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.

The thing that is so surprising about this is not the fact that the NYT found that the happiest wives in America are religious conservatives but that the New York Times actually reported on this at all. As far as their actual findings go, I say they make an awful lot of sense.
 
Researchers W. Bradford Wilcox, Jason S. Carroll and Laurie DeRose wrote that “Fully 73 percent of wives who hold conservative gender values and attend religious services regularly with their husbands have high-quality marriages.”
 
“When it comes to relationship quality, there is a J-curve in women’s marital happiness, with women on the left and the right enjoying higher quality marriages than those in the middle – but especially wives on the right,” read the report.
 
Yes, they found that following the 73% of religious conservative women who are happy with their marriages are their political counterparts: religious progressive wives. Basically, the categories are conservative women who are religious (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.); conservative women who are not religious; progressive women who are religious (which is kind of an oxymoron); and progressive women who are utterly secular.
 
The report finds that married couples who are in the middle, both in terms of religion and political ideology, are less likely to experience a high-quality marriage:
 
“We suspect that part of their relative unhappiness, compared with religiously conservative women, is that they don’t enjoy the social, emotional and practical support for family life provided by a church, mosque or synagogue. We also suspect that these groups are less likely to have husbands who have made the transition to the ‘new father’ ideal that’s gained currency in modern America – and they’re not happy with their partners’ disengagement.”
 
While 73% of religious conservative women are happy in their marriages, they are followed by religious progressive wives (60%), secular liberal wives (55%) and then comes the considerable minority of secular, non-political wives (33%).
 
The report says that the central reason for religious conservative and progressive wives’ happiness was devoted husbands and fathers:
 
“In listening to the happiest secular progressive wives and their religiously conservative counterparts, we noticed something they share in common: devoted family men. Both feminism and faith give family men a clear code: They are supposed to play a big role in their kids’ lives. Devoted dads are de rigueur in these two communities. And it shows. Both culturally progressive and religiously conservative fathers report high levels of paternal engagement.”
 
This one, I find interesting, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Despite the differences in political ideology, both feminist men and religious men have their own reasons to spend time with their kids. For feminist men, the reason is their belief that they ought to be perfectly equal to their wives, and that includes raising their children equally. For religious men (I will largely be speaking for Christian men, as I am not all that certain about how Muslim or Jewish families would interact, more so Muslim ones), the reason is that Scripture tells us we ought to be a big part of our children’s lives.
 
There are many places in the Bible where we are taught to teach our children, both in the Old and the New Testaments. Proverbs 22:6 says: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
 
Ephesians 6:4 says: “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
 
One of the most memorable verses and moments for this type of situation comes in the Book of Deuteronomy, in the 6th Chapter. Shortly after Moses delivered the 10 Commandments to the Jewish people, he said in Deuteronomy 6:6-7: “And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk away, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”
 
So God commands us to teach our children the ways of the Lord, the Word of God, and to raise them right. As a result, a good, Christian husband and father will spend time with his children, which in turn makes their wives very happy. And as they say, a happy wife is a happy life.
 
But returning to the actual report, I think the biggest reason for such happiness is not necessarily because of the work the husbands do in the marriage when it comes to raising the children (though that plays a big factor), but because both religious conservative and religious progressive women set some sort of path, or purpose, within the marriage.
 
Matt Walsh from The Daily Wire puts it this way: “The secular understanding of marriage is that it’s a union between two people who love each other…” and he poses fair questions surrounding that belief such as “what happens when that love is no longer there?” and more specifically “why do you need marriage for love?”
 
Back when the issue of gay marriage was at the forefront of the political world, one of the arguments often posed is that we should “let people who love each other get married to show that love”. But the problem here is that marriage is not about a union of two people who love each other (and I’m hard-pressed to believe people aren’t conflating lust with love in this scenario). Marriage is a holy union (why it’s called “holy matrimony”) in the eyes of the Lord. That is where marriage comes from, after all. A marriage certificate isn’t what tells someone they are married (legally, yes, but not necessarily in the eyes of the Lord). A union that is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord is a marriage.
 
For example, look at Genesis 24:67, after Rebekah was taken to Isaac by Abraham’s servant: “Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her…”
 
It mentions that Isaac loved Rebekah, and I have no doubt that he did, but they literally just met and she became his wife because the Lord found it to be not only an acceptable marriage but entirely ordained as well. She was supposed to be Isaac’s wife that she might give birth to Esau and Jacob. I can assure you they did not receive a marriage certificate to make it official and their marriage was not simply a union of two people who loved each other.
 
