As I have stated in the past, the Ukraine story is nothing more than a revamped version of the Russian collusion narrative, filled with nothing but lies and smears against Trump, accusing him of things he didn’t do, like trying to get “dirt” on Biden, which is a current Democrat talking point regarding the situation. Everything about it, from the whistleblower’s strange report to his connections to Democrats like Adam Schiff and Joe Biden, reeks of a not-so-silent coup attempt by the Democrats.
 
But despite every negative thing under the sun that the Democrats can throw at Trump, regardless of the circumstance or the setting, the President enjoys pretty normal approval ratings.
 
Looking at Rasmussen’s Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, we find that Donald Trump’s approval rating sits at 50%, which is rather normal for his administration. Compare that to even just a week ago, when his approval rating stood at 47%, also despite the negative coverage and the constant attacks from the press and from Democrats.
 
The President had enjoyed a recent high of 53% approval, around the time the Ukraine call “scandal” was brought up by Democrats and shortly before Trump released the transcript to the call, showing that there was no actual quid pro quo, nor any other type of crime that can be pointed out, despite what Democrats and the media might try to convey (likely a part of the reason as to why Pelosi decided not to have a formal impeachment inquiry vote in the House).
 
Following that, his approval rating dipped down a bit, falling to a recent low of 46%, but far from terrible, or even his record-low in the Rasmussen poll of 39%.
 
Considering it is currently sitting at 50% and around that area, it’s pretty easy to tell that this latest attempt at destroying Donald Trump is yet another one of the Democrats’ many, many duds. Russian hacking didn’t work, Russian collusion didn’t work, Stormy Daniels didn’t work, campaign finance violations accusations didn’t work, calling him “Hitler” hasn’t worked, and now, the Ukraine call “scandal” isn’t working.
 
And with the strategies that Democrats are incorporating in their campaigns, that of trashing Trump and promising to get rid of him, likely won’t work either. Moody’s Analytics has Trump winning in a landslide in all three of their models if things maintain course (with one showing Trump narrowly losing only if Democrat turnout is high and the economy is in the toilet, as in, if it crashes by 12% shortly before Election Day).
 
There is still a little over a year before the 2020 election happens, and a lot can happen in that span of time. It’s still not entirely clear who the Democrat nominee will be, with Biden seemingly losing some ground to Elizabeth Warren. However, regardless of who the Democrat nominee will be, if things stay relatively as they are today, even if just a little bit worse (Moody’s predicts that even a 9% crash in the stock market would still give Trump the win, even if it’s a bit closer than the other models, which show Trump winning by a bigger landslide than he did in 2016), it’s more likely than not that Donald Trump will come out of the 2020 election having been re-elected as President of the United States, which will most definitely send the media into a frenzy.
 
And it’s pretty clear, at this point, that if all the Democrats have is nothing but lies and accusations, that will definitely not be enough to destroy Trump, no matter what the Left might want. There’s a reason why even some Leftists believe that impeaching Trump will lead to his re-election in 2020. It’s not what Americans want, regardless of what the heavily-skewed Fox News poll might show.
 
President Trump is popular, even more so than Obama at the same point in his own presidency, who only had 45% approval at the time. That is a fact that no Leftist wants to acknowledge, even if doing so is to their detriment.
 
Deuteronomy 28:7
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The socialist lunatic Bernie Sanders is one of the most popular Democrat candidates for college students, enjoying 31% total approval and a three-point lead over Elizabeth Warren in a College Pulse election tracker poll. I can’t say I’m surprised, considering the socialist training camp that colleges and universities are in this day and age.
 
Regardless, as he is a very popular candidate, when students were asked to guess how much money Bernie gave to charity (with him being a millionaire and railing against the 1% for not “paying their fair share”), they believed he gave a good amount of his money to charity. After all, if he himself is so seemingly passionate about millionaires and billionaires giving as much money as possible, he ought to lead by example, right?
 
Answers to the question varied, with some believing he gave around 7 or 10% of his total income, some believing he gave upwards of 20%, and one believing he gave 75% of his total income to charity.
 
Clearly, with the sort of message Bernie gives, he is expected to live by the very ethos he spews. But the students were ultimately shocked to find that Bernie Sanders gave very little of his money to charity. As in, absurdly little, even by millionaire standards.
 
You see, according to tax returns that were released earlier this year, Bernie Sanders made $1,073,333 in a single year. Clearly, he’s doing pretty well for himself. Now, can you guess how much of that he actually gave to charity? Given the title, you might expect very little. Maybe 5%, or 4% or even 1%.
 
Well, he gave only $10,600. That’s less than 1%. More specifically, he gave 0.98% of his money to charity.
 
A few students acknowledged that it was “hypocritical” of Bernie to preach about the rich paying their “fair share” when he, himself, gives so little to charity.
 
Another student, funny enough, seemed to have retracted some of her support for Bernie after finding out the truth about his greed. Earlier in the video, she had said that she thinks he’s “definitely progressive… I think he’s what our country needs at this point.” However, she later backtracked that support by saying: “I’m not a particular Bernie fan.”
 
She also acknowledged the hypocrisy surrounding Bernie in this instance.
 
Another student even went so far as to roast Bernie for it, saying: “Well, he’s always talking about the one percent, maybe that’s the one percent he gave to charity.”
 
Now, one student defended Bernie, saying that it’s “his money, he can do what he wants with it.” Generally speaking, I agree. People should be allowed to do what they want with the money they earn. However, when they do that while simultaneously telling others how they CAN’T do that and how they HAVE to pay their “fair share”, then that comes across as highly hypocritical and utterly phony.
 
It’s sort of like this whole situation with China and the NBA. NBA players can speak freely and criticize whomever they want, but will shut up when doing so would affect their bank accounts. You can’t call Trump a “dictator” while also ignoring the actual dictatorial behavior and actions of Xi “Winnie the Pooh” Jinping.
 
You can’t lecture the 1% about “paying their fair share” when you give LESS THAN 1% OF YOUR OWN MONEY TO CHARITY! And yet, that’s precisely what Bernie Sanders does.
 
It’s disgustingly hypocritical and he should be called out on it and forced to address it. “Why do you talk about the 1% paying their ‘fair share’ when you yourself gave less than 1% of your money to charity? Would it be fair to say that you are not paying your ‘fair share’, then, by your own logic, Senator Sanders?” That’s the kind of question I would LOVE to hear from any reporter or journalist who actually had a spine, but we won’t, sadly.
 
Another student also came to Bernie’s defense, somewhat, by saying: “I don’t believe that the best way to help the poor is by giving to charity… The best way to support the poor is through systematic intervention – government intervention.”
 
Yeah, I believe the Venezuelan people, Chinese people, Russian people, Cuban people and any people who live under communist rule would want a word with you, fella.
 
How exactly does government intervention help the poor? By killing two infants after visiting a “wellness” clinic run by the government and having 24 other infants in “critical condition”? Because that’s what happened in communist Cuba recently.
 
By killing infant children despite the wishes of the parents just because the doctors deem further treatment to be “futile”? Because that’s what’s happening in Great Britain.
 
By having 90% of the population living in poverty? Because that’s what’s happening in Venezuela, according to a UN report.
 
How exactly does government intervention help anyone in anything? All we ever see, historically, is what a massive mistake it is to give the government so much control over people’s lives and livelihoods.
 
The government doesn’t lift people out of poverty; it does the exact opposite. Socialism doesn’t create – it only takes and destroys.
 
But getting back on the topic of Bernie Sanders, it’s pretty obvious that he is a massive hypocrite. If the fact he owns three homes wasn’t enough of an indication of that reality, or the fact that he made over a million dollars in a year, or the fact that, as a result of being a millionaire, he went from saying millionaires shouldn’t get tax breaks in 2015 to attacking millionaires and billionaires in 2016 and ’17 and then attacking only billionaires in 2019, then surely, the fact that he only gives 1% of his money to charity ought to spell it out pretty clearly.
 
