If you asked me yesterday what the likelihood was that there was an illegal immigrant out there who supports Trump and believes illegal immigration to be a bad thing, I would’ve said that there was next to no chance at all that there would be any such person out there today. However, on Breitbart News Daily, a SiriusXM radio show, Sergio Eduardo Velasquez appeared telling his story about being a DACA recipient and supporting President Trump.
 
Sergio is a Turning Point USA activist, a student at Cal State Los Angeles, and a former Leftist who supported Bernie Sanders.
 
He said on the radio show: “In 2016, I supported Bernie Sanders. I fell into your typical leftist stereotype. I was self-entitled. I believed that more government was the answer to everything. I chanted racism. I failed to look at myself in the mirror and failed to consider that if there was an issue it might be not that society was the problem, but that I myself was the problem.”
 
He continued: “I think part of being a conservative, part of realizing that essentially conservatism is the way to go, a lot of it was growing up.”
 
The host of Breitbart News Daily, Alex Marlow, proceeded to ask Sergio about his own life, particularly since he is an illegal immigrant: “So let’s talk about you not just becoming right of center but ultimately becoming an activist particularly with your history because you would be someone who’s part of the group who is the dreamers, the DACA recipients. I assume you don’t know another home. But at least one of your parents was not here legally – so this is your home as far as you know, though your status as an immigrant is not a legal status aside from this DACA protection, but still Trump resonates with you, why?”
 
Sergio replied by saying: “Well first of all, I think that part of it is, it goes back to realizing that it’s one of those things where you have to realize you’re the problem. I have no problem with saying I’m an illegal immigrant, the term doesn’t offend me. And the thing is, I can recognize that illegal immigration is not a good thing. I can recognize that legal immigrants have to come first. America is a sovereign country. You don’t barge into someone’s home and tell them, ‘Okay, I’m here to stay, give me free stuff.’ Immigrants in general, we’re guests, I like to tell people that illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, no one’s entitled to everything. Immigrants owe absolutely everything they have to this country, and we need to stop this nonsense of entitlement.”
 
So what we have here is a young man who used to support Bernie Sanders and was by all intents and purposes a full-on socialist, with the idea that more government was the solution to every single problem there exists in this world, but then went on to recognize the fallacy of those ideals and came to recognize that conservatism, capitalism, is the way to go when it comes to solving problems and came to support Donald Trump, and even recognize that illegal immigration is not a good thing. There are plenty of other people who took at least a fairly similar path in life, going from liberal or Leftist to full-blown conservative. However, I would not really expect an illegal immigrant, even a DACA recipient, to undertake such a path.
 
The argument conservatives (especially myself) often make is that the only reason Democrats support open borders is to have a permanent underclass that would vote for them and help them take and keep power permanently. If they believed for one second that open borders policies had the potential to help their political opposition, they would pass legislation to fund and build Trump’s Wall in a heartbeat. And ironically, it looks like at least one illegal immigrant is willing to support the Democrats’ opposition.
 
Now, you might be asking what my own views are about this entire situation, particularly pertaining to the young man’s illegal status in this country. While I certainly agree with what he said (not everything, as I believe Americans ought to come first, not even legal immigrants), there is the awkward reality that he is in this country illegally due to the unconstitutional DACA executive action signed by Obama that protects people like him.
 
Marlow, the host of the radio show, mentioned that at least one of his parents was not here legally, suggesting that he may have been an anchor baby (I tried looking him up on TPUSA and outside of it, but could not find anything about his background, so that is all I have to go on) so one cannot really blame him for his illegal alien status anymore than one can be blamed for the family they are born into, the financial situation they are born into, or the country they are born into (assuming that he is, indeed, an anchor baby).
 
And while I am not about to backtrack on my belief regarding anchor babies and illegal immigration in general just because I found an illegal immigrant I actually like and agree with, I do empathize with the guy. He did not ask to be born into an illegal immigrant status, but the actions and decisions of one (or both) of his parents led him down that path.
 
But regardless of his unfortunate circumstances, I still stand behind the belief that any illegal immigrant is a criminal by definition. That’s not to compare this guy, or even other illegal immigrants, to murderers and rapists (except the illegals who do murder and rape), but that is to say that those who are here who are not legally allowed to be here are, by definition, law-breakers and as such, must face the appropriate punishment. For illegals, regardless of how they got here, that means deportation to their home countries (or the home countries of the parents for those who were born in the U.S.).
 
Because the main thing about this entire debate, this entire issue is, as I’ve said time and time again: the rule of law. We cannot simply twist and bend the rule of law to suit our own wishes and desires. Do I like this guy because he’s a conservative, a Trump supporter and (might be) a Christian? Yes, no doubt. I think he stands up for the right things. But softening my views on the issue of illegal immigration and DACA would only make me look like a hypocrite and make me no different from the Left.
 
I like the guy, but I still stand by the belief that all illegal immigrants should be deported to their home countries. Now, if they then go through the immigration process legally, pay their dues, wait their time, go where they are supposed to go and do what they are supposed to do, then this country welcomes them with open arms. What is expected of them is to obey our laws; if they don’t obey our laws in how they enter the country, why would we expect them to obey any other laws from that point on? What is expected of them is to obey our laws, respect them, and come to assimilate into the American lifestyle, because as Sergio says, immigrants (legal or illegal) owe an awful lot to this country. The least they could do is learn the language and adopt our culture as their own, without even necessarily abandoning their previous one.
 
That’s the way it should be, that’s the just way to do things, the right way to do things. I feel for the guy, and if he were to get deported to whatever country his parent(s) is/are from, I would hope he and his family would go through the right process to return to this country. Matter of fact, I would hope that for any illegal immigrant that is currently here. I don’t dislike them for being immigrants (I’m an immigrant myself, after all), I dislike them for being here illegally. If they go through the process the right way, they would be fine in my book (except the murderers and rapists, of course, but that generally goes for any murderer or rapist).
 
And while I don’t know for certain what the guy thinks or feels about being here illegally, he at least recognizes why illegal immigration is a bad thing. He recognizes why the things Leftists want are all bad things.
 
He used to believe the government was the solution to life’s problems. But the reality is that the government is the CAUSE for many of life’s problems (for example: want to get rid of student loan debt? Get rid of student loans in the first place and watch the stock of college degrees go up and tuitions fall down). We wholeheartedly agree on many things politically, including on illegal immigration. I just hope he recognizes that what is right here (and I think he does recognize this, as he admits he is part of the problem) would be to be deported and go through the immigration process legally to return to the country he was (likely) born in.
 
That’s what I want for any illegal immigrant, to be honest. But I am glad (as well as delightfully surprised) that there is at least one illegal immigrant out there who is NOT part of the Left’s permanent slave underclass.
 
May God bless this young man and guide him.
 
Isaiah 1:17
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”
 
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 often-used charges against Donald Trump, apart from the charge that he colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election, is that Donald Trump is a racist bigot who hates minorities and wishes to kick all of them out of the country, turning America into a sanctuary for white people.
 
Despite how utterly asinine that sounds, there are those who believe that to be the case and often look to Charlottesville as the proof of this (despite the fact that he is not a white supremacist and he disavowed it in Charlottesville too). Many on the Left, and indeed in the academic world, believed that racial tensions in the U.S. would only get much worse under the Trump administration.
 
However, Daniel J. Hopkins and Samantha Washington, a pair of University of Pennsylvania sociologists, ran a study measuring the “racial attitudes” of 2500 random Americans since 2008.
 
Even within the report, the pair admit they honestly believed they would see an increase in racist opinions within the study, stating: “Normalization of prejudice or opinion leadership both lead us to expect that expressed prejudice may have increased in this period, especially among Republicans or Trump supporters.”
 
In other words, they fully bought into the idea that Trump and his supporters are racist and fully expected there to be a rise in racism within the group that most supports the presumed-to-be racist POTUS. They even believed that such racism and prejudice was completely normalized, at least within a specific group of people on the Right.
 
However, they found the complete opposite to be the case:
 
“Americans, claim Hopkins and Washington, have actually become less inclined to express racist opinions since Donald Trump was elected. Anti-black prejudice, they found, declined by a statistically-insignificant degree between 2012 and 2016, when Trump was elected. But then, after 2016, it took a sharp dive that was statistically significant. Moreover, contrary to their expectations, the fall was as evident among Republican voters as it was among Democrats. There was also a general fall in anti-Hispanic prejudice, too, although this was more evident among Democrat voters.”
 
