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.

No, I have not joined the dark side, I can assure you. The fact that Hillary Clinton might run for 2020 makes me happy not because I admire her or some literally insane nonsense like that. I don’t want her to win the White House, knowing full-well she would be terrible for the country. However, I will explain why I am happy to hear this momentarily.
 
First of all, while nothing’s exactly official yet in terms of the Hillary campaign, the reason this is even being talked about in the manner that it is is because of a Wall Street Journal article titled “Hillary Will Run Again”.
 
I don’t know about you, but when I first saw that, I honestly thought of the phrase “The South will rise again”. Funny, considering it’s Democrats who fought to keep black people as slaves. I even tweeted that that title sounded like it was Hillary’s “The South will rise again” moment.
 
In any case, let’s dive further into the article. The sub-headline reads: “Reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand, Mrs. Clinton will easily capture the 2020 nomination.”
 
Yet another statement that brings a smile to my face.
 
For further context, this piece was written by Mark Penn, a pollster and senior adviser to both Clintons from 1995-2008, and it was also written by Andrew Stein, who was the Democratic Manhattan borough president and New York City Council president.
 
Here is their lead paragraph: “Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle – back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.”
 
To be 100% honest with you, upon reading the subhead and the lead, I honestly thought the writers were trying to roast (make fun of) Hillary to some extent.
 
Let’s go over a few things from the subhead and lead. First, they mention she is “reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand…”, they mention this is Hillary Clinton “4.0” and that she is coming full circle, back to “the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994”.
 
I’m sorry, I must’ve missed something important, because that’s exactly the same Hillary Clinton I voted against in 2016, will vote against in 2020 should she miraculously “win” the nomination again and the same Hillary Clinton I have seen for quite some time. How do you reinvent yourself into a lunatic liberal when that’s already what you are?
 
The other thing that made me think these two were roasting Hillary was when they mentioned: “She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way…”
 
Maybe I took it to mean something else, but that sounded a tad bit condescending, don’t you think? Not condescending to Obama and Trump, but to Hillary. It’s like saying “this boxer won’t let a little thing like getting his butt kicked for 11 rounds stop him from winning in the 12th”. It might sound like they’re trying to uplift Hillary, but it also comes off as giving a back-handed compliment. Like saying “she messed up majorly and screwed herself to a post twice before, but now, she’s ready to hopefully avoid screwing herself again.”
 
The article then says: “Hillary Clinton 2.0 was a moderate, building on the success of her communitarian ‘It Takes a Village’ appeals and pledging to bring home the bacon for New York. She emphasized her religious background, voiced strong support for Israel, voted for the Iraq war, and took a hard line against Iran.”
 
“As Hillary 3.0 catered to the coastal elites who had eluded her in 2008, Mr. Trump stole many of the white working-class voters who might have been amenable to the previous version. Finally she had the full support of the New York Times and the other groups that had shunned her for Mr. Obama – but only at the cost of an unforeseen collapse in support in the Midwest.”
 
Okay, I have a few things to say. First, I shall repeat an earlier question: how do you reinvent yourself into a lunatic liberal when that’s already what you were? The fact that they use “2.0” and “3.0” and now “4.0” indicates they believe Hillary is somehow different today than she was as a New York Senator, Secretary of State, or DNC candidate.
 
Second, I thought it was Trump colluding with Russia that cost Hillary the election. How would Trump “stealing” white working-class voters be a factor whatsoever if Trump and Putin were colluding behind closed doors, offering each other gay sexual acts (and that’s something the Left has been saying, ignoring their hypocritical homophobia) and ultimately stole the election from Hillary. We even have an investigation into the matter, don’t we? If that’s not what happened and it was the fact that Trump “stole” the white working-class and others who were legitimately left in the dust by a Democrat Party that is trying to become the Democratic Party of Mexico, then why do we have an investigation into something that didn’t happen and something that even they don’t actually believe happened?
 
(All of that was sarcasm, in case you couldn’t tell. I know precisely why this hoax of an investigation that some on the Left don’t even really believe is still ongoing.)
 
