We’ve likely all seen Jim Acosta’s video of him at the border, pointing out that there doesn’t seem to be a crisis or emergency like Trump is talking about, but failing to realize that he is walking right next to steel slats much like Trump wants to build in much of the Southern Border. That gaffe has been rightly called a self-own.
 
But once in a while, you get a self-own so magnificent, you wonder if the person responsible for it has any idea what he or she has done.
 
While Jim Acosta made a short video about his own opinions on the state of the border, Vanity Fair writer T.A. Frank unwittingly made perhaps one of the best cases I’ve ever seen against Obama and Leftist policies.
 
Now, before you ask: yes, T.A. Frank is, himself, a Democrat.
 
Vanity Fair is one of the most Left-leaning sites out there, and that’s saying a lot. Which is why it’s so surprising to see them write the following piece and publish it on their site.
 
Frank’s article is titled: “Hope vs. Change: Why Some Democrats Are Turning On Obama’s Legacy.”
 
Pretty juicy and interesting title.
 
But it’s what he says next that is even juicier:
 
“Obama was a visionary who gave us the Affordable Care Act, DACA, and the Paris deal, but many of the country’s most ominous trends also proceeded apace under his watch…”
 
That was his subhead.
 
Now, I won’t go over everything in the article. He begins by talking about this difference in Washington between what is considered the establishment, which wishes to maintain the status quo (I would argue somewhat differently, but fine), and the radicals on both the Democrat and Republican parties.
 
Frank says that, while much of Obama’s rhetoric was more on the radical Left of the spectrum, much of his actions were fairly establishmentarian.
 
He argues that when the establishment told Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan, he did just that. When “they told him to keep the records of detainee abuse under Bush concealed,” he “hid them”. When “they said that nationalizing the banks or prosecuting the executives would be too risky”, he “avoided it”. When “they said that our trade agreements enriched the nation”, he “promoted them”. And when they “called him callous when he originally refused to intervene in Libya”, “he toppled its leader”.
 
Basically, Frank argues that Obama was at the beck and call of the Washington Establishment and he would do pretty much whatever they told him to do, even though Frank also argues that Obama was not, himself, an establishment President.
 
Remember the days when the media would not dare attack or challenge Obama in any way whatsoever? They would stick up for him no matter what, so for this guy to be saying these things, even if Obama has not been President for two years, is pretty fascinating and unexpected.
 
Now, the reason Frank argues for saying these sorts of things is that 2020 Democrat candidates have to look at how to tackle Trump, whom he says is a wild card of a candidate. (He also says Trump is failing in countless ways, which I would strongly disagree with, but to each their own).
 
He argues that since Obama was so rooted in establishmentarianism, Dem candidates may want to look at what might be best for them. He says Elizabeth Warren might want people to think she’s a radical and Joe Biden wants people to consider him the establishment choice.
 
As far as Warren goes, I don’t think she has much hope of winning the nomination, if I’m honest. That DNA test result that she stupidly claimed proved her heritage when it did the exact opposite has seriously derailed any chances she may have had at becoming the Dem nominee.
 
Biden, on the other hand, might have the best shot out of anyone to be the Dem candidate, even if he is more of an establishment guy and many other Leftists seek a radical.
 
But here’s the thing: like I said before, Frank makes the best case against Leftism as well.
 
There are two paragraphs I want to point towards, where he makes the best case against Leftist policies, even if he does not outright make any connections between a cause (Leftist policies) and effect (the negative things I am about to share with you).
 
Without further ado, here are the two paragraphs I’m talking about:
 
After talking about the differences between the establishment and the radicals in both parties, he writes: “Where does this leave us (Democrats), and what does it portend for Democrats in 2020? On the one hand, it’s unfair to call Barack Obama an establishment president with all the status-quo overtones of the term. He gave us the Affordable Care Act, the stimulus, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform, an executive action for Dreamers, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, a nuclear deal with Iran, diplomatic relations with Cuba, a climate deal in Paris, a New START treaty, a reform of student-loan programs, and two liberal Supreme Court appointments. On the other hand, many of the country’s most ominous trends proceeded apace under his watch. The financialization of the economy kept increasing (whatever that means). Student debt kept exploding. Trade policy kept its same priorities. Opioid addiction kept spreading. Suicide numbers kept rising. Disparities in life expectancy between rich and poor kept widening. Union membership kept declining. Illegal border-crossers kept coming. Our defense commitments kept growing. In towns like Jasper, Indiana, and Mebane, North Carolina, factory workers – a hundred here, a couple of hundred there – kept losing their middle-class jobs, outcompeted by giant Chinese mills with appalling conditions.”
 
“The concise and indispensable new book The Nationalist Revival, by the left-leaning John B. Judis, contains one especially haunting statistic: 3.4 million jobs lost to the growth of trade with China since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization. For many of these forgotten Americans, Obama’s final State of the Union address lauding a manufacturing surge rang hollow, and so did his vision of making ‘change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people.’ They had already heard, many times, that ‘they may have to retool, they may have to re-train.’ It was Bill Clinton, still a canny reader of the public, at times, who had to observe that ‘millions of people look at that pretty picture of America he painted and they cannot find themselves in it.’”
 
That is an awful lot to go through and I cannot possibly go through everything and still keep this article at standard length.
 
One of the main things I want to point out is that, in the first paragraph, as I have stated previously, Frank unwittingly makes the best case against Leftism.
 
He recognizes all the things that Obama was doing. And he also recognizes many of the ominous things that were happening in pace with the things Obama was doing. But he still somehow does not make the connection between the two of them.
 
What Obama was doing was choking the American economy and allowing for other countries to make deals with us where we would be utterly screwed. The Paris deal, as an example, is not something we needed to be a part of at any point. We were spending a ton more money as part of the deal in “fighting” climate change. However, with Trump pulling us out of the deal, we still manage to meet the expectations and requirements of the Paris deal WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR IT!
 
Another thing I want to point out which is interesting to me is one of the negatives he lists in the first paragraph. “Illegal border-crossers kept coming”.
 
Not only am I surprised that he is using the term “illegal” because those who consider themselves to be “woke” would never use that term, but I am also surprised that he sees that as any sort of problem at all.
 
Given the current rhetoric of many on the Left, the idea of an America with open borders is enticing. And yet, Frank notes that this unlawful act is a negative associated with the Obama administration.
 
You don’t see that very often. And, funny enough, it’s yet another reason I cannot believe the guy is not making a connection between the things Obama was doing and the negative things that came along with those things.
 
Notice how many of the negatives he listed are slowly but surely getting resolved now that Trump is President. Trump, as many on the Left will note, is undoing pretty much everything Obama set out to do and actually managed to do.
 
Trade policy is different now than with Obama. Obama made sure other countries got the better end of the deal while the U.S. paid for it. Trump makes sure the opposite is true: we get the better end of the deal.
 
Illegal border-crossing, while that’s still an ongoing thing and continues to escalate, is something Trump has literally based his entire campaign around. He won on the Wall. Even Chuck Schumer said that people voted for the Wall before he caught himself and rephrased it as “some people” voted for the Wall.
 
Trump won on the issue of addressing and fixing illegal immigration. And while Obama was dubbed the “deporter-in-chief”, he hardly helped secure the border all that much more (even though he used to be in favor of building walls).
 
Wherever there is a wall at the southern border, such as San Diego, there is considerably less illegal border-crossing than wherever there are no walls. Jim Acosta himself showed that, as I mentioned in the beginning, where there is a wall, there is no crisis.
 
It’s funny what happens when you get rid of the cause of some effects. The economic policies Obama enacted killed jobs, while the policies Trump has enacted have created them.
 
