I don’t think it should come as a surprise to any of you that the reasons Latinos support Trump are the same reasons that other people in different demographics support Trump: we want to Make America Great Again.
 
But the reason Latinos like myself arrive to this reason for supporting Trump might be different than others.
 
What do I mean? Well, unlike many who are born in this country, Latinos that immigrate here know first-hand what it’s like to live outside of the U.S.
 
One thing that has always annoyed me about liberals, particularly those who have always lived in America, is that they have absolutely no idea just how good they have it here.
 
America affords its people rights and freedoms that are simply alien in many other countries. For as much as I dislike the media, they at least have the freedom, at least legally, to report on just about anything they want and to say whatever they want. If the media wants to trash the government, it’s their constitutional right to do so. Such a right is not afforded to the media in many other places. In many other countries, the media is owned by the government. Meaning that whatever the government wants printed is what gets printed and whatever they don’t want printed never sees the light of day.
 
For example, back in 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands that belonged to the British. Now, I was not alive at that time, so what I’m sharing with you is simply what my parents have told me since they lived through it.
 
During the war, which only lasted a couple of months, the Argentinian media would report that Argentinian soldiers were advancing an X amount of distance or were capturing X amount of territory. After a couple of months, Argentina lost the war.
 
Now, if the media was reporting that Argentina was virtually winning the war through capturing a number of territories or advancing a certain amount of distance, why would Argentina come to lose the war? Well, the media was only allowed to “report” on supposedly good things.
 
Again, I wasn’t alive at that time, so I’m not 100% certain as to what happened exactly, but from what I can tell, either Argentina was losing a lot more ground than they were gaining, or they were making up the stories about how much ground they were gaining over the British. But either way, that’s an indication that the Argentinian government was only allowing the media to report on things the government wanted, even if it was not entirely or remotely true.
 
Were the U.S. to be involved in such a war, the media would immediately talk about how the U.S. is invading some poor land, and it would be allowed to report on whatever it wanted. Of course, that itself comes with certain things such as the media would probably not want to mention whether or not the U.S. is doing well. If anything, they’d probably hope the U.S. was losing the war and they would shove that down people’s throats. If the U.S. were winning, the media would largely ignore that, as they have been in their reporting of how much we’ve been destroying ISIS.
 
But that’s just one aspect that is different between America and many other countries, particularly Latin American countries.
 
Generally speaking, America is still one of the freest countries in the world. The Left is doing damage to it, but we still are very free comparatively speaking. That freedom is largely what Trump wants to fight for and is part of his desire and fight to Make America Great Again.
 
The Associated Press recently published an article titled: “Latino support for GOP steady despite Trump immigration talk”. I won’t get too much into it, apart from some details such as the fact that 32% of Latinos voted for Republican candidates in 2018.
 
The main reason I bring this up is due to the ironic fallacy of the title. The author, Nicholas Riccardi, writes that Latinos still support Trump despite what he says about immigration. He’s got that completely wrong.
 
One of the biggest reasons Latinos support Trump is BECAUSE of his ILLEGAL immigration talk. Let’s not get the two confused.
 
I’ve said multiple times in the past that legal immigrants tend not to like illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants such as myself have had to wait our time and paid our dues in order to be given the legal right to enter the country and remain in it, with a clear and good path to citizenship that is largely earned.
 
So you can imagine how ticked off we’d be if someone else got to enter the country illegally, without having to pay anything, and the Democrats ENCOURAGE such a behavior to the point where illegal immigrant caravans spring up with the supposed desire to seek asylum but ultimately plan to simply invade the country.
 
Yeah, we don’t like that situation any more than anyone else who is sane, so we support Trump and his desire to build a wall at the southern border.
 
And that actually brings me to another reason why Latinos support Trump: Democrats and the entire Left are precisely what many Latinos are looking to get away from.
 
What do many Latinos want to get away from? Socialism, Marxism, Communism, and any other –ism that leads to the overwhelming expansion of the government and its influence in people’s lives.
 
And when they get here, what do they find? People like Bernie Sanders and AOC who spew the exact same garbage they’ve been hearing all their lives, only in a different language.
 
However, there exists one big problem with all of this that is beyond my own comprehension: many Latinos still vote for those exact same people they were trying to get away from.
 
And that’s simply something completely illogical to me. Why would Latinos seek to escape socialist hellholes, enter one of the freest countries in the world, and then vote (legally or illegally, because we allow such a thing to happen for some reason) for people who are virtually no different from the dictators that they escaped from?
 
It simply makes no actual sense to me, but that’s reality. Although, frankly, what makes even less sense to me is people in America seeing they have a good thing going for themselves with capitalism and wanting to turn to the very socialist system that has sunk every other country it ever infected.
 
Of course, that’s another whole can of worms that I won’t get into in this article.
 
My main point here is that one of the biggest reasons Latinos support Trump is because he is the exact OPPOSITE of people like Castro, Maduro, and other socialist dictators.
 
Trump’s policies and rhetoric are aimed at Making America Great Again. For many Latinos, that means truly escaping the clutches of socialism and entering a country that is prosperous, bountiful, growing and mighty.
 
My direct family and I long have dreamt of coming to the United States of America. To search for economic freedom and to be prosperous, living a good life. Unfortunately, we arrived while Obama was President and the Left is engaged in a culture war that seeks to eradicate any sense of capitalism from this country, by force if they have to (*ahem* Antifa *ahem*).
 
The way that I see it, the America that we were promised is not the America that we arrived in. The Left has grown the government an awful lot and the GOP has done next to nothing to stop them. I imagine many other immigrants, Latino or not, feel the same way. And that’s yet ANOTHER reason we support Trump.
 
Trump is really the only Republican out there actually fighting back against the Left in every way that he can. The reason I love the concept of Making America Great Again is 1) I’m an American nationalist (despite the fact I’m a foreigner) and 2) I want to experience the America that was promised. The beacon of hope for the world, where we have rule of law and equal opportunity.
 
Next to no other country has that to their name, so many people gravitate towards Trump because they want to uphold those things. The Mueller investigation into Trump is indicative of the damage the Left has done to the rule of law (although you can see this sort of thing happening in the past, such as during the Enron trial and the Ted Stevens case). Investigating an individual in the effort to find a crime is not justice, it’s vendetta. It’s not what a constitutional republic does; it’s what a banana republic does.
 
I support Trump because I want to Make America Great Again, Make America Just Again, and most of all, Make America God’s Again. One can hardly ask that God bless America when we kill millions of babies every year.
 
The reason so many Latinos support Trump is because he represents the opportunity to truly ESCAPE socialism – the very socialism the Left is looking to bring upon us.
 
It’s why I, and so many others, ask God that He guide and strengthen Trump. In a previous article, I mentioned that I only rely on Trump to fight to Make America Great Again. And that’s true, but I recognize that he can’t do it by himself. Which is why every day, multiple times a day, I pray to God that He would help Trump.

​Because if God is for us, who dare be against us?
 
Romans 8:31
“What then shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I’m not a betting man. I don’t tend to have the best of luck, nor the most sound strategies to actually come out a winner during a wager. However, I will bet any amount of money you will never guess just who is leading the field of Democrat 2020 candidates in a recent USA Today/Suffolk poll.
 
If you guessed former Vice President Joe Biden, you’d be wrong. That’d be the most obvious choice, but he’s not the most desired candidate. He’s in second place, most definitely, but not the most desired candidate.
 
Failed Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke? Also wrong, and he’s also relatively obvious. He is behind Biden.
 
Senators Kamal Harris, Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren? They’re there, but not quite either.
 
So you have to really think: just who else is there? Hillary? Well, she’s there, but she’s nowhere near to the level of the other candidates.
 
So who? Who does USA Today/Suffolk say is the most desired candidate in the Democrat Party? The answer?
 
LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE!
 
I’m not joking. In the poll, USA Today and Suffolk asked 689 Democrat and Independent voters who they would want as the Democrat candidate in 2020. The answer: “Someone else entirely”.
 