Finally, Trump didn’t “steal” the white working-class. The white working-class was altogether abandoned by the Democrat Party. Though they may have been the party of unions at one time, that’s not something they even care to keep anymore. They hope to ride on minorities’ backs to win them elections (yet another slavery reference?). And if they don’t win them, they can blame the white working-class and white women for their losses, which is the equivalent of touching a hot stove and being surprised that it burned them.
 
Turns out that abandoning an entire class of voters doesn’t exactly encourage those voters to vote for you.
 
In any case, the WSJ article is not done. They still offer hilarity and back-handed comments:
 
“[Hillary] will not allow this humiliating loss at the hands of an amateur to end the story of her career. You can expect her to run for president once again. Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing.”
 
“Mrs. Clinton has a 75% approval rating among Democrats, an unfinished mission to be the first female president, and a personal grievance against Mr. Trump, whose supporters pilloried her with chants of ‘Lock her up!’ This must be avenged.”
 
“Expect Hillary 4.0 to come out swinging. She has decisively to win those Iowa caucus-goers who have never warmed up to her. They will see her now as strong, partisan, left-leaning and all-Democrat – the one with the guts, experience and steely-eyed determination to defeat Mr. Trump. She has had two years to go over what she did wrong and how to take him on again.”
 
That is an awful lot and I don’t think I can go over absolutely everything. This article is plenty long as is and I have yet to even state why this whole thing makes me happy.
 
So allow me to do just that. The reason I am happy Hillary is running again is because after her defeat, she has only gotten worse in my eyes, and likely in many people’s. After the election, she went on a long trip of mental breakdowns and even wrote a book titled “What Happened” to try and reason why she lost. Now, I didn’t read that book, but I take it it mentioned Putin, Russia, racism, sexism, bigotry, and all the excuses she could possibly get out of her hot sauce bag.
 
And this is ignoring the fact that there have been revelations that it was HER campaign that tried to steal the election and still managed to lose somehow. HER campaign hired foreign agents to write a fake dossier about Trump. HER campaign was the one that was helped by the Obama DOJ, FBI and FISA court.
 
She tried to steal an American presidential election. And this is ADDING to her rap sheet of crimes connected to the Clinton Foundation including selling 20% of our Uranium supply to, well, what do you know? VLADIMIR PUTIN! And let’s not forget that she also STOLE the Democrat nomination away from Bernie back in 2016 as well. Now, I’m personally glad she did that, considering the disaster that a possible Bernie Sanders presidency would’ve wrought (I still think Trump would’ve won, but just barely, kind of like in 2000). However, one cannot deny the dishonesty and overall wrongful act that was committed by the DNC to crown Hillary with the nomination.
 
If she runs again, and if she becomes the nominee again as these two writers say she will, then she will be utterly crushed even worse than last time.
 
What Trump didn’t have in 2016 was experience in the field and a record of successful policy, which is natural given he was an outsider at the time. Now that he’s had 2, and by the time 2020 comes around, 4 years of experience, he has only improved his chances of winning in 2020 to the point even Michael Moore legitimately believes he will be reelected if facing against anyone but Michelle Obama (and I think he could even beat her).
 
So I sincerely hope she wins and she becomes the nominee once again.
 
Now, regarding the last few paragraphs that I just shared with you, some of it returns to my earlier question of reinventing yourself into something you already were. They mention she is now left-leaning, partisan and all-Democrat as though she wasn’t in the past. Don’t make me laugh.
 
And one last thing. She didn’t get beat by an amateur. She got beat by TWO amateurs. Here, they were only thinking about Trump, who never held public office and was most definitely an amateur at the time. But we can’t forget that she lost in 2007 against an amateur who was US Senator for only TWO years, after serving in the Illinois State Legislature and was a “community organizer” before that.
 