This is why I say Frank makes the best case against Leftism. Everything Obama did was Leftist policy. All of it. And what was the result? Jobs gone, people suffering, and America declining. Take away all those Leftist policies and what do you get? Jobs returning, people prospering, and America surging.
 
I have gone as far as to bookmark that article on Chrome to make sure to come back to it and point out that even one of the Left’s own journalists has noted Obama’s supposed accomplishments and the things that came with those accomplishments, even if he does not recognize their cause-and-effect relationship. According to the Logical Law of Causality, every effect must have a cause. Obama's policies were the cause. And indebtedness, joblessness, etc. were the effect. By eliminating Obama's policies (cause), you get the opposite results of more jobs, more prosperity, etc. (effect), which is exactly what President Trump is doing.
 
Thank you, Mr. Frank, for the truly great gift you have bestowed upon us. Here’s hoping that if you’re smart enough to recognize the bad things that came along the things Obama did, you will be smart enough to recognize the cause and effect of Leftist policies.
 
Proverbs 18:15
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

For as much as the Left wants to “shout” their abortions and Hollywood and other media want to portray abortion not simply as a choice, but a great one that leads to women being happier after getting one, the vast majority of the American people do not entirely agree with their positions.
 
According to a Marist/Knights of Columbus poll, 75% of Americans want substantial restrictions on abortion. This number includes 92% of Republicans, 78% of Independents, 60% of Democrats and 61% of people who identify as “pro-choice”.
 
All of those numbers, perhaps with the exception of the number of Republicans, are fantastic and very endearing numbers to see in an age where the Left rules the vast majority of the media, from the news, to Hollywood and television. We are constantly inundated with Leftist messages ranging from abortion to gay rights and everything in between. Regarding abortion, I am glad to see the vast majority of people are opposed to unrestricted abortion.
 
Knights of Columbus CEO Carl Anderson said regarding the poll: “As in past years, this poll shows that the pro-choice label on the abortion issue is simply insufficient. The majority of Americans – in both parties – support legal restrictions on abortion. Two-thirds of Americans want Roe revisited to allow for state regulation of abortion or to ban it altogether. The majority of the American people deserve to have their opinions heard.”


Regarding Roe, the poll found that 65% of Americans want the Supreme Court to do one of two things in revisiting it, either give the states the right to choose the legality of abortion (49%) or ban abortion altogether (16%). Unfortunately, that latter option is my preferred one and I would like to see that go up, but I will take these poll numbers as I get them. It is fantastic to see that people are not so Left-leaning that they want abortion and Planned Parenthood to go completely unrestricted in what they do and how they operate.
 
As far as taxpayer funding of abortion goes, 54% oppose taxpayer funding altogether of any abortion, while only 39% support it.
 
Regarding taxpayer funding of overseas procedures as provided by organizations like International Planned Parenthood (yes, We the People pay for people outside the U.S. to get abortions as well), 75% opposed it, with only 19% being in favor of it. Specifically, 94% of Republicans, 80% of Independents and 56% of Democrats opposed taxpayer funding of abortions abroad.
 
Regarding the ability of medical professionals to opt out of performing abortions due to moral objections, 55% agreed they should be able to opt out, while 35% disagreed.
 
62% of Americans oppose aborting unborn children with Down Syndrome and 59% support banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, unless it is necessary to save the mother (which I don’t even know how it can get to that point at all).
 
Now, while I do appreciate that so many people want restrictions on abortion, I still think 20 weeks is still too far into the pregnancy. A heartbeat is usually detected around 6 weeks into the pregnancy, though sometimes it can be detected earlier or later than 6 weeks. Of course, I believe life begins at conception and abortion should be banned and outlawed altogether, but at the very latest, I would argue that abortion should not be allowed to occur after 6 weeks either.
 
If you end the heartbeat of any other living thing, you are effectively killing it. I see no reason for anyone to argue that a heartbeat does not constitute a living being in the womb. By the same token, I see no reason to argue aborting a baby after 6 weeks in the womb does not constitute murder.
 
But again, I’ll take these numbers as I get them. Frankly, with how much the Left raves about abortion, it’s an outright miracle that these many people disagree to some extents with the Left.
 
Moving on, 56% of Americans say that “scientifically”, a fetus is “a unique life”, while 35% argue that it’s “part of a woman’s body”. Also, 42% say life begins at conception while only 13% say it begins at birth.
 
A different poll by Students for Life of America found that people ages 18-34 (also known as Millennials) largely agreed that there should be limits on abortion (70%), with 42% opposing abortion altogether.
 
Altogether, these numbers simply bring a smile to my face. The overwhelming majority of Americans are not anywhere near as sick and depraved as the Left is, who wish to run entire campaigns around “shouting” their abortion, whatever that means.
 
I’ve written multiple stories regarding abortion. Some, like the one about an abortionist’s comments on what she does, are insanely depraved and stomach-churning. However, it is good to see such fantastic numbers to represent over 1,000 Americans (the sample size for the first poll was 1,066).
 
And what is so incredibly surprising is the amount of Democrats and pro-choice people who agree that there should be restrictions on abortions. Obviously, the Democrats polled were not elected officials, who are pretty much obsessed with allowing abortion to go unrestricted (largely because they take money from Planned Parenthood). So people within the Democrat Party, at least in the base, want at least some restrictions on it.
 
Like the Knights of Columbus CEO said, the label of “pro-choice” is insufficient. Being pro-choice, while I still think is not great, does not necessarily mean pro-unrestricted-abortion.
 
And often times, the reason I refer to people as being pro-abortion is because that’s what many in the Left are. They don’t care about people’s choices as long as they make the supposedly “right” one. To the Left, the more abortions there are, the better. That’s essentially dropping any pretense on supporting a choice.
 
If they supported a choice, they would be okay with clinics offering adoption as an option for a woman who does not want a child but is pregnant. The Left opposes that because they want the woman to get an abortion, not give up the child for adoption. Where’s the choice in that?
 
However, that is largely with regard to Democrat politicians or Hollywood Leftists. As shown in that poll, 60% of Democrats, aka voters who are registered Democrats, want some restrictions on abortion.
 
That is considerably different from the former two Leftists. So good job, Democrat voters. And for once, I am not being sarcastic.
 
These numbers show that the vast majority of America does not fall in line with the Democrat’s official position of unrestricted abortion. While many still are okay with abortion, it is at least a step in the right direction and in the Right direction, if you get what I mean.
 
Again, I am still opposed to any and all abortion, regardless of the circumstances (and I’ve yet to hear of a specific instance in which a pregnancy can cause a mother to be in lethal danger), but I will absolutely take getting just a little bit closer to God.
 
All things considered, I had honestly thought most people, at least most definitely in the Democrat Party, agreed with the Democrat platform of unrestricted abortion. The media certainly makes it seem like that’s the case (and I’m not surprised that this poll won’t make it to any fake news media outlet), but as always, they are full of fake news.
 
We must truly thank God that we are not quite as far gone as we may have previously thought.
 
Psalm 127:3
“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.”
 
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 not necessarily one of the biggest stories in the past couple of weeks, with the current government shutdown becoming the longest in history, Trump hosting Clemson football players and serving them fast food (which is an endearing and very likable gesture that is only attacked by embittered Leftists), and polls saying that most people blame the President for the shutdown but also want a wall more now than a year ago, the story of the L.A. teachers’ strike is somewhat buried among everything else.
 
However, it has been talked about to some extent, and I feel it is important to point something out: this strike is not about helping kids or improving the schools. It’s not even about the teachers’ most explicit demands of smaller class sizes (a wall could help with that regard, by the way), higher wages and more staff to support faculty. It’s about the political power the teachers’ unions in Los Angeles hold.
 
