On Wednesday, there were two stories largely being talked about: a man in Philadelphia shooting at cops, wounding 6 of them; and economic news that supposedly spelled doom and gloom and would lead us into a recession (which didn’t happen, but the Left is trying to see if they can take away Trump’s best weapon, the economy, by causing a recession which they will blame on him).
 
However, the media has largely stopped talking about at least the first thing for a couple of reasons.
 
But before I get to those reasons, allow me to give you the context of the situation.
 
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports: “The standoff [between officers and the suspect] began Wednesday about 4:30 p.m. when a Narcotics Strike Force unit attempted to serve a search warrant at a house on the 3700 block of North 15th Street.” After the suspect began to fire at the officers, the suspect and Philadelphia PD were engaged in a seven-hour-long standoff which ended once the suspect surrendered himself after calling his lawyer “in a panic”, who suggested he should surrender.
 
Following the incident, the suspect’s lawyer, Shaka Johnson, told CBS that his client would likely be charged with 6 counts of attempted murder and aggravated assault against the police officers.
 
But this is hardly the first time the suspect had any sort of run-in with the law.
 
The suspect has a lengthy criminal record dating back to 2001, when he was 18 years old and was arrested for possessing a gun with an altered serial number.
 
The Philadelphia Inquirer takes note of the suspect’s lengthy criminal history:
 
“Public records show that he has been arrested about a dozen times since turning 18, and convicted six times on charges that involved illegal possession of guns, drug dealing, and aggravated assault. He has been in and out of prison; the longest sentence handed him came in 2010, when a federal judge gave him a 55-month term. And, his record would indicate, he does not like to go to prison. In 2008, he was convicted of escaping, fleeing from police, and resisting arrest. Along the way, he beat criminal charges on everything from kidnapping to attempted murder.”
 
That aforementioned 2010 sentence came from pleading guilty in 2008 to illegally possessing a Smith & Wesson .357 (a classic revolver) and a Taurus PT .45 semiautomatic handgun. In 2013, he was convicted of perjury and given 7 years probation, but continued racking up more charges such as evading police officers and endangering civilians on an unregistered scooter, but those charges were eventually acquitted. In 2014, he was arrested on charges of drug possession and false imprisonment but also beat those charges as well.
 
The Inquirer also reports that: “According to court filings, his accuser told police she had agreed to sell marijuana for [the suspect] but then later changed her mind. When he summoned her to his house on the 6900 block of Greenway Street in Southwest Philadelphia days later, she says, she overheard [the suspect] and an associate discussing killing her. Fearful for her life, the woman said, she called 911. When officers arrived, she fled as [the suspect] and his associate hid the crack cocaine and marijuana in a tire out back. Investigators discovered 83 grams of marijuana.”
 
Due to the suspect’s lengthy criminal history involving several charges with illegal gun and drug possessions, as well as other things, it is safe to say that this story does not suit the Left’s narrative. The guy was involved in a standoff against the police officers, wounding 6 of them (though we have to thank God that none were killed), when he is one of those people who absolutely should not have a firearm and it is illegal for them to have one.
 
The suspect carried on a seven-hour-long standoff, obviously with firearms, but it’s pretty obvious not a single gun control law being discussed would’ve kept this from happening.
 
This is the reason the media and Leftist politicians often talk about gun control so soon after, or even during, a shooting occurs. Because once more information comes out and it’s discovered that the shooter should not have had said weapon or it was illegal for them to have one, the Left’s opportunity to push their anti-Second Amendment agenda is gone.
 
2020 Democrat candidate Kamala Harris went on CNN DURING THE PHILADELPHIA SHOOTING to push gun control policies BEFORE THE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE THAT NO GUN CONTROL POLICY WOULD’VE PREVENTED THIS! The reason for this is, again, because they have a small window of opportunity to push this crap.
 
And often times, once enough time passes and more information is made available, you have situations where the MSM or even politicians admit that no gun control legislation would’ve prevented any particular shooting.
 
Following the El Paso and Dayton shootings, CNN admitted no gun control policy would’ve prevented them. Following the Las Vegas shooting (of which we still know pretty little about), Diane Feinstein also admitted no gun control legislation would’ve prevented that shooting, which was the single deadliest shooting in U.S. history, taking 58 people’s lives.
 
As far as this shooting standoff goes, the guy is legally incapable of purchasing weapons. And yet, he had them to fire at police officers serving a search warrant. No amount of gun control would’ve prevented this shooting; no amount of gun control would’ve made it illegaler for him to get weapons, and so, the media doesn’t talk about it because there is no point.
 
They follow the Rahm Emanuel dogma of “never let a tragedy go to waste”. If there is a reported shooting happening, talk about it immediately, facts be damned, and ignore it completely if it’s no longer opportunistic. A good example of this is when there were reports of a shooting at Oregon State University and Hillary Clinton’s VP pick, Tim Kaine, immediately started talking about gun control. It later turned out that the attack was a knife attack, not a shooting, and no one cared from that moment on.
 
So now that enough time has passed for us to know more details surrounding the situation, we know for certain that no gun control measure would’ve prevented this from happening at all, so the media is moving on to other things.
 
But that’s not the only reason they don’t particularly care about this. That’s a major reason, yes, but not the only one.
 
The other reason they don’t care is because of who the target was: police officers.
 
The media can’t shed crocodile tears when they’ve been demonizing police officers for years. They can cry crocodile tears for children in schools or minority victims in Walmart, but not for the people they’ve been virtually at war with: cops.
 
For the past few years, any incident involving a white police officer and a black suspect that resulted in the suspect’s unfortunate death has led the police to be called “racist” for it. Take the example of Michael Brown. The Left claims he was “murdered” but he himself tried to assault and steal a cop’s weapon, presumably to use it against the cops. This was where the “hands up, don’t shoot” hoax came to exist because the Left, to this day, claims he was unjustly shot at when he begged the cops not to shoot him, even though that’s not at all what happened.
 
That hoax, alongside others like it, have led to organizations like Black Lives Matter forming up to “fight back” against the cops, who are in the right in these kinds of situations for the most part (though there are some times when the cops unjustly fired at unarmed suspects). The BLM movement was heralded by the Left and the media as a great thing and further demonized the police, leading to the Dallas police shooting of 2016, where 5 police officers were killed “as payback”, according to Dallas Police Chief.
 
That shooting also was not very widely covered by the MSM because the target were cops and because the motive was revenge against cops.
 
After years of demonizing all police officers for the actions of a few (who for the most part were justified in the actions they partook), when shooters target police officers, the media barely cares about it, apart from trying to spread gun control propaganda within the first few hours of learning about it.
 
The combination of the story not benefiting the Left and the target being police officers leads to the media not really caring one wit about the incident. And the demonizing of police officers leads to CITIZENS OF A CITY TO TAUNT AND HARASS THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO JUST GOT DONE DEALING WITH THE STANDOFF!
 
After Philadelphia police got done taking care of the suspect and arresting him, Philadelphia citizens were seen taunting and harassing officers, some of whom almost got into a fight with some officers and some who threw unidentified objects at the officers.
 
Do you think the officers would’ve received such hatred coming from (granted, only some) people in that city if police weren’t so routinely attacked as being racist?
 
The same really could be said of ICE facilities and workers. Earlier in the week, ICE facilities were outright SHOT AT and no one in the media talked about it at all.
 
When the target of gun violence is someone the media hates, they have no intention on pretending to be shocked or disturbed by it. They LOVE IT when cops get attacked like this. They LOVE IT when domestic terror organizations like ANTIFA attack people they perceive to be “alt-right” aka people they disagree with. They LOVE IT when ICE officers, who are often compared to the Nazi SS, get attacked and targeted.
 
They LOVE IT when lunatic politicians like AOC call ICE detention facilities “concentration camps” and when those facilities are subsequently attacked by people who believe that crap.
 
As long as the target is someone the Left hates, they have no problem with gun violence. They only care in as far as they can try and push more gun control legislation that would take LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS’ WEAPONS FROM THEM.
 
Because to reiterate, there is not one piece of gun control legislation that would’ve prevented this situation in Philly. The guy is not legally allowed to possess or own a firearm, and yet, that’s what he had. Wanna know why? BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS, THAT’S WHY THEY’RE CRIMINALS!
 
I sound like a broken record saying that over and over again, but the Left is adamant about not caring about that sort of logic. And it’s not like they are that moronic, they know that criminals don’t care about the law. It’s just that they don’t care about the criminals. They know they can’t do anything about illegal weapons, but they can try to take away yours. If they can get away with getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and take away your guns, they can throw away the entire rest of the Constitution and fully turn this country into the communist state that they want.
 
So long as the people are armed, there is a limit as to how far the Left can go to the left. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Socialist Venezuela, all had to disarm their citizens in order for them to be fully in control and without opposition. That’s the aim of the American Left and that’s why they always have knee-jerk reactions whenever a shooting happens, so that they can further that goal.
 