Unfortunately, most Bernie supporters will not care to find out how much (or little) Bernie gave to charity, only taking in the words he speaks and believing them to be gospel, or will outright not believe it when someone reveals how little he gives to charity, so it’s not like this is going to hurt his candidacy so much.
 
However, you and I know the truth about Bernie Sanders: he’s the very “greedy capitalist” he demonizes and claims to despise. Even more so, considering the average millionaire gives 5.6% of his money to charity and Bernie gives so little, even by that comparison.
 
And while spreading that news around might not hurt him very much, it’s rather clear that at least some people might be a bit more hesitant about Bernie in the future. Again, one of the students said that Bernie was what we “needed” before finding out how little he gave and went on to say she wasn’t much of a “Bernie fan”.
 
Yeah, one could argue she was just trying to save face, but who knows how many people might find this truth about him and rethink their support for Bernie? Again, it likely wouldn’t be a lot, given that a couple of people in the Campus Reform video itself (below) came to Bernie’s defense in one way or the other, but not everyone thinks the same way.
 
The first step is education. The Left has taken that over and is the biggest reason for any success over the last 50 years.
 
Romans 2:3
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The New York Times, ever-so full of integrity and without a shred of disgusting hypocrisy to be found, discovered a YouTube video made by pro-Trump meme-maker Carpe Donktum that depicts the character of a movie called Kingsman: The Secret Service with a superimposed picture of Trump on him killing various people inside a church who all have pictures of various news organizations, Left-wing organizations and even Leftist politicians superimposed on to them.
 
The video, as it featured a superimposed Trump committing violent acts against the media and his typical critics, drew outrage from said media people.
 
CNN released a statement that said: “Sadly, this is not the first time that supporters of the President have promoted violence against the media in a video they apparently find entertaining – but it is by far and away the worst. The images depicted are vile and horrific. The President and his family, the White House, and the Trump campaign need to denounce it immediately in the strongest possible terms. Anything less equates to a tacit endorsement of violence and should not be tolerated by anyone.”
 
Well, the White House did issue a statement on it denouncing the violence depicted in the video, which they claim has not been seen by the President. But here are a few things to note about this whole ordeal:
 
First of all, the video had been up for 16 MONTHS on YouTube before this. The only reason it’s being brought to anyone’s attention is because it was played at the American Priority Conference, a pro-Trump conference in Trump’s Doral resort. However, the video was not played to the public. It was played on a couple of screens inside a big, empty room and the video itself had less than 100,000 views on YouTube before the NYT brought attention to it.
 
Second, what a load of crap CNN is. The past “promotions of violence against the media” they describe are, at worst, depicting Trump doing wrestling moves against the media. Back in July of 2017, CNN cried “foul” over a meme by Carpe Donktum that shows Trump wrestling someone with the CNN logo superimposed on them. It was pure entertainment and very obviously fake.
 
Third, how is it that the video of Trump being depicted killing MSM and political opponents is considered a depiction of violence, but the actual movie that had a guy kill church-goers (who had been driven mad by a chemical released by an environmentalist super-villain) is not considered a depiction of violence against church-goers?
 
 
Similarly, what about the countless times members of ANTIFA have physically assaulted Trump supporters, members of the media (if you want to talk about violence against the media), elderly people and all-around anyone they can possibly find to try and intimidate because they are terrorists? Is that not considered violence?
 
Or what about the Trump rendition of “Julius Caesar” that was SPONSORED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES that shows a character whose likeness resembles Trump an awful lot being assassinated, Julius Caesar style, and calling that art? Is that not considered a depiction of violence?
 
And what about Snoop Dogg making a music video where he “shoots” someone who is very clearly supposed to represent Donald Trump, with a suit, a red tie, blonde hair, an orange face and clown make-up? Doesn’t that depict an “act of violence” against Trump?
 
All of these things either go unreported by the fake news media or are SUPPORTED by the fake news media as being “art” or “entertainment” or something else. I still remember MSNBC host Nicole Wallace saying that ANTIFA were “good people” on “the side of angels” for what they did at Charlottesville.
 
Tell me what’s worse: a very obvious meme video of Trump “killing” fake news and political opponents, or actual acts of physical violence not only against Trump supporters but anyone the ANTIFA terrorists can try and get away with harming, possibly even killing if they could?
 
What’s worse: a meme video of a scene in an action movie being repurposed for the sake of the meme, or plays, videos and pictures of a murdered President Donald Trump? And in case anyone’s forgotten, Kathy Griffin took a picture of herself holding a paper mache version of Trump’s bloodied and severed head, in a picture that honestly makes you think someone from ISIS could’ve taken.
 
The meme video might be in poor taste, all things considered, but regardless of what one can say about it, it’s nowhere near as bad as the things THE LEFT CONSTANTLY DOES. And for the fake news media to feign outrage over this, or to have actual outrage over this, all-the-while ignoring what ANTIFA is doing to Trump supporters, ignoring what Leftist voters are doing to Trump supporters (how many people have had to leave a restaurant or other public place because of their support for Trump?), or even ENDORSING these things is outright disgusting.
 
Do you want to know why I never had a problem with Trump calling the media the “enemy of the people”? Because he was exactly right and every day proves it even more.
 
It’s not just the fake news stories that serve to misinform people (the Russian collusion story, despite having no weight to it, is still believed by most people who still watch their crap), but it’s their very actions and words too.
 
Donny Deutsch calling Trump and his supporters “Hitler” and “Nazis” may be nothing new, but it’s still outrageous because of the sort of danger it puts us in. The idea of “punching Nazis in the face” is seen as perfectly acceptable because these people actually think we are Nazis when they are the ones far closer to that sort of ideology than we are.
 
Let’s not forget that the Virginia baseball shooter only did what he did in trying to kill as many Republicans as he could because Bernie Sanders had him convinced Republicans were going to kill him and many others by “taking away their healthcare”.
 
Let’s not forget that the ICE fire bomber only did what he did because of AOC’s stance against ICE.
 
I’m not going to directly blame these politicians for the actions of their supporters, but they can’t claim that Trump uses inflammatory and dangerous language while calling him Hitler and us Nazis in the same sentence. They can’t say that Trump is hateful when they openly demonize law enforcement agencies who are only doing what they are SUPPOSED TO DO.
 
For the New York Times, CNN and other news outlets to cry “victim” over the MEME VIDEO THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN is, itself, the actual outrage, considering their track record.
 
How is a Donald Trump rendition of “Julius Caesar”, where Trump is brutally assassinated, considered “art” and “entertainment” and a silly video of a movie scene with Trump and his political opponents superimposed onto the actual characters of the movie is considered as “depicting violence” against the media?
 
I’ll tell you how: these people are utterly narcissistic.
 
Remember when the media lambasted a rodeo because someone had a Barack Obama mask that kind of mocked him even though they had also mocked George W. Bush?
 
Compare and contrast the two presidents then: Obama? Can’t even make fun of him. Trump? Can show him brutally assassinated and it’s considered “art” and it’s sacred.
 
The Left is full of hypocritical narcissists who wouldn’t know a joke if they had a debate stage full of them.
 
John 3:20
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​The ever-crazy woke Left has made many spicy claims about a number of things being racist, sexist, homophobic, violent or any combination of all of them. Among these strange takes are the claim that a fantasy football auction was racist, that libraries are racist, that outdoor sports clubs are racist, that honoring a white man who helped black people is racist, that wanting a healthy body makes you a Nazi and that Disney’s “The Lion King” is fascist.
 
Now, we find another equally-as-ridiculous claim by a socialist professor who clearly is lacking in the mental health department.
 
You see, according to a University of Washington professor, the aquatic lifeform that lives in a pineapple under the sea is racist, sexist, “violent” and perpetuates colonialist thought and cultural appropriation.
 