And this is not a wild allegation I am making without any evidence. This is admitted to by at least one teacher who wrote an op-ed for PBS titled: “Charter schools are draining LA’s public schools. That’s why I’m on strike.”
 
But before we continue, let me first give you a little bit of context.
 
This is a massive, 31,000 teacher walkout in Los Angeles public schools. As a result, roughly “two-thirds of children” are out of school, or at least not being taught, according to Breitbart.
 
The LA Times reports: “The walkout of 31,000 teachers union members proved to be the massive disruption hundreds of thousands of students and their families had feared. The vast majority of the district’s parents and guardians are low income, and many had to choose between missing work to watch their children or sending them into an unknown situation at school. While campuses remained open, the few adults present struggled to keep students engaged.”
 
So this walkout is having a tremendous negative impact on communities, many of whom are low-income families whose lives have now been made more difficult, as if they needed it.
 
And for what purpose? Outwardly, as I stated previously, for smaller class sizes (I wonder why that’s a problem in sanctuary state California), higher wages for teachers and additional support staff.
 
However, as the teacher from the op-ed writes, it’s largely about the impact charter schools have on public schools. In other words, they don’t like that non-unionized competitors are kicking their butts.
 
The teacher writes:
 
“I’m striking to stop charter schools from draining our schools. In addition to seeking lower class sizes, more counselors, nurses and librarians and a pay raise, the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) is asking that LAUSD stop approving charter schools, which have seen a 287 percent increase in the district’s boundaries since 2008. The loss of enrollment across the district means a $600 million loss from our public schools every year."
 
"Due to our school’s low enrollment, an English teaching position was cut halfway through the fall semester. Charter schools are publicly funded but are not governed by a local district. In other words, charter schools run more like private schools with little oversight. Most charter school employees are not unionized; therefore approving more charter schools is one way to weaken the UTLA.”
 
I’m sorry, I thought you were on strike for the kids’ benefit. What benefit does it bring them to have the government close the door on better-run schools? What benefit does it bring them to quit teaching them for the sake of political power?
 
Actually, this is L.A., so it might actually be more beneficial for kids to not go to school at all than to be indoctrinated and brainwashed, now that I think about it.
 
But still, the general idea is that kids suffer whenever there is a teachers’ strike. And this one is largely, if not entirely, for the benefit of the union (as they usually are anyway, but I digress).
 
Even socialist darling Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) expressed her support for the striking teachers, saying: “These LA teachers striking against privatization + demanding smaller classrooms/more support for their students is a whole 2019 mood.”
 
I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean in this context, but that’s very clearly showing support for them and even acknowledging that the biggest reason for the strike is pure politics.
 
According to Breitbart: “Charter schools are especially favored by black and Latino families precisely because they offer an escape from failing public schools in the inner city – which, many argue, are failing partly because of the control the union enjoys.”
 
It’s not hard to see why the schools are failing. The unions are backed by the Democrat Party and recently defeated charter school advocate Marshall Tuck a second time in the race for state school superintendent in last November’s elections.
 
However, Breitbart notes that “charter school advocates won two seats in the L.A. Unified School District elections the year before. And last year’s Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME freed public employees from having to pay mandatory dues to the union.”
 
So the teachers’ unions in Los Angeles are losing a bit of their power, are gravely threatened by charter schools, and choose to go on strike over them, regardless of the pain they may cause low-income families in their communities.
 
The reason these teachers choose to strike, at least primarily, is for their own benefit, not that of the children.
 
And the worst part might actually come in the form that the LAUSD is already stretched very thin with regards to money. According to LA School Report, the organization’s plan to avoid going bankrupt and having the County take over is cutting 15% of staff.
 
So the teachers are making selfish demands for almost purely selfish reasons to an organization that is facing bankruptcy and would actually be a detriment to the teachers if it actually went bankrupt.
 
All for the purposes of the Democrat-backed unions to retain the power they’ve enjoyed for so long that has ruined L.A. public schools and was at least one of the biggest reasons for the surge of charter schools in the city.
 
In the meantime, while these children in adult costumes demand “justice”, actual children are left in the dust to be either taken care of by their parents who have to choose between working that day or taking care of their child or sending the kids to the schools anyway and hope for the best, knowing full-well that they won’t likely be taught anything.
 
All because these teachers want to retain their power over the education in the city. Instead of competing with charter schools to improve themselves, this is the route they chose.
 
For shame.
 
Philippians 2:3-4
“Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also the interests of others.”
 
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 I see it, there is a dangerous secularization within the churches that is trying to secularize Christianity to make it fit the world’s standards, doing the opposite of what they should be trying to do.
 
And just to be clear, I’m not saying that every single individual church does this, or that every single individual Christian does this, but there are trends in many churches that are simply worrying to me at the very least.
 
Now, allow me to explain just what it is that I am talking about regarding the secularization of the church (as the bride of Christ) and of Christianity itself.
 
Recently, I read two articles from The Daily Wire. One was titled: “Pastor Loses Job After Church Sign Stating ‘Homosexuality Is Still A Sin’ Causes Uproar” and the other was an op-ed from Mike S. Adams titled: “Why I Have To Debate ‘Christian’ Serial Killers,” referencing pro-abortion people in the church who not simply ignore abortion, but straight up claim it is somehow morally right.
 
Adams writes that the silence from most Christians regarding abortion is “stunning”, reminding him of stories he had heard of German churches ignoring Jewish trains full of women and children crying out for help by singing hymns more loudly. Of course, these are simply stories that may or may not be true, but we are seeing the Left literally calling for people to “shout” their abortion. And it seems, at least when it comes to plenty of supposed “Christians” that abortion is not only an issue that is not discussed, but sometimes even advocated for. Plenty of times, either churches ignore the issue of abortion to instead focus on the sinfulness of Man (and just barely mentioning how we are already saved if we have received Christ into our hearts) or outright joining the Leftist thought-train of secularization and advocating for women’s “right” to have an abortion.
 
Similarly, it seems as though we have been less intent on pointing out and rebuking the sinfulness of homosexuality because it’s “cool” or “acceptable” now to be gay.
 
Which brings me to the other article, where Pastor Justin Hoke of Trinity Bible Presbyterian Church in Weed, California lost his job after his church sign read the following: “Bruce Jenner is still a man. Homosexuality is still a sin. The culture may change. The Bible does not.”
 
That seems like a perfectly reasonable and accurate church sign. But the sign still caused an uproar within the community.
 
Now, that in and of itself was not actually the reason for the pastor to lose his job. The community can say whatever it wants, but it ultimately can’t get rid of a pastor. However, the church can.
 
Pastor Hoke said that he was not exactly fired, but it was brought to his attention that just about everyone in the church with the exception of one couple said that they would leave the church if he continued preaching there.
 
And THAT is where we find a huge problem. 99% of the church members and all of the elders did not want Hoke, whose gravest sin was to preach against sin (which is HIS JOB), and threatened to leave the church if he continued doing exactly what he’s supposed to do.
 
Now, I get that this is California, particularly in a city called WEED. However, I looked into the church and what denomination it fell under. The Bible Presbyterian Church is a very conservative church. Unlike many other churches where it seems they teach literally the opposite of Christianity, the Bible Presbyterian Church follows the Westminster Standards of reformed doctrine. In other words, they’re as conservative as you can get.
 
And yet, despite its conservatism, the overwhelming majority of the body of the church was against what the pastor did, even though he was 100% right.
 
Bruce, or “Caitlyn” Jenner is still a man. It doesn’t matter what he looks like, or what parts he surgically added or removed, he is still a he because God made him that way.
 
