If colleges are where education and logic go to die, a college’s Women’s and Gender Studies program is the River Styx for logic. So it comes as no surprise to me that an NYU Women’s and Gender Studies program released a paper in which it suggested the breeding and milking of cows is the same thing as rape and sexual abuse.
 
The paper reads as follows: “Throughout our lives, we are offered an idealized image of dairy cows where these animals graze on beautiful pastures, have room to sow and play, and are comforted in spacious areas in which to sleep. We are presented with images of a life well lived, but when it comes to the deaths of those same animals, the picture-perfect story comes to a grim reality.”
 
“The outdated stereotype about women being caretakers and most importantly child bearers remains consistent in the dairy industry, especially when we take into account the means through which these animals are exploited. A few brief examples include rape or sexual assault, nonconsensual hormone treatments, and emotional trauma related to pregnancy. Dairy cows are forcibly impregnated, or raped, in order to constantly produce milk for humans to consume.”
 
“The dairy industry is a host for sex-based discrimination. It is a site where sexual assault and objectification based on biological makeup are highly prevalent but ignored as we choose to neglect non-humans with whom we share a planet.”
 
The author concludes: “While we fight against the sexual abuse of women, why are we still allowing the same treatment to be thrust upon other living bodies when there are other, more sustainable ways to live that do not involve harming millions of female bodies? With simple lifestyle changes that promote reproductive justice towards animals available to many, why are we picking and choosing which pots of capitalism, sexism, and patriarchy to stir, when we could dismantle it all?”
 
I apologize sincerely for all of the brain cells you just lost reading this Marxist garbage, but please consider I had to read it multiple times and write it out myself, so I came up with the short end of the stick here.
 
While this piece reads like a hotbed of communist talking points, from suggesting something is rape when it isn’t to ordering people to eat differently to even bringing up capitalism and asserting we “dismantle it all”, I would briefly like to cover some of the “arguments” made in this dumpster fire of a “research paper”.
 
First, addressing the “outdated stereotype” of women being caretakers and child bearers, it is not a stereotype whatsoever. Historically, women have been caretakers of children and that still happens today. Ideally, the wife stays at home with the kids while the husband goes to work. Often times, that doesn’t happen, with the wife also working and leaving the children to be taken care of by a babysitter (and anyone wonders why so many people are blaming the previous generations for crap when the parents of these young people largely left them with babysitters because the moms CHOSE to prioritize their careers over their own children because they’ve been told it’s “harmful” for women to stay at home with the kids).
 
And as far as child-bearing being a “stereotype”, exactly which of the other gender is capable of bearing a child? The male gender? Or the male gender? Perhaps the male gender? MEN CAN’T HAVE CHILDREN, ONLY WOMEN CAN! To suggest it’s a stereotype that women are child bearers is utterly moronic, as only women can be child bearers.
 
Second, breeding animals isn’t rape. Animals can’t give consent to anything. They mate whether man forces them to or not. So why is it rape when a farmer breeds cows or other animals but not when the animals do it themselves? And that’s only when they mate normally. Animals like sea otters, bottlenose dolphins and other animals have been recorded to perpetuate what us humans would call rape, gang rape, pedophilia, necrophilia and other things. Sea otters, for example, have been recorded literally raping baby seals to death and sometimes continue even after the baby seal has died. Bottlenose dolphins have been recorded to rape other animals like porpoises (small, toothed whales), as well as forming gangs of dolphins to “kidnap” and rape female and even sometimes male dolphins.
 
But sure, breeding a female for the purposes of making more animals to grow and profit from is apparently tantamount to rape.
 
Finally, when the author writes about dismantling capitalism, sexism and patriarchy in a paper about ANIMAL RAPE, the author loses what little credibility she may have had. She was basically interjecting her own political ideologies that would’ve belonged on a Facebook post into an official research paper to be studied. And anyone wonders why Women’s and Gender Studies programs are a massive joke?
 
But do you want to know the worst part? Aside from the massive waste of time and IQ points it took READING the b.s. paper, to suggest that breeding and milking of cows is tantamount to rape and sexual abuse SERIOUSLY undermines and trivializes actual cases of sexual abuse.
 
As I was going through topics to cover, I checked The Daily Wire, which I often times do. Almost side by side, I saw two stories: this one about the research paper and one about sexual assault and abuse cases happening in various Boys & Girls Club of America facilities throughout the last half century. Prior to reading the moronic piece, I chose to read some of the cases detailed by the Connecticut Post, where The Daily Wire got their information to write their piece.
 
The cases included cases of rape, statutory rape, molestation, forceful impregnation and all-around pedophilia. In-all, over roughly 70 years, there were 95 cases of sexual assault reported, all of which the Connecticut Post has links to. The cases vary from civil cases, criminal cases or both. In many, the actual Boys & Girls Club didn’t share any of the blame for it, but there were cases where a DIRECTOR of a local Club would groom and sexually abuse and assault young boys ages 7-12 and was NEVER FIRED, but became MAYOR OF SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO IN 1982.
 