But in any case, I look forward to the 2020 campaign on the Democrat side. Even if Hillary loses, her running will create some form of divide. If even Nancy Pelosi’s speakership is in peril because of young socialists like Ocasio-Cortez, then Hillary likely doesn’t stand a chance. Ironically, the writers also mention towards the end that Hillary would “trounce” all other candidates, including Joe Biden, but I really doubt the Democrats want to allow Hillary anywhere near their nomination once again… if they’re smart, that is.
 
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. While Democrats like Hillary might promise everything for free, you can rest assured that this does not have hidden fees or taxes to be paid at a later date. If I say it’s free, that means it’s free. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The November 6th elections have come and gone, with some very interesting changes and developments occurring throughout the night. Obviously, the biggest story of the night was the fact that Democrats have successfully reclaimed the House of Representatives by taking 26 or so seats, more than enough to give them a majority, slim as it may be.
 
And as it stands, the White House, obviously, is Republican, the Senate is Republican and now the House is Democrat. I have an awful lot of things to say about this, but I will do my best to keep it as short and concise as possible, while at least touching on the many things I want to discuss.
 
The first, and most important thing I want to mention is that, as predicted, there was no blue wave. Not even close to that. Yes, Democrats retook the House, which is unfortunate and will only serve to further divide this nation and hurt people in the individual districts, but no one can say that this is a blue wave. Furthermore, Republicans actually did a lot better than you might think.
 
The House is lost, and that is unfortunate, but one thing that needs to be mentioned is the great number of pickups we got in the Senate. Before the election, Democrats held 49 seats. Now, they only hold 44. Senators Heidi Heitkamp, Bill Nelson, Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Donnelly, Claire McCaskill and others all have been unseated. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) managed to get re-elected, but I find it rather ironic that he is the only Democrat that voted in favor of approving Brett Kavanaugh. The other Democrats who lost on Tuesday all voted against Kavanaugh, so that had some effect, I believe.
 
Not to mention that Ted Cruz managed to beat supposed Democrat superstar Beto O’Rourke in a race that shouldn’t have been anywhere near that close (though I suspect illegal votes are to blame, if the Project Veritas video covering illegal voting in the midterms is anything to go by). And in Florida, Rick Scott beat incumbent Bill Nelson, with another supposed Democrat superstar, Andrew Gillum, losing in another tight race.
 
The unfortunate thing is that Florida passed an amendment that will allow 1.4 million felons to vote, so I don’t have much hope for the state in the future. Of course, I don’t think all 1.4 million felons will vote, but felons tend to vote Democrat because Democrats also have a wanton disrespect for the rule of law and law enforcement. Not to mention that Cruz’s victory being about a 2 point margin is indicative of a blue trend in Texas (again, likely affected by illegal immigrants, but also likely affected by Leftists from California and New York moving there and voting for the policies and people that drove them out of those Leftist states in the first place).
 
Another bit of bad news is that, with Democrats in control of the House, there will definitely not be a wall getting built in the next two years and there definitely won’t be a repeal of Obamacare.
 
However, let’s move on to the better news. Apart from the pickups in the Senate, you also have to look at the fact that Democrats, at best, will simply be a lot of white noise over these next two years, as they have been over the past two years. Yes, they will launch investigation after investigation, and subpoena after subpoena, but what’s that going to amount to? They’ve been trying to prove Russian collusion for the past two years. Another two isn’t going to get them anything.
 
Not to mention that, while they might try to impeach Trump, they are not going to even come close to succeeding. Anything Democrats pass in the House will get stopped in the Senate. And an impeachment against Trump requires two-thirds of the SENATE, as well as approval from the VP, or enough votes to overturn the Vice President’s vote against impeachment.
 
So impeachment of the President would have to be a bipartisan effort, one that I don’t think will happen. Sure, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) might vote in favor of impeachment, but a lot of conservative, not to mention pro-Trump people, won in the Senate as well.
 
At most, the Democrats will be a major nuisance. Nothing will get passed, but not much was getting passed before anyway. Not to mention that Trump still has EO power, something that his predecessor set as a precedent for a tool for passing laws even when faced with an opposing party majority in the legislative branch.
 
