With the debacle between the White House and CNN White House Correspondent Jim Acosta taking the limelight in recent time, one piece of news that may have been largely ignored or hardly talked about was the great pro-life win that occurred last week when the Ohio House of Representatives voted in favor of banning abortions once a heartbeat has been detected in the fetus.
 
State House Bill 258 passed 58-35, moving on to the State Senate for consideration. Now, I don’t know each person within the State Senate, but Republicans have 23 votes to Democrats’ 9, so logic would dictate that the Senate Republicans will vote in favor of the bill, effectively passing the bill and sending it to the Governor’s desk.
 
And that’s really where the problem lies, considering Ohio’s current Governor John Kasich (DeWine will be inaugurated next year) vetoed a similar bill back in 2016, supposedly out of fear that “a legal challenge would overturn it”, according to the Daily Wire.
 
Such a fear is reasonable (though I would argue that it’s best to fight it in court than simply give up and veto it) since similar bills have been passed in North Dakota and Arkansas, but overturned by the courts, often citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade case of 1973.
 
According to LifeNews: “The controversial legislation would ban most abortions in Ohio if it becomes law. An unborn baby’s heart begins beating around six weeks, though new research suggests it may begin as early as 18 days after conception.”
 
Some of the comments from the House Republicans who supported and/or sponsored the bill are extremely endearing. State Rep. Christina Hagan said: “The point is: it’s time. It doesn’t matter if the governor is with us or against us,” referring to the possibility that Kasich may also veto this bill. “Motherhood isn’t easy but it’s necessary.”
 
State Rep. Candice Keller said: “(Abortion) is not a constitutional right. If you don’t know that, you need to read the Constitution.”
 
And my favorite comment comes from state Rep. Kristina Roegner, who said: “Today, let us stand up for the most innocent among us: the unborn.”
 
Now, predictably, House Democrats opposed the bill, suggesting that “abortion providers will be unjustly penalized”, according to the Daily Wire. This is in reference to the fact that the bill would also punish abortion providers, charging them with a felony for breaking the law by aborting a baby with a detected heartbeat.
 
However, I really must ask: what about the human beings inside the womb that are unjustly penalized for just existing? Why don’t they matter? Why is it Democrats care more about what happens to the abortionists that perform these heinous crimes of nature than they care about what happens to the unborn children that are mercilessly slaughtered for no other reason than the fact that they are there? But I’ll get back to this momentarily.
 
Now, back in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal for the case. But since now Justice Kavanaugh is on the court, should such an appeal come up, they might be more willing to hear it, perhaps even leading to the grander case of reviewing and perhaps even overturning Roe v. Wade. But that’s getting ahead of ourselves, and it depends on an awful lot of things, such as if the Ohio Senate passes the bill (which I expect), if Kasich decides not to veto it this time (which I don’t expect, knowing him), if it receives a challenge in the court (which I would expect if Kasich doesn’t veto) and if Kavanaugh would be willing to hear an appeal for it (which I would expect, but you really never know).
 
So an awful lot of variables are to be taken into consideration before we even get to the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade.
 
But as it stands, this is a great victory for the unborn, at least in the state of Ohio.
 
Now, let’s once again touch upon the desire to protect the practice of abortion over protecting the life that is growing inside the womb.
 
To me, and likely to many other people, defending those who perform abortions is no different than defending a serial killer. Imagine living in a world where someone is on trial for murder, and you have a number of people there defending the guy’s supposed right to do that. Because at the end of the day, that’s what these people are supporting.
 
It’s not about choice, because God knows the Left hates it when you make the “wrong” choice. It’s about legal murder and, depending who you ask, population control based on the ludicrous idea that we are somehow running out of room on our vast planet and we have too many people alive today that will eat up all our food and resources, when the exact opposite actually happens.
 
It’s about committing unspeakable evil in the guise of justice. It’s about committing horrible sin in the guise of doing what’s right. It’s sickening.
 
The fact that these particular Ohio Democrats would vote against such a bill that most sensibly argues in favor of the FACT that it’s a human life that’s growing inside a woman is really all I need to know about the Democrat Party. Of course, I already knew many of these things, and I am not surprised in the least that the Democrats would oppose such a bill, but it does highlight the evil and hatred they harbor in their hearts to be willing to sacrifice a human life inside the uterus in the name of “justice” and “women’s liberation”, which would be laughable arguments if the overall topic weren’t so serious and dire.
 
Not a single Democrat can dare lecture me about justice when they turn around and support such evil. Regarding the migrant caravan, not one of them can convince me that it’s the right thing to do to let them in, knowing that these Democrats also support the death of humans inside the womb. Regarding transgenders, there isn’t a Democrat that can convince me it’s right to let them think they are the opposite gender of what they truly are, knowing that such people would not be considered people inside the womb.
 
Regarding anything the Democrat Party says is right and just, I cannot possibly believe any of them or their arguments. Beyond disagreeing on transgenderism, illegal immigration, gay rights, climate change, etc., what truly matters to me, at the end of the day, that tells me whether someone is conservative or a Leftist is whether or not they support abortion at any capacity.
 
The day I heard Mitt Romney defend abortion in cases of rape and incest, wrong as both things are, made me recognize he wasn’t conservative. Heck, it made me recognize he was one of them. A Democrat in disguise (it doesn’t help that the now-Senator-elect is calling for climate action as being a priority).
 
Hearing these Republican women made me smile, recognizing that these women are conservative, and that the Republicans who voted in favor of the bill are conservative. They are fighting for those who truly have no voice, and who abortionists make sure will never have a voice. Fighting for those who cannot fight back, and who abortionists dismember, so that they can never fight back.
 
If me mentioning that abortionists dismember these babies made you cringe, or made your heart ache, good for you. It’s what happens and you recognize that it’s evil. I wonder just how many people who say they are pro-choice even know that such horrors are taking place. And I wonder how many of them even care.
 
I hope, for the sake of our nation’s soul, that most of them are simply ignorant to the evil, and not aware and in favor of such evil.
 
Philippians 3:2
“Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​Recently, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a lengthy post that “Left unchecked, people will engage disproportionately with more sensationalist and provocative content.”

Gee, it’s almost as though humanity’s nature is not basically good, but basically evil. I mean seriously, I am kind of surprised to see Zuckerberg using this kind of language about people.
 
But I am getting a bit ahead of myself. Let’s look over just exactly what Zuckerberg is talking about.
 
Zuckerberg, in his post, shared the following images:

​As you can see, the new changes Facebook intends to implement work towards limiting the traffic a “sensationalist and provocative” piece of content gets, even if it does not explicitly violate Facebook’s rules and guidelines. Of course, this can be taken as nothing more than yet another attempt at censorship.
 
What needs to be understood here is that, according to Breitbart: “A crucial distinction between this new announcement and previous ones is that the use of ‘sensationalist and provocative’ does not imply that the material Facebook intends to censor isn’t true or factual.”
 
In other words, anything relating to stating the scientific fact that men are men and women are women and that one cannot be a man one day and a woman the next will be subject to less traffic, if not an outright prohibition of the content.
 
Now, an argument could be made that such a thing happens now. But here’s the thing, this new change implies Facebook doesn’t even care to try and b.s. things as being “hate speech”.
 
According to Breitbart: “Facebook’s own research found that posts which were ‘offensive’ but not ‘hate speech’ ended up getting more views. Zuckerberg admits that such ‘offensive’ posts will have their engagement artificially limited in [the] future.”
 
So with this new change, Facebook doesn’t even have to pretend something is “hate speech” even when it isn’t. Granted, the whole charge of “offensive” could be equally as subjective as a charge of “hate speech”, but still.
 
Speaking of “offensive” being subjective, Zuckerberg does not reveal much about how Facebook determines what is considered “offensive” content.
 
But considering history, one would be naïve to expect equal treatment of “offensive” content. If a Christian man shares his views in a post, is that considered offensive? If a Christian man points out the sins of another, is that offensive? If a Muslim man attacks Christianity, is that offensive?
 
We have our own ideas of what is considered offensive and what is not, but it’s likely Facebook has their own ideas that greatly differ from ours.
 
For example, though this is Twitter, a feminist blogger tweeted these two tweets in response to some people: “Men aren’t women tho,” and “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?” And although she is right, Twitter deemed that offensive and Twitter notified her that such content is in violation with their rules against “hateful conduct”.
 