According to a recent Rassmussen poll, 64% of likely U.S. voters say we need stricter gun control laws, even though they also admit that gun control won’t stop all mass shootings like the ones in El Paso and Dayton. This is what fuels traitorous Republicans to push for more gun control legislation and foolishly support “red flag” laws (yes, I know Trump says he supports this too, which if he does, is a disappointment and I heavily disagree with him, but I have my doubts that he really does support it). The people are being told by the Left that gun control is a good thing when it’s at least part of the reason we are where we are today.
 
Places like Chicago, Detroit, L.A., etc. have heavy gun control legislations in place and yet are some of the deadliest places in the country.
 
But that sure as Hell doesn’t matter to the Left, who run those places. For as much as they talk about being worried about gun violence, the Left doesn’t talk about Chicago an awful lot. That’s because that mess is entirely theirs to own, and since they can’t broadcast that their gun control agenda is literally counterintuitive to the goals they claim they have, they ignore it like math homework.
 
The Left’s ultimate goal is to fundamentally change this country, as was admitted by Bernie Sanders very recently. In order to do that, they have to take away our guns so that we can’t fight back against them and revolt.
 
And while I know there will be moronic Leftists who will argue “how are AR-15s going to help you against tanks and helicopters?”, allow me to refer you to the Vietnam War, the War of 1812 and the Revolutionary War. All examples of a massive military being beaten by relatively small rebels (except Vietnam, where the Soviets largely helped the North Vietnamese in what really was a conflict between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. but localized). According to a Pew Research survey from 2017, 42% of people live in a household with a gun and 30% currently own a gun themselves.
 
Let’s go with the smaller number of 30% of people who own a gun. The U.S. currently has a population of 327.2 million people. That means there are at least 98 million gun owners in America (relatively speaking, I imagine there are more now since 2017 was some time ago).
 
That’s 98 million people vs. the roughly 2 million soldiers the U.S. currently has either in active duty or in reserve (and of course, I imagine many American soldiers would leave the military if the U.S. faced an anti-communist revolution, but there could be those on the Left who would wish to join the military in turn, so let’s assume the number is roughly the same anyway). Even if a small percentage of those gun owners were to be willing to fight against a tyrannical government (exercising the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment), that’s still an awful lot of patriots for the military to fight against. And before you talk about the military being more organized, which they would be, allow me to refer you to the Goths, who were a band of raiders and barbarians who sacked Rome in 410 and were a terrifying force in ancient Europe.
 
So the best way for the Left to truly turn this country into a socialist one is to, at the very least, disarm Americans, as they are trying to do with “assault weapons” bans that really seek to ban any semiautomatic weapon they can.
 
In order to achieve that, they have to insist to the American people that things like the Philly shooting could have been prevented with more gun control, even if it eventually turns out that nothing of the sort would’ve happened.
 
The Left and the media never let a tragedy go to waste. Any shooting at all makes them happy because it allows them to spread b.s. to further their communist goals. But when a story no longer benefits them, such as the one in Philly, they drop it entirely and pretend nothing substantial happened. “If cops got shot at, who cares, they were probably racist anyway”, is their line of logic.
 
Finally, to reiterate a point I made in my article discussing what Oprah Winfrey thought about the El Paso and Dayton shootings, until we return to God, these things will only continue happening. People will target others for any given reason until we return to God as a nation.
 
Galatians 3:9
“So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One of the Left’s most powerful and oft-used weapons is deception. They will take something that is fairly true, misconstrue it and use it to tell a bold-faced lie. Anything from “Trump had Russians in Trump Tower” to “Trump assails against hate but not guns” are things that are basically true but heavily misconstrued to drive a narrative. The Russians that were in the Trump Tower meeting with Don Jr. were not from the Russian government and Trump’s assailing against hate but not guns is due to not blaming an inanimate object for mass shootings and instead attacks the ideologies the shooters had and their reason for killing people.
 
But the point remains that the Left often uses deception and lies to drive their fictitious narratives and advance their agendas. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is no different and used this tactic when unveiling her gun control plan should she be elected President of the United States.
 
The funny thing is that, even before talking about gun control, Elizabeth Warren lied about something else: automobile deaths going down supposedly after government issued regulations to car manufacturers.
 
The senator wrote: “Over fifty years, we reduced per-mile driving deaths by almost 80% and prevented 3.5 million automobile deaths. And we’re still at it.”
 
However, Dr. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), explains the logical deceitfulness of Warren’s claim:
 
“It is pretty deceptive to claim that government regulations reduced motor vehicle deaths by 80%. Those deaths were falling much faster before the federal [government] started regulating auto safety.”
 
He continued:
 
“As indicated by the figures from my book, ‘The War on Guns’: 1) it is easy to see that cars were getting safer from the time the very first data was released in 1921, long before there were mandated federal safety regulations, and 2) when you look over the entire period, the rate at which car safety improved actually slowed down after the federal government started regulating car safety. The first seatbelts were introduced in 1950 by car companies that were figuring out on their own how to make cars safer. But the New York Times’ graph doesn’t show the even faster drop in vehicle deaths per-mile-traveled that occurred before 1946.”
 
“It is important to note that accidental deaths from all sources are falling over time. Companies are competing against each other to provide customers with safer products, and items such as seat belts, shatter proof glass, padded dashboards, and safety cages were just some of the many safety features adopted by car makers long before the federal government got involved in regulating auto safety.”
 
Dr. Lott also figures that “government regulations slowed down safety regulations for a simple reason: the government micromanaged how companies would meet those safety improvements. It isn’t just that the government mandated that car companies had to use airbags in their cars, it is that the government would tell the companies exactly how to make those bags and how to install them. That forced car companies to wait on installing these safety features until the federal government told the companies exactly how they wanted the product made and installed. If the companies didn’t wait, they may find themselves spending hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars, only to find that they had to redesign everything and start all over.”
 
In sum, Dr. Lott points out that Sen. Warren’s claim is purposefully misleading. Yes, automobile deaths were going down over time, but definitely not because of the government. If anything, those numbers would’ve gone down QUICKER without government involvement and regulation. The free market would’ve demanded car manufacturers to make their cars safer, installing more and more safety features. From seatbelts to airbags and even the fairly recent back-up cameras that are being installed more and more, the free market makes it so that companies compete with one another to make their products good and safe for the public. The government only gets in the way of progress.
 
Of course, the reason this is even being talked about is that Warren is trying to insist that government regulation “helped” lower vehicle deaths (it was actually a detriment to that) and as such, government regulation can “help” lower gun deaths (it would also be a massive detriment to that too). The problem that Warren faces is that reality speaks of a different story. The government DIDN’T help cars get safer and it certainly wouldn’t help lower gun deaths.
 
Now, that isn’t the only dumb claim Warren makes in her plan. Far from it, as much of it basically regurgitates the ridiculous gun control ideas other Democrats have put forth with some changes to make them her own. One of Warren’s ideas was to make private gun sales require background checks. Of this, Dr. Lott said:
 
“A lot of academic research by criminologists and economists on background checks on the private transfer of guns has found no effect on crime rates. There is a simple reason for this. A major source of illegal guns are drug dealers, who have weapons to protect their valuable property. You will have about as much success stopping drug dealers from selling guns as you have in stopping them from selling drugs, and if you think that you have stopped criminals from being able to buy illegal drugs, good luck thinking that you will stop them from being able to obtain guns.”
 
What Dr. Lott is essentially saying is that private gun sales, and particularly background checks, have no noticeable impact on crime rates largely because illegally-acquired guns are far more prevalently used. Whether it be through stealing it from someone or purchasing it from a black market, there is no legislation that has ever been thought up or could ever be thought up that would actually be able to completely stop the use of illegal weapons. Certainly, coming up with regulations that ban or make illegal guns that are currently legal don’t help either. Restricting the law-abiding citizens in their abilities to protect themselves and/or their families doesn’t keep gangsters or mass shooters from killing other people.
 
According to Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, at minimum, there are 760,000 defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year. Meaning that there are at least 760,000 times and scenarios in which someone uses a gun in self-defense every single year (and the actual number is likely higher due to underreporting that tends to occur. People don’t tend to want to admit they used a gun to harm or kill someone else, even if it was in self-defense and they wouldn’t be held criminally liable). This dwarfs even the most ridiculous claims by Leftists about how many mass shootings there are in a year (they often claim in the hundreds, but they include shootings in which two or less people were killed and/or wounded, or even when there were no killed or wounded, but a firearm happened to have been discharged). So defensive use of guns far outweighs offensive use of guns such as in premeditated killings and mass shootings.
 
To restrict We the People’s ability to defend ourselves would only exacerbate the problem of mass shootings and killings. It’s no surprise, really, that Chicago often has very bloody weekends with all of its gun control regulations that are in place.
 
The last thing I will talk about regarding Warren’s gun control plan (there is a lot more, but I don’t want this article to be too long) is that she intends to allow for gun manufacturers and companies to be “strictly liable” for damages caused with a firearm. Of course, this leaves manufacturers in great financial peril given that it would allow for citizens to sue them to bankruptcy and that they would have to pay every single time a firearm causes someone some sort of damage.
 
Alongside that, she intends to increase taxes on firearms and ammunition purchases (30% and 50% respectively). It goes without saying that Warren’s plan would help bankrupt gun manufacturers and keep poor people from being able to protect themselves. The government can’t outright take our guns (there are far too many for that to be plausible and they would, at most, only be able to confiscate legally-purchased weapons, not illegal ones) but they certainly can make it a nightmare for people to make a living. Taxes and regulation are the enemy of businesses and they always restrict how much capital they are able to make.
 
