh’s already in the Supreme Court and has been for a couple months now.
 
I guess hindsight really is 20/20.
 
James 4:17
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Taking our attention outside of U.S. polls, surveys and studies, let’s take a look at a poll from France, where Macron is facing fire due to proposed carbon tax hikes to “combat” climate change which are resulting in higher gas prices and is seeing a 26% approval rating, a new low in his presidency.
 
But this poll does not really touch upon people’s view of Macron or even the carbon tax. It has to do with immigration and how it affects multiple aspects of the country.
 
According to Le Point, a French news source reporting on the poll, “58% of French people consider negative the role of immigration in general, and the trend is found in almost all the themes declined: growth (54%), future of the country (55%), identity of the country (58%), respect for secularism (61%), social cohesion (64%), or security (66%).”
 
If that paragraph read a bit weird, that is because the original page was in French and I had Google translate it to English, so the phrasing of some things will seem a bit odd.
 
Basically, what that said is that 58% of French people consider immigration in general to be a negative, with increasing majorities believing immigration is bad for the future and identity of the country, social cohesion and national security among other things.
 
The Le Point article continues: “More broadly, 64% believe that welcoming additional immigrants is not desirable, as many illegal immigrants regularly arrive in Europe, and that the migration issue is likely to be important in the public debate before the European elections of May 2019.”
 
According to the poll, 71% consider that economic migration gives way to employers pulling down wages.
 
Now, this being a French news source, I suspect that the French people largely mean illegal immigrants, not simply those who legally enter the country and reside in it. However, they could also be talking about legal immigrants as well. I won’t leave that possibility off the table.
 
Why? Because immigration CAN hurt the economy. If immigrants, legal or illegal, enter the country and live off of government welfare, then they are taking from the economy and not giving anything back. If immigrants enter the work force and earn enough not to rely on the government (which could be difficult for multiple reasons), then they are not a liability, but an asset to the economy.
 
If the majority of French people believe immigrants are hurting the economy, it might be because said immigrants in general might not actually be in the work force and contributing to the economy. Granted, this is a poll that says the French believe this to be the case, not something that proves this to be the case, but the people might believe this for a reason.
 
Of course, something else that might be hurting the economy is the fact that France has a 45% tax rate on income (as opposed to the tax brackets here in the U.S. that range from 10% to 37% depending on your income) and that Macron is proposing raising taxes on carbon, thus raising gas prices, for the purposes of fighting a hoax of a problem, but immigration could also be something to point out.
 
Now, allow me to get to what I consider to be the best part of the poll. Still within the topic of immigration, 63% are in favor of abolishing the Schengen Agreement, which is an agreement that established free movement of persons across borders within the European Union. The abolition of such an agreement would restore national borders and would allow European countries within the Union to have a say in who they allow into the country.
 
In other words, 63% of French people support having national borders and having the national government have authority over migration into the country.
 
Now, that number should, according to common sense and reason, be far higher. It simply makes no sense for the EU to have control over an individual country’s borders, forcing them to take people they might not want to take in. But that’s just globalism for you. Globalism, at the end of the day, is global communism. It’s unelected officials deciding how the world works.
 
It’s for this reason that so many people in Great Britain voted to leave the EU (although May and other pro-EU hacks managed to completely sabotage that). It’s partly for this reason that Italians voted into power a populist, not a globalist. And it’s clear to me that the people of France might be heading back towards nationalism.
 
Let me remind you of two survey items in the poll: future of the country and identity of the country. Both were issues in which a majority (55% and 58% respectively) felt that immigration was harming them. Globalists don’t care about the future or identity of an individual country. These are people who are against borders in general. They don’t care about what people in an individual country think. They don’t care what people think in general! They are unelected. They have no reason to please anyone but themselves. They have no accountability for the chaos they sow.
 
And they are so far up their own behinds they think they can just bully people around without any push-back. Well, the French people seem to be really pushing back here. Sure, this topic is largely about immigration, but there are underlying topics of conversation within this poll alone.
 
The French people in this poll might signify the start of some major push-back against globalism. These people clearly care about their own national identity, which is something nationalists care about, not globalists.
 