Hundreds of children were sexually assaulted and/or abused either in Boys & Girls Clubs or by staff members of the Boys & Girls Clubs. To completely seriously and unironically suggest that MILKING AND BREEDING FARM ANIMALS IS AKIN TO RAPE AND SEXUAL ABUSE IS AN INSULT TO ACTUAL VICTIMS OF THIS!
 
That garbage paper SPITS IN THE FACES of actual sexual abuse and assault victims. Not that anyone on the Left cares, of course. The comrades at NYU’s Women’s and Gender Studies program did their part in the revolution against capitalism, and that’s all that matters. Who cares if their points are ridiculous at best and insulting at worst? Who cares if they literally make no sense? They help spread the ever-so-important message that animals are more important than (most) people and we must continue to attack capitalism at every turn.
 
At NFL games? Kneel for the capitalist flag. On late night “comedy” shows? Bash the capitalist president. In video games? Bash the capitalist hicks. In t.v. shows and movies? Bash and push for a fantasy of hunting down and murdering capitalist pigs. Every medium and every aspect of life has to have politics, specifically Left-wing politics, injected into it in order to fight against capitalism.
 
If actual sexual abuse victims get caught in the crossfire, that’s fine.
 
This is the sickening and evil mentality of the Left. They have claimed everything and everyone is racist, so that term has lost its power (to the point they’re now switching to a fancy new term: white supremacist… until that gets used to the point of irrelevancy). They’ve claimed Right-wingers are Nazis for years, so that has lost its luster. Similarly, sexual abuse and assault will be so over-used that actual cases of it will be overlooked and taken as the norm instead of as disturbing and horrifying as they should be.
 
The Left literally ruins everything it touches. They’re like the anti-Midas of politics. Entertainment and comedy have been subdued and making risqué jokes will get people “cancelled”. Pretty much everything the Left touches gets turned to utter crap.
 
In doing this, sexual assault victims – actual ones – will be largely ignored or overlooked. When everything is a crisis, nothing is. And the souls subjected to it have no one to reach out to but to God, because Man no longer cares.
 
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 sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

Looking over topics for me to cover, I came across a Daily Caller article with the following title: “Over 90,000 Sign Petition To Rename Street Outside Trump Tower After Obama.”
 
The article is short, considering there isn’t much to say about this. It covers the fact that over 90,000 people signed the aforementioned petition “in order to spite President Donald Trump,” according to The Daily Caller.
 
The article says that “[T]he woman behind the petition told Newsweek that she wants to honor Obama because Osama bin Laden was killed by American forces during the Obama administration.” Elizabeth Rowin, the woman behind the petition, went on to say: “I honestly started it as a joke. I saw a comedian joke about how it would make Trump so mad if it was named after former President Obama and thought why not.”
 
Rowin went on to tell Newsweek that the New York City Council told her they would pursue the project and she intends to write a letter to Mayor Bill de Blasio about it.
 
While there isn’t an awful lot of detail about this story, considering just how unimportant it is in the grand scheme of things, I do have a bit to say about this.
 
First, I love the fact that Rowin lists bin Laden’s death as the reason for this. It’s almost literally Obama’s only good accomplishment as POTUS. If you asked people to name Obama accomplishments, first and foremost (and quite possibly on its own) would be killing Osama bin Laden. But they would struggle to name other accomplishments. Obamacare is garbage, the economy was horrible when he was in charge, foreign relations were terrible and whatever damage he caused, Trump has been working to fix them.
 
Even if one were to consider the Iran nuke deal as an Obama accomplishment, that’s been thrown out the window long ago. President Donald Trump is shredding Barack Obama’s legacy and his accomplishments far outweigh and outnumber Obama’s.
 
And that’s really the irony behind this entire story. Leftists will cheer at the renaming of the street Trump Tower is on after Barack Obama, thinking Trump will fume about it. If he’s half the internet troll (in a good way) that I think he is, he will be delighted about the change.
 
Why? Because of the symbolism of Trump Tower literally towering over Obama.
 
Trump can tweet something along the lines of: “So glad New York City changed the name of the street Trump Tower is on to President Barack H. Obama Avenue. A great symbol of my accomplishments (Trump Tower) towering over President Obama’s.”
 
It would turn the Left’s spiteful intent to rename that street completely against them. There literally would be a massive symbol of Trump’s accomplishments, that being the Trump Tower, being far more important and impressive than Obama’s. At least, that’s what I would say if I were on Trump’s shoes regarding this.
 
To repeat myself, just about everything Obama did as President of the United States has been eliminated. Obama’s legacy is down to only a few things.
 
Obamacare is still around, unfortunately, due to either spineless or traitorous Republicans.
 
The economic stagnation that Obama insisted was “the new normal” for America is far behind us, with record low unemployment across the board, millions of jobs created with Trump’s “magic wand”, the economy growing at 3% annually, paychecks going up, consumer confidence skyrocketing, the cutting of taxes, etc.
 
The disastrous Iran nuke deal is also gone, at least when it comes to the U.S. funding the world’s lead sponsor of terror.
 