That “someone else entirely”, led the field with 59% of voters saying they’d be excited to see this person run and only 11% saying they dislike the idea of an entirely new person running.
 
Biden was second, with 53% of voters saying they’d be excited and 24% saying they’d dislike his candidacy.
 
Sanders was third, with 36% saying they’d be excited and 41% saying they didn’t want him running. First time that I see him negative.
 
Beto O’Rourke came in with 30% excited and over 30% going as far as saying they’d never even heard of him. Ouch.
 
Harris and Booker followed close behind, with 29% excited and 34% never hearing of Harris, and 28% excited and 29% never hearing of Booker.
 
Warren came in behind those two, with 27% excited and 33% opposing her candidacy, further highlighting the fall from race (get it?) that she’s been dealing with ever since exposing she was not Native American and still pretending she was because she can’t read properly.
 
Finally, failed 2016 Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton brought in the rear and had only 15% saying they were excited for her and a massive 70% being opposed to her candidacy.
 
Back in early November, a poll from The Hill asked the same question of who is the preferred choice among 680 Democrat voters.
 
The winner was no different: “None of the above”. “None of the above” garnered 204 votes, almost one-third of the available votes. Joe Biden came in second with 168 votes, Sanders with 123, Hillary with 80, Harris with 28, Michael Bloomberg with 27, Warren with 26 and Booker with 24.
 
That poll was from just two days after the “blue wave” midterms.
 
Things don’t look great for the Democrats right now. Of course, as I mentioned in another article where I talked about an odds-making site having Trump soundly defeating any opponent, we are still two years removed from the 2020 election. A lot can happen in the span of two years.
 
And as I see it, Joe Biden is most likely to win the Democrat candidacy were he to run. Virtually every poll has him in the lead with either Sanders or O’Rourke tailing behind him.
 
Still, these polls aren’t an indication that Biden wouldn’t be the candidate. Among Democrats and Independents, he seems to be the first choice among prominent and well-known Democrats. These polls don’t necessarily indicate problems for him in the primaries, but in the general election.
 
Part of the reason Trump won in 2016 is because there were a lot of Democrats that wound up voting for him because the Democrat Party has gone so far Left it’s unrecognizable from what it at least pretended to be in the past: a blue-collar-friendly party. I don’t think blue-collar Democrats will abandon Trump.
 
However, another part of the reason Trump won is because Hillary was a particularly disastrous candidate who could not draw flies to her rallies. Yeah, she won the popular vote, but that’s because California and New York have some of the biggest populations and both are blue strongholds. Take either of them out of the equation and you can see that the rest of the country wanted Trump by a lot more.
 
If Democrats want literally anyone else to be their candidate, that spells at least some trouble for Biden, let alone any other supposedly promising Democrat.
 
Now, again, we’re two years removed from 2020. A lot can happen, including Biden getting more popular.
 
But as things stand currently, we see a divided Democrat base, with no one agreeing on who should be their candidate and most not wanting any of the above leading their party to fight Trump.
 
I don’t know what will happen from here on. All I know is that the Left has zero chance at actually impeaching Trump unless they can legitimately prove he did something illegal, which is not likely. And as it stands, it’s also not looking all that likely that Trump will lose in 2020.
 
Again, we’re two years removed, and I don’t want to count my chickens before they hatch. But this is a trend that is problematic for the Democrats. If they don’t alter course and actually gain support, they might not win in 2020.
 
Like I said, I don’t know what will happen. But I hope we continue seeing numbers like these and a divided Democrat base, where their candidate is not the one they would want.
 
Regardless of what happens, for now, I will simply enjoy and amuse myself with the fact that a large portion of the Democrats and Independents would prefer literally anyone else apart from the options presented. That should terrify the Democrats, even two years before 2020.
 
And here’s hoping God won’t allow any of these evil Leftists to regain power anywhere in Washington.
 
John 15:7
“If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for 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.

Once again, my title is a little obvious, but those words will seem strange to anyone who is not a Christian and/or a conservative. There truly is no reason for anyone to support socialism. The same could be said for communism or fascism, given they all have roots in Marxism anyway.
 
But why am I talking about this now? Well, according to a Fox News report from journalist Hollie McKay, who has looked into and detailed the despicable tragedy that is socialism in Venezuela, girls as young as 14 are selling their own bodies for a little bit of cash. The same goes for straight men who are selling their own bodies on gay markets.
 
But that’s just the tip of the ice berg. There is a whole lot more that’s messed up in this once wealthy country.
 
McKay reports: “Thousands upon thousands of Venezuelans pour into Colombia over the crowd cross-country bridge, their faces gaunt, carrying little more than a backpack. Rail-thin women cradle their tiny babies, and beg along the trash-strewn gutters. Teens hawk everything from cigarettes to sweets and water for small change.”
 
McKay also reports that malnourished and starving females, both girls and women, resort to selling anything they possibly can, including their own bodies, hair, breast milk, etc. in order to survive.
 
According to McKay: “According to several walkers, some women ‘chose’ prostitution as a means to make money and earn rides along the way. And some heterosexual men ‘sell themselves on the gay market’ for a little money.”
 
“Other women are manipulated or forced into giving ‘pimp types’ their documents and identification cards, and are subsequently drawn into prostitution rings. That’s particularly the case in border areas, where many rebel and drug-trafficking groups operate.”
 
“They come from a country they say now resembles a war zone. Their lives have been ripped apart by displacement, starvation, disease, desperation and torment. But now they’re in Colombia, where conditions are far from perfect, but are at least safer, and more stable.”
 
That last paragraph, particularly the first two sentences, is particularly sobering.
 
While not a direct quote, McKay says that these people say Venezuela resembles a war zone. The last war Venezuela had was a civil war between the government and military rebels, in which the government won. That was in 1962.
 
After nearly two entire decades of socialism (Chavez took power in 1999), the country now looks like it’s been through a war. You can’t possibly tell me that this is a good thing and proves socialism works.
 
In doing research for this article, I came across some articles that tried to say that socialism has worked in Venezuela (I literally laughed out loud) or that Venezuela’s situation proved nothing about socialism.
 
I’ll ignore the first one because it’s that ridiculous. All I’ll say is that socialism hasn’t worked, but has been faithfully and fully implemented… which is why it hasn’t worked.
 
But looking towards the second one, tell me, why wouldn’t it prove anything about socialism? Should we also ignore how socialism eventually sank the Soviet Union? Should we ignore how when Lenin tried to fully implement communism, he had to scale it back because it was like dropping a bomb on his own rear? Should we ignore how communism has destroyed North Korea and it has only remained because of China and Russia? Should we ignore how China had to implement more capitalistic policies to boost their economy and actually make it grow?
 
Time and time again, and within the confines of Venezuela, we see just how terrible socialism is and just how much it doesn’t work.
 
It’s sunk nation after nation in relatively quick succession. But before you even get there, millions upon millions die, either by starvation, disease, or by the state killing them for any given reason. And those who are unfortunate enough to survive live in their own slice of Hell. It’s either die or live in misery whenever you’re talking about a socialist country.
 
And the other unfortunate thing about this is that this entire catastrophe could be completely avoided. Like previously mentioned, Venezuela used to be the richest Latin American country before socialism ravaged it. Its rich oil reserves made it a blessed country in terms of natural wealth. They now resort to importing gas instead.
 
The U.S. is sort of similar. We also have rich oil reserves. The difference is that we can choose to take advantage of them (depending on the people in control). We don’t depend on foreign oil anywhere near as much as we used to because we use our own supplies. As a matter of fact, the US is a net oil exporter for the first time in 75 years.
 
Obviously, we were still pretty wealthy and prosperous even without using our own oil reserves, but that’s because of our free-market, or capitalist, economic and government systems.
 
Milton Friedman is often credited for saying the following: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
 
Now, the origins of this quote go back before Friedman and a similar quote can be attributed to William F. Buckley Jr., but the point is not to discuss the origins of that quote. The point is to discuss the relevance of said quote today.
 