Returning to Matt Walsh’s point, he says that “Religion grants a higher purpose to marriage. Religious people know that their vows have been consecrated by God; that they are now taking part in something bigger that themselves.”
 
And it’s that last part where we can also find another similarity between a religious conservative married couple and a progressive one. Both couples believe they are taking part in something bigger than themselves. To the religious conservative couple, that is holy matrimony in the eyes of the Creator and sovereign King of the universe. To the progressive couple, that is the union of two like-minded people who wish to be part of a larger global community (supposedly for good).
 
But one can still notice the considerable gap between religious progressive wives and religious conservative wives. A 13-point difference is hard to ignore. And while this comes as no honest surprise to me, there were plenty of people on social media who refused to accept this.
 
For example, one Twitter user replied to the NYT’s tweet by saying: “I know Christians from having been in the evangelical church for 20 awful years of my life. Several different ones, different denominations. But all the same. Full of hate. Full of fear. Pretending everything is okay for fear that being ungrateful will make them lose everything.”
 
While I am not sure I would count myself as an “evangelical” (though I do like Billy and Franklin Graham), they are Christians all the same and this really tries to speak for Christians as a whole, but it only shows this man’s own hatred. It is unfortunate that after 20 years of going to church he did not receive the Holy Spirit at any point (granted, some churches do suck so it depends on the pastor and the congregation, but still), otherwise he would understand that there is nothing but love to be had with Jesus Christ and the only fear Christians have is the fear of the Lord. But unlike what many think, it is not an unhealthy fear, but rather, a healthy one.
 
Similar to how you respect and fear your parents (especially the punishments you would receive upon doing something bad), we Christians hold nothing but respect for our Father and fear His Wrath, but know we would not receive it, and be spared, by receiving His Son, Jesus Christ, as our Lord and Savior. His Wrath only falls on unrepentant sinners, not on the repentant ones. What fear Christians have is not the same type of fear people in Venezuela or North Korea or Russia have, where they feel like they are under constant threat by an evil dictator who will punish them for the most ridiculous of reasons. God is Just, Man is not.
 
This is something Christians understand and find happiness and joy as a result. If people pretend things are okay when they are not, it is not out of “fear that being ungrateful will make them lose everything.” What will make people lose everything would be turning away from God, as this man has done.
 
Another Twitter user said: “This is hilarious. They all asked their spouses if it was ok to answer the survey in the first place. Then they made it a dinner table conversation to make sure they answered the questions correctly. I know evangelicals. Women do not have separate lives.”
 
Someone is rather salty that they are not as happy as religious conservative wives are. First, that’s rather insulting to the wives, isn’t it? The idea that religious wives are essentially slaves to their husbands is ridiculous (well, outside of Islam, at least). And as far as “separate lives” goes, I take that to mean separate lives away from their husbands and family, to which I would say: does a career make a woman happy? Happier than a happy marriage and family?
 
I can assure you the women that say their careers make them happy largely do not have families of their own. And what’s more, 66% of divorced couples in the U.S. do not have children, according to Smart Marriages. So children also bring about some unique happiness to wives. So they might not have “separate lives”, but the lives they do have are far better than many others’.
 
When a wife has a devoted husband, has children of her own and they are engaged in a marriage that is centered around God, the wife will tend to be considerably happier than people who are not in such relationships. As you can see, many people hate that and consider that to be fake news, but it makes complete and total sense to me.
 
When your life is focused on God, you tend to be happier than someone who is not focused on God. That happiness is multiplied when that focus is shared with someone else.
 
Again, not surprising to me.
 
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
“Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”
 
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.

Much like the man-made climate change and “a baby in the womb is not a baby” arguments, the Left continually spreads the bogus lie that women are systematically paid less than men for the same work in order to slap some more socialistic regulations against corporations that could end up hurting women far more down the line than it would end up helping them.
 
And much like any other idiotic Leftist, 2020 Democrat candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Red Light District), announced earlier in the week a plan to “close the gender wage gap”, which the Left often claims is due to horrible discrimination against women (a ridiculous claim, but one they always make).
 
According to the Daily Wire, “Harris’ plan would require companies to report information about their pay policies and the pay of men and women in the company. They would also be required to spend time ‘applying for a mandatory Equal Pay Certification from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’, The Associated Press reported. Under Harris’ plan, if a company fails to receive this certification, it ‘would be fined 1% of their profits for every 1% wage gap they allow to persist for work of equal value.’”
 