Relations with North Korea are… peculiar, but not at levels of U.S. bending over backwards to appease them.
 
ISIS is pretty much destroyed and the last major Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil happened in late 2017, with the latest Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil happening in January of this year (no fatalities, but one injured in a “lone wolf” ISIS loyalist knife attack against a police officer), according to thereligionofpeace.com, a site that tracks Islamic terrorism among other things.
 
The U.S. is no longer a part of the Paris Climate Accord, so we are no longer wasting hundreds of millions of dollars fighting a boogey man.
 
The number of people on food stamps is getting lower and lower as more and more people can afford to pay for their own meals.
 
The U.S. embassy in Israel is now in Jerusalem, something many of Trump’s predecessors promised they would do but never got around to doing it for various reasons.
 
And most of these accomplishments are just off the top of my head. I could continue with that, adding smaller accomplishments as well, but these are the ones I wanted to cover. The point of this is to highlight the fact that Donald Trump’s presidency has been the total polar opposite of Obama’s: actually good for the country.
 
In reality, whether the Left will care to admit it or not, Trump has far more accomplishments than Obama, particularly since Trump’s accomplishments include OVERTURNING OBAMA’S LEGACY. The fact they want to rename the street Trump Tower is on to President Barack H. Obama Avenue shows you how petty these people are, but it could really backfire on them spectacularly.
 
It wouldn’t be a major story by any means, just one of the many episodes relating to Trump’s Twitter wars with others, but in trying to tick the guy off, they could very well end up just symbolizing Trump towering over Obama. And that’s something I would absolutely love to see, even if it’s mentioned for only a moment.
 
You just have to love it when the Left dunks on itself.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Earlier this week, a video surfaced online depicting CNN anchor Chris Cuomo yelling at a man for having called him “Fredo”, in reference to the dumb Corleone brother in the first two movies of The Godfather.
 
The video is nearly 2 minutes long, but it begins with the man telling Cuomo “I thought that’s who you were,” insisting that he really thought Chris’s name was actually “Fredo”. Cuomo replied by saying: “No, punk-a** b****es from the Right call me Fredo. My name is Chris Cuomo. I’m an anchor on CNN.”
 
He continued: “Fredo is from ‘The Godfather’, he was that weak brother and they’re using it as an Italian aspersion… It’s like the ‘n-word’ for us.’”
 
The man then sarcastically told Cuomo: “You’re a much more reasonable guy in person than you seem to be on television.” Cuomo later responded by saying: “You’re going to have a f***ing problem.” This prompted the man to taunt Cuomo: “What are you going to do about it?”
 
It is at this point that Cuomo lost even more of his marbles: “I’ll f***ing ruin your s**t. I’ll f***ing throw you down these stairs like a f***ing punk.” This prompted the argument to get a little heated, but other people in the area separated the two and prevented the situation from getting worse.
 
Now, there is a lot to say about this situation as a whole and what Cuomo said in the video.
 
First, let’s begin with what Cuomo specifically said. First of all, “Fredo” is not like the n-word for us Italians (yes, I’m Italian). To say that the name “Fredo” is like the n-word is ridiculous at best and insulting to black people at worst. There is no racial connotation to the name, but there is plenty of it for the n-word. The name may be meant as an insult, but it’s not a racial one. It’s in reference to the dumber brother in The Godfather, which even Cuomo admits to knowing prior to saying such nonsense.
 
Second, as much as I have seen people on both sides of the aisle defend Cuomo (and I’ll get to that), there’s no denying that the guy literally threatened violence against the man who called him “Fredo”. It’s entirely likely that the guy was heckling Cuomo and trying to get him worked up, given that there is video that was most likely shot from the guy’s cell phone in order to record the conversation, with the camera facing both men, but as Chris himself admitted the following day, he “should be better than the guys baiting me.” He definitely could have reacted better to the situation instead of getting in the guy’s face about it.
 
Whether or not you think the guy was sincere about him thinking Chris’ name was “Fredo” (doubtful, considering how often his name is shown on t.v. and social media) or he was really just heckling the guy, Cuomo took the bait and escalated things himself. He could’ve walked away, which would’ve been the smarter and more mature thing to do, but he let himself get dragged down to the other guy’s level. Certainly, threatening violence against the guy, even if he didn’t have any intention on doing anything, is not right.
 
And that’s what people on both sides of the aisle are missing: Cuomo THREATENED the guy with violence. CNN and the Left insist Cuomo was the victim of racism. He wasn’t and it’s, again, ridiculous at best and insulting at worst to claim he is the victim of racism. People like Jesse Kelly and Matt Walsh make the rational defense that people shouldn’t accost other people in public, particularly celebrities or pseudo-celebrities like Cuomo. Fair enough, and I agree, but again, half of the incident falls on Cuomo’s response to the accosting.
 
If the argument for Cuomo is that he was just standing up for himself, even then, there are better ways of doing it without 1) pretending you’re the victim of racism and 2) threatening violence. You can demand respect without asserting that you are willing to be violent.
 