Homosexuality is still 100% a sin. It doesn’t matter if the Left calls us homophobes for saying it, the Word of God makes this abundantly clear.
 
And that’s not to say any of us hate gay people, either. Quite the opposite in fact. If we hated gay people, we wouldn’t care to point out their sin and we wouldn’t try to save them. But we care for people’s souls – all people’s. So, we try to help them be saved.
 
And yet, even though the Bible is perfectly clear about homosexuality, almost every member of the church wanted the pastor gone because he was spreading the Truth.
 
When I look at where the church is headed, I worry. The Catholic Church has had multiple instances of highly immoral sexual misconduct with children. And yes, while that is also the case in many other places, particularly Leftist Hollywood, the Church is held to a higher standard than Hellywood (and yes, I’m thinking of calling it that from now on).
 
The fact that the people of a conservative church would threaten to leave a church if it retained a pastor who was SPREADING THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL is a massive red flag, even if it is in California.
 
Homosexuality is still a sin, regardless of what society might argue. Transgenderism is a mental issue, regardless of the Left’s attempts to normalize and encourage it. Abortion is death, regardless of what any man or woman might say.
 
These are all things that we should be tackling head on, not retreating on. We should tackle these things and rebuke these things because these things are immoral. And in challenging these things, we should not cower and apologize, and we should not be getting rid of pastors for challenging these things. We are Christians. We serve God, not Man. And as Christians, we should not worry about persecution; we should fully expect it. As Christians, we are hated for telling the Truth; the Truth of Christ, of God, of the Gospels, of the Bible.
 
Christianity cannot become secularized, lest we fall to sin forever. We cannot allow for it to fall to Man. We must pray to God that He may guide our steps so that we may continue to spread His Word, regardless of the physical consequences.
 
Why? Because it’s not just the most important thing – it’s the only important thing.
 
There is a reason people in China risk going to underground churches. They risk imprisonment because they’d rather be physically imprisoned than spiritually imprisoned.
 
There is a reason people in the Middle East so often come to Christ. Even though they risk not just imprisonment but outright death, they’d rather die the first death than the second.
 
And yet, I see so many self-professed “Christians” either ignoring the sins of Man or outright advocating for them, arguing that they are actually moral when the Bible proves otherwise.
 
I’ve often said that we need a Christian revival. When I say that, I don’t just mean more people coming to Christ who never said or thought they were Christians, but I also mean those who think they are Christians and argue they are doing God’s work but are not.
 
We need a Christian revival not just in America but around the world. We need to fully understand what it means to be a Christian. It means to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, through trial and tribulation on this Earth, following His teachings as best as we can, regardless of what society might say or argue. It means not fearing persecution but outright expecting it, knowing that whatever Man can do cannot compare to what God can do.
 
For it is better to die the most horrendous death imaginable at the hands of Man than it would be to be on the receiving end of God’s Righteous and Just Wrath.
 
Shame on those “Christians” who threatened to leave a church whose pastor follows and teaches the Word of God. But beyond that, I sincerely hope they come to their senses, understanding the error of their ways, and return to Christ.
 
Similarly, I hope those “Christians” who advocate for abortion, or at least “choice”, eventually repent of their sins for they are doing the work not of God but of the Devil.
 
I hope and pray we can fight back against the secularization of the churches and of Christianity. It’s definitely not the first time the collective church has had such challenges, but here’s hoping we can overcome and defeat such challenges once again.
 
Romans 6:23
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our 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.

The DOJ recently released a report surveying criminals who committed crimes (both violent and non-violent) at the state and federal level.
 
In their survey, they discovered that roughly 43% of the prisoners got a gun either off the street or through an underground market. 7% say they found a gun at the scene of the crime that would later be committed by them and 6% say they had stolen the gun. 25% got a gun through a family member, friend, or generally as a gift.
 
And one of the most interesting statistics provided by the report is the following: “Among prisoners who possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were imprisoned, 7% of state and 10% of federal prisoners serving a sentence in 2016 bought or traded for the firearm from a gun shop or gun store.”
 
So 90% of federal and 93% of state prisoners acquired guns outside of a gun shop or a gun store.
 
And the Left says we need more gun control measures?
 
What’s more, only “1.3% of prisoners obtained a gun from a retail source and used it during their offense,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
And by the way, that 7% of state and 10% of federal prisoners obtaining a gun from a gun store only counts towards criminals who POSSESSED a gun during the crime they committed for which they were imprisoned, not necessarily those who actually used the firearm.
 
Roughly “29% of state and 36% of federal prisoners serving a sentence for a violent offense in 2016 possessed a firearm during the crime. About a quarter of state (23%) and federal (25%) prisoners serving time for a violent offense used a firearm during the crime.”
 
The survey also breaks down the demographics for people most likely to have possessed a firearm during the crime committed for which they were imprisoned and found that “male prisoners were more likely than female prisoners to have possessed a firearm during their crime. About a fifth of male state and federal prisoners serving a sentence in 2016 possessed a firearm during the crime.”
 
According to the survey, 20.9% of state prisoners possessed a firearm at the time of committing the crime for which they were imprisoned, while 13.9% actually used a firearm. 20% of federal prisoners possessed a firearm with only 5% having used one. However, these are just the numbers for the number of total prisoners. In other words, these numbers include violent and non-violent crimes.
 
When it comes to violent crimes, as stated previously, 29.1% of state prisoners possessed a firearm and 23% used it, while 36.2% of federal prisoners possessed one and 25.3% used it.
 
Unsurprisingly, homicide and robbery saw the biggest number of people having possessed and used a gun both at the state and federal level, with assault trailing behind.
 
But the biggest focus for this particular conversation should be the statistics for how firearms are procured by the criminals.
 
Again, only 7% of state prisoners and 10% of federal prisoners obtained guns through a gun shop. At least 90% obtained it through different means.
 
Now, we do also have to look at that 25% who say they obtained their guns via a friend, family member, etc. I won’t get into that particular way to get a gun, since that can be a relatively slippery-slope to go through in terms of the extent of their legality.
 
What I mean is that, in my opinion, the most logical way to buy a gun for someone else is to go to a gun shop with the person you are gifting the gun to so that the store can run a background check for that person. I am well aware that people also do things differently, but the reason I bring this up is because that seems to be the most logical and least legally obscure way of gifting a gun for someone else.
 
But in any case, like I said before, the main focus of this article is that statistic showing that a very miniscule amount of criminals obtained their guns at a gun shop.
 
Which really drives home the point that gun control simply doesn’t work. A bad guy will find ways to get guns if they have enough of a desire to do evil (and as a side note, a wall would really help regarding the flow of illegal guns into our country).
 
It makes no sense to punish those who follow the law for the actions committed by those who don’t follow the law.
 
Whenever there is a shooting, the Left will automatically blame the gun and call for more gun control which only affects law-abiding citizens.
 
But if this report is in any way accurate, then the argument for gun control goes out the window. If criminals tend to acquire their guns through ILLEGAL MEANS then there is not much more gun control laws will do except leave innocent people vulnerable to more attacks.
 
As I have said in multiple other articles discussing gun control and the 2nd Amendment, things like marijuana, crack and other illegal drugs are already illegal (for the most part). You are not legally allowed to have a bag of crack on you or in your home. And yet, people find ways to do it.
 
Those who obey the law will not have bags of crack on them (unless they are planted on them). Those who obey the law, by definition DON’T BREAK THE LAW!
 
Those who don’t obey the law will not care if there is more gun control or not, at least in regards to them obtaining a gun.
 
If anything, criminals love it when more gun control legislation passes. It means things get harder for people to acquire guns through legal means and they can be left a bit more vulnerable.
 
