This really shouldn’t be so surprising, considering the last article I wrote was literally about The New York Times blaming airplanes for 9/11, revering Mao Zedong as a “great revolutionary figure” and started the 1619 project to revise our country’s founding to have been on the basis of slavery rather than liberty, as it actually was, but a recent study truly puts the mainstream media on the hot seat. The study was conducted by Bospar, a boutique PR firm, and in collaboration with Propeller Insights, a market research company, and it surveyed 1,010 American adults.
 
What the study found was that “more than 95% are troubled by the current state of media.” No, that’s not a typo. Over 95% OF AMERICANS HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE MODERN MEDIA! The reasons they give for people’s concern are as follows:

• Reports on fake news – 53%
• Reporting gossip – 49%
• Lying spokespeople – 48%
• Celebrity opinions – 36%
• Left-wing agendas – 34%
• Gotcha journalism – 33%
• Right-wing agendas – 32%
• Puff pieces in exchange for access to other important interviews – 31%
• Blind items being reported in the news – 30%
• Hit pieces – 21%
• Rise of independent contributors versus on-staff media – 14%

 
What’s more, a full two-thirds (67%) believe “ethics in journalism will be worse during the 2020 presidential campaign.”
 
And when asked “about the impact unethical journalism has on the country, Americans cited four chief problems”:

• 64%: It creates division and partisanship
• 63%: It fuels inaccuracies
• 60%: It incites hate
• 57%: It creates fear

 
To repeat, over 95% of people said they were concerned with “the current state of the media”. Considering this is regarding the ethics of journalism, this is quite a horrendous number for the media. However, this does include any and all kind of media, whether it be the NYT or Breitbart News.
 
Looking over the list of reasons for concern, we find that reports on fake news is at the top. That most definitely is a bad sign for the fake news media, considering that is basically Trump’s catch phrase at this point. Now, it’s important to note that things were, as always, divided down party lines. For example, Democrats were more likely to say that cable news anchors and journalists were ethical as opposed to Republicans, according to the study. This makes sense, considering cable news anchors and journalists spread Left-wing propaganda and Democrats tend to side with that sort of thing far more often than Republicans.
 
But a considerable amount of people are very concerned about fake news; about the validity of any particular report and the honesty of the people giving these reports. It’s probably for this reason that Fox News, and more specifically, pro-Trump shows, have enjoyed great ratings over the past couple of years. Sean Hannity’s show was the top-rate cable news show, followed by Tucker Carlson, and Fox News overall had 10 of the top 15 highest-rated cable news shows in the last quarter.
 
Now, allow me to share with you just a few headlines from news organizations around the world pertaining to the “issue” of climate change:

• From The U.K. Telegraph: “Britain warming faster than average.”
• From China Daily News: “China warming faster than global average.”
• From CBC (Canadian news): “Canada warming at twice the global rate, leaked report finds.”
• From a Swedish news org: “Sweden’s temperature is rising more than TWICE as fast as the global average.”
• From an Australian news org: “Australia Is Heating Up Faster Than The Rest Of The World.”
• From a Swiss news org: “Global warming to impact Switzerland at twice average speed, warns researcher.”

 
Rinse and repeat for other areas like Russia, Singapore, Finland, Spain, etcetera, etcetera.
 
Now, I don’t know about you, but I think something smells rather fishy here. If the Law of Non-contradiction tells me anything, is that all of these contradicting things cannot all be true at the same time and in the same relationship.
 
If Britain is warming at a faster rate than the global average, then the same cannot possibly be the case for China or any of the other countries listed. That is utterly illogical. And thus, every one of these headlines is likely to be false. Now, there is the possibility that ONE of them is true, but there is no definitive way to discern that from the information given. Each of these has a story that says why and how the particular country or region is warming at a faster rate than the global average, sometimes specifically twice as fast. Each of these stories says something to explain and “prove” the title right, but put them all together and you find it all outright impossible to happen. If they are warming at a faster rate than the global average, there would have to be entire countries and regions that would have to bring down the average in order for this to be true. And no one in the media in any particular country would dare suggest that their country is doing better climate-wise than another country.
 
Of course, this being in different countries, for the most part, only the people living in the particular countries would read their particular headlines and begin to panic (because that is the objective, as the Left’s 16-year-old Swedish puppet admits). But if you and I are looking at these headlines, we will call out the dishonesty of these organizations.
 
And this is just regarding climate alarmism. Regarding the economy, allow me to share two rather interesting news alerts someone shared on Twitter:
 
From The New York Times: “The U.S. economy added 130,000 jobs in August, a sign that the labor market is holding up despite continuing trade war with China.” Not too bad, I’d say.
 
From the Washington Post: “The U.S. economy added 130,000 jobs in August, as hiring slowed sharply amid concerns that the economy is deteriorating.” Trying to spin the good news of jobs growth into something bad to try and incite fear in people’s minds about the possibility of a recession.
 
Both talk about pretty much the same thing, but the second one specifically tries to continue using the narrative of a looming recession.
 
These are but a few of the many, MANY examples of the fake news media delivering fake news. Only go back to when Brett Kavanaugh was being grilled by the fake news media about sexual assaults that he didn’t do and there was no evidence for them.
 
Only go back THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS TO SEE THESE PEOPLE OPENLY ACCUSING TRUMP OF COLLUDING WITH RUSSIA TO STEAL THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION to see evidence of the fake news these people deliver on a daily basis.
 
Two and a half years of Russian collusion, a couple of months of “believe all women” and can you really blame people for thinking ethics in the media is in the toilet?
 