Under socialism, the government owns the means of production. Meaning they own what is sold to people, at what price, and how much to make available for sale. The government takes the rest, which usually tends to be a sizable majority.
 
So saying that the federal government would make the Sahara Desert run out of sand is not entirely accurate, but also not entirely inaccurate. There’d be a shortage of sand for the people, not for the government.
 
Nicolas Maduro is not starving. He’s very well-fed. People in the government aren’t starving either. It’s the people outside the government that are suffering, while people within the government live like kings.
 
The reason socialism appeals to people, particularly young people, is that it promises a society in which everyone is equal, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. And that is largely true, just not in any good way.
 
People outside the government are equally MISERABLE while people within the government are perfectly content.
 
Socialists think that the government is the best option for who gets to control the means of production. But this misery is all it ever amounts to. Why? Because man is evil.
 
I could spend another article talking about that, but the main point I’m making here is that socialism does not work in any real circumstance. It relies entirely in people in power being good and selfless and not taking the majority of the supply. The thing about that is that, even if the people in power were actually good and selfless, the government is REQUIRED to own the majority of the supply in order to own the means of production.
 
In order for socialism to work in the way people think it should (or does), it would literally have to be the opposite of socialism.
 
And in this sense, socialism does work… it’s called capitalism. Capitalism does work. We’ve had it here in the States for even longer than we’ve been a nation and it’s worked. Germany, before Nazism rose, was also pretty capitalist and pretty wealthy.
 
Countries that faithfully and fully implement capitalism tend to grow and thrive. Countries that faithfully and fully implement socialism or communism or fascism tend to stagnate at best and collapse at worst.
 
Again, Lenin had to implement SOME level of capitalism in order for his new Soviet Union not to collapse in on itself immediately. China is a similar story.
 
So we learn throughout history that there truly is no reason for anyone to advocate for socialism. It simply doesn’t work. And those who try it come to realize the error of their ways, unless they are in the government, in which case they couldn’t give a rat’s ass because they are not obligated to. Maduro can do whatever he wants with Venezuela because the people are too hungry, tired and downtrodden to do anything about it. He runs elections that are a complete farce.
 
The only thing that keeps him somewhat relatively contained is Russian and U.S. influence basically telling him to behave.
 
Socialism is a disease in this world that brings with it pain and misery. Capitalism is the solution because it's only in a Capitalist society, where the government focuses on protecting life, imparting justice and administering a small amount of resources to support a small government, that private enterprise and people can truly prosper. It's a system marked by equal opportunity, not equal result. Socialism kills innovation and any reason to prosper, given that government takes most of what you produce.  It’s a system in which everyone outside the government is a loser and can never escape that fate (unless they literally escape the country for a better one).
 
With capitalism, you can work towards success because it's the only system in the world where wealth is CREATED pretty much out of nowhere. You can work towards being a success. With socialism, that doesn’t fall on the individual, but on the state to decide a person’s fate. Usually you lose while the elitist ruling class wins. And because the state is the state, they will not want any strong opposition to it, so they are the only winners.
 
Those who advocate for socialism either have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about or have no heart.
 
Here’s hoping people come to realize the horrors of socialism without having to actually experience them.
 
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.

Before I begin, I hope all of you had a fantastic, blessed and very merry Christmas yesterday.
 
Now, on to the topic at hand. To a largely Christian audience, that title seems pretty obvious. For as long as people have created gods, ignoring the God that created them, people have come to worship and idolize things that were not God Himself.
 
You have things like statues of various deities in different cultures throughout history like the Greek gods or the Roman gods, etc. Even today, we see this sort of thing. But ironically (though not exactly unexpectedly), we also see this happening in people who claim to be atheistic. People who claim to not believe in God and certainly do not follow His teachings or His Word.
 
Enter Michael Moore, who recently adorned his Christmas tree not with an angel or a star symbolizing the one over Bethlehem highlighting Christ’s birth, but with a Christmas decoration version of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
 
I kid you not, the guy has gone full idolatry here.
 
Now, I’m not exactly surprised by this sort of thing at any capacity. The Left, for as much as they claim to be atheistic, also worship things. The Clintons worship money; George Soros worships power (and himself, most likely); the media worships Obama, you get the point.
 
So I’m not surprised to see Moore basically idolizing RBG here. In the tweet he sent out to show his idolatry, he also wrote: “My Christmas Tree Topper this year. Better than an angel or the star over Bethlehem. A nation of millions stand with you…”
 
Again, not surprised by his idolatry here. The guy worships anyone or anything that he feels has some sort of ability to stop Trump and he figures RBG symbolizes that. Maybe because she’s the oldest member of the Supreme Court, is insanely Leftist and is also really fragile, so she is the one people think Trump could replace given the shot.
 
RBG has said that she plans to be in the Supreme Court for as long as possible, so she likely won’t retire, but that’s only her plans.
 
That being said, I don’t wish anything malicious upon her. Matter of fact, I think she should thank God. Remember when she fell and broke some ribs a few months ago (and the Left went haywire offering their own ribs as replacements because they are that fanatical and lunatic)? Well, thanks to that, doctors found two malignant tumors in her lungs and were able to remove them recently.
 
I may not like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but I recognize that her breaking a couple of ribs was essentially a miracle and a blessing in disguise for her. Had that not happened, the tumors might’ve made things worse for her.
 
But even in this entire thing, it’s essential to recognize something: people are temporary. So Michael Moore in idolizing RBG in this way is not only committing a sin, but he’s also relying on something that is entirely temporary.
 
RBG is 85 years old and she’s not exactly getting younger. She’s also not exactly getting all that much healthier. She could live for a while, but she will eventually die.
 
Those who idolize her will eventually find her to be dead. Same as those who idolize Mohammed, or who idolize Buddha, etc. Yes, Mohammed is already dead, as is Buddha, but the point remains. People basically idolize them.
 
And they are dead. Eventually, RBG will meet that fate just as every other human who has ever walked this Earth.
 
Mohammed is dead. Buddha is dead. George Soros will die (I imagine people idolize him too). RBG will die. But Jesus is alive. He is the only being in the history of the world that has lived, died, and risen from the dead to once again walk among the living before ascending into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.
 
When RBG dies, people like Michael Moore will lose even more of their marbles. Same when George Soros dies. They will have to keep finding new idols; new people to worship and rely on.
 
But people always die in the end. Jesus – God – is the only one who has dominion over death itself.
 
Even atheists worship something. As I said, the Clintons worship money and others worship other things. I mostly talked about Moore worshipping RBG, and the same things could be said about the media worshipping Obama since he’s also merely human. But another thing that atheists worship is science (as long as science is separated from God and it says whatever they want it to say).
 
These atheists will claim some sort of superiority because they study (or worship, really) science. If science says that we evolved from monkeys (and it only suggests it in theory, but does not outright prove it. Scientists are the ones who believe this pretty religiously), then that’s settled. Ironically, if science says that there are only two genders or that there’s nothing humans can do/are doing that could cause global climate change, they will ignore that.
 
But regardless, they will worship science if it says what they want it to say.
 
Everyone worships something. The problem with worshipping anything other than God, apart from the basic fact that that’s a sin that is covered in the very first commandment, is that everything else is temporary.
 
Buddha was temporary, but while Buddhism is still around, it is also temporary. Mohammed was temporary, but while his teachings are still around in the form of Islam, Islam is also temporary. RBG is temporary, as is Obama, as is George Soros. Just like them, their ideology (Leftism/socialism etc.) is also temporary.
 
And while science has been around for ages, like everything else in this world, it’s also temporary.
 
Once everything is over and the end of times has arrived, those things’ days will be numbered. But God is eternal. 
 
He is the beginning and the end. The Alpha and the Omega. He created RBG, Michael Moore, Barack Obama, George Soros, Donald Trump, you, me, the media, the U.S., the world and the entire universe, both known and unknown.
 