There are a couple of things that really could be quite terrible for companies with what was just mentioned above. First, that “fined 1% of their profits” does not specify if that means quarterly or annual profits, which can make a difference. Second, what does “for every 1% wage gap they allow” mean exactly? Does that mean that the company would be fined 1% for every percent of a “wage gap” found in each individual case? Or does someone do the math to see how much men made on average versus women and fine the difference in percentage? It’s this sort of lazy, perhaps willfully incompetent wording that can really screw a company over. If terms aren’t well-defined, that can cause some major problems.
 
Now, that’s just the announcement. I would imagine the actual wording of the plan is not quite this asinine, but it’s the Democrats we are talking about here.
 
In any case, that’s not all that is included in Harris’ plan. That was just in case a company did not apply or receive an "equality" certificate.
 
According to the AP, “In Harris’ equal-pay plan, the campaign says, companies would be prohibited from asking about prior salary history as part of their hiring process, banned from using forced arbitration agreements in employment contracts for pay discrimination matters, and would be required to allow employees to freely discuss their pay. They would also be required to report the share of women who are among the company’s top earners, the total pay and total compensation gap that exists between men and women, regardless of job titles, experience and performance.”
 
Now, I’m no expert when it comes to hiring someone or seeking a high-paying job, but I cannot imagine any of these things are a great plan for people, especially for women.
 
Why would it help to not mention a prior salary in the hiring process? If a company is looking for someone to fill a position, they would look to see what sort of job they had before and roughly how much they were earning for that job (granted, I imagine people sometimes, if not often times, lie about how much they were earning in a previous position so they can negotiate for a considerably higher salary for the position being discussed, but still.) Not mentioning how much one was previously making doesn’t help anyone to earn more money in negotiations.
 
But regardless of my knowledge of the hiring process, I know very well that the last item is quite outrageous, as it would CREATE THE IMAGE OF A WAGE GAP EXISTING.
 
You see, while there is no wage gap, there is an earnings gap. But that has nothing to do with what the company policies are regarding a person’s salary. As a matter of fact, and something the Left always conveniently forgets, it is illegal under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to pay women less than men for the same position and amount of work. Key there being the amount of work put in.
 
The simple fact is that men tend to work longer hours per week than women do. A number of reasons for this can exist, such as a woman’s desire to spend time with her family, a woman’s ability to work for longer periods of time, etc. But what makes that last proposal even worse is that it not only ignores the hours spent in a work equal to a man, but also “compares the average or median earnings of men and women, without taking into account things like careers… or experience,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
Different jobs at different levels in different departments will vary widely in terms of pay. For example, a CFO, according to salary.com, will make, on average, around $370,000 a year. A COO, or Chief Operating Officer, will make $470,000. A Vice President of Sales will make, on average, $250,000, while a VP of Finance will make around $200,000.
 
Both a CFO and COO are the chief executives of their respective branches, both hold basically the same level of their departments, only being below the CEO in the company’s hierarchy. And yet, a CFO makes less money a year than a COO makes. A Vice President of Sales is basically on the same level as a Vice President of Finance, but the VP of Sales makes more money on average than a VP of Finance does.
 
So say you have a female CFO and a male COO. Based on what we just learned, is it fair to say there is discrimination here based on the money they each make, despite their basically equal levels in the company? What if the opposite were to be the case? What if the female COO makes more money than a male CFO? Is that also a problem of gender discrimination?
 
Ironically, a recent Google internal study found that the company tended to pay women more than men for the same work and had to pay $9.7 million to the employees who were paid less, which usually was men.
 
That was back in March and I didn’t hear about this from anywhere on the fake news media or any politician on the Left.
 
But considering Harris’ plan is meant to “help” women, I imagine Google paying women MORE than men actually would not have forced them to pay that 1% per wage gap that Harris is proposing. If men get paid less than women, that is either ignored or believed to be a good thing.
 
Oh, and to add to this entire situation, Harris’ plan “would also require federal contractors to close their wage gap within two years or they would not be able to apply for federal contracts worth more than $500,000.”
 
