Despite the bogus calls of racism surrounding the addition of a citizenship question to the U.S. Census, a very solid majority of Americans support such an addition, including Latinos and African Americans, according to a recent Harvard/Harris poll.
 
The poll shows that 5 in 9 Hispanics, or 55%, support adding a citizenship question to the Census, and nearly 6 in 10 African Americans, or 59%, also say the same.
 
Overall, 67% of American voters support adding the question to the Census, with 72% of white Americans, almost 90% of Republicans, 63% of swing voters and between 64 and 69% of working class Americans making up that overall number.
 
Despite the Supreme Court foolishly voting to kick the can down the road on this issue, President Trump is reportedly looking to add the question to next year’s Census anyway, with the help of Attorney General William Barr. So it is very likely that the President will sign an executive order to add the question to the Census.
 
But of course, this is all bad news for the Left. To them, adding a citizenship question is “racist” and nothing but an effort to “make America white again” even though nothing about adding a question would really affect how “white” America is. The only REAL reason the Left is opposed to the citizenship question is because of districting.
 
U.S. Senate candidate in Kansas, Kris Kobach, explained: “Right now, congressional districts are drawn up simply based on the number of warm bodies in each district. Not only are legal aliens counted, but illegal aliens are counted too. As a result, citizens in a district with lots of illegal aliens have more voting power than citizens in districts with few illegal aliens.”
 
In other words, this completely jeopardizes our American electoral system because districts all of a sudden have more people to count and receive more voting power. Places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Antonio, etc., if they take more and more illegal aliens who people don’t know are illegal aliens, they receive more power, but it is ill-gotten and illegitimate power.
 
How else do you think California is so irretrievably blue? I often say that the biggest mistake President Reagan ever made is sign the amnesty bill late in his administration. While the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal for businesses to knowingly hire illegal immigrants (like that stopped them), it also legalized illegals who came into the country before January 1st, 1982. Even Wikipedia says that “despite the passage of the act, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States rose from 5 million in 1986 to 11.1 in 2013.”
 
Yeah, it’s not “despite” the passage of the act, but precisely BECAUSE of the passage of the act. This signified that even one of the most conservative Presidents would be willing to sign an amnesty bill. And while it may have been “promised” to Reagan that it would be the only bill of its kind, you absolutely cannot trust the Washington establishment. Paul Ryan often promised Trump that they would be building the wall eventually and they never got around to doing that, hoping to God that Democrats would take control of the House (which they did, as we know).
 
Illegals being able to vote in elections means the electoral system is being rigged and affected by foreign influences. Adding a citizenship question makes it clear who is a citizen and who is not and takes away the ill-gotten power that districts with a lot of non-citizens have received.
 
Simply put: only American citizens ought to be represented in this country. Non-citizens don’t have the right to vote in federal elections in this country for good reason. And even though they have the right to vote in local elections in some states, I think they shouldn’t be able to. They aren’t citizens of this country, so they shouldn’t be represented.
 
Now, I know what some people might say: “But Freddie, aren’t you a foreigner yourself? Aren’t you being hypocritical right now?” To which I say: no, as I never held the belief that non-citizens ought to have the right to vote in a country where they were not citizens of. The representatives of the United States ought to represent AMERICANS, not foreigners, legal or illegal.
 
What’s more, only legal immigrants ought to have a path to citizenship. The ones that become citizens, such as myself, have henceforth the inherent right to be represented in government BECAUSE WE ARE CITIZENS! It makes absolutely no sense to me that any state would allow for non-citizens to be part of the group represented by the government.
 
At the risk of sounding like a right-wing cliché, America is for Americans. That doesn’t mean foreigners aren’t allowed. That doesn’t mean America is strictly for white people. That means the American government ought to represent Americans and ONLY Americans. Those who are either born here or have taken the steps necessary to become U.S. citizens are considered Americans. Other countries like Mexico explicitly prohibit foreigners from participating in the electoral system. Matter of fact, the Mexican Constitution explicitly states (translated, of course) that “foreigners shall not in any way involve themselves in the political matters of the country.” This means that foreigners don’t have the right to vote, run for office or participate in any political event like rallies or demonstrations.
 
Do you know why that is? Well, for one, Mexico doesn’t want to be turned into another country and has the common sense not to allow for foreign interference in their elections. Yeah, they have a slew of other problems, but at least they aren’t dumb enough to allow for non-citizens to be represented politically in that country.
 
Second, Mexico isn’t filled with people who feel guilty about being white (for obvious reasons) or who feel guilty for things they did but fixed or things they flat out didn’t do. Democrats in America, specifically white Democrats, hate the fact they are white and will apologize whenever they can or feel they should; they feel guilty about slavery, even though it was resolved WELL before anyone currently living in this country was born (and even though it was the Democrats who fought for slavery, something they adamantly deny); feel guilty about segregation, even though it has also been resolved; and feel guilty about “making other countries poorer because of our capitalism” which is such a nonsense statement you might as well have spoken Russian to a chihuahua.
 
Thirdly, the Mexican government doesn’t have to worry too much about b.s.-ing people about what they want to do to gain power. Mexico isn’t exactly a very capitalistic country, part of the reason it’s so crappy. But the Left in this country has to work overtime to b.s. people about their intentions. It’s why they cry “racism” at the addition of a citizenship question. It’s not about racism and they know it. It’s about districting and voting power.
 
By adding a citizenship question, districts with more illegal immigrants lose power, while districts with less gain more through the reduction of the other district’s lost power. In other words, uber-Leftist, open-borders cities like Los Angeles lose power, while rural America gains power as a result.
 
The Left HATES rural America, think we are nothing but gun-toting, God-fearing, racist, dumb, inbred hillbillies who ought to be cut down a size. In reality, we are pro-2nd amendment, yes, and God-fearing Americans, but far from racist, dumb or inbred. Matter of fact, I assure you rural Americans are 10 times smarter than Leftists from Los Angeles, etc.
 
Want to know what makes me think that? Rural Americans aren’t spending all their time dreaming about a socialist “utopia” that is entirely unrealistic. We don’t spend our time hating the color of our own skin or the color of another person’s skin (which is what racism is by definition, but the Left wants to change that definition really badly). We don’t spend our time foolishly believing giving away everything for free is at all a realistic and achievable objective. We don’t spend our time worshipping equally-as-flawed humans who make movies. We don’t spend our time watching the fake news media and parrot everything they say online. We don’t spend our time worrying about an issue that is not caused by us and cannot be solved by us. We don’t spend our time foolishly (at best) thinking that human life inside the womb is akin to Jell-O. We don’t spend our time thinking people can realistically change their genders on a mere whim or think there are an infinite number of possible genders.
 
In the final analysis of American cultures, you will find that the only people who are racist, sexist or in any way moronic are the Left, who constantly harp about people’s skin color, judge people who are white, judge people who are male, judge people who are straight and judge people who disagree with them in any way. It’s those who attack white people for being white that are racist, not those who defend white people. It’s those who attack men for being men that are sexist, not those who defend them. It’s those who believe gender is a social construct and will call that “science” who are truly moronic at best and outright demented at worst.
 
And these are the people who DEMAND we hand over our electoral power for them to do with as they please, legislating things that get closer and closer to resembling the Soviet Union? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The American people should not fall for their idiotic words regarding the citizenship question, and if that poll is any indication, it looks like most are not.
 
Americans ought to be represented in America. If a foreigner wishes to be represented, then they better go to whatever country they hail from because that is where they will be represented. Otherwise, they better hope they are here legally and wait to become American citizens like the rest of the legal immigrants here do, because they should not and likely will not be represented in this country otherwise.
 
And no, to demand American-exclusive representation in America isn’t racist. IT’S COMMON SENSE THAT LITERALLY EVERY OTHER COUNTRY EMPLOYS!
 
And before anyone says that the Bible dictates we allow foreigners and sojourners into our land, take a look at Exodus 12:48-49: “If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
 
Sojourners, foreigners, are supposed to follow our LAWS and will be punished if they do not follow our laws. Our laws dictate that illegal immigrants are, well, ILLEGAL. The Bible doesn’t speak in favor of illegal immigration whatsoever, unlike some fake, Leftist preachers and Christians would have you believe.

We are to treat foreigners fairly, but on the condition they follow THE LAW WE HAVE SET IN PLACE. Should they fail to do so, they ought to be punished accordingly. THAT is equality.
 
Leviticus 18:26
“But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among 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.

Ahead of the 4th of July, Gallup released a poll indicating that the number of people who said they were proud, or “extremely” proud, to be Americans is considerably lower today than in previous polls, with trends showing this sort of thing for the past couple of years.
 
However, it is important to note just who exactly it is that is dragging these numbers down: people who identify as Democrats aka people who hate Trump and would love to see this country turn into a socialist country (though as I have explained in the past, most people don’t actually know what socialism is).
 