You cannot make this stuff up.
 
In an academic journal, the professor explains that the fictional setting of Bikini Bottom is problematic because it is based on the nonfictional Bikini Atoll, a coral reef in the Marshall Islands which were used by the U.S. military to test nuclear bombs during the Cold War. The U.S. government, in order to use the area, had to relocate the people indigenous to the region and those indigenous people could never return because of the copious amounts of radiation.
 
This, in the lunatic professor’s mind, means that SpongeBob SquarePants, even if not intending to, represents colonialism on the part of America because the indigenous people of the area had to be relocated.
 
Now, call me crazy, but I think relocating an indigenous people somewhere far away from the site of nuclear detonations is the better option between that and letting them remain there until the nukes kill them. The U.S. didn’t have much of a choice as to where to test its nuclear arsenal because a lot of people live in different places and it’s better to move relatively smaller populations than to commit a nuclear holocaust.
 
Professor Barker, the lunatic professor in question, further tried to argue that SpongeBob had the “privilege” of “not caring about the detonation of nuclear bombs,” because one of the show’s writers, in explaining SpongeBob’s character, said the sentient sponge was “a guy who could get super excited about a napkin but wouldn’t care if there was an explosion outside.”
 
Because of this, Barker argues that “the detonations do not cause concern for the characters, as they did for the Bikinians, nor do they compromise SpongeBob’s frequent activities, like visiting hamburger joints or the beach with friends.”
 
Now, someone has to REALLY hate fun in order to seriously make any of these arguments and the ones that I will further share.
 
In case it’s not apparent to this University professor, who probably teaches her students the wonders of Marxism and veganism and is responsible for the “education” of many young people (God help them), SpongeBob SquarePants is a FICTIONAL CARTOON CHARACTER!
 
I don’t know how much clearer it can be based on the fact that he is two-dimensional and a TALKING AND WALKING SEA SPONGE!
 
The character was written as being a complete dunce, and as seasons went on, got even dumber. It’s an outright meme how dumb he is, when in one episode, you can see SpongeBob and Patrick celebrating over “saving Bikini Bottom” while it’s literally on fire and explosions are happening, as shown below:

​But that scene is clearly played for a joke, which everyone gets and because it’s a fictional cartoon, so it doesn’t matter, at the end of the day, what happens to the city. By the end of the episode, the city will be just fine, no one ever really dies on the show, at least on-screen. It makes ZERO sense to accuse A FICTIONAL CARTOON SPONGE of having “privilege”.
 
But that’s not all she has to complain about. No, Leftists never run out of things to complain about.
 
She also tried to argue that, and bear with me here, SpongeBob and his friends continually perpetuate past injustices to the indigenous people through their “occupation and reclaiming” of the show’s nonfictional “Goo Lagoon”, what is essentially an underwater beach.
 
This, Barker argues, means that the setting of the show and the fact that “Goo Lagoon” is a place SpongeBob and his friends frequent is “symbolic violence” against indigenous people.
 
Furthermore, Barker insists that “although the U.S. government removed the people of Bikini from the atoll above the surface, this does not give license to SpongeBob or anyone else, fictitious or otherwise, to occupy Bikini.”
 
Basically, the place is off-limits to even cartoon characters because the U.S. military relocated the indigenous people so they could test nukes. That is the kind of illogical argument this woman is trying to make.
 
Barker added: “SpongeBob’s presence on Bikini Bottom continues the violent and racist expulsion of Indigenous peoples from their lands (and in this case their cosmos) that enables U.S. hegemonic powers to extend their military and colonial interests in the postwar era.”
 
Now, if you thought THAT was crazy, hold on because it gets worse. Not only is SpongeBob violent and racist for existing in Bikini Bottom, but the show is also guilty of “cultural appropriation of iconic Pacific Island representations” when they show that SpongeBob lives inside a pineapple and Squidward lives inside an Easter Island-like statue.
 
Barker also has problems with the theme song of the show because “the viewer becomes an unwitting participant in the co-opting of Bikini’s story and the exclusion of the Bikinian people.”
 
And while Barker does say that the creators of the show likely didn’t intend to be this “racist”, she does say that the area is “not theirs for the taking.”
 
I don’t know how much clearer it can be that this “argument” – and I give it a lot of undeserved credence by calling it that, even in quotation marks – doesn’t work because it’s A) a fictional town filled with sentient fish, and B) underneath the actual coral reef of the area where Indigenous people were, so there were never any Indigenous people in the FICTIONAL TOWN FILLED WITH SENTIENT FISH!
 
But moving on from this, the show is also largely sexist because Sandy Cheeks is the only female character in the main cast and Barker claims that the only reason Sandy exists in the first place is to boost gender diversity in the show.
 
Even the fact that SpongeBob is called “Bob” is problematic in her eyes because the name “Bob” “represents the everyday man, a common American male, muck like a ‘Joe’”. So any person named “Bob” or “Joe” represents the common American male, and that is apparently a bad thing.
 
Anyone want to mention to her that the current frontrunner for the Democrat nomination is named “Joe”? And he definitely does not represent the common American male. His policies and his mannerisms attempt to completely trash and abandon the common American male because that’s what his lunatic, extremist Party demands.
 
Now, I just have to ask: how does anyone possibly come up with nonsense like this without taking an insane amount of drugs? Because this is not what a normal, reasonable and at least average-intelligence human being theorizes.
 
Fans of the show, interestingly enough, theorized that the lore behind SpongeBob and the origin of Bikini Bottom is a result of those nuclear detonations and that the residents of Bikini Bottom sprung up as a result of the radiation from those nukes.
 
But one must really hate any and all kinds of fun and entertainment to try and claim that SpongeBob SquarePants is racist, sexist and a representation of American “colonialism” and injustice against Indigenous people simply because of the setting the show is BASED on.
 
Love or hate the cartoon, no one even reasonably sane would try and seriously levy these arguments on social media, let alone IN AN ACADEMIC JOURNAL!
 
If anyone made these arguments on social media, or even on mainstream media, they’d be laughed at and ridiculed to high heaven, so for a university professor to write this is particularly sad and troubling when you think about it.
 
Like I said before, this woman is a university professor, meaning that she has students whom she teaches. If this is what she has to say about A NICKELODEON CARTOON, I can’t imagine what she might say about things like capitalism, social justice, Karl Marx, Trump, etc. (though I doubt they stray too far from things like “orange man bad” or “communism is better than capitalism”).
 
If you remember, I mocked the Washington Post columnist who argued that “The Lion King” was fascistic. But the difference between someone like that barnacle-head and this one is that this one influences younger generations and molds their minds to what she wants.
 
Obviously, not everyone she teaches likely will be molded into her very own Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth), but considering how radical-Leftist many college students are, I can see that people like her are a major reason for it.
 
I’ve long maintained that colleges aren’t places of education but rather indoctrination, as dissent and opposing thought is largely shut down and utterly maligned in most college campuses. When arguments and opposing thought are banned, this is the kind of nonsense that springs up: calling things that have literally nothing to do with racism racist.
 
If you want to know why half of Millennials are socialists, there is your answer. They are being TAUGHT by professors who find everything racist, including their own skin tone if they are white (and most of them are). They are being molded into communists by these people, not because it makes sense, but because the alternative is not only not taught, but basically banned from colleges and publicly demonized.
 
Violence against conservatives in college campuses are rather routine and any conservative’s attempt at letting their opinions be heard is more-often-than-not shut down by either other students or even campus faculty and police.
 
This is the danger of an unchecked and unopposed Left. They dictate what the rules are and what they aren’t. Even progressives aren’t exactly safe, because what used to be considered progressive in the past is not considered “progressive enough” today. You are branded a homophobe, racist Nazi if you oppose transgenderism or pedophilia, even if you support gay marriage.
 
