As NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio joins the other 2000 candidates to run for President of the United States on the Democrat ticket, President Donald Trump is enjoying the best poll numbers he has had as POTUS.
 
According to a recent Zogby poll, President Trump is enjoying a job approval rating of 51%, the highest in his tenure as president in this poll. It is also higher than Barack Obama’s was at the same point in his own presidency, which was at 48%.
 
But that’s not the only thing that is great news for The Don. The poll also found, rather interestingly, that 51% of people in the age range of 18-29 approve of the job he is doing as president while 53% in the age range of 25-34 approve of him. In other words, a little over half of MILLENNIALS are approving of the job Trump is doing as President.
 
Zogby largely attributes his rise in numbers to the strong economic news we’ve had as of late with record-breaking stock market numbers, consistently low unemployment where there are virtually more jobs available than there are people to fill them, as well as consistently strong GDP growth.
 
Zogby writes: “President Trump’s job approval rating has seen a post Mueller report boost! We called it a few weeks ago. But that’s not the complete story as to why the president has reached a peak in his job approval rating. Trump is also riding high on positive economic news – a record high stock market, low unemployment, and solid GDP growth at home.”
 
Yes, they also attribute the Mueller report finding no collusion and no obstruction to Trump’s rise in his numbers, though they don’t quite count for everything. I hold the belief that those who completely bought into the idea that Trump colluded with Russia will never change their minds about the guy no matter what happens. Even when their supposed “savior” was supposed to deliver the goods, and failed to do so, they still hold firm to the belief that Trump colluded with Russia despite no evidence having popped up at any point in the two years of this “investigation” and despite Mueller’s findings that there was no collusion and flimsy, but ultimately not-good-enough, evidence that the POTUS obstructed justice (complaining about the unfairness of a so-called “investigation” is not obstruction, FYI).
 
The people who bought the collusion story hook, line and sinker were never going to be convinced that Trump was doing a good job as President. However, the vast majority of people, I believe, are completely exhausted of the entire narrative and are simply happy that there was no foul-play during the elections, at least not enough to actually alter the results (Russia did still meddle a bit, but even Rod Rosenstein said no votes were altered in the election, so the results of the election were not altered either).
 
But while the Mueller report finding no collusion or obstruction certainly helps Trump in the long-run, especially on the campaign trail when Democrats are entirely likely to still peddle the idea that he colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election (and will likely peddle the idea that he will try to do so again for 2020, especially if he wins), what really helps Trump’s approval numbers is the fact that “the new normal” of the Obama administration, 1% GDP growth, was absolute garbage and not a new standard which we would have to get used to.
 
Trump has shown that capitalist policies like low taxes, deregulation, etc. heavily boost the economy and provide millions of new jobs for people who were out of work, either seeking it or giving up on seeking it.
 
The boost in Millennial support is part of that, considering they actually have jobs now, at least many of them do. Rush Limbaugh theorized that the reason Bernie Sanders was so hot back in 2016 but not quite so much now is due to the fact that under Obama, these Millennials were out of work and Bernie was promising them a socialist paradise where they wouldn’t have to worry at all about that because the government would take care of every problem under the sun (seriously, I saw a Bernie Sanders poster on Facebook that said he would solve racism in America).
 
Millennials saw that they were in a poor financial situation, being the first generation likely ever to not be expected to do better than their parents’ generation. But instead of recognizing they were in such a poor state because of 8 years of Leftist, socialist policies from the Obama administration, they were led to believe that capitalism was the culprit, since there are those who are billionaires and were led to believe that under capitalism, there are winners and losers. They were led to believe the billionaires and rich people of America came to that sort of wealth by screwing the little guy and stealing from them. And who can blame them? Obama had been saying the same thing about America in general, about how America stole from other countries to build itself as a super power.
 
All a massive crock, but the Millennials believed it. But now, after only 2 years of a Trump economy that is so good Obama is envious about it and tries to claim it for himself, Millennials are noticing that they have jobs, their paychecks are increasing, they don’t have to pay as much in taxes (depending on where they live, at least) and are overall not quite in the same tight financial situation that they were in under Obama.
 
Now, despite all of that, many are still socialist and still support Bernie. He is, after all, in second place in a race that involves 20 other equally-as-Leftist candidates as him, with the only person ahead of him being the former Vice President to the former President many Millennials were indoctrinated to love (despite the fact he was the one who was constantly screwing them over financially). So while Bernie is not quite as hot as he was in 2016, he is not quite out of it yet either.
 
I don’t know who will be the Democrat nominee (despite what I have written previously, it looks like Joe Biden will be the nominee, but Hillary was in his place in 2007 before she was beaten by Obama, so you never know) but Bernie’s brand of socialism is still attractive enough to get him a decent place in the polls despite how many more Democrats are running.
 
But in any case, there is a majority of Millennials now who come to approve of the job Trump is doing as President, especially when it comes to the economy.
 
Zogby also reported that 58% of men approved of Trump while 48% of women approved of him. And while one will immediately notice the big difference in numbers between the two genders and claim that Trump is unpopular with women because “he’s a pig” or “he’s a misogynist” note that the number of women who approve of him is, while still a minority, pretty high, just not as high as the number of men who approve of him. Nearly half of women approve of Trump. Put that into a headline and watch as the fake news media goes haywire over the news.
 