Though she is 100% factually correct (and although this is Twitter and not Facebook), the tech giant has their own definition of hateful conduct and such truth is in violation of it. When NYT columnist Sarah Jeong makes it known to people just how much she abhors white people and enjoys it when white people suffer, that’s not offensive or hateful at all. But speaking the truth about men and women, Twitter responds with such a notification. Not an outright shadowban, but still a ridiculous reprimand.
 
And Facebook is not all too different from Twitter in regards to what they consider offensive and hateful speech.
 
Now, allow me to get to the main point of this article. Aside from the fact that this is a clear announcement of further censorship covering a wider area, albeit with a relatively lighter punishment (if content is offensive, it can still be seen, but will suffer in terms of traffic), let me return to the original quote I shared with you in the first paragraph.
 
“Left unchecked, people will engage disproportionately with more sensationalist and provocative content.”
 
That, to me, sounds like an admission from Zuckerberg that humanity’s basic nature is not good, but rather evil. After all, if Zuckerberg were to say that people are basically good, then there would be no need for such measures. With that post, he admits that humanity’s nature is not good, but evil.
 
If humanity were basically good, Facebook would not subject anyone to censorship largely because there would be no need for it at all (arguably, there’s little need for it now). As he says, when left unchecked, people will tend to go down morally questionable roads. It’s in our nature to do so.
 
Why? Because it’s in our nature to sin. The only beings in all of existence who were born without sin were Jesus Christ and Adam and Eve. Christ because, well, He’s the Christ, and Adam and Eve because they were created from God’s own hands and didn’t sin until they disobeyed God.
 
Everyone else who has ever walked this Earth has been born in sin and, for those who have not been saved, died in sin. As a result of the original sin, the basic nature of humanity has been evil. That isn’t to say we all constantly perform evil acts, and that isn’t to say we are all equally evil. Obviously, I would not say I am just as evil as Hitler was. However, what makes all of us, including you and me, basically evil is the sin we commit and the sin in our hearts.
 
To be apart from God means to be unholy and tainted. Humanity is tainted. As such, it cannot possibly be basically good.
 
Objectively speaking, Zuckerberg is right. It’s in our nature to do such things. When we become Christians and become saved and redeemed by Christ, we have a desire to limit such sin in our lives. For example, in that discussion regarding sensationalist and provocative content, he talks about (apart from “hate speech”) content that is sexually suggestive, such as “revealing clothing and sexually suggestive positions”.
 
I find that people who don’t tend to be Christians tend to be more interested in sexual things that, honestly, go further than even that. I remember, back when I had first created my Twitter account and following back everyone that followed me, some occasions when I would follow back accounts from sexual accounts (that I would immediately unfollow upon learning what they were) and would sometimes see flat-out nudity and porn (mostly cartoon porn, for some reason). As a Christian, I became disgusted by it and immediately unfollowed such accounts. But the fact that such accounts exist (or at least existed at that time) is indicative that there are people who make sex a big part of their lives and love seeing such things. That’s not necessarily something that surprises me, knowing the nature of humanity, but indicates the difference between someone who tries not to sin (even though they fail) and someone who is more than okay with such sin.
 
So while the main takeaway from the announcement should be that Facebook is going to implement new algorithms for censorship and regulation of people’s nature (you can’t regulate evil, otherwise there’d be no need for laws that punish murder because there’d be no murder), another thing that may honestly go unnoticed by people is Zuckerberg’s admission that humanity is evil.
 
Sure, it’s not the main point of his post, or the biggest takeaway from it, and it’s not the main point of the Breitbart article either (although I understand why that is, all things considered), but I really felt that it needed to be pointed out.
 
Humanity is basically evil, and that’s a concept even Zuckerberg seems to understand, which really differs from the stance many people tend to have, even those on the Right and those who might consider themselves Christians.

And that is the reason I say that it's ironic that that is what he cites as the reason for these censorship models. A lot of people, particularly on the Left, think we are basically good. So I find it funny and ironic that Zuckerberg, a Leftist, would say we're not.
 
1 Corinthians 2:14
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
 
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.

Staying on this train of writing fairly obvious titles, we now look at some of the races from the midterm elections that were either originally too close to call or have been called, but through sheer dishonesty and cheating, have been made to be closer to force recounts.
 
Let’s begin particularly with a comment from someone I hope will be the Democrat Party’s nominee once again: Hillary Clinton.
 
Speaking at the University of Texas in Austin, Hillary claimed: “If [Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams] had a fair election, she already would have won.”
 
In this lunatic speech, she went on to blame supposed “voter suppression” of which there is no evidence and said that Abrams was “really in the arena and she is fighting for the right to vote and have your vote counted” as though we are still living in a pre-suffrage movement and pre-14th Amendment era and Brian Kemp, the Republican soon-to-be Governor of Georgia, is trying to keep people from voting.
 
The only people who shouldn’t vote are illegals, those who have already voted, and Democrat officials who are voting over and over again, rigging election ballots and races themselves.
 
But this is all part of the larger narrative that Republicans are trying to steal races, when in reality, it’s the Democrats who are doing precisely that.
 
Of course, this being Hillary Clinton, she knows an awful lot of trying to steal races. After all, she conspired to steal the nomination away from Bernie Sanders (she still had more delegates, but the race would’ve been considerably tighter without superdelegates) and conspired with foreign agents and the Obama DOJ to steal the presidential election away from Donald Trump.
 
And in losing the election to Trump, she, along with every other Leftist out there, went on to claim, without evidence, that Trump stole the election from her. Such an act from these people serves to undermine the legitimacy of our elections. So I can’t say I’m surprised when I see Republicans winning and Democrats trying to claim the election was stolen, all-the-while they are actively trying to steal the election right in people’s faces.
 
And don’t tell me Republicans are doing the same thing. In Georgia, Kemp won fair and square. So, Abrams tried to “find” some more votes and force the election to go to a run-off and is now relegated to hoping a federal judge will outright change election laws so she could win. THAT is trying to steal elections.
 
In Florida, Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis both won their own elections, were projected to win on election night, and their opponents conceded. But Broward County and Palm Beach County, both heavily blue counties filled to the brim with corruption (need I remind you Sheriff Scott Israel, the one largely culpable for the Parkland shooting apart from the shooter himself, is from Broward County? So you can tell how corrupt that county is), continued finding votes well after the deadline and the elections were over.
 
And I don’t think I need to point out all of the shady business that goes on there in terms of Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes having been convicted of illegally destroying ballots in 2016, along with other suspicious practices. Not to mention the reported altering of mail-in ballots, as well as other shady things like a school teacher “finding” ballots at her school.
 
And that’s without mentioning the counties have repeatedly violated federal election law, according to Senator Marco Rubio.
 
At the end of the day, what you have is a political party rigging elections, and when they lose said rigged elections when God won’t allow such blatant injustice to occur, they claim that democracy is being assaulted by the Republicans that call out the blatant cheating.
 
Hearing Clinton claiming that the Georgia gubernatorial race was not a fair race does not surprise me. That’s the status quo and the narrative of today’s Democrat Party. Rig elections, and the ones you don’t somehow manage to win, you claim some sort of injustice, further undermining the very democracy they claim to be trying to protect.
 
It’s all a massive sham. And as a side note, we are not a democracy. People may be democratically elected, such as Senators, House Representatives, Governors, etc., but we are not a democracy. A democracy is majority rule, which can easily turn into mob rule.
 
We are a Constitutional Republic. The difference between such a Republic and a democracy is that, while we do elect people democratically, it is the rule of law that is atop everything else.
 
What do I mean? Let me give you an example. If we lived in a democracy, that means majority rules. It means that, if the majority wanted to eradicate a certain race, and a majority voted in favor of doing it, then that targeted race would have to be eradicated because of majority rule. In a Constitutional Republic, such as the United States, majority rule is important, but it is not the ultimate factor in what occurs.
 
In a Constitutional Republic, if the majority rules that a race should be eradicated, that race would be protected by the law. Where a democracy is the rule of a majority, a Constitutional Republic is the rule of law.
 
Now, I very well understand that a law is largely insignificant if said law is not applied and enforced. We have good immigration laws in place, but they are not being enforced. We don’t need extra laws surrounding immigration, we just need to have the ones already put in place to be faithfully executed and enforced.
 