It’s not rare to hear of stories of someone, usually a woman, who wishes to obtain a gun through legal means because they fear for their life, but end up dying because of gun control legislation that makes it very difficult to obtain a gun.
 
And it’s not rare at all to hear of multiple weekends of bloodshed in places like Chicago, where gun control is faithfully implemented as much as it can be.
 
So not only does gun control usually mean more bloodshed and death wherever it is implemented, but it is not even doing what it supposedly is supposed to do: keep guns away from people who should not have them.
 
Not that that comes as any surprise to you or me. But it is good to see that rhetoric put down on paper, studied, and thoroughly looked at and basically proven.
 
Most criminals don’t obey laws. Who knew?
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
​

I’ve already said multiple times in the past, whenever I would bring something up regarding Mexico and their own immigration issues, that the Left will never call these people racist despite wanting the exact same things as Trump.
 
Some time ago, I wrote about people in Tijuana who were calling the migrant caravan that rose up late last year an “invasion” much like myself and President Trump have done.
 
I talked about how the Left will not call these people racist even though they themselves are calling the caravans an invasion.
 
Well, recently, according to the AP, Mexico’s new president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has promised to increase border control at their southern border with Guatemala in anticipation of another caravan springing up.
 
While they will allow the caravans to still get in, for some reason, they insist that they do so in an orderly fashion and not try to force their way inside.
 
I mean, from what I can tell, an invasion is an invasion, whether or not you allow the invaders inside, but what can you do?
 
The AP reports: “Mexico to regulate 370 illegal crossings on Guatemala border.”
 
“The Mexican government has pledged to put guards at some 370 illegal crossing points along the country’s southern border with Guatemala. The crossings ‘will be guarded and controlled to prevent the entry of undocumented people,’ Interior Secretary Olga Sanchez Cordero said Monday.”
 
Sanchez Cordero explained that Mexico did not want a repeat of what happened last time Mexican law enforcement encountered a migrant caravan, where the caravan scuffled with police and just crossed the river to get into Mexico. “There are leaders in the caravan that are directing it, trying to burst into our country, but we will not allow any entry that is not orderly, safe and controlled by Mexican laws,” said Sanchez Cordero.
 
Now, personally, I don’t think they will actually follow suit on that. Regarding the last caravan, they had promised they would not allow the caravan to enter the country, certainly not in an unruly fashion, and they allowed them to almost literally walk all over them, gaining entry into Mexico, heading for the United States.
 
Here in the U.S., we allow for people even in the last caravan to seek asylum, and they still choose to ignore that and enter the country by force, as though they somehow deserve to come in here.
 
So as far as Mexico’s attempt at controlling the caravan, I don’t think they will be successful. I certainly don’t expect them to. However, they are still trying to lock down some points of illegal entry to keep people from coming in illegally. Why is that not seen as racist by the Left?
 
Beyond that, here in the U.S., Democrats will say that “everyone wants stronger borders” but will turn around and call ICE and Border Patrol racists, and suggest any attempt at controlling the border is racist.
 
They will often call a border wall “immoral” or “racist”. So it’s either immoral and racist to secure the border or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways, with Democrats saying they want to secure the border and turning around and doing things that won’t.
 
Of course, that doesn’t exactly come as a surprise to me because Democrats are lying snakes who can’t tell the truth if it could save them.
 
But regarding this particular discussion, it’s basically what Trump wants to accomplish: a safer and more secure border.
 
No, there hasn’t been any suggestions of a border wall at Mexico’s southern border, but they seemingly are trying to secure their borders against illegal immigration. Why is it okay for them to do that, but it’s racist for us to do it?
 
Mexico doesn’t want people to illegally enter their country. Neither do we. And yet, it’s okay for them to want that and act according to that, but it’s racist and bigoted for us to do it?
 
Why? Because America is supposedly a “white” nation? Don’t white people deserve a secure border just as much as Hispanics?
 
You see, the real racists in this discussion aren’t Trump or Republicans who call for a wall and stronger security at the border. The real racists are Democrats who will not call out Mexicans for trying to do pretty much the same thing we are trying to do. Democrats who think it’s perfectly reasonable for Mexico to secure their borders (because it is) but think it’s outright racist and bigoted for us to want to do the same.
 
Allow me to paint you a couple of pictures. A young black girl is gunned down for no apparent reason. People are up in arms about it and seek to blame someone. Someone randomly floats around the idea that it was a white person who did it. Shaun King, the whitest black guy in the world who leads the BLM movement, actually initializes a manhunt for the suspected white person.
 
With just that, you can only guess that the motive was racism. As a result, people who are uninformed or misinformed about it, will come to that conclusion, and will want some sort of retribution for it.
 
When a white person kills a black person, it’s a horrible thing. (By the way, it wasn’t a white person that killed 7-year-old Jazmine Barnes, but a black guy named Larry D. Woodruffe).
 
But in any other case when a black person is killed, 1) a white person is suspected and 2) they think it’s strictly because of racism.
 
Now, let’s look at an example that is fairly different. Illegal immigrants kill hundreds of Americans, the media has a discussion panel to talk about it, and one of the people in the panel makes it her mission to look as disinterested and uncaring as possible by filing her nails, rolling her eyes, and sighing.
 
Of course, I’m talking about Ana Navarro, who did just that recently.
 
Regardless of the color of the skin of the victim, she is not at all interested in the FACT that illegal immigrants are killing Americans, such as Corporal Ronil Singh, a legal immigrant police officer in California who was brutally killed by an illegal immigrant protected by the state’s stupid sanctuary state laws, or the famous Kate Steinle case, or Pierce Corcoran in Tennessee, or Sabrina Starr in New Jersey, or 14-year-old Justin James Dennis Lee in Michigan.
 
The list goes on and on and on and on. And Ana Navarro couldn’t give a single damn about any of these victims.
 
The reason I brought up these two examples is because in the former, a white person was immediately suspected with no evidence and it turned out a black guy killed the 7-year-old black girl, so instead of making this about racial tensions in the U.S., it’s yet another statistic of black-on-black crime and next to no one in the media or the Left could care even a little, given how often it occurs and next to no one talks about it.
 
If they think a white person killed a black person, they think they can score political points off of it. But if it’s a person of color that committed that crime, the story pretty much dies.
 
If they think or KNOW an illegal immigrant killed an American, regardless of the victim’s race, they couldn’t care less.
 
Illegal kills white man? Perfectly fine. Illegal kills white woman? Acceptable. Illegal kills Hispanic? Who cares? Illegal kills gay person? Oh, well. Illegal kills child? Oopsie, daisie. Illegal kills transgender person? Where’s my nail-file, I’m getting bored.
 
Why don’t they care about the victims of illegals? Because even addressing them makes it look like Trump is even remotely right (which he is). They hate Trump more than they love people by a very wide margin.
 
If building a wall at the southern border could cure cancer, solve world hunger, cure AIDS, “solve” climate change, solve poverty and make the world’s problems all go away, they would still oppose it because it’s Trump’s wall.
 
They honestly couldn’t care less about Mexican immigration, legal or illegal, or even U.S. illegal immigration. If anything, the more illegal immigration, the better.
 
The Left is full of hypocrites and they don’t even know it. But everyone else can see it clear as day.
 
Good on Mexico for at least seemingly seeking to secure their borders. They certainly should. Every country should look to secure their borders, not dismantle them.
 
And it’s not an issue of race. Like Trump said in his great Oval Office speech, the reason politicians (or people in general) build walls around their homes is not because “they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.”
 
I don’t want a wall because I hate illegals. I want a wall because I love America and Americans and want to protect them.
 