When it comes to suburban voters, 48% approve of Trump while 60% of rural voters approve. That makes sense considering that rural voters tend to be more conservative and Trump’s economy really helps rural areas.
 
Zogby also added that, “One of the demographics to give Trump a very good job performance rating were self-identified social networkers (59% approve/40% disapprove – people who engage with social media)… The president also made strides with college educated voters (55% approve/45% disapprove), and saw support increase slightly with non-college educated voters (47% approve/50% disapprove).”
 
These numbers are fairly interesting to me. When it comes to the “self-identified social networkers” I don’t exactly know what to make of that. Who are “self-identified social networkers”? Does that mean people who use social media? Or people who have a heavy presence on social media like Ben Shapiro, Laura Ingraham, etc.? I imagine the former, which is still rather impressive, considering that the common belief is that the majority of social media users are at least Left-leaning and utterly Trump-hating (social media companies certainly want people to hate Trump and conservatives/conservatism).
 
And when it comes to the college educated voters vs. non-college educated voters, that one also surprises me. Considering college is the place where education goes to die and indoctrination is heavily engrained in young people’s minds, such strong approval of Trump is surprising.
 
But regardless, as Zogby says, the increase in approval rating is likely due to strong economic numbers. Numbers that you simply do not see under socialistic policies.
 
We must thank God for these great news and continually pray to Him that these numbers stay strong like this, improve, and that He would ordain for Trump to win re-election in 2020.
 
Philippians 4:13
“I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”
 
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.

That can perhaps be counted as yet another one of my “no, duh” titles, but it is important to note just why I am talking about this now. After all, Rush Limbaugh has had his show for 30 years and has been the “Big Voice on the Right” for pretty much all of these years, but I do not think I have ever specifically talked about him or things he said.
 
Obviously, there is not much point, as one can listen to his 3-hour-long radio show any day of the week and find what he said himself (unless you work for the MSM and can’t stand to listen to him and have to rely on what other people say he said). However, he sometimes appears on other shows, notably with Sean Hannity, Chris Wallace and other Fox News anchors. Earlier this week, El Rushbo appeared on Fox News’ “The Story with Martha MacCallum” to discuss a number of things ranging from the 2020 presidential election and Democrat candidates to the Mueller report and investigation.
 
Let’s begin with what he said about the Democrats’ chances at beating Trump in 2020: “Here’s the thing: Joe Biden is probably the best chance they’ve got, and he doesn’t have a chance. They’re probably… I mean, Joe Biden and Crazy Bernie and Mayor Pete? I mean, you’ve got three white guys, two of them are brontosauruses from Jurassic Park, and that isn’t gonna sit well with the rest of this party which has gone so far left. You know, Biden’s putting off this announcement. I don’t know how badly he really wants this, and you have to really want this if you’re gonna have any chance of winning it.”
 
I’ve already written an article about how I seriously doubt that the Democrats would nominate Joe Biden for those precise reasons. Of course, I could be wrong, but those reasons are still very important to the Leftist Democrat base. For the last few years, old, white people have been victimized, harassed and attacked simply for being old and white. Jussie Smollett blamed white people for his hoax of an attack, the Catholic Covington kids were attacked for being white and Trump supporters, there are hundreds of instances where a white person was attacked for being white (and/or supporting Trump). So for the Democrats to have a nominee that is old, white and male is not going to jive with many on their base. Whether or not that means they would skip voting on election day, I cannot say, but the fact Joe is an old, white male is going to be a problem for him because his party hates that sort of person now (and I believe secularists would call that “karma”).
 
Rush was then asked if Trump is “vulnerable” to Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, particularly when she promises “free” stuff like college debt forgiveness and other things.
 
Rush said: “’Fauxcahontas’ is not gonna be the nominee. But, you know, these Democrats are all in the process of trying to out-leftist or out-liberal each other, and they’re in a contest of who can give away the most. But with Elizabeth Warren, forgiving college loans – forgiving that debt – and then promising free college and Medicare for All and a Green New Deal? Why is anybody gonna need to go to college? Because nobody’s gonna need a job, because the Democrats are gonna be giving everybody a universal basic income. So why does any of this matter? None of this is real. None of this can happen. This is disinformation. I think it’s an indication of just how little they think of their own voters, that their own voters don’t even want to work. They don’t even want to achieve. They don’t want to pursue excellence. They just want to have their hands out and vote for whoever is gonna give them the most?... What a way to ruin a life. Nobody would raise kids this way.”
 
And he’s completely right (I know, what a shock). Back in the beginning of April, I wrote an article about how college students support socialism unless they are affected by it negatively, such as redistributing the good grades they were getting to give to someone else who was not doing as well. College kids strive (for the most part) to get good grades because they want the best scores and the best chance to earn a degree and hopefully get a good job (even if that’s not exactly the way things work now because just about everyone is getting a degree and the value of a degree is diminished due to its surplus. Supply and demand works in a lot of ways).
 