There are certain times when I think regulation is a good idea, such as in the case of social media companies when they try to ban people for expressing differing opinions. If the end is to protect Constitutional rights, I think regulation can be a force for good (but, as with many things, can also be a force for evil when taken to the extreme). But in general, regulation is a detriment. You saw it in car manufacturing, with vehicle death numbers going down significantly until the government came in and told car manufacturers how to make their cars safer, and you see it whenever more gun control legislation is passed.
 
Joe Biden is somehow proud of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, despite it not having stopped any mass shootings (Columbine happened when this ban was in effect). Similarly, any gun control measure would be equally as ineffective to combating gun violence in America. If you want to know what it would take for this country to be alleviated from this problem, read my previous article about our country turning its back to God. I believe that can provide some answers.
 
Luke 22:36
“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.’”
 
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.

​Back in March, I wrote an article of a similar nature talking about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo having raised the minimum wage in a bill that went into effect in December of last year. The bill forced New York businesses to raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour, that shiny number the Left seems to be in love with (until they start advocating for $20 and then $25 and so on and so forth until they bleed small businesses completely dry and eliminate any possibility of a free market).
 
And back in March, I shared with you some statistics from New York City Alliance, in a survey that was published towards the end of 2018. To joggle your memory, they found that “76.50% of full service restaurant respondents reduced employee hours, and 36.30% eliminated jobs in 2018… 75% of limited service restaurant respondents report that they will reduce employee hours, and 53.10% will eliminate jobs in 2019 as a result of mandated wage increases that took effect on December 31, 2018… When the tip wage increased 50% in 2015, and since doubled, annual employment growth dropped from 6.67% to less than 1% as of November 2018.”
 
So in 2018, before the most recent hike took place, nearly 77% of New York restaurants had to reduce employee hours and roughly 36% had to eliminate jobs, with 75% saying they would reduce employee hours and 53% saying they would eliminate jobs in 2019.
 
And in a more recent survey, one that was taken a month after the bill took effect, “[R]oughly 77 percent of NYC restaurants have slashed employee hours. Thirty-six percent said they had to layoff employees and 90 percent had to increase prices following the minimum wage hike,” according to The National Interest who quoted an NYC Hospitality Alliance survey.
 
A month after the bill took place, 77% of restaurants had to reduce employee hours. The layoffs were considerably less than was predicted (53%) but sits at around the same number as the 2018 one. And in the last three years, New York City increased its own minimum wage three times (for employers with at least 11 employees), according to The WSJ. “At the end of 2016, the hourly rate rose to $11 from $9 an hour. In 2018, the minimum wage jumped to $13 from $11 an hour. The rate will increase to $15 an hour for employers with 10 or fewer workers at the end of 2019.”
 
So year after year, the New York City government increases the minimum wage for businesses that are not making enough of a return to be able to pay their employees that sort of wage with the hours that they currently give them. This creates the sort of circumstances where restaurants and other businesses have to slash employee hours, if not outright eliminate positions, in order to stay afloat.
 
And multiple business owners have voiced their concern over this sort of thing.
 
Susannah Koteen, who owns a restaurant in Harlem, told The WSJ: “What it really forces you to do is make sure that nobody works more than 40 hours. You can only cut back so many people before the service starts to suffer.”
 
Sarah McNally, who owns a bookstore in NYC, told The WSJ: “With raising minimum wage to living wage, it feels now like we’re at the bottom of the pay spectrum. There’s absolutely no benefit to being a retail business in New York.”
 
The thing about the minimum wage being a “living wage” is that it’s nothing more than a Leftist narrative. First of all, minimum wage was never expected or intended to be a “living wage”. People generally aren’t expected to be such bottom-feeders that they can only achieve minimum wage jobs and expect to live their entire lives off of such wages. Not to offend anyone who might have a minimum wage job, but there isn’t a single person with one that wouldn’t rather be doing something that paid them more. To expect to be able to live off of minimum wage is slothfulness at its best.
 
Second of all, if a business can’t afford to pay its employees a minimum wage that is “livable”, artificially raising the minimum wage and forcing businesses to pay more will hurt both the business and the employees. The businesses have to cut hours, cut jobs and/or raise prices – all things no business wants to do. They want to be able to afford more work hours because more work hours means more work being done, more work being done means more productivity and more productivity means more money made. And when businesses have to raise prices, that also hurts them because people will have a limit as to how much money they will want to spend on a particular item. This hurts sales, which hurts profits, which hurts the business’s ability to keep their employees at good hours, or even at all.
 
Andrew Riggie of the New York City Hospitality Alliance put it best: “Many people working in the restaurant industry wanted to work overtime hours, but due to the increase, many restaurants have cut back or totally eliminated overtime work. There’s only so much consumers are willing to pay for a burger or a bowl of pasta.”
 
What’s more, Thomas Grech, president of the Queens Chamber of Commerce, said that small businesses were “cutting their staff. They’re cutting their hours. They’re shutting down. It’s not just the rent.”
 
When you force a business to pay more than what it actually can afford to do, they are forced to make significant changes to stay afloat. Those changes include cutting employee hours, eliminating overtime work, eliminating positions and raising prices for customers. The only reason big businesses like Amazon support minimum wage increases is because they can afford them and they know their competition can’t.
 
And despite all these things happening, despite all the people leaving New York for places with lower taxes (including AOC’s own mother leaving for Florida because of those very high taxes that AOC supports), you know perfectly well not one Democrat in that State is willing to reverse it, no matter the consequences. Demanding higher minimum wage means more votes from Millennials (even though they also suffer as a result of those high minimum wages, even more so because they don’t have as much money as older people who have worked for longer, plus they don’t have as much experience as older people) and means being generally viewed in a positive light by people from the media and other Leftist politicians.
 
Of course, if you call out the damage they are causing to their cities, you get called a racist and a white supremacist as a result, so Republicans generally shy away from that sort of thing because they have the spinal integrity of wet paper.
 
But the policies the Left always employs have dire consequences on people’s lives. There’s quite the irony in AOC calling out the poverty of New Yorkers in her district when the city has been run pretty much strictly by Democrats for years.
 
In any case, as I said in my previous article covering this subject, artificially raising the minimum wage in this manner will only bring these kinds of results. Businesses will tend to pay their employees more when they can afford to do so. It’s a good incentive to keep people motivated to work hard and perform better. The employees feel more like they earned the wages they make as opposed to feeling entitled that the government is forcing their employers to pay them more. In this way, employees get to keep their hours and their jobs, perhaps work more hours, work harder and help the business do better in the long run.
 
I may not necessarily be an expert in the making of a business, but I understand common sense. And there is nothing that is common-sensical about minimum wage increases like New York’s.
 
Proverbs 10:4
“A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It appears as though the Left’s favorite word is “racism”, given they so often call the likes of Trump and those who support him that word. And in recent time, an Atlantic article tried to make the case that former President Ronald Reagan was a racist because of ONE STATEMENT he made that was bad.
 
NYU professor Tim Naftali, who is himself a connoisseur of John F. Kennedy (and we’ll get to that) recently wrote an article for The Atlantic titled: “Ronald Reagan’s Long-Hidden Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon.” As with many things on the MSM, this is, for the most part, fake news. Ronald Reagan did say something bad in the 12-minute conversation, but the title suggests the entire thing was filled with Reagan ranting to Nixon about minorities and smearing them. That is far from the truth.
 
The conversation between Reagan and Nixon occurred in October of 1971, when then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan called then-President Richard Nixon regarding the U.N.’s decision to recognize the People’s Republic of China (with representatives from African countries voting against the interests of the United States). Given these are communists now being recognized on the world stage, this severely irked conservatives like Reagan and Nixon.
 
Naftali sets up the context of the conversation:
 
“The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then-California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. ‘Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,’ Reagan said. ‘Yeah,’ Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: ‘To see those, those monkeys from those African countries – damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!’ Nixon gave a huge laugh.”
 
So very obviously, Reagan offered a pretty elitist remark here (not racist. He was referring to the people in Africa, who are underdeveloped, not black people in general). 

Still, CNN certainly had a field day, attacking Reagan on it (and also pretending the entire conversation was racially-charged) as well as alleging plenty of things calling Reagan a racist and that we “shouldn’t be surprised” by this.
 
However, Reagan historian and connoisseur Paul Kengor makes the case that Reagan, generally-speaking, didn’t have “a racist bone in his body”.
 
After reviewing the call and the elitist statement made by Reagan, and acknowledging that it definitely was bad, he went on to insist: “It’s very important to know, however, that Ronald Reagan was not a racist. This is the only – and I mean only – statement that I’ve ever read from him like this (and I’ve read just about everything). It’s so out of the norm that I find it hard to believe,” and then he goes on to mention how other Democrat Presidents (which I will also get to) like LBJ, Truman or Wilson have, themselves, often said highly offensive and racist things, but are not often talked about because the Democrats will do everything they can to subvert the truth of their history of racism and heavily imply, if not out-right assert, that it was Republicans who fought to keep slaves and segregation, when literally the opposite is true.
 