The only ones that actually come off as hateful in this debate are Leftists who roll their eyes at victims of illegal immigrants, or altogether ignore them in their stiff rebuttal to the President’s speech.
 
Psalm 106:3
“Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times!”
 
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.

President Donald Trump delivered his first Oval Office address this past Tuesday. It was nothing short of great and to the point.
 
The President made sure to immediately call the issue at the border not simply an issue of security, but also a “humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul.”
 
“Every day, Customs and Border Patrol agents encounter thousands of illegal immigrants trying to enter our country. We are out of space to hold them and we have no way to promptly return them back home to their country. America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation. But all Americans are hurt by uncontrolled illegal migration. It strains public resources and drives down jobs and wages. Among those hardest hit are African Americans and Hispanic Americans.”
 
The President made sure to note the horrible things that come as a result of illegal immigration, including the trafficking of illegal and deadly drugs, and the unfettered crime that only rises as a result of poor border security.
 
“In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes and 4,000 violent killings. Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country and thousands more lives will be lost if we don’t act right now.”
 
He also noted some of the particular killings, such as the killing of a legal immigrant police officer in California at the hands of an illegal immigrant who is protected by the state’s ridiculous sanctuary state policies.
 
He also made sure to point out how children are used as pawns at best by criminal illegal aliens seeking to enter the country (and MS-13 gang members often pose as children to enter the country), as well as pointing out the regularity of women being sexually assaulted and raped on the trek to enter the country (which “fact-checkers” at CBS made sure to actually show increased numbers of women who are raped on the way to the border, further helping Trump’s case, before they realized they were helping Trump and got rid of that).
 
“My administration has presented Congress with a detailed proposal to secure the border and stop the criminal gangs, drug smugglers, and human traffickers. It’s a tremendous problem.”
 
Beyond that, he also made sure to call out the Democrats on their inaction regarding the border, pointing out that many of them previously supported stronger border security until Trump became President. He also called out how Pelosi said the wall was “immoral” and yet she, alongside many other Democrats, have walls built around their homes. And he says the reason they build walls around their homes is not because “they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.”
 
He makes sure to point out the horrible deeds of illegal aliens including multiple horrific and grotesque murders in California, Georgia and Maryland. And he makes sure to point out that the families of the victims (some of whom Trump has personally met with) have suffered as a result. “I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices and the sadness gripping their souls. How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?”
 
He finishes very strong by saying: “This is a choice between right and wrong; justice and injustice. This is about whether we fulfill our sacred duty to the American citizens we serve…”
 
Overall, he gave a very emotional and fantastic speech.
 
On the other hand, we have the Democrats, who had Sen. Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi give their rebuttal to the President’s speech.
 
And that was simply a nightmare for the Left.
 
Chuck and Nancy did not look like people trying to reach people emotionally. They looked robotic and like they were better than everyone else. They were stiff and unemotional like they were replaced by aliens who are first learning how to interact with humans.
 
Their speech wasn’t emotional. It was dull and boring and filled with falsehoods. The entire internet mocked the two largely for how they looked, with some making American Gothic references (the painting of the farmer man holding a pitchfork next to his wife completely devoid of emotion) and others making jokes about how they look like disappointed parents scolding their child.
 
In their speech, they talked about how a wall is ineffective (which is not true) and largely talked about Trump, not the American people. Beyond that, they even tried to deny the reality of a crisis altogether.
 
Their rebuttal was so bad that even MSNBC’s Brian Williams and Democrat operative James Carville made fun of them, with Carville saying: “I’ve been more excited about colonoscopies than [Schumer] was giving the speech tonight.”
 
Even people whose entire careers have depended on spinning stories cannot spin this one. It was plain bad for the Democrats.
 
But taking these two things together, one thing is very clear: Democrats don’t care about illegal immigration, Americans who have suffered as a result of it either through being brutally assaulted, killed, or exploited in any way through the use of drugs, and don’t care about the families of the victims. They only care about scoring political points against Trump, castigating him and attacking him, and putting a priority on the criminal illegal aliens than on the American people.
 
By stark contrast, Trump looked very emotional in his speech and looked like he really cares for the people who are/were victimized by this crisis, going as far as to call it a humanitarian one.
 
I’ve held this belief for a very long time, but Tuesday only reinforced it: Trump cares about Americans and Democrats care about their own power. Democrats don’t care who suffers and who is killed and maligned so long as the people who freely enter the country end up defrauding America by illegally voting for Democrats, who are all too happy to accommodate for voter fraud.
 
Trump gave an emotional and great speech, and the Democrats looked heartless.
 
And it’s not just the Democrats that looked bad either. “Fact-checkers” like WaPo tried to correct a large number of the facts Trump gave, but either ended up lying themselves or not actually making the case that Trump was being misleading, which is something they repeatedly tried to say but could not actually prove.
 
Overall, Trump had a great night where I think he successfully reached a good number of people. Of course, I imagine most people who watched his speech were his supporters, considering people like Hollywood celebrities were still trying to say Trump was being racist (even though there was nothing even remotely racist that he said during the speech that anyone could even allude to being racist), but for those who watched it with an open mind, I think can easily be reached.
 
Trump’s message was heartfelt and sincere. He truly wants to help end this crisis, secure our border, and protect Americans. Schumer and Pelosi’s message was heartless, full of misinformation, and like they couldn’t care less about the people whose lives are severely altered by people who have no right to be here.
 
For as much as the Left wants to pretend Trump’s message was full of hate and malice, the opposite is very clearly true. And the Democrats are the ones who had more of a message of hate and malice, if nothing else.
 
Revelation 21:8
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
 
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.

Often times in the fake news media, the Left will call us Trump supporters a “cult”. Well, now we can clearly see just how much of a cult mindset there exists not within the Right or Trump supporters, but within the Left.
 
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not getting younger, and that terrifies the Left. The fact that she has now missed a few days on the court for the first time in her entire career as a Supreme Court Justice shows she is not getting healthier either. The Left fears that she will soon either die or have to retire from the court, leaving yet another vacancy for Trump to fill with (hopefully) a conservative judge like Amy Coney Barrett.
 
Such an instance would mean that Trump gets to pick three justices to the Supreme Court, the first president to do so since Ronald Reagan.
 
And such an instance would mean that the balance of power would shift further Right from 5-4 to 6-3. Sure, Roberts is a wild card and Kavanaugh seems to be fairly similar thus far, but that new number would make things easier for constitutionality to reign supreme instead of Leftist agendas.
 
The mere thought of RBG being replaced by a Trump pick is terrifying to the Left. So, former Politico columnist Roger Simon put up the following hypothetical: “If it were possible, would you subtract one day off your life and add it to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life for one extra day of good health? If just 10,000 people did this, it would add 27 productive years to her life.”
 
Now, of course, such a hypothetical can only ever be just that: a hypothetical. But that still does not mean this is any less cultist.
 
No, it’s not actually possible to subtract one day of your life to give to someone else. That’s ludicrous. But the fact that Roger Simon would be willing to do so, and call on others to do the same were this to be possible shows you the sort of mindset these people have.
 
He’s not suggesting to subtract a day of his own life to give to someone who ACTUALLY needs it like a terminal patient. He’s not even suggesting he do this for the benefit of RBG as a person. He’s only suggesting it out of pure politics. He doesn’t want RBG to be replaced not because she’s a good person in the Left’s eyes, but because she’s a useful tool to the Left.
 
Were this sort of thing to be possible; were he to be able to reduce the amount of days he has in his own life to give to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he would not hesitate to do it. Beyond that, he even asks if others would be willing to do the same.
 
Funny enough, I went through his comments (not all of them, but a good number of them) and I did not find a single person who would be willing to do so.
 