I worship God because He is the Lord. The only One who can save me from my sins and what my sins would lead me to. I don’t rely on Donald Trump for anything other than him trying to fight to Make America Great Again. But I don’t idolize him at all. Yes, I’ve talked a lot about him because I fervently support him and will continue to support him, but I would disgust myself if I were to think of him being anywhere close to the level of God.
 
I don’t worship Trump primarily because he’s not my savior and because he's human, thus temporary (and I hope no one actually worships him in any way). He can’t save me from anything. But God already has. All I need to do is worship Him obediently and follow Him.
 
There is nothing RBG can do for Michael Moore. Nothing Obama can do for the media. Nothing Trump can do for you and me. Ultimately, it is God that allows these people to do anything at all.
 
It is God whom I rely upon. It is God whom I worship. And it is God who is eternal. No one else; nothing else.
 
Isaiah 40:28
“Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; His understanding is unsearchable.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I wrote at the end of my previous article, the one discussing how Trump is not caving on the wall, that I might write an article discussing the various reasons not to allow any democrat to beat Trump in the 2020 Presidential election.
 
Well, here’s my list for as many reasons as I can think of (that won’t make this article as long as an encyclopedia because I could probably list many more reasons).
 
Reason number one: No matter who becomes the Democrat Party nominee, they are all basically the same. What do I mean by that? Well, unlike the Republican Party, which is stupidly split on a lot of issues such as immigration, healthcare and many other things, the Democrats, to their credit, actually know how to stay united.
 
They may debate with one another as to what might be the best option, but at the end of the day, they manage to come together and actually get things done in their agenda. And their agenda really differs little from person to person.
 
While Trump’s and Jeb’s, or Cruz’s, or Rubio’s agenda are fairly different, the Democrats all follow the Leftist agenda. Sure, one might prioritize something different from another, but it all leads them to the same place: the growing in size and scope of the government and their own power, while taking your freedoms away.
 
It doesn’t matter if they prioritize gun control, climate change, LGBT “rights”, healthcare, it all leads to the Left getting more and more power. Ultimately, these are all things every Leftist agrees on. So it doesn’t matter if Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders or Beto O’Rourke becomes President, they would all basically be the same and support the exact same things. There really is no good option among them, just the least likely to utterly screw over the country (and there is little difference in that area as well).
 
Reason number two: Just as Trump was able to dismantle Obama’s legacy, so would any Democrat be able to do that to Trump’s.
 
The unfortunate thing about the GOP stabbing Trump in the back repeatedly is that they don’t get much done. And what they get done can easily be overturned. And what is overturned, even if unconstitutionally, they will not seriously fight against. The proof is in the fact that they had ample opportunity in the past couple of years to get rid of Obamacare and did not bother to do so. As far as the tax cuts go, as good as those are, they can easily be taken away. With a Democrat running the country again, the GOP would do little to actually fight back, just like during the Obama years.
 
This means saying goodbye to our tax cuts and being faced with job-killing tax rates. It means the dismantling of our border. It means the ultimate destruction of our freedoms. Maybe not with the next Democrat President, but it would certainly lead to that in the future.
 
Reason number 3: We now know the Left’s true face. I often say that Trump’s election victory didn’t create this Leftist insanity, but it did let the mask slip from the Left’s face. In the past, the Left would at least pretend to be a little more reasonable. That is long gone now.
 
I’m not saying that had Hillary won, we would be in a better place. Far from it, the magnitude at which we’d be screwed is incalculable. Not to mention that the very reason Bernie Sanders felt confident to come out as socialist, and other people have felt confident to come out as socialist, is 8 years of Obama moving the needle of our country’s governmental system farther and farther to the Left.
 
Trump didn’t create Bernie Sanders or help Bernie come out as socialist, but it did get the Left to more aggressively embrace socialism. No, maybe not everyone on the Democrat Party is quite so willing to call themselves socialist, but that’s where they’re headed. If socialism is what sells and gets them votes, that’s what they’ll embrace (not that they weren’t embracing it before, but they were at least trying to not come right out as socialists).
 
This means implementing more and more socialist policies that will lead to the United States emulating China at the very least. Since we are still a super power and the wealthiest country in the world, we can take some hits, but if the trend goes farther and farther Left, we will eventually not be the wealthiest country in the world and we will quickly fall from grace as a super power.
 
Again, maybe not with the next immediate Democrat President, but that’s what it would lead to.
 
Reason number 4: there is no other Republican out there that has the cojones to do what Trump is trying to do.
 
One thing that we’ve all noticed in the past couple of years (and really throughout Obama’s tenure as well) is the fact that the GOP tends to be pretty chummy with the Democrat Party and often ignores the very constituents that elected them into power. In what can only be considered an abusive relationship, the GOP tries to appease Democrats and the media, all the while pretending to be fighting for something, but ultimately not getting anything done. Whenever the media calls them racist, they bow their heads in shame and say “I’m sorry, I will never do something like that again”. Regardless of what they do, it’s never enough for the Democrats and the media, with them demanding the Republicans hand over everything including the kitchen sink.
 
These past two years in particular have shown this level of cowardice. While not all Republicans are guilty of this, far too many have been complacent at the least. John McCain, up to his death, opposed Trump (and I imagine he was all too happy to have his funeral be a massive Trump-bashing fest). Jeff Flake is still a nuisance. Bob Corker ditto. And incoming GOPe (GOP establishment) people like Romney certainly will take up the mantle left behind by these people.
 
The evidence to this is clear when they made their best efforts to try and legitimize the illegitimate Mueller investigation, with Flake actually trying to pass legislation that protects the crooked prosecutor.
 
With Trump out of the picture, what Republican in Washington or in government in general would be willing to do what Trump’s been trying to do: take on the Deep State? I wouldn’t put my trust in Ted Cruz, as conservative as I think he is. Same goes for people like Rep. Mark Meadows or Rep. Jim Jordan, as good as I think they are (and they’re really trying to help Trump build the wall here).
 
Now, I know I said in a previous article that I did not picture Trump doing this back in 2014, two years before the 2016 election. So someone could potentially come up and try to take on the Deep State, but I don’t think there’s much of a chance of that. Even less that they’d succeed at any capacity.
 
Not trying to be pessimistic here, just trying to highlight the importance of helping Trump win in 2020.
 
The next Democrat President, whether he or she comes into power after 2020, 2024, 2028, or whatever, will most likely be the most Leftist and socialist President we will ever have seen. One who would make Obama look like Reagan by comparison. And the ones to follow the next Democrat POTUS will only move the line farther to the Left until we reach the end: complete and total communism.
 
Even if Republican Presidents were to be elected in between those Democrats, there’d be little they could do, even if they were willing to.
 
This is why it’s so important that we help Trump win 2020 no matter what. Of course, not building a wall would be a huge detriment, but that’d still be no reason to allow a Democrat to take over, ensuring that the borders get even less security and more lives grow at stake.
 
It’s also why it’s so important to elect truly conservative, truly CHRISTIAN people to government and to get truly conservative and truly CHRISTIAN SCOTUS justices.
 
For as much as I talked about Kavanaugh being conservative and a Christian, I might have to eat my own words, given what he’s done so far. Of course, there is still a possibility for redemption for him (both in terms of redeeming himself to conservatives and being redeemed by Christ), so I’m not quite ready to say he was a mistake of a pick (Amy Coney Barrett wouldn’t have done what Kavanaugh did, though), but he’s got a lot to make up for.
 
If we can get more and more conservatives and Christians into power, then there is a chance at truly defeating the Left, but that will have to come with a complete Christian revival and the ability and willingness to go after the Deep State’s crookedness, not just in calling them out over it, but to execute justice as well.
 
Trump won’t be around forever. Unlike Xi Jinping, Trump can’t declare himself President For Life (I imagine a future Democrat President would try that, though). So once Trump is gone from office, what comes after? That’s something we have to come to answer sooner rather than later, because for as much as I hope and think Trump can be re-elected, there is a chance he won’t be.
 