These people are not ethical in the least. They are bloodsucking leeches, who will stick to any story, no matter how ridiculous, to pass their agenda.
 
Trump won the election? Nah, he cheated. A Republican won a closely-contested special election this week? Trump actually lost because it shouldn’t have been even close, even though they were saying for weeks prior that that election was a “bellwether test” for 2020. Brett Kavanaugh is about to be approved to be in the Supreme Court? Take a woman who knows how to cheat a lie detector test because she’s a psychologist and have her pretend to be the victim using the most innocent-sounding voice one can possibly use to try and demonize the guy to protect abortion.
 
Do you want to know why there is so little faith in the ethics of journalism today? Because everything is political and virtually everything can be counted on to be a lie to one extent or the other. If there is good news, they won’t be delivered if it doesn’t help the media. If there is bad news, it’s a sure-fire sign that Trump is toast. If there is no news, they will be made into massive news.
 
There no longer are any ethics in journalism, at least in the type that the fake news media practices. Any story that helps their narrative, no matter how outlandish and poorly-sourced, is made into news. And when called out on it, no repercussions will occur because truth and objectivity is no longer a standard. It’s about delivering as much fake news that helps the Leftist narrative as possible and seeing what sticks.
 
Proverbs 13:5
“The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

As with many other times in this country, the issue of gun control is widely talked about by many people. With Democrats demanding mandatory gun buybacks (that wouldn’t work at any capacity), ABC News and the Washington Post released a new poll that they claim shows favorability for more gun control laws.
 
The poll asked people a variety of questions, such as “would you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?” The poll showed that 56% said they would support a nationwide ban on “assault” weapons sales, while 41% oppose.
 
Now, allow me to make one quick point about this, before getting to the major point: there’s no such thing as an “assault” weapon. Literally anything can be used for assault. Anything from an AR-15 to a pencil can be used in an assault. “Assault weapons” aren’t a real thing. And no, AR doesn’t stand for “assault rifle”. Only very ignorant people make that argument. It stands for the company that manufactures it: Armalite. An AR-15 is an Armalite Rifle series 15.
 
But now onto the grander point surrounding this question: that number doesn’t mean what the Left wants it to mean.
 
There’s no doubt that that number is high (of course, there are more Democrats and Independents than Republicans surveyed), but that is actually not a bad number at this point. You see, apart from just showing that number, the poll showed us other numbers from previous polls taken years and years prior, so that we might be able to find a trend or a pattern. That 56% support is rather normal, all things considered.
 
Here is what that question showed in the poll:
 

• 9/5/19, the day the poll was taken, shows 56% support a nationwide ban on “assault weapons”, with 41% opposing.
• 4/11/18, the support was at 62% while the opposition was at 35%.
• 2/18/18, 50% support, 46% oppose.
• 6/23/16, 51% support and 48% oppose.
• 12/13/15, 45% support and 53% oppose.
• 4/14/13, 56% support, 42% oppose.
• 3/10/13, 57% support, 41% oppose.
• 1/13/13, 58% support, 39% oppose.
• 1/19/11, 63% support, 34% oppose.
• 4/26/09, 54% support, 41% oppose.
• 4/22/07, 67% support, 30% oppose.
• 5/10/00, 71% support, 27% oppose.
• 9/2/99, 77% support, 22% oppose.
• 5/16/99, 79% support, 19% oppose.
• 6/14/94, 80% support, 18% oppose.

 
Over the last 25 years, support for banning “assault weapons” has DROPPED on average. And while there are some times when it goes a bit back up and goes down, it’s similar to market trends: the trend has been going down, with some shifts and hiccups here and there.
 
The fact that the number sits at 56% is statistically irrelevant considering the trend. People’s views on guns has not gone the way the Left has wanted it, thus far.
 
But wait, there’s more.
 
Like I said, they asked numerous questions.
 
For example, a question read as follows: “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?” This one has to do with that “gun-show loophole” (it’s not really a loophole, as most sellers in gun shows are licensed dealers and rules are not as lax as people think they are).
 
But this one shows a similar story. While the trend isn’t quite as extensive as the prior question, it does show that the number is virtually unchanged in the last 20 years. 89% said they support such a law, but in April of 2013, that number stood at 86%; in March of 2013, 91%; in January of 2013, 88% (there are three numbers for 2013 likely because they came only a few months after the Sandy Hook shooting took place); May of 2000, the number was at 92%; December of 1999, 90%; and May of ’99, 89%. It’s at the same number today as it was back then.
 
Now, again, that number isn’t particularly great, but the number doesn’t jump out at you when compared to prior numbers as it does on its own, which is how the media mostly portray these kinds of numbers: “Look at these numbers, Republicans! You will lose voters if you don’t act on gun control right now!”
 
That is the point of highlighting numbers like these, even though they often don’t mean all that much statistically speaking.
 
But in any case, let’s move on to another example.
 
Another question read: “Would you support a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets?” Now, that’s a bit of an odd question to ask, at least with the second part, because 10 bullets are not “high-capacity”. Often times, that is regular capacity. An AR-15 can hold 30 rounds (though there are many dumb laws that require people to fill it with no more than 12 bullets, as if that makes criminals, who don’t normally obey laws, less deadly). 
 
But regardless, we find a similar trend. The number today stands at 60% who support such a ban. That number has been at 56% in April of 2013, 65% in January of 2013 (again, shortly after Sandy Hook), 59% in December of 2012 and 57% in January of 2011. The number is virtually unchanged in that time.
 