And for those who might try and make some sort of argument about “Fredo” actually being a racial slur when directed at Italians, consider that multiple people in CNN have attacked others and called them “Fredo”. CNN’s Ana Navarro called Don Jr. “Fredo” live on Cuomo’s show, right in front of Cuomo, and he didn’t react in any way about it. If that name is a racial slur in any way, you would think he would’ve had some sort of problem with it being said on his show. Devin Nunes was also referred to as “Fredo” by CNN back in March by Rick Wilson and Don Jr. was also called “Fredo” by CNN’s David Gregory. Not once was there flak about it being a racial term. And all of a sudden, it’s racist to call someone “Fredo”? Give me a break.
 
And as far as the threat of violence goes, the Left and some people on the Right might try and ignore that, but it’s right there on video. Defend it as Cuomo “standing up for himself” all you want, but there are better ways to go about that whole situation. Even just threatening violence could give Cuomo some legal troubles, particularly as it was recorded and posted online, so being this quick to anger is never the right approach to take, regardless of whether or not he actually had done something to the guy. Even in the recording, Cuomo admits that throwing the guy down the stairs would lead to him getting sued, so he knows he shouldn’t actually do that, but the threat itself could put him in jeopardy.
 
Looking at the whole situation as objectively as I can, here is my final analysis:
 
   1) The unnamed guy was most likely heckling Cuomo and trying to provoke him. Given how the video was shot, with the phone down but the camera facing up, that’s likely the case. He might have been trying to get a picture of Cuomo and himself, selfie style, so that can explain the way the camera was facing, but not the actual recording of video. That’s a different thing entirely. The guy also didn’t do much to try and deescalate the situation. At one point, he said: “What are you going to do about it?” That’s a pretty obvious tell that he was trying to provoke Cuomo into doing *something*. If he actually thought Chris’ name was “Fredo”, you would think he would’ve apologized about the mistake and tried to deescalate the situation. He didn’t do that, so some of the blame definitely falls on the guy, as far as one can tell. 

     2) Cuomo reacted extremely poorly, was quick to anger, carelessly claimed the name was a racial insult against Italians when it most definitely is not and carelessly threatened violence against the guy, even if he knew actually doing anything would put him in great legal jeopardy. All for being called “Fredo”, which isn’t even an actual insult. This is the same guy who often draws comparisons (which are nonexistent) between Trump and Hitler. The same guy who attacked a Catholic kid for awkwardly grinning at a Native American protester who went up to the kid’s face to accost him. The same guy who completely supports ANTIFA and what they do. Cuomo can dish it out, but the minute he even perceives to be insulted in some manner, he blows his lid and threatens violence? And this was in front of his family too. 
 
In an objective manner, Cuomo isn’t entirely to blame for the situation, though he does bear much of it through his reaction alone. Had he gone about it differently, the situation wouldn’t have escalated like it did, or at least it would not have been his fault for the situation escalating. He did himself no favors by acting the way he did, even if he was “standing up for himself”. What he did was verbally attack a guy who, yes, was heckling him and provoking him a little, but it started because of the name “Fredo” being thrown at him. Nothing more than that.
 
While Cuomo may not have initiated the conflict here, he certainly did nothing to make the situation better. And considering how often he uses hateful language against other people, or allows hateful language against others on his own show, and considering he escalated things over being called a NAME, he doesn’t get sympathy from me. The Left and the MSM have applauded the heckling and driving away of conservatives from public spaces, so forgive me if my sympathy well is a bit dry.
 
James 1:19-20
“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of 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.

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

Throughout my time writing all of the articles I have written, I have expressed that the solution to pretty much all of life’s problems is to have faith in the Lord, who is in control of all things. That isn’t to say that turning to Christianity will make all your debt disappear or make you more money, but that is to say that Christ can be a magnificent source of comfort for the distressed, and going beyond that, can serve as a fantastic example of great moral character for people to follow.
 
And in the wake of mass shootings becoming fairly regular (not quite as much as people think and claim, but they are certainly more regular than they used to be), I have explained that a large part of the reason why these things happen with such frequency is that we no longer have a moral center and we live in a post-Christian America.
 
Guns have been around for centuries. And yet, mass shootings were far less prevalent decades ago. So no one can realistically claim that guns are the reason for shootings because there largely didn’t use to be anywhere near as many. They still happened, but were considerably less frequent.
 
So when a shooting happens, the biggest culprits that I can see are both mental health issues and the lack of a moral center in this country. And it appears as though Oprah Winfrey agrees with me on this.
 
Oprah was on her way to debuting her new show, “David Makes Man”, when “Extra TV” reporter Renee Bargh asked Winfrey what she thought of the shootings and what was the cause for all of this violence. Oprah replied: “I think what people are missing is a core moral center. Churches used to do that… It was a central place you could come to and there was a core center of values about a way of living and being in the world. Until we can return to that, however that is, in whatever form, we will continue to be lost.”
 