When the time comes for him to leave office, we will have to brace ourselves for what would come after. And there is no better way to do that than to consult and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
You see, while I’ve given a few reasons to not allow the Democrats to beat Trump in 2020 (and I think there are a bunch more, but I don’t want to make this article too long), the matter of fact is that I’m probably right about what would come with a Trump defeat. As a result, nothing good will be brought about, and we could well be facing the beginning of the end of America as we know it (unless we have the aforementioned Christian revival, but God knows if or when that would happen).
 
That’s not to say there wouldn’t be a United States of America in, say, 50 or 100 years, but it would be practically unrecognizable from the one that was founded.
 
But the good news about even such a scenario happening is that we are not only citizens of the United States, but also citizens of the Kingdom of God. I saw this often during both the 2012 election and 2016 election (and I’ll probably also see it in 2020), but I remember a post that read “regardless of who’s President, Jesus is King,” or something to that nature. And it’s true.
 
Jesus was King before America was founded. He has been King for as long as America has been around, and He will be King after America falls.
 
One of the main objectives of this site has been to try to direct people to Christ. Though I don’t always get to that point, I think I really should start doing this far more often. Because the unfortunate reality is that, eventually, one of these lunatics is going to be in the White House. As a result, we really must brace for what is to come. And there is no better way to brace for disaster than in the comfort of Christ.
 
My mission is not just to fight for the survival of America, which really is only a secondary mission, but to also fight for the survival and growth of Christianity; helping as many people to receive Christ as I possibly can.
 
So that’s the good news regardless of what may happen from here on out. Even if evil wins against America, Jesus has already won against evil. That being said, I think we all should try and fight against the evil that wishes to destroy America. Though that really goes without saying.
 
1 Corinthians 15:57
“But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I had written an article fairly similar to this one back in September of 2017 after Trump reportedly made a deal with Schumer and Pelosi regarding DACA that excluded the wall (and such a report was later debunked). So we’ve been here before, with conservatives and Trump supporters sitting at the edge of the cliff believing that they’re being thrown over. I can tell you right now, relax. Allow me to explain the situation.
 
This time is different from the September article because that article talked about an MSM report about Trump caving on the wall, which I explained why that was bogus. The way it’s different this time is that Trump himself tweeted something that, at first glance, can be seen as potentially caving (if you don’t look at the other things the Trump administration is saying, of course). But even in those tweets, you can also see that he is not caving on the wall.
 
Here are the tweets that I’m sure you’ve seen float around if you have a Twitter account and are following Donald Trump: “The Democrats, are saying loud and clear that they do not want to build a Concrete Wall – but we are not building a Concrete Wall, we are building artistically designed steel slats, so that you can easily see through it…” “…It will be beautiful and, at the same time, give our Country the security that our citizens deserve. It will go up fast and save us BILLIONS of dollars a month once completed!”
 
At first glance, it certainly looks like Trump is caving on the wall. Literally saying “we are not building a Concrete Wall” will naturally and understandably lead people to think he’s caving. But here’s the thing: a concrete wall would be next to useless and worthless to have at the Southern Border.
 
First, a concrete wall is not see-through, so you can’t see people coming on the other side unless you get a lot more Border Patrol agents. Having a see-through steel slat wall is far more cost-effective and effective in general.
 
Second, a concrete wall is not indestructible. Matter of fact, it wouldn’t take all that much to break through or dig through or simply blow it up. And since you can’t see through it, you don’t have much of a chance to catch anyone trying anything there.
 
Now, I can definitely understand why there are Trump supporters out there who legitimately think he’s caving. When Trump first brought up the idea of building a “big, beautiful wall”, I think a lot of people had a pretty good idea as to what it would look like: a concrete, stone or even steel wall (not see-through) that is pretty much similar to a prison wall (only instead of keeping people in, it keeps people out).
 
Or at the very least, a wall that is similar to the one in Israel that separates them from the Palestinian terrorists trying to invade and destroy Israel in the West Bank.
 
Here’s the thing about that: Israel’s wall is covering the border between Israel and the West Bank, with 272 miles already finished (as of 2011), 36 miles under construction (as of 2011) and 132 miles planned (as of 2011). In total, that’s a planned wall that covers 440 miles. Of course, Israel has more than just the West Bank to worry about in terms of border security, but in other areas, such as in its border with Egypt, they have chosen to build up fences that are reportedly more effective than ours, according to the Washington Examiner.
 
440 miles along the West Bank in comparison to around 2,000 miles in our southern border. Pretty big difference.
 
Now, returning to Trump himself, there’s more to look at than just the tweets. Yes, the tweets could bring people to the wrong conclusion, but it’s definitely that: the WRONG conclusion.
 
Sarah Sanders and Trump have said as much that they were looking for other ways to fund the wall, at least $5 billion to start it, apart from having to deal with the Democrats. That’s not caving, that’s having a plan B.
 
Democrats are most likely not going to give Trump any money for a border wall, and Trump himself is acutely aware of that. As a result, in order to fulfill the biggest promise he made during the campaign, he’s looking at other options to get the wall funded, such as signing an executive order and having the military pay for the wall.
 
Trump looking for ways to build the wall that don’t lead to a government shutdown (which I would be okay with) is not an indication of Trump caving on the wall whatsoever.
 
Now, I can understand people’s frustrations here. The best chance we have at building the wall is with a Republican Congress, which we will only have for a few more weeks. Personally, I wish I had not expected so much out of traitorous RINOs like McCain and Paul Ryan because if we did not fund a wall in the first two years of Trump’s presidency, we won’t likely fund the wall in the next few weeks either.
 
But that doesn’t fall on Trump’s feet. It falls on the Republican Establishment being unwilling to listen to their constituents… again. The real ire ought to fall on the Republican Establishment that kept Obamacare funded, kept Planned Parenthood funded, and kept our borders unsecured.
 
Trump is fighting with these guys when he should only be fighting with Democrats. Of course, I do think Trump has the ability to do more than he’s doing right now, but any sort of anguish directed at him is really misplaced.
 
I’m not saying he doesn’t make mistakes. I think that Omnibus bill he signed was a pretty big one. But the real people that should be earning people’s scorn are people like Paul Ryan, who was Democrats’ best friend throughout these last two years, even when he got none of the credit and he was still attacked because he had an “R” next to his name. People like John McCain who, up to the moment he died, was a big obstructionist holding the Republican Party hostage (let’s not forget he was the deciding factor in not repealing and replacing Obamacare). People like Jeff Flake and Bob Corker who decided to switch sides under the guise of “country over party” which is a massive sham.
 
Trump is not caving on the wall. He’s not a quitter. Watching The Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice, one recurring theme throughout the seasons that I’ve watched is that he hates it when someone just decides to quit or doesn’t give their best efforts. He hates quitters, so he would not be willing to quit himself.
 
But again, there’s really no actual and substantial indication that he is caving or quitting in any way. He has a tough job ahead of him and many in the Republican Party like the aforementioned people (except McCain at this point, but Romney will replace him in this obstructionist capacity in the new Congress) are all too happy to stab him in the back on this issue and let the blame fall on him… and it seems to be working, sadly.
 
So no, Trump’s not caving on the wall. I think he may have thought that once he became President that everyone would automatically love and support him, particularly on the wall. But he soon came to the realization there are seriously depraved and evil S.O.B’s out there in Washington.
 
And unfortunately, Democrats took control of the House, so there is not much chance at all that the wall will be built through Congress once the new Congress assembles, which is largely the reason for Trump to be looking for another way to get the wall.
 
It certainly won’t be easy to get it done and we might even have to wait until after the 2020 election to get a wall funded (hopefully it won’t come to that). But under such circumstance, the choice still remains pretty clear. It’s either the chance at building a wall with a newly re-elected and re-inaugurated Trump or zero chance at building a wall with a newly elected and newly inaugurated President Bernie Sanders, or President Joe Biden or whoever wins the Democrat nomination.
 