Considering this plan from Harris would do nothing to actually close that “wage” gap, as it is not up to the companies (much less the government) to determine how much money someone earns depending on the amount of work that they put in, that would largely mean that no federal contractors would be able to take on contracts that are massive in size, like building high-speed trains, or doing anything that the LEFT wants to do regarding tearing down old buildings and building new, environmentally-friendly ones if the GND were to pass (though federal contractors not being allowed to do that sort of thing would be the least of our worries in that hypothetical scenario). So this sort of policy would especially hurt Democrats who are all about spending as much money as possible, including things regarding to federal contracts.
 
What’s worse is that this sort of plan actually hurts women far more than it helps them. If companies would be punished for showing wage gaps between genders, what reason would they have for hiring more females if they would likely (certainly) bring nothing but trouble once they have to report the gaps – that would not go away – to the government and be fined for something they have no control over?

Men tend to work longer hours, so companies would look to hire people who can output more of a workload, especially if there comes a serious financial risk of hiring a woman at any position, if there would exist a gap regardless of career, experience and performance. Notice how I talked about the AVERAGE salaries of top positions. That is because the actual salary will vary depending on things like experience. So there will ALWAYS be a gap when an experienced man is paid more than an inexperienced female even within the same job and title.
 
The current CFO of Apple, Luca Maestri, makes $1 million a year, base. Microsoft’s current CFO, Amy Hood, makes $570,000 base (both make millions more through shares, but we are talking about wages here). Does that mean that Microsoft is more sexist than Apple? Or does that mean that maybe, just maybe, Luca Maestri has more experience in such a high position than does Amy Hood?
 
So even within the same job (albeit in different companies), people make varying wages DEPENDING ON THE THINGS HARRIS WANTS TO IGNORE TO “EXPOSE” (really, create) A WAGE GAP!
 
It would simply be too great of a risk for a company’s profit margins to hire women, when they would tend to be paid less than men even for the same job, simply because women tend to work less hours than men do.
 
It would actually hurt small businesses even more as well, as they are the ones less likely to be able to take such financial hits. The reason massive corporations are okay with raising the minimum wage is because they know they can afford it but their competitors might not. It’s crony capitalism at its worst and this wage gap myth falls in line with that.
 
It would especially become troublesome if the government were to pass a law that said companies had to have a certain ratio of male to female employees. At that point, smaller companies would be forced to take the “wage” gap hits.
 
The simple truth is that companies legally cannot pay men more than women ever since 1963, but that correlates to the amount of work actually done. If a man and a woman work the same amount of hours a week, they will be payed the same. If a man works more hours than a woman does (as tends to be the case, on average), then the man will be payed more because he worked more. If a woman works more hours than a man does (which isn’t typically the case), the woman will be paid more than the man because she worked more. THAT is equality, not this woke, SJW crap that serves nothing more than to score political points but would actually harm women more if actually applied.
 
Galatians 3:28
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
 
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.

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

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.

Ever since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Venezuela) first revealed that she believed the world would end in just 12 years due to climate change, she has been on the receiving end of merciless mockery. Considering just how idiotic such a rhetoric is, and considering it’s already been used time after time by moronic Leftists decrying that climate change was going to kill us (a practice dating back to the 60s… the 1860s, that is), I’d say the mockery is rather justified.
 
But I think AOC had enough of the mockery and has decided to backtrack on that apocalyptic claim altogether. On Sunday, she tweeted: “This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and ‘fact check’ it. Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal. But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows.”
 
I absolutely love this tweet right here. Despite the fact that she first delivered this warning back in January to a crowd who applauded, not laughed, and the context surrounding it was very serious, she is trying to call it “dry humor” mixed with “sarcasm”.
 
That’s like saying something seriously messed up and then backtracking by saying “it was just a joke”. It’s a really funny copout.
 
Just FYI, AOC delivered that warning alongside the idea that climate change was “our World War II”, insisting that we fight climate change like we would a world war. That, too, received some mockery, but not as much as the doomsday warning.
 
She said: “I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. And your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are [we] going to pay for it? – and like this is the war, this is our World War II.”
 
Now, had she said it was just a joke (or even just an exaggeration) soon after the mockery ensued, that would’ve been fine and understandable. Granted, charging that the world was going to end in 12 years is a little different from exaggerating about how much time something else would take to occur, but it would’ve been a little bit better. Her problem, however, is the fact that she doubled-down time after time with that specific number of years.
 
Just last month, she created a video (which was also mocked) charging that the world would end in just 12 years due to climate change. She even captioned the video (which was shared on Twitter) with: “Climate change is here + we’ve got a deadline: 12 years left to cut emissions in half…”
 
The video itself shares that same deadline of specifically twelve years to act on climate change.
 