Gallup said that while, overall, 70% of U.S. adults said they were proud to be Americans, only 45% said they were “extremely” proud of their country, a rather low number not seen in quite some time and the second time in only two years that that number was below 50%.
 
According to the poll, only 22% of Democrats said they were “extremely” proud of this country and that “subgroups that typically identify as Democrats – women, liberals and younger adults,” also showed lower levels of pride in their country. That 22% is the lowest in Gallup’s polling history for Democrats, who have historically never been quite so proud of this country, regardless of who was President.
 
Even while Obama was President, the lowest number for Republicans was 68%.
 
But again, the Democrats are really the ones who drive down these numbers, because 76% of Republicans and 41% of Independents were “extremely” proud of this country. And this really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise at all.
 
Matter of fact, this is quite some wonderful news, when you think about it. The Democrats, a party that has spent over a decade openly bashing this country and going on “apology tours” to other countries and who wish for nothing more than to see this country be turned on its head, are very much not proud to be Americans. Why? Because Donald Trump is President and is Making America Great Again, a slogan that literally causes Leftists to go nuts every time they hear it because they want precisely the opposite.
 
While Republicans, Independents, and the few sane Democrats that are extremely proud of this country spend their time in joy over what is happening around them, embittered and hateful Leftists spend their time making bogus claim after bogus claim about many aspects of America, be it “running concentration camps” at the southern border, or “Trump’s military parade was literally never done before”, or “white people’s very existence is a threat to brown people” or “Border Patrol is biased against minorities” (even though 51% of CBP agents are Latino), they have just about everything negative to say about this country, from its founding to today.
 
Just look at Nike’s Betsy Ross flag scandal. One socialist, third-rate former quarterback complained to them about a flag (that literally was on the side of the Union when fighting the Confederates) that was supposedly racist because it was made when there was slavery and Nike folded like a wet piece of paper. People like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers are marred because they lived when slavery was allowed, or owned slaves themselves, and created a nation supposedly with the idea that only “white men” would be free.
 
All a massive load of b.s. Slavery was in place in this country WELL before this country’s founding, and it’s not like no other country had slaves. I don’t see people lambasting Egypt or many other African or Middle Eastern countries despite the fact that they have all allowed slavery to exist (and there are still some countries that allow for slavery to exist). England also had slavery, and they didn’t just enslave Africans, but also enslaved Irish people too, sending them to the New World to be sold to English settlers in the West Indies.
 
But the Left completely abhors America because slavery was a thing that happened when it was founded. Despite the fact that we took care of that problem LESS THAN A CENTURY LATER, the fact that it was even a problem at one point in the first place is cause for scorn towards this country.
 
Despite the fact that most of the racial problems that existed in America were A) largely due to Leftists and B) were resolved eventually, the fact that these problems existed and caused people ire is seen as a justifiable enough reason to hate this country and turn to a system that LITERALLY ENSLAVES ITS OWN POPULATION in socialism.
 
Ignorant fools will complain about how minorities and homosexuals are treated in this country while wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt (in case you are unaware, Che Guevara was a massive racist and homophobe who opened Cuba’s first ACTUAL concentration camp and among many considered to be “counter-revolutionaries” were gay people, who were seen as bourgeois).
 
They will decry the Constitution as being rigged against black people and completely ignore the fact that Frederick Douglass, a former slave himself, said of the Constitution: “The Constitution is a glorious liberty document. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? Or is it in the temple? It is neither,” and “Now, take the Constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”
 
The plain truth is that this country is the greatest nation on Earth. It is not perfect, of course (the fact that abortion and homosexual marriage are legal is a testament to that). No country founded and ruled by men can ever be perfect due to our very nature of imperfection. But I dare any Leftist who hates this country, someone like Colin Kaepernick, to live somewhere like Venezuela or Cuba, and not among the bourgeois like he does today, but among the proletariat, among the masses, where he would be treated like any other person and still say that that is better than America at any capacity.
 
People FLEE other nations to COME INTO THIS COUNTRY for a very good reason. Whether that reason be for economic opportunity (like my family did), for religious or another kind of freedom, or to take advantage of the welfare system in place in this country like so many illegals (and, truth be told, a fair amount of legal immigrants) do, they all come into this country because the one they chose to leave behind was utter garbage.
 
If this country were anywhere near as bad as the Left said it was, no amount of George Soros’ money would convince people to form caravans and march into America like an invading army.
 
If this country were anywhere near as bad as the Left said it was, people would be LEAVING this country in droves rather than coming into it.
 
The truth of the matter is that America is the best country in the history of the planet because it was founded with the greatest economic system (capitalism) under the greatest form of government (a Constitutional Republic) and blessed by the almighty Lord. The Left absolutely abhors all three of these things, so it comes as no surprise that so few Democrats are proud, or extremely proud of this country.
 
If the people who view abortion as liberation, homosexuality as a must-have for any society 24/7 to the point children are forced to learn it and forced to love it, view age as “just a number”, view Christian religious freedom as a violation of another person’s rights but view Muslim religious freedom as perfectly acceptable (even if they actually violate another person’s rights), view guns as sentient killing machines, view gun owners and the NRA as terrorists but view Islamic terrorists as “misunderstood”, view fascist protesters who claim to be against fascism and commit violence on a regular basis as “angels”, view this country as not something to be proud of, then Hallelujah because we are doing something right.
 
These people are the incarnation of what Isaiah was talking about in the 20th verse of the 5th chapter, when he talked about those who substitute evil for good and good for evil.
 
If they were to meet God, they would consider Him the devil. So if these people hate this country that much, then Trump is doing something marvelously right.
 
Still, apart from that, there are some things that are positive in the Gallup poll. Gallup put in a question asking people what they were proud of about American society. 91% said they were proud of scientific advancements in this country, 89% said they were proud of the military, 85% said they were proud of American culture and arts, 75% were proud of the economic achievements, 73% proud of achievements in sports and 72% proud of the country’s diversity in race, ethnic background, and religion.
 
So despite how much the Left hates America, even they have to recognize the areas in which we are doing particularly well, even if they disagree about other aspects.
 
Still, this doesn’t take away the fact that they are not very proud at all of this country, even if just for the fact that it elected Donald Trump, whom they view as the embodiment of Hitler (despite how far he actually is from such a Satanic historical figure).
 
Of course, they are certainly entitled to their own opinion. And they are certainly entitled to be wrong. They may wallow in misery over the “bad” things this country is doing. Meanwhile, I will delight in the great things this country has done and continues to do, thanking the Lord for blessing this country and begging for Him to continue to do so.
 
Psalm 33:12
“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. 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.

The NBA, much as I may love the sport and organization, has often times been rather submissive of Leftist ideals, from boycotting North Carolina over their transgender bathroom laws (which have since been foolishly overturned), thus moving their All-Star game away from Charlotte (home of the Charlotte Hornets) and to New Orleans and now, to the potential change in titles for team owners.
 
While the NBA isn’t necessarily pressuring league executives to change the title to something else, according to TMZ, a number of teams are in the process of changing the titles of their team owners from “owner” to something like “CEO” or “Chairman”. Matter of fact, the Philadelphia 76ers and Los Angeles Clippers have both already changed their owners’ title from “owner” to “managing partner” and “chairman” respectively.
 
This comes as a response to some comments made last year by Golden State Warriors star Draymond Green when he went on LeBron James’ HBO sports show, “The Shop”, that he believes the term “owner” was racially insensitive.
 
“You shouldn’t say owner,” Green said on the show. “When you think of a basketball team, nobody thinks of the f**kin’ Golden State Warriors and think of that damn bridge. They think of the players that make that team… you don’t even know what the f*** [the bridge] is called.” He went on to say that the term “owner” implies that the person who owns the team owns the players on that team.
 
“Comedian” Jon Stewart added to Green’s words by saying: “When your product is purely the labor of people, then owner sounds like something that is of a feudal nature.”
 
Back in 2017, Green had made similar comments to reporters, saying: “Very rarely do we take the time to rethink something and say, ‘Maybe that’s not the way.’ Just because someone was taught 100 years ago doesn’t make that the right thing today. And so, when you look at the word ‘owner’, it really dates back to slavery. The word ‘owner’, ‘master’ – it dates back to slavery… we just took the words and we continued to put it to use.”
 
Suffice it to say that Draymond Green is not a smart cookie.
 
First of all, there is no racial connection in this particular context. An NBA team’s owner doesn’t own the players. If anything, the team’s President or General Manager owns the players because he or she gets to make the decision as to what happens to that player, whether it’s trading them away for another player or draft picks, or it’s outright cutting them from the team. And yet, people don’t make any connections here with slave trade from back in the day. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO RACIAL CONNECTION HERE EITHER!
 