So that’s a problem all of its own, but a different topic to be talked about at a different time. The point is that we do not live in a democracy. Were that to be the case, Hillary Clinton, through the popular vote, would be President. But since we have the Electoral College, being a Constitutional Republic, it’s not the popular vote that wins people elections (and I did not see anyone on the Left complaining about the Electoral College when Romney won the popular vote over Obama).
 
But regarding the Georgia and Florida races, which are democratically decided without the Electoral College, the real undermining of democracy comes entirely from the Left.
 
Brian Kemp won in Georgia fair and square. So did Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis in Florida. They each attained the majority of the votes. The Democrats are the ones who have been trying to garner more votes than should be allowed.
 
But I doubt any of this will simply end upon the official call for the Republican candidates’ victories. The Left, like they did in 2016, will continue to claim these elections were stolen, although perhaps at a relatively smaller scale than what they were yapping about after 2016. But they will continue doing this even after 2020 when Trump wins re-election, 2022, regardless of who regains what chamber of Congress, and every election henceforth that Democrats lose.
 
I often go back and forth between deciding if these people are children or simply evil. In all honesty, it’s probably a mix of both. It’s their evil hearts that leads to this sort of corruption. And it’s the fact that they are children that they throw tantrums when they don’t get their way and won’t stop those tantrums until they either get their way or are disciplined, and these people are definitely not disciplined.
 
1 Timothy 5:20
“As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

If this article seems familiar to you, I would not be surprised. Earlier this month, I talked about a poll that said that 64% of registered voters “said the press has done more to divide the country than unite it since Trump took office…” That was from a Morning Consult poll from early November, but a different poll shows numbers that are somewhat similar, but with more people who think this way.
 
The Washington Examiner released a poll from Zogby Analytics detailing that “nearly three-quarters (72% specifically) of the country believes that the media is ‘dividing Americans’ along political, racial, and gender lines, a stunning condemnation of the press, according to a new national survey.”
 
The survey question reads: “Do you agree or disagree: The mainstream media has played a major role in dividing Americans along racial, gender and political lines. This has led to a spread of hate and misunderstanding among some people.”
 
The poll reads as follows: “Based on the results of the recent mid-term election in the U.S., in which the Democrats took back control of the House and the Republicans regained a majority in the Senate, suffice to say, Americans are politically divided. The country is also divided as to who should shoulder the blame: There are some people who feel racial, gender, and political issues are made worse by the coverage of the mainstream media, while there are others who feel the divide we currently suffer from is the result of President Trump’s rhetoric.”
 
At the end of the day, it really should come as no surprise to anyone that people consider the MSM to be so divisive, even more so than Trump. I made this point in the previous article talking about a similar poll, but I feel compelled to reiterate it: who can blame people for thinking this way?
 
Let’s not forget that Don Lemon, in the same breath, called for (Republicans) to stop demonizing people and proceeded to demonize Republicans and Trump. Let’s not forget that Donny Deutch, back in June, called Trump supporters “Nazis”, a sentiment shared by everyone else in the fake news media, but not many of them dare go that far.
 
Let’s not forget that Julia Ioffe, in the aftermath of the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, said that Trump radicalized more people than ISIS did, followed by a half-baked apology later on that was insincere as Obama was when he said “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.
 
I made these, and many other points in that other article, so I do not need to bring them all up here once again. The point is that the mainstream media is a cesspool of hatred and division, not to mention hypocrisy in their honest belief that they do not divide anyone and honestly believe Trump and Republicans are the only ones dividing people. That’s how delusional they are.
 
But returning to the poll, we find that 70% of men and 73% of women “were very much in agreement… about the role the mainstream media plays in dividing the public and spreading hate.”
 
Interestingly enough, among younger demographics (18-24 and 18-29) “were much more likely to blame the media for spreading hate and misunderstanding than older voters age 65+ and age 70+.”
 
According to the poll, among ages 18-24/18-29, roughly 81 or 82% strongly and somewhat agree that the media is to blame, with 18 or 19% strongly or somewhat disagree that the media is to blame. Among people aged 65+, 62% strongly and somewhat agreed while 38% strongly and somewhat disagreed. Finally, among people aged 70+, 67% strongly and somewhat agreed while 33% strongly and somewhat disagreed.
 
So while young people, very interestingly and surprisingly, more overwhelmingly believe the media is to blame, their older counterparts do still majorly agree that the media is to blame for our country’s division.
 
In terms of party affiliation, it’s no surprise that most Republicans (94%) strongly and somewhat agreed that the media is to blame. But perhaps relatively surprisingly, though not so much considering the results of the other poll from earlier this month, 51% of Democrats also agreed. If you recall, in the previous poll, the number stood at 46% of Democrats saying the media is doing more to divide the country than Trump. With Independents, 74% agreed that the media is divisive.
 
Lastly, in terms of racial affiliation, 76% of Whites agree that the media is divisive, 64% Hispanics say the same, and 54% of Blacks agree.
 
Now, I’m not going to say that this is all a jump in the poll numbers. While the numbers are larger (Trump had 56% of people saying he was divisive in the other poll, while 66% say so in this one), given that they are completely different polls, I can’t realistically say that more people suddenly believe the media is to blame, while simultaneously, more people also believe Trump is to blame.
 
Granted, as time goes by, I would expect the media to get worse and worse in their supposed journalistic standards, and I expect such a number to rise, but one thing must be taken into strong consideration: the previous poll surveyed roughly 2500 people, while this one surveyed just over a thousand.
 
Such a major difference in survey size tends to impact the results of the survey, so perhaps we should not be so surprised that the numbers are so much bigger. Less people giving their opinion means that each opinion carries a bit more weight.
 
But still, the fact remains that these two polls show similar results, albeit with different numbers. Both heavily suggest that far more people in America believe the media to be the source of division in this country.
 
I already made the arguments as to why they find the media divisive, and even why they might find Trump divisive in that previous article, so I don’t need to repeat myself here.
 
All I will say is, again, I do not find any of this surprising. The media may have, at one time, reflected the opinions of people. But that time is no more. The media is chockfull of agenda-driven narratives meant to SHAPE people’s opinion, not reflect them. Let me tell you this: if the media reported anything with accuracy and honesty, we would not have half the problems we do in this country.
 
A big part of the reason we still have racial problems in this country is because of racists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who go on t.v. and spread messages of hate and division. They insist that we are in as bad a shape in terms of racial equality today as we were before the 1960s, which is completely asinine and ludicrous.
 
They paint white people to be the same racist bigots that THE DEMOCRATS were (and still are, given how they still act) before the 1960s. Let’s not forget that the Democrat Party was divided in terms of supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while Republicans were largely united in favor of it.
 
Because of this, they (meaning the larger mainstream media and not just the aforementioned racists) paint minorities as victims of largely fictitious hate crimes and injustices against them to the point where people think you not voting for a black socialist candidate makes you a racist because he just-so-happens to be black. To the point where minorities legitimately believe the reason they were not given a job is because of their race and the “whiteness” of the would-be employer, even if that employer is not white.
 
To the point that they legitimately believe any minority that agrees with Trump is a sellout of their race and a white supremacist.
 
That’s how ridiculous and flat out moronic things have gotten in large part due to the way the media shapes their narratives.
 
Trump may be divisive of his own right (as President, that tends to cause some level of division naturally), but he’s nowhere near as divisive as people say he is and nowhere near as divisive as the media is.
 
Now if only we could translate the results of these polls into actual Democrat defeats in elections, that would be great.
 
Ephesians 5:11
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Strangely, I feel as though I have made a lot of “well, duh!” article titles in recent time, but one cannot help but call out the obvious in the case that I am about to discuss.
 
While I could go over the religion’s gruesome and violent history, not to mention the incessant attacks against the state of Israel, such as the record-breaking launch of 400 rockets against Israel (which reportedly killed some Palestinian residents), I feel compelled to cover a different case entirely. That case is the Asia Bibi (Aasiya Noreen) blasphemy case that originated in 2010.
 
Recently, this case has made some news, particularly about Bibi’s release and asylum, which Italy has reportedly offered, while Great Britain has refused to offer asylum to the woman. However, to better understand this whole thing, one must start from the beginning and offer an explanation of the entire case.
 
Asia Bibi (I will stick to this name since it’s easier than writing out her actual name), is a Pakistani Christian woman who was convicted of blasphemy in 2010 and was sentenced to death by hanging.
 