So there are a few things to discuss here. First, let us return to the previous statement, the one about the researchers expecting a certain result. They expected this, according to Spectator (the original source of this study) because they “had been led to expect this… through an extensive reading of recent literature in social sciences which, they say, supports the notion that racist attitudes lie dormant inside many people, waiting to be triggered by certain events…”
 
Basically, they fully believe there is a racist in all of us and certain events, like the election of a supposed racist, are supposed to let out that little racist demon in us, at least for some. And while I believe we are all naturally evil, I also believe racism is more nurture than it is nature. Most people don’t hate people that look different from them from the get-go. Even Hitler had to come to the belief that Jews were bad through nurture. He wasn’t born hating Jews and people aren’t born racist.
 
Second, going back to the results that seemingly shocked the researchers, take note of the fact that racial tensions did not statistically (at least significantly to show any changes) get better at all during the Obama years. What was it that his election was supposed to end? Didn’t the Left promise that, through electing Obama, racism would end in America? That we would be proving to the world (because we apparently have to prove something) that we are no longer racist because we elected a black President (which is entirely ironic and actually racist if the only reason anyone voted for Obama was because he was black)?
 
On the contrary, Obama served to only make racial tensions grow worse. The Ferguson and Baltimore riots and the insistence that cops are racist for (unfortunately) killing a few black people in individual cases (some of which are entirely justified, as the suspect was either about to hurt the officer or in the process of doing so) only made us a more racially divided America, and it can be attributed, at least to some extent, as the big driver of a Dallas shooting of police officers in 2016.
 
Not to mention the fake news media constantly parrots the Democrat Party’s idea that Republicans are racists who “want to put [black people] back in chains”, according to the current Democrat frontrunner.
 
But put that in contrast with what they found during the Trump administration and you see that all of that was fake news. We are not unbelievable racists that jump at the chance to make any minority’s life hell. Quite the contrary, as the Trump economy has seen record-low unemployment rates for African-Americans and Hispanics, and the fact that Trump signed into law criminal justice reform as well as his desire to prioritize illegal immigration, which disproportionately hurts minorities in America.
 
The third thing I want to discuss here is that last bit about anti-Hispanic prejudice falling more on the Democrat side than the Republican side. That one I would like to challenge a little bit, at least in the definition of prejudice against Hispanics.
 
I take it the recent desire by many on the Left to open our borders to “asylum seekers” and “refugees” counts towards a sort of drop in anti-Hispanic prejudice. I would like to challenge this as not being a drop in anti-Hispanic prejudice but as being a drop in IQ points on the Left in terms of what makes America safe.
 
As I have often said in the past, the immigration debate is not about race, despite the Left’s best efforts to make it about race. We don’t deny entry to certain people based on the color of their skin. We deny entry to certain people based on certain qualifications such as not having proper documentation. Those who are here who do not have the right to be here simply should NOT be here. How hard is that idea to grasp?
 
It defeats the entire purpose of even having an immigration system at all if we are just going to let anyone in who wants to come in (since our current economy is thriving under this administration, I imagine many people want to come here). We are a nation ruled by laws. Ignoring our laws means we have no nation, certainly not a stable one. A nation must be able to control its borders and we don’t have much of that currently because of the Left’s incessant promise that they will get rid of Trump and open up our borders, leading whole caravans to start up (likely funded by people like George Soros because these caravans don’t just spring up out of nowhere with no leadership).
 
Just because we, conservatives, do not want our borders flooded by illegals doesn’t mean there is anti-Hispanic prejudice. And just because the Left wants our borders to be open doesn’t mean they are less prejudiced against Hispanics. Matter of fact, I would argue that they are FAR MORE prejudiced against Hispanics than conservatives are. Illegal immigration hurts minorities, including Hispanics. And yet, it’s exactly what the Left wants more of. They want open borders not to help poor, helpless Hispanics but to have a permanent underclass base, who will depend on the Democrats’ various government programs to take care of them in exchange for them voting for Democrats, whether or not they are legally allowed to.
 
They don’t care about the Hispanic population. They just want the Hispanic (legal or illegal) vote. They want Hispanics to be permanently dependent on their “help”. They don’t see us as humans (much like they never saw black people as humans), but rather, they see us as votes that can help them get and stay in power. Meanwhile, they pass law after law that makes it harder for people to prosper.
 
Wanting open borders is not a lack of anti-Hispanic prejudice. If anything, it only leads to more prejudice and injustice.
 
But in any case, these two researchers discovered what Trump’s supporters have known for years now: Trump is not racist. Or at least, racial relations are not worsening under Trump. I don’t think these researchers will give up on the idea that he is racist, but you never know.
 
What matters is that they at least had the integrity to release their study finding that America is less racist today than it was during the Obama administration. This is not something that will be reported by the fake news media, as it defies one of their most used narratives, but we know the truth. The only racism that one can find exists solely on the Left and the fake news media.
 
Hebrews 12:14
“Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see 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.

These last couple of weeks have been absolutely fantastic for the pro-life movement. First, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law a bill that would ban abortions once a heartbeat has been detected in a fetus (around 6 weeks into the pregnancy), soon after that, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed into law the country’s most pro-life law, banning abortions outright, and criminalizing the act of performing an abortion (not receiving one, which is what Leftists often lie about) and the Missouri House of Representatives and Senate passed their own heartbeat bill.
 
Naturally, Hollywood and the Left went absolutely nuclear regarding these great news, though primarily on Georgia, considering how often movies tend to be filmed there thanks to the state’s fairly low tax on production (in other words, it is cheap to film there).
 
Hollywood Leftists decided to boycott the state, citing the heartbeat bill as the reason for it:
 
“This law would make Georgia an inhospitable place for those in the film and television industry to work, including our members,” the Writers Guild of America said in a statement.
 
“It should instead be called a ‘forced pregnancy bill’ – because it would outlaw abortion before a woman even knows that she is pregnant,” C-list actress Alyssa Milano said. “It’s the most anti-woman bill of its kind in the country, and it sends the exact wrong message about the kind of state Georgia’s leaders wish to create. In short, HB 481 (the official name of the bill) would make Georgia the most regressive state in the country.”
 
I personally have an awful lot to say about these things. First, regarding the Writers Guild’s statement, how exactly is outlawing the murder of an unborn baby creating an inhospitable place for the film and television industries? Not being able to kill a child makes the state inhospitable to these industries? Perhaps, then, it’s the industries’ problem, not the State’s, if they literally cannot live or work in a state where killing children in the womb is deemed illegal.
 
Second, regarding Alyssa Milano’s statement, half of the victims of abortion are women, or girls. Why isn’t that taken into consideration when discussing how a bill is “anti-woman”? And this is without even taking into consideration how truly heartless (pun not intended) you must be to understand that a fetus has a heartbeat, a rather strong indication of its viability, and still think it is okay to kill it.
 
Third, as far as “regressive” goes, I would think that the slaughter of the innocent for literally no reason is more regressive and barbaric than the pursuit of saving and preserving a life, one of the inalienable rights given to us by God as detailed in the Declaration of Independence.
 
But regardless of what Hollywood Leftists will say, claim and think, the vast majority of America actually disagrees with them, at least when it comes to the heartbeat bill.
 
According to a Hill/HarrisX survey, most voters think that six-week abortion bans are either “just right” or “too lenient”.
 
34% of voters said they believe six-week abortion bans are “just right”, while 21% believe they are “too lenient”, with 45% of voters saying the bans are “too restrictive”.
 
In other words, 55% of voters support these types of bans while 45% are against them, a 10-point difference.
 
What is interesting is the fact that younger voters are actually more supportive of these bans.
 
The Hill reports that 52% of “respondents 65 years of age and older said they believed that six-week abortion bans are too restrictive. Thirty-one percent said they were just right while 17 percent said they were too lenient.” That’s a 52-48 split, and a 4-point difference.
 
“Among voters between the ages of 50-64, 41 percent said the new laws were too restrictive, 38 percent said they were just right, and 21 percent said they did not go far enough.” That’s 59% of voters in that age range who support such a ban, while only 41% oppose it, an 18-point difference.
 
“A 45 percent plurality of voters between 35-49 said the laws were too restrictive, 36 percent said they were just right and 18 percent said they were too lenient.” That’s 54% in favor of the bans and 45% against it, a 9-point difference.
 
“The youngest voters polled, those 34 and under, were most likely to say the abortion bans did not go far enough, although far less than a majority – 27 percent – said this. Forty-three percent said the laws were too restrictive while 30 percent said they were just right.” That’s 57-43, a 14-point difference.
 
I cannot imagine how hard a pill this must be to swallow for the Left. Ignoring the fact that a majority of voters polled said they supported these types of bills, the younger generations all had considerably bigger gaps between those who supported these bills and those who did not support them.
 
Younger generations are the ones the Left most want to get their hooks on. It is often said that “children are the future”, so it stands to reason that the Left wants younger voters siding with them on such issues than they would care about older ones. After all, they’ve already cast out old, white men from their voting bloc. They don’t care about getting their votes, only younger generations’.
 