I’m not saying this is a good position to be in – it’s certainly not. But unfortunately, it might well come to that and we have to be ready to face reality.
 
Like during the midterms, I’ll take Republicans sometimes doing something good over Democrats purging this country from its foundation and turning it into something it was never intended to become: another China, Soviet Russia, Cuba or Venezuela.
 
I could write every single reason not to allow any Democrat to beat Trump (something both Trump supporters and NeverTrump conservatives should consider), but that will have to wait for another time. As it is, the main point to take away from this article is right in the title: Trump is NOT giving up on the wall. Whether he succeeds or not is a different story, but I think he can do it. We just need to pray to God that we can overcome the evils of the Left.
 
Philippians 4:6
“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Apparently, we’re going to be talking a little bit more about climate change in general after the last article discussing when the Left might actually stop saying that a summit or conference is the “last chance” to “save the planet”. Why? Because Michael Bloomberg recently held a supposed “art” event in which he flew in 24 large chunks of ice from Greenland to London, where they would melt to signify climate change is real.
 
However, if you have anywhere near a double-digit IQ, you can probably come up with a good number of things wrong with this entire stunt.
 
Michael Bloomberg tweeted: “Public art reminds us that it’s possible to think differently and boldly. With #COP24 (a climate summit) underway in Poland, our hope is that #IceWatchLondon, a public art piece by Olafur Eliasson with support from BloombergDotOrg, will inspire new action on climate.”
 
If by “think differently and boldly” he means not thinking whatsoever both in terms of science and the cost (not even monetary) of transporting a lot of huge chunks of ice far away, then sure, that’s “thinking differently and boldly”.
 
First of all, and perhaps the biggest reason I say this is the dumbest piece of “evidence” of climate change is the fact that ice tends to melt at anything above freezing temperatures (0 degrees Celsius). I actually read this story earlier in the week, so it’s not exactly new, but I was recently reminded of this and felt like it would make sense to highlight just why this is so stupid.
 
You see, by the time I read about the melting point of ice in order to reply to a tweet about this event, it was already pretty late in London time. Don’t remember the exact time, but it was nighttime for certain. I made sure to check my weather app on my phone to see what the temperature was in London in Celsius. It was 3 degrees.
 
So during the night, it was still hot enough for ice to melt. Showing that ice melts anywhere where it’s not literally freezing is not a sign that climate change is happening or that it’s caused by mankind. It’s a sign that whoever is making this argument is a blockhead.
 
But that’s simply the logical aspect of this entire debacle. Ice melts at anything above 0 degrees. But I also said that this is a costly endeavor.
 
Well, apart from this obviously taking a good amount of money, as would hauling anything large from one part of the world to another would be (and he did that with 24 of these ice chunks), I’m also talking about this being costly for the environment… that Bloomberg and the people attending the Polish climate conference are trying to protect.
 
I used MyClimate.org to calculate how much CO2 is released in a one-way trip from Greenland (Nuuk, particularly) to London’s Heathrow Airport. I calculated that such a trip releases 0.618 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere… for a single passenger aboard economy class. Aboard business class, it’s 1.2 metric tons and first class, it’s 1.9 tons.
 
Now, I have no idea why it makes a difference what sort of class you use. I don’t think it really would matter where you sit inside a plane. I think it would emit about the same amount regardless of where you sit. The only thing I could possibly think would affect it is the number of passengers aboard, the weight of the passengers and the total weight of the luggage including carry-on. But the science behind that is largely irrelevant to my point.
 
What I was talking about was referring to a single person aboard a plane. Bloomberg hauled TWENTY FOUR MASSIVE pieces of ice from Greenland. Being extremely conservative, Bloomberg released at least 12 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for this. And that’s if the ice chunks all weigh what an average human would which is definitely not the case here.
 
Ironically, that’s nothing compared to the actual emissions from holding the conference in Poland and having people attend it in the first place.
 
The Daily Signal says that the two-week conference emitted over 55,000 metric tons of CO2.
 
“The U.N. estimates the summit, called COP24, will emit 55,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide – the very greenhouse gas U.N. officials are trying to keep from accumulating in the atmosphere. Based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency figures, that’s the equivalent of more than 11,700 cars driving for one year or 728 tanker trucks worth of gasoline. That amount of carbon dioxide emissions is also the same as 8,243 American homes for an entire year, according to EPA,” reported The Daily Signal.
 
That, by the way, excludes the cost (in gas emissions) of travel to and from the conference, which is sure to add a lot because most COP24 attendees “flew on private planes to and from the conference” according to the Daily Wire.
 
If First Class means dishing out more CO2 (for some reason) then these people flying in private planes definitely contribute significantly more to carbon dioxide emissions.
 
As I said in the last article, it’s largely “shame on thee, but not on me” with regard to these people.
 
So the conference-goers who are oh so worried about our precious climate that they feel it necessary to impose taxes and other things on people to get them to stop polluting so much send out far more CO2 into the atmosphere than you or I would on an individual basis in more than a year.
 
Same thing goes for Michael Bloomberg. I mean, ignoring the fact that it’s an insanely stupid argument that there’s proof of climate change because ice melts when you take it into a climate with higher natural temperatures (no duh, Sherlock), he himself is contributing an awful lot of carbon dioxide emissions in his efforts to prove that we should not emit so much carbon dioxide.
 
It’s incredibly dumb no matter what way you slice it. It makes a dumb argument and it makes that argument in a really dumb and ironic way.
 
Not that Bloomberg will stop to think “maybe hauling 24 large chunks of ice from Greenland to London to make an argument about climate change might be contributing to the very thing I’m claiming is real”. Much like Obama delivering an environmental message while aboard Air Force One, there is zero sense of self-awareness.
 
That goes for both Bloomberg and the climate conference-goers.
 
The reality is that, while I think the climate does change over time, there is nothing we, human beings, do that actually affects it to such extreme degrees. Like I said in the last article covering climate change, the fact that we’ve had five major ice ages in the past is indicative that we are not responsible for the changes in the world’s climate.
 
We have gone through periods of extreme cold and warmth. What we do has next to no effect on our climate.
 
But as I said in the last article, this isn’t about the climate or you or me. It’s not even about them being right. It’s about them being in control. That’s the ultimate goal.
 
Proverbs 8:5
“O simple ones, learn prudence; O fools, learn sense.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One of the funniest lines I often hear from the Left year after year is that an upcoming climate summit or conference is “the last chance” we have to “save our planet”. And recently, CNN made sure to say an upcoming climate summit is our last chance at doing just that. But yet, that’s what the Left has been saying for literally decades now.
 
Newsweek magazine also offered its own opinions on the matter of climate change, singing a very similar tune: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” Sounds scary, right? If we don’t do something now, we will be faced with a grim reality, right? Well, this was actually from an article from 1975 discussing global COOLING.
 
Let me show you some other “last chance” warnings the media or Leftists in general have perpetuated:

• “A Global Warming Treaty’s Last Chance” from Time magazine circa 2001.

• “Climate campaigner Mark Lynas warned ‘with time running out for the global climate, your meeting in Montreal represents a last chance for action” from Independent, circa 2005.

• “World leaders will converge on Bali today for the start of negotiations which experts say could be the last chance to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change” from the New Zealand Herald, circa 2007.

• “European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told a climate conference that it was ‘the world’s last chance to stop climate change before it passes the point of no return’” from Reuters circa 2009.

 
 
And there are tons of other headlines that read very similarly, including one for the Paris Climate Accord where Michael Mann writes “Paris is probably the last chance to bring the necessary emission reductions…,” with the media singing a similar tune, saying that Paris was “the last chance”.
 
Ironically, the U.S. actually held up its end of the deal in reduction of CO2 gases AFTER it left the deal, whereas other countries like France increased their CO2 gas emission.
 