And let’s not ignore the fact that Democrats winning in 2018 leaves Trump with a clear target for 2020. Trump has mastered the art of successfully putting the blame where it belongs: the Democrats. With nothing passing and Democrats being a massive force of obstruction, and little more, Trump can thoroughly expose the Democrats as little more than a pest that should not be in control of a doll house, much less of the House.
 
Now, these last two years should have logically led to Democrats suffering big losses in 2018. There was a lot of that in the Senate, but unfortunately, not so much in the House. But there is good news in Democrats taking some of these House seats. As Jake Tapper mentioned during his live coverage of the elections, many Never Trump Republicans were shown the door. Sure, some pro-Trump Republicans also lost, but it shows that going against the popular Republican President is not a solid campaign strategy.
 
Going forward, such losses should send a clear message that it’s best to support Trump and the MAGA agenda, instead of betraying your constituents. You would think that would be a common sense thing, but what can you do?
 
One other thing to mention that I want to at least talk about a little bit is that in Alabama and West Virginia, constitutional amendments were passed that protect the unborn. According to the Daily Wire: “In Alabama, voters approved an amendment to the state’s constitution affirming that the unborn have a right to life… In West Virginia, voters approved an amendment to their state constitution, which could end the practice of taxpayers funding elective abortions.” Not to mention that Alabama also passed an amendment that would allow for the Ten Commandments to be placed in public places. So these things are all great pro-life and pro-religious freedom news to take away from the elections.
 
Now, another thing I want to mention is the fact that, since Democrats won’t be able to pass laws in the Senate, any attempt at getting rid of the GOP tax cuts will be completely futile. We might not be able to pass anything, but neither will they. And these tax cuts are good for quite some time.
 
Yet another thing to mention is that, so far, Trump is doing far better than Obama did, electoral-wise. Let’s not forget that in 2010, Democrats lost 63 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate. THAT was a wave election.
 
So let’s look at some numbers over the years, according to Lawrence McDonald, who quotes data from the NY Times. In 2010, Obama lost 63 seats in the House. In 1994, Clinton lost 52. In 1958, Eisenhower lost 48. In 1974, Ford lost 48. In 1966, LBJ lost 47. In 1946, Truman lost 45. In 2006, Bush lost 30. In 1950, Truman lost 29. In 1982, Reagan lost 26.
 
Wanna know how many Trump lost? The same amount as Reagan, which is a pretty good sign, if you ask me, considering Reagan went on to be re-elected in the biggest landslide in U.S. political history.
 
Now, is this situation ideal? Definitely not. If I could have things my way, every Republican in every race, Senate, House, local, etc. would’ve won. But all things considered, we also stand to gain an awful lot in 2020, and I have no doubt Trump will be re-elected, with Republican control of Congress once again.
 
The last thing I want to mention, that ultimately has the biggest hand in putting a smile on my face after the elections, is that regardless of who controls the House, who controls the Senate, who controls the White House, it is Jesus Christ that is our ultimate Representative, Senator, and President. No matter who gains control of anything anywhere, Jesus is King. God is in control.
 
It’s no surprise to Him that Democrats retook the House. And He wouldn’t have allowed it if it weren’t part of His grander plan for us.
 
The good thing about losing sometimes is that losses can make you humble. After 2016, we were grateful to the Lord for the massive win. After 2018, we are still grateful to Him, and we come to Him in supplication and prayer, that He might heal our nation and that we might continue seeking His blessings.
 
I trust the Lord, and if He decides Democrats retake the House, then who in the world am I to argue? I merely implore to Him that this will be the definitively last time Democrats ever win anything again.
 
Psalm 33:10-12
“The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom He has chosen as His heritage!”
 
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. And while the Democrats promised free everything, this newsletter is actually free. So check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In my last article, I briefly mentioned how even Oprah Winfrey running for President wouldn’t save the Democrat Party and the Left from the disaster that they currently are. Here, I want to further talk about this topic and point out many reasons why Oprah Winfrey would not beat Donald Trump and win the 2020 Presidential election should she choose to run.
 