Last month, she held an Instagram live-stream where one of her viewers mocked her doomsday clock, which triggered the lunatic socialist and replied: “We have twelve years left to cut emissions by at least 50 percent if not more. For everyone who wants to make a joke about that, you may laugh but your grandkids will not, so understand that the internet documents everything.”
 
A little ironic considering she is now claiming she was joking about that, and she’s certainly right: the internet does document everything, especially the words of a moron like her.
 
But what is perhaps the funniest thing about this entire situation is the fact that those who applauded her for her doomsday warning back in January and continued to applaud it as it was relentlessly mocked very clearly took it literally. They honestly were brought to the belief that the world would end in only twelve years. After all, it prompted a bunch of children to try to scold Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-China) about climate change and the deadline of 12 years.
 
So the people that she mostly insults here are not Republicans or conservatives who took her literally (because she was being literal up until now, I suppose), but rather, her own constituents, who were convinced the world would end by the 2030s if we didn’t implement the Red… erm, I mean, Green New Deal, totally uprooting our entire economic system over the heavily misguided belief that we are killing our own planet due to our capitalism (honestly, I don’t understand how one comes to believe such a dumb rhetoric).
 
It’s her own constituents, some of which were in that January MLK forum in New York City, that came to believe her and apparently have the intellect of a sea sponge (which I think is insulting to SpongeBob SquarePants considering even he understands the value of employment and considering he has something many socialist Millennials don’t: his own house). They are the ones who took the doomsday warning very literally and very seriously (as she intended), so are they the ones who have the intellectual capabilities of an aquatic sponge? AOC seems to think so.
 
And that’s the beautiful irony of this entire situation. While pretty much everyone took her warning literally, only those who actually believe we are killing our planet took it seriously. And they are the ones who are actually targeted, if inadvertently, by AOC’s insult.
 
Those of us who understand ACTUAL science understand that the climate, while changing, is not even close to being heavily affected by humans. Matter of fact, according to a recent study, the Tropical Atlantic was 7.5° C WARMER 10 to 15 thousand years ago, when CO2 levels hovered around 220 ppm (roughly half of what they are now).
 
“Evidence from the tropical Atlantic indicates today’s regional temperatures (15.5°C) are 7.5°C colder than peak temperatures (23°C) between 15,000 to 10,000 years ago, when CO2 hovered around 220 ppm.”
 
What’s funny is that in simply looking up what “ppm” means, I came across multiple articles talking about how CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been, hitting 415 ppm, and talking about how bad that is. As we just demonstrated, CO2 levels mean absolutely nothing to the overall climate of the planet, but these people are convinced (by people like AOC) that we are killing our planet with CO2 and if CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been, that is a terrible thing.
 
The Left are the ones who promulgate the belief that we are killing our planet, as evidenced by the literal climate hysteria the Left seems to cycle through themselves. So it stands to reason that those who lean more towards the Left will take AOC’s climate doomsday warning of 12 years, max, to be quite literal, serious and alarming. The whole POINT of such a doomsday clock is to get people scared and riled up about climate change so that they would vote into office those who would pass and apply socialist policies like the Green New Deal which would effectively kill the United States economy almost immediately and legitimately ruin millions of people’s very way of life if they even come to survive at all.
 
Food shortages would be very, very common with the outlawing of fossil fuels as farming equipment largely, if not exclusively, rely on fossil fuels. The Green New Deal would effectively kill the country, not just economically, but very literally for millions of people, but you’re not supposed to know that. “It’s all to fight climate change”, is what they say. And considering how much of an emphasis climate change is for these people to go so far as to compare it with a WORLD WAR, you’re supposed to back up any “solution” offered by the Left even if it literally kills people (and considering the Left’s efforts to dehumanize people and some college professors’ insistence that the planet would be far better off without humans living in it, I’d say their efforts to devalue human life are well on their way for this sort of action to take place and be viewed as something acceptable).
 
Although we’ll have to see where things go from here now that AOC has backtracked with her doomsday warning. I’d say that “twelve years before we die” rhetoric was much of the driving force behind the GND. Ironically, she might flip-flop once again in the near future to say we only have a certain amount of time before we all die, once again leading people to be scared enough to pass the cyanide pill of a legislation that is the GND.
 
But as it stands, I will laugh merrily at the fact that AOC was largely calling her own constituents idiots more so than conservatives, even if she did not mean to.
 
Romans 1:22
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools.”
 
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.