But we hear over and over again that an upcoming summit or conference of climate “leaders” and advocates will be the last chance we have to save the Earth. Over and over again, experts say that we only have one last chance at turning things around before we reach a point of no return. It’s been literal DECADES that they’ve put up this charade and we seem to be doing just fine.
 
Just like no one died from the repeal of Net Neutrality or the implementation of the GOP tax cuts (and how no one’s going to die from the ruling against Obamacare), no one is dying from man-made climate change. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING!
 
I concede the fact that the climate does change. The various ice ages the world’s sustained (and we are technically in one now) is evidence enough of that. But there is nothing to even briefly prove that we, humans, are responsible for any change in the climate. We’ve gone through five major ice ages, and more minor ones, and no one can realistically tell me that our CO2 emissions had anything to do with their beginning or end.
 
And even if any output from us actually did do it, then why in the world are these “climate leaders” and advocates all congregating and meeting in one particular location? Do they not realize that doing so forces them to EMIT MORE CO2?! These climate conferences are such a joke, with these supposed climate experts and geniuses telling us how we should live before, during and after they board gas-powered planes to travel back and forth to these places.
 
Of course, that’s part of the entire thing. “Shame on thee, but not on me” with regard to how you spend your energy. YOU are supposed to switch to hybrid or electric cars (that do jack-all in terms of reducing oil and coal usage). YOU are supposed to reduce your carbon footprint in the world.
 
Much of the same can be said about socialism, with socialists saying YOU should be more considerate of the poor while they themselves sit inside one of their multiple million-dollar homes, but this is a conversation about climate hysteria.
 
As I shared earlier, this kind of ridiculous nonsense dates back to at least 1975, if not farther back. But let’s say that 1975 is the absolute earliest you would find talks about global warming or any sort of climate change whatsoever and having only one last chance to change it. 1975 was over 40 years ago. 44 to be precise, unless you’re reading this article after April 28th, 2019, when that Newsweek article will be 45 years old by that point.
 
Roughly 45 years since the initial hysteria about a race against the clock in ensuring the survival of humanity and our planet and what do we have? A perfectly fine, habitable ecosystem, but the same hysteria year after year, summit after summit.
 
So how much longer can the Left say this sort of thing before people start collectively calling out the bullcrap that this is? Again, it’s been about 40 years of “last chances”. And it’s not like these summits are a rare occasion. They happen every year. And every time, we hear that this summit in Poland, or Canada, or Paris, or Wakanda is the last chance we have to save the Earth, when that clearly is not the case whatsoever. And yet, they keep saying it. Why?
 
Well, it’s certainly not because they are right, or even because they believe it to be right. They create climate models about what the Earth might look like 50 or 100 years from now, when next to no one will remember the asinine predictions. The point of this hysteria is not to be right, or to prove anyone wrong, but to cause enough fear in people for them to want to put into power those who would “save the planet” aka Democrats and Leftists.
 
It’s nothing more than fear-mongering over an unscientific claim that they say is as scientific as the Earth being round or gravity existing when nothing could be further from the truth.
 
They say “it’s the last chance” because it causes a reaction in people who are uninformed. It creates a sense of urgency to try and “fix” a fictitious problem by electing those who promise to do something about it when it’s all a PR stunt. The Paris Climate Accord was not intended to actually do anything about gas emissions (as evidenced by the fact that the countries that stayed in the deal INCREASED their gas emissions), it was supposed to be a sign to the world, saying “hey, these progressive, Leftist people are doing something to save the planet!” which will ironically be forgotten the next time there is a summit when THAT summit will be “the last chance”.
 
It’s not about the planet or the kids or you whatsoever. The U.S. reduced our gas emissions this year, despite our leaving the Climate Accord, but did that make the national news? We are actually doing what these Leftists claim they want to do, but does that matter? No. Because that’s not the point. The point is to attain more power for the Left. Power to influence how you live your very life.
 
Unfortunately, I cannot answer the title question. It’s largely a rhetorical question, of course, but I do wish it was a legitimate question because this nonsense has to stop. We are no more in peril of destroying our global ecosystem today than when we were first hearing these claims. Why? Because we CAN’T do that. We don’t have the power and capacity to do that even if we wanted to.
 
If you asked me to destroy the world without the use of nuclear bombs, I would not be able to do it (not that I want to, of course).
 
But the destruction or preservation of our planet is not the point of this hysteria, as I mentioned multiple times. The point is to get gullible and uninformed people to be scared to death over things that humanity (or Trump and Republicans particularly) is doing to our planet so that those who pretend to be Captain Planet get elected into office so that they can regulate how you live (but never regulate how they themselves live).
 
It’s all about power – increasing the size of the government. And it’s unfortunate that they can so often get away with these dumb claims. I sincerely hope that more and more people use logic and sound reasoning to recognize that these same people warned us decades ago that we had one last chance and we’ve had about 40 different last chances since then. At one point, that last chance ceases to be a last chance.
 
James 1:5
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”
 
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.

Let me tell you, unlike the coward Parkland cop I wrote about last week, none of these officers will claim that it was not their duty to do what they did. In Richmond, Indiana, tragedy was averted last Thursday when Richmond police officers were given a tip of a 14-year-old teenager going to a school while armed.
 
District spokeswoman Bridget Hazelbaker said that the schools in the Richmond community had received a tip of the shooter and had gone into lockdown. When police confronted the armed teen, he reportedly “shot out the glass of a locked entry door to the school, and ran inside with police officers in pursuit,” according to police.
 
According to The Daily Wire: “Police confronted the suspect at the north door, but the teen shot out the glass of one of the school’s locked doors to get inside the building. Police pursued the suspect and there was another exchange of gunfire, officials said. It ended in the south stairwell on the second floor where the teen died from ‘an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.’”
 
Indiana State Police Sergeant John Bowling said: “Someone knew something, and they said something. Local police had received information and they reacted on that very swiftly, and I think because of their swift reaction and also the swift reaction at the school that no student injuries happened.”
 
Captain Dave Bursten added: “We are very, very grateful for the person who made the call. Had they not made the call, there is no doubt in my mind that we would be having a much different conversation right now.”
 
No officers or students were harmed.
 
Richmond Mayor Dave Snow also praised police officers and school officials for their great work at impeding tragedy, saying they “did everything right today.” Unfortunately, he later went on to blame lack of gun control measures, saying the incident was “yet another example of gun irresponsibility, poor mental health awareness and access… This is only going to continue until concrete action is taken so that guns do not fall into the hands of our kids. The irresponsibility that leads to a child walking into a school with a gun is unacceptable.”
 
It is unacceptable, but no amount of regulation would’ve stopped this. A 14-year-old is not allowed to have a gun, in case you didn’t know. I don’t know how he managed to get his hands on one, but gun control didn’t prevent this tragedy. A miracle prevented this tragedy.
 
And I don’t think I am overstating how important that tip was by calling that a miracle. Apart from the poor soul that had either the mental instability or the evil heart (or both) to attempt what he attempted to do, no one else died from this. No innocent child, no faculty member, no police officer, and they are the ones who were most at risk.
 
We really must thank God for this.
 
Now, I could go on to make this article about how no amount of gun control prevented this, but I think I’ve already made my point pretty clear. The Richmond Mayor, being a politician, is clearly just trying to score political points and insist that further gun control measures should be implemented, but he is completely wrong in that case. Still, I won’t go further into that topic of conversation because I am just glad that no innocent life was lost in this incident.
 
I don’t know who the tipper was or how they managed to get this kind of accurate information relating to the potential shooter, but it is a very good thing that he or she did what they did.
 
But this is a great example of what happens when police actually do their darn job. I know I talked about him in length at the end of last week, but Broward County (FL) Deputy Scot Peterson doesn’t hold a candle stick to any of these officers. Now, I assume there was more than just one officer who confronted the would-be shooter, so they had the number advantage that Peterson didn’t have, but they also knew that they ran a risk intercepting and engaging the suspect anyway. Any one of their lives could’ve been lost by a simple confrontation, and there definitely was a gunfight that ensued, so any of the officers could’ve lost life or limb, and they knew that perfectly well.
 