First, I want to bring up the only point I made about this topic from the last article: she’s a Leftist who would bring back Obama policies.
 
Having endorsed then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008, it’s not crazy to think she would attempt to bring back Obama-type policies. Policies which had torn down America as much as possible for 8 years. Policies that were partly responsible for the rise and election of Donald Trump. Policies that put us in the mess we were in for nearly a decade and we’re still trying to get out of. And with Trump, we’re doing a pretty decent job so far of getting out of the mess Obama put us in.
 
Aside from policies, the Daily Wire gives us a countdown of five “fails” Oprah has made in her career (which translate into reasons she shouldn’t be elected).
 
According to the Daily Wire, number 5 is her Golden Globes Award Speech.
 
“Hollywood and the mainstream media promoted Oprah as ‘brave’ following her speech at the 75th Golden Globes Awards, but, as Shapiro pointed out (in an interview with Fox News), ‘What the hell kind of risk was she taking?’”, saying that “She was standing in front of an entire town filled with sexual abusers and harassers. She said nothing about it for 20 years; she was being cheered by people who said nothing about it for 20 years, and there she is pretending that she’s leading the fight.”
 
He continued: “Well, I was under the impression that most of us agreed with that stuff when this stuff first broke and she lauded the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Where were they reporting on the sexual harassment and abuse scandal for the last 20 years?... Where was the Hollywood Press Association that was receiving such plaudits at the hands of Oprah Winfrey, again, a woman who was good friends with Harvey Weinstein, being cheered by Meryl Streep, a woman who gave a standing ovation to Roman Polanski?”
 
I would add on to that Streep comment by mentioning that she once referred to Weinstein as “God”. More importantly, TheGuardian.com reports that Polanski won’t face criminal charges for the allegations made in 1975 when he molested a 10-year-old girl. The reason? You honestly won’t believe it.
 
Because the allegations are too old.
 
Remind me again how old the allegations made against Roy Moore are? And yet that battle is still going on.
 
Regardless, we continue.
 
According to the Daily Wire, number 4 is that “Oprah suggests Americans are racist – even if they do not have ill will toward black people.”
 
“In a 2013 interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Oprah Winfrey and Forest Whitaker, stars in ‘The Butler,’ strongly hinted that Americans were racist – even if they did not have any ‘ill will’ toward the black community.”
 
Winfrey said that “People don’t feel it’s race because people don’t call it race… A lot of people think if they think they’re not using the n-word themselves… and do not harbor ill will towards black people that it’s not racist. But to me, it’s ridiculous to look at that case and not to think that race was involved.”
 
So we’re racist even if we harbor no ill will against the black community? By the same token, isn’t assuming something like that inherently racist in itself? If you assume everyone else who is not black is racist, isn’t that racist itself? The funny thing is that, with everything the Left says about white people, if they replaced the word “white” with the word “black”, I can just imagine the shock they would get to find that what they’re saying is racist.
 
Racism is a two-way street. A black person can be racist against white people (case in point, the apparent Democrat front-runner) as much as a white person can be racist against black people. Neither is right. Neither should be accepted.
 
Alas, we move on.
 
The Daily Wire then says number 3 is: “Oprah gives platform to an Islamic scholar who says Islamic jihad is only a spiritual battle – not a ‘Holy War’.”
 
“Varun Soni, the dean of Religious Life at the University of Southern California, appeared on Winfrey’s ‘Belief’ series where she explained that all of the horrifying acts of violence committed in the name of Islam were all just great big misunderstandings of a core Islamic belief.”
 
“One of the most misunderstood concepts of Islam is ‘jihad’, which many people interpret as a ‘holy war’”, Soni said. “But there is nothing holy about war. What ‘jihad’ actually represents is an internal struggle, the battle that is raging in our own heart. And all of our religious traditions talk about that internal struggle. In that respect, jihad is not just a Muslim idea but it’s a reality of the human condition.”
 