Reportedly, in June of 2009, Bibi was accused of blasphemy after an argument with co-workers while they were harvesting berries. Due to that accusation, she was arrested and imprisoned, with a Pakistani judge sentencing her to death by hanging in November of 2010.
 
Obviously, that hanging never occurred, likely because the case was pretty faulty and she was eventually acquitted by the Pakistani Supreme Court on Halloween of 2018, citing that “material contradictions and inconsistent statements of the witnesses… cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution’s version of facts.”
 
I don’t know how Pakistan’s judicial system works, but it appears to be at least somewhat similar to our own in that the rule of law emphasizes presumption of innocence. Then again, a Pakistani lower court did sentence her to death by hanging, even though there likely was still insufficient evidence to justifiably convict her, so I doubt there is much more similarity between our judicial systems.
 
But in any case, Asia Bibi was acquitted by the Pakistani Supreme Court, which has led to protests by Islamists and, subsequently, calls for her death. Even advocates of her such as Minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti and Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer have been assassinated due to their advocacy for Bibi and opposing of blasphemy laws.
 
Reportedly, Muslim cleric Maulana Yousaf Qureshi announced a bounty of 500,000 Pakistani rupees that would be awarded to anyone who would kill her.
 
And reportedly, “more than 60 people have been killed by mobs after blasphemy accusations since 1990” in Pakistan.
 
So due to this, to the fact that more than 60 people have been killed by mobs due to accusations, to the fact that Bibi was on death row for 8 years before her acquittal, to the fact that advocates for Bibi and opponents of the blasphemy laws have been assassinated, we really have to be an insanely ignorant, stupid, or insane people to believe this is the “religion of peace”.
 
Let me share with you a quote from Wilson Chowdry, chairman of the British Pakistani Christian Association, talking about Britain’s decision to not offer asylum to Asia Bibi: “I’ve been led to believe that the U.K. government had concerns that her moving to the U.K. would cause security concerns and unrest among certain sections of the community and would also be a security threat to British embassies abroad which might be targeted by Islamist terrorists.”
 
Gee, I wonder why certain people in the U.K. would not be okay with Bibi moving there. I wonder why there would be unrest and why there would be security concerns, particularly for British embassies abroad.
 
Maybe because these people follow a death cult that gets really ticked off by anyone who dares make a joke about their “sacred prophet” Mohammed? Maybe because said “prophet” was the prototypical Islamist terrorist who slaughtered his way to power in the Middle East to establish the closest thing to an actual religion Satan has ever gotten?
 
Of course, that’s not to say every single Muslim is a murderous psychopath, but this seems to be a big thing in Islam. Terrorism and extremism seems to be a massive problem stemming from Islam. Christianity does not have this problem (regardless of what the fake news media might want to say). Judaism doesn’t have this problem. Hinduism has this problem, but nowhere near to this level. Islam has a massive problem with extremism. And the thing about it is that these extremists are considered “conservatives”. Not conservatives like you and I. Conservatives in that they follow the more conservative teachings of Islam.
 
And if that’s the case, doesn’t that say a lot more about Islam than it does about the extremists? Islam IS A RELIGION OF EXTREMISM!
 
While there may be some Muslim liberals who might argue that the blasphemy laws are too brutal (which they are), that still indicates that, as it was founded, Islam is a death cult not suitable for civilized people.
 
If these extremists are what they would call “conservatives”, then that just tells me the religion is extremely violent and narrow-minded.
 
Say what you may want to say about there being Muslims who disagree with the blasphemy laws in Pakistan and elsewhere. Say what you may want to say about there being “moderate” Muslims who don’t support this sort of thing. But let me tell you this: if the people that are extremists are the ones that more closely follow the teachings of Mohammed and the Quran, you cannot make an argument that Islam is a religion of peace. As it was founded, it is the religion of death, of war, of bloodshed and of savagery.
 
I don’t just say that Islam is a death cult to make a generalization. Like I said, not every single Muslim person is like this. But the reason I say it’s a death cult is because its founding principles are about forcing others to follow Islam and those that would not would be executed.
 
It is a hateful religion, a false religion, and nothing the Left, the media, or anyone else tells me could make me think for a second that it is a religion of peace. If it’s a religion of anything, it’s a religion of evil.
 
Now, regarding Asia Bibi, she has reportedly been offered asylum by Italy, Canada and other Western countries, so she might have a happy ending to a decade-long battle against irrational hatred from deranged Muslims.
 
Psalm 138:7
“Though I walk in the midst of trouble, you preserve my life; you stretch out your hand against the wrath of my enemies, and your right hand delivers 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 delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

No, I have not joined the dark side, I can assure you. The fact that Hillary Clinton might run for 2020 makes me happy not because I admire her or some literally insane nonsense like that. I don’t want her to win the White House, knowing full-well she would be terrible for the country. However, I will explain why I am happy to hear this momentarily.
 
First of all, while nothing’s exactly official yet in terms of the Hillary campaign, the reason this is even being talked about in the manner that it is is because of a Wall Street Journal article titled “Hillary Will Run Again”.
 
I don’t know about you, but when I first saw that, I honestly thought of the phrase “The South will rise again”. Funny, considering it’s Democrats who fought to keep black people as slaves. I even tweeted that that title sounded like it was Hillary’s “The South will rise again” moment.
 
In any case, let’s dive further into the article. The sub-headline reads: “Reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand, Mrs. Clinton will easily capture the 2020 nomination.”
 
Yet another statement that brings a smile to my face.
 
For further context, this piece was written by Mark Penn, a pollster and senior adviser to both Clintons from 1995-2008, and it was also written by Andrew Stein, who was the Democratic Manhattan borough president and New York City Council president.
 
Here is their lead paragraph: “Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle – back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.”
 
To be 100% honest with you, upon reading the subhead and the lead, I honestly thought the writers were trying to roast (make fun of) Hillary to some extent.
 
Let’s go over a few things from the subhead and lead. First, they mention she is “reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand…”, they mention this is Hillary Clinton “4.0” and that she is coming full circle, back to “the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994”.
 
I’m sorry, I must’ve missed something important, because that’s exactly the same Hillary Clinton I voted against in 2016, will vote against in 2020 should she miraculously “win” the nomination again and the same Hillary Clinton I have seen for quite some time. How do you reinvent yourself into a lunatic liberal when that’s already what you are?
 
The other thing that made me think these two were roasting Hillary was when they mentioned: “She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way…”
 
Maybe I took it to mean something else, but that sounded a tad bit condescending, don’t you think? Not condescending to Obama and Trump, but to Hillary. It’s like saying “this boxer won’t let a little thing like getting his butt kicked for 11 rounds stop him from winning in the 12th”. It might sound like they’re trying to uplift Hillary, but it also comes off as giving a back-handed compliment. Like saying “she messed up majorly and screwed herself to a post twice before, but now, she’s ready to hopefully avoid screwing herself again.”
 
The article then says: “Hillary Clinton 2.0 was a moderate, building on the success of her communitarian ‘It Takes a Village’ appeals and pledging to bring home the bacon for New York. She emphasized her religious background, voiced strong support for Israel, voted for the Iraq war, and took a hard line against Iran.”
 
“As Hillary 3.0 catered to the coastal elites who had eluded her in 2008, Mr. Trump stole many of the white working-class voters who might have been amenable to the previous version. Finally she had the full support of the New York Times and the other groups that had shunned her for Mr. Obama – but only at the cost of an unforeseen collapse in support in the Midwest.”
 
Okay, I have a few things to say. First, I shall repeat an earlier question: how do you reinvent yourself into a lunatic liberal when that’s already what you were? The fact that they use “2.0” and “3.0” and now “4.0” indicates they believe Hillary is somehow different today than she was as a New York Senator, Secretary of State, or DNC candidate.
 
Second, I thought it was Trump colluding with Russia that cost Hillary the election. How would Trump “stealing” white working-class voters be a factor whatsoever if Trump and Putin were colluding behind closed doors, offering each other gay sexual acts (and that’s something the Left has been saying, ignoring their hypocritical homophobia) and ultimately stole the election from Hillary. We even have an investigation into the matter, don’t we? If that’s not what happened and it was the fact that Trump “stole” the white working-class and others who were legitimately left in the dust by a Democrat Party that is trying to become the Democratic Party of Mexico, then why do we have an investigation into something that didn’t happen and something that even they don’t actually believe happened?
 