Why do you think the Left is so adamant about lowering the voting age to 16? Because a young person is more likely to believe the bull crap the Left spews than someone who has been alive for a long while, has life experience, and understands that what the Left is spewing is bull crap.
 
Winston Churchill is often attributed (though has never been confirmed) for saying: “If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.”
 
The quote (whether or not it’s Churchill’s) speaks at the fact that young people are often more emotionally-driven rather than intellectually-driven. Take climate change as an example. Young people are indoctrinated since Kindergarten now-a-days to believe we are destroying our planet. Obviously, that would not be a good thing if that were true, but because young people are TOLD what to think and will not often challenge such deeply-engrained beliefs, they go through life believing this sort of thing. After all, you would have to be a monster to be okay with killing our planet… if that were actually what was going on.
 
But as people grow older and garner more life experience and start to develop their own line of thinking, they will come to challenge things they’ve been told in their youth and seek to find out if those things are actually true. That’s not to say that is what always happens, of course. Bernie Sanders was around when fire was discovered and he still thinks socialism is a great thing.
 
But what is expected of people is to learn basic truths about the world and shift from an emotional liberal to an intellectual conservative –  going from believing we are killing our planet to using logic and reason to understand that we could do no such thing, at least with the methods described as being the culprit of such fabled destruction.
 
However, as we find in the aforementioned poll regarding six-week abortion bans, those who are younger actually take the more pro-life stance than the boomer generation, which saw the 1973 Roe v. Wade case essentially legalize abortion.
 
And even the boomer generation’s statistics in the poll find that there is a slim majority of boomers who are against these types of bills. 52-48 is considerably closer than the Left would want.
 
But in any case, I am thankful to God that so many people are aware of the fact that there is a life growing inside the woman and that no “my body, my choice” argument seems to be effective in the least bit. After all, what we are talking about is not a woman’s body, but the body that grows inside a woman. A separate entity with its own genetic code that is its own individual, will have its own name, life, and everything else that is attributed to humans once it is born. The general understanding here is that life is growing inside the womb, something even some (rather evil) Democrats understand.
 
While the fate of these bills in court is not exactly certain (let’s just say I don’t trust Kavanaugh any more), it is clear that a good number of Americans do not fall in line with the Left’s barbaric thinking that women have the “right” to slaughter their own children growing inside the womb.
 
Thank God for that.
 
Ephesians 2:10
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

A little over a month ago, the Alabama House of Representatives voted in favor of passing the most pro-life bill in the country, sending it to the Alabama Senate for a vote. Recently, the Alabama Senate voted 25-6 in favor of passing the bill, sending it to Governor Kay Ivey to sign into law, which she did a day after the passing of the bill.
 
Before debate was opened prior to the vote-taking of the bill, Alabama Sen. Clyde Chambliss began by saying: “When is a person a person? When does a life become a life? I believe that if we terminate the life of an unborn child, we are putting ourselves in God’s place.”
 
A great and significant statement to make regarding the entire issue of abortion, where Leftists often insinuate that a child growing inside the womb is not a person, a rather illogical assertion to make considering no one says the same about an unborn giraffe or elephant, for example. It is nothing but an attempt to dehumanize people so that the vast majority of people would be indoctrinated to believe what they are eliminating is not life but what equates to a disease.
 
But at the end of the day, we are talking about a person. Those who understand that tend not to favor abortion (unless you are a heinous Alabama Democrat who is 100% okay with killing babies in the womb), so the idea is to dehumanize the unborn.
 
The bill is also a sort of challenge to the fact that multiple Democrat states have either passed extreme pro-abortion bills or have discussed passing extreme pro-abortion bills wherein an unborn child is allowed to be killed up to even labor (and some have voiced their desire to allow for post-birth abortions).
 
As a reminder, the bill makes it so that abortion is considered a felony largely equating it to murder (because that’s precisely what it is) but does not hold the mother criminally responsible if she were to have an abortion (which is what some Leftists will try and lie to people about, saying that women would be thrown in jail for getting an abortion when that’s far from the truth).
 
The bill specifically states that “a woman who receives an abortion will not be held criminally culpable or civilly liable for receiving the abortion.”
 
The bill also explains that the only exception would be in the extremely rare case in which the mother’s life or health is in danger:
 
“In reasonable medical judgment, the child’s mother has a condition that so complicates her medical condition that it necessitates the termination of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function. This term does not include a condition based on a claim that the woman is suffering from an emotional condition or a mental illness which will cause her to engage in conduct that intends to result in her death or the death of her unborn child.”
 
“However, the condition may exist if a second physician who is licensed in Alabama as a psychiatrist, with a minimum of three years of clinical experience, examines the woman and documents that the woman has a diagnosed serious mental illness and because of it, there is reasonable medical judgment that she will engage in conduct that could result in her death or the death of her unborn child.”
 
In other words, a mother can’t simply claim to have some sort of mental disease and therefore receive an abortion, rather there needs to be legitimate proof and medical analysis done to determine that there is serious mental health issues that could result in the mother engaging in behavior in which she would die or cause the death of her own child.
 
Of course, there exists the problem of psychiatrists misdiagnosing someone (willingly or unwillingly), but I believe this goes a long way towards protecting the unborn, as most (hopefully) psychiatrists likely won’t put their own beliefs ahead of their careers, reputation, etc. to intentionally misdiagnose a pregnant woman to allow her to have a “legitimate” reason for her abortion.
 
The rather funny and interesting thing about the passing of this bill is that a senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project (there is no freedom in bondage, as I always say) threatened the Governor if she signs it with a lawsuit, writing in an email to CBS News: “We will not stand by while politicians endanger the lives of women and doctors for political gain. Know this, Governor Ivey: If you sign this dangerous bill into law, we will see you in Court.”
 
I say that’s rather funny and interesting because that is largely the point of the bill. The bill is not simply to outlaw abortions in the state; that’s just the more immediate goal. The larger, overarching goal of the bill is to have this heavily challenged by these pro-abortion, pro-death Leftist lunatics that it might make its way up to the Supreme Court, forcing them to review the 1973 Court decision that declared abortion was constitutional (by the way, the entire court was filled with old, white men, but we don’t hear anything about how they are somehow unfairly making decisions about a woman’s body).
 
The mission here is to have the conservative (hopefully) Supreme Court review Roe v. Wade and overturn that horrible decision, leaving it up to the states to decide on their own abortion laws as the 10th Amendment allows.
 
As Rep. Terri Collins remarked (the woman who sponsored the bill) last week, “The heart of this bill is to confront a decision that was made by the courts in 1973 that said the baby in the womb is not a person. This bill addresses that one issue. Is that baby in the womb a person? I believe our law says it is.” And after the bill passed, she then went on to remark: “This bill is about challenging Roe v. Wade and protecting the lives of the unborn because an unborn baby is a person who deserves love and protection. I have prayed my way through this bill. This is the way we get where we want to get eventually.”
 
A very appropriate and wholesome response to the passing of the bill. The Left will go out of their way to mock prayer (as they often do after a tragic shooting takes place) but that only goes to show just who they are unashamed of siding with: Satan.
 
The redefining of humanity is evil. It’s what Hitler did to the Jews (and other classes of people) and what old Southern Democrats would do towards black people (and still do, considering the fact that black people are disproportionately targeted by Planned Parenthood). And while Leftists can (and often will) make the claim that the banning of abortion is somehow evil, I will never be convinced that giving a woman the “right” to kill her own child for whatever reason she comes up with (and she doesn’t even have to have a reason) is not evil in any way.
 
It is not women’s “healthcare” to kill a child. And despite what the Left says about PP clinics, they do not perform any sort of healthcare to women. They are very strictly a slaughterhouse for the children of women who are either so scared about their pregnancy that they fall prey to their claws or simply are entirely apathetic or ignorant to the life that is growing inside them. And for the fact that these people claim to be “pro-choice”, they sure make it their mission to discourage the mothers from simply giving their children up for adoption.
 
As I have said often in some of my latest articles surrounding this topic, there is nothing about abortion that is “healthcare” to women or “liberating” to them. It is no more a healthcare service than a demolition derby is a mechanic service for your vehicle. It is no more liberating than being enchained to your own sins.
 
And while I may sound like a broken record in saying this time after time, I believe it is a point that is seldom made. People will argue about what a woman’s rights are regarding this (so will I), what the definition of life is and a lot of aspects, but the topic of being enslaved to sin is one that, while attached to this, is hardly, if ever, covered.
 
A few days prior to the Alabama bill passing, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law a “heartbeat” bill, which prompted Leftist Alyssa Milano to insist that women go on a “sex strike” as a response. I did not necessarily cover it myself, but I did think it was deliciously ironic considering that is largely where the problem stems: sex outside of marriage.
 