Most college kids try to work hard to earn good grades and don’t expect to simply be given good grades. In real life, most people work the same way. They work hard at their jobs to hopefully get a promotion or a raise. And what the Democrats think of their own base is that they are all lazy and need the government’s help to even stay alive. It’s disrespectful, even if some of them are this way.
 
There is value in hard work. And even if a lot of parents don’t teach that value to their kids, the kids will come to understand it eventually once they start working themselves. Again, with those college kids, they all understood the value of working hard for their grades: they worked and studied hard and receive good grades for it.
 
That’s the way things work, even in a society where the value of hard work is not necessarily taught anymore by parents. Those who are successful work hard, whether that success means millions and billions of dollars or getting an A on a term paper.
 
But anyway, let’s get back to the Dean of the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Rush was then asked about Hillary Clinton saying Trump should be “indicted” on obstruction of justice concerning the Mueller investigation, he said: “For Hillary – you talk about irony – for Hillary Clinton to be talking about impeaching Donald Trump… Hillary Clinton needs to be investigated, she needs to be indicted, and she needs to be in jail, and many of her co-conspirators in this whole sordid affair, which amounted to nothing more than a silent coup to overturn the election results of 2016.”
 
“Hillary Clinton demanding that Trump – you talk about sour grapes, this is a woman that’s been rejected by the American people twice, rejected by her party in 2008. She had to rig the primaries against Crazy Bernie in 2016 to get the nomination. [Hillary] is the last person who ought to be listened to about what ought to happen to Donald Trump. She hasn’t accomplished anything anywhere near what Donald Trump has accomplished. She is in no position to sit here and say what she saw in the Mueller – well, she can say it, she’s an American. But she doesn’t have any credibility on any of this as far as I am concerned. And I’m not alone here.”
 
And he’s right in many ways. Hillary is in no position to be saying anything here about obstruction, considering her own HUSBAND was impeached for obstruction of justice, which the media tried to bury and say it was about “sex” and Monica Lewinsky. And without even mentioning the fact that SHE IS THE ONE WHO COLLUDED WITH FOREIGN AGENTS TO RIG THE ELECTION IN HER FAVOR!
 
America’s Real Anchorman then continued, talking specifically about the Mueller probe: “there was never any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. The collusion, as I said, was Hillary, the DNC, and the Russians via Steele. But the Russians – when Mueller announced the indictments of the Russian troll farm – actually it was Rosenstein that went out and announced them. And nobody paid any attention to this, but he said at the end of the announcement, ‘Nothing in these indictments suggests a single vote was changed. Nothing suggests the outcome of any election was changed. No American is named in the indictment had anything to do with it.’”
 
“This was not even an investigation of Trump. What it was was an attempt to overthrow the 2016 elections… unelected people came close to actually pulling off what is a coup. And it should never, ever happen again.”
 
Once again, he is right in many things. The only thing I would add is that Mueller was not actually all that close to pulling off a coup. He was at the beginning, or at least was closer, but never actually all that close. What do I mean? Well, not to give anyone any ideas, but generally what is necessary for a coup is unity.
 
What do I mean by that? Well, there has to be unity from the people that want the coup and people outside of that group. Mueller and his special counsel and some people in the intelligence community wanted Trump gone. But not everyone in the intelligence community agreed.
 
Mueller was not above lying on his report. If he wanted to, he could’ve alleged things and charged Trump with b.s. He could’ve lied, but he didn’t. Why? Because he didn’t have the full support of the intelligence community. He wasn’t assured security for lying, which he would’ve needed, as he would’ve had to testify in front of Congress.
 
He was not sure he would be protected, so he did not lie, but still not telling the full truth either.
 
Beyond that, no coup can ever actually happen without the military. And that is where Mueller was doomed almost from the beginning.
 
I mentioned earlier that Mueller was at least closer to pulling off a coup earlier in the investigation than later on. What I meant by that is he could’ve gotten the military on his side (not all that likely, but certainly was possible). But when he destroyed General Flynn, he also destroyed his chances at getting the military on his side. And a coup has to have military force. Sure, the FBI and CIA have guns, but guns don’t beat tanks and planes and helicopters.
 
A silent coup was not going to succeed ever. Every coup that has ever happened in history has been a military one. Lenin had his Red Army to fight against the Czar’s White Army. Multiple Latin American countries have gone through coups where the military was used to usurp the sitting government. Argentina is particularly known for that sort of thing, having a history of successful and failed coups.
 
Rush is right in as far as this was definitely a silent coup, an attempt to overturn the 2016 elections, but that was not going to be successful without the support of the military. And that in itself was going to be insanely difficult even without destroying Flynn. The U.S. has never had an actual military coup. There is no precedent for it and it was unlikely the military would’ve just gotten on Mueller’s side even without destroying Flynn. But him destroying Flynn made it certain that Mueller was not going to be successful in destroying Trump.
 
Granted, can’t really blame the dirty cop here. He was not given a specific crime to investigate, but rather a person. I don’t doubt he fully expected to find SOMETHING that Trump did that can at least be somewhat considered to be illegal. And while he found things that people connected to him were illegal, Trump was pretty squeaky clean.
 
At best, Mueller got allegations of having an affair with a pornstar. Immoral, if true (which I doubt), but not exactly illegal.
 