(All of that was sarcasm, in case you couldn’t tell. I know precisely why this hoax of an investigation that some on the Left don’t even really believe is still ongoing.)
 
Finally, Trump didn’t “steal” the white working-class. The white working-class was altogether abandoned by the Democrat Party. Though they may have been the party of unions at one time, that’s not something they even care to keep anymore. They hope to ride on minorities’ backs to win them elections (yet another slavery reference?). And if they don’t win them, they can blame the white working-class and white women for their losses, which is the equivalent of touching a hot stove and being surprised that it burned them.
 
Turns out that abandoning an entire class of voters doesn’t exactly encourage those voters to vote for you.
 
In any case, the WSJ article is not done. They still offer hilarity and back-handed comments:
 
“[Hillary] will not allow this humiliating loss at the hands of an amateur to end the story of her career. You can expect her to run for president once again. Maybe not at first, when the legions of Senate Democrats make their announcements, but definitely by the time the primaries are in full swing.”
 
“Mrs. Clinton has a 75% approval rating among Democrats, an unfinished mission to be the first female president, and a personal grievance against Mr. Trump, whose supporters pilloried her with chants of ‘Lock her up!’ This must be avenged.”
 
“Expect Hillary 4.0 to come out swinging. She has decisively to win those Iowa caucus-goers who have never warmed up to her. They will see her now as strong, partisan, left-leaning and all-Democrat – the one with the guts, experience and steely-eyed determination to defeat Mr. Trump. She has had two years to go over what she did wrong and how to take him on again.”
 
That is an awful lot and I don’t think I can go over absolutely everything. This article is plenty long as is and I have yet to even state why this whole thing makes me happy.
 
So allow me to do just that. The reason I am happy Hillary is running again is because after her defeat, she has only gotten worse in my eyes, and likely in many people’s. After the election, she went on a long trip of mental breakdowns and even wrote a book titled “What Happened” to try and reason why she lost. Now, I didn’t read that book, but I take it it mentioned Putin, Russia, racism, sexism, bigotry, and all the excuses she could possibly get out of her hot sauce bag.
 
And this is ignoring the fact that there have been revelations that it was HER campaign that tried to steal the election and still managed to lose somehow. HER campaign hired foreign agents to write a fake dossier about Trump. HER campaign was the one that was helped by the Obama DOJ, FBI and FISA court.
 
She tried to steal an American presidential election. And this is ADDING to her rap sheet of crimes connected to the Clinton Foundation including selling 20% of our Uranium supply to, well, what do you know? VLADIMIR PUTIN! And let’s not forget that she also STOLE the Democrat nomination away from Bernie back in 2016 as well. Now, I’m personally glad she did that, considering the disaster that a possible Bernie Sanders presidency would’ve wrought (I still think Trump would’ve won, but just barely, kind of like in 2000). However, one cannot deny the dishonesty and overall wrongful act that was committed by the DNC to crown Hillary with the nomination.
 
If she runs again, and if she becomes the nominee again as these two writers say she will, then she will be utterly crushed even worse than last time.
 
What Trump didn’t have in 2016 was experience in the field and a record of successful policy, which is natural given he was an outsider at the time. Now that he’s had 2, and by the time 2020 comes around, 4 years of experience, he has only improved his chances of winning in 2020 to the point even Michael Moore legitimately believes he will be reelected if facing against anyone but Michelle Obama (and I think he could even beat her).
 
So I sincerely hope she wins and she becomes the nominee once again.
 
Now, regarding the last few paragraphs that I just shared with you, some of it returns to my earlier question of reinventing yourself into something you already were. They mention she is now left-leaning, partisan and all-Democrat as though she wasn’t in the past. Don’t make me laugh.
 
And one last thing. She didn’t get beat by an amateur. She got beat by TWO amateurs. Here, they were only thinking about Trump, who never held public office and was most definitely an amateur at the time. But we can’t forget that she lost in 2007 against an amateur who was US Senator for only TWO years, after serving in the Illinois State Legislature and was a “community organizer” before that.
 
But in any case, I look forward to the 2020 campaign on the Democrat side. Even if Hillary loses, her running will create some form of divide. If even Nancy Pelosi’s speakership is in peril because of young socialists like Ocasio-Cortez, then Hillary likely doesn’t stand a chance. Ironically, the writers also mention towards the end that Hillary would “trounce” all other candidates, including Joe Biden, but I really doubt the Democrats want to allow Hillary anywhere near their nomination once again… if they’re smart, that is.
 
James 1:17
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”
 
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. While Democrats like Hillary might promise everything for free, you can rest assured that this does not have hidden fees or taxes to be paid at a later date. If I say it’s free, that means it’s free. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

That is an incredibly obvious title and an undeniable fact of politics. The Left only tolerates you when you happen to agree with them, but the minute you dare think for yourself, you become the embodiment of Hitler. That is what Trump has had to deal with for 2 years now and what he will likely have to deal with for the rest of his life. And that extends to the rest of his family, too.
 
But why am I talking about this? Well, recently, pothead rapper Snoop Dogg (real name Calvin Broadus Jr.) released a video of himself outside the White House saying things like “F*** the President”.
 
This isn’t the first time the rapper who has more letters in his name than IQ points left has come out publicly against the President, with him releasing a new album called “Make America Crip Again” which featured a dead body covered by a flag with a toe tag that read “TRUMP”, and back in March of 2017, he released a music video that shows him shooting a fake gun at a clown-like Trump character with exaggerated orange paint on his face.
 
Not to mention that he’s not the only celebrity that has publicly come out against Trump, with the likes of Robert DeNiro, Merryl Streep, Samuel L. Jackson and just about anyone who has a big voice in Hollywood attacking the President.
 
While I don’t know if each of them personally knew Trump and liked him in the past, I imagine they at least tolerated him.
 
In the past, Trump used to be a bit more like a Democrat. That makes sense, since he sought to build buildings in New York City and you kind of have to be pretty friendly with those in the government to get things done quickly and efficiently, and Democrats have had control of NYC for a long time now.
 
Because he used to be more friendly towards Democrats, those who would vote for Democrats loved him.
 
Recently, I have been watching The Apprentice. As you may know, the show used to air on NBC. It was wildly popular and a lot of organizations, companies and people wanted to be a part of it.
 
Having watched an entire season of the show (Season 6, to be precise), I noticed some people in it who now say the sort of things Snoop Dogg recently said. Among which was Snoop Dogg.
 
Allow me to explain some things, in case you are unfamiliar with how the show runs. Trump selects a large number of people (usually 18 candidates) to participate in the show to be his next Apprentice, someone who will join Trump on a project he wants the Apprentice to lead. He divides the candidates into two teams who are given a project. Whatever team does better in that project wins and receives some form of reward for their good work.
 
In the season I watched, one of the rewards that were given to the winner of each particular project was visiting the Los Angeles Lakers’ practice facility (this season was shot in L.A. instead of the usual NYC) to play a pickup game of basketball and meet legends Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy and then-Lakers coach Phil Jackson.
 
Another reward was visiting Snoop Dogg’s recording studio, getting to meet him, and just hang around (though not smoking pot).
 
So it was pretty clear that Snoop Dogg and the Los Angeles Lakers (who are not necessarily openly against Trump, but Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has been vocal) used to at least be fairly chummy with Trump if they were on his show.
 
Donald Trump, before running, used to be admired by both the Left and the Right. He was (is) the embodiment of the fullest potential of the American Dream. Not everyone will achieve it, but with time, hard work, dedication, passion and intelligence, it can definitely be achieved.
 
The Right loved him because he embodied the American Dream. The Left loved him because he was friendly towards them and he helped them out with financial contributions to their campaigns.
 
According to an article on US News dating back to January of 2016, before Trump was even the GOP nominee, “his political contributions over the last two and a half decades show that prior to the 2008 election cycle, Trump favored Democrats. He donated more than $10,000 to Hillary Clinton between 2002 and 2007, and Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is his top beneficiary, raking in $18,350 over the years.”
 
So he donated a good amount of money to Democrats over the years, among whom was his bitter rival Hillary Clinton. Of course, he also donated to Republicans, too. According to that same article, “On the Republican side, Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Rep. Mark Foley and former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Spector also benefited from Trump’s generosity.”
 