If that issue were to be resolved, no one would ever even discuss abortion because there would likely be no abortions at all. But society has essentially made it so that those who wait for marriage (aka Christians) are mocked for such a decision. I, myself, was mocked for holding that belief on a Twitter debate recently surrounding the topic of the Alabama Senate passing this bill. But I did not feel ashamed or embarrassed. Why would I? I’m the one siding with the Lord and they are the ones siding with Satan.
 
But it is here where we often find Man’s true nature of evil. That which is of the Lord’s and those who follow Him are mercilessly mocked. In the natural, Man wants nothing to do with God because he does not wish to be told that he is doing something wrong.
 
When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, what did they do? Avoid God as much as they could. When Cain killed Abel, what did Cain do upon being questioned of his brother’s whereabouts? He lied to the Lord to hide what he had done.
 
And yet, they knew that what they were doing was wrong. They could feel it deep down. Why do you think so many women who have an abortion feel so depressed and sad about it? You often have some sort of feeling of guilt when you are doing something wrong, but in the natural, you are drawn to do it anyway.
 
The gentleman with whom I was debating felt that I was judging him for his stance. I was doing no such thing, merely offering the reasons as to why he was wrong and hoping God would send His Spirit to him that he might see the Light. But nevertheless, he felt judged, not because I was judging him (far from it, as it is not my job to do so) but because he himself felt, at least to some extent, that he was in the wrong – that he was doing something wrong. He likely won’t come to face that reality from just a random debate on Twitter, but I honestly hope it did at least something to help him out.
 
Regardless, as far as this Alabama Senate vote and signing of this bill by the Governor go, I am very proud of my state and look forward to the court challenges that will send it to the Supreme Court (if they actually decide to take it up and not stonewall like they have been for some other important cases).
 
Psalm 139:14
“I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.”
 
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 talking about Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Al-Shabaab)’s anti-Semitic comments and how the Democrat Party initially planned to pass a resolution condemning all anti-Semitism (without singling out Omar) but then simply chose to pass a resolution condemning all forms of hatred, pretending as if no anti-Semitism actually was spewed.
 
Recently, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Hamas) tried her hand at a common tactic among anti-Semites: revisionist history of the Holocaust and Israel.
 
On a Yahoo podcast named, “Skullduggery”, Tlaib said the following words: “There’s kind of a calming feeling I always tell folks when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors, Palestinians, who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people’s passports… I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post- the Holocaust, post- the tragedy and horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time.”
 
Now, there are a number of things that are very, very wrong about this.
 
First, that initial portion is quite horrific. She gets a “calming feeling” when she thinks about the Holocaust and the tragedy of it? That is honestly some of the most vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric I have heard in my life. And before anyone tells me I’m taking it out of context, as pretty much all Democrats will claim here, in what context exactly is the phrase “calming feeling” when thinking of the Holocaust in any way not anti-Semitic?
 
Had she tried to say she got a “calming” or “pleasant” feeling of “knowing” her ancestors did nice things for the Jews (a complete lie, but we’ll get to that in a moment), then that would’ve been different. But she prefaced that with the actual Holocaust and its tragedy.
 
She could’ve said: “There’s kind of a calming feeling I always tell folks when I think of what my ancestors did for the persecuted Jews post- the Holocaust, about how they did their best to try to help them, even if it came at the cost of their very own lives and livelihoods.” THAT would’ve still been utterly wrong and Jewish revisionist history, but it at least would’ve been taken a little bit better, in my opinion. It at least would’ve hidden her hatred for Jews and appreciation for the Holocaust. But the Left is convinced they can get away with pretty much everything, so she can make clear her hatred of Jews and appreciation for the Holocaust and the Democrats + the media will come to her defense… exactly as they did.
 
The second, and perhaps most important thing that is wrong about what she said is the actual revisionist history. The Palestinians living in the area at the time were anything BUT welcoming of the Jewish people post- the Holocaust. Violence was often used against Jews returning to the Holy Land, which was occupied by Muslims at the time.
 
And matter of fact, it was the Palestinian Grand Mufti, Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, who was a big ally of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, even being a big fan of Hitler’s “final solution” of the elimination of lesser races and people.
 
Now, a commonplace lie that is peddled by anti-Semites is that Israel only exists today because of the Holocaust. That is patently untrue.
 
Even ignoring the fact that Israel existed as a nation THOUSANDS of years before the Holocaust took place, what with Abraham essentially being considered every Jew’s ancestor (and every Christian, really), as well as Moses delivering the Jewish people out of bondage through God’s power, and God choosing Saul to anoint him as king of Israel, followed by David and Solomon, the Jewish people began to resettle in the land WELL before the Holocaust.
 
According to the New York Post: “Last Wednesday was Israel’s Memorial Day for fallen soldiers and victims of terror. Israeli television broadcast all the names – 23,741. The litany begins with Avraham Shlomo Zalman Tzoref, who was murdered by Arabs opposing his work for the Jewish community in Jerusalem. That was in 1851. The Holocaust took place nearly a century later.”
 
What’s more, Jewish people began to return to Jerusalem, or Zion, around the 1880s. “In 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declared that his government ‘view[s] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.’ The League of Nations, a precursor to the United Nations, gave the British a temporary mandate to govern Palestine, and under the mandate, the Jewish community formed its own self-governing body in 1922.”
 
So there was already quite the Jewish presence in the area well before Hitler came along. And returning to the Grand Mufti, according to a German transcript of a meeting between him and Hitler, when visiting German troops, the Mufti said: “An appeal by the Mufti to the Arab countries… would produce a great number of volunteers eager to fight.”
 
Hitler then made a promise to the Mufti that, after conquering the Southern Caucasus, “Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere.”
 
The Arabs even pressured the British into limiting the number of Jews who would be granted access to the mandate established in 1917 in seek of refuge, leading many ships to be forced to turn around and many Jews to be sent to almost certain death in Europe.
 
What’s more, in 1947 when the U.N. voted to “partition mandatory Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, five Arab armies invaded in an attempt to make it all Arab.”
 
So not only was there considerable Jewish presence in the region well before the Holocaust, enough to petition the British to allow for a sovereign Jewish state, and not only were the Arabs in cahoots with the Nazis, but once World War II had ended and the newly-formed U.N. voted to allow for a Jewish state to exist in the region, the Arabs (or Palestinians) outright invaded the region to keep it from becoming Israel’s.
 
The REAL history lesson here is the fact that Tlaib’s ancestors SOUGHT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWS, EVEN SIDING WITH HITLER TO DO SO! And yet, she implies that the real victims here are the “Palestinians” post- the Holocaust. She implies that the Jews were greedy land-grabbers and thieves who took advantage of poor, little Palestinians who only wanted them to be safe and comfy.
 
What a load of crap! The Islamic Arabs have been mortal enemies to the Jews for centuries, ever since the “prophet” Mohammed’s first bloody crusade against infidels. They worked hand-in-hand with the NAZIS to eliminate the Jews. That is a FACT. What Tlaib is claiming here is entirely ahistorical crap.
 
But lo and behold, the self-righteous Democrat Party comes to Tlaib’s defense after getting called out for her horrific choice of words and her thinly-veiled attempt at rewriting history to make the Jews look like the bad guys.
 
Everyone from President Trump to Congressional Republicans to SANE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THEIR HISTORY AND CAN TELL TLAIB IS A HORRIBLE ANTI-SEMITE called Tlaib out on her bigotry and her hatred.
 
“Democrat Rep. Tlaib is being slammed for her horrible and highly insensitive statement on the Holocaust. She obviously has tremendous hatred of Israel and the Jewish people,” wrote the President.
 
This, in particular, has gotten the Democrats to, once again, defend anti-Semitism and show themselves to be far closer to the Nazi Party than they could ever claim Trump and Republicans to be.
 
Dem. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) tweeted: “If you read Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s comments, it is clear that President Trump and Congressional Republicans are taking them out of context. They must stop, and they owe her an apology.”
 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Californistan) tweeted: “Republicans’ desperate attempts to smear Rep. Rashida Tlaib & misrepresent her comments are outrageous. President Donald Trump & House GOP should apologize to Rep. Tlaib & the American people for their gross misrepresentations.”
 
Yeah, Trump and Republicans should totally apologize to the horrible bigot for making her horrific comments that do not even attempt to hide her hatred for Jews and hardly attempt to hide that she is trying to rewrite history to make Jews look like the bad guys DURING THE WORST TRAGEDY TO EVER BEFALL THE JEWS!
 
Yeah, Tlaib was only making poorly-thought-out at best comments saying she got a calming feeling when thinking about the Holocaust and the tragedy and was only trying to insinuate the common anti-Semitic lie that Arabs in the region were welcoming of the Jews who totally were never there before.
 
Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-USSR) weighed in on this in defense of Tlaib. May I remind you he himself is Jewish?
 