Even Ellen DeGeneres caught some major heat from radical Leftists for hanging out with former President George W. Bush during a football game. While Bush is hardly a conservative, he is considered a war criminal by the radical Left, so DeGeneres, one of the Left’s biggest stars because she is simultaneously a woman and gay (yes, that’s basically all it takes), is maligned for even trying to be friendly to Bush.
 
The Left is the epitome of hatred and evil, if these two things don’t make that case enough. To claim a fictional sea sponge is racist just because he lives in a fictional town UNDERNEATH the site of a nuclear test that forced Indigenous people to move because the military didn’t want to nuke them is utterly ridiculous at the least.
 
It’s crazy that in a website about politics and religion, I am forced to defend SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS from uber-Left lunatics trying their hardest to be “woke”.
 
May God help the students that this crazy woman teaches and may God help the woman herself, as she clearly is in serious need of the Love of God.
 
1 Peter 3:9
“Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

With the Democrat Party’s efforts to insist to the American people that President Trump committed impeachable offenses during his phone call with Ukraine (despite the fact the transcript is public and anyone with an internet connection can tell nothing of the sort occurred), Fox News, which always has Trump’s numbers in the gutter, released a recent poll that said 51% of Americans wanted President Trump impeached and removed from office.
 
However, there are a number of problems with that poll.
 
For starters, the sample size is rather small, with 1,003 registered voters. That’s not incredibly small, but smaller than others such as Rasmussen, who tend to have 1,500 registered voters.
 
But the most important aspect is the sample of political affiliation. It’s not hard to get 51% saying Trump needs to be impeached and removed from office when you poll 48% Democrats, 40% Republicans and 12% Independents.
 
There are far more Democrats than Republicans or Independents in this poll (likely on purpose) for this to really be an accurate belief for the majority of American people.
 
Literally all you need is all Democrats and a couple Never Trump Republicans and Left-leaning Independents to achieve 51%.
 
And the kicker? The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. In other words, it could easily still be 48% of Americans want Trump impeached and removed from office, which interestingly enough, is the same percentage of Democrats polled in this survey.
 
Obviously, Fox News is trying to tell Republicans to abandon Trump, as “a majority of Americans favor impeachment and removal” of Trump. But when you get into the details of the survey, you find it to be nothing but a farce.
 
Oversampling Democrats is what all fake news polls do every single time to make the numbers appear to be better or worse, depending on the narrative they want the poll to drive.
 
It’s what multiple polls did throughout 2016, when some polls had Hillary ahead of Trump by DOUBLE DIGITS at the very least and running away with the election. Obviously, that didn’t happen.
 
Rasmussen was the only one that accurately predicted the 2016 election and in their survey, while Trump’s numbers are down a tad, it’s nothing major.
 
Trump’s approval currently stands at 47%. While that’s lower than the low-50s that Trump tends to enjoy, that is actually relatively normal for the President.
 
It’s necessary to note that this is a daily tracking poll of Trump’s approval, which will naturally tend to be rather volatile from day to day. Just two days ago, it was at 45% and it’s been hovering in the high-40s since the beginning of the month a couple of weeks ago.
 
And this is all coming off of the Democrats’ latest attempt at smearing Trump, with suggesting, without evidence, that Trump broke the law during his July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
 
No doubt, the allegation has damaged Trump a little bit, but nowhere close to what the fake news media suggests or would want to be real.
 
Again, the Fox News survey sampled far more Democrats than Republicans or Independents. And even then, they barely got a majority out of the total number.
 
I know very well that the Democrats and their voters want to get rid of Donald Trump. Impeachment is something they’ve been wanting heavily since Trump won in the first place, before the Russian collusion narrative was even formed. They wanted him gone just for winning and that’s still the case, even if they fall back on Ukraine or Russia being the reason.
 
But the rest of America doesn’t seem to be with them, considering that only 39% of Independents said Trump should be impeached and removed and 47% disagreed IN THIS VERY POLL. My guess would be that the real number of people who want Trump impeached and removed from office is somewhere in the mid-to-high-30s or low-40s, if all things are equal.
 
The reason for this line of thinking, apart from the obvious oversampling and poll-manipulating tactics used by Fox News, is that Rasmussen poll.
 
47% is, again, pretty normal for Trump. Heck, despite everything being thrown at him, he still enjoys a better approval rating than Obama did at the same point in his own presidency.
 
In October 2011, President Barack Obama’s approval rating stood at only 42%. And he didn’t have the media with over 90% negative news coverage of him spreading fake news stories about trying to dig up dirt on his political opponents and working with foreign governments to meddle in a presidential election (ironic that he did those things, at least for 2016).
 
Trump has the radical Leftist fake news media trying to destroy him, Fox News hosts who hate his guts and will lie about him just as badly as the rest of the Left, Never Trump Republicans like Mitt Romney pushing for impeachment, and still, despite all of that, he is a more popular president than Barack Obama.
 
Is it any wonder, at this point, why trust in the media is at such an all-time low? When the people whose job is to report reality are trying, instead, to shape it and convince people of a fantasy, what credibility do those people have? What reason does anyone have to trust what Chuck Todd or Jim Acosta or Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper or David Brooks or Shepherd Smith or Neil Cavuto or any of these bozos have to say when all they do is attempt to deceive their audience with poorly-researched pieces, opinion-laden “news” articles and minimal effort in verifying the credibility of the sources they use? Or when they oversample Democrats BY 8 PERCENTAGE POINTS MORE THAN REPUBLICANS IN A SURVEY ABOUT OVERALL AMERICAN VOTER SENTIMENT?!
 
The hiring of Donna Brazile and Paul Ryan are quite symbolic of the kind of organization Fox News is: Never Trump, far-Leftist, Washington Establishment bullcrap.
 
Without people like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Judge Jeanine Pirro, Fox News would sink to the ground.
 
And they would completely deserve it.
 
Psalm 52:2
“Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Much as that might sound like the beginning to a punchline of a joke, this is what happened earlier this week as the Supreme Court of the United States began to hear oral arguments regarding whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to transgenders in the workplace.
 
On one side are the progressive uber-Leftists who are trying to force the transgender agenda down Americans’ throats and on the other, we find conservatives, lesbian feminists and former transgenders fighting back against it.
 
You know an issue is particularly important and major if conservatives and lesbian feminists are fighting ON THE SAME SIDE.
 
While the Supreme Court Justices were hearing oral arguments inside the High Court, on the steps of the building were demonstrators and protesters on both sides of the issue, each trying to make their case in public.
 
Walt Heyer is one of these people, making his case against the transgender agenda. And while nutcase Leftists might try and pin him as a transphobe or a sexist or what-have-you, there is particular reason to hear his testimony: he, himself, used to be a transgender woman (biological male to female).
 
Heyer recounted: “It all started when I was four-years-old and my grandmother started crossdressing me and I enjoyed it very much. But that crossdressing started a confusion within me about who I was. And it was in 1944, before we had any words like gender dysphoria. I was just a confused kid that was being affirmed by my grandmother who actually caused me to have this tremendous confusion, which started this journey to transgenderism.”
 
Heyer said that he uncovered the truth about his life when he began studying to become a counselor: “I wanted to be a therapist. So I studied at U.C. Santa Cruz and realized in studying the books in the stacks that people who identified with gender identity disorder had mental disorders. And I thought we’re not approaching this from the right direction. We need to be addressing the co-morbid problems that are causing people to believe they’re a different gender. It seems to be compassionate to me to reach out to those people and actually guide them in the right direction and not fill their bodies with hormones and cut body parts off and rearrange everything in their lives so their lives are totally destroyed.”
 