So he donated money to yet another person in politics, though supposedly on the Right, who hated him upon his decision to run for POTUS in John McCain.
 
Trump also donated money, according to US News, to Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell (who is apparently cool with Trump now) and, perhaps most laughably of all, Kirsten Gillibrand. Although, I suppose that last one makes sense, since she has been a New York Senator since 2009.
 
So he used to be friendly with a lot of people in Washington on both sides of the aisle. Now, the article did mention that he donated more frequently to Democrats until 2008. Afterwards, he began donating more and more to Republicans. And who can blame him when the leader of the Democrat Party was the communist called Barack Hussein Obama?
 
But even still, I don’t quite remember the Left flat out hating Trump like they do now when he started donating more to Republicans. I suppose part of it was that he was still donating to Democrats (again, Gillibrand has been a senator since 2009), so things were kind of okay between them, but still. They only started to really hate him when he decided to run for office as a Republican.
 
Well, actually, that may not be entirely accurate. If you remember, the media used to mock him and thought he was a joke of a candidate who wouldn’t get far, but was good for ratings. So maybe they didn’t quite hate him at that point, but the fact that he decided to run as a Republican probably meant severing ties with Democrats from that point on, even if he had lost.
 
Once Trump became a serious threat to Hillary and the Democrat Party, not to mention his agenda was one that was 180 degrees backwards from the Left’s, meant that they harbored a deep-rooted hatred for him.
 
Now, I’m not saying they’re not allowed to not like someone who is now on the other side of their political ideologies. There are a lot of Never Trump conservatives whom I used to like but no longer do, namely people like Glenn Beck and Shepherd Smith among others. And if there is someone who used to be a conservative but now is a liberal, I’m not gonna like that person and think they are either idiotic or giving up to the pressure from the Left.
 
But I could not say I hate any one of them. The difference between someone who abandons the Left for the Right and someone who abandons the Right for the Left is that the Right won’t go bananas over someone leaving them to the point where they give speeches saying they “f*** person X” or “I want to beat up person X” and going to where they live, saying basically what Snoop Dogg is saying.
 
The fact that Leftists are the ones who do this means their hatred is at their core, to the point they go out of their own way to hurl insults. No right-winger will go out of their own way to insult someone on the Left.
 
Remember when Kanye West shared a picture of himself wearing a MAGA hat? Remember the slew of people hating on him for it? The people mocking him? This is what happens when you leave the Democrat slave plantation of thought. You get hunted down, attacked and harassed.
 
Until he altogether decided to stay away from politics (can’t blame him), he was hounded and harassed. Remember when two of Don Lemon’s guests made racist remarks towards him, saying that that’s what happens when an n-word doesn’t read?
 
They loved him when he said George Bush didn’t care about black people and hated him to the core when he showed himself wearing a MAGA hat, which to them, in their ridiculous world of insanity, is basically the equivalent of a swastika.
 
They “loved” Kanye until they realized he thought for himself. They “loved” Trump until the money stopped pouring in and ran against Hillary. They “love” anyone until that person disagrees with them or stops helping them. And when that person disagrees with them, all hell breaks loose.
 
NBC used to host The Apprentice. Snoop Dogg, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and likely other celebrities (again, I’ve only watched season 6) have been on the show as part of the rewards. And let's not forget that  NBC used to air CELEBRITY APPRENTICE, where, as the title suggests, a bunch of celebrities try to get hired by Trump as his Apprentice (though Celebrity Apprentice basically replaced The Apprentice).
 
But once Trump dared to go against the Left, he became enemy number 1. Once anyone dares defy the Left, they become targets of hatred and ire.
 
One can hardly say the Left loves anyone. They don’t. They don’t even love themselves, how can they possibly love others? What they do is merely tolerate others as long as they agree with the Leftist agenda. That’s not love, and obviously, that’s not even tolerance.
 
Love is supposed to be unconditional. That’s not what the Left feels for anyone including themselves. So when someone like Trump comes along and defies them, it’s no surprise the kind of toxicity that oozes out of them henceforth.
 
Their hearts are filled with hatred. They are not tolerant; they are not loving; they are evil, plain and simple.
 
Matthew 12:35
“The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.”
 
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 subscribe today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli. 

​Since the November elections earlier this week resulted in nothing close to a blue wave for Democrats, two stories have since popped up regarding journalists, though with largely varying coverage of them.
 
First, and the story being covered the most, is Jim Acosta playing the victim after he put his hands on a female White House staffer whose job was to pass the microphone to other members of the White House press corps, but Jim refused to let her take away the mic because he wanted to continue badgering the President.
 
During the event, which was caught on camera, Jim Acosta was making comments, rather than asking questions, directed towards the President. When Trump wanted the mic to go to someone else, the female staffer had to perform her duties of passing the mic to whomever Trump had chosen to speak. However, Jim refused to hand over the microphone, and when the staffer tried to take it away from him, he put his hands in the crease of her elbow in a defensive manner to keep her from taking away the mic.
 
Now, I will give Jim the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably didn’t mean to do that and only did it in the heat of the moment, out of reaction over someone getting a bit too close to him. However, whatever sympathy I could feel for him goes away when he says he didn’t put his hand on her (video evidence proves otherwise) and goes as far as to say, when back on with CNN, that Trump had been targeting the media and he was trying to shut them down in response to Trump revoking his access to the press corps.
 
That’s an actual complaint he had in the aftermath of the incident. He didn’t apologize to the female staffer for touching her, even if it had been out of reaction, and even tries to make himself the victim of some injustice.
 
Due to this incident, the media chooses to side with Acosta and say that the President is attacking the media and trying to shut them down like the “fascist” he is, even though fascists control the media, not fight them (does that ring any bells of previous presidents?).
 
Now, let’s move on to the second story relating to a journalist, but one who actually has received threats: Tucker Carlson’s home was nearly broken into by an Antifa mob of about 20 people on Wednesday night.
 
While Carlson was prepping for his show, he received a text from his wife, who was at home at the time, detailing that she was in the kitchen about to make dinner when she heard loud noises and banging on her door. She didn’t know there was a mob outside, thought someone was trying to break in (they likely were), and hid in the pantry.
 
The reason we know this was an Antifa mob is because the hate group Smash Racism DC posted a video of the mob on Twitter (which has since been deleted by Twitter), which shows chants for Carlson that he was a racist, that he should leave town and were overall making threats towards him (even though he wasn’t there at the time). And in the video, a woman can be heard saying she wants to “bring a pipe bomb” to Carlson’s home.
 
Tucker Carlson detailed a bit of the event, saying: “Someone started throwing himself against the front door and actually cracked the front door.” Unless that person is a massive moron (they probably are anyway) and was simply expressing his anger by banging himself against the door, I see no reason to believe whoever was doing it was not trying to get inside.
 
What reason would someone have to throw themselves against someone’s front door, eventually cracking it? Either that person was trying to get inside in a really stupid way, or was simply incredibly moronic, hurting himself while expressing his anger (I’m assuming it was a man, but it could’ve been a woman).
 
Carlson has, as mentioned, a wife and four young children. Thankfully, he and his children were not inside at this time, but his wife was and she was terrified.
 
But is the media going to be talking about this, at least to the same extent that they are talking about Acosta? Are they going to say Carlson is the victim of threats like Acosta is? Of course not.
 
If they do talk about it, it will either be slightly mentioned and then be ignored, or the media will somehow try to justify the actions of the mob. People on Twitter certainly are trying to justify it.
 
But both of these situations highlight the incessant hypocrisy of the Left and the media. When Jim Acosta puts his hands on a female staffer to keep her from taking away a mic that doesn’t belong to him, and he’s temporarily banned from the White House as a result, the media rushes in to defend him and his actions, denying what he did and trying to characterize Trump as a fascist who is trying to shut down the media.
 
When Tucker Carlson is actually threatened by a hateful group of people surrounding his house, one of whom stated she wanted to bring a pipe bomb to the home of someone who has a wife and FOUR YOUNG CHILDREN, and with one of them likely trying to break in, all you’ll get is crickets at best and flat out sociopaths who couldn’t give a damn about the family that was just threatened due to Carlson’s beliefs.
 