I was rather surprised to hear this coming from Oprah Winfrey of all people. With her being a notoriously Left-wing celebrity, I didn’t think she would resonate with anything regarding the church or Christianity. The fact that she has argued that you can be a Christian and a supporter of gay rights or abortion makes me think she really wasn’t a Christian at all.
 
But regardless, what she said is actually spot-on and perfectly right. The lack of Christ in people’s hearts leads them to evil. That isn’t to say Christians can’t do evil. We are all sinners and sin is evil, so Christians can, in fact, do evil. However, no Christian who understands what it means to be a Christian would ever commit such a heinous crime as a mass shooting or even a murder that wasn’t in self-defense. And as we live in a post-Christian America, seeing all of these shootings and all of this evil take place makes sense.
 
We have taken God out of our schools and out of our lives; God and His Word are relentlessly mocked as either being a “crutch” for unintelligent or weak people or being a bunch of nonsense and crazy stuff, or legends at best. Following that, morality was changed from objective, God-centered truth to subjective, society- and individual-centered belief. Unsurprisingly, this has led people to decide what is moral in their own eyes and according to what they believe and to attempt to argue against it is, ironically, considered morally wrong.
 
Because who are you to judge someone’s actions and preferences? Who are you to decide what is right and wrong for someone else? What people fail to realize here is that these questions wouldn’t even be asked if God were still a part of people’s lives because they would know just who judges people’s actions and preferences and who decides what is right and wrong.
 
But in this (seemingly successful) attempt to make morality subjective, the flood gates of evil and immorality are opened. It’s why we have had the sort of political path we’ve seen as of late. For decades, people have tried to argue that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Taking God out of people’s lives, starting from the schools, has allowed for the restructuring of what is considered “moral”. In today’s age, people adamantly argue there is really nothing wrong with being gay, with being transgender, with having sex before or even outside of marriage, and we are beginning to see more people argue that there is nothing wrong with having sex with a child or having your child be transgender at the age of THREE.
 
To argue against such lunacy brands YOU as the bad guy and the immoral one. So in all of this redefining of morality, you find people who commit mass murders and shootings more and more often. One of the things that have been deemed as moral is to allow for women to kill their own unborn children for any given reason. In this, life becomes utterly meaningless, and people find a “justifiable” reason in their minds to kill someone else as a result. “If life in the womb is meaningless, why would life outside it be meaningful?” is what people subsequently ask.
 
And before you try and tell me that murder has been around for far longer than abortions have, allow me to reiterate my overall point: THOSE THINGS ARE IMMORAL! Yes, murder was around long before abortion. Both are immoral and an abomination. What I’m saying is that abortion gives some people license to go out and kill others through the same sort of logic. Life is now meaningless, so who cares if people are shot and killed?
 
But of course, abortion isn’t the only thing to blame for this. The idea that we are all one massive cosmic accident (despite how utterly illogical that is) and that we are descendants of apes with no predetermined destiny or purpose for living also gives way for people to rationalize murder because life doesn’t ultimately matter.
 
All of these things come from taking God out of people’s lives, beginning in school. God is the arbiter for morality. Having created everything and being holy, holy, holy, He is the only being capable of determining what is moral. But if you eliminate God in people’s lives and leave them to determine was is moral for themselves, you get what we are currently seeing: evil running amok.
 
From men forcing women to wax their genitals to parents allowing their children to dress in drag and dance in front of grown men to justifying the murder of the unborn to even rationalizing and justifying a Hollywood movie about hunting down and killing people who disagree with you, when you take God out of a country’s soul, that soul begins to decay rapidly.
 
I believe I have said this before, but if there’s one thing I can agree with Joe Biden on is that we are definitely in a fight for this country’s soul. We are fighting for the country’s soul to belong to God while the Left is fighting for this country’s soul to belong to Satan. So like Oprah said, until we can find God once again, until we repent of our sins as a nation and beg for God’s blessings once again, we will be lost and vulnerable to the Devil.
 
These sorts of tragedies will continue happening until we return to the Lord as a country. No amount of gun control or mental health laws or red flag laws (which can easily be exploited, so unless there is a way to keep that from happening and keep it from targeting law-abiding gun owners, Christians and conservatives, red flag laws are a terrible idea, in my opinion) will fix this. Even CNN admitted that stronger background checks wouldn’t have stopped either the El Paso or the Dayton shooters from doing what they did, so that isn’t a solution either.
 
The solution, as with many other problems, is having faith in the Lord. We have seen what happened to the nation of Israel in times when it was faithful to the Lord – times of great victory and dominance over opposition – and when it was not faithful to the Lord – defeat after defeat at the hands of the enemy. No nation whose back is turned to the Lord will be blessed by Him. Our nation has been richly blessed by Him precisely because we had been faithful to Him, having slogans like “In God We Trust” and “God Bless America” and “One Nation, Under God” in our pledge of allegiance. But in recent time, all of those things have been attacked in one way or another, leading our nation to turn its back to God.
 
We cannot rightly ask God to bless this country when we have our backs to Him in such a way. So as a result, God brings curses to our country in various different forms, including these shootings and plenty of other things.
 