As far as Naftali goes, even he goes on to concede that, “Reagan’s racism appears to be documented only once on the Nixon tapes, and never his own diaries.” So despite how many tapes there are of Reagan, and how much of a public figure he was before and while he was President, this is really the only documented time when he made a bad remark of this caliber about anyone.
 
And THAT shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone because, unlike what CNN would like to assert, Reagan was NOT a racist and he doesn’t have a history of racism. Ronald Reagan was raised by devout Christian parents and believed racism to be a literal SIN. And there are plenty of times in which he made public and not-so public remarks or displays that highlight how he was most definitely NOT a racist.
 
For example, President Reagan once told the National Council of Negro Women at a White House event in July of 1983 that, “I’ve lived a long time, but I can’t remember a time in my life when I didn’t believe that prejudice and bigotry were the worst of sins.” Even in his Evil Empire speech regarding the Soviet Union, he made mention the fact that the U.S. itself struggled with an evil sin in its slavery days:
 
“There is sin and evil in the world, and we’re enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might,” later mentioning “our nation” which itself held a “legacy of evil with which it must deal… There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country.”
 
And even going back to his childhood, biographers often take note of the fact that, in the early 1930s when Reagan was in college, he brought home two African-American football teammates, who both were barred from staying in a local hotel due to the color of their skin. Reagan (or “Dutch”, as people called him then), offered to let his two teammates spend the night at his house. Despite Dutch being so amicable towards them, the two were not so sure how his parents would be. Given the atmosphere of racial segregation and discrimination against black people at the time, it definitely was extremely rare for white families to be so friendly with African-American people.
 
But when the three got to Reagan’s house, Reagan’s mother greeted them by saying: “Come in, boys,” all with a warm smile as well. Reagan himself recounted that “she was absolutely color-blind. These fellows were just two of my friends. That was the way she and Jack [Reagan’s father] had always raised my brother and me.”
 
Keep in mind that this was in the early 1930s. Beyond the difficult economic hardships of the time (and I think even that is an understatement), African-Americans suffered plenty due to the added general atmosphere and environment of racism and discrimination. But Reagan’s family, and Ronald himself, were people ahead of their time. They were Christians who absolutely believed that Christ is for everyone and everyone ought to be treated with love and respect (and people that I’m sure, if they were alive today, would be absolutely repulsed by the hatred of today’s Democrat Party).
 
Reagan has a history of being against racism, even long before he was a public figure. To smear him as one because of ONE bad and elitist statement is outright unfair, and something Naftali himself has admitted would not want done to JFK. Naftali once wrote: “As I write a biography of JFK, I’ve found that this sort of racism did not animate President Kennedy.” It’s not clear exactly what Naftali was referring to, but it’s not like JFK or other Democrats are free from racist remarks tainting their pasts.
 
I’ve said this before, but JFK himself said that he thought of Hitler as a sort of “legend”. After touring Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Kennedy came back to write in his diary: “I have come to the conclusion that fascism is right for Germany and Italy... The Nordic races appear to be definitely superior to the Romans.” And JFK, going back to that “legend” remark, specifically noted that Hitler was the “stuff of legends… Hitler will emerge from the hate that now surrounds him and come to be regarded as one of the most significant figures to have lived.”
 
As far as Harry Truman goes, 10 months before Israel was independent, he wrote: “The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as DP [Displaced Persons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist, he goes haywire. I’ve found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.”
 
In other words, Truman was saying that the Jews were no different to, perhaps even worse than, the very Hitler whom he just fought against and defeated and whom just subjected millions of Jews to extremely harsh conditions that killed 6 million of them, or 60% of those who were killed during the Holocaust, according to some estimates.
 
This is the same kind of anti-Semitism that Reagan despised and called evil and the same kind of anti-Semitism that one can easily believe would be shared by the modern Democrat Party, particularly from members of “The Squad”.
 
And Woodrow Wilson is often credited for almost single-handedly reviving the Ku Klux Klan, having had Southern sympathy following the Civil War and the reconstruction period (having been raised and lived during and after those events in the Democrat South).
 
And let’s not get into the Democrat Party of today and their anti-white racism that they arrogantly claim is not actual racism.
 
Historically and presently, the Democrat Party is MARRED in racism, bigotry and hatred. From the first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson, essentially screwing over Native Americans, to just about every Democrat President moving forward all having racist and bigoted sentiments towards those different from them (and including Democrats who were not President as well), racism DEFINES the Democrat Party. To allege that Reagan is a racist because of one unfortunately elitist comment (that is being regarded as racist, when it is not) is ludicrous and totally unfair to the guy, not to mention hypocritical of those alleging this.
 
What Reagan said was definitely unfortunate, but hardly enough to ruin his entire legacy. And he certainly should not be the only one to be looked at when it comes to former Presidents being racist when an entire political party has an entire history of it that lasts to this very day.
 
1 Samuel 16:7
“But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: a man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”
 
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.

Earlier this week, a Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge dismissed a lawsuit brought forth by the DNC against the Trump campaign “for its alleged role in the hacking and dissemination of internal Democratic Party emails during the 2016 presidential race,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
This is MASSIVE news, and terrible for Democrats, that really should be brought to people’s attention (though I think most of it will go to responses to the 2nd round of the Democrat debates, which surprisingly featured a candidate pretending he was a moderate).
 
Anyway, Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York relayed his opinion on the case after dismissing it, completely destroying the very argument the Democratic National Convention was trying to make in many different ways.
 
The DNC’s lawsuit, according to The Daily Wire, was “filed against Donald Trump, his campaign officials and ‘defendants’ – including Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, George Papadopalous, Richard Gates and Roger Stone – WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the Russian Federation, and various Russian individuals.”
 
The DNC alleged in the suit that the Trump campaign had coordinated with Russia and WikiLeaks to release official Democrat Party emails in order to benefit Trump’s campaign.
 
However, as Judge Koeltl points out, there are several problems with this suit.
 
First, you can’t sue a foreign government in a U.S. court. Koeltl writes: “The primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal activity is undoubtedly the Russian Federation. [However] under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act…, the Russian Federation cannot be sued” in American courts. They can be sued in the individual country’s court system - provided the countries actually allow for people to sue the government, which, considering this is freaking Russia we’re talking about, I doubt people can (and trust me I tried looking but nothing turned up)-, but they cannot be sued within the U.S. court system. So Russia has to be taken out of the suit for it to even remotely work. Well, that would be the case if it weren’t for one other thing.
 
Second, WikiLeaks, the ones who actually released the information, have a First Amendment right to do so, as any other media organization would have the First Amendment right to expose something for people’s viewing and learning benefit. “The DNC seeks to hold the second-level participants in this alleged activity (that is, the Trump campaign, defendants and WikiLeaks) liable for dissemination of stolen materials. But… the First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest…”
 
So WikiLeaks, in obtaining and releasing the emails, is protected by the First Amendment as any news network would be in publishing, say, emails from the Trump campaign and trying to push the Russian-collusion narrative and getting the dates wrong, or as they would be in publishing the details of a Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya, where they discussed Russian prisoners and other things, not dirt on Hillary Clinton.
 
What’s more, even if it had been the Trump campaign who had obtained and released those emails, they would’ve been within their right to do so in a similar manner. Koeltl wrote that Trump could’ve done that because the documents released “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election… [and are] entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”
 
“Even if the documents had been provided directly to the Campaign [and] the Campaign defendants… they could have published the documents themselves without liability because they did not participate in the theft and the documents are of public concern. The DNC cannot hold these defendants liable for aiding and abetting publication when they would have been entitled to publish the stolen documents themselves without liability,” Koeltl wrote in sum.
 
I think this is a good call, particularly considering just what is behind the suit in the first place: the Left being ticked off that Trump won the 2016 election and that he joked about Russia having the Democrats’ emails. That particular Trump rally joke is what has led many people to think that Trump had been colluding with Russia, when all it was was a JOKE at the Democrat Party’s expense because one of their high-ranking officials fell for a phishing scam (and it didn’t help that they didn’t want the FBI to look into the case, giving it to a third-party investigator).
 
The ONLY reason this suit was made in the first place is to further drive the narrative that Trump had colluded, in one way or another, to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton. Whether that way was through influencing votes (though Rod Rosenstein himself said that no votes had been altered, not that anyone on the Left will acknowledge that) or by getting dirt on Hillary Clinton (which is what politicians often do anyway, but when Trump does it, it’s apparently criminal) through Veselnitskaya or through WikiLeaks, the Left was adamant about proving that there was some sort of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
 
But along the way, we only found more and more evidence of HILLARY CLINTON colluding with Russia, whether it be through the funding of the phony Steele dossier or through the Uranium One deal (which was apart from the campaign, but still extremely shady and not something people often talk about). And all that, without even TRYING to find Hillary colluding with Russia.
 
This suit, filed early last year, has thankfully been dropped by a judge (though it’s rather surprising it was by a Clinton judge). Of course, both the DNC and Trump have responded to this, with the DNC saying that this decision “raises serious concerns about our protections from foreign election interference and the theft of private property to advance the interests of our enemies.”
 