But just watch, there will be someone at some point who will try and say trades in the NBA (or any other sport) are tantamount to slave trade. In fact, I remember writing something similar back in August of 2017 about a fantasy football auction aired on ESPN that was howled as racist. Despite the fact that actual NFL owners essentially draft players in a similar manner (although without cardboard cutouts of the players’ faces, but even that is silly to claim is racist), the fantasy football auction was decried as a racist spectacle similar to a slave auction or trade.
 
So it’s not like there isn’t already some precedent of inflating something and making it seem worse than it actually is. A fantasy football auction where “owners” bid on players to add to their team isn’t racist, professional sports teams trading players to improve their team in some way isn’t racist and the title of “owner” has nothing to do with slavery in the context of sports.
 
To address what Green said, he is right in as far as when people think of the Golden State Warriors, they don’t think of the bridge. They think of the players like Green himself, like Kevin Durant, like Stephen Curry, etc. But no one thinks of them as "owned property” either. They think of them as exceptional players that any team would love to build their team around.
 
So when someone thinks of the owner of one of these teams, they think of it in terms of these people owning THE FRANCHISE ITSELF, not the players in question. Especially because the owners typically are not involved in the actual running of the franchise. There are rare cases of owners who also run the front office of the teams, like Michael Jordan, but for the most part, owners attend the games, do things to promote their teams and will converse with the players in the actual team in order to bond and create good chemistry altogether.
 
But the task of making trades, of negotiating deals, of arranging the rosters largely falls upon the President of Basketball Operations for each of the teams. The owners don’t OWN the players. They own the FRANCHISE.
 
Now, not everyone within the NBA actually agrees with Draymond Green here. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban (of whom I am not a fan because he is a NeverTrumper) actually pushed back against the ridiculous idea that NBA ownership could in any way be considered equal to slave ownership: “For him to try to turn it into something it’s not is wrong. He owes the NBA an apology. I think he does, because to try to create some connotation that owning equity in a company that you busted your ass for is equivalent of ownership in terms of people, that’s just wrong… People who read that message and misinterpret it – make it seem like we don’t do everything possible to help our players succeed and don’t care about their families and don’t care about their lives, like hopefully we do for all of our employees – that’s just wrong.”
 
And Cuban is right here. The owners do whatever they can to take good care of the players on their payroll. Old Democrat Southern slave owners could hardly care about their slaves, only in so far as they are fine enough to be able to be traded. It is asinine and borderline dangerous to even suggest that NBA owners could be considered similar at any capacity to slave owners who would beat their slaves and force them into slavery, living in appalling living conditions even for the time.
 
NBA players (as well as sports players in general) are far from being slaves. These people are paid millions of dollars annually. Draymond Green himself is paid $16 million a year to be a career 9 point per game player (granted, he’s not the main scorer of the team by far, but he gets paid an awful lot anyway). He gets paid $16 million a year to be the team’s worst player in their starting lineup (granted, this is the Warriors, who have All-Star-caliber players in their starting five, but he’s arguably the worst of the starting five anyway).
 
So to suggest there is any connection to racism or slavery in the term “owner” is asinine. But it goes to show you the state of America’s racial progress. You don’t find racism everywhere you go. People aren’t dropping racial terms wherever you go and people aren’t being systematically discriminated against for the color of their skin. People have to either LOOK for racism or INVENT racist acts, like former Empire actor Jussie Smollett.
 
No one can credibly say we are in as bad a racial position today as we were in the pre-Civil Rights era. That’s not to say that racism doesn’t still happen, but it’s a rather rare occurrence. And people like Draymond Green, who I dare say is rather privileged, considering his salary, aren’t routinely discriminated against because of his race, so he has to make stuff up and look for racism where there is none.
 
Do you know who actually had been discriminated against in the NBA? Bill Russell, and that was in the 1960s, when the league was still mostly full of white people. He would get berated for being black even by fans of the team he played for (Boston Celtics). But that sort of thing doesn’t happen anymore, so people who are convinced America is racist have to settle for looking for things that aren’t racist.
 
For example, not long ago, a fan was banned from attending Chicago Cubs games (baseball) for doing the “okay” sign. Actually, it wasn’t even the “okay” sign, but a dumb game that kids play where they make the similar gesture so people will look and you could punch them on the shoulder. I used to play that game on occasion when I was younger. But because the gesture is the same as “okay”, which is now considered to be a neo-Nazi symbol (for the stupidest of reasons), he was banned.
 
People have to look for examples of racism now because America is nowhere near as racist as these people would like for it to be. They have to look for things that are offensive and pretend that something is offensive or wrong when the context is far from racial.
 
They do this because of the current victimhood culture that we see. Everyone wants to pretend they’ve been wronged by something or someone, usually by the country itself, and wish for social justice to occur. Celebrities like Draymond or LeBron perpetuate this stuff so that they appear to be “cool” or “woke” for their fanbases.
 
It’s all bullcrap. Draymond has never experienced racial discrimination to the level of someone like even Bill Russell, let alone people who grew up and lived before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and even a little after, since the culture still needed to change). Draymond is not the victim of racial discrimination, neither is LeBron.
 
America is not the racist hole these people pretend it is. An NBA team owner doesn’t own the players, he owns the team – the franchise. To allude to that being in any way racist or different from what it is to be totally ignorant of reality, or to outright deny it.
 
1 Thessalonians 3:12
“Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.”
 
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.

For some time, I’ve been one to point out the dangers of globalism essentially being a more Trotsky-like version of communism, where the point is not to attach oneself to an individual nation-state (like Stalin did), but rather, to allow for the whole world to be inundated in communism under global leaders.
 
However, in recent time, we’ve seen a noticeable shift on the global scale regarding this. For example, look at the most recent E.U. elections, where despite the fact pro-EU parties reportedly maintained two-thirds of parliament seats, nationalist and other “euroskeptic” parties solidified their strength and made gains, indicating future challenges to the E.U.
 
In Italy, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini’s party, Lega Nord Party, won 28 seats, with Salvini himself celebrating this victory by saying: “A new Europe is born… As far as I’m concerned, if the League wins nothing changes in Italy, everything will change in Europe, starting from tomorrow.”
 
In the U.K., Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party (which was only 6 weeks old at the time of the election) had a nice victory, “securing a majority with 31.7% and 29 seats,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
In an interview with Good Morning Britain, Farage said that if the U.K. doesn’t leave the EU by October 31st, the Brexit Party would “go on to a general election and stun everybody there too.” He repeated his warning on Twitter by tweeting: “Never before in British politics has a party just 6 weeks old won a national election. If Britain does not leave the EU on October 31, these results will be repeated at a general election. History has been made. This is just the beginning.”
 
In France, Marine le Pen’s party slightly outperformed Macron’s party, winning 22 seats to Macron’s 21.
 
In Germany, Angela Merkel’s party had to hold “crisis talks” following the results of the election, where they were given their worst score in European election history thanks to the environmental party, the Greens.
 
Voter turnout also rose from the 2014 elections from 43% to 51%.
 
And this is just in Europe. Let’s not forget that just weeks before, Australia’s conservative Prime Minister Scott Morrison won a “surprise” re-election after national polls predicted he would lose (where have we heard that one before?). In Brazil some months ago, the Donald Trump of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, also won his election.
 
And of course, we can’t forget about the big one that has likely propelled, if not led, this sort of nationalist movement to occur throughout the world: Donald Trump being elected President of the United States in 2016.
 
There is a global nationalist movement occurring and it’s posing a massive challenge to the globalists.
 
Now, allow me to explain just why I say this is a new Cold War. As you know, the Cold War was a war of words and policy between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was capitalism vs. communism, with the two leading world super powers at each other’s throat under the threat of nuclear annihilation if either nation blinked.
 
While I wouldn’t say we are under quite such a threat here, the concept of a Cold War is simply in the fact that there is conflict between two (or more) entities where one could escalate things and get them hot, but the preference would be to fight each other through other means, because one party heating up the war would lead to certain mutually-assured destruction.
 
This new Cold War I am talking about isn’t between two countries. It’s not between America and Russia, or America and China, or America and North Korea, or America and Iran (man, there are a lot of countries that want us gone). Matter of fact, this hold America on both sides of the Cold War… as well as every other country in the world.
 
This Cold War is between Globalism and Nationalism, as I mentioned in the title. No, there is no underlying threat of total nuclear devastation, but it is still a struggle between two entities fighting for control of the populace.
 
You can call this battle between Globalism and Nationalism as more of a battle between communist-like elites who believe they know better than everyone else and believe should be in charge of how other people live, and the rest of us who wish to maintain our freedoms and autonomy at the national level.
 
Globalists, as the name suggests and as I have explained before, do not attach themselves to any one nation. They see nations as a way to divide people and would wish nothing more than to do away with them, forcing people to live how they want them to live, cultural differences, religious differences and overall differences that cannot be forcibly eliminated be damned. They want as much control and power as possible and nations limit them in their power.
 