Well, he’s a socialist, so I don’t know how one can be Jewish (or Christian) and socialist at the same time. If one were to say he is a socialist, he is not a Jew or a Christian. One cannot serve two masters (God and the government) for he will love one and hate the other and vice versa.
 
But in any case, we continue seeing the Left-ward trend from the modern Democrat Party to get closer and closer to the Nazi Party of Germany without actually calling themselves Nazis (and even having the nerve to call other people “Nazis”).
 
One does not have to think very hard about where we will go from here.
 
Psalm 109:2-5
“For wicked and deceitful mouths are opened against me, speaking against me with lying tongues. They encircle me with words of hate, and attack me without cause. In return for my love they accuse me, but I give myself to prayer. So they reward me evil for good, and hatred for my love.”
 
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 it is not exactly news anymore that AG Barr is being held in contempt of Congress, I did not write anything about it because it’s not going to amount to anything substantial. This is the most clear-cut case of the Left putting on a show for their base that will do absolutely nothing in the end that we’ve seen since Trump took office.
 
However, it is always fun for me to find some Leftist who looks at what the Democrats are doing and slams them for it. Such is the case for Leftist law professor Jonathan Turley, who despite being a liberal, has largely chosen to keep politics from clouding his judgment regarding the law, a rarity in today’s political landscape.
 
Turley wrote a scathing piece on The Hill titled: “Democrats showing contempt by holding William Barr in contempt.”
 
While many on the Left have aired many grievances against Barr, with fictitious charges of misleading and lying to Congress, the piece focuses specifically on House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who is holding Barr in contempt over not releasing a full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.
 
Turley writes: “The problem is that the contempt action against Barr is long on action and short on contempt. Indeed, with a superficial charge, the House could seriously undermine its credibility in the ongoing conflicts with the White House… As someone who has represented the House of Representatives, my concern is that this one violates a legal version of the Hippocratic oath to ‘first do no harm.’ This could do great harm, not to Barr, but to the House. It is the weakest possible case to bring against the administration, and likely to be an example of a bad case making bad law for the House… Barr promised to release as much as of the report as possible, and he has delivered. Indeed, he is not expressly given the authority to release the confidential report. Yet, he not only released it but declared executive privilege waived on its content. The key obstruction portion of the report is virtually unredacted. Just 8 percent of the public report was redacted, largely to remove material that could undermine ongoing investigations. The sealed version of the report given to Congress had only 2 percent redacted. Democrats are therefore seeking a contempt sanction on a report that is 98 percent disclosed and only lacks grand jury material.”
 
Basically, Nadler is holding Barr in contempt of Congress for NOT breaking the law. Barr was not under any obligation to make the report public whatsoever. He still did, but with 8 percent of it redacted. He also gave another version of the report for Congress to read, with only 2 percent of it being redacted.
 
Democrats have 98% of the report, with none of the key findings being redacted, and still are holding Barr in contempt for not releasing the last 2%, which was redacted in order to protect grand jury material and other ongoing investigations. The Mueller report ultimately found no collusion and not enough to say there was obstruction of justice. This is the Democrats’ panic move.
 
Allow me to make a few things clear:
 
First, Barr LEGALLY CANNOT release the full report completely unredacted. The biggest reason even a liberal law professor is destroying House Democrats over this is that House Democrats are essentially charging Barr for NOT breaking the law.
 
Second, none of the Democrats who were given access to the vastly unredacted report EVEN READ IT! According to a National Review article, Democrats have a Mueller report that is unredacted except for two full and seven partial lines in the second part of Mueller’s report, the one about obstruction.
 
“… not one of the six Democrats granted access to what amounts to 99.9 percent of volume II of the Mueller report, which details the president’s behavior as it relates to obstruction of justice, have taken the opportunity to examine it. If they had, they could have viewed the entirety of Mueller’s obstruction case against Trump except for [seven redactions]…”
 
That article was written on May 8th. Barr gave House Judiciary Democrats an almost completely unredacted version of the Mueller report, which they didn’t even bother to read, and they still hold him in contempt over the redactions.
 
That is how pitiful and pathetic the Democrats are. Their attempt to hold Barr in contempt is not for legal reasons. THE REASONS ARE THAT BARR DIDN’T BREAK THE LAW! Their reasons for doing this is to satisfy an unhappy base who, for two years, was promised the Mueller report would deliver the goods. That the Mueller report was going to destroy Trump, utterly humiliate him, and find obscene amounts of Russian collusion as well as all kinds of attempts at obstructing justice. When literally none of that was found to be the case, their base was ticked off and I can’t say I blame them.
 
Republicans promised to get rid of Obamacare pretty much since it passed in 2010 and have failed time after time. Democrats promised to get rid of Trump pretty much since he won the election and have failed time after time. Democrat voters expected results and the only results found were that Trump did not collude, did not obstruct justice and will have to try and move on from 2016.
 
So in an effort to satisfy a rabid Democrat base who wishes to see Trump’s head on a platter, the Democrats are doing whatever they think will help, which in this case would be holding the Attorney General of the United States in contempt of Congress for… not… breaking the law.
 
Sure, they will claim that he was breaking the law and say that we are in a “constitutional crisis” as a result of that, but it will amount to absolutely nothing.
 
Now, I, for one, do think we are in a constitutional crisis, but not in the same way that Nadler and Pelosi think. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of an administration spying on a political opponent, a political party staining the electoral process and tainting democracy, a political party insisting there was Russian hacking or collusion (which is not a crime anyway, but they would’ve treated it like one in impeachment proceedings) and doing this ad nauseam for two and a half years. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of a political party trying to undo the results of an election just because they lost. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of investigating an individual to look for potential crimes rather than investigating a crime looking for the perpetrator(s).
 
The constitutional crisis comes in the form of having lower district activist judges deciding on national policy. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of charging military heroes with perjury despite even the former FBI director admitting he didn’t think the military hero was lying so much as misremembering things. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of the FBI planting a spy into the Trump campaign to lead George Papadopalous to “brag about” having “knowledge” that the Russians have dirt on Hillary. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of using a dossier that the FBI knew perfectly well was bogus to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign at the behest of the Obama administration. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of intelligence agencies trying to rig an election in favor of a political ally. The constitutional crisis comes in the form of having a foreign agent write a fictitious dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign to use to spy on Trump.
 
The Democrat Party is a walking constitutional crisis. They constantly undermine the constitution, as Obama did heinously for 8 years, and pretend there are things in it that are not. They insist on allowing for First Amendment rights for the press (which are not being taken away anyway) but simultaneously defend the deplatforming of political opponents under the guise of “banning hate”.
 
They will protect themselves and their families with guns and with people who know how to use guns but fully expect you to give up yours and have dreams about confiscating them and imprisoning you should you not comply.
 
They will hold someone in contempt of Congress for not breaking the law but walk out when Republicans LEGITIMATELY hold a Leftist AG in contempt of Congress for not turning in documents relating to the Fast and Furious scandal (though granted, some Democrats did vote with Republicans on this). A walk out, which, by the way, Nadler took part in.
 
Do you know what else Nadler took part in? The insistence that the Starr report, the one about Clinton’s office affairs with Monica Lewinsky as well as prior sexual harassment lawsuits levied against Clinton when he was Governor of Arkansas (and other things) not be released to the public. Nadler did a complete 180 with the Mueller report, after insisting that the Starr report not be released, he wants the Mueller report fully released, despite the fact that it is not legal to do so.
 
As Turley said, this is the weakest possible case for holding someone in contempt. Even a liberal law professor (whom to his credit keeps his politics and profession separate) understands just how pathetic this latest effort from the Left is.
 
I just hope and pray that these people will taste justice.
 
Proverbs 24:24-25
“Whoever says to the wicked, ‘You are in the right,’ will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations, but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

There exists within socialism a simple cause and effect relationship: socialism causes misery. The Venezuelan people have experienced this misery for a couple of decades now and they are sick of it.
 
According to a Venezuelan polling firm, Meganalisis, 87.9% of surveyors agreed with the statement: “socialism is the worst and most destructive political ideology to lead the government.” Again, as they’ve been living with this form of government for a couple of decades, they certainly know and understand just how terrible socialism is.
 
What’s more, the people also overwhelmingly believe (89.5%) that the federal legislature, the National Assembly, “should authorize foreign military missions in the country,” according to Breitbart, with another 91.2% saying they “did not believe it was possible for Venezuelans to remove Maduro without foreign military intervention.” 88% also said they weren’t trustful of the nation’s armed forces.
 
That last one makes a lot of sense seeing as the military, at least top officials within it, are still on Maduro’s side and recently launched a campaign against the protesters that resulted in the deaths of five people so far, the youngest of which being a 14-year-old protester. And despite the fact that the country’s interim President Guaido has insisted there would be a military uprising to oust Maduro and that he’s getting members of the military on his side, the Venezuelan armed forces appeared to still be on Maduro’s side, if not at least split between the two.
 