Heyer also has a website called sexchangeregret.com and he says that hundreds of thousands of people have visited it. “Today, we have a worldwide ministry that reaches over 300 million people a year and people now are de-transitioning by the hundreds,” said Heyer
 
In the site, Heyer also recounts what he went through, having had gender reassignment surgery in 1983 but being left unsatisfied and then de-transitioning back to male 25 years ago. He is now happily married for 20 years to a woman, but he recognizes the permanent damage that surgery caused to his body, having to take hormones now to “try to regulate a system that is permanently altered,” according to Heyer.
 
The site also notes the fact that males have XY chromosomes, even those who are transgender women, and that the genes responsible for the determination of sex, SRY, and the genes that determine possible male infertility, AZF a, b, and c, are not found to be abnormal in transsexual people, meaning there is no biological reason for people to be transgender.
 
If you want to read more of Heyer’s testimony, go to this Breitbart News link: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/08/former-transgender-woman-on-sex-change-regret-people-are-de-transitioning-in-the-hundreds/.
 
Moving on to lesbian feminists, however, we also find another great speech.
 
The speech was given by Natasha Chart, a feminist writer at FeministCurrent.org, and while her speech was relatively long and I can’t share everything she said, here are the main points:

• Feminists and lesbians who speak out against men sexually harassing women while those men claimed to be women are accused of “perpetrating genocide” (one of the Left’s most recent accusations they love to throw out when they can) and risk being banned on social media and being fired over fighting back against this kind of abuse.

 

• Transgenderism is harmful for children, as the hormones that are being forcefully injected into children leave them sterilized for life, chemically castrate young boys and lead young girls into unnaturally-early menopause, and overall give children totally irreversible treatment.

 

• A man can never be a woman any more than a lesbian can ever be male, and to force women to submit to these types of norms under the transgender movement is the very abuse women have been fighting for centuries.

 
If you wish to read her full speech, here is the link: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/08/watch-feminist-speaks-against-transgender-ideology-i-will-not-submit/.
 
But what she says is completely right and insanely powerful. I’ve already noted how feminists get banned from Twitter if they speak out against men in women’s sports and other transgender issues. And the risk of transgender bathroom laws, as I have always maintained, is that women are put into the precarious situation where they might be raped or sexually assaulted.
 
Chart herself noted in her speech: “If a woman complains that a man has dropped his trousers in front of her at a job, the left will shout ‘Me Too!’ in solidarity, and he’ll be cancelled. If a woman complains because he dropped his trousers in front of her at a gym locker, but he says he’s a woman, they’ll cancel her. Is that kind?”
 
Basically, transgender bathroom laws, despite their supposed intentions, leave women at risk of being raped or sexually assaulted and without the ability to hold the man accountable because of identity politics (and yes, Chart railed on the hypocrisy of the Left more than in just this instance).
 
The transgender agenda gives license to rapist and sexually-deviant men to get away with whatever they want and have the Left side with them. Only look at someone like “Jessica Yaniv”, the transgender “woman” who is all-too happy to sue a wax parlor because the female worker would not touch his male genitals.
 
Because of cases like Yaniv, is it really so surprising to see conservatives, lesbian feminists and former transgenders – who discovered the grim reality of what gender reassignment and transgenderism bring someone – fighting on the same side against a highly-dangerous and morally-evil agenda?
 
I’m not sure if I have stated this previously, as I have said a lot of things at this point in my career, but I have felt for a while that the transgender movement would have to be completely divorced from the rest of the gay movement. It totally goes against gays, lesbians and bisexuals, who by definition affirm the reality of two genders.
 
If Hegelian dialectics are anything to go by, this antithesis of transgenderism to the thesis of the rest of the gay movement will have to bring about a synthesis, where the two theses collide with one another. I think that’s what’s happening here, with lesbians and other gay people fighting against the transgender movement. This also is the case for feminism against transgenderism.
 
Put simply: transgenderism and feminism cannot peaceably coexist. One must abandon key beliefs in order to appease the other and live with it to some extent. If more men enter women’s sports because they are wimps and can’t win against other men, women’s sports will disappear because the women, most of the time, cannot compete against physically-superior men.
 
There is a reason there is an NBA and a WNBA – a reason there is a men’s and women’s tennis (though there are mixed teams too, but still).
 
One of the reasons Serena Williams was so successful is because she has a uniquely man-like physique that makes her bigger, stronger and generally physically superior to many women. And even then, when facing against a man ranked 203rd in 1998, the man destroyed her and then her sister, beating Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2. Despite her physical advantages against women, she is still, herself, a woman and physically inferior to most athletic men. The mere fact that she even said that no man outside the top 200 could beat the Williams sisters is an indication that she didn’t think she could beat Carlos Moya, who was the same rank as Serena (no. 5) in 1998, and an indication that she did not believe she could beat a man of her skill range. Despite the similarities in rank at the time, the Williams sisters didn’t think they could beat men in their same rank range, such as Carlos Moya, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, or even number 199, Lorenzo Manta.
 
If men and women are not physically different, why wouldn’t Serena and Venus Williams have challenged men who were in a similar rank to them at the time?
 
But regardless, my point is that the transgender movement is very dangerous for society as a whole, not to mention people the Left already victimizes, like women and homosexuals.
 
It’s very dangerous to children, as hormone treatment can permanently destroy children’s lives, and it makes absolutely no sense to be in favor of this.
 
But the hate-filled Left will see none of this logic and change their minds. They think transgenderism is something they must back in order to attain power, even though Obama himself admitted on NPR that his support for transgenderism might’ve made Trump’s election easier.
 
This is far too dangerous and destructive to be allowed and I hope and pray that God will guide the SCOTUS to the right decision. Otherwise, may God help us.
 
Proverbs 3:5-6
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.”
 
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 biggest and funniest ironies in the climate alarmist cult is the fact that the solutions they present, at least with regards to alternative energy, are not only unnecessary and unable to replace the capabilities of natural gas and coal, but also have a tendency to severely backfire on the supposed intentions of their implementation.
 
What do I mean? Well, recently, Duke Energy, a North Carolina energy company, asked for a waiver of the state’s emission standards because its solar program releases more pollution into the atmosphere than its natural gas production does.
 
According to North State Journal: “A seven-month investigation and numerous public information requests have revealed the move to increase solar power might be leading to an increase in the very emissions alternative energy sources aim to reduce. Duke spokeswoman Kim Crawford confirmed that increased solar power on the state’s electric grid is increasing emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), a dangerous air pollutant. She said that reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could also reverse if current solar growth continues without policy changes.”
 
So let me get this straight: solar energy, one of the alternative energy sources the Left pines for and claims is a far better alternative to fossil fuels, natural gas, etc., not only emits an air pollutant in nitrogen oxide, which can cause asthma in children and other respiratory problems in vulnerable populations, as well as contributing to smog and acid rain, according to The American Lung Association, but it could also reverse reductions of CO2 if the program continues to grow without any sort of policy changes?
 
The very energy source that is SUPPOSED to reduce carbon emissions could do the exact opposite of its original intent if it only continues to grow, AND it could emit a lot more nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere?
 
The irony is too rich.
 
Returning to the North State Journal, “Under its current permits in the heavily regulated market, Duke must completely shut down the backup combustion turbines when solar peaks under a full sun, then restart them when the sun recedes… Without any solar power in the mix, ‘a typical combined cycle combustion turbine emits NOx at approximately 9-11 lb/hr., assuming 24 hours of ‘normal’ operation,’ Crawford said. That is equivalent to 264 pounds of NOx emissions daily. When those same plants are operated to supplement solar power facilities, daily emissions more than double to 624 pounds a day, based on a table in Dukes application.”
 
So when combustion turbines work without supplementing solar, that is considerably better for the environment than when it does supplement solar energy? Forgive me, I might actually laugh out loud.
 
But wait, there’s another problem with solar. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Federal biologists say about 6,000 birds die from collisions or immolation annually while chasing flying insects around the [Mojave Desert] facility’s three 40-story towers, which catch sunlight from five square miles of garage-door-size mirrors to drive the plant’s power-producing turbines.”
 