This was indeed a silent coup against Trump, but one cannot overstate the magnificent failure that it was. At no point did Mueller actually get even close to beating Trump. Matter of fact, as time went on, his chances were diminishing. AG Barr telling him to wrap things up certainly did him no favors.
 
But anyway, it’s interviews like these that showcase how intelligent Rush Limbaugh is (apart from his show, of course). Kudos to Rush for speaking the truth and backing it up with facts.
 
And also thank the Lord that He protects Trump every single day. Let us continue praying to Him for his safety in every aspect conceivable.
 
Isaiah 54:17
“No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from Me, declares the Lord.”
 
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.

Recently, I’ve been one to opine that nothing Trump does today will singlehandedly win or lose him the 2020 election. And while that holds true for the most part, what he does with regards to the economy is, indeed, something that could win or lose him in 2020, at least that’s what economists predict.
 
In a story on Politico, written by people who 100% do not want Trump to win again and try and tell their audience “it’s okay, because even though he’s likely to win in 2020, a number of mess ups and his unpopularity (which are really only featured in MSM polls) could derail his chances,” a number of economic experts, some of whom do not like Trump themselves and others who predicted his victory in 2016 all agreed that the strong economy will likely lead Trump to a huge victory in 2020.
 
Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of TrendMacrolytics, a source that predicted Trump’s 2016 victory, said: “The economy is just so damn strong right now and by all historic precedent the incumbent should run away with it.” He also mentioned that the economy “would have to slow a lot to still be not pretty good.”
 
According to Politico: “Luskin’s current model – which looks at GDP growth, gas prices, inflation, disposable income, tax burden and payrolls – has Trump winning by a blowout margin of 294 electoral votes.”
 
Again, that’s a MARGIN. If Trump is going to win by a margin of 294, then that means he’ll receive 416 total electoral votes (538 total votes in the electoral college). The way this was calculated is taking T (for Trump) to be = D (Democrat) plus the estimated 294. D = 538 (total possible votes) – T. So calculating T = D + 294, you replace D with 538 – T so the formula reads T = 538 - T + 294. Moving the two variables to the same side gives us T + T = 538 + 294. So 2T (or T + T) = 832. Dividing both sides by 2 gives us T = 416. 538 – 416 gives us 122, which is what the Democrat will get. 416 -122 = 294, the margin Trump is predicted to win by.
 
Sorry for the (sort of) short math lesson, but I felt it was important to note just how exactly we arrived at that number. While the Politico article doesn’t specifically mention how many votes Trump is predicted to get, I felt it was necessary to try and calculate this to get a bit more of a clear picture around this.
 
Yale economist Ray Fair, who also predicted Trump’s 2016 victory, said something similar: “Even if you have a mediocre but not great economy – and that’s more or less consensus for between now and the election – that has a Trump victory and by a not-trivial margin.” Fair said that, if the economy remains to be this strong (and while economists predict it will slow down significantly, I don’t see much reason for it to do so), Trump will likely win 54% of the vote.
 
Another economist, Mark Zandi, used 12 different economic models to predict the 2020 election. Trump won in every single one of them, with him winning relatively closely in only “three or four” of them, according to Zandi.
 
Something else that might help Trump is the fact that the Fed announced last week that they would hold off on raising interest rates, something they promised they would do last year, which helps in keeping the economy growing at a good rate. Trump himself says that had they not done so at least as often in the past, we’d likely have around a 4% GDP per year right now, but even with those continual rate hikes, the economy still grew by 3.1% for last year, which Trump celebrated as being the best number in 14 years (and yet another reason I doubt the economy will come to the grinding halt so many “experts” predict).
 
Now, like I said, the writers of this Politico article definitely do not want Trump to succeed. They cite everything from what other economists are saying about the future of the economy (again, not much reason for it to stall like they predict) to citing MSM polls that say Trump’s approval numbers are not great, around the low 40%.
 
But regardless of what kind of message they may want to portray, economic models tell the story that Trump is on track to destroying any opposition he meets based on the state of the economy alone.
 
Of course, these are estimates that are most likely not going to be 100% accurate in everything they show, but the trend seems to be that Trump’s strong economy (which is so strong the Left tries to connect it with Obama but no one’s buying what they’re selling) will likely be enough to ensure him victory, barring any major scandal (which the Left will try to promulgate, but the Russian collusion narrative is dying and they’re doing their best to revive it now that Mueller found no collusion) or the economy absolutely tanking (again, no real reason it should).
 
These people could NOT have been happy to report these models. Kind of surprised they did in the first place. Not that it’s all that likely that other MSM sources will report on it, even a little. Any good news for Trump has to be buried as much as possible.
 
1 Corinthians 15:57
“But thanks be to God, who gives us 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.

It is not often that I write articles that respond to something someone on the Daily Wire or other conservative websites write, but I felt it appropriate here. The reason being is that Joseph Curl (whom I should mention is a Never Trumper) says that Biden will run in 2020 and will become the 46th President of the United States.
 
Curl notes that the entire Democrat field currently running is essentially shooting themselves on both feet repeatedly and Biden will likely jump in a little later on when sufficient damage has been made to all of them.
 