Rush Limbaugh remarked on his radio show last week that the Venezuelan armed forces had no reason to oust Maduro, since they are the ones living comfortably and well. In a sense, he insisted that they had no reason to bite the hand that feeds them. And I only half-way agree.
 
Some of the people in the armed forces probably do think this way. That they are living comfortable lives and afford their own families such comfortable lives, so they have no reason to upset the status quo. However, I imagine there are also those who recognize that they won’t be in the military forever and cannot provide for their family with whatever they receive out of being soldiers forever. Some must be thinking long-term, knowing that those who are not in the military don’t have good lives, so in order for their families to have better lives, the socialist dictator must be ousted.
 
It really all depends on the individual soldier’s morals and mindset. If a soldier is against socialism, he will likely look to help oust Maduro. If a soldier does not much care for his country or his people, apart from his family, he has no reason to betray Maduro.
 
And as I’ve said in the past few weeks: you need the military in order for a coup to be successful. If Guaido does not have the military on his side, and it’s clear he does not have at least a solid majority of it, he will fail. Which is why the people do not trust the armed forces, as they’ve killed some protesters recently and hold hundreds of political prisoners, and it’s why 90% of them wish for a foreign military to come in and oust Maduro.
 
That is especially the case considering that roughly 90 percent (87.9) agree with the statement: “Venezuela has been intervened and controlled by Cuba and Russia.” Maduro’s Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza traveled to Moscow last weekend and said the Maduro regime was thinking about asking Russia for more troops to help against the protesters.
 
What’s more, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the U.S. potentially sending troops to Venezuela was “catastrophic and unjustified”, suggesting that Russia is “categorically against military intervention. The use of force can only be authorized by the U.N. Security Council, or used in response to aggression by a sovereign state.” Which is a whole lot of caca considering Russia has already sent armed forces into the country, likely illegally.
 
Personally, I’ve gone back and forth on the idea of sending U.S. troops to Venezuela. I see both sides of the argument: this sort of insurrection and foreign meddling has usually led to the country being worse off than before (see Lybia with open slave markets that were not there when Qaddafi was in power), but socialism must be defeated and pushed back at every turn; we have our own problems, particularly at the Southern border, which we must prioritize, plus we should not send our own to die for other people, but at the same time, socialism is a worldwide problem that is also here and causing human suffering, not to mention that not helping Venezuela could likely just create more refugees (actual refugees, though) and have them join more and more caravans as time goes on.
 
I really am not certain, even today, what the best course of action is. I think the right thing to do would be to help the Venezuelans oust Maduro, but that could bring about other problems as well, and we already have enough on our plate having to deal with evil Democrats and Republicans who refuse to allow for a border wall to be built.
 
But in any case, the poll finds that the Venezuelan people are sick and tired of socialism. They overwhelmingly hate Maduro, with less than 5% acknowledging him to be the country’s president, but they are also not great fans of Guaido, who despite the fact that 50% say he’s the legitimate head of the country, those numbers are down and they are not exactly fond of the fact that his party, Popular Will, is a formal member of the Socialist International.
 
Personally, I would also be fairly wary of that fact if it weren’t for the fact that Argentina’s (where I was born) most conservative and best president it ever had, Carlos Menem, ran as a socialist, with socialist policies that he did a complete 180 on, opting instead to reduce the size and scope of the government and denationalizing industries during his administration.
 
If I had to give an explanation as to why Popular Will is part of the Socialist International it is likely because of the election laws set in place in Venezuela. Socialists don’t want non-socialists running for office and would only be okay with another socialist eventually taking their place.
 
Guaido himself has been very vocal about his disdain for socialism and love for capitalism, so I don’t hold it against him that his party is part of the Socialist International.
 
Still, that is yet another example of the people living under socialism being utterly sick and tired of it. They don’t want more socialism and certainly don’t want another socialist to take Maduro’s place. This is the cause and effect relationship of socialism: socialism causes misery. It causes suffering.
 
Margaret Thatcher didn’t say, “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” for nothing. Winston Churchill didn’t say, “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy” and “the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries,” for nothing.
 
They knew perfectly well what socialism was and how awful it was without even having to live under socialist rule. People like Trump also understand how awful socialism is. Reagan and JFK were staunchly against socialism/communism in all of its forms.
 
Venezuelans know perfectly well what socialism is and how awful it is because they unfortunately have to live under it. They have electricity on a good day, little to no water, no food, whatever “free” healthcare they have is from the Dark Ages at best and are attacked, harassed and killed if they speak out against such miseries.
 
Foreign journalists are detained and stripped of their equipment if they dare show Maduro the reality that his administration brings to the Venezuelan people. Such journalists should count their blessings that they are not from Venezuela.
 
In this poll, the Venezuelan people make it perfectly clear: socialism sucks. They send out a message to other people not to try it, thinking that it might work for them. It never does. All it does is bring about oppression and suffering. Not all of it is immediate, of course. Venezuelans at least had electricity a year or so ago. But the more socialism is applied in a country, the worse things get. That’s because socialism is utterly nonsensical and does not conform to reality well.
 
The idea of people being equally blessed is heavenly because that is the only place it actually happens. Government is no substitute for God. A socialist country is no substitute for Heaven.
 
Those who live under socialism understand that socialism is utterly terrible. But those who do not live in it don’t have to find that to be the truth the hard way. Socialism should not be tried anywhere as it works nowhere because you cannot have a thriving country with a system of destruction of wealth.
 
Argentina’s best years were when it wasn’t socialistic for like a decade. America’s best years have been when socialist policies were completely fought back against, which thankfully has been the vast majority of America’s history.
 
And even within America, the worst and most rotten places are where socialist policies are faithfully implemented such as California, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, etc. It’s honestly funny and sad at the same time when AOC talks about how bad things are in poor areas of New York, not recognizing that that’s what happens after decades of Democrat/socialist rule.
 
There is a reason I say that the only two kinds of people who want and advocate for socialism are ignorant people and evil people. You either have no idea what socialism is or know perfectly well and seek to become part of the government that would have all the power in the country.
 
Of course, sometimes I’m tempted to include a third option: stupid people, those who see what’s happening in Venezuela, refuse to accept that socialism did all of that and continue to advocate for it saying “it’ll be different this time”.
 
In any case, I hope and pray that the people of Venezuela will not have to endure socialism for much longer, whether that means a coup or foreign military ousting Maduro. I also hope and pray that people see what is happening in Venezuela and come to understand that that’s what will happen here if we let socialism win.
 
Deuteronomy 31:6
“Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake 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.

Recently, Alabama State House voted overwhelmingly (74-3) in favor of a bill that would outright ban all abortions in the state (unless it is necessary for the health of the mother) in an effort to have the issue reach the Supreme Court so that they might look over the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion and possibly overturn it.
 
However, in a move that is shocking but not really surprising, Alabama State Rep. John Rogers (D-Birmingham) made the following comments regarding babies and abortion: “Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later.”
 
He continued by saying: “Some parents can’t handle a child with problems. It could be retarded. It might have no arms and no legs.”
 
Again, shocking comments to make, but not really surprising, at least to me. The Left is the party of Satan, after all.
 
Notice how Rogers does not even pretend like the children are not actually children. He is fully aware and accepting of the fact that we are talking about the death of children here, and is totally okay with killing them if they are “unwanted” or “retarded”. That these children do not deserve life if the mother does not wish for them to have life.
 
What else are we to call this apart from full-blown infanticide? And what’s the limit? Using this sort of logic, and fully understanding that we are talking about children, aren’t parents then justified to kill their children if they bring them problems regardless of the age?
 
If a teenager is doing drugs and the parents find that problematic, are the parents justified in killing their child? Because that’s what this logic brings about. He understands that we are talking about kids, which is honestly more than I can say about much of the rest of the Left. But that honestly sort of makes things worse.
 
We conservatives insist that babies in the womb are children, a fact that the Left often denies. Here, we have a Leftist who accepts the fact that these children are, in fact, children, and he’s STILL okay with killing them.
 
And his arguments, again, lead to the notion that it is okay to off someone who is problematic to you. If your child is being a pain in the rear end – is being problematic –  you apparently have every right to kill them. If you did not want your child, even if you acknowledge that it’s a human being, you have the right to kill them.
 
Rep. Rogers accepts that we are talking about children, so his comments show him to be truly despicable and vile. Either the Left keeps getting worse or they’ve always been this despicable, only now the mask is coming off more and more.
 
And he’s yet another example of the Left using an African-American in their favor. Abortion is the number one killer of black people, with PP clinics being present mostly in minority neighborhoods. Rogers is ideologically a descendant of the black minister who helped notorious racist Margaret Sanger to sell the idea of abortion to the black community as some sort of good, likely not understanding that abortion was created to exterminate black people, whom Sanger considered to be like “weeds”.
 