So, entities like the European Union exist, where policy is made for the countries by people who do not live there. Don’t want migrants to be shipped to your country en masse? Too bad, you don’t get to make that decision. You want to leave the Union? Well, your leaders don’t and we don’t, so tough.
 
So the battle isn’t between two countries, but between two types of people: the stuck-up elites and the rest of us.
 
Donald Trump’s campaign (and subsequent administration) was/is about Making America Great Again, putting America First and overall prioritizing American interests. That was strictly a nationalist message, a message that sent globalists everywhere (and I do mean everywhere considering British agents tried to undermine a U.S. election) into a frenzy, feeling the direct challenge to their power.
 
Despite their best efforts, the U.S., even under 8 years of Obama, was still the most powerful and influential country in the world and such a radical change in Presidents – from one who would bend over backwards for their amusement to one who would take charge – would heavily disrupt their status quo.
 
So the globalists in America – the American Left – launched effort after effort to destroy Trump and get him impeached, failing time after time. Globalists everywhere else deeply hated Trump. Rush Limbaugh largely chucks this deep hatred for Trump as him simply being so different from them in his mannerisms, his style and in the ideological differences between them. It goes farther than that. Trump presents a direct challenge to the globalists.
 
“America First” and “MAGA” are attacked precisely because they do as advertised: put America first and make it great again. Making America great again means making it powerful again. Making it powerful again means making it more independent again; more free again.
 
However, this has led (perhaps unexpectedly for some, but perhaps not so for others) to other countries’ people wanting their own governments to prioritize them. Such is the case for Brazil, Australia, and even the people of Great Britain during Brexit (which, yes, happened before the 2016 election, but that only tells you of how grand the desire for liberty against globalism is, and that is the reason I said Trump’s election likely propelled, if not necessarily led, the nationalist movement).

Throughout the world, and with more and more mounting evidence, we are seeing globalism being pushed back and nationalism taking hold. The EU elections were simply the most recent massive win and a great indicator of this.
 
This is a struggle between those who wish to be able to rule themselves (or at least their countries to be able to rule themselves and prioritize the citizens of the countries and not of another’s) and those who wish to be able to rule all people.
 
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the communists didn’t simply disappear. They regathered and planned for their rise once again. They invaded other countries not with guns but with papers and spread their communist ideals. And in time, communism took on a new name: globalism. Same basic concepts, same ideas, same end, but different means to those ends.
 
And now, they are facing a new challenge. In essence, they view Trump as this generation’s Reagan. And there exists the possibility of people like Bolsonaro, or le Pen, or Farage as being this generation’s Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. It was those three who largely helped destroy the Soviet Union. Today’s nationalist leaders could and likely will challenge the globalists.
 
At the risk of kind of sounding like AOC, I would have to say that this is our generation’s Cold War. A war not of guns and blood, but of ideology and words. Thankfully, there is no threat of nuclear annihilation (apart from some chicken nugget countries that like to puff up their chests and pretend they are big boys *ahem* North Korea *ahem* Iran *ahem*), but the struggle still exists.
 
It’s the elites vs. the rest of us and we are fighting back.
 
Galatians 5:1
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
 
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 a recent House Oversight Committee, socialist lunatic and less-popular-than-Trump-in-her-own-state Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel if inaction or even delayed action on climate change could cost American lives, which both said “yes” to, which AOC agreed with.
 
Ignoring the fact that this is basically like asking your mom if you really are a “handsome boy” (of course she's going to say you are. SHE'S YOUR MOM), what all of these people are saying is flatly untrue.
 
In my previous article about climate change, specifically man-made climate change, I talked about how our CO2 emissions are completely unnoticeable in our climate and taking everyone out of the planet would not make any difference whatsoever in how warm or cold the planet would get for a variety of reasons, chief among which is that God is the one in control of the planet, not us.
 
So from that alone, we can see the falsehoods of AOC’s, John Kerry’s and Chuck Hagel’s statement and assumptions. There is no such thing as man-made climate change. We have no control over it, so no resolution will do anything to “remedy” the false problem.
 
And certainly, not acting on it or “delaying” action on it is not going to cost lives whatsoever. Climate change has not killed anyone ever. People can die from being too cold or too hot, no doubt, but the long-term change of the climate is not responsible for any deaths. It’d be like claiming that water slowly kills people because we all drink it and eventually die. People certainly do die, eventually, but water or the changing climate is not the culprit (unless someone drowns, of course).
 
However, I know of something that will 100% cause American deaths if applied: the Green New Deal.
 
While I’ve already talked extensively about it, I felt it necessary to mention this considering AOC’s chosen words of climate change inaction or delay-of-action would cost American lives.
 
We already are fairly familiar with the concept that the GND would cost nearly $100 TRILLION on American taxpayers, but one little article from RealClear Politics and one table in that article really helps put that massive number into perspective.
 
The article I am talking about is titled: “Why the Green New Deal is Financially Lethal”. Now, that is as obvious a statement to make as if one where to write an article saying: “Why Michael Jordan is a Basketball Legend.” Of course MJ is a basketball legend and of course the Green New Deal is financially lethal. The only difference here is that there are really stupid people out there (namely children who choose to skip school to yell at old ladies that they need to implement the GND) who think the GND is the greatest thing since sliced bread and will bring nothing but good things like a saved planet, unicorns, free money for everyone and not ever having to worry about anything ever.
 
So the writer of the article mentions in great detail just why the GND would be so disastrous for Americans.
 
The article says that “the top 50% of all earners account for about $8 trillion - $9 trillion in Americans’ income and produce somewhere between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in tax receipts (excluding Social Security and Medicare taxes). The top 10% account for only half of this income but 70% of the taxes. The lower half contribute a mere 2.7% of income taxes.”
 
In other words, not even the richest of the rich have the money to pay for even 10% of the estimated cost of the Green New Deal, even if you were to literally take all of their money. Which, of course, means that everyone else will be forced to contribute, so the GND is not only a “tax on the rich”. It’s a tax on everyone, which means those already at the bottom will suffer the most.
 
The article also shows a table that I will detail to you. The table is split into three categories: the “goal” or the planned portion of the GND, the estimated cost of that plan and the estimated cost per household, all for the first ten years of the GND were it to be applied starting in 2020.
 
The table reads as follows:
 
Goal: Low-Carbon Electricity Grid; Estimated cost: $5.4 trillion; Estimated cost per household: $39,000.
 
In other words, each household will be forced to pay an extra $39,000. Now, I don’t think this is per year, but a total cost, but keep in mind that that’s just for ONE aspect of the Green New Deal. Let’s keep going, shall we?
 
Goal: Net Zero Emissions Transport System; Estimated cost: $1.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion; estimated cost per household: $9,000 to $20,000.
 
Goal: Guaranteed Jobs; Estimated cost: $6.8 trillion to $44.6 trillion; cost per household: $49,000 to $322,000.
 
Goal: Universal Health Care; Estimated cost: $36 trillion; cost per household: $260,000.
 
Goal: Guaranteed Green Housing; Estimated cost: $1.6 trillion to $4.2 trillion; cost per household: $4,000 to $12,000.
 
Goal: Food Security; Estimated cost: $1.5 billion; cost per household: $10.
 
I also want you to keep in mind that this table is just for the first roughly 10 years of the Green New Deal (and this table also doesn’t include things like eliminating air travel and implementing a train system in its place, etc.). All of these costs are for the first 10 years of the resolution. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I can make at least $361,000 every ten years (and that’s using the low estimate costs) to pay in taxes AND STILL PAY THINGS LIKE RENT, WATER, FOOD AND TAXES OUTSIDE OF THIS PROPOSAL!
 
The average family income per year in the U.S. is around $56,000. Times ten, that’s $560,000, but that’s before tax. Those who make that much money per year are charged a 12% tax rate UNDER TRUMP’S TAX RATE WHICH THE LEFT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY JACK UP!
 
And that’s just income tax. With only that, people making the average for a household will be left with only $50,000 after income tax alone (roughly). So there is even less money to take from the pool to pay for any one of these items included in the Green New Deal, let alone all of it. My point here is that people simply can’t possibly afford paying the taxes from the Green New Deal AND afford to live even remotely comfortably.
 
And like I’ve said multiple times: socialism doesn’t create wealth, it destroys it. Those at the top are made poorer under socialism (unless they are in the government) and those who already were poor are made poorer still. Just look at Venezuela. They used to be one of, if not the richest nation in Latin America, but after years of socialism, the government is rationing ELECTRICITY!
 
And by the way, don’t think that just because we are not them that we can’t end up like them. Universal healthcare, which is supposed to be free, is notorious for having to ration its supplies. In Great Britain, for example, the elderly are forced to go blind because of rationing in their healthcare system. They can’t get surgeries to correct or even save their eyesight, so they go blind.
 
And in Venezuela, hospitals barely have the supplies to treat their patients, so you bet there’s a lot of rationing going around.
 