So not only does solar emit more nitrogen oxide and have the capability of reversing reductions in CO2, its chief objective (at least according to the media), but it also stands to kill birds and perhaps other animals because it fries them?
 
I already knew that wind power turbines were a massive hazard for birds, as a 2013 Forbes magazine article reported those things kill around 600,000 birds every year, with that number possibly being higher due to wind companies not having the obligation of publicly stating how many birds their turbines kill each year, but solar is also a considerable hazard for birds too?
 
Don’t take my tone of writing to mean that I am happy over this fact. Killing that many birds every year has to be pretty damaging for the ecosystem, at least long term if these numbers are sustained. But I just find it incredibly ironic that wind and solar, which are the Left’s most popular forms of energy production, have so many drawbacks with so few benefits.
 
Not that that should be in any way unexpected. Socialism itself is nothing but drawbacks and the Left is all in favor of it. But I just find it interesting, if not exactly totally unexpected, that the more we find out about things the Left loves, the more we find out just how horrible they are.
 
Wind and solar, apart from not being able to produce anywhere near as much energy as fossil fuels, natural gas or even nuclear can, also have their fair share of polluting of the planet and harm to the environment.
 
Again, none of this is really unexpected, but it is important to note when there are real examples of the sort of mess the Left wants for us. I point out the failures of socialism in Venezuela, China, etc., not because I’m in any way surprised by such failures but to point out that that’s what they lead to.
 
Similarly, while not really anything here regarding solar is much of a surprise to me, the part about nitrogen oxide is a bit new to me and just another arrow in my quiver. Solar energy, apart from the fact that it comes nowhere close to achieving the same amount of energy production as natural gas, is considerably harmful for the environment, which is not something that is ever going to be reported by the fake news media.
 
You will never hear about the amount of birds wind turbines kill each year. And keep in mind that article from Forbes was from 2013 – 6 years ago. Assuming that base 600,000 birds number to be true and consistent, over the past 6 years, 3.6 million birds have been killed due to wind turbines. And again, that’s AT MINIMUM because not all wind energy farmers publicly report bird deaths (I wonder why).
 
Likewise, you will never hear about the polluting damage that solar can cause because these two alternative energy sources are the go-to sources for the climate alarmist cult. They disavow nuclear because of Chernobyl (weird how they don’t disavow communism because of Chernobyl), so they fight against that source, and think natural gas is killing the planet. Yet, we see that the sources they laud as being “planet savers” are far worse options for the environment and for modern societies.
 
This is really just another example of how fraudulent the climate alarmist movement truly is. Taking aside the apocalyptic and pessimistic warnings they send out every single day of every single year, the very energy sources they wish to adopt would only harm people and the planet.
 
Again, that’s not really surprising considering the people peddling for this are the same people who support the most devastating and horrible ideology known to man: socialism.
 
2 Thessalonians 3:2
“And that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have 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.

If you’ve been reading my articles for a while, you will know that I am a big basketball fan. My favorite NBA team is the Miami Heat, followed by the Portland Trail Blazers as I have lived in both cities in the past. Though I do not often talk about it because the basketball world and the world of politics do not intercept very often, when they do, I feel the need to speak at least to some extent.
 
Some time ago, for example, I discussed what Golden State Warriors Forward Draymond Green said regarding racism in America and pointed out that we are in a far better state racially than before if people have to make up racial attacks.
 
But recently, another political moment can be found in the NBA when Houston Rockets’ General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted out his support for the pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. He simply tweeted a graphic that said: “Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong.”
 
As a result, many Chinese businesses, including the Chinese Basketball Association, and the Chinese government “quickly denounced Morey and moved to sever ties with the Rockets,” according to The Ringer.
 
It should be noted that this is particularly important because the Rockets have a lot of fans in China given that one of the team’s best players in franchise history was Yao Ming, a former Chinese basketball player and the first Chinese player taken with the first overall pick in the NBA draft. It’s perhaps because of this that Morey had to backpedal so quickly regarding his comments, but I doubt it would’ve made much of a difference had any other NBA executive done the same.
 
The Chinese government is utterly dictatorial and threatened to boycott the Rockets in China, which would mean damage to the team’s and the NBA’s bottom line. The tweet, which has since been deleted, reportedly prompted Rockets ownership to debate whether or not to fire Morey as a result.
 
NBA chief communications officer Mike Bass issued the following official NBA statement: “We recognize that the views expressed by Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey have deeply offended many of our friends and fans in China, which is regrettable. While Daryl has made it clear that his tweet does not represent the Rockets or the NBA, the values of the league support individuals’ educating themselves and sharing their views on matters important to them. We have great respect for the history and culture of China and hope that sports and the NBA can be used as a unifying force to bridge cultural divides and bring people together.”
 
What a load of crap. The NBA only cares about people’s political beliefs when it aligns with their own. They have no problem with Spurs coach Gregg Popovich, Warriors coach Steve Kerr or Lakers franchise player LeBron James lambasting and attacking President Trump, but the minute an NBA executive shares PRO-DEMOCRACY beliefs aimed at the situation in Hong Kong, that becomes a problem and his job is put into jeopardy.
 
The NBA does not have any values at all. They consider themselves a bastion of morality when they pull the All-Star game out of Charlotte because of the transgender bathroom law (and no, that wasn’t moral either) but utterly cower to the whims of a dictatorial regime that has killed tens of millions of people due to Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward” and that currently imprisons millions of people for being Christians or Muslims.
 
These are not values. This is whoring yourself out for Chinese money. It’s utter hypocrisy and the NBA deserves every bit of the criticism it’s receiving State-side.
 
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) tweeted: “So let me get this straight. Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey expresses support for Hong Kong democracy movement & Chinese government pressures NBA to fire him? Moment of truth for NBA. Will they bow to pressure from repressive, authoritarian govt?”
 
He followed that up by tweeting: “Chinese govt has a million people locked in concentration camps & is trying to brutally repress Hong Kong demonstrators – and NBA wants to ‘bridge cultural divides’? Cultural divides?”
 
He wasn’t alone in his criticism of the NBA. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted: “As a lifelong Houston Rockets fan, I was proud to see Daryl Morey call out the Chinese Communist Party’s repressive treatment of protestors in Hong Kong. Now, in pursuit of big $$, the NBA is shamefully retreating.”
 
He added: “We’re better than this; human rights shouldn’t be for sale & the NBA shouldn’t be assisting Chinese communist censorship.”
 
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) piled on, tweeting: “It’s clear that the NBA is more interested in money than human rights. Tonight’s statement from Commissioner Silver is an absolute joke. The NBA is kowtowing to Beijing to protect their bottom line and disavowing those with the temerity to stand with Hong Kong. Shameful!”
 
Federalist co-founder Ben Domenech also tweeted: “I hope a player, just one, is brave enough to speak out against this corporate [b.s.] bending of the knee.”
 
Considering the NBA fines players for even slightly criticizing bad referee calls, I doubt they would allow for players to speak out against the Chinese communists without getting a fine, so I don’t see any player speaking out against this crap.
 
But the NBA isn’t just getting criticism from the Right or from conservative news media. Sports analyst Clay Travis tweeted: “ESPN is set to broadcast from China this week. The woke league with the woke broadcasting network. All shilling for Chinese communists. Y’all think they’ll say anything at all? Ha ha. The hypocrisy is crazy. When the NBA pulled out of Charlotte, ESPN praised them to high heavens.”
 
TIME columnist Ian Bremmer also tweeted: “I get the NBA not wanting to side with Hong Kong because it’s politically uncomfortable. But apologizing to the Chinese dictatorship against the democracy they’re repressing? As an American sports league? That’s unconscionable.”
 