And by the way, it’s not like this was a crowd protesting something Carlson said that maybe he shouldn’t have. It was a crowd protesting and threatening someone for holding a different view. It was a crowd that thoroughly believes Carlson is hurting people by exposing the truth about Antifa, the media and the Left in general. It was a crowd that, because they think Carlson is hurting people with words, wanted to hurt him physically and possibly even kill him and his family if that woman on the video was serious about a pipe bomb.
 
And it’s not like a pipe bomb is hard to make. It’s considered an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) precisely because it’s not hard to make. One of them could have actually made one, lit it, and thrown it inside Carlson’s home. A Molotov cocktail is also not hard to make, and could potentially do quite some damage as well.
 
So what you have in one corner is a fake news propagandist who calls himself a journalist complaining and crying over the fact that his inexcusable actions were punished (like a child throwing a tantrum), claiming Trump is out to get him and the media. In the other corner, you have a conservative journalist who was threatened at his own home (though he wasn’t there) by a deranged mob of Leftist lunatics who legitimately wish to cause him physical harm that could go as far as to kill him and his family.
 
Which one of the two will get more coverage? A snowflake “journalist” complaining that daddy took away his toy because he was being bad or a right-winger journalist having a mob of psychopaths at his literal doorstep threatening him and calling for him to leave the very town he grew up in just because he has different views from them?
 
And let’s not ignore the fact that these deranged lunatics believe the things they believe because they buy into the media narrative that Republicans and conservatives are racists, bigot, homophobes who want to harm people and even kill them by taking away their healthcare, which is up there in terms of massive lies in the history of the world, alongside “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, “if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor” and “Nazis were not socialists”.
 
I know that it might be taboo to try to say that it’s because of the media that these people do what they do, but let me ask you this: if the media were covering Trump, and by extension Republicans, fairly and not saying they are racists and fascists, would such mobs show up, particularly as often as they do?
 
If the media were honest, would Antifa be around, or at least have as many people in their ranks as they do?
 
You might not want to believe that the media has much or anything to do with the actions of these deranged psychopaths, but their constant attacks on Trump and conservatives creates within their base at least a good number of people who thoroughly believe that crap and will want to take serious action apart from voting against them.
 
If the words and actions of the media lead others to justify acts of violence and/or harassment, then the media truly is the enemy of the people.
 
Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are His delight.”
 
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 November 6th elections have come and gone, with some very interesting changes and developments occurring throughout the night. Obviously, the biggest story of the night was the fact that Democrats have successfully reclaimed the House of Representatives by taking 26 or so seats, more than enough to give them a majority, slim as it may be.
 
And as it stands, the White House, obviously, is Republican, the Senate is Republican and now the House is Democrat. I have an awful lot of things to say about this, but I will do my best to keep it as short and concise as possible, while at least touching on the many things I want to discuss.
 
The first, and most important thing I want to mention is that, as predicted, there was no blue wave. Not even close to that. Yes, Democrats retook the House, which is unfortunate and will only serve to further divide this nation and hurt people in the individual districts, but no one can say that this is a blue wave. Furthermore, Republicans actually did a lot better than you might think.
 
The House is lost, and that is unfortunate, but one thing that needs to be mentioned is the great number of pickups we got in the Senate. Before the election, Democrats held 49 seats. Now, they only hold 44. Senators Heidi Heitkamp, Bill Nelson, Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Donnelly, Claire McCaskill and others all have been unseated. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) managed to get re-elected, but I find it rather ironic that he is the only Democrat that voted in favor of approving Brett Kavanaugh. The other Democrats who lost on Tuesday all voted against Kavanaugh, so that had some effect, I believe.
 
Not to mention that Ted Cruz managed to beat supposed Democrat superstar Beto O’Rourke in a race that shouldn’t have been anywhere near that close (though I suspect illegal votes are to blame, if the Project Veritas video covering illegal voting in the midterms is anything to go by). And in Florida, Rick Scott beat incumbent Bill Nelson, with another supposed Democrat superstar, Andrew Gillum, losing in another tight race.
 
The unfortunate thing is that Florida passed an amendment that will allow 1.4 million felons to vote, so I don’t have much hope for the state in the future. Of course, I don’t think all 1.4 million felons will vote, but felons tend to vote Democrat because Democrats also have a wanton disrespect for the rule of law and law enforcement. Not to mention that Cruz’s victory being about a 2 point margin is indicative of a blue trend in Texas (again, likely affected by illegal immigrants, but also likely affected by Leftists from California and New York moving there and voting for the policies and people that drove them out of those Leftist states in the first place).
 
Another bit of bad news is that, with Democrats in control of the House, there will definitely not be a wall getting built in the next two years and there definitely won’t be a repeal of Obamacare.
 
However, let’s move on to the better news. Apart from the pickups in the Senate, you also have to look at the fact that Democrats, at best, will simply be a lot of white noise over these next two years, as they have been over the past two years. Yes, they will launch investigation after investigation, and subpoena after subpoena, but what’s that going to amount to? They’ve been trying to prove Russian collusion for the past two years. Another two isn’t going to get them anything.
 
Not to mention that, while they might try to impeach Trump, they are not going to even come close to succeeding. Anything Democrats pass in the House will get stopped in the Senate. And an impeachment against Trump requires two-thirds of the SENATE, as well as approval from the VP, or enough votes to overturn the Vice President’s vote against impeachment.
 
So impeachment of the President would have to be a bipartisan effort, one that I don’t think will happen. Sure, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) might vote in favor of impeachment, but a lot of conservative, not to mention pro-Trump people, won in the Senate as well.
 
At most, the Democrats will be a major nuisance. Nothing will get passed, but not much was getting passed before anyway. Not to mention that Trump still has EO power, something that his predecessor set as a precedent for a tool for passing laws even when faced with an opposing party majority in the legislative branch.
 
And let’s not ignore the fact that Democrats winning in 2018 leaves Trump with a clear target for 2020. Trump has mastered the art of successfully putting the blame where it belongs: the Democrats. With nothing passing and Democrats being a massive force of obstruction, and little more, Trump can thoroughly expose the Democrats as little more than a pest that should not be in control of a doll house, much less of the House.
 
Now, these last two years should have logically led to Democrats suffering big losses in 2018. There was a lot of that in the Senate, but unfortunately, not so much in the House. But there is good news in Democrats taking some of these House seats. As Jake Tapper mentioned during his live coverage of the elections, many Never Trump Republicans were shown the door. Sure, some pro-Trump Republicans also lost, but it shows that going against the popular Republican President is not a solid campaign strategy.
 
Going forward, such losses should send a clear message that it’s best to support Trump and the MAGA agenda, instead of betraying your constituents. You would think that would be a common sense thing, but what can you do?
 
One other thing to mention that I want to at least talk about a little bit is that in Alabama and West Virginia, constitutional amendments were passed that protect the unborn. According to the Daily Wire: “In Alabama, voters approved an amendment to the state’s constitution affirming that the unborn have a right to life… In West Virginia, voters approved an amendment to their state constitution, which could end the practice of taxpayers funding elective abortions.” Not to mention that Alabama also passed an amendment that would allow for the Ten Commandments to be placed in public places. So these things are all great pro-life and pro-religious freedom news to take away from the elections.
 
Now, another thing I want to mention is the fact that, since Democrats won’t be able to pass laws in the Senate, any attempt at getting rid of the GOP tax cuts will be completely futile. We might not be able to pass anything, but neither will they. And these tax cuts are good for quite some time.
 
Yet another thing to mention is that, so far, Trump is doing far better than Obama did, electoral-wise. Let’s not forget that in 2010, Democrats lost 63 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate. THAT was a wave election.
 
So let’s look at some numbers over the years, according to Lawrence McDonald, who quotes data from the NY Times. In 2010, Obama lost 63 seats in the House. In 1994, Clinton lost 52. In 1958, Eisenhower lost 48. In 1974, Ford lost 48. In 1966, LBJ lost 47. In 1946, Truman lost 45. In 2006, Bush lost 30. In 1950, Truman lost 29. In 1982, Reagan lost 26.
 
Wanna know how many Trump lost? The same amount as Reagan, which is a pretty good sign, if you ask me, considering Reagan went on to be re-elected in the biggest landslide in U.S. political history.
 
Now, is this situation ideal? Definitely not. If I could have things my way, every Republican in every race, Senate, House, local, etc. would’ve won. But all things considered, we also stand to gain an awful lot in 2020, and I have no doubt Trump will be re-elected, with Republican control of Congress once again.
 