So those who really need healthcare, those at the bottom, are made to suffer the most. They are the most likely to get sick and/or hurt and are the most likely to need healthcare that is now made to serve the “greater good”, resulting in rationing and a lower standard of healthcare.
 
Proposals like the Green New Deal are truly what would bring about American deaths.
 
“But it’s supposed to help the environment,” I hear you say. Yeah, well, a whole lot of good that’s gonna do if we are the only ones stupid enough to do this. The GND, even if it could actually do what is advertised of it: save the planet, is still only an American proposal. The biggest carbon gas emitters in the world are India and China and you don’t see them give a single flying you-know-what about the environment. They are not going to implement something as stupid as the GND BECAUSE THEY DON’T NEED TO! India is already socialist enough. China is literally communist. They already have all the power they could want (of course, people always want more, but still).
 
The REAL point of the Green New Deal is to force America to make a hard turn towards socialism, where the government regulates everything (and I do mean everything, if California has considered text taxes and “drinking water” taxes). The REAL point of the GND is to fundamentally change America into an unrecognizable socialist monster, something it was never meant to be.
 
The REAL point of the GND is to give people like AOC as much control over you as they can get. As a result, not only are the people left without any freedom whatsoever, but they are left to never experience the benefits that were promised.
 
People are promised that the GND would “solve” climate change. It can’t for the reasons I stated in the beginning. People are promised that the GND would provide people with healthcare. Yeah, Venezuelan-style healthcare. People are promised that the GND would provide guaranteed jobs for everyone. It would literally terminate the vast majority of jobs today.
 
And it’s the same song and dance as it’s ever been. Lenin promised the people of Russia power. He gave himself all the power. All dictators promise people the world if they help them get into power. It always ends the same way: with the dictators living with all the power and the people left to be their worthless subjects.
 
Like the devil, the Left promises people the whole world, but it’s always one massive lie. Satan promised Eve she would be like God, knowing good and evil. But that came at the cost of her and Adam being kicked out of literal paradise. The Left promises safety from a fictitious man-made change in climate, but at the cost of individual freedom.
 
Adam and Eve did not even become like God by eating of the forbidden fruit. The first thing they did upon eating the fruit is acknowledge their nakedness – not their sin against God, but their shameful nakedness. What knowledge of good and evil did they receive, then? Certainly not one akin to God’s.
 
Likewise, the American people would not receive the advertised benefits of this proposal. All they would receive is being kicked out of capitalist paradise.
 
These are promises that are meant to ensnare people, but will never actually come to fruition. Only Satan benefited from tricking Eve and only the government benefits from socialism.
 
But certainly, both Satan and socialists are eventually punished by God.
 
The Green New Deal, with its high-cost plans, is the only thing that would actually cost Americans their lives. It is financial suicide that could lead to actual suicide for many. One can only hope nothing close to the Green New Deal is ever made into law, for that would mark the official end of the United States of America.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
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.

We’ve likely all seen Jim Acosta’s video of him at the border, pointing out that there doesn’t seem to be a crisis or emergency like Trump is talking about, but failing to realize that he is walking right next to steel slats much like Trump wants to build in much of the Southern Border. That gaffe has been rightly called a self-own.
 
But once in a while, you get a self-own so magnificent, you wonder if the person responsible for it has any idea what he or she has done.
 
While Jim Acosta made a short video about his own opinions on the state of the border, Vanity Fair writer T.A. Frank unwittingly made perhaps one of the best cases I’ve ever seen against Obama and Leftist policies.
 
Now, before you ask: yes, T.A. Frank is, himself, a Democrat.
 
Vanity Fair is one of the most Left-leaning sites out there, and that’s saying a lot. Which is why it’s so surprising to see them write the following piece and publish it on their site.
 
Frank’s article is titled: “Hope vs. Change: Why Some Democrats Are Turning On Obama’s Legacy.”
 
Pretty juicy and interesting title.
 
But it’s what he says next that is even juicier:
 
“Obama was a visionary who gave us the Affordable Care Act, DACA, and the Paris deal, but many of the country’s most ominous trends also proceeded apace under his watch…”
 
That was his subhead.
 
Now, I won’t go over everything in the article. He begins by talking about this difference in Washington between what is considered the establishment, which wishes to maintain the status quo (I would argue somewhat differently, but fine), and the radicals on both the Democrat and Republican parties.
 
Frank says that, while much of Obama’s rhetoric was more on the radical Left of the spectrum, much of his actions were fairly establishmentarian.
 
He argues that when the establishment told Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan, he did just that. When “they told him to keep the records of detainee abuse under Bush concealed,” he “hid them”. When “they said that nationalizing the banks or prosecuting the executives would be too risky”, he “avoided it”. When “they said that our trade agreements enriched the nation”, he “promoted them”. And when they “called him callous when he originally refused to intervene in Libya”, “he toppled its leader”.
 
Basically, Frank argues that Obama was at the beck and call of the Washington Establishment and he would do pretty much whatever they told him to do, even though Frank also argues that Obama was not, himself, an establishment President.
 
Remember the days when the media would not dare attack or challenge Obama in any way whatsoever? They would stick up for him no matter what, so for this guy to be saying these things, even if Obama has not been President for two years, is pretty fascinating and unexpected.
 
Now, the reason Frank argues for saying these sorts of things is that 2020 Democrat candidates have to look at how to tackle Trump, whom he says is a wild card of a candidate. (He also says Trump is failing in countless ways, which I would strongly disagree with, but to each their own).
 
He argues that since Obama was so rooted in establishmentarianism, Dem candidates may want to look at what might be best for them. He says Elizabeth Warren might want people to think she’s a radical and Joe Biden wants people to consider him the establishment choice.
 
As far as Warren goes, I don’t think she has much hope of winning the nomination, if I’m honest. That DNA test result that she stupidly claimed proved her heritage when it did the exact opposite has seriously derailed any chances she may have had at becoming the Dem nominee.
 
Biden, on the other hand, might have the best shot out of anyone to be the Dem candidate, even if he is more of an establishment guy and many other Leftists seek a radical.
 
But here’s the thing: like I said before, Frank makes the best case against Leftism as well.
 
There are two paragraphs I want to point towards, where he makes the best case against Leftist policies, even if he does not outright make any connections between a cause (Leftist policies) and effect (the negative things I am about to share with you).
 
Without further ado, here are the two paragraphs I’m talking about:
 
After talking about the differences between the establishment and the radicals in both parties, he writes: “Where does this leave us (Democrats), and what does it portend for Democrats in 2020? On the one hand, it’s unfair to call Barack Obama an establishment president with all the status-quo overtones of the term. He gave us the Affordable Care Act, the stimulus, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform, an executive action for Dreamers, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, a nuclear deal with Iran, diplomatic relations with Cuba, a climate deal in Paris, a New START treaty, a reform of student-loan programs, and two liberal Supreme Court appointments. On the other hand, many of the country’s most ominous trends proceeded apace under his watch. The financialization of the economy kept increasing (whatever that means). Student debt kept exploding. Trade policy kept its same priorities. Opioid addiction kept spreading. Suicide numbers kept rising. Disparities in life expectancy between rich and poor kept widening. Union membership kept declining. Illegal border-crossers kept coming. Our defense commitments kept growing. In towns like Jasper, Indiana, and Mebane, North Carolina, factory workers – a hundred here, a couple of hundred there – kept losing their middle-class jobs, outcompeted by giant Chinese mills with appalling conditions.”
 
“The concise and indispensable new book The Nationalist Revival, by the left-leaning John B. Judis, contains one especially haunting statistic: 3.4 million jobs lost to the growth of trade with China since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization. For many of these forgotten Americans, Obama’s final State of the Union address lauding a manufacturing surge rang hollow, and so did his vision of making ‘change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people.’ They had already heard, many times, that ‘they may have to retool, they may have to re-train.’ It was Bill Clinton, still a canny reader of the public, at times, who had to observe that ‘millions of people look at that pretty picture of America he painted and they cannot find themselves in it.’”
 
That is an awful lot to go through and I cannot possibly go through everything and still keep this article at standard length.
 
One of the main things I want to point out is that, in the first paragraph, as I have stated previously, Frank unwittingly makes the best case against Leftism.
 
He recognizes all the things that Obama was doing. And he also recognizes many of the ominous things that were happening in pace with the things Obama was doing. But he still somehow does not make the connection between the two of them.
 
What Obama was doing was choking the American economy and allowing for other countries to make deals with us where we would be utterly screwed. The Paris deal, as an example, is not something we needed to be a part of at any point. We were spending a ton more money as part of the deal in “fighting” climate change. However, with Trump pulling us out of the deal, we still manage to meet the expectations and requirements of the Paris deal WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR IT!
 
Another thing I want to point out which is interesting to me is one of the negatives he lists in the first paragraph. “Illegal border-crossers kept coming”.
 