Until we return to being One Nation Under God – until we can Make America God’s Again – we will only continue to see such evil occurring as often as it is, perhaps even more so. I just pray that we do, one day, return to the Lord as a nation.
 
2 Chronicles 7:14
“If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

Following the two shootings that occurred over the weekend, President Donald Trump issued a televised statement from the White House condemning white supremacy, racism and hatred that likely fueled the shootings to take place, something the Left had been demanding Trump do following the tragedies. However, having done so, the Left is ticked off that he did, insists he is insincere and continues to spread the lie that Donald Trump is a racist white supremacist who enables people like the shooters (who both held Leftist beliefs) to commit those kinds of heinous acts.
 
But for a brief period of time, the New York Times actually acted like a news organization and planned to deliver a story surrounding the event in a relatively unbiased manner. Their original headline was: “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.”
 
I will share a few of the statements the President made shortly, but I would have to say that that is an apt summation of what was said. President Trump fully condemned the shooters, as well as the white supremacy ideology that likely fueled at least one of them. However, this unbiased headline was too “far-right” and too unbiased for the ever-so tolerant and not-at-all full of crap Leftists who are still subscribed to the paper.
 
Nate Silver from FiveThirtyEight, a notable far-Left source, tweeted: “Tomorrow’s NYT print edition. Not sure ‘TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM’ is how I would have framed the story.”
 
Him being a Leftist, that doesn’t surprise me. Neither does it surprise me that 2020 Dem hopefuls also announced their frustrations over the truthful headline.
 
Cory Booker tweeted: “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.”
 
Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted: “That’s not what happened.”
 
Allow me to briefly address the two failures. First, let’s start with what Not So Smarticus said, “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.”
 
Am I the only one getting 1984 vibes here? Cause to me, it sounds like a politician is shaming the publication for reporting the truth and insists that people’s lives are in danger as a result of it. Because, you see, the truth is dangerous. When people find the truth, they stop believing the lies. The lies that Donald Trump is a racist and a white supremacist. The lies that Donald Trump colluded with Russia. The lies that Republicans have blood on their hands when tragedies like these happen. And to me, it looks like Cory Booker is attempting to channel his inner Joseph Goebbels: “Let me control the media and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs.”
 
He doesn’t want the media to report on the truth because that has consequences dire to his agenda – to the Leftist agenda. Lives are not put into danger because the New York Times’ original headline featured objectivity and truth. Lives are not put into danger because the headline, for once, featured a Trump who offers unity (which he had been for years, but the MSM never reported on it, likely because of crap like this). But in the mind of a Leftist, Trump is Hitler (who was also an extreme Leftist, but no one will care to admit that on the Left) and as a result, to give him any sort of objectivity is the same as allowing him to start a Holocaust.
 
This is why they say ICE detention centers are “concentration camps”. Having lived their lives in the constant toxic bullcrap they spew, they started to believe it. They truly believe that Donald Trump is in any way comparable to Hitler, so to portray him objectively in any way would be the equivalent of giving Hitler a pass, in their minds.
 
This is how utterly corrupt these people are, and the reason I say that there is truly no longer freedom of the press. Constitutionally, and officially, there is freedom of the press as it is detailed in the First Amendment. But when news organizations are hit with so much blowback not only from other “journalists” but also politicians and people threatening to unsubscribe, the organizations under fire for reporting the truth no longer have the right to report freely.
 
So, they changed the headline to: “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.” Because of course the focus has to be on the guns. The two shooters held Left-wing ideologies. That can’t be mentioned whatsoever. The Left is lucky one of them was a white supremacist, because otherwise, they would have to avoid talking about motive, for the most part. They certainly avoid the Dayton shooter, who had very openly-Leftist social media activity before the shooting.
 
Now, let’s discuss what Kirsten Gillibrand thought of the original headline. To repeat, she tweeted: “That’s not what happened.”
 
Oh, isn’t it? I understand Leftists tend to live in their own world, but please at least try to provide evidence to back up your claims. You claim that Trump didn’t call for unity against racism? Well, what’s this then?:
 
“Together, we lock arms to shoulder the grief. We ask God in Heaven to ease the anguish of those who suffer. And we vow to act with urgent resolve… The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online, consumed by racist hate. In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul… In the two decades since Columbine, our nation has watched with rising horror and dread as one mass shooting has followed another, over and over again, decade after decade. We cannot allow ourselves to feel powerless. We can and will stop this evil contagion. In that task, we must honor the sacred memory of those we have lost, by acting as one people. Open wounds cannot heal if we are divided. We must seek real bipartisan solutions – we have to do that, in a bipartisan manner – that will truly make America safer and better for all.”
 
This is only a portion of what the President said recently, followed by similar remarks on social media. Exactly which part of this is him not trying to unite our country against racism? The part where we “lock arms to shoulder the grief”? The part where we “vow to act with urgent resolve”? The part where “our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy”? The part where we must act “as one people”? The part where our “wounds cannot heal if we are divided”? Or the part where “we must seek real bipartisan solutions… in a bipartisan manner… that will truly make America safer and better for all”?
 