Another question asks people if they would support a law allowing the police to “take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others.” This one is also weird, considering it’s already a law, but the two dates show that it’s virtually unchanged (86% support now, 85% support April 2018).
 
So while the numbers the media highlight might make you a bit paranoid or scared that we will be losing our 2nd Amendment rights and that most people hate us for being gun owners, keep in mind that the trends aren’t particularly favorable for the Left, who has been really trying to push for more and more gun control.
 
No statistical change is bad, but trends that go further from what the Left hopes is utterly detrimental to them. 76% also said that improving mental health monitoring and treatment, which is what Trump is focusing on, was something that could help reduce mass shootings as opposed to 58% who said the same about stricter gun laws.
 
Republicans aren’t losing the battle on gun ownership, which is why (among other, more obvious reasons) I get annoyed by supposed “Republicans” who take aim (no pun intended) at the NRA and begin siding with Democrats.
 
It’s similar to abortion. We aren’t totally losing the culture wars here, and we need to understand that. Republicans might be scared about what the media reports and subsequently choose to side with them, but that is ultimately what leads them to lose elections. The media doesn’t report reality, they are trying to shape it – and are failing.
 
Proposals such as mandatory gun buybacks will only come to hurt the Democrats, particularly in rustbelt states.
 
Joshua 1:9
“Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One of the Left’s most often-used charges against Donald Trump, apart from the charge that he colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election, is that Donald Trump is a racist bigot who hates minorities and wishes to kick all of them out of the country, turning America into a sanctuary for white people.
 
Despite how utterly asinine that sounds, there are those who believe that to be the case and often look to Charlottesville as the proof of this (despite the fact that he is not a white supremacist and he disavowed it in Charlottesville too). Many on the Left, and indeed in the academic world, believed that racial tensions in the U.S. would only get much worse under the Trump administration.
 
However, Daniel J. Hopkins and Samantha Washington, a pair of University of Pennsylvania sociologists, ran a study measuring the “racial attitudes” of 2500 random Americans since 2008.
 
Even within the report, the pair admit they honestly believed they would see an increase in racist opinions within the study, stating: “Normalization of prejudice or opinion leadership both lead us to expect that expressed prejudice may have increased in this period, especially among Republicans or Trump supporters.”
 
In other words, they fully bought into the idea that Trump and his supporters are racist and fully expected there to be a rise in racism within the group that most supports the presumed-to-be racist POTUS. They even believed that such racism and prejudice was completely normalized, at least within a specific group of people on the Right.
 
However, they found the complete opposite to be the case:
 
“Americans, claim Hopkins and Washington, have actually become less inclined to express racist opinions since Donald Trump was elected. Anti-black prejudice, they found, declined by a statistically-insignificant degree between 2012 and 2016, when Trump was elected. But then, after 2016, it took a sharp dive that was statistically significant. Moreover, contrary to their expectations, the fall was as evident among Republican voters as it was among Democrats. There was also a general fall in anti-Hispanic prejudice, too, although this was more evident among Democrat voters.”
 
So there are a few things to discuss here. First, let us return to the previous statement, the one about the researchers expecting a certain result. They expected this, according to Spectator (the original source of this study) because they “had been led to expect this… through an extensive reading of recent literature in social sciences which, they say, supports the notion that racist attitudes lie dormant inside many people, waiting to be triggered by certain events…”
 
Basically, they fully believe there is a racist in all of us and certain events, like the election of a supposed racist, are supposed to let out that little racist demon in us, at least for some. And while I believe we are all naturally evil, I also believe racism is more nurture than it is nature. Most people don’t hate people that look different from them from the get-go. Even Hitler had to come to the belief that Jews were bad through nurture. He wasn’t born hating Jews and people aren’t born racist.
 
Second, going back to the results that seemingly shocked the researchers, take note of the fact that racial tensions did not statistically (at least significantly to show any changes) get better at all during the Obama years. What was it that his election was supposed to end? Didn’t the Left promise that, through electing Obama, racism would end in America? That we would be proving to the world (because we apparently have to prove something) that we are no longer racist because we elected a black President (which is entirely ironic and actually racist if the only reason anyone voted for Obama was because he was black)?
 
On the contrary, Obama served to only make racial tensions grow worse. The Ferguson and Baltimore riots and the insistence that cops are racist for (unfortunately) killing a few black people in individual cases (some of which are entirely justified, as the suspect was either about to hurt the officer or in the process of doing so) only made us a more racially divided America, and it can be attributed, at least to some extent, as the big driver of a Dallas shooting of police officers in 2016.
 
Not to mention the fake news media constantly parrots the Democrat Party’s idea that Republicans are racists who “want to put [black people] back in chains”, according to the current Democrat frontrunner.
 
But put that in contrast with what they found during the Trump administration and you see that all of that was fake news. We are not unbelievable racists that jump at the chance to make any minority’s life hell. Quite the contrary, as the Trump economy has seen record-low unemployment rates for African-Americans and Hispanics, and the fact that Trump signed into law criminal justice reform as well as his desire to prioritize illegal immigration, which disproportionately hurts minorities in America.
 
The third thing I want to discuss here is that last bit about anti-Hispanic prejudice falling more on the Democrat side than the Republican side. That one I would like to challenge a little bit, at least in the definition of prejudice against Hispanics.
 
I take it the recent desire by many on the Left to open our borders to “asylum seekers” and “refugees” counts towards a sort of drop in anti-Hispanic prejudice. I would like to challenge this as not being a drop in anti-Hispanic prejudice but as being a drop in IQ points on the Left in terms of what makes America safe.
 