Not only am I surprised that he is using the term “illegal” because those who consider themselves to be “woke” would never use that term, but I am also surprised that he sees that as any sort of problem at all.
 
Given the current rhetoric of many on the Left, the idea of an America with open borders is enticing. And yet, Frank notes that this unlawful act is a negative associated with the Obama administration.
 
You don’t see that very often. And, funny enough, it’s yet another reason I cannot believe the guy is not making a connection between the things Obama was doing and the negative things that came along with those things.
 
Notice how many of the negatives he listed are slowly but surely getting resolved now that Trump is President. Trump, as many on the Left will note, is undoing pretty much everything Obama set out to do and actually managed to do.
 
Trade policy is different now than with Obama. Obama made sure other countries got the better end of the deal while the U.S. paid for it. Trump makes sure the opposite is true: we get the better end of the deal.
 
Illegal border-crossing, while that’s still an ongoing thing and continues to escalate, is something Trump has literally based his entire campaign around. He won on the Wall. Even Chuck Schumer said that people voted for the Wall before he caught himself and rephrased it as “some people” voted for the Wall.
 
Trump won on the issue of addressing and fixing illegal immigration. And while Obama was dubbed the “deporter-in-chief”, he hardly helped secure the border all that much more (even though he used to be in favor of building walls).
 
Wherever there is a wall at the southern border, such as San Diego, there is considerably less illegal border-crossing than wherever there are no walls. Jim Acosta himself showed that, as I mentioned in the beginning, where there is a wall, there is no crisis.
 
It’s funny what happens when you get rid of the cause of some effects. The economic policies Obama enacted killed jobs, while the policies Trump has enacted have created them.
 
This is why I say Frank makes the best case against Leftism. Everything Obama did was Leftist policy. All of it. And what was the result? Jobs gone, people suffering, and America declining. Take away all those Leftist policies and what do you get? Jobs returning, people prospering, and America surging.
 
I have gone as far as to bookmark that article on Chrome to make sure to come back to it and point out that even one of the Left’s own journalists has noted Obama’s supposed accomplishments and the things that came with those accomplishments, even if he does not recognize their cause-and-effect relationship. According to the Logical Law of Causality, every effect must have a cause. Obama's policies were the cause. And indebtedness, joblessness, etc. were the effect. By eliminating Obama's policies (cause), you get the opposite results of more jobs, more prosperity, etc. (effect), which is exactly what President Trump is doing.
 
Thank you, Mr. Frank, for the truly great gift you have bestowed upon us. Here’s hoping that if you’re smart enough to recognize the bad things that came along the things Obama did, you will be smart enough to recognize the cause and effect of Leftist policies.
 
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.

I hardly need a poll to tell me what I know to be true: the fake news media is far more divisive than Trump ever could be. However, that does not mean I do not smile at seeing many people agreeing with me on this issue.
 
Recently, a Morning Consult poll was released, asking 2,435 voters (so a large sample size) if Trump and the media have done more to divide the country than unite it. According to the poll, an overwhelming 64% of registered voters “said the press has done more to divide the country than unite it since Trump took office…”
 
56% said the same about Trump, but we’ll get to that momentarily.
 
The poll also shows percentages according to political party affiliation. According to the poll, 88% of Democrats said Trump was divisive, but a surprising 46% said the press was divisive.
 
With Independents, 67% said the media was divisive, compared to 54% who said that of Trump.
 
With Republicans, 80% said the press was divisive and 25% said Trump was.
 
Many of these numbers are pretty fascinating and good, in my opinion.
 
That 88% of Dems saying Trump is divisive does not surprise me. Frankly, what surprises me is that it’s not in the 90 percentile. However, that 46% of Dems saying the press was divisive is quite incredible and says an awful lot about the lack of credibility the fake news media has with their own target demographic, who should theoretically always support them.
 
It’s not exactly a majority, being less than 50%, but it’s incredibly close. As for Independents, who tend to go one way or the other, depending on the person (Sanders is technically an Independent, though he’s a far-Left Independent), they tend to be people who are dissatisfied with both parties, and given the Left’s recent behavior, I suspect there are more Independents today than even a few years ago, given the recent Walk Away movement.
 
67% of Independents saying the media is divisive is not a good thing for Democrats. And while 54% also say Trump is divisive, that’s still far less than those who point towards the media’s divisiveness.
 
As far as Republicans go, neither number really surprises me too much. I would think more than just 80% of Republicans would say the media is divisive, and I know very well that there are NeverTrump Republicans out there, so that 25% is actually fairly low and also a good sign for Trump.
 
Another Morning Consult/Politico poll back in July found that “28 percent of voters said they had ‘a lot’ of confidence in the presidency – more than twice the 13 percent who said the same of television news and double the 14 percent who said the same of newspapers.”
 
But these numbers generally point out what should really be crystal clear to anyone paying attention: the media is largely responsible for the divisiveness in our country.
 
Now, Trump being President, and being one who pushes back against the Left, naturally will also cause some divisiveness. The only reason Democrats and the media could say today that Bush was less divisive is because he was nowhere near as much of a fighter against the Left as Trump is. Let’s not forget that much of Bush’s early presidency was marred with Democrats being bitter about the Supreme Court deciding the election, thinking it was stolen from them. (ring any bells?)
 
The biggest reason Trump is characterized as divisive is because he actually fights back against the Democrats and the media, who have gotten used to Republicans quaking in their boots and apologizing for breathing.
 
But in this rhetoric of Trump’s divisiveness, and with pretty much every other rhetoric the media throws out there, it is the media that is largely to blame for the division in our country.
 
Who can blame people for thinking this way, when you have Don Lemon calling for people (aka Trump and Republicans) to stop demonizing people and in the same breath he demonizes white people and Republicans? When you have Julia Ioffe saying Trump has radicalized more people than ISIS has? When you have people calling Trump “Hitler” and Trump’s supporters “Nazis”? When you have people defending the vandalism and destruction that Antifa causes, calling them “angels”? When you have people defending acts of violence and/or harassment of Republican members of Congress or Trump’s staff?
 
Who can blame people for believing the media divides people when the media fought tooth and nail to spread lies and slander about a Supreme Court nominee with zero evidence? When the media pins the blame of any shooting anywhere on Trump and Republicans? When the media supports the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia, despite zero evidence ever having turned up? When the media defends one of the most crooked Presidents and presidential nominees we have ever seen in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton respectively?
 
Who can blame people for believing this way when the media calls for others to tone down on the rhetoric, and in the same breath will tone up their OWN rhetoric? When over 90% of the coverage of Trump is negative?
 
And these are all just examples that come to immediate mind. I’m sure there are countless other examples of the media being divisive that I am forgetting. But it’s because of all of these examples, both the ones I listed and the ones I am certainly forgetting, that the people cannot come to trust what the media tells them.
 
Now, earlier, I mentioned that I would get to the 56% of people who said Trump was divisive. Again, he’s the President. The position tends to naturally divide people, at least to some extent. But the arguments made against him that he’s divisive ultimately come down to “he’s not apologizing like every other Republican ever”. Sure, that is never said outright, but that is ultimately the Left’s complaint with Trump. He doesn’t apologize for being who he is, for saying what he says and for doing what he’s doing. And it’s part of this defiance of the status quo of Republicans apologizing for daring to take a breath of air that makes Trump as successful and popular as he is.
 
Of course, that is only part of it, but it is a substantial part. And it’s this success that comes with his attitude that further drives the Left to insanity. Nothing they have tried has worked. No narrative, no rhetoric; no tried and true method of destroying Republicans has even made a dent. If anything, these attacks have had the opposite effect. The attacks were supposed to tear his approval numbers to shreds. He sits at the mid to high-40s, with some having him at 50% approval, which has him higher than Obama was at this point in his own presidency.
 
Granted, much of that is due to the fact that Trump is actually Making America Great Again, but the constant attacks against Trump are what drive his supporters closer to him.
 
I have often said that Trump’s election victory, and his subsequent success post-election, have driven the Left to near insanity, if they aren’t already there. They had a thermonuclear reaction to Trump’s victory, the effects of which we are still seeing and will continue to see for a very long time, most likely. This being the case, who can blame people for trying to distance themselves from what is highly radioactive and toxic?
 
64% of voters said the media is dividing the country. In all honesty, that number should be at 100% or somewhere close to that. Of course, that would be living in a perfect world where people don’t buy into the crap the Left sells and we do not live in such a world. But for this being an imperfect world, I will gladly take 64% of people believing and KNOWING the media is dividing the country.
 
I just hope that one day, that number will be very, very low, and we can have a news-media world that reports the truth rather than distorts it – that reflects narratives and beliefs, not create them.
 