Yeah, yeah, cry me a river, why don’t you. You know perfectly well that the election was not interfered with and that Trump won the election perfectly legitimately.
 
In any case, President Trump hilariously responded by saying: “Wow! A federal Judge in the Southern District of N.Y. completely dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee against our historic 2016 campaign for President. The Judge said the DNC case was ‘entirely divorced’ from the facts, yet another total & complete vindication & exoneration from the Russian, WikiLeaks and every other form of HOAX perpetrated by the DNC, Radical Democrats and others. This is really big ‘stuff’ especially coming from a highly respected judge who was appointed by President Clinton. The Witch Hunt Ends!”
 
This most certainly is “big ‘stuff’”, considering both the ultimate decision of the case and who it was that made the decision. The Democrats likely went to the SDNY because they felt confident they would be able to get this to go through and successfully sue Trump, though it likely would’ve been decimated in actual court, given not only the inability to sue a foreign government and First Amendment rights, but also due to how little evidence they would’ve been able to bring forth to implicate any liability on Trump, who is their main target. They might’ve been able to at least get WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, but the Trump campaign has not been proven at all to have taken any part in this, but again, the First Amendment would be in the way. The fact that it was dismissed is certainly a good thing, and good news in my eyes, but who it was that dismissed it is also rather important (not to mention surprising).
 
As a Clinton-appointed judge, you would’ve expected him to have let the Democrats get away with whatever they wanted. I certainly think that that’s what the Democrats were expecting as well. But it appears that this judge is at least rather aware of how the laws work, including our First Amendment rights, and is not so corrupt as to ignore them. There is nothing criminal that can be proven that the Russians did (and even if they had, they still can't be sued), there is nothing criminal regarding what WikiLeaks did with the information (and the Trump campaign only benefited from it, not took part in it, so there is even less culpability to be placed on them).
 
Of course, this hardly means much to the Left. They will look for other ways to attack Trump and will have to regroup and re-strategize for now (which I think is part of the reason they are so adamant about calling Trump a racist now, of all times, despite how often they’ve used that card in the past anyway).
 
But regardless of what they might throw at Trump and us in the future, I’m confident it will not work.
 
Isaiah 54:17
“No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. ‘This is the heritage of the Lord’s servants, and their vindication is from Me,’ declares the Lord.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

While the rest of the country has largely gotten over the Russian collusion narrative that ended up being exactly what I thought it would be: a nothing-burger, House Democrats and Leftists tried to hang on to the ever-diminishing edge of a massive cliff that was the Special Counsel investigation into Donald Trump. After yesterday, the entire narrative fell off that cliff.
 
Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before both the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning and the House Intelligence Committee a few hours after the first hearing, which ran a little long. And I think it’s safe to say it was exactly the opposite of that the Left was hoping it would be and it’s not exactly what even I thought it would be.
 
For the Left, they thought Mueller was about to pull off a Deus Ex Machina and “save the day” at the last moment, bringing forth evidence of collusion and/or obstruction that he (somehow) did not include in his own report (and we’ll talk a little bit about the report itself in a moment).
 
They fully expected yesterday to have been a huge day for the Dems, and that they would finally be able to get rid of Donald Trump by hearing Mueller speak himself. And to the surprise of, I think, plenty of people, including myself, not only did Mueller not deliver the goods for the Democrats, he outright looked lost, confused and like he had no idea what was happening in the last 2 and a half years.
 
In the run up to the hearings, I expected Mueller to simply stick to what the report said and that he wouldn’t be contradicting what his report said all that much, certainly not enough to claim and definitively prove that Trump had done something, ANYTHING, criminal at any point in the 2016 election and beyond. But what I saw and heard here made me think the guy was just a figurehead for the Special Counsel and was not, in actuality, very involved with, much less in charge of, the Special Counsel and its investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian collusion.
 
Apart from repeatedly refusing to answer even the simplest of questions like the origins of the Steele dossier, he contradicted what he understood to be the definition of collusion being synonymous with conspiracy. The Mueller report read: “[A]s defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy,” and yet, Mueller went on record in front of the House Judiciary Committee that the two words were not synonymous.
 
Of course, I understand the reason he contradicted himself here is to keep the farce alive. Mueller can’t dispute that the Special Counsel didn’t find any actual collusion between Trump and Russia, and while that’s what he wrote in his report (which he may not have actually written, to be honest, but let’s say that he did for the sake of the argument), he doesn’t want the narrative of Russian collusion to end just like that. So, he insists that collusion and conspiracy aren’t synonymous to say to the Democrats: “I may not have found collusion, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t conspire to do something. Go get him on that.” That’s the whole point of that sort of contradiction. Of course, at the end of the day, it will not work either, but hey, they tried.
 
In any case, that’s not even the worst part for the Democrats. Mueller appearing like a senile old man who barely knows much about his own investigation might destroy his reputation moving forward (with those who still respected him up to this point), but he completely wrecked one Democrat talking point they had been using since the Mueller report was released: that the only reason Trump was not charged with anything was because he is a sitting President.
 
Of course, anyone who is not dishonest could tell that that was not the case. Mueller didn’t charge Trump with anything not simply because he is POTUS but because Mueller couldn’t determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump had committed any crime. In the hearing, he corrected an exchange he had had with Ted Lieu earlier in the day about the reason for not charging Trump, saying: “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
 
That goes against what the media and the Left were saying. They were howling that the only reason Mueller didn’t charge Trump was because you can’t indict a sitting President. But Mueller has gone on record both in yesterday’s hearing and, as it should be painfully clear, in the Mueller report, that there was not enough evidence to determine that Trump had obstructed justice.
 
Multiple times, Mueller was asked if his investigation was impeded in any way, and every time, he said that it wasn’t. In the Mueller report, he alluded to there being suspicion of obstruction with a bunch of bologna arguments. As I said in my original article on the Mueller report, what the report cites as “evidence” of possible obstruction of justice (that did not amount to anything at the end of the day) were Trump complaining about the Mueller investigation being a “witch hunt” (which it was, considering the lengths they were going to frame Trump for a crime he didn’t do), Trump reacting to the WikiLeaks leaks regarding the Clinton campaign, how he reacted to the investigation of General Flynn, how the Trump campaign reacted to reports of Russian support for Trump, reports from the media about collusion with Russia, Trump firing FBI Director James Comey and Trump reportedly ordering the removal of Mueller as head of the Special Counsel, which didn’t happen in the end, anyway.
 
And as I said in that article, NONE OF THAT CONSTITUTES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Just from reading the Mueller report, one can make that logical assertion unless he or she is heavily biased against Trump and doing anything short of Trump breathing would constitute criminal activity in their eyes.
 
But the fact that Mueller went on record to clarify the exchange he had with Lieu about the reason behind not charging Trump being that they could not determine whether or not the President had committed a crime (which, again, is in the report) is utterly DEVASTATING for the Left.
 
Ever since the Mueller report was released, after the initial shock (for the Left) that Trump DIDN’T collude with Russia and it could not be determined whether or not he obstructed justice, the main points of attack against Trump (apart from calling him “racist” and a “Nazi” on a daily basis) were that the ONLY reason he wasn’t brought up on charges was because he was POTUS and that Mueller did not exonerate Trump of anything (which is irrelevant because prosecutors work to determine guilt, not innocence). This had left the Democrats with a path to charging Trump with *something* once he was out of office, whether that be in January of 2021 or January of 2025. This narrative gave them hope that they could’ve seen Trump behind bars once he was done being President of the United States (it would’ve likely failed, and the Mueller report would’ve been cited, but the attempt would’ve been made). But that is gone now. Mueller killed the Left’s last golden goose relating to the Russian collusion narrative.
 
Does this mean they won’t still go after him once he’s done being President? Doubtful. These people have hatred in their hearts, as I’ve asserted time and time again (and as they have proven time and time again), and with that comes vindictiveness. They have seen, for the past two and a half years, every single narrative and attack against Trump fail right before their eyes. They thought Comey was going to get him, then Mueller, then a porn star, then a porn star’s lawyer, then Trump’s own snake former lawyer, then a soccer player, and most recently, they circled back to Mueller.
 
ALL OF IT FAILED. In their minds, if they can’t get Trump kicked out of office, they will get him once he is out of office. If they can’t impeach him or even defeat him at the polls, they can at least try and charge him with every crime under the Sun until something sticks that lands him in jail for the rest of his life. This is how vindictive and evil they are.
 
Whether or not it will work, I don’t know. I know Trump hasn’t done anything that would warrant jail time, but the Ted Stevens and Enron cases ought to make people cautious about the Department of Injustice’s power. However, there is a VERY good case for Trump if he is ever actually brought up on any charges (which it’s likely he will, knowing the blood-thirsty Left).
 
In any case, all Wednesday was was a massive disappointment for the Left (which I’m always happy to see) and not exactly what I was expecting. Again, I thought Mueller would stick to things relating to the report, but it appeared as though he was barely in-the-know about what was in it, apart from the biggest talking points to come out of the report. It’s almost as though he was just a figurehead in the investigation and Andrew Weissman was really running the show, alongside other angry Democrats who all supported Hillary Clinton. I’m not even convinced, at this point, that Mueller had much to do with the actual writing of the Mueller report.
 