Neither Republicans nor Democrats would be willing to do so. The first comment that I saw read as follows: “Absolutely not, she should have been responsible and stepped down during the Obama administration. Republicans wouldn’t have blocked her replacement, they only blocked Garland because of their insane fantasy that the ‘Scalia seat’ is ‘theirs’.”
 
Not really true, as the biggest reason McConnell blocked Garland was because it was during a presidential election that, in case you didn’t know, everyone and their grandmother expected Hillary to win. So Democrats would’ve gotten a Leftist in the Supreme Court had they won.
 
But that’s not the point. This is very clearly a Democrat, but he is not willing to follow in Roger Simon’s lunatic Leftist cultist fantasy of giving up some of his life to give to RBG.
 
Another comment reads as follows: “This is a joke, right? She’s had a full life. And if she wasn’t so selfish, she would’ve stepped down during Obama’s presidency. Now Trump will appoint another conservative judge.”
 
That one was from a conservative, as far as I could tell, because he ended his tweet with a thumbs up emoji.
 
Other comments, which really more broadly ridiculed Simon were: “Maybe instead of embracing vampiric forces, the Democrats could just win more elections?” and one that really made me laugh: “God, now they want to redistribute the health.”
 
The point is that most people don’t seemingly subscribe to this Leftist cult, even some Democrats themselves. However, there is no denying that such a cult exists. Let’s not forget that when Ruth Bader Ginsburg broke her ribs, people on the Left literally offered THEIR OWN RIBS TO HER.
 
And now that it appears as though RBG’s days on the Court are numbered, Simon poses the question of whether people would be willing to give up one day of their lives to give to RBG just so that Mean Orange Man Trump doesn’t get another pick?
 
Were the situations reversed, with a Democrat President and a conservative on the court whose health is deteriorating, we would not be wishing for the literal impossible to keep them around (and Democrats would likely be openly wishing for that conservative’s death every day of the week, but that’s beside the point).
 
This is the cult of the Left in a nutshell right here. It’s very reminiscent of when Michael Moore put up a Christmas tree decoration of RBG to replace the star over Bethlehem and an angel sitting atop the tree. Like I said then, it was straight up idolatry.
 
And while there is no physical idol doll to be talked about here, it is not very different from Moore. These people, at least Simon, pretty much worship Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They rely on her to be their savior against President Trump. They hope she can do something, anything to keep Trump restrained. And even if she can’t, they hope she can at least hang in there until Trump is out of office so that he can’t replace her. Of course, I wonder what they would do if Trump were to get re-elected. RBG might not outlast Trump’s presidency.
 
But that’s beside the point. Again, these people basically worship RBG, which is very clearly idolatry. Even if they don’t pray to her or anything like that, the fact that she is closer to their hearts than Christ shows their idolatry.
 
Like I said in my article discussing Moore and idolatry, RBG is merely a mortal. She is human and will eventually die. Mohammed died, Moses died, Buddha died and they are all still dead where they are buried. Christ on the other hand, while He did die, He also rose from the dead because death has no power over Him.
 
As fanatical as the Left might think Trump supporters might be, it’s clear to me and to many other people who truly are the ones who are fanatical.
 
Jonah 2:8
“Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast 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.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the gift that keeps on giving whenever she opens her mouth. She’s kind of like Hillary in that way, in as much as whatever she says is gold to me, but the sad thing is that far too many people tend to agree with her or think she’s some sort of genius, when she’s really just mumbling falsehoods and irrational thoughts.
 
This past weekend, she did precisely that in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
 
Now, there are a lot of things that can be taken from that interview. For one, Anderson Cooper, like many other journalists, asked AOC how she planned on paying for her $40 trillion Medicare-for-all project, to which she gave the same general response she always has: nothing of substance.
 
Another thing that can be pointed out is she also claimed, without evidence, that Fox News advocates for and defends human rights violations.
 
However, the biggest takeaway from that interview, and the focal point of this article, is what she had to say in response to Anderson Cooper pointing out that the Washington Post repeatedly calls her out for her false claims.
 
This was her response: “I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”
 
You know how I said the Left’s feelings don’t care about facts? Was I right or was I right?
 
To AOC, the facts don’t matter if she is in the “moral right”.
 
“Communism has killed over 100 million people? Doesn’t matter, they were still morally right.”
 
“Venezuela has gone from one of the richest countries in Latin America to a cesspool of poverty at the hands of a socialist government? I’m sure the government only wanted the best things for their people.”
 
“There is literally no way to pay for my government-expanding healthcare program and applying it would pretty much collapse our economy? Well, I care about people and we should still do it.”
 
It’s literal insanity. You can’t be factually wrong and morally right at the same time.
 
How can one claim to care about people if they want to install a program that will kill our economy?
 
And multiple people on social media made sure to point out how ridiculous her statement was.
 
“That AOC thinks there are people who are *not* concerned about being ‘precisely, factually, and semantically correct’ is the problem. Being ‘morally right’ is impossible if you’re basing it on a foundation that is inaccurate, misleading, or outright dishonest,” wrote one Twitter user.
 
“This is the reason socialism survives against all reason and evidence,” wrote another user, in what I think is one of the smartest takes I’ve seen regarding this. And he’s completely right too. Socialism has failed time and time again, and killed millions and impoverished millions more, but it survives as an ideology because feelings are the driving factor, not facts or intelligence.
 
They supposedly mean well, while wreaking havoc, pain, misery and death.
 
There were a lot of other people who criticized her for this, with good reason, but I wish to bring up a different argument that I haven’t seen others bring up.
 
While the biggest thing to focus on is the fact that she thinks facts don’t matter if she is “morally right” and that that’s a ridiculous impossibility, there is another thing to focus on: who says she is morally right?
 
By what measure does she believe she is morally right? And most importantly: where does morality even come from?
 
Ocasio-Cortez wants to install a $40 trillion Medicare-for-all plan. She has no idea how we could pay for it, often saying “well, we pay for a lot of wars” or some other mumbo-jumbo that doesn’t get close to even solving the problem.
 
She wants to put this plan into effect because it will supposedly make healthcare available and affordable for everyone. Taking aside how that would not work in reality, at least with the method the Left wants to use, her reasons for doing this is because she supposedly wants people to have healthcare. That may be the case, but how is it morally right to bankrupt the country in order to supposedly get there? (And we wouldn’t get there with a BANKRUPT COUNTRY!)
 
How is it morally right to say: “Hey, bummer you lost your job and have next to no hope of getting another one in an economy that is crashing like the Hindenburg, but at least you have healthcare! Wait, you’re telling me medical supplies are dwindling? You’re telling me people won’t be willing to do an even half-way decent job if it’s for free? Hospitals can’t afford to pay their doctors and keep running? Well, at least I wanted what was best for you.”
 
Clearly not if you’re adamant about putting together a plan that will destroy livelihoods.
 
But going even beyond that, you have to ask yourself, where does morality come from? And where does AOC’s morality come from?
 
Well, generally speaking, morality comes from God. In case you haven’t noticed, humans are the only beings on Earth that have some sense of morality. That’s what separates us from animals.
 
We all have some sort of moral compass, whether it’s functioning adequately or it’s beaten to hell.
 
Morality comes from God, who is the only being in existence with perfect morality. Morality cannot be separated from God.
 
To have the desire to do something that is not seen as moral in the eyes of God is to do something immoral. Even more so when having the audacity to say that what’s immoral is actually moral.
 
When it comes to Medicare-for-all, unless there is a way to fully fund it without sending the economy into freefall and making sure that there is only good things coming out of it, it is morally wrong. Why? Because FACTUALLY SPEAKING, it will absolutely wreck the economy which will only bring more pain and suffering to people. What’s morally right about inflicting pain to others even if you didn’t mean it?
 