Because that is precisely what a police officer is supposed to do, as I explained in the last article. “Protect and Serve” is not just a motto, but pretty much a code for law enforcement.
 
And let’s not forget that the Broward County Sherriff’s office and the FBI could’ve also prevented the tragedy at Stoneman Douglas. If you remember, they were acutely aware of the large and real possibility of a school shooting happening, but did not follow up on that whatsoever. So it’s not just Scot Peterson who was apathetic regarding the Florida shooting, but so was the FBI and the Sherriff’s office.
 
Richmond police were given information about a shooter, took it seriously, and acted swiftly. As a result, the only life lost was the one that would’ve taken the lives of others. Still tragic, since any loss of life is a tragedy, but if reports are accurate that it was a self-inflicted wound, there wasn’t much officers could’ve done in that situation.
 
Of course, officers were ready to kill the shooter if need be, but if they could’ve simply arrested him, that’s what they would’ve gone for. So the kid taking his own life is not something the officers could’ve had much of a chance of preventing.
 
Of course, I don’t know exactly what happened in that situation. There reportedly was an exchange of gunfire that ended “in the south stairwell on the second floor”, where the shooter died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. I don’t know the layout of the school or how close the officers were to getting the kid, but I assume he felt there was no alternative at that point. I don’t know how much of an opportunity police had to convince him not to kill himself, if any at all. So that’s tragic, but at least the guy had no opportunity to actually cause harm to innocent kids and faculty.
 
God bless the man or woman that tipped off the police about the shooter, otherwise this article would’ve been about something completely different, and very similar to other articles discussing school shootings, unfortunately.
 
I won’t rail on the Richmond Mayor much for insinuating that gun control would’ve prevented this just as well, if not better than police and the school district did because we breathe a sigh of relief over the fact that a school shooting was expertly prevented.
 
Here’s hoping tragedy can be prevented in the future, not simply through a miraculous tip and through police response to it, but through encouraging hearts and minds to follow Christ and His teachings. That would truly be the only way tragedies like these can be put to an end.
 
Psalm 77:14
“You are the God who works wonders; you have made known your might among the peoples.”
 
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.

Do you want to know what annoys me more than a cowardly cop? A cowardly cop who claims he has no legal duty to act in an extreme situation.
 
That’s just what happened in a courtroom recently, where Deputy Scot Peterson, the cop who stood outside of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during an active shooter situation, and his lawyer, Michael Piper, told Judge Englander Henning: “We want to say [Peterson] had an obligation, but the law isn’t that. From a legal standpoint, there was no duty.”
 
The judge was quick to dismiss such a claim, saying that Peterson had an “obligation to act reasonably” regarding the shooting.
 
This is a wrongful death suit brought about by Andrew Pollack, whose daughter, Meadow Pollack, died along 16 other victims of the Parkland shooting.
 
Here’s a short run-down of the events that unfolded on the day of the shooting from the Deputy’s perspective, which was confirmed by Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel: Peterson radioed in that he was hearing gunshots. He was standing outside the building, listening to the shots, and radioed in “shots fired.” He had arrived on scene shortly after the attack started, but stood outside for five minutes until the attack concluded, according to Today.com.
 
Now, let me argue this particular point: I don’t blame Peterson for having been afraid in that situation, if he even was afraid. Anyone would be afraid in that situation and no one wants to be in such a situation. But bravery is not the absence of fear, it’s taking action despite fear. So Deputy Peterson was most definitely not brave in this situation, if he indeed was afraid, which I assume he was.
 
But that is one thing. It is an entirely different thing to argue in court that he has NO LEGAL DUTY to respond when he most definitely does! As a police officer, it’s 100% his DUTY to protect and serve. Such an idea is so important, it is often featured on the side of their vehicles. The guy’s lawyer is trying to point to a policy within Broward County’s active shooter situation which says that officers “may” engage in an active shooter scenario, not shall. Such a policy is horrendous and it is the antithesis of a police officer’s duty to protect the lives of civilians.
 
Now, Deputy Scot Peterson failed to perform his duty as a deputy of Broward County. And that’s bad, but what’s worse is the belief that he had NO legal responsibility to act in any way. This tells me he has absolutely no remorse about his inaction on the day of the shooting.
 
When something major happens, people tend to have regrets. “Maybe if I had done this instead” is a typical thought that goes through people’s heads. For him and his lawyer to argue that Peterson had no legal duty to act in that situation is horribly offensive (not the sissy Leftist use of the word. I mean actually offensive) and highlights his rottenness as a human being.
 
Again, if he failed to act because he was scared, that’s one thing. Someone who is a cop and is scared to do his job does not deserve the job. But someone who is a cop, is scared to do his job, and then argues that he has no obligation to do his job is someone who is seriously devoid of sympathy, remorse and most of all, a heart.
 
I get that he’s trying to protect himself in this lawsuit, but to argue he did not have to act WHEN ONE OF THE BIGGEST TASKS ENTRUSTED TO COPS IS TO ACT IN SUCH A SCENARIO is downright awful.
 
In articles where I talked about the shooting, I would sometimes blame the coward cop who stood outside doing nothing. Apart from blaming the FBI and County Sheriff’s office for not having followed up on serious threats, a big part of the blame fell on Peterson. Whenever I would blame him, I referred to him as the “coward cop”. Now, I can’t say the same.
 
Now, I call him the “evil cop”. Not acting in such a situation due to fear is understandable (of course, him being a cop, it was less understandable because cops are supposed to risk their very lives for others. They carry guns!). But I honestly have doubts on whether or not he was actually afraid. I argued earlier that he probably was, because anyone would be, but I’m not entirely sure. Because a coward will often feel remorse about their cowardice. The way this sounds, it appears to me that the cop wasn’t afraid, but apathetic.
 
He couldn’t care less about protecting others, which is why he doesn’t feel remorse over what he did. That much is evident by the fact he argues he had no responsibility to act when his job largely calls on him to act in such a situation.
 
Andrew Pollack, when he filed the suit, tweeted the following: “I filed a wrongful death suit against Deputy Peterson today. I want to expose that coward so bad. Wherever he goes, I want people to recognize him and say that’s one of the cowards of Broward. The SRO that let those children and teachers die on the 3rd floor!”
 
I totally understand why he’s saying this. Being a cop and not responding to an active shooter situation is cowardly. But again, I’m not so sure he was simply afraid.
 
Now, I could be totally wrong, of course. After all, I wasn’t there, I don’t know what went through his mind at the time, and I simply don’t know the guy personally. But his pathetic argument in the court room shows no sympathy for the victims that he failed to protect.
 
Again, cowards tend to feel remorse over their cowardice. A cop who could’ve done something but failed to do it tends to feel remorse over his inaction. Peterson could’ve done something to stop the shooter. Being a cop, he had a weapon with him, and this being a school and therefore a gun-free zone, he had the best chance at stopping the shooter before he could cause much more damage. That was his very duty. And not only did he fail to do it, have every opportunity in the world to do it, and even considerable time to do it, he does not even think he had any obligation to any of the 17 victims to try and go in and protect them. Not even TRY.
 
In one of the Batman films by Christopher Nolan, there is a very famous phrase that goes like this: “You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” I’m not saying Peterson should’ve died that day. I’m saying he had the duty to go in there and do something, even if it cost him his life, and he failed to do that. Actually, he didn’t fail to do that, because that would indicate some sort of intention to act. He DIDN’T WANT to do that. And now, he’s seeing himself become the villain in the eyes of the victim’s families, and many others.
 
Batman may have failed to save Rachel, but he was at least trying to save her. Peterson wasn’t even trying to help those kids and faculty, when he very easily could have.
 
And now, he says he had no duty to act? What a sick joke.
 
Here’s hoping Andrew Pollack wins the suit (which is pretty likely) and there is at least some justice for the Parkland victims.
 
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.