As I have often said in the past, the immigration debate is not about race, despite the Left’s best efforts to make it about race. We don’t deny entry to certain people based on the color of their skin. We deny entry to certain people based on certain qualifications such as not having proper documentation. Those who are here who do not have the right to be here simply should NOT be here. How hard is that idea to grasp?
 
It defeats the entire purpose of even having an immigration system at all if we are just going to let anyone in who wants to come in (since our current economy is thriving under this administration, I imagine many people want to come here). We are a nation ruled by laws. Ignoring our laws means we have no nation, certainly not a stable one. A nation must be able to control its borders and we don’t have much of that currently because of the Left’s incessant promise that they will get rid of Trump and open up our borders, leading whole caravans to start up (likely funded by people like George Soros because these caravans don’t just spring up out of nowhere with no leadership).
 
Just because we, conservatives, do not want our borders flooded by illegals doesn’t mean there is anti-Hispanic prejudice. And just because the Left wants our borders to be open doesn’t mean they are less prejudiced against Hispanics. Matter of fact, I would argue that they are FAR MORE prejudiced against Hispanics than conservatives are. Illegal immigration hurts minorities, including Hispanics. And yet, it’s exactly what the Left wants more of. They want open borders not to help poor, helpless Hispanics but to have a permanent underclass base, who will depend on the Democrats’ various government programs to take care of them in exchange for them voting for Democrats, whether or not they are legally allowed to.
 
They don’t care about the Hispanic population. They just want the Hispanic (legal or illegal) vote. They want Hispanics to be permanently dependent on their “help”. They don’t see us as humans (much like they never saw black people as humans), but rather, they see us as votes that can help them get and stay in power. Meanwhile, they pass law after law that makes it harder for people to prosper.
 
Wanting open borders is not a lack of anti-Hispanic prejudice. If anything, it only leads to more prejudice and injustice.
 
But in any case, these two researchers discovered what Trump’s supporters have known for years now: Trump is not racist. Or at least, racial relations are not worsening under Trump. I don’t think these researchers will give up on the idea that he is racist, but you never know.
 
What matters is that they at least had the integrity to release their study finding that America is less racist today than it was during the Obama administration. This is not something that will be reported by the fake news media, as it defies one of their most used narratives, but we know the truth. The only racism that one can find exists solely on the Left and the fake news media.
 
Hebrews 12:14
“Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Remember when Trump first won the election and everyone from the media to Obama to Hillary and everyone in between was crying out that Russia somehow hacked the election? And when that fell through, especially considering it was Obama himself who insisted months prior to the election that it was not possible for a foreign entity to mess with the voting ballots (something the Left likely regrets to this day), they turned towards Russian collusion, starting phony investigation after phony investigation, with liar Congressmen claiming to have evidence but refusing to turn such evidence over.
 
Well, now that the Russian collusion narrative is basically dead (though there are those who still refuse to accept the truth even found in Mueller’s report surrounding that subject), the Left is looking at alternatives to getting Trump out of office. That much is clear considering Rep. Al Green (D-Impeachmentland) said he’s “concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected” and considering Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Californistan) said “we cannot accept a 2nd term for Donald Trump”.
 
They are absolutely desperate to get rid of the guy and have no hope whatsoever of beating him in 2020 (and side note: Democrats didn’t accept his first term either, Nancy).
 
So they have two options: look into possible obstruction (not gonna work) or somehow force Trump to release his tax returns (not sure what that would accomplish. If there was some sort of “payment” from Russia to Trump at some point or another, people in the IRS would’ve flagged it down far sooner than Mueller would have and neither party has done anything of the sort).
 
I have a feeling they will want to explore the first one more intensely, but if they can hit Trump about his taxes, they will. And that’s precisely what the New York Times tried to do recently. Key word here is “try”.
 
The New York Times released a story talking about Trump’s tax returns from the late 80’s and early 90’s, where Donald Trump actually was not doing quite so well financially.
 
“Mr. Trump was propelled to the presidency, in part, by a self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome. He has attributed his first run of reversals and bankruptcies to the recession that took hold in 1990. But 10 years of tax information obtained by The New York Times paints a different, and far bleaker, picture of his deal-making abilities and financial condition,” read the Times.
 
Basically, their aim is to say “Trump is not as successful as he’d like you to believe! He actually lost money for a period of time!” However, there is one crucial point that they fail to make: EVERYONE IN NEW YORK CITY REAL ESTATE WAS LOSING MONEY AT THE TIME!
 
Overall apartment rental prices in the city fell by 15% beginning in 1988. Manhattan homes crashed by roughly 33% between ‘89 and ’96 and the area Trump invested heavily in, a railyard which he hoped to turn into a neighborhood, home prices crashed even worse at 40%. The real estate company Olympia & York, at one point the biggest landlord in the entire city, had to declare bankruptcy. Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan had to fire or stop doing business with real estate bankers in the early 90’s.
 
The New York real estate market was collapsing. Everyone involved in the craft was losing a lot of money. Naturally, so did Trump.
 
And that is something Trump himself admits. Here are a few paragraphs from Donald Trump’s 2007 book titled: “Think Big and Kick Ass”.
 
“My company owed billions and was much too heavily leveraged. I was in debt personally for $900 million. One day I was walking down the street and I said to my then wife Marla, ‘That beggar over there Is worth $900 million more than I am.’ She said, ‘What do you mean?’ I said, ‘Because I’m $900 million in debt, and at least he has money in his pocket.’”
 
“I used to say to myself, ‘Oh, my God, am I in trouble. I am going down.’ That was big league. I was not focused but I never blamed myself, because from the day I graduated from Wharton in 1968, I did well. For twenty-one years I was doing fantastic. I felt like I had the right to take it easy. I really felt that after twenty-one years I had the right not to focus.”
 