The last thing I want to mention, that ultimately has the biggest hand in putting a smile on my face after the elections, is that regardless of who controls the House, who controls the Senate, who controls the White House, it is Jesus Christ that is our ultimate Representative, Senator, and President. No matter who gains control of anything anywhere, Jesus is King. God is in control.
 
It’s no surprise to Him that Democrats retook the House. And He wouldn’t have allowed it if it weren’t part of His grander plan for us.
 
The good thing about losing sometimes is that losses can make you humble. After 2016, we were grateful to the Lord for the massive win. After 2018, we are still grateful to Him, and we come to Him in supplication and prayer, that He might heal our nation and that we might continue seeking His blessings.
 
I trust the Lord, and if He decides Democrats retake the House, then who in the world am I to argue? I merely implore to Him that this will be the definitively last time Democrats ever win anything again.
 
Psalm 33:10-12
“The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom He has chosen as His heritage!”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. And while the Democrats promised free everything, this newsletter is actually free. So check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Last week, on Halloween, I wrote an article detailing the story of a man defending himself, his sons, and perhaps everyone inside a McDonald’s from a would-be shooter. Well, last Thursday, a mom in South Carolina protected her family and home with her gun from a would-be intruder.
 
Fox Carolina covered this story, and according to them, “A mother of three in South Carolina said she used her firearm to protect her family when a stranger tried to enter her house.”
 
According to Fox Carolina, the mother, named Ashley Jones, said “she heard someone banging on the door of her home in Anderson County around 6 a.m. Thursday.”
 
Jones detailed to Fox that “she looked out the window and didn’t see anyone, so she asked who was there. No one answered her, but she heard people speaking in front of the house.” Jones then called 911 and grabbed her gun.
 
According to Jones, she yelled: “I have a gun, I will shoot you, get away from my house.”
 
According to Fox, Jones said: “the man and a second person then went to the back of the house and tried to enter through the back door. Then, they went to the garage before coming back to the front door.”
 
Security footage from Jones’ security system showed much of the incident. It eventually shows the man kicking the front door, trying to get in, which is when Jones shot the guy, seemingly in the shoulder.
 
According to Jones: “Something just came over me, and I got calm. My heart slowed down and I got focused. I told myself if he comes in here, you can’t let him get past your doorstep. You have three young children to protect.”
 
Jones said she didn’t hesitate and would’ve fired again if the man persisted, saying “I would’ve killed him if I had to.”
 
According to Fox: “Jones said she was initially hesitant to be a gun owner and hoped she never had to use it. She took steps to train with the firearm and taught her children to avoid it. But after the events that unfolded Thursday morning, Jones said she is glad to be a gun owner.”
 
Jones herself said: “If I didn’t have a weapon, I wouldn’t have been able to fight him off.”
 
The two suspects caught on footage have been arrested, with the man being treated for his injury, which is non-life-threatening.
 
But this story highlights the great importance of owning a weapon and knowing how to use it.
 
As Fox Carolina notes, she was initially hesitant of being a gun owner. I get it. Guns can be scary when you don’t know much about them, much less how to handle one. All the time, you see them in movies, video games, t.v. shows, etc. and are constantly aware of how dangerous and deadly they can be.
 
Of course, real life is very different from fiction, but still. A gun can be scary if you don’t know anything about it. Particularly so when the news media and politicians make it a point to scare you out of having one and make it a point to convince you that they are bad and no one should have them.
 
But it’s largely because of situations like these that we have the 2nd Amendment. I often try to make the point, whenever possible, that the main reason the 2nd Amendment was put into place was as a safeguard against an oppressive United States government, in which the people of the country would be willing and able to fight once again against tyranny.
 
And while I maintain that that’s the main reason, that comes as part of the overall point of the importance of self-defense. The Framers had people’s defense of themselves in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment. Defense from the government, for the most part, but defense nonetheless.
 
So defending one’s own home from an outside force that threatens their very lives is part of people’s right to bear arms. Like Jones said, had she not had her gun with her, she would not have been able to fight him off and protect her family and home.
 
Given the actions described by Fox Carolina and Ashley Jones, the incident appeared to be an attempted home invasion. That much is obvious, but there’s a reason I mention that.
 
Let’s go over the details again. It was a Thursday morning in a usually quiet neighborhood, according to the live report on the incident. There were two individuals, seemingly a man and a woman. Neither of them were wearing masks or anything like that. Now, I wasn’t exactly expecting them to be wearing striped shirts and carry with them a sack of money, but I at the very least was expecting a mask.
 
Now, I am not familiar with how often home invaders actually wear masks. But you’d think it would be a common sense thing to wear a mask WHEN COMMITTING A CRIME!
 
But beyond even that, what really stands out as a red flag was the fact that Jones shouted at the two would-be home invaders and neither of them seemed willing to flee. Quite the opposite, since they went around the house looking for other points of entry before settling on kicking down the door.
 
Most home invaders attempt to flee when caught by the home owner. Not to mention that most home invaders don’t tend to continue in trying to get into a home when the home owner is acutely aware of their presence and even threatens them.
 
The guy literally kicked the door down before he was shot. What makes me think this could’ve escalated beyond a run-of-the-mill home invasion was the invader’s unwillingness to flee upon being discovered.
 
Now, regarding the threat, we can chuck it up to the guy thinking the woman was bluffing. After all, men tend to be stronger than women, so he thought he would be able to beat her physically, which he probably could have. He was a pretty big dude.
 
But it’s the fact that he and his partner in crime were both outside the home, the owner shouted at them, making them aware that someone’s home and someone knows they’re there, and they still attempted to enter the home.
 
That’s what makes me think things could’ve gone far worse and that the criminals possibly intended for far more sinister things than a mere home invasion.
 
Again, most home invaders tend to at least try to flee when discovered. These two were discovered BEFORE they were inside the home, had the best chance to leave, and still forced their way in.
 
Thankfully, Jones made the safe and smart decision of owning a gun and training herself with how to use it. Fox Carolina details that she hoped she never had to use it. Trust me, no safe and responsible gun owner ever hopes they get a chance to use it on anyone. We hope and pray to never have to use it, but thank the Lord we have it in the unfortunate case that we do have to use it.
 
Paraphrasing something I said in the article talking about the McDonald’s incident, people without a gun tend to go to people with a gun whenever a shooting happens. While this wasn’t a shooting, it is still a potentially life-threatening situation for the family of that home. She called 911, but you can never fully rely on the response time. Sometimes, you have to take action yourself. Had she not had a gun with her, who knows what they would’ve done?
 
Best case scenario, they would’ve taken a couple of things after likely beating Ashley to keep her quiet. Again, that’s BEST case scenario. I don’t think I have to detail what a worst case scenario would have looked like.
 
But because Jones was armed, and she knew how to use her gun, neither of the previously mentioned scenarios happened. The intruder was hit, and he and the woman fled before getting caught by the police and facing charges.
 
This highlights the importance of gun ownership and the importance of knowing how to use a gun. It’s not enough to simply have a gun. A gun can be dangerous in the hands of someone that does not know how to properly use it. You need to know how, when and where to aim, making sure you only hit your target and not someone else, and making sure that when it’s not in use, that it can’t harm you or anyone around you.
 
You need to know how to walk around with one (down to your side, pointed away from you, but also away from anyone you don't want to shoot, so best to aim at the ground at an angle that won’t hurt you), you need to know where to place your finger (never on the trigger unless you have the intention of shooting), you need to know how to aim (again, finger off the trigger, thumb over thumb, steady grip, and more things that I can’t properly describe), etc.
 
And Jones had all of that down and was able to protect herself, her family and her home. I am not surprised that the MSM won’t cover this story (I mean, it happened last week and I myself am just getting around to talking about it) considering that this is a pro-gun story. I am not surprised because the MSM has long ceased to be about honest, objective journalism and it’s all about narratives, rhetoric and the Leftist agenda.
 
But they can’t hide the fact that, in safe and responsible hands, guns can be a tool for good as much as it can be for evil. I had shared with you in that other article the statistics of defensive gun use (DGU) and how often it happens. That’s the result of good guys (and girls) with guns fighting against someone who would threaten their lives.
 
I’m thankful Mrs. Jones and her family are safe and I hope this story serves to help people recognize that safe and responsible gun ownership is never a bad thing.
 
1 Timothy 5:8
“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
 
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.