He notes that Biden will find himself in an easy race against Trump, being from Pennsylvania himself, so that will likely flip in his favor (Pennsylvania is a state that Trump won in 2016) and will likely win other states that carried Trump in 2016.
 
Curl also notes that Biden is not going to run as part of the far-Left movement, but more as a center-field candidate imploring people to not get too crazy with things. But most importantly to him, he believes Biden will win because “he’s a relatively normal person. He’s calm, thoughtful, even tempered, reasonable – heck, he’s downright folksy.”
 
Essentially, Biden is meant to be the one voice of reason in a sea of craziness from the far-Left and from Trump (again, Curl is a Never Trumper).
 
And Curl also makes the case that Trump, while he’s holding steady in the 50% approval rating in many states, he’s under 40% in states that carry big electoral votes. Quoting Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel: “Not only is [Trump] now underwater in the three states that pushed him to victory in 2016 – he’s now unexpectedly vulnerable in places such as Texas, Florida, and Ohio as well. His popularity rises to 50 percent or higher in states that total a mere 102 electoral votes. Probably of more concern to his campaign: He’s fallen below 40 percent approval in states encompassing a 201-electoral-vote bloc.”
 
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that no poll is actually mentioned here. And polls vary wildly. Rasmussen tends to hold Trump around 50% at least recently, while MSNBC and other polls have him in the low 40’s. FiveThirtyEight has Trump’s approval rating at just 41.8%, RealClearPolitics has him around 43% (worth noting they also take the averages from other polls and take the average of all of them to make into their own polling, so the information can certainly be a little dodgy), Gallup’s most recent poll has him at 43% (mid-February, at least), etc.
 
So many polls, particularly if run by MSM, will hold him lower than I truly think it is or what other, typically-reliable sources will hold him at.
 
But getting back to Curl’s article, and the biggest point I want to make in my own, is the simple fact that there’s no way the Democrat Party is going to let Biden be their nominee, particularly for the very reasons Curl claims he will win in 2020.
 
There’s good reason around 20 Democrats have jumped at the chance to run for President (aside from the fact they’ve convinced themselves Trump is an easy win just like last time). They see socialism as their future. The former DNC Chair, Keith Ellison, named AOC “the future of the party”. They are convinced that they have a prime opportunity to run on socialism and are convinced they will win this way.
 
Joe Biden, as Curl notes, will likely try to run as a moderate candidate. A Democrat, no doubt, but nowhere near as insane as everyone else. And that’s exactly the reason he won’t be the nominee.
 
Taking aside the fact that many on the Democrat base don’t want Joe Biden because he’s “too old” or “too white” or “too male”, he’s nowhere near Leftist enough in their eyes. He’s too moderate. But beyond everything else, he represents a sort of regression in the Democrat Party. They don’t want to go back to pretending to be moderates or reasonable. They’ve fully embraced their masks coming loose and are fully embracing socialism. Some of their biggest stars are socialists. They’re not going to turn their backs on such a future for a candidate who is no longer the future of the party.
 
And it’s not like they feel Biden is owed anything. He was already Vice President and while he’s run in the past, he’s not considered Democrat Party royalty like Hillary was. The Democrat Party turned their backs on her in 2007 by going for Obama. In 2015, they sought to crown her as their nominee, feeling she was owed something (and Hillary herself felt owed). But the Party does not feel like they owe Biden anything. They like him, no doubt, but they are not going to crown him.
 
Far from it, they will likely try to sink him. Again, he is not a socialist in their minds. He’s not a radical. They don’t want a “voice of reason” (and I find it hard to believe Biden would provide that anyway). Again, they feel the opportunity is primed for running with a hardcore Leftist socialist in 2020. It’s for that reason that I think they will lose, but it’s for that reason that they think they will win.
 
Now, let’s look again at what Curl said of Biden. He’s “a relatively normal person… calm, thoughtful, even tempered, reasonable… downright folksy.”
 
Well, let’s look over this with some things even Curl notes about Biden. Biden is notorious for saying some downright stupid and frankly racist things.
 
Let’s not forget he tried to scare black people by saying Republicans were going to put “y’all back in chains”, saying that in a rather “ghetto” or stereotypical “black” accent. Let’s not forget he said of Obama that he’s “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.”
 
Let’s not forget he said: “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent… I’m not joking.”
 
Let’s not forget the MULTIPLE instances of him getting a little too cozy with women and even young girls, earning him the nickname of “Creepy Joe”.
 
And beyond all of that, he is easy to manipulate. Remember when he dared say that Mike Pence was a decent guy and Cynthia Nixon and others basically shamed him into saying that he is a deplorable human being? Remember how easily he succumbed to the backlash, taking away the very mild compliment of saying Pence is a decent guy?
 
Look, in all honesty, I do think Biden is a far better option from every other Democrat. But when you consider the fact that he’ll likely take a socialist as his running mate (Curl certainly thinks he’ll take Beto or Julian Castro), and would most likely be a puppet for the Obamas, there’s no way in Hell I’d consider voting for him.
 
Not that this matters anyway for a number of reasons.
 