“Reality taught me an important lesson: I could not have it both ways. If I wanted to be the greatest, the amazing Donald Trump who makes everything he touches gold, then I needed to focus. I could not have one without the other. I decided that I still wanted to be the old Trump and started focusing like never before. In 1991, the world was collapsing. It was so bad in real estate that if a person walked into a building, just looking around, we considered it to be a sign that the market was changing.”
 
“I have been through a lot. I have had great success. I have also had some really tough times, like when the real estate market collapsed in the early 90s. I owed many billions of dollars, and the banks were after my ass. It was not exactly fun! I had every major bank after me. Everybody in my industry was in big trouble. I had some friends and some enemies in the business who I thought were really tough guys, but most of them could not handle the bad times like they handled the good times. Most of them went out of business. All my friends were going bankrupt. I was very close, but I never went bankrupt. Even though it was not much fun and I never want to go through it again, in some ways it wasn’t so bad. I slept very well, and I managed to keep my faculties. It is not that I trained for it; I didn’t train for it. But that awful experience taught me that I can handle pressure. Most people crawled into a corner, put their fingers in their mouths, and said, ‘Mommy, Mommy, take me home!’”
 
“I learned that I can handle pressure. I did not back down under pressure. I turned it back on the banks and let them accept some of the blame. I figured it was the bank’s problem, not mine. What the hell did I care?”
 
While that may be an awful lot to look into (and I certainly won’t be analyzing everything) the main point I wanted to make here is the fact that Donald Trump knows very well, more than anyone, especially some NYT reporter, how bad things were for him and his business.
 
Everyone around him was going bankrupt and/or losing tons of money. He himself was losing tons of money and ALMOST went bankrupt, as he himself admits. And yet, he did persist, unlike the Times wishes to insist.
 
Look at that quote from the Times once again: “Mr. Trump was propelled to the presidency, in part, by a self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome… But 10 years of tax information obtained by The New York Times paints a different, and far bleaker, picture of his deal-making abilities and financial condition.”
 
It’s not his tax returns that paint a different and bleaker picture than what Trump was boasting about himself, it’s THE TIMES THEMSELVES PAINTING A DIFFERENT PICTURE! Donald Trump, unlike many in his industry, actually did not go bankrupt. He was losing money, yes, as was everyone else. But he persevered, worked harder than everyone else, and he became the city’s prime real estate figure.
 
It’s not a “self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome”, it’s a retelling of actual events and life experiences that he underwent. He had major business success, otherwise HE WOULDN’T BE A BILLIONAIRE! He had setbacks that he triumphantly overcame because HE DIDN’T GO BELLY UP WHEN EVERYONE AROUND HIM WAS!
 
Not that they bother to mention any of the other information in their article. Their sole focus is to attack Trump in any way they can. They willfully ignore that he came out of the 90s a real estate winner, particularly in comparison to many of his friends and competitors in the business.
 
The late 80s and early 90s were tough on Trump, and yet, he never declared bankruptcy himself. How then can one consider him a failure for NOT crumbling alongside the markets? How can he be considered a failure for having a few really bad years but eventually overcoming them?
 
The answer is that you can’t, but the Left will try their hand at anything that can possibly hurt Trump. Just conveniently forget that everyone was doing poorly (quite an understatement) in New York real estate around the same time as Trump was and all of a sudden, it looks like Trump was a really bad business man. Although you also have to conveniently forget that he did become a billionaire again as time went on and his businesses thrived.
 
You have to do an awful lot of misremembering and convenient forgetting of the facts in order to think and say that Donald Trump was not a good business man.
 
While everyone else was going bankrupt around him, God blessed Trump throughout. He did not go without some bad periods and without his struggles, but the Lord was guiding his footsteps the entire way. I hope Trump thanks God as often has he can for what He did for him.
 
Psalm 138:7
“Though I walk in the midst of trouble, you preserve my life; you stretch out your hand against the wrath of my enemies, and your right hand delivers me.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I have often said, just about anytime I talk about the fake news media that they, at the end of the day, are a bunch of propagandists for the Democrat Party. The fact that 92% of the media coverage of Donald Trump is negative is a testament to that fact.
 
But it’s one thing for me, a conservative kid who has never worked in the media, to tell you, and it’s an entirely different thing for someone who actually used to work in the media to tell you the same thing.
 
Enter Lara Logan, former CBS journalist, in an interview with retired Navy SEAL Mike Ritland on his show “Mike Drop”.
 
In what she later admits is “professional suicide” for her, she rails against the media not simply for being left-wing biased, but for dropping all pretense of objectivity.
 
“The media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just in the U.S. But in this country, 85% of journalists are registered Democrats – that’s just a fact. No one is registering Democrat when they’re really a Republican. So, the facts are on the side that you just stated: most journalists are Left, or liberal, or Democrat, or whatever word you wanna give it,” said Logan.
 
That statistic, alongside the 92% negative coverage of Trump, further goes to show the bias that exists in the media, that has been there long before Trump even arrived in the political scene. The fake news media has been fake news long before Trump branded them as such.
 
She continues: “How do you know you’re being lied to? How do you know you’re being manipulated? How do you know there’s something not right with the coverage? When they simplify it all and there’s no gray. There’s no gray. It’s all one way. Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it’s probably not – there’s something wrong.”
 