And while this might make some NeverTrump Republicans puff their chests and say: “see, Mueller isn’t the evil hack Trump made him out to be,” that doesn’t mean he still isn’t a dishonorable prosecutor. Any honorable prosecutor would’ve taken a look at what the Special Counsel was doing and either put a stop to it or bolted. You don’t have to be too involved in something evil like that for alarms to blare inside your head telling you that you should bolt. And it’s not like Mueller was Grandpa Simpson for these past few years. I refuse to believe he didn’t know of a little bit of what was happening in the Special Counsel. I’m certain he knew but still decided to stick around because he’s not exactly a fan of Trump and if anything turns up, he could claim credit for taking down Trump.
 
The fact that the Left was literally idolizing him didn’t help convince him that he shouldn’t stick around. He wanted the fame and the glory of taking down Trump, loved the attention and praise he was receiving both from Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans, and didn’t think it could’ve ended in this much of a whimper.
 
The Special Counsel investigation was still a witch hunt, with or without Mueller running it. And after two and a half years of constant yammering from the fake news media that Trump colluded with Russia, obstructed justice, and most recently, that he is not sitting in jail only because he’s the sitting President, this matter should, theoretically, be put to rest.
 
At the end of the day, there was no collusion, not enough to even get close to determining obstruction, and Trump being sitting POTUS isn’t the only reason he was not charged. Most of America has already moved on from this. The fact that Democrats can’t will hurt them come 2020.
 
John 8:32
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
 
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.

Generally speaking, while I love covering polls that have good news for people like Trump and other conservative Republicans, I tend to admit to the fact that the next presidential election is still quite some time away from us, in well over a year, so a lot of things can happen between then and now. However, there are certain items in the poll that I will show you that I have my doubts they have much of a chance of changing in the near future.
 
According to a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, conducted July 15-17 and with over 1300 respondents, President Donald Trump’s approval number sits at a comfortable 44%, the highest in the Marist poll to date. And trust me, there are a lot more numbers like this that ought to scare the Left for a number of reasons.
 
Now, you might be asking: “why is 44?% scary? It seems relatively normal.” And yes, you would be right when just thinking about the number in and of itself. However, this is from a poll where Democrats are polled far more than Republicans or other people. 33% of the respondents identified as Democrat, as opposed to only 27% of Republicans. There is a clear over-sampling of Democrats in this survey and STILL his numbers are that high.
 
But don’t worry. We are just getting started with the numbers shown in this poll. As it stands, 90% of Republicans support Trump’s job as POTUS, with 42% of Independents and 7% of Democrats. These numbers are also pretty good, particularly for the Independent vote.
 
39% of national adults said they would “definitely” vote for Trump in 2020, with 89% of Republicans and 33% of Independents agreeing. Keep in mind these are just national adults. Typically, the numbers go up when it comes to registered voters and likely voters. What’s more, as Josh Kraushaar points out on Twitter: “Trump definite re-elect % in July 2019: 39%. Obama definite re-elect % in August 2011: 40%.”
 
So Trump is basically polling as well as Obama was at the same time in his presidency and we all know Obama got re-elected with such numbers.
 
When it comes to the economy, 52% said they approved of Trump’s handling of it, which is similar to Obama until August of 2009, only 7 months after taking office. Following that, Obama’s numbers were never quite as good.
 
Now, Obama had different advantages that Trump doesn’t have, such as the fake news media and most outspoken people supporting him and that helped him get elected. But similarly, Trump has different advantages that Obama didn’t have in his own reelection bid, namely the success of the economy and other things that we will talk about momentarily.
 
But before we move on to the juiciest details of the poll (yes, THESE NUMBERS aren’t even the worst news for Dems), I will finish off this section by mentioning that the number of those who said they “definitely” will be voting against Trump DROPPED from 57% to 53% since January. Sure, that number is still up there, but it’s falling and it’s contradicting the ongoing narrative of the Left: that Trump is an unpopular President and he will be soundly defeated come November of next year. Less and less people are saying they would “definitely” vote against Trump. That doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote FOR Trump, but that could mean less and less votes for Democrats too. One of the things that hurt Hillary in 2016 was lack of Democrat votes for her. Many were angry that Bernie got screwed out of being the nominee (he still would’ve lost even without the Super Delegate system, but the race was still rigged against him) and decided to either vote for Trump as a result or simply not vote. If that number continues to drop, voter turnout might once again be a problem for Democrats.
 
But it’s not just that number that might pose a problem for Democrat turnout in 2020. Let us now get into the actual policies that every Democrat has signed on to since even before the first debates took place: Medicare-for-All, open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration, giving free healthcare to illegals, and reparations for slavery.
 
Ryan James Girdusky highlighted the results of the poll pretty well:
 
“Voters asked if they support Medicare for All as a replacement for private health insurance (good idea/bad idea): Registered voters: 40/55. Democrats: 64/31. Republicans: 14/83. Independents: 39/55. Whites: 38/56. Non-whites: 46/49. Gen X: 35/61.”
 
The only people that have a more favorable view of Medicare-for-All as a replacement of private health insurance are Democrats, and even then, there is a decent number of those who think it’s a bad idea. The key words here are “replacement of private health insurance”. Usually, on its own, Medicare-for-All polls pretty well, somewhere in the 60s and maybe 70s. However, as you start to dive into what exactly it would mean, such as replacing already existing private health insurance plans, support for it drops like a rock. This is why people like Kamala Harris flip-flop on this issue.
 
When it comes to giving free healthcare to illegals, Ryan highlighted:
 
“Is free healthcare for illegal immigrants a good idea/bad idea: Registered voters: 32/62. Democrats: 60/32. Republicans: 6/93. Independents: 27/67. Moderate Democrats: 43/47. Whites: 28/68. Non-whites: 43/51. Millennials/Gen Z: 45/51.”
 
Let’s not forget that every single Democrat signed on to the idea of giving illegals free healthcare. Well, according to this poll, most people HEAVILY DISAGREE with that idea. But let’s specifically look at two demographics.
 
You might’ve noticed that Ryan included Moderate Democrats into the mix. That is because the poll asked those who identified as “moderate” Democrats this question, and there were more moderates in the Democrat Party that disagreed with the idea than agreed with it. This is another number that could haunt Democrats come 2020 if it doesn’t change, and I don’t see much reason for it to change in a positive direction for Democrats. The candidates surely are not going to change their minds about it and the moderates that don’t want this might choose to at least sit out of this election once again, if not outright vote for Trump.
 
Time and time again, I have mentioned how more and more people are leaving the Democrat Party because of how far to the Left they have gone in recent time. This is some proof of that statement. Plenty of Democrats don’t like the direction the Party is going and will at least consider leaving it.
 
The other demographic to look at is the youngest generations, the Millennials and Gen Z. For even THEM to think free healthcare for illegals is a bad idea ought to wake up the Democrats to try and at least pretend this isn’t something they want. But since they will continue to believe the lie that the fake news media feeds them – that Donald Trump is screwed almost no matter what proposal is brought up from the Democrats – they will have no reason to change course, even if they are defeated in a landslide. In reality, if Trump wins by a massive margin (or even at all), the Democrats will once again cry foul and say that “the Russians did it again!” or something equally as nonsensical.
 
Moving on to decriminalizing border crossings, we find: “Registered voters: 27/67. Democrats: 45/47. Republicans: 10/87. Independents: 24/68. Moderate Dems: 34/58. Progressive Dems: 54/37. Whites: 26/68. Non-whites: 28/63. Millennials/Gen Z: 31/59.”
 
Once again, only one demographic had a positive view on it and that’s Progressive Democrats, and even then, a full 37%, more than one-in-three, still disagreed.
 
Finally, we reach slavery reparations where we find the following data: “Registered voters: 26/63. Democrats: 46/40. Republicans: 3/89. Independents: 23/65. Whites: 19/69. Non-whites: 40/50.”
 
Again, only Democrats had a positive view on it and even then, 40% didn’t.
 
All of these are issues the Democrats are trying to bring front-and-center into a debate not only amongst themselves but also with Donald Trump. All of these are issues they perceive are popular with the vast majority of Americans, but even a poll that OVERSAMPLED DEMOCRATS has pretty terrible news for them.
 
Most people don’t think these proposals are in any way, shape, manner or form a good idea for this country. Basically every single newsworthy policy item the Democrats have brought up is very unpopular with most Americans. And promising people that if they like their health insurance, they get to keep it isn’t going to work when your last President promised pretty much the same thing, only with doctors, and shattered that promise into pieces. (And yes, I know Biden has literally promised the same thing and it’s also not going to work for him).
 
So when you have candidates that all say they agree with these very unpopular items, a fake news media that will coddle them and say “everything is fine” when they are not fine for them, and numbers that show Donald Trump’s approval ratings are only going up and up, you have a recipe for nuclear meltdown in the DNC once Trump wins re-election.
 
Again, I see no reason for these numbers to change for the better for Democrats. And if the economy continues roaring as it is today and Trump continues doing great things for this country and if the Democrats continue sticking to their guns on highly unpopular policy items, I see no reason for Trump to lose come 2020.
 