Vox’s Aaron Rupar, a far-Left columnist, also piled on, tweeting: “This is a hostage video. What an embarrassment for the NBA.” He was referring to Daryl Morey having to tweet out a two-tweet apology for his stance.
 
Even Barack Obama’s old speechwriter Ben Rhodes tweeted: “Just consider that the NBA is suggesting that supporting democracy and human rights ‘does not represent’ the NBA or the values that the league supports. What values does the league support?”
 
It’s a huge deal when I read a Ben Rhodes tweet and don’t feel like throwing up. I honestly have nothing to argue with here, because I wholeheartedly agree with Rhodes. In doing this, the NBA is suggesting that the support of democracy and human rights is not something the NBA wants to attach itself to simply due to the bottom line.
 
It’s utter corporate shilling at some of its worst. I have no doubt in my mind that the NBA would’ve found no trouble working with Nazi Germany if it meant turning a profit there. China is doing much of the same thing, sending people to concentration camps, many of whom likely die there, and utterly represses its people to the point where expressing any non-state approved thought is bounds for some sort of punishment.
 
The NBA has no values, only pretends to have them when it will give them good PR and some sort of profit. Standing against the banning of men inside women’s restrooms is perfectly okay in their eyes. Standing in favor of democracy and human rights is troublesome when in the context of China denying said democracy and human rights.
 
It’s utterly despicable, and while I understand the NBA is a business and it will always try to do what’s best for business, that doesn’t excuse this. Any money the NBA receives from China ought to be considered dirty, perhaps even bloody, money, given what the authoritarian government does to its people.
 
Interestingly, though, this puts the NBA in the precise position it didn’t want to find itself in: jeopardizing profits.
 
If even Aaron Rupar and Ben Rhodes, some of the farthest-Left people on Twitter, are siding against the NBA, what exactly does that mean for the NBA in the States? Could be that some people, particularly Rockets fans, choose to boycott the NBA themselves as a result. And if so, depending on how long it lasts and how big that boycott is, it could lead the NBA to lose more money than they would’ve otherwise.
 
The NBA hosts a few pre-season games in China with a number of teams, not even all of them. But while the pre-season nets them a good amount of money outside the U.S., the NBA only has 2 pre-season games scheduled in China out of a total 79 games in the pre-season schedule. And the regular season has 82 games per each team (totaling 2460 total games played in the regular season for all teams combined), all of which are played in the United States (except for the Toronto Raptors, who play 41 games in Toronto, Canada).
 
If a boycott of the NBA were to happen in the States, that would matter a whole lot more for the NBA’s bottom line than a Chinese boycott of the NBA.
 
But regardless of what happens, whether any boycott of the NBA happens whatsoever, it’s pretty clear that the NBA is full of utterly spineless cowards, even down to Morey himself. He easily could have kept the tweet supporting the Hong Kong protesters and explaining in a follow-up tweet that he has to make it clear that that is his own view and belief and they don’t necessarily reflect the team or the NBA, but nope. He was forced to apologize and mention that he had to consider “other views” on the matter.
 
The other view, in case one can’t tell, is support of the murderous, dictatorial regime that clearly has a lot of power on the NBA (it’s not helped by the fact that the Brooklyn Nets’ new owner is Alibaba co-founder Joseph Tsai).
 
The NBA should be utterly ashamed not only of trying to silence an NBA executive for saying something they disagree with, which is utterly un-American, but also for kowtowing to the Chinese communists out of fear of lost profits.
 
The NBA and Commissioner Adam Silver are the very corporate cronies their supposed ideology hates.
 
Proverbs 28:5-6
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely. Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways.”
 
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.

How would you feel if your brother or sister or any close family member whom you loved was unjustly taken from you? A slew of emotions would flood you, among which would be sadness, grief, shock, perhaps anger. These are the emotions that Botham Jean’s family likely went through after September 6th, 2018, when the young black man was shot and killed inside his own apartment by Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, who entered his apartment, mistaking it for her own and believing Botham to have been an intruder.
 
Roughly a year and a month after the tragic shooting, Amber Guyger was sentenced to 10 years in prison on the charge of manslaughter. Many believe the sentence should be considerably more, with some believing it to have been a premeditated killing simply due to the racial differences between Guyger and Botham and the fact that she was a police officer, but the sentence for manslaughter in Texas usually carries with it a term of 2 to 20 years in a state prison and a fine of no more than $10,000, so ten years is right down the middle (and Texas doesn’t use “voluntary” or “involuntary” in their legal code, so the charge is simply manslaughter).
 
However, despite the fact that Guyger did kill Mr. Botham Jean, in the court room following the sentencing, Botham’s younger brother, Brandt, got to say a few words to Guyger. And they are words that I believe she needed to hear, as do many people in this world.
 
Brandt said, full of emotion in his voice, “I wasn’t ever going to say this in front of my family or anyone, but I don’t even want you to go to jail. I want the best for you because I know that’s exactly what Botham would want you to do. And the best would be to give your life to Christ. I’m not going to say anything else. I think giving your life to Christ would be the best thing that Botham would want you to do. Again, I love you as a person and I don’t wish anything bad on you.”
 
He then proceeded to ask the judge: “I don’t even know if this is possible, but can I give her a hug, please? Please?”
 
After a bit, the equally as emotional judge granted Brandt permission to hug Guyger. This action was met with gasps and loud sobbing as well from those present in the courtroom.
 
What’s more, after Brandt hugged Guyger, Judge Tammy Kemp also proceeded to hug Guyger, with Guyger whispering something inaudible to the judge. The judge quietly replied to Guyger: “Ma’am, it’s not because I am good. It’s because I believe in Christ. None of us are worthy. Forgive yourself.”
 
This is considerably different to what happened outside the courtroom, where there were angry chants regarding the verdict of 10 years that was handed to Guyger, with chants of “no justice, no peace” being heard throughout and even the mother of another young black man who was slain by an Arlington police officer in 2017 crying and asking: “How many of us does it take to get justice? What about my son? What about Botham Jean? How many of us is it going to take before you understand that our lives matter?”
 
While those who are not most affected by the killing of Botham Jean were angry about the verdict (justice was done, regardless of the emotions behind it, as 10 years is in the middle of the range of possible prison terms in the penal code), those who were most affected by it, namely Botham’s younger brother and even parents showed nothing short of grace towards the woman who took away their loved one.
 
Not one of Botham’s family members would’ve been at fault for being angry with Guyger. Not one of them owed forgiveness to her; she certainly didn’t deserve it. But that’s what grace is all about. That’s what mercy is all about.
 
Mercy wouldn’t be mercy if forgiveness were owed. If forgiveness were owed, that’d be justice, not grace. Grace – mercy – is doing what is right to someone who does not deserve it in the least.
 
It’s giving your enemy food and water to eat and drink. It’s forgiving someone for the wrong they did to you even when they do not deserve it whatsoever.
 
Asking for forgiveness is difficult. But forgiving someone else, even more so.
 
When we do wrong and we know we do wrong, it can be hard to ask for forgiveness, knowing full-well that we do not deserve it. But when someone wrongs us, it can be even harder to forgive that someone.
 
It takes a lot to be willing to forgive. It’s one of the most amazing aspects of God and one of the rarest in Man.
 
Brandt didn’t need to forgive Guyger. No one needed to forgive Guyger. No one had to show her grace. It would’ve been easier for Brandt to have shared with Guyger the pain he felt for what she had done, blaming her in the process and reminding her of what evil she had done. It would’ve been easier for him to have lambasted her and shown anger and hatred towards the woman who had taken away his big brother, whom he loved dearly. He easily could’ve withheld forgiveness from her and not a single person in that courtroom would’ve thought he would’ve been unjustified to have done so.
 
But Brandt believes in the God who forgives sins almost no matter what they might be. He believes in His Son, who died on the cross for the sins of the people who might believe in Him. He believes in the Son who died in our place, who died because our sins put Him on that cross. He believes in the Father who forgives those who forgive others.
 