Indeed, there are a lot of things that can be said about the Trump administration, both positive and negative. The media chooses to stick with the negatives (I admit I also tend to stick with the positives, but then again, I’m not 24/7 news coverage so there’s only so much I can talk about and I try to push back against that constant negativity against him when I talk about him at all. I tend to be objective).
 
While the media chooses to stick with hoax stories of Russian election interference, or Stormy Daniels, or campaign finance issues, etc., they ignore the millions of jobs created, the booming economy, the attempts at peace with North Korea, the near complete defeat of ISIS, etc.
 
I’ve often said that the media does not report on reality but attempts to alter it for those who watch or read what they have to say. Glad to see a former CBS journalist (don’t quite know if she herself is a Republican or a conservative, but she definitely is smarter than most people in the media) acknowledging the fact that the media is so left-wing biased that they are basically propagandists.
 
In any case, she continued: “So, for example, all the coverage on Trump all the time is negative… That’s distortion of the way things go in real life, because although the media has historically always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense, or at least the effort, to be objective today.”
 
“We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that.”
 
She also mentioned that it is pretty much impossible to get the Right’s side of the story unless you yourself search Breitbart to find the other side of the story.
 
All in all, I am glad to see Ms. Lara Logan saying all of these things. And I do certainly think this is professional suicide for her. Being a journalist, she just exposed the media for what they are. When someone exposes you for what you truly are, if what you are is a bad thing, chances are you are not going to like that person, and definitely wouldn’t consider hiring them for anything.
 
Truth be told, she has more bravery for this than Dr. Christine Blasey Ford did for lying about Brett Kavanaugh. Ford got something out of her deceit: tons of money and fame. Logan will probably find it hard to land a job anywhere in the mainstream media now.
 
Of course, her chances of landing a gig with a conservative news network went up, but there’s almost no chance of landing a job with CNN or NBC, etc. if she were to look for employment there.
 
But I am glad she had the bravery to say this. It’s 100% true, everything she said.
 
The media are a bunch of political activists. She didn’t want to go as far as to call them propagandists, simply saying that the argument could be made for that, but I have no qualms about calling them out for it: they ARE propagandists.
 
Consider the way they covered Obama. They thought everything that came out of his mouth was gold and everything he did was perfect. They were so enamored with him that they didn’t mind, or notice, when he fooled them regarding the Iran nuclear deal. He could lie to them all day and the media would pass it all off as the inarguable and absolute truth.
 
Regarding Hillary, it was much the same (for the time that she was relevant, at least). They adored everything she did, even when she was blatantly racist (“I don’t feel no ways tired” or Hillary “always” keeping hot sauce in her purse because that apparently will draw in black people).
 
Contrast that with everything they have to say about Trump: that he’s a racist, sexist, bigot, etc. That he’s a national security threat, that he’s unfit for office, that he’s a lunatic, blah blah blah.
 
So Ms. Logan is completely right when it comes to the media coverage of Trump and when it comes to what the mainstream media is. They are propagandists who don’t even care to pretend to be objective, just claiming that they are every now and then.
 
What Ms. Logan did here is important. She is exposing the evil of the Left, at least the Left-wing media. This, at the cost of her own career, is unique.
 
Like I said earlier, I do not know if she herself is a conservative or a Republican at any capacity. However, with this knowledge in her mind, I hope she will continue down the right path towards conservatism (if she’s not already there) and will come to find Christ as well (again, if she’s not already there).
 
Here’s hoping she will be able to find Christ and that we’ll be able to fight back against a news media that is hell-bent on distorting reality and making lies into truths.
 
John 16:13
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​The government shutdown lasted for about five weeks, with little appearing to have come out of it except for the media blaming Trump for it, as usual, and the Democrats actually being to blame for it (I’ll explain momentarily).
 
The Democrat Party, the fake news media and college students all come to the agreement that the President was responsible and the one to blame for the government shutdown.
 
However, that train of thought changes once people start to learn some information that is not shared by the fake news media.
 
CampusReform’s Cabot Phillips went to George Mason University to ask some of the students who they blame for the then-current government shutdown.
 
As I stated previously, and completely unsurprisingly, the students all unanimously agreed that Trump was to blame for the shutdown.
 
So Phillips followed up that question with a pretty interesting and important one.
 
After asking the students who they blamed for the shutdown, Phillips asked them whether or not Democrats should agree on a compromise if Trump were to offer added protection for Dreamers, $800 million in funding for humanitarian aid and a slew of new judges to get immigration cases moving along faster.
 
Every single student that said they blamed Trump for the shutdown said that Democrats should compromise if Trump were to make that offer. Of course, that doesn’t matter at this point, but the kids thought they should’ve taken such a compromise.
 
What they didn’t know is that Trump actually DID make that offer earlier last week.
 
Suffice to say that the students were pretty surprised at that revelation.
 
One of the girls Cabot interviewed even went as far as to say she was “pleasantly surprised” that Trump offered that deal.
 
When asked if the Democrats should’ve taken Trump’s offer, all of them agreed that they should have, with one of them saying it was “the wrong move” for Pelosi to turn it down.
 
Then, Phillips asked them what the students had to say to Pelosi regarding this. One of them told Pelosi: “Compromise, compromise, compromise.”
 
Another said: “Just get the Democrats to, you know, budge…”
 
One girl said that Pelosi should “have a more open mind”, which is outright hilarious to me, considering how often the Left touts themselves as being open-minded and tolerant of everyone who is different from them, which is a complete fallacy.
 
Again, this doesn’t really matter at this point, but it’s good to see these kids appearing far more reasonable than the Democrats… or maybe that’s a bad thing, actually. These kids are more reasonable than the people in Washington. May God help us all.
 