They care about their own country’s well-being, whereas globalists only care about an individual country so long as that country plays ball and serves as an asset to the globalists and their agenda.
 
So this, combined with the fact that Macron’s approval rating stands at a record low of 26% for him, and I can’t help but see at least some push-back against globalism and globalists like Macron.
 
Of course, I could be wrong and this could really not mean a whole lot at the end of the day, but I can’t help but notice these sorts of things and remain optimistic with good reason.
 
Now, since this is largely a conversation about immigration in general, I wonder how the Left would react to seeing this sort of thing. Would they call the French racists? I wouldn’t put it past them to do that.
 
In fact, the very source where I got this information, Le Point, wrote that “this survey illustrates the hostility of a French population that has integrated a large number of immigrants for decades, a phenomenon that has contributed to the transformation of society, all in a weak national economic context.”
 
Thinking that immigration has negative effects on the economy is apparently considered “hostile” now. Le Point also repeats that word later on when talking about economic migration, saying: “But [the French] are hostile to economic migration,” before sharing the percentage of people who say that it allows for employers to drive wages down.
 
So the very source that’s reporting on the poll has some negative things to say about the French people who feel this way. As a result, were this to be talked about by any American mainstream source, I could imagine that source also having negative things to say, though would perhaps go further than simply suggest this is a “hostile” attitude.
 
Luke 10:19
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

If you want to find the perfect instance of a Leftist showing their true colors and showing a damn-near demonic side to them, look no further than Illinois’ House of Representatives, where Democrat Representative Stephanie Kifowit detailed exactly what she wishes she could do to GOP Representative Peter Breen and his family.
 
You better hold on to your gut, because what she says is sickening, depraved and horrifying.
 
Here’s what the she-demon said: “I would like to make him a broth of Legionella and pump it into the water system of his loved ones so that they can be infected, they can be mistreated, they can sit and suffer by getting aspirin instead of being properly treated and ultimately die.”
 
For further context, Rep. Breen has a wife and two adopted kids aged 2 years old and 2 months old. And the Legionella bacteria is a bacteria that causes a pneumonia-type disease called Legionnaires’ disease and a mild flu-like illness called Pontiac fever.
 
GOP Representative Jeanne Ives, in response, blasted the witch: “How dare you concoct up some sort of story about brewing up some batch of Legionella and having him feed it to his family… How dare you… wish death on my colleague Peter Breen, his wife, and his 2 adopted kids.”
 
Breen also said that her attacks came “out of left field” and if the monster “made those statements in the parking lot, or left a message on an answering machine in my office, she would be in custody.”
 
The House also voted unanimously to “expunge Kifowit’s statement from the record,” according to the Daily Herald.
 
And do you want to know the worst part? Oh, yes, it’s even worse than what I’ve already mentioned. The worst part is she’s not apologetic – she’s defensive.
 
The she-devil said: “And so to misinterpret my words, and of course these are all transcribed, and my words will be clear… So for the fact that it being misinterpreted, I’m going to say that what was said earlier is a mischaracterization of what my words were.”
 
WOMAN, YOU LITERALLY WISHED DEATH AND SUFFERING UPON A COLLEAGUE! THERE IS NO MISINTERPRETATION OF THAT!
 
Does she not even realize what she actually said?! She says that it’s all transcribed and the words are clear. Does she not even realize what she said? Did she undergo some sort of demon possession when she said those words and has no clear recollection of what she said?
 
Doubtful, since if that were the case, she would be apologizing for her words, rather than trying to say that she did not say those things or those things were “mischaracterized and misinterpreted”. What a lying, hateful scumbag she must be.
 
And I hate calling people names, as I believe that to be the lowest form of argument, apart from repeating what someone said in a mocking tone or mockingly laughing at someone’s argument. I don’t tend to call people names, but I just can’t help it here.
 
This woman is a she-devil. Look closely at the words she used. Does that sound like something someone just comes up with out of the blue? To specifically say that she would want to batch up a broth of a specific kind of bacteria, “pump it” into Breen’s family’s water supply so that they may be infected, mistreated, suffer and ultimately die? That was way too specific and way too detailed for that to have come up out of nowhere. She must’ve thought about this previously. Not to say she might actually do it, but it’s pretty clear these are the words of someone who has thought about this sort of thing in the past.
 