Colossians 2:8
“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes entirely free of charge. Unlike the fake news media that will lie to you about pretty much everything, you can rest assured that it is not a lie when I tell you that this is completely free. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Some time ago, I wrote an article talking about how insanely hypocritical it was for Democrats and Leftists to say that they are “doing the Lord’s work” or something to that extent when opposing Trump, or simply being their Leftist selves. Well, that also applies to establishment Republicans who for some reason feel as though they can speak for God now.
 
In an interview with CNN, John Kasich said the following:
 
“You know, we have a caravan coming north. We don’t want all those people coming across our border, and there are ways to deal with it. I believe if we could check those who are legitimately in need of asylum, could be vetted before they even get to the border. But you know what? We’re born in America. You know how lucky we are to be born in America and not be born in Guatemala where they would say to your daughter, you know, if you don’t do what we want, we will rape your daughter or we will kill your son if he’s not a drug mule? Now they’re marching north, and you know what? It could easily have been all of us, that we’re in the caravan, that we’re marching north trying to save our families and save our children… If we have been spared… by the grace of God, let us be appreciative, let us count our blessings, and let us reach out to those who have less. And let’s stop putting up walls around ourselves and not understanding the plight, the trouble, and the problems of others. It is not right. And the Lord doesn’t want it…”
 
That is a lot to cover, so let’s go little by little. Overall, I both agree and disagree with what he is saying.
 
People born in the U.S. SHOULD count their blessings for being born in the greatest nation on Earth. And we SHOULD try and help people who need help. In fact, doing so is very much a Christian thing to do.
 
However, there is a difference between helping people and being forced to take care of them.
 
Not to mention that the border wall isn’t meant to drive away immigrants. It’s meant to drive away ILLEGAL immigrants.
 
John Kasich believes that we should “help” these people. The problem comes in the fact that it’s likely dangerous people, like members of MS-13, are part of this caravan. Letting these people in means many, and I mean MANY, dangerous people seeing our compassion and exploiting it, entering the country and hurting Americans.
 
We should not be helping people if that comes at the expense of America and Americans. And we certainly should not be guilt-tripped into helping people who very well could come in to exploit our system at best and harm Americans at worst.
 
Besides, let’s not ignore that we do help people, or at least their countries of origin. We give over $120 million to Honduras alone annually (though that number is bound to come down after this). So our government does try and help other countries.
 
But it shouldn’t fall on us to babysit them. It shouldn’t fall on us to take these people in, particularly in this way, and sacrifice Americans’ livelihoods, jobs, etc. We have to take care of our people first, and that’s not what the Democrats and establishment Republicans seem to want.
 
We especially should not be made to believe that it is our fault that other countries are poorer than us. Socialism is killing Venezuela. It’s also slowly, but surely killing other countries as well. I’ve mentioned in the past that the only time Argentina was prosperous was when it abandoned socialism at least economically, through deregulation and such.
 
We are as rich and plentiful as we are because our capitalist system of government and economics are built to help people be prosperous. Key word “help”. It doesn’t guarantee or make it a right that people be prosperous. You have the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not a right to given happiness.
 
But let’s focus a bit more on Kasich bringing God into the mix. He claims that God doesn’t want us to surround ourselves in walls. He’s wrong on this as well. You have to keep in mind what the wall is meant to do. Like I said earlier, it’s not meant to keep immigrants out. It’s meant to keep ILLEGAL immigrants out.
 
It’s meant to secure our border and protect our people. It’s a national security issue just as much as an immigration issue. Not to speak for God, but I believe He would want us to be safe. After all, He instructed and led Nehemiah to build a wall too. And Jerusalem currently has a wall that keeps Hamas and other Islamic terrorists out of the promised land (that was promised to the Jews, not Muslims or any other type of Gentile).
 
Why have those walls? To protect the people inside. That’s what Trump’s border wall is meant to do.
 
We are a country that welcomes immigrants. Heck, we ARE a nation of immigrants. But the difference between the immigrants that came from Europe and the ones that are marching to our border is that the world was far different, with far different laws and dangers to be met.
 
Not to mention that the pilgrims set out for America to be free to express their religious beliefs without fear of persecution from the Crown.
 
On the other hand, these illegals are fleeing their crappy countries to enter the country illegally and forcefully, very much like an invading force.
 
A border wall can stop such an invading force, and there is no honest person who should oppose prioritizing the safety of our people.
 
I won’t be too harsh on Kasich here because he is not completely wrong with what he’s saying. He’s wrong about the purpose of wanting a wall. He’s certainly wrong about what he thinks Trump’s intentions are with a wall. But he’s not wrong that we should help people.
 
However, that’s what we’re already doing. Allowing an invading force to enter the country like this will not help those people and certainly will not help us. If we don’t help ourselves, how could we possibly help others?
 
Regarding the caravan itself, I have already written an article surrounding that topic, so there’s not much else for me to say that would be too different from what I said in that article.
 
The larger point I wanted to make here is that Kasich is wrong in believing God doesn’t want a border wall. I won’t claim to know what God does or does not want. I cannot fully understand what God wants because I cannot fully understand Him, being one of His creations with a limited mind. However, I do believe He wants us to be safe from the dangers of this world and a border wall would help towards that end.
 
Not to mention that, in order to help people, they also have to help themselves. The governments of Central America, maybe with some exceptions, are largely central in their power. Meaning that government is everything and they keep expanding it, bringing in more socialism into the mix. We want to help other countries, but those countries also have to do their part in implementing a system where they are not reliant on us for so much.
 
I’m all for helping others. But that help should not be a one-way street. That help should not be rewarded with being invaded by illegals, likely many of whom look to exploit our system all-the-while trashing it and us, and maybe even harming people by raping young girls and/or killing them.
 
America and Americans must always come first. I want to help Americans first. Otherwise, how could we help anyone else?
 
Luke 6:38
“Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to 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 delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Boy, oh, boy. Now, these are some news that I am absolutely delighted to hear. The only thing that could honestly top this sort of thing would be Jesus coming back tomorrow.
 
Recently, Yascha Mounk, a lecturer on government at Harvard University, wrote an incredible article for The Atlantic. In this piece, he focused on a rather large study from Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres and Tim Dixon, titled “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape”.
 
Like I said, it is a long study with around 160 pages. But Mounk focuses on one thing in particular that is noted within the study: most Americans hate political correctness.
 
According to Mounk: “Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that ‘political correctness is a problem in our country.’ Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages. Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness – and it turns out race isn’t, either. Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness.”
 
Mounk also mentions that 75% of black people consider political correctness to be a problem in this country, which is 4 points less than white people.
 
Mounk then asks “if age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does?”
 
The answer is income and education.
 
Mounk continues: “While 83 percent of respondents (there were 8,000 total respondents, so quite a large study) who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87% who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.”
 
Mounk also details political leanings being a better predictor of views on political correctness, which no one should find surprising.
 
“Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.”
 
But perhaps my favorite part of Mounk’s article is this: “Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated – and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogenous group in the country.”
 
Hahahaha! Do you know what that means?! The very people that speak out against white privilege are those who actually ENJOY THE SAME WHITE PRIVILEGE THEY CLAIM TO HATE!
 
Now, there is obviously a lot to cover here. We’ll go little by little.
 
If 80% of Americans (of the ones polled, of course) think political correctness is a problem, that is absolutely devastating for the Left. I mean, it’s like a nuclear bomb times 100.
 
I cannot overstate how terrible this has to be for the Left. As they are, they show themselves to be the hateful, bigoted, close-minded people that they pretended they weren’t until Trump showed up. Political correctness is something the Left has been trying to establish for a while now. And if 80% of the country thinks it’s a problem, that is like a dagger to the Left’s monstrous heart.
 
It shows that what they want is not what the country wants. It really did not come as a surprise to me that those who were less adamant about political correctness being a problem identified themselves as Left-leaning.
 
Even still, the fact that 61 percent of liberals think the PC culture is a problem speaks volumes. That is a lot more than I expected. But perhaps this is demonstrative of a Democrat voter base that is beginning to wake up and realize the Democrat Party is not what they thought it used to be. I would say that the Democrat Party is not what they used to be, but I knew they were always like this. They’ve only now begun to show their true colors. They didn’t use to be good, they were just less insane and ready to throw their hatred at the slightest of disagreements.
 
This is really the main thing to take away from all of this. The Left has been utterly FAILING at programming people to think the way they do. Still, the fact that 30% of “progressive activists” see political correctness as a problem is quite interesting. I would’ve thought that number would be in the extremely low percentile.
 
I know that Mounk says “only 30 percent” do, and comparatively speaking, that would be the correct terminology, but on its own, that number is surprisingly high.
 
Apart from the fact that most Americans seemingly reject PC culture, another takeaway from this, which really should not come so much as a surprise, is that those who are less likely to find a problem with political correctness are upper class, well-indoctrinated (I’ve decided to change “well-educated” to “well-indoctrinated” because you no longer receive an education in college) and most ironic of all: they are white.
 
Again, this tells me that the people who most support political correctness are white people who themselves experience the sort of white privilege they supposedly abhor.
 