Joking aside, by the end of the video (below), one student summarized the reason for the shutdown pretty well: “It’s the Democrats not giving in to the Republicans. So they don’t want to fund the wall at all. That’s why the shutdown is currently happening.”
 
I don’t know if that kid knows this, but that’s actually a pretty great summary of the situation that really should open his and anyone else’s eyes.
 
The kid realized for that moment that the ONLY reason the government was shut down for this long is not because of Trump being some sort of crybaby asking for money for a racist wall, but because Democrats are so petty they will turn down a good deal just so Trump doesn’t get his wall.
 
This much is emphasized when the Senate decided not to vote on bills that would open the government and Senator Tim Kaine, who would’ve been Hillary’s Vice President had she won, was visibly celebrating the fact that the government would continue to be shutdown, at least until Trump and Congress reached a deal to reopen it for three weeks (and I fully expect it to close again and Trump will have to declare a national emergency because the Democrats don’t want to negotiate on border security, open government or not).
 
But the fact that Tim Kaine celebrated an effort to reopen the government being killed certainly is interesting. I thought the Democrats really wanted the government to reopen and help those poor federal workers to actually be paid.
 
But when it comes to putting your money where their mouth is (yes, I’m making a joke about them taking your tax money), they refused to vote or pass anything that would get the government opened again.
 
Aside from the Tim Kaine celebration, something else that won’t be on the news is the fact that last week, there were multiple votes regarding back-pay for the “suffering” federal workers in the House.
 
According to Rep. Lee Zeldin, one January 17th, only 6 Democrats joined every single House GOP member on a bill to pay federal workers. The bill failed 195-222. On January 23rd, there was another vote on a similar bill but only 10 Dems joined Republicans on it and the bill failed 200-215. And on the following day, yet another bill that would pay fed workers was voted on, with only 13 Democrats joining Republicans, leading the bill to fail 200-214.
 
Literally all Republicans wanted to help these “suffering” and furloughed federal workers to get payed and the Democrats killed every bill that would've helped them. And then, they had the audacity to turn towards a CNN camera (because they are apparently everywhere there is a major story, if Roger Stone is any indication) and say Republicans were keeping the government shut down and were causing 800,000 federal workers to suffer WHEN IT’S LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE CASE IN REALITY!?
 
But these college students answering Phillips’ first question, the one about who was to blame for the shutdown, in the manner that they did does not surprise me in the least bit. It is yet another case of the media being disingenuous about who was to blame for the shutdown.
 
Trump offered them a good deal (that is honestly better for them than for him) and they were so fixated (and still are) on not letting Trump have his wall that they refused his offer. Nothing short of a promise of resignation as part of the deal would make the Democrats happy and even then, I could very well be wrong.
 
And not simply because Democrats are incapable of feeling joy being the soulless machines that they are.
 
But the fact remains that, upon learning some things and being given some good information, people can find out the truth. That kid at the end, while he might’ve later gone on to continue blaming Trump, did come to the reasonable conclusion that the only reason the government was shut down, particularly for as long as it was, is because Democrats refused to compromise.
 
And if more people come to the same conclusion, that is bad for the Democrats. Like I said, pretty much every single student in that video urged the Democrats to take the deal and thought it was a mistake for Pelosi to not go through with it.
 
This is the necessity of informing the public. There are a lot of people who are either uninformed or misinformed about things. These kids were largely uninformed (can’t blame them since the media they consume won’t tell them what Trump is doing unless it involves Russia or trolling people on Twitter) before Phillips let them know that the reasonable hypothetical offer from Trump was an actual offer from him.
 
So there are two major things to take away from this article:

1) it is uniquely important to give people the information necessary for them to arrive to their own conclusions. Like I said, the student at the end actually summarized the reason for the shutdown pretty well. Phillips didn’t tell him that, but gave him the tools to let him come to that conclusion.

2) the Democrats and the media are disgusting liars. This much we’ve known for a very long time, but it’s always important to note particularly when Democrats shed crocodile tears regarding the unpaid workers and proceed to kill any bill that would actually get them paid just so they can continue their sorrowful narrative.
 
There is a meme out there on the internet of this guy shooting someone on a couch, turning around and asking “why would someone do this?” as though he was not the reason for it (pretty great example right below).

This tends to be the case with pretty much everything they do, to be honest. You could literally replace the guy with AOC, have the victim as New Yorkers living in poverty and have the text say: “why would billionaires do this?”
 
There are a number of situations that would perfectly describe what the Left does with this meme, but getting back on track, this meme also shows what they were doing regarding the shutdown/federal workers not being paid.
 
They killed bills that would reopen the government or at least allow for federal workers to be paid, turn around and blame Trump and Republicans for the shutdown and workers not being paid.
 
It is the epitome of hypocrisy and outright deception. And if the CampusReform video is any indication, it’s working for a lot of people.
 
Those kids had NO idea that Trump offered a compromise to the Democrats who went on to reject it. This lack of information, or the outright consumption of misinformation, is the only reason Democrats are even capable of winning any election or even being relevant.
 
If everyone knew the truth about them, they’d know the Democrats were the ones who fought to keep their supposed “right” to own slaves, were split on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, founded the KKK and did not allow for a black person to attend a Democratic National Convention until the mid-1920s, their first official Democrat President, Andrew Jackson, went on to slaughter the Native Americans that they go on to claim were killed by simply white people, and they inspired Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws with their own segregation laws.
 
There is a TON more that I can point to as to why the Democrat Party is the worst party in world history, tied with any country’s communist party, but that would make this article as long as an entire series of volumes of books.
 