There’s something copywriters do when writing advertisements for a restaurant or a particular food. They will sometimes paint a picture of what it might be like to taste and eat the food. For example, one could say: “The sweet aroma of Restaurant X’s special steak will cause you to wish to dig in right away, but the sweet, succulent and voluminous taste of the steak, marinated in thick, rich barbeque sauce, will cause you to take a step back and relish in the overall richness of the dish.”
 
For a copywriter to come up with a sort of story like that to paint the picture of a delicious $20 steak, careful thought and consideration must take place. The same can be said for someone who uses this specific sort of language. Of course, this example is a bit more detailed than what Fem-Satan said, but it’s just as specific. The way she phrased that takes you down specific roads and alleyways of thought and paints a clear, but grim, picture of the suffering and ultimate demise of a family.
 
I’m not accusing the monster of actually killing or planning to kill anyone, but these are disturbing thoughts that don’t appear to have been random, but carefully thought out.
 
But regardless of whether or not this was thought out, it still signifies a deeply-rooted hatred within her heart, that is shared by others in the Democrat Party and even the media.
 
I don’t know what the previous conversation was about, but no context could possibly justify the very specific words that she seemingly denies saying.
 
And actually, the aforementioned GOP Representative who stood up for Breen, Rep. Jeanne Ives, went to the jugular, bringing up something that seemingly occurred during the 2018 midterm election cycle, where Breen and another GOP colleague were painted as supporters of child predators. She said: “That’s what you guys (Democrats) think. That’s the kind of garbage you spew into people’s minds.” She also said that fellow Democrats clapped and agreed with Kifowit’s statements, which if true, further proves my previous statement that such hatred is shared by the Democrat Party.
 
The wish to infect, make suffer, and ultimately kill with what is basically a biological weapon at that point, is something that can only come from someone who harbors Satan in their heart. The same could be said for anyone who agrees with the sentiment. And that is the reason I call the Democrat Party the Party of Satan. It’s his. His ideology reigns supreme in the Democrat Party. His unending hatred is shared among Party members (not necessarily all of them, but far too many for me to believe otherwise).
 
I mean, just last week, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) said he would nuke gun owners who would defy the government if the government were to take away people’s guns (paraphrasing). Bernie Sanders, before a socialist madman shot up a baseball field full of Republican congressmen, said that Republicans wanted to kill people by “taking away their healthcare”. David Brooks said, following Trump’s election victory, that Trump had to choose between being impeached, resigning, or being assassinated. Madonna, in the first “Women’s March” against Trump, said that she “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.”
 
The Left HATES people. They particularly hate anyone that is not like them, in a very similar fashion to Adolf Hitler. And since anti-Semitism seems to be on the rise on the Left, day by day, they appear to embody the Nazi Party of Germany more and more, minus the nationalism part.
 
Historically speaking, it’s only been those on the Left who have wanted, or gone as far as to actually kill, opposition. The communists (no matter what country you talk about) do it, the socialists (no matter what country you talk about) do it, the fascists do it. Generally speaking, the wish of death upon anyone who dares defy the Left is par for the course regarding this witch. But just because it’s par for the course definitely does not make it right.
 
The fact that this is just who the Left is is downright terrifying. They have no respect or regard for human life. They don’t even have respect for themselves, at the end of the day, so why would they respect anyone else?
 
As often as I get the chance (which is very often), I expose the fact that the Left is evil. And this is why. Their hearts are full of evil, so they naturally gravitate towards the ideologies of Satan. They may not necessarily believe in Satan, but they do not have to. Satan doesn’t care if people believe in him or not. Matter of fact, he’d rather people not believe in him, so that people don’t feel the need to seek God for salvation.
 
I sincerely hope this woman finds Christ. I don’t say that in spite of what she said, I say that precisely BECAUSE of what she said. She needs Christ. Granted, so does everyone else, but she desperately needs Him.
 
But as it stands, her heart belongs to Satan and it will remain that way, barring God’s desire to save her.
 
Psalm 34:16
“The face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.