First, like I said, he’s not going to be the Democrat Party nominee. Precisely because he’s going to run as the center option, the Democrat Party won’t allow him to become their nominee. They want full-on socialism as fast as possible and will see Biden as a step backwards, not forwards. And if Biden does bite the bullet and start spewing socialist nonsense, the only appeal he had even in Curl’s eyes will be gone. If Trump makes this campaign about defining the Left as socialists like the Nazis and the Soviets, he will steamroll them.
 
Second, we are still a little less than two years away from the election. Nothing Trump says or does now will likely cost him or win him 2020. What will matter the most to people is the wall getting built, which will likely make tremendous progress by the time the general election starts, and how well the economy is doing.
 
He may have lost people like Ann Coulter, whom I’ll give credit as having been one of the first pro-Trump people out there, but she’s no big loss, particularly when you consider the fact she attacked Trump after he held a meeting with Pelosi and Schumer and she tweeted: “Put a fork in Trump, he’s dead” and “At this point, who DOESN’T want Trump impeached.”
 
She tweeted that after Trump softened his position on DACA (not that he has much of a choice with the 9th Circuit basically forcing him to keep the unconstitutional act alive). And like I said in the article where I first mentioned those tweets, she’s not really a supporter of Trump, but someone who’s just trying to get attention and clicks, particularly if she herself was ready to try and impeach Trump over this (and even if it was a joke, it was hardly a good one with little sense attached to it).
 
So losing someone who’s legitimately an air-head is not exactly a big loss for Trump.
 
Look, I’m not saying it’s a guarantee that Trump will win. He himself has to not make mistakes. But considering that the Democrat Party foolishly believes they can take down Trump with a socialist candidate, they will do a lot of work in his favor.
 
I can’t outright guarantee that Biden will 100% not be the nominee, but there is no reason the Democrat Party, with their current beliefs and where they think they should be going, will allow Joe to be their nominee.
 
Who knows, maybe I’ll be wrong, but all reason points to the Democrats not recognizing that Biden really is their best chance at beating Trump. Not that I think he would even if he was the nominee, but it certainly would be more of a battle for Trump than it would be were he to face any other Democrat.
 
John 16:33
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
 
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.

In what may be some pretty poor news for Bernie Sanders, a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that only 25% of Americans would approve of a socialist candidate running for President and only 37% would approve of a candidate over the age of 75 (survey size of 900 adults).
 
So given that Bernie is both the first openly socialist Democrat I have seen and he’s 77 right now (will be 79 by the 2020 election), this is not really a good thing for him.
 
Not that I really expect him to be the Democrat nominee, although it’s far too early to tell who it could be.
 
The poll asked respondents 11 characteristics they would find in their ideal presidential candidate.
 
Only 18% of respondents approved of socialism in general (and only 25% would want their candidate to be socialist, which seems pretty odd to me, so we might want to take some things with a grain of salt).
 
50% of respondents also soundly disapproved of socialism altogether. Now, I would personally hope that number would be far higher than that. Ideally, 100% would disapprove of socialism, but that’s not all that realistic (kind of like socialism), but in a sample size so small, I would hope considerably more than 50% would disapprove of socialism.
 
In any case, 50% of respondents also approved of capitalism with only 19% disapproving, sort of mirroring the numbers for socialism.
 
Now, even though I would hope far more people would disapprove of socialism and far more people would approve of capitalism, these are still pretty fantastic numbers, in my opinion. The gap between how many approve of capitalism versus socialism is massive, as it should be, and nowhere near what Democrats would want.
 
Considering that most Democrats are embracing socialism, even if they don’t necessarily call themselves that, these numbers are not a good thing for the Left.
 
Now, again, the sample size is small, but if socialism were as popular as the Left and the news media want to pretend it is, you’d think the gap between those who approve of capitalism versus socialism would be considerably smaller at the very least.
 
Moving on, some of the most popular characteristics of a candidate are being African-American, with 87% saying they would be either “enthusiastic” or “comfortable”. I think this makes a lot of sense, particularly if the option of “comfortable” is available. Most people, as it turns out, aren’t racist. So the color of someone’s skin is not really a factor that is all that important to them when it comes to a favored candidate.
 
At least to me, the biggest and most important qualification for a candidate is their conservatism. If a candidate is truly conservative, that candidate will get my vote. Whether they are an African-American like Ben Carson or a Hispanic like Ted Cruz or a woman like Sarah Palin, I would be elated to vote for them.
 
What’s also interesting is that 86% said they would be happy with a white candidate (as it turns out, most people aren’t so racist that they would write off a person simply for being white). Being female was also up there at 84%.
 
Now, the poll also said that 41% would vote for Trump versus 48% that would vote for the Democratic challenger, whomever it may be. However, that’s actually pretty good news for Trump because pretty much all incumbent presidents face a similar challenge. At this time in his presidency, 38% said they would vote to reelect Bill Clinton. 45% said they would vote to reelect Obama, and 46% said they’d reelect Bush.
 
So Trump is within the numbers necessary to be reelected, given that even Bill Clinton managed it somehow.
 
Of course, I’d wager to say that this goes in large part to the fact that most polls have him sitting at around a 45% approval rating and higher, and the fact that 93% of Republicans approve of Trump also helps him out.
 
Now, despite what the poll had to say about socialist candidates and socialism in general, interestingly enough, 55% of Democratic primary voters say they would prefer a non-moderate candidate.
 