Forgiving others, difficult as it is, is the righteous and right thing to do. No, no one in that courtroom would’ve thought Brandt would’ve done the wrong thing if he had withheld forgiveness. No one apart from God.
 
But God knows Brandt’s heart and that his soul belongs to Him. Brandt understands the importance of forgiveness and showing grace to those who do not deserve any of it.
 
When Jesus taught his followers how to pray, he shared the following: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
 
This is the Lord’s prayer and notice the importance of forgiveness here. It’s not simply the Father who forgives us of our debts, or our trespasses, whichever version you might often use. We are equally as tasked with the challenging task of forgiving others who have trespassed against us or done us wrong.
 
Jesus, in Matthew 6:14-15, then explained to His followers: “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”
 
We are tasked with showing grace and mercy just as our Father shows us grace and mercy in His forgiveness of our sins. If we do not forgive others’ sins against us, why would our Father forgive us when we do not show the same mercy?
 
Now, don’t get it twisted. Forgiveness has to be actually meant. If you do not forgive others in your heart, then it doesn’t matter what you say to them. Before Brandt could show this kind of grace and mercy to Guyger, he first had to forgive her in his heart, otherwise it would’ve meant nothing.
 
Simply saying “I forgive you” but holding within your heart unforgiveness isn’t going to fool God. For anyone who might try and argue “oh, Brandt had to forgive her otherwise God wouldn’t have forgiven him. How fair is that?” keep in mind that, again, forgiveness isn’t about being fair or about being just. No one is ever owed forgiveness. No one is owed mercy. No one is owed grace.
 
Because if anyone was owed those things, that would be justice, not forgiveness, mercy or grace.
 
What Guyger deserves is unforgiveness and the lengthy prison sentence she received. She was shown grace that she did not deserve when Brandt forgave her.
 
It’s in this same manner that God forgives our own sins. Now, don’t misunderstand, it still takes faith in Jesus Christ as one’s Lord and Savior to be forgiven, but in order for us to be forgiven, we must also be willing and able to forgive others too.
 
It’s part of being a Christian and Brandt understands this. Seemingly, so does the Judge, which was also rather unexpected.
 
Brandt wants Guyger to turn her life over to Christ that she might be saved. This is grace.
 
For those who are Christians, they know exactly why Brandt forgave her. It was the right thing to do, not the just thing to do.
 
If more people showed this kind of grace, the world would be considerably better. Not perfect by any means, of course, but better.
 
God bless Brandt, his family, the Judge and Amber Guyger. I hope that she takes Brandt’s words to heart and the Holy Spirit reaches her.
 
Matthew 18:21-22
“Then Peter came up and said to him, ‘Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.’”
 
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.

With Robert Francis O’Rourke and other Democrats desperately showing just how “woke” they are by sharing their totalitarian intentions surrounding gun ownership, it is important to understand just how much of a non-issue homicide by firearm is, at least on average. Of course, every shooting and every death is a tragedy, don’t misunderstand, but rifles are far from the most common means of murder in America, despite how many there are in the country.
 
The FBI’s 2018 report on crime in the United States shows us clearly the number of reported murders per weapon type.
 
In 2018, firearms killed over 10,000 people. However, over 6,000 of those deaths came from handguns, with nearly 3,000 deaths coming from non-stated firearms, 297 from rifles and 235 from shotguns.
 
Keep in mind also that these numbers are completely dwarfed by the Defensive Gun Use statistics from Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, who reported that there are at least 760,000 defensive gun use cases every year. So in contrast, taking the specific number of 10,265 total firearm murders in 2018, dividing that by 760,000 DGUs (again, that is the minimum amount Kleck showed and it’s theorized most people tend not to report these types of things anyway because they don’t want to reveal they’ve used a gun to defend themselves out of legal fears), and you get 0.01%. Meaning that the total number of firearm deaths every year is 0.01% in contrast to the total number of defensive gun uses every year (minimum). In other words, guns are used for defensive purposes 99.99% of the time, at least in contrast to murders.
 
And take note that only 297 deaths came from the use of rifles, which includes all rifles, not just semi-automatic ones. 0.03% (rounding up) of firearm deaths came from all types of rifles in 2018.
 
Out of the total 14,123 murders reported in 2018, 1,515 came from knives or other cutting instruments. 443 reported deaths from blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, 672 total reported deaths from personal weapons such as hands, fists and feet, and 900 other weapons not specified.
 
There were far more deaths from objects like knives, hammers or even fists than there were from the ever-so-scary rifles. And these are completely overshadowed by vehicular deaths, which the NSC estimates were over 40,000 deaths related to vehicles in 2018.
 
And it’s not like this is all specific to 2018. The FBI’s page on 2018 deaths by weapons also includes 2014, ’15, ’16 and ‘17.
 
In every single year, there were far more deaths by all of the other weapons previously mentioned than by all types of rifles combined. In 2014, of only 7,803 total firearm deaths, only 235 came from rifles. In 2015, only 215 deaths came from rifles despite the fact that there were more total firearm deaths that year, at 9,103. In 2016, it ticked up a bit, with 300 rifle deaths, but still nowhere close to the total 10,372 firearm deaths that year and in 2017, there were 390 rifle deaths out of a total of 11,006 firearm deaths.
 
Every single year for the past 4 (recorded) years, there were far more deaths by handgun than any other type of gun, with rifles always competing with shotguns for the least amount of recorded deaths. And in every single one of those years, knives or other weapons in general were more used than rifles.
 
In 2014, 1,545 deaths came from knives or other bladed weapons. 431 came from blunted weapons and 668 came from personal (hands, feet, etc.) weapons. In 2015, 1,525 deaths came from bladed weapons, 436 from blunt weapons, and 647 from personal weapons.
 
In 2016, 1,558 deaths came from bladed weapons, 464 from blunt weapons and 664 from personal weapons. And finally, in 2017, 1,609 deaths came from bladed weapons, 472 from blunt weapons and 710 from personal weapons.
 
And yet, despite these numbers, rifles are the Left’s biggest target. Statistically speaking, it makes no sense. There are fare more dangerous and deadly weapons out there than rifles. But the Left’s objective isn’t to protect the people. It’s only to empower, enrich and protect themselves.
 
Like I’ve said in the past, the Left can only grow the government as far as the 2nd amendment will allow them. They can’t achieve the communist level of power they desire without first disarming the population. Every communist, socialist totalitarian in world history has understood their need to disarm the people. For a government to be totally unopposed, it cannot allow the risk of a revolution. The people can only be pushed so far before they rebel.
 
The people of Venezuela currently wish they hadn’t given up their guns to the government. An armed revolution is likely the only thing that can help the people of Venezuela to be free from the socialist regime of Nicolas Maduro.
 
And as I’ve said before, what is happening in Venezuela is what the American Left wants in the States, even if they don’t necessarily broadcast that to the people. The kind of power Maduro has is the kind of power the American Left salivates and strives for. This is the reason for their targeting of rifles, and it definitely wouldn’t end with just that.
 
So long as the people can defend themselves, the government’s ability to retain power is in some level of jeopardy. The Framers of the Constitution knew this and wrote the 2nd amendment knowing full-well what tyranny was like and what the threat of government on the God-given freedoms of mankind were.
 
Gun control advocacy, much like climate change alarmism, is not rooted in facts. Guns are heavily demonized when they shouldn’t be. Even taking the fact that most murders came from guns, 61% of all firearm related deaths in America came from suicide, with the rest being homicide, death by law enforcement (1.4%) or unintentional shootings (1.3%), according to the Giffords Law Center.
 
So the maligning that guns get is totally unjustified and the real target should be mental health and what people believe in.
 
Because let me tell you something: no Christian would ever even consider doing something like this – killing another person – unless it came in self-defense.
 
1 John 4:8
“Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.