It’s no different from committing sin and not wanting to have done it. Sinning is sinning, whether you intended to do it or not.
 
What’s even worse is sinning and saying it’s not sinning. Now, you may think that doing something that’s sinful isn’t actually sinful, but if it’s FACTUALLY sinful, then that’s sinning.
 
This line of argument, that it’s okay to be factually wrong if you’re morally right, is something that really annoyed me throughout the Obama years. Whenever Obama would enact something (constitutionally or unconstitutionally) that wound up hurting America, the Left would cry out “at least he’s trying!”
 
Well, either he was a miserable failure that should not have gotten re-elected or he was trying to destroy the country.
 
If he was trying to do good, then he did catastrophically poorly. The same can be said for AOC, who might be supposedly trying to do good, but will end up destroying the country whether or not she meant it.
 
Performing evil acts, whether or not you mean it, is still doing evil. And you cannot claim moral superiority if what you’re gunning for is not only actually impossible, but it would completely destroy not only the country, but hundreds of millions of lives.
 
I’m sure Hitler thought he was morally right in committing ethnic cleansing of the Jews and other races he deemed inferior. I’m sure Stalin thought he was morally right in committing heinous acts of violence against his own people.
 
It doesn’t matter if you think you’re doing what’s right if what you’re doing is very, very wrong. Morality doesn’t come from within. It doesn’t come from the government or society. It doesn’t come from history or anything else. It only comes from God and what He deems moral. Anything outside of that is simply immoral.
 
AOC isn’t morally right just because she claims to be. God is the one who judges that. And she won’t be morally right until she can recognize this and follow Him.
 
I won’t straight up attack her too hard because she’s young and idealistic and there is a chance she could still be saved.
 
I just hope and pray that she recognizes the evil of her ways and comes to receive Christ into her heart.
 
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I’ve mentioned in the past that the economy is not helped by the fact that the Federal Reserve has hiked interest rates a number of times since Trump’s presidency started (and they only raised them once during Obama’s tenure), and that they plan to raise them again, even though they don’t really know if the economy will do well enough in the future to warrant it (and I argue it hardly ever warrants it).
 
But regardless of how the Left might want to manipulate the economy, largely pointing towards the stock market as some sort of sign of an impending economic Armageddon, they can’t actually do as much damage to the economy as they would want.
 
Yeah, the stock market overall went down in the year 2018, but that’s not the biggest indication as to what the economy is looking like. Things like consumer confidence and unemployment rates and claims tend to be the more important factors.
 
And in that department, at least in the ones regarding jobs, the economy seems to be doing fairly well, all things considered.
 
Actually, that might well be an understatement.
 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the jobs numbers for December 2018, and boy do they look good.
 
According to CNBC: “Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been expecting job growth of just 176,000, though they projected the unemployment rate to fall to 3.6 percent.”
 
In reality, the BLS reported that we saw a job growth of 312,000, far surpassing expectations. And while the unemployment rate climbed back up to 3.9%, it’s for good reason, which even CNBC admits.
 
“The jobless rate, which was last higher in June, rose for the right reason as 419,000 new workers entered the workforce and the labor participation rate increased to 63.1 percent.”
 
In other words, the reason for the increase in unemployment was not because a significant amount of people lost their jobs, but because so many new people entered the workforce in December, that the number rose significantly. It’s a more natural reason for the unemployment to rise.
 
Job growth wasn’t the only thing to see some gains, with wages jumping 3.2% from a year ago and 0.4% from the previous month. Payrolls growth also totaled “2.6 million in 2018, the highest since 2015 and well above the 2.2 million in 2017,” according to CNBC.
 
The healthcare industry saw the biggest rise in jobs, with 50,000+ jobs added in December, followed by food and beverage services with 41,000+, construction (38,000+), manufacturing (32,000+) and retail (24,000+).
 
The unemployment rate, as I said before, rose back up to 3.9%, with adult males currently standing at 3.6%, blacks standing at 6.6%, adult women standing at 3.5%, teenagers standing at 12.5% (which makes sense because of the increase in work force), whites standing at 3.4%, Asians at 3.3% and Hispanics at 4.4%.
 
Actually, that number for Hispanics ties a record-low in the BLS system, which was previously set in October of 2018. So Hispanic unemployment sits at the lowest it ever has once again.
 
Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics said: “the far bigger than expected 312,000 jump in non-farm payrolls in December would seem to make a mockery of market fears of an impending recession.” He also says that the BLS report “suggests the US economy still has considerable forward momentum.”
 
Which really leads me to my overall point for this article. While sharing these fantastic and unexpected news regarding the jobs market is of utmost importance, I want to bring with it the main point that the Left can try as much as they want to create a recession, but if the economy is doing well, their efforts will be for naught.
 
Like I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t help whenever the Fed raises interest rates. It causes the economy to slow down a little and the stock markets to freak out. Some of the biggest single-day drops we’ve had were because of the Fed announcing interest rate hikes, including the latest one.
 
Ironically, I could consider this as a good thing for the economy as well. Now, I’m no economist, so I could well be wrong about what I’m about to say. But if the economy is doing well, with more people getting jobs and wages rising, that means more people have more money in their pockets. If the stock market goes down, or goes into a full-on crash, wouldn’t that seem like a fairly good opportunity for people to get into it, when stocks are cheaper than they normally would be, and thus make more money, which in turn would also help the economy grow even more and the stock market to climb back up?
 
I feel like that’d be the logical thing to occur, though that may not necessarily be what happens. People can be very panicky about the stock market. The media pointing towards the Dow Jones as a sign that Trump’s economic policies don’t work ought to provide proof of that previous statement. They think the Dow Jones is the end-all, be-all of how good the economy is, when that’s not necessarily the case.
 
During Obama’s years, the stock market tended to go up. But the economy was in free-fall and not getting any better. The stock market was going up, but not for the right reasons.
 
Lately, the stock markets are fairly volatile, going up a lot and going down a lot, not because of poor economic policies, but due to a number of things, including people being panicky about the stock market.
 
It’s often a self-fulfilling prophecy whenever the media says that “experts” expect a recession and the markets go down because people are so panicky. Currently, as Paul Ashworth mentioned, people think there is an impending recession, and they point towards the stock market as an indication of that coming recession.
 
In reality, while the stock market may be flaring, jobs are being created, wages are rising, and the economy is growing.
 
That’s the exact opposite of what the Left wants to see. For as much as the Left wants to see the economy crash and people suffer, there’s only so much they can do. There’s only so much the Fed can do. There’s only so much George Soros can do. There’s only so much a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives can do.
 
If we have solid and healthy economic policies in place, such as the ones Trump is implementing, then that will have a far greater impact on the economy than the apocalyptic alarms the Left wants to sound off.
 
And while I do expect the Left to create some damage in some instances because it’s simply in their nature to ruin things for everyone else, it is not up to them to decide what happens to the economy unless they have both chambers of Congress and the White House.
 
And the One who decides whether or not they get those things is the Almighty Himself. And even if He does put them back into those places of power, He still reigns supreme over them and knows precisely what is to come and what will occur to everyone in the end.
 
So the Left can manipulate the stock markets as much as they want with whatever narrative they want to drive and can have the Fed raising interest rates as often as they want, but it is God who decides whether or not they even are allowed to do anything one way or the other.
 
But for now, let us be thankful to the Lord that our economy is growing, more and more people are working, and they are getting some neat wage raises as well.
 
Psalm 106:1-2
“Praise the Lord! Oh give thanks to the Lord, for He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever! Who can utter the mighty deeds of the Lord, or declare all His praise?”
 
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.