As we all know, the Left’s definition of a person with white privilege is someone who is:
 

1. White 
   
2. Wealthy
   
3. Has a college degree or currently attends college 

The very people that claim to be against white privilege largely fit the description of someone who enjoys white privilege. It’s delightfully ironic and even more-so hypocritical because these people demand that whites compensate black people and minorities in general, but will never actually do the things they want other white people to do.
 
Bernie Sanders demands Americans act welcoming towards refugees, yet he would never allow for refugees to take shelter in one of his THREE homes.
 
George Clooney will bash and attack Americans for not being welcoming towards refugees, but will literally move away from his home if his neighborhood starts getting refugees.
 
It becomes clear to me that political correctness stems largely from people who feel guilty that they were born white. It’s a strange kind of self-inflicted racism that they brandish, but these people are nutty anyway, so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.
 
It’s this fundamental belief in white guilt that creates this culture of political correctness where you’re more worried about the Muslim community getting hate for a radical Islamic terrorist attack than the actual frequency of terrorist attacks.
 
Not to say that Muslims ought to be blamed for an individual faithfully following Sharia Law, but the bigger issue here is terrorism, not a group of people’s feelings.
 
I honestly feel sorry for people who support political correctness because they feel white guilt. They are made to believe that just because they were born white, that that somehow means they have an unfair advantage over someone not born white. That being white somehow means they should be guilty for what happened in the past (that was entirely perpetrated by Democrats) and that they somehow have to recompense people of color who themselves never were subject to the things Democrats subjected their predecessors to.
 
White guilt is something that attacks the soul. Something that makes these people feel guilty for being born of a particular skin color. It’s no different from the Left’s history of blatant racism, where someone being born black automatically makes them inferior in the Left’s eyes.
 
But it seems that the good news is that most people do not actually suffer from white guilt, or at least most people don’t buy into the idea of political correctness.
 
Again, that’s the big takeaway from all of this. I just wanted to relish in the fact that it’s wealthy white people who try to shame others for being white and wealthy. Like DiCaprio accusing us of destroying the planet when he’s one of the biggest producers of carbon footprint in the world. Ditto for Al Gore.
 
Exodus 14:14
“The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be silent.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes free of charge, without any hidden fees. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. It’s easy and convenient! So check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It’s not surprising to see the Left and the MSM calling a Republican “worse than Mussolini” or “worse than Bin Laden” or the big one: “worse than Hitler”. Likewise, it came as no surprise to me when I saw that MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough essentially said Trump is “worse than the 9/11 terrorists”. But I feel compelled to attack this entire notion in one go, so that’s what I will try to do here.
 
First, let’s begin with Scarborough’s comment. He wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post that Trump poses a “far graver threat to the idea of America” than the 9/11 terrorists did. He argues this by using something Roger Cohen wrote for the NYT shortly after Trump’s election: “America is an idea. Strip freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law from what the United States represents to the world, and America itself is gutted.”
 
I’m sorry, just who exactly is stripping freedoms, human rights, democracy and the rule of law from what the U.S. represents in the world? It wouldn’t happen to be the Democrats who persistently try to take away people’s 2nd Amendment rights, right? It wouldn’t happen to be the Leftist tech giants taking away people’s right to free speech, right? It wouldn’t be Google trying to influence the 2016 election by providing free rides for Hispanics in key states to the polls so that they might vote for Hillary, right? It wouldn’t be the Clinton campaign, John McCain, MI6 agents, the FBI and DOJ working together to write a phony dossier to suggest Trump-Russian collusion, right?
 
When you look at the Left’s actions during, before and after Trump’s election, you will see that, according to Roger Cohen’s own definition, THEY are the ones gutting America! Donald Trump has been cutting regulations imposed on businesses by the Obama administration, securing that businesses have a little more freedom when it comes to how they manage themselves. He has done wonders for the pro-life group, thus ensuring people inside the womb have the human rights the Left adamantly wants to take away. Regarding democracy, I just have to say that we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional Republic. In a democracy, there is no electoral college and thus, no balance between states in elections.
 
And if you want to talk about rule of law, just look at the work ICE and border patrol do. They ENFORCE the law. The law that illegals constantly break and the law that the LEFT wants to eliminate.
 
Scarborough also insists that America is diminishing its position on the global stage under Trump, signifying that he is more dangerous than the 9/11 attacks were.
 
Are you kidding me? Which President was it that intended for America to take a back seat in the world by "leading from behind"? Which President allowed for a “JV” squad to retake key positions in the Middle East and become a massive threat to Western Civilization? Which President bowed down to every threat by a foreign entity and made empty threats against Syria and Russia? Which President forced us into a ridiculous Climate Change deal that would see us paying for every cost? Which President made a deal with A TERRORIST SPONSOR NATION to give them BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BUILD NUKES? Obama.
 
Which President has made it his mission to destroy ISIS? Which President has managed to get the little ball of rage in North Korea to agree to denuclearization? Which President has managed to pull out of the aforementioned Climate Change and nuke deals? Trump.
 
Which President is looking to make fair trade deals with other countries that won’t utterly screw us over?
 
You see? Trump is doing THE OPPOSITE of what Scarborough says he’s doing or what Roger Cohen is suggesting Trump’s doing. Meaning that either Scarborough is a massive idiot or a massive liar. Not sure which is worse.
 
Not that I’m surprised, but still.
 
Comparing Trump to the 9/11 attackers or Hitler or Mussolini or Bin Laden is utterly asinine.
 
But let’s go down the rabbit hole, shall we?
 
The September 11 attackers: 1) are dead, 2) are in Hell, 3) were RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS aka the term Obama seems to be allergic to and 4) followed an ideology that seeks to eradicate all opposition, be it through murder or forceful submission and an ideology that seeks to set the world back THOUSANDS of years.
 
Hitler: 1) is dead, 2) in Hell, 3) was a SELF-ADMITTED SOCIALIST, 4) caused one of the largest massacres of a single group of people the world’s ever seen and 5) ruled his country with an iron fist, eliminating any and all opposition to him.
 
Mussolini: 1) is dead, 2) in Hell, 3) was a fascist, which, as we know, is AS LEFTIST AS COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM and 4) ruled his country with an iron fist, eliminating any and all opposition to him.
 
Stalin (yes, I’ve heard comparisons to him as well): 1) is dead (you get the point, I won’t include this more), 2) was a COMMUNIST, 3) ruled his country with an iron fist, eliminating any and all opposition to him.
 
Bin Laden: (do I even have to say why this is a ludicrous comparison?)
 
Trump may not be perfect, but he’s a hell of a lot better than any of these bozos by a mile. What these people have in common is not that they are similar to Trump. Quite the opposite, they are more similar to today’s Democrats.
 
Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all having been Leftists, you can clearly see the comparison. Although regarding Bin Laden, even I won’t try to compare them to him. But not because they are any less evil. It’s just that Bin Laden was not like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Democrats. He was not a ruler of a nation, but rather, of a terrorist organization. He did not seek to rule a country and crush the people with an iron fist, but to spread terror across the world, as well as Sharia Law.
 
This is why the comparison between Trump and Bin Laden doesn’t even work with the Left’s narrative. Bin Laden was never a world leader. Never a ruler of a country. He was a glorified thug who was absolutely insane and absolutely evil.
 
But it’s because of that absolute evil that one can more easily compare him with the Left. I’ve said this multiple times, and have recently made it astoundingly clear that the Left is evil.
 
If any comparisons can be made about anyone, it’s the Left who ought to replace Trump in such conversations. THEY are the ones who support very similar principles and policies. THEY are the ones who, given the chance, would do the same thing to Christians and conservatives as Hitler did to Jews. It might sound a tad extreme, but extremism is the Left’s MO. Just look at today’s world in regards to anything the Left does and I challenge you to find anything less than extremism.
 
Forcing young girls to endure a grown man using the same restroom? Forcing a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake? Forcing Google employees out of their jobs for stating facts the Left doesn’t agree with? Forcing health organizations to declassify gender dysphoria as a mental disease, but classifying video game addiction as a disorder? Forcing the United States’ Department of Justice to conspire against a political candidate the President at the time and Leftist establishment don’t like in order to affect the results of an election and steal people’s vote?
 
What part of these things is not extreme?
 
So I do not apologize for saying that the Left would LOVE to send Christians and conservatives to concentration camps. Given that the Left currently is sending us to Facebook and Twitter jail if we express thoughts that do not align with the Left, I wouldn’t be surprised if they wanted to do worse. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, because I have no doubt, given the chance.
 
So for Scarborough, or any other Leftist, to try to compare Trump with “bad person x” is completely ridiculous. The Left shares far more in common with the horrible dictators of the past than Trump does.
 
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 I mentioned, it’s 100% free of cost, and I won’t lie to you like the Left does when I say something is free. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as direct access to our online store.
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.