Exactly how is the headline: “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” not a factual and accurate summation of what the President said? No, the President didn’t assail against guns because, as I said in my previous article covering these tragedies, that wouldn’t solve anything because guns are not the root cause of shootings. But in what way is the original headline in any way dangerous or fictitious? In the Left’s mind, any story that does not portray Trump as the literal devil is dangerous to their narratives and rhetoric and their opportunity to defeat him at any capacity. That’s the Left’s current goal: defeat Donald Trump at any cost.
 
Evidently, that comes even at the cost of a free press, but we already knew journalism was long dead. This just further proves that to be true.
 
John 8:44
“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
 
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.

​Over the weekend, the entire nation was rocked by two mass shootings happening within 24 hours of one another, a particular rarity.
 
A Walmart in El Paso, Texas was shot up by a white supremacist who has been reported as having been inspired by the Christchurch, New Zealand shooter and according to reports of the shooter’s supposed manifesto, was angry at the rise in the Hispanic population in Texas and decided to kill people, possibly targeting Latinos.
 
A bar in Dayton, Ohio was also shot up Sunday morning, though it’s unclear if the two are related (and it’s unlikely).
 
In all, around 30 people died to the combined mass shootings and plenty more were injured. Thankfully, it appears as though police were quick to stop the shooting in Dayton, which could have been more deadly.
 
Of course, as these are fairly-developing stories, the facts will come out as more time goes on and I likely won’t be able to cover as much as I would like. However, what is often expected and tedious following a mass shooting is the fact that the tragic event, which literally takes innocent people’s lives, gets politicized to the point where people who support the 2nd Amendment are accused of having blood on their hands for this.
 
Every. Single. Time. Whenever there is a shooting, the gun is immediately blamed. Not the shooter or his or her motivations (unless they are beneficial to the Left), but the gun. This has led, predictably, to Democrats calling on Congress to cancel the Summer recess in order to pass more gun control legislation that will neither serve to prevent the next tragedy nor serve to alleviate the mourning souls of the families of the victims. Why? Because that would be trying to cure a symptom rather than a disease.
 
What is to blame here isn’t the tool of destruction. Far more people die to automobiles, disease, stabbings, doctor malpractice, etc. than they do in shootings. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson understands this, having tweeted about it with some figures to back it up.
 
What is to blame isn’t as simple as “the gun did it” because that is not even remotely accurate. It was the person that did it and it was the lack of a strong mental health system in this country that gets us to this point (as well as other factors).
 
The Dayton shooter, according to schoolmates of his, had “kill” and “rape” lists. A massive red flag that has somehow been ignored.
 
But despite that, instead of addressing the actual issues like President Trump is doing, people are pointing fingers at each other. The Left-wing media will focus on the El Paso shooter because he is a white supremacist and they can use that as rhetoric against Trump, saying that it’s his own rhetoric that is similar to the shooter’s when nothing could be further from the truth.
 
The white supremacist shooter reportedly hates Hispanics. Trump does not hate Hispanics. The white supremacist shooter is a freaking white supremacist. Trump is not a white supremacist and has disavowed white supremacists well before he was even President. The white supremacist is a Leftist and Trump is not a Leftist.
 
But the media has been insisting for the past few years that Donald Trump is a white supremacist and as a result, Twitter hashtags like “#TrumpsTerrorists” arise, when placing the blame on him is idiotic (even though the El Paso shooter is a registered Democrat and he used Leftist language such as pro-climate change talking points where he said we were killing our planet, not that the Left will focus on that bit of the manifesto).
 
Simultaneously, they will ignore the Dayton shooter because he was a very open Leftist who often liked Leftists’ tweets and endorsed people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. On his Twitter bio, he did something only Leftists tend to do: identify himself as “he/him” to let people know what gender pronoun to use on him.
 
Beyond that, he literally had “leftist” in his Twitter bio. And he would often retweet and like tweets from Leftists such as the aforementioned Warren and Sanders, plus others who spew Leftist rhetoric surrounding the border, police, the ICE bomber being considered a martyr by ANTIFA, AOC calling the detention centers at the border “concentration camps”, and literally tweeted: “I want socialism, and I’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.”
 
Oh, and he also said he loved Satan.
 
Had this shooting been the only one to have happened, the MSM would’ve pretended nothing even happened. After all, the story on the Virginia baseball game shooter, who was targeting Republicans, died pretty quickly (and no one on the Left was blaming Bernie Sanders and his rhetoric, despite it basically promoting the attack of right-wingers).
 
Two mass shootings are what are being talked about, with one’s rhetoric taking center stage and the other’s being ignored.
 
Because white supremacy has often been taught to so many people as being a right-wing ideology (when history literally proves otherwise), the media will focus solely on the El Paso shooting and say it was Trump’s fault (2020 Dems have certainly already done this) and that it is his rhetoric that led the white supremacist (who is also a Leftist, I will remind) to target Latinos and Hispanics.
 