Of course, that’s not to say that Rogers is not speaking his own mind or he’s not doing this of his own accord. He is. And that’s what’s sad about it. He’s been brainwashed into believing abortion – killing children – is a force for good.
 
Those words heavily represent the modern-day Left. They are quickly dropping all pretense of decency. If you remember, a few months ago, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (who is still Governor, by the way), also made shocking but unsurprising remarks:
 
“This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of the mother, with the consent of physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable. So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.”
 
Like Rogers, Northam accepts the fact that we are talking about children. Children whom the mother apparently does not want and children who have absolutely no rights if the mother wishes them not to.
 
Trump recently held a rally where he mentioned that Democrats want to execute babies. He also said something to that extent in his 2019 SOTU address. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats and the media called him a liar. But when comments like Northam and Rogers’ are made by these Democrats, we get to see their true colors. They DO want to execute babies. They WANT to have the ability to end life on a mere whim in a mere second. Why? Because they want POWER. That constitutes the power over life and death, a power that God has, a power that Man has wanted ever since Cain killed Abel.
 
And as far as Rogers’ comments go, the media made somewhat of an effort in defending him. When Rogers made those comments, people on social media were livid. Said people usually are conservative. So what do fake news sites like The Hill do? They say “Conservatives pounce on Alabama state Dem’s abortion comments” as though what he said was perfectly reasonable and we are the lunatics who jump at every word we disagree with.
 
What he said was EVIL. What he said shows us that the Left is evil. Not that I needed this to know that, but it’s a good refresher for what we are up against: pure vile.
 
Saying that some children are unwanted and would eventually be killed anyway is outrageous and moronic. What exactly does he mean by those words? Because electric chair is a death-penalty punishment for people, with only 30 states having the death penalty. And the death penalty is usually a punishment reserved for murderers and the like. So what, he expects unwanted children to grow up to be killers? That’s awfully pessimistic and very wrong.
 
I can imagine a woman not wanting a child, having one anyway and not loving that child. That happens plenty of times, unfortunately. But what leap of logic must you take to say that it is okay to then go ahead and kill that child? How is the child the one at fault here? Why must the child be punished?
 
You see, it’s not simply the idea of abortion that we conservatives wish to fight against and defeat. That’s only part of the battle. The idea that people should go ahead and have all the sex they want without repercussions is something we also often fight against, even if we do not always bring it up when we discuss the issue of abortion.
 
If a woman does not want a child, SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE SEX! Part of the abortion argument is that it’s “women’s liberation”. I’ve made this point before, but it is always a good one: liberation from what? From responsibilities for your actions; from that little voice in your head that tells you maybe you shouldn’t have sex; from feeling any guilt over committing sin and being used and tossed into the garbage over and over again.
 
That is not liberation, but bondage to the flesh and to sin. The fact is that we wouldn’t have anywhere close to an abortion problem if people weren’t so enslaved to sexual sin. Of course, that’s a pretty difficult battle to fight, but a necessary one.
 
Joe Biden and other hypocritical Democrats say that 2020 will be about “restoring the soul of the country”. How is abortion good for the soul? How is rampant sexual sin good for the soul? Both are a poison to the soul. And the only being in existence who can properly restore the soul of anyone is Jesus Christ. We need a Christian revival in America to truly restore our country’s soul.
 
Because being willing to kill children for any half-assed excuse and being willing to execute them outside the womb, despite knowing that these are human beings themselves is not how you restore a soul, but utterly decimate and rot it.
 
The Left does not have a soul that they can restore. Individual people within the Left might come to Christ and be redeemed, but the overall Left is doomed to the depths of Hell because the ideas and policies they propose are uniquely and exclusively anti-Christian. And the anti-Christ has only one place to go.
 
James 4:7
“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from 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.

The biggest story of the weekend was the fact that on Easter Sunday, the day when Christians around the world celebrate the rising of the Lord Jesus Christ from the grave, signifying His defeat over death, multiple bombs, most of which were suicide bombings, targeted churches and luxury hotels, killing around 300 people (and expected to increase) and wounding 500 others in Sri Lanka.
 
The attack is believed to have been perpetrated by a radical Islamist terrorist group called National Thowfeek Jamaath, which might have ties to ISIS.
 
Included in the death toll are over 30 foreigners and 2 Americans.
 
Obviously, this is a very big deal. The death toll is very high and the attacks were numerous, with reportedly 7 locations being targeted: three churches and four hotels. According to the Wall Street Journal, six of the attacks were suicide bombings and the other one was a failed car bombing outside the St. Anthony Shrine. Another bomb was also found near Sri Lanka’s airport, but was found and defused before it went off.
 
The Wall Street Journal also reports that 85 other detonators were found abandoned in a bus station, indicating that the attacks carried out on Easter were supposed to only be the beginning of more chaos, death and destruction.
 
Considering this is major news, influential people took notice and wished to share their thoughts. However, one must recognize the sort of language used by people like former President Barack Obama and failure Hillary Clinton.
 
Obama tweeted: “The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.”
 
Clinton tweeted: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.”
 
“Easter worshippers”?
 
And they’re not the only ones who used that odd term. Presidential candidate Julian Castro tweeted: “On a day of redemption and hope, the evil of these attacks on Easter worshippers and tourists in Sri Lanka is deeply saddening. My prayers today are with the dead and injured, and their families. May we find grace.”
 
Even ABC News tweeted: “Tourists, Easter worshippers lament the closure of Notre Dame.” Though that one was sent the day before the attacks, but still used that strange term.
 
Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? Because Christians are not “Easter worshippers”. I’ve seen many people tweeting at Obama, Hillary and others about how they can’t seemingly use the term “Christians” (maybe it burns them to mention Him) but they gloss over the fact that no Christian worships Easter. NO ONE worships Easter.
 
Do we celebrate Easter? You bet we do. But we do not worship it. We worship Jesus who rose again from the dead, which we celebrate on Easter Sunday.
 
It’s such a strange term to use in what is supposed to be a replacement for “Christians”.
 
But in any case, notice how they really can’t seem to be able to use that word. Why wouldn’t they note that Christians were targeted and killed on Sunday? Why would they use such a strange and erroneous term to replace the far-easier-to-type “Christians”?
 
These are really just rhetorical questions, of course. These people are themselves not Christians and absolutely hate Christians, so at any point where Christians are targeted, especially in such a grand and horrific way, they have to completely avoid mentioning it. To them, Christians are oppressors and vicious rulers, not victims and targets of persecution and execution.
 
Notice the sort of language they use to talk about multiple horrific acts of violence against Christians versus what they said about the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand.
 
Here’s what Obama said after the NZ shooting: “Michelle and I send our condolences to the people of New Zealand. We grieve with you and the Muslim community. All of us must stand against hatred in all its forms.”
 
And now Hillary: “My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”
 
Rightly, they were outraged over the New Zealand shooting that killed 50 Muslims in a mosque. But they have no problem pointing out that Muslims were targeted in that attack while they perform verbal gymnastics to avoid pointing out that Christians were targeted in Sri Lanka.
 
The Left has no problem pointing out hatred and violence against Muslims when it happens (unless it’s Shiites being killed by Sunnis, as both are Muslims) but makes it their mission to try and diminish the effect of a far more destructive and deadly event. Not to minimize the horror of the New Zealand shooting, any destruction of life is tragic, but this attack led to more deaths and injuries, not to mention it was supposedly only the beginning of more planned terrorist attacks, likely targeting Christians.
 
50 dead Muslims is a major deal to the Left (as it should be) but 300 dead Christians and they can hardly pretend to give a damn.
 
Not that I expected anything less from these people, but it is a reminder of the sort of vile that they are. Especially looking over Hillary’s tweets. She wanted the NZ shooter’s head on a platter, denouncing Islamophobia (how come no one talks about Christophobia? Is that even a term?) and “racism in all its forms”. She says that “white supremacists terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere,” and insists that that sort of “murderous hatred must be stopped”.
 
But when Christians are the targets: they don’t get mentioned and are even lost in the crowd. “On this holy weekend for many faiths…” while not exactly wrong, as it is also Passover for Jews, this is an attack that specifically happened on Easter, a strictly Christian holiday, with Christians being the targets of the attacks.
 
They insist that we must stand in solidarity with the Muslim community around the world when they are targeted (which is rare, again, unless it is Muslim-on-Muslim violence which is frequent) and condemn Islamophobia, while not calling for any solidarity with the Christian community around the world when we are targeted and there are no calls for condemnation of Christophobia or the targeting of Christians at all.
 