And once again, I feel obligated to mention that we are still over a year away from that election, but these aren’t items that I think will magically be considered to be good ideas in that time span. No one wakes up one day holding a completely different view on anything. You might begin to change your mind about certain things over time, but free healthcare for illegals doesn’t seem to be a bad idea one day and a good one the next (because it is one of the most idiotic ideas I’ve ever heard of).
 
So if these numbers continue to show up as we draw closer and closer to the 2020 election (as I think they ought to), I don’t see any reasonable way for Democrats to actually beat Trump. Regardless, that doesn’t mean we are afforded the luxury of complacency. We must continue to pray to God that Trump will continue making America great again and will defeat the Satanic Democrats come election time.
 
Matthew 7:7
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened 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 sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Something that often bothers me is the fact that the MSM will sometimes have an anti-Trump, or generally an anti-America pastor who takes the Word of God and says it teaches things it outright does not teach. One example of this is whenever the issue of immigration is brought up and an anti-Trump pastor will try and shame the President and anyone who agrees with him for trying to “separate families at the border” or simply for not letting these people break our laws (not that they ever phrase it that way).
 
And it always leaves me rather perplexed that anyone who claims to have faith in the Lord and who claims to be a practicing Christian, even a pastor of a church, would ever go with whatever the Left stands for, considering what they stand for is often anti-Christian.
 
I believe the answer here is that said people are not truly Christian. They take advantage of the Word of God, the ultimate authority over anything, and interpret it to say what it very much does not say.
 
Returning to the topic of immigration, Leftist preachers are all too happy to jump at the verses where the Lord explicitly tells the Jewish people to allow for strangers to sojourn in their land, to not do them any wrong, to love them as yourself because the Jewish people were themselves strangers in the land of Egypt, but will completely ignore the fact that God also demands sojourners to obey the laws of the land of Israel and ought to be punished for breaking it, as would any Jew be punished for doing the same.
 
It’s one thing to welcome immigrants into our country, it’s another to be taken advantage of by people who break the law and demand we make changes to our system to accommodate them. One is fair and righteous and the other is the exact opposite.
 
So when the Democrat Party hires anti-Trump pastors and preachers who spew this sort of nonsense about accepting and welcoming such law-breakers and leeches in an effort to draw the evangelical vote away from Trump, I can’t help but laugh. The Party of Satan is trying to garner evangelical votes?
 
Actually, that makes an awful lot of sense. Satan loves it when Christians stray from the path of God, begin challenging Him and questioning Him, and ultimately renounce Him. Why would the Democrats, who espouse outright Satanic beliefs of infanticide and utter slavery over people, be any different?
 
I recently read an article from Michael Wear, a man who directed religious outreach for the Obama campaign in 2012, who warned 2020 Democrat candidates not to assume their extreme positions on abortion were mainstream in any way, shape, manner or form. That even Democrat voters aren’t quite that extreme about that stuff and if they continue to embrace their positions, they give good reason for Trump to call them out on their desire to execute babies (and he is right to do so, since that is exactly what they are doing).
 
But not a single one of them is willing to back off on that issue and maybe allow for some amount of restriction (something the vast majority of Americans want). The reason for this is multifaceted. First, the Leftist media, Hollywood and Twitter extremists will castigate them and rip them to shreds for letting off the gas on this issue. If they appear to be in any way compromising, they essentially become “owners of women’s bodies”. And while the far-Left is not the majority, by far, they are very loud and their megaphones are turned up even louder by social media, who are also extremists in their own right.
 
Secondly and finally, they are children of Satan, not of God. They have spent the better part of the last century trying to diminish the impact of Christianity and the Lord. Everything from banning God in the classroom to commercializing Christmas (and policing speech by forcing a switch to “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”) to removing God from the 2012 DNC platform and most recently, getting rid of “so help me God” from U.S. House Committee oaths earlier in the year has been a rather open attack and war against God and Christianity in America.
 
The 6th Commandment says “You shall not murder”. When a human fetus is brutally separated from his or her mother and the life that was growing inside that womb is eliminated, what other thing can we possibly call that apart from murder? And yet, this is the position the Left holds: kill the babies that are unwanted by the mother, regardless of anything else. A father wishes to save his child? Doesn’t matter if the mother doesn’t want the child. A mentally slow woman wishes to have a child? Doesn’t matter if the judicial system doesn’t think she is fit for motherhood and the most reasonable and logical course of action would be abortion.
 
Not one 2020 Democrat knows God. Even the gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana doesn’t know Him despite what he might say. All of them defy the Lord openly, hate Him vehemently, and seek to force that way of thinking on everyone else. The only Christian that would be willing to vote for them is a Christian that is absolutely not paying attention to the world around them at all or someone who isn’t a Christian at all, just says he is outwardly.
 
That’s not to say they can’t be changed by the Lord should He choose to. I used to be rather socially liberal about some things (particularly homosexuality and gay marriage) and would still call myself a Christian at the time. But by no means was I actually a good or knowledgeable Christian. Jesus was still my Lord and Savior at the time (still is, don’t misunderstand) and the Holy Spirit fully entered my heart, but my Christianity was in its infancy. I did not, at the time, understand why God forbade this or that, just knew that He did and wondered why. But I ultimately understood why He forbids these things: they are sinful and the Lord can’t stand even the sight of sin.
 
I used to think Man was naturally good until I understood that he absolutely is not. So Christianity is most certainly a journey not only of the soul, but of the mind. I say this because there may be some people out there who might take offense at being told they were not Christian who might disagree with SOME of the things I am saying. But the truth is that true Christians will abhor abortion, hate law-breakers and understand that while Trump isn’t perfect (obviously, since Jesus is the only One who is perfect), he is far closer to someone like King David (sins and all), who loved the Lord, than someone like Stalin, who hated the God he claimed not to believe in.
 
When looking at the Democrat field, and most Democrats in general, even the ones not running for President, I see the type of Stalinist bigots who would love nothing more than to send people like us to the gulags. No true Christian would support anything the Democrats have been supporting recently. Which is why I hang my head in shame whenever I read that some churches gave illegals sanctuary prior to ICE raids or that some Christians hate the fact that a Virginia pastor actually had the audacity to pray for the President. Such people are not Christians, in reality.
 
They may call themselves that and show outward expressions of faith, but the Lord is not in their hearts.
 
Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”
 
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 many polls for quite a few months, favorability for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, but particularly for AOC, has not really been there, despite how often they are both talked about.
 
Despite the Democrats’ incessant defense of the many horrendous remarks these two make, a notably few amount of people seem to like these two at all (can’t imagine why). And during the weekend, Axios received a Democrat Party internal poll that shows these things to be true.
 
Axios reported: “Ocasio-Cortez was recognized by 74% of (swing) voters in the poll; 22% had a favorable view. Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota – another member of The Squad – was recognized by 53% of the voters; 9% (not a typo) had a favorable view.”
 
So while plenty of people know and can recognize the name of these two Leftist darlings, VERY few people actually like them. Nearly three-quarters of voters could recognize who Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is, but less than 25% of them actually held a favorable view. Perhaps more embarrassing is Omar’s numbers, who despite being recognized by more than half of voters, less than 10% view her favorably.
 
And these kinds of numbers are not a one-off thing, or from some random poll. These numbers are consistent with other polls and come from the Democrats themselves!
 
A poll back in June asked voters inside AOC’s district what they thought of her and here is what they found: “They don’t like her. She has a more than 2:1 ratio of unfavorable (50.88%) to favorable (21.37%) in public opinion. They don’t trust her. Only 10.75% thought she had their best interests in mind in quashing the Amazon deal – 32.60% said she didn’t. They don’t want her. 33.44% are ready to vote against her, and only 13.30% would vote for her.”
 
A Quinnipiac poll from March found that “23% of Americans had a favorable view of the member of Congress (AOC), while 36% had an unfavorable view – a -13 overall approval rating,” according to Vox.
 
A top Democrat running for Congress in 2020 told Axios: “If all voters hear about is AOC, it could put the [House] majority at risk. [S]he’s getting all the news and defining everyone else’s races. Socialism is toxic to these voters.”
 
Those words are not to be taken lightly from this anonymous Democrat running for congressional office (it’s unclear if he or she is an incumbent or challenger). He or she is right about AOC defining everyone else’s races, but that largely is because the vast majority of the Democrat Party is falling in line with people like her. They are beginning to embrace socialism far more openly, seeing the results it’s gotten people like Bernie Sanders and AOC herself (as well as others). There isn’t a single Democrat running for the presidency that hasn’t disavowed socialism or socialistic policies. I keep going back to when every single Democrat raised their hand when asked which one of them would give illegal immigrants free healthcare.
 
Just about whatever position AOC takes, the Democrat Party also takes, for the most part. And while there are those within the Party who disagree sometimes, namely Nancy Pelosi mocking the Green New Deal as “the Green Dream or whatever”, there are plenty of people who see her as the future (for some reason), including former DNC chair Keith Ellison, who outright said that she was the future of the Democrat Party.
 
However, as with AOC’s and Omar’s numbers, socialism isn’t viewed all that favorably. According to Axios: “Socialism was viewed favorably by 18% of the voters and unfavorably by 69%... capitalism was 56% favorable; 32% unfavorable.”
 