In reality, it’s the Left’s rhetoric that has endangered Latinos and Hispanics. In conflating legal immigrants with illegal ones, by simply saying that Trump’s rhetoric is “anti-immigrant”, it leads people to be equally as confused and believe that all Hispanics and Latinos are the same, whether they came here legally or illegally.
 
Of course, the vast majority of people are not quite so dumb, but as we are talking about people with clear mental health issues, it’s important to point this out: people’s lies and narratives have consequences.
 
The Left will talk at length about the El Paso shooter and try and blame Trump for it, all-the-while ignoring stories about Trump supporters being punched, harassed or otherwise mistreated just for being Trump supporters.
 
Donald Trump’s rhetoric is against illegal immigration, not because he doesn’t like illegals, but because he doesn’t like them breaking THE LAW to enter the country. If an illegal immigrant were to be deported and then come back in through legal means, all would be well. But the media insists that Trump’s rhetoric is entirely racially-based, which can lead to some people, such as the El Paso shooter, to believe Latinos don’t belong here and killing them is justifiable.
 
Now, having gotten that out of the way, I can imagine some people may be trying to say that I, myself, am politicizing a tragedy after telling people not to do so and will call me hypocritical. I am not politicizing a tragedy, merely responding to the politicization that has surrounded this tragedy already.
 
Like I said, every single time there is a mass shooting, the Left basically jumps for joy at the chance to use it for political gain. And if you think I’m exaggerating, Kamala Harris literally sent out a fundraising e-mail asking people for money following the tragedy, naming the El Paso and Dayton shootings in the e-mail. She is literally trying to profit from the tragedies, so don’t tell me that I shouldn’t say the Left is happy when shootings happen because they are.
 
It is a chance for them to insist we take action against gun ownership and purchases, when all that will do is hinder law-abiding citizens and help law-breakers in the long-run.
 
When tragedies like these happen, instead of putting our issues aside out of respect for the fallen and in mourning of them alongside the families and the communities, we further the divide that already exists and begin blaming people like Trump, the NRA, conservatives, gun owners, etc. Unless the shooter was a Muslim or a Leftist, in which case the Left jumps into defense mode to only attack the gun (and still blame conservatives somehow) while trying to shield Islam, hypocritically saying that not all Muslims are like this (which is true) and that Islam had nothing to do with it (not true) while attacking Trump and conservatives and saying shootings like last weekend’s have everything to do with our ideology.
 
Rather than be mourned over, victims of a tragedy are made into political tools to further the Left’s agenda. Rather than address the root causes of the problems, we focus on the tools used to bring death, destruction and desolation. A life lost is a life lost and it’s a tragedy, no matter the manner in which it was lost.
 
When there is a stabbing, people don’t tend to jump at the chance to spread “knife control” propaganda (unless you’re in the U.K.) because it is impossible to enforce (even full gun control is impossible to enforce, even if you were to get rid of the 2nd Amendment).
 
When there is a terrorist attack in which a vehicle was used to run people over, people don’t jump at the chance to spread “car control” because that would be stupid. It is only when a shooting happens when the actual tool is blamed more than the individual or individuals who perpetrated the heinous act of violence.
 
It doesn’t help anyone at any capacity because, again, you are not addressing the root cause. There are more guns in America than there are people, and while estimates vary, plenty of those are also illegal (far from the majority, but still) with some estimates saying there are over 100 million illegal firearms in the country (though it’s nearly impossible to accurately estimate unregistered and illegal guns, so take that figure with a grain of salt).
 
Still, given the estimates for gun ownership, such as the fact that there are 120.5 guns per 100 people in the U.S. (according to Small Arms Survey), meaning, statistically speaking, every person in the country owns at least one gun, it is quite clear that gun ownership and guns in and of themselves are not the problem, as we would all be long dead by now if they were.
 
Regardless of the estimates you may want to use for gun ownership and even illegal gun ownership, it’s quite evident that the problem lies elsewhere. Namely, mental health issues and, in my opinion, the fact that we live in a post-Christian America.
 
Ignoring and mocking God tends to have consequences for countries in terms of either being blessed by Him or being cursed by Him. And while I’m not usually one to claim that any given tragedy, man-made or natural, is because of our faithlessness to God, I understand that as He is the Sovereign King of the Universe, He has control over everything that happens, good or bad. And He has historically brought both blessing and curse to the people of Israel, blessing in time of faith and curse in time of disobedience to Him.
 
Regardless of whether or not you think that has anything to do with these shootings, one thing is clear: we must pray to God for healing. And while there may be those who say that “thoughts and prayers aren’t enough”, don’t pay them any attention because those are people who, themselves, are not faithful or pray to Him.
 
Prayer works, even if it’s not quite in the way we imagine. So we should continue to pray for the victims of the shootings, as well as their families and communities. Pray that they would be healed and that they would come to Him in their time of need, that those who might need saving would be saved and those who have already been saved may find comfort in Him.
 
I will only pay attention to those who would seek to divide us because it is my job to do so. Apart from that, I will also continue to pray to God that He might heal our nation and draw us closer to Him as one nation under God.
 
James 5:16
“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

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