Thankfully, the Daily Wire is quick to call out the b.s. “In the Quran, Mohammad speaks of jihad, or holy war, repeatedly. Though the concept of ‘greater jihad’ (internal spiritual battle against sin) has been a part of Islamic teaching since at least the 11th century, the word jihad is most often used in canonical writings to refer to armed conflict.”
 
What’s interesting is that the Quran also teaches its followers that it’s ok to deceive non-believers if it benefits Islam. They can even lie about rejecting Allah as long as they are not sincere about the rejection. They can deceive people that way if it means saving their lives (which in turn helps further the growth if Islam).
 
So it’s not surprising to see this Muslim “scholar” lying to Oprah and her viewers about what “jihad” means. If it were strictly an internal struggle, Muslims wouldn’t be killing people and calling it jihad!
 
Regardless, we move on.
 
According to the Daily Wire, number 2 is “Oprah makes ‘absolutely not true’ racism allegations against a store clerk in Europe.”
 
“Winfrey, the most powerful woman in the world, accused a clerk at a small store in Europe of being racist towards her but refused to offer any identifying information of the alleged incident. Eventually, the store and the clerk were discovered and they said Winfrey was a liar.”
 
This really is somewhat of an extension of the 4th “fail”. The one about how all Americans are racist. Although this one is more about a poor European store clerk. I don’t want to spend too much time on this one since it’s very similar to that 4th fail, but it’s worth mentioning that she is not hesitant of accusing people of being racist. Then again, she’s a Leftist, so it’s expected that she’ll accuse people of that.
 
Finally, and perhaps the most crushing to her potential presidential bid: “Oprah says older generations ‘just have to die’ to solve the problem of racism.”
 
While this also deals with the topic of racism, it’s more noteworthy considering the ACTUAL WORDS SHE USED to suggest a way to end racism.
 
“In a 2013 interview with BBC, Winfrey said that entire generations ‘just have to die’ to cure the problem of racism.”
 
The actual quote: “Of course [the problem of racism] is not solved. You know, as long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, problem’s not solved. As long as there are people who still, there’s a whole generation – I say this, you know, I said this, you know, for apartheid South Africa, I said this for my own, you know, community in the south – there are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die.”
 
Man, Oprah Winfrey really doesn’t like old white people. She’s not saying that the concept of racism and practice of it has to die. She’s not saying that the mindset of racism has to die. No, she’s saying that old people who were “born and bred and marinated in it” have to die. Let’s not even give them a chance to change. No, because they were merely BORN into it, they have to die.
 
Funny enough, that’s awfully similar to the Nuremberg Laws established in Nazi Germany. Jewish people had to die (partly) if they could not or would not help the German War Machine. But even the Nazis were interested in at least somewhat keeping their Jewish captives alive, even if it’s at the edge of death. Not to take away anything from the horrors of the Holocaust, but it seems that Oprah would be more than ok with a genocide of old people.
 
Ok, that may be a bit much, but it’s clear she holds no love for old people if she doesn’t even want to give them the chance to change and makes assumptions that all old people are racist. That, in itself, is very hateful and bigoted.
 
To sum up, there’s no way Oprah would or even SHOULD beat Donald Trump in 2020. If the country does spectacularly well with Trump, there’s no reason for anyone to vote against him. There’s especially no reason to vote for someone who is as hypocritical and hateful as Oprah Winfrey is.
 
Ben Shapiro made the point that a presidential run would hurt her image of being a “uniter”. He says that merely getting political would hurt her image, since politics are always polarizing. Well, after reading all of this, it’s pretty clear that she’s not a “uniter” as people call her. She’s a hypocrite for covering for Harvey Weinstein. She’s judgmental of white people even if they harbor no ill will towards black people. She’s allowed a Muslim to spread misinformation about jihad. She’s made accusations against people based on nothing and she’s hateful of people simply for having been born in the era they were.
 
America doesn’t need someone as despicable as Oprah Winfrey in the White House.
 
Romans 16:20
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”
 
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.