To the Democrat Party, there hardly are any moderates, but those who are non-moderates tend to be of the socialist type, even if they don’t call themselves that.
 
Now, I don’t know how many Democrats there were in the poll, but if the majority of them want a non-moderate candidate, despite how astonishingly few people approve of socialism and would want their candidate to be a socialist, that tells me that there a lot of people who either don’t know what socialism is or simply cannot discern it from other ideologies.
 
Which, again, seems weird to me considering how few people actually approve of socialism. You’d think with how much the Democrat Party and the MSM are promoting it, people would be more receptive to it and would not know what socialism is (and one would have to be ignorant of what socialism is and how it works to advocate for it if they themselves aren’t seeking office).
 
I get that we are a society that carelessly throws words around. For some people, those who would disagree with them cannot be anything other than racists, sexist, homophobe bigots or outright Nazis. For some people, the definition and meaning of life is alien. For some people, the definition of truth has been twisted so much that it can now be considered relative rather than absolute. The same could be said of morality.
 
So I can’t say I am surprised to know that many people simply don’t know what socialism is or would not be able to discern it from other ideologies or policies. The Green New Deal to some people is not a socialist ploy to restructure the entire country in the most extreme way the Left has come up as of yet, but a supposed “plan” for “saving” the planet.
 
It’s this deception that has been present in the Democrat Party for ages now. The growing of the government, at any capacity, is the moving of the pendulum towards the left and towards socialism. It is not necessarily always a bad thing, but too much of it definitely is a terrible thing, particularly if the trend doesn’t seem to slow things down.
 
So this deception ultimately breeds ignorance, to the point where people can hardly recognize socialism and contrast it with other things. As a result, people don’t think socialism is all that bad and it’s simply a new way to try things that they believe are an improvement over the status quo (they are not. Good Lord, they most certainly are not).
 
Now, I definitely understand that the poll only talked about “non-moderate” candidates, and that sort of word use can definitely change some things.
 
It’s one thing to ask Democrats if they want a socialist candidate and another thing entirely if they want a “non-moderate” candidate. A non-moderate, in their minds, does not necessarily have to be a socialist, and certainly not someone who would be happy to call themselves one, but in reality, that’s the only actual option (as well as communist, but the two are basically interchangeable given they both stem from Marxism).
 
If I asked you if you wanted some sodium chloride on your food, what would be your answer if you don’t know what that is? If I then were to ask you if you wanted some salt on your food, would that answer have changed?
 
At the end of the day, they are both the same thing, but put into different words. The same can be applied to this poll. A “non-moderate” Democrat candidate is essentially a socialist candidate, whether or not they call themselves one. This is my reasoning behind that whole “people might not know what socialism is” tangent. And it’s not like it’s inconceivable that people didn’t know what it was.
 
Ironically, I saw a tweet from noted Trump-hater and former sports commentator Jemele Hill that read: “My guess is 100 percent of the people who don’t want a socialist have zero idea what socialism actually means.”
 
She’s got that 180° backwards. Those who want socialism (at least those who want it and aren’t planning to run for office like Jemele here) don’t know what it is. Those who want socialism often ignore or reject the FACT that hundreds of millions of people have died THUS FAR because of it, those who experience it live in abject poverty and have next to no freedoms or even human rights, and often flee those countries given the chance.
 
No one flees a capitalist country to move to a socialist one because 1) no capitalist country keeps their people in by force and 2) no one in a capitalist country WANTS to move to a socialist one.
 
Socialist celebrities have all the opportunity in the world to move to a socialist country. Jim Carrey has the money to move to Venezuela should he wish to do so. Bernie Sanders has the money to move to Venezuela and pal around with his good friend Maduro (for however long he’ll be there). These people have all the opportunity and money in the world to make the move, to a place that is supposed to be far better than America in every way possible because socialism is so great, so why don’t they actually do it?
 
Why don’t they put their money where their mouth is?
 
I remember Conan O’Brien going to Haiti around the time the story about Trump’s supposed “s**thole” debacle. He did that to prove to Trump that Haiti isn’t what Trump was supposedly claiming it was. The only thing is that he was there only one week and was staying in a four star hotel.
 
I can go to California, stay in a nice building for a week and say it’s a great State. I could go to North Korea, stay in Kim Jong-un’s palace and say that everything’s great there (I wouldn’t for even a second dare to go to that hell hole, of course, just stating my point). I can go to Hell itself and as long as there’s a nice place with WiFi in it, I would think it’s not such a bad place after all.
 
My point is that such experiences aren’t equivalent to what the people have to go through on a daily basis. O’Brien stayed there A WEEK in a NICE hotel. I’d like to see him live there for an entire year with the same exact living conditions as the vast majority of the population.
 
I’d like to see Jim Carrey go to Venezuela, live there for a year and live how everyone else in Venezuela lives and ask him if socialism is so great, that is, if he has a stomach full enough to give him the energy to reply.
 
No one goes to a socialist country and thinks it’s the greatest place on earth. There are countless stories of people FLEEING socialism to come to America including Donald Trump’s FIRST WIFE.
 