It’s precisely because of these reasons that I don’t believe any Democrat running for POTUS has any real chance against Trump. Say what you will about the President (calling him racist certainly doesn’t work anymore and I seriously doubt his tweets regarding Omar’s ingratitude towards America, whether one thinks are racist or not (they aren’t), are going to do anything to hurt him come election time), but he at least can run on results.
 
All Democrats can run on is hating Trump and lying about him. And while that may work with their mindless base (seriously, I had a Twitter debate with someone who legitimately thinks the Mueller report showed collusion, when it adamantly stated there wasn’t and she called me a liar as a result, so some of these people are wacky themselves), that’s not going to work for the vast majority of the American voting bloc.
 
That low favorability for socialism isn’t anything new. Back in March, an NBC News/WSJ poll said that only 25% of Americans would approve of a socialist candidate for President, and in that same poll, only 18% approved of socialism in general, the same number as today (though I would personally hope it gets even lower still as time goes on). In that poll, 50% disapproved of socialism, so that’s a massive, 19-point jump from that poll back in March to this internal Democrat poll.
 
50% viewed capitalism favorably and only 19% unfavorably in that poll, so there’s a bit of a shift in the new poll, with capitalism’s favorability gaining 6 points but its unfavourability also rising significantly, but that might be due to some sampling size differences and other variables.
 
If these trends continue, and if Democrat candidates continue to out-Leftist each other, more and more people will think negatively of them (and these polls are why I don’t buy into the idea that any of these Democrats could beat Trump. I mean, I even saw a poll that said US Women’s Soccer star Megan Rapinoe could beat Trump! Now you know they are definitely crazy) and it will ultimately come bite them in the behind once the 2020 presidential election is here.
 
Not only that, but the House is, in all likelihood, also to go to Republicans if this keeps up. Like the anonymous Democrat candidate said, people like AOC are defining other Democrats’ campaigns. Even if a candidate runs on not being out of his or her mind, AOC’s shadow is going to be a threat to their campaign. Any agreement to anything AOC does will likely be seen as a sort of endorsement of the actions. Any defense of her anti-Semitic, racist or outright insulting and belittling comments regarding illegal immigrant detention centers being in any way, shape or form akin to concentration camps will be seen as a total endorsement of that brand of lunacy.
 
That’s not to say the entire election is in the bag. We don’t want to get complacent here. That’s what Hillary did, believing the election was over before it started, and look at where she is now: doing book tours and signings that barely get covered and hardly anyone shows up. Victory should never be an assumption, but neither should defeat. With everything that I am seeing currently: an America being made great again, Leftists going out of their way to bash it for being America and for being founded in the first place (going so far as to even say this country was founded on slavery, when it was literally founded on liberty, but the Founding Fathers thought slavery was on its way out the door, so they didn’t think they would need to do much apart from keeping ships from importing slaves into the country), and Leftists embracing full-blown socialism and government-takeover of virtually everything they can get their hands on, I really can’t see the Left winning against Trump.
 
These numbers show devastating results to Democrats. And again, this is their own internal polling, so you know there is bound to be some oversampling of Democrats. But despite that possible oversampling (I won’t go so far as to actually accuse them of that without any actual evidence, but that is a common practice for these people, so I doubt they were perfectly objective in their sampling), these numbers show AOC is heavily disliked, as well as Ilhan Omar (quite possibly, the rest of “The Squad”, Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) show at least somewhat similar numbers, but they don’t tend to be quite as frequently talked about) and that socialism is overall viewed as “toxic” to voters, in the words of the anonymous Democrat candidate.
 
I can only hope and pray that these numbers will continue to show up like this, or get even lower, as time goes on.
 
Deuteronomy 28:7
“’The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.’”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
 

It is no surprise that I am one who listens to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis. And one thing that has really stuck with me for the past couple of weeks (or however long he has been talking about it) is the fact that not a single Democrat Presidential candidate even bothers to speak about the problems in California, specifically in places like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where the streets are almost literally paved with crap, largely because they cannot blame Republicans for such horrible conditions.
 
There is a reason as to why I started mentioning California as an example of what a socialist country looks like. Of course, California is a State, not a country, but considering it is one of the biggest economies in the world, and considering how dominant socialists are in that State, for all intents and purposes, it doubles as a small socialist nation in these discussions.
 
And considering the countless times I’ve written about how awful the State is (which is a huge pity considering how naturally beautiful it is), it’s no secret that California is basically a hellhole in many ways. The homeless crisis that they face is one ugly and major problem in a vast sea of problems for the State, and it’s a problem that can only belong to the Democrats who have raised the cost of living in that State so much that very few people outside of Hollywood, sports stars and the government are capable of living there.
 
This homeless crisis has garnered nationwide attention, even if the MSM is trying their hardest not to cover it and certainly not to draw the logical conclusion that Democrats are responsible for this mess. But even President Donald Trump, in an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, mentioned that the federal government might have to intervene in the city of Los Angeles to take care of the homeless problem ravaging the city.
 
That interview (apart from the actual problem, of course) is likely what prompted one LA activist to create a video (below) asking for the President’s and federal government’s intervention in the city to take care of the homeless problem.
 
LA activist Alexandra Datig said in her video: “… I am calling on the President of the United States to intervene in Los Angeles due to the state of emergency created by its homeless crisis. In the county of Los Angeles, we have more than 59,000 people homeless. We have more than 36,300 people homeless in the city of Los Angeles, and we have more than 16,000 people living in [their] cars. We have more than 3,000 homeless veterans. Veteran homelessness was supposed to be ended by the year 2015 according to our mayor. This has not happened.”
 
“We have had a 75% increase in homelessness in the past six years under the leadership of our mayor, Eric Garcetti. Our leaders, here in this city, have lost heart and cannot deal with the crisis at hand. Our police officers are getting sick; our social workers are getting sick. Our sanitation workers are being treated terribly. Trash problems are everywhere. We are having serious environmental crimes happening, every day, several times a day, where 59,000 people in the county of Los Angeles are dumping raw sewage into our storm drains, entering our waterways.”
 
“These are serious, serious environmental crimes. We have homeless youth; we have had, in the past five years, to 2018, more than 3,600 people die on the streets of Los Angeles. These people, who are living on the street, some of them, are sentenced to death by homelessness. This situation is completely unacceptable and we need a federal intervention immediately. We need FEMA; we need the Red Cross; we need the CDC and the Environmental Protection Agency. We need immediate assistance. This is urgent. Immediate assistance is needed. Now. Today. No delay. Please, President Trump, we are calling on you: Help our city. Our citizens are dying; they will continue to die.”
 
This is not the first time Datig has brought up this problem or called out Eric Garcetti for his incompetence. NBC News reported late last month that Datig was leading a petition calling for Garcetti to be recalled, saying, “We don’t want any more excuses from this mayor. We want him to step down. We want him gone and we want leadership that is going to take care of this city. This city has become a death camp for the homeless.” Datig has also created the website: www.recallthelamayor.com.
 
LA station WRAL also reported: “Figures released earlier this month showed a 16% jump in Los Angeles’ homeless population over the last year, pegging it at 36,000 – the size of a small city. That’s no surprise to anyone who lives or works downtown, where tents crowd sidewalks within sight of City Hall and the stench of urine fills the air.”
 
Suffice it to say, the situation is dire in Los Angeles. But the biggest problem here isn’t simply the homeless crisis. The homeless crisis is a symptom of a larger disease called Socialism.
 
The State income tax in California is the highest in the nation (among the States that have income tax) at around 13%. Of course, it largely depends on how much money you are making, but considering the high cost of living in California (among the top 7, according to USA Today) and considering the State has some of the highest home prices in the nation (I saw plenty of shoddy-looking houses going for nearly $500,000 on Zillow, though there were some others that were nicer and cheaper), no wonder so many people are homeless. The median household income in California is around $11,000 more than the median in the country ($71,805 in California).
 
All these things combined and you have a recipe for a homeless crisis. If people can’t afford to live somewhere and don’t make enough to move out of State, they will be forced to live on the streets, as one can plainly see is the case in LA.
 
Addressing the homeless crisis is important and a good first step, but it’s not like it came out of nowhere. There is a root cause to it that is easy to see given the information I talked about in the previous paragraphs. And I do not think this problem is going to go away without some serious overhaul to both the political system (that continually elects Democrats and only Democrats aka getting rid of illegals that illegally vote for Democrats) and the economic atmosphere of huge tax rates on middle class families and massive home costs for houses that wouldn’t even touch 6 digits in many other states.
 
The Democrats don’t want to bring attention to this issue because they know that it precisely belongs to them and is an example of the kind of damage they could bring on the country. This is what socialism does to not only a State but an entire country. California, unfortunately, is one of the worst States to live in and that solely lies on the Democrats’ shoulders. They turned what used to be one of the best States into one of the worst (seriously, I would’ve loved to live in California in the age of Reagan before he naively signed that amnesty bill that led the way for Democrats to take it).
 
If you want to know what it’s like to live under socialism, look at California, where you can knowingly spread STDs to people but cannot use plastic straws.
 
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.