And while Christophobia is technically a term, it is never outright used at any point. When someone targets gay people, that’s homophobia. Fine. When someone targets someone for their skin color, that’s racism. Fine. When someone targets women, that’s misogyny. Fine. When someone targets transgender people, that’s transphobia. Fine. When someone targets Muslims, that’s Islamophobia. Fine. But when someone targets Christians, the Left does not even recognize that they are Christians and certainly does not recognize any sort of trend of hatred towards Christians. Not fine.
 
But what makes this even worse is the actual term they use instead of Christians. If it had been “Easter observers” or “Easter celebrators” or something like that, it might’ve been marginally better. But “Easter worshippers” just rubs me the wrong way. It insinuates that what we worship is not Jesus Christ Himself, but the holiday. That we worship and have reverence towards a simple day on the week and not the Lord who made this day special with the unique and unprecedented feat of COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD. That we worship something that is not God.
 
THAT is what ticks me off more than anything else. Again, I fully expected this sort of behavior from the Left. I’m not at all surprised that they gave every damn they had about Muslims being killed in New Zealand but couldn’t be bothered to pretend about Christians. That is expected, but that term is outright insulting.
 
What Christian worships Easter? Point one out to me and I will tell you that he or she is not a Christian.
 
This is the definition of passive aggressive behavior. Implicit disdain of Christians.
 
Again, not exactly surprising behavior coming from the Left, whose heart is filled with hatred and evil, but we are yet again reminded of the sort of hatred and evil that they harbor.
 
John 15:18
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated 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.

After weeks of the Left crying up a storm about Barr being on Trump’s side and saying that Mueller did not find any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion and not enough evidence to definitively say that Trump obstructed justice (he didn’t), Attorney General William Barr has released the 448-page Special Counsel report on the investigation.
 
Now, I’m certain you can read the title and see my own opinion of the Mueller report. The reason I say it is sketchy is because it is largely written for the Left to try and continue to claim that there was collusion and that the President obstructed justice, even though it is explicitly stated that there was no conspiracy between Trump and Russia and even though it is explicitly stated that Mueller did not find enough that could constitute as criminal behavior regarding obstruction.
 
Let’s begin with what I consider the most important thing of Volume 1 (the report is separated into two volumes: one for Russian collusion and the other one for obstruction).
 
In page 2 of Volume 1, the Special Counsel ultimately determined that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
 
The Counsel did find that Russia did, in fact, try to interfere with the election, but the most significant and notorious effort of doing so came in the form of the hacking of the DNC servers, which the DNC refused to turn over to the FBI for investigation, instead opting to turn it over to a third-party organization.
 
The Counsel also had to clarify that the term “collusion” and even “coordination” do not have any actual definition in federal law. To collude with someone or coordinate with someone is far too broad of a term and can mean anything, not necessarily something criminal or nefarious. The term “conspire”, on the other hand, does have a definition and often carries with it the negative connotation that some nefarious scheme was concocted or executed. So the Counsel largely sought evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia, but ultimately did not find that such a thing occurred.
 
And while that easily can be summarized in less than a page, the Special Counsel still tried to at least make it look like there was some suspicious activity going on, especially when the report gets to the part about George Papadopalous, where it ignores the fact that Papadopalous had spoken with a member of the FBI whom suggested to Papadopalous that the Russians had Clinton’s e-mails, while Papadopalous then went on to try and boast about him having such exclusive information to other people.
 
The Counsel makes it look as though Papadopalous gained that information through means apart from the member of the FBI, suggesting that there was some form of collusion between at least a member of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
 
But despite how bad or negative Mueller may have wanted the report to look for Trump, with all the suggestions it brings up, and despite his efforts to try and keep the narrative alive for the Democrats and the media to use, he still can’t escape the unavoidable fact that Trump did not collude, coordinate or conspire with the Russian government to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton.
 
And the point of a prosecution and investigation is to find conclusive evidence that someone is guilty of a crime. Now, usually, a crime is investigated as opposed to a specific person with the purpose of finding a crime committed by said person, but the Left thinks we live in a banana republic.
 
In any case, the Mueller report, regardless of what is insinuated within it, ultimately finds no evidence of “collusion” between Trump and the Russians.
 
But then we get to Volume 2, the part about obstruction of justice, and that is where Mueller really wants people to suspect that there was obstruction even though he did not find anything.
 
In page 2 of Volume 2, the Mueller report has the following paragraph:
 
“… if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime it also does not exonerate him.”
 
Special Counsel, your job is not to determine someone’s innocence. Your job is not to exonerate the President of any accusations. Your job is to find evidence that would, without a shadow of a doubt, irretrievably conclude that the President of the United States succeeded or even attempted to obstruct justice.
 
You did not find such evidence, which is why you were forced to say “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime.” That overall statement is tantamount to saying: “well, I didn’t find that the subject did something criminal, but I also didn’t find that he didn’t do something criminal.” Do you see the logical fallacy here? The contradiction in that statement? If he didn’t find that Trump committed something illegal, then he can’t say that he didn’t find that he didn’t do something. Not finding that he didn’t do something is equivalent to not finding that he did something. If Mueller found that Trump did something, he would so state without “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime”. There are only two logical options here: either Mueller found something that Trump did that was criminal or he didn’t. He can’t say both are the case at the same time and in the same relationship.

Not to mention you also can't prove a negative. No one can prove that someone DIDN'T do something. There's no way to do that, that's why the system works as "prove guilt".
 
But do you see the intention from Mueller here? He knows very well that the job of any prosecutor is to PROSECUTE not exonerate. Yes, they have to present exculpatory evidence that they might find under the Brady rule, but the objective of a prosecutor is to prove guilt, not innocence. Matter of fact, that’s how our entire judicial system works: you do not have to prove innocence – you have to prove guilt. It’s “innocent until proven guilty” for a reason.
 
And while the court of public opinion (from the Left) might find Trump guilty of obstruction, collusion, and overall being a big, huge meanie to them, in the real judicial system, one must find that someone is guilty of a crime beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
Despite the fact that everyone and their grandmothers (myself included) think that O.J. killed his ex-wife and her friend, he was found not guilty by the court due to insufficient evidence. Say whatever you will about the entire case and the trial, but that is how the judicial system found him: not guilty of the crime.
 
And it is the prosecution’s job to get that guilty verdict. Bob Mueller was the prosecutor in all of this, his job was to find that Trump colluded with Russia and/or obstructed justice in the investigation and found neither.
 
The Google definition of “exonerate” is to “absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.” And if Mueller did not find guilt, even explicitly stating so, the only other option left is to find Trump to have been exonerated under this definition.
 
Now, that doesn’t mean that Mueller has to come out and say “Trump did nothing wrong! Everyone stop trashing him!” but that is basically what he ultimately found: TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG or at least anything criminal.
 
As far as obstruction of justice goes, the things that Mueller looked into are things like how Trump reacted to the WikiLeaks thing, how he reacted to the investigation of General Flynn, how the Campaign reacted to reports about Russian support for Trump, reports from the fake news media about Russian collusion, Trump firing Comey and supposed efforts to remove the Special Counsel.
 
NONE OF WHICH COULD ADEQUATELY CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
 
First, reactions to anything don’t matter at all. With the reports of Trump colluding with Russia, how exactly do you expect Trump to react? Of course he’s going to be angry! HE WAS BEING ACCUSED OF SOMETHING HE DIDN’T DO! It was being alleged that his election victory and subsequent presidency were illegitimate! Frankly, I would’ve been concerned if Trump did not react like ANY NORMAL HUMAN BEING WOULD UNDER SUCH A SITUATION!
 
Second, and perhaps most importantly since this is what people will largely point towards as evidence of obstruction, Trump has the authority, as head of the Executive Branch, to remove the head of the FBI, the CIA, and anything else that is technically within the Executive Branch. Trump firing Mueller would’ve been virtually no different to Trump firing Comey. HAD HE DONE SO, which he did NOT.
 
So while the Mueller report suggests that Trump at least tried to fire Mueller, it was within his authority to have done so, but ultimately DID NOT.
 
But again, Mueller is writing this report for the Democrats and the media to try and keep the narrative alive with a summary of all the b.s. lies they have spread over these past couple of years, even though within the report it very specifically says that the Special Counsel did not find evidence of “collusion” or enough to prove Trump obstructed justice.
 
By all accounts, the Mueller Report should be seen as something that has definitively ended the allegations and speculation, but Mueller wrote it with enough ambiguity for the media to keep the ball rolling and for Democrats to launch their own investigations into this manner, despite the report’s ultimate findings.
 
Not that it’ll matter in the end, as any subsequent investigation and report from the media will be bologna and will ultimately find nothing, just like Mueller did, but this ought to tell you what we are up against: these people are completely irrational and will stop at nothing to get their way.
 
Again, the report ultimately finds no collusion and not enough to conclude obstruction. That alone is enough for me to fight back against the b.s. that will surely come from the Left.
 
Proverbs 28:5
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
 
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.