If people really know what socialism is, they know how truly horrible and inhuman it is. Venezuela went from being the wealthiest nation in Latin America to one of the poorest, with some of the worst living conditions imaginable.
 
As far as the poll goes, I am ecstatic to see so many people rejecting socialism in favor of capitalism. If you were to only watch the fake news media, you’d think socialism was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Good to know so many people are actually not that dumb.
 
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.

On January 3rd, 2019, Democrat Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) moved to introduce articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump, accusing Trump of having obstructed justice in the firing of James Comey.
 
Sherman told the LA Times: “There is no reason it shouldn’t be before the Congress. Every day, Donald Trump shows that leaving the White House would be good for the country.”
 
An awful lot about this entire thing is very hilarious in my opinion.
 
First, to rebuke Sherman, is it really good for the country to raise taxes once again on middle-class families and on businesses? Is it good for the country to open our borders and allow for criminal illegal aliens (and they are all criminals based on the fact they are ILLEGAL) to come in and at best be simply leeches for our economy and at worst be rapists and murderers of our people? Is it really good to have our economy return to stagnation and horrible unemployment rates?
 
There’s more that I could talk about, but this is not the main point of the article. I’m just trying to highlight the cost of removing Trump (and Pence) from office.
 
Second, if the firing of James Comey could legitimately be seen as an impeachable offense, Trump would’ve been removed ages ago. RINOs and even Nancy Pelosi have held reservations of impeaching Trump based on this because it seems mostly like politics (which is the point of impeachment, as it’s not a tool for justice, but they have to at least pretend there is some justice being served).
 
Sure, the Democrats control the House now, but this is not likely to fly. Why do I say this? Because Sherman introduced these very same articles of impeachment in 2017 and only got one other Democrat, Rep. Al Green (D-TX), to go along with it before Green introduced his own articles of impeachment regarding the supposed Muslim ban.
 
And it’s not even like the reason those articles were denied was because Democrats didn’t hold the House at the time. That’s largely irrelevant. If they thought either the Muslim ban or the firing of James Comey seemed legitimate enough, they would’ve pushed for it extremely hard, even if they knew it would not pass at the time.
 
In other words, Democrats are not confident on impeaching Trump based on this.
 
But let’s say that they do all push for it. The Democrats hold the majority, so if they all vote in favor of it, articles of impeachment would head to the Senate. But guess who not only has control of that, but has even expanded its hold on it since the election?
 
Even with Mitt Romney in the Senate, I don’t think he’s so much of an idiot as to vote in favor of impeaching Trump based on this. And even if he is, the Democrats would need 14 other Republicans to vote alongside them for a two-thirds majority. If even Democrats aren’t all that confident over these reasons, there’s little doubt enough Republicans would go for it for these reasons as well.
 
The thing about impeaching Trump over firing James Comey is that Trump, as head of the executive branch, can fire and hire whomever he wants in the executive branch. The FBI, though it often works with the Legislative branch, is part of the executive branch and the POTUS chooses whether or not he/she fires the Director for any given reason.
 
As I’ve said in the past, Donald Trump won’t be impeached. Unless the Mueller investigation can actually come up with damning and solid evidence of collusion with Russia (a narrative that has been dying for quite a while now), Trump is not going to be impeached. The Democrats’ best hopes of getting Trump out of office will be by beating him in 2020 with a cast of a pervy lunatic (Biden), a fake Indian (Warren), a drunk driver (Beto O’Rourke), an ill-educated Marxist (Sanders), or the wife of the worst President this country’s ever seen (Michelle Obama). And these are simply the most prominent ones that supposedly even stand some sort of chance.
 
Of course, there’s Kamala Harris and Cory “Not very Smarticus” Booker to be talked about, but they can hardly be considered any more reasonable and of sound-mind than Warren or Biden.
 
But returning to the eager beaver Democrats in the House, all I can do is laugh at their pathetic display of a fighting spirit. Even beyond impeachment, there is honestly not much that Democrats can do even with a majority in the House.
 
Raise taxes? Senate will almost certainly block that. Medicare-for-all? Ditto. Just about anything overly and obviously socialistic? Nope, not happening.
 
The only things that will pass the Legislature are bipartisan things like the First Step Act. Democrats can’t strong-arm anything. Unfortunately, neither can Republicans, but they never intended to do so given they largely didn’t pass much of worth while they controlled both chambers of Congress apart from tax cuts.
 
But aside from that, there is virtually nothing that the Dems can do. Some of the biggest damage they can honestly cause is starting investigation after investigation on Trump, his campaign, and everything they possibly can, and even that is not bound to be fruitful for them.
 
Apart from that, the damage they can cause is the economy to slow down a little, which is not helped by the fact that a useless organization like the Fed plans to continue raising interest rates.
 
And now that Democrats hold the House, I hope and pray that people can see just how bad it is when Democrats are in control of anything and this leads to an absolute Red Wave come 2020, with Trump being soundly reelected, conservatives gaining in the Senate and retaking the House by a great majority.
 
As it stands, it’s still too early to make any sort of predictions, but that’s my sincerest hope. We cannot allow for the socialist Left to retake this country, because that would mark the last time we would likely be able to elect someone like Trump.
 
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."
 
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.

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.

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.