But what should largely be taken away from this article is the fact that it is imperative that we share the right kind of information. Of course, that’s nothing new, but it is always important to remember to do this.
 
The only reason Democrats are even close to being as prominent and powerful as they are is because they are workers of deceit just like Satan.
 
Romans 16:18
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
 
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.

This past Saturday, very many people from both sides of the aisle took aim and lambasted a group of kids from Covington Catholic High School.
 
In a short and edited video, kids from the school are seen wearing MAGA hats surrounding a group of Native American protesters and chanting things.
 
From that video, and one Native American protester named Nathan Phillips who was banging the drums in one of the kid’s faces (picture above), the situation looks as though the kids were the bad guys, were harassing minorities and overall being threatening because they are white and are wearing MAGA hats.
 
The Mainstream Media drove this story because they saw the perfect narrative: white, Christian, Trump supporters, albeit underage, were seemingly being threatening towards a group of minorities. There were claims that the children were also chanting “build that wall”.
 
And conservatives who are seemingly in a rush to appear to be the good guys in the Left’s eyes (why attempt to please man instead of pleasing God?) were rebuking the kids as not actually being conservatives or Christians, etc., making sure to distance themselves as far from the raging fire as humanly possible.
 
Threats were made against the kids and their families, with people on the media and celebrities like Kathy Griffin (oh, look, there is the soulless monster again), asking that the kids get doxed (their private information be made public) so that they can be even more threatening to the kids in retaliation.
 
Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) even “joked” that he is “calling for a total and complete shutdown of teenagers wearing MAGA hats until we can figure out what is going on. They seem to be poisoning young minds.” He said that in a thread where he went on to say that the incident represents a deeply-rooted problem of racism in our country, so I’m not buying that he was “joking” about this.
 
The media, because they had the perfect anti-Trump narrative - white kids appearing threatening to minorities while wearing MAGA hats - did not care to do further investigative journalism to discover the full story because there wasn’t any more that they wanted or needed to hear.
 
They had their story and they ran with it. “Who cares if the kids’ lives are destroyed by this blatant smear and outright libel? Getting Trump is our main goal regardless of the bodies we leave behind.”
 
That was basically the mindset of all of this.
 
Fast-forward 24 hours and we see more information made available. The kids were not surrounding minority groups. They were being called derogatory terms such as “f**gots” and other things by a black radical cult called Black Hebrew Israelites.
 
The Native American group was not surrounded by the kids – they made their way towards the kids. Their exits were not blocked by the kids. The kids weren’t chanting “build that wall” (which is not offensive even if they did chant it). They were chanting pep-rally cheers to drown out the hateful comments by the Black Hebrew Israelites.
 
The kid that was shown smiling at Nathan Phillips, the man banging the drum in his face, was not being cocky. He was trying to remain calm and diffuse the situation and, according to his own account on the events that unfolded, said a silent prayer that he would be able to diffuse the situation with inaction.
 
Eventually, the kids’ bus arrived and they left.
 
That is what happened, not what the media claimed happened and not what everyone from Hellywood to D.C. to MSM propagandists to supposedly conservative journalists believed happened.
 
And do you want to know what is one of the saddest things about this? Apart from the fact that these kids probably have been scarred to some extent by the level of hatred they received just because they are Christians, mostly white, and Trump supporters, this is the second time in 48 hours that a major news story broke by the MSM that turned out to be a complete hoax.
 
Earlier in the week, everyone on the Left and the Right was raving about a Buzzfeed story that said they had proof Trump instructed Cohen to lie to Congress. Buzzfeed, aka the site where you can take a quiz of what Harry Potter character you should marry and what your favorite snack says about your personality, broke this story.
 
Then, after a day of talking about it, it was discovered that that story, among the countless others that insisted this was finally the end of Trump, was yet another hoax and nothing but fake news.
 
Earlier last week, people had egg on their faces for talking about a hoax as though it was real and over the weekend, they did it again.
 
The difference between the Buzzfeed story and the MAGA Kid story is that the only threat that was made against Trump was impeachment (which has been made pretty much every day for the past 2 years). Not to mention that the target was Trump, who is the target of the fake news media every single day.
 
But the MAGA kid story included CHILDREN. Children who were not doing anything but were lied about as having been racist demons that harassed minorities. Children whose lives have likely been changed by this. Children whose futures were in jeopardy because the media was anxious about painting a story about white Trump supporters being racist, even if those supporters are kids.
 
No one is safe from the media, not even children. You can literally be a high school kid visiting the Lincoln Memorial, happen to be white, which is not something you have control over, and the fact that you are 1) a Christian and 2) a Trump supporter will set you up as a target of the Left.
 
The kids weren’t bothering anyone. The Black Hebrew Israelites were protesting something else entirely, according to Nick Sandmann (the smiling kid pictured above), when they noticed the group of white kids with MAGA hats and began to insult them.
 
Through the magic of editing and one Native American protester having a history of provoking and lying about white people, these innocent kids were made out to be demons of white supremacy and a symbol of Trump’s racism infecting young people’s minds.
 
The media, and many other people, wanted blood. They wanted universities not to accept these kids, their current school to expel them, and the kids to never be able to show their faces in public again.
 
And if any of them wound up committing suicide as a result of this, it would be seen not as a tragedy but as a great thing and that kid doing the right thing in some form of reparation for his own racism.
 
The narrative was the only important thing to them. And others, not wanting to appear racist in their silence, piled on and rebuked these kids as being racist when nothing could be further from the truth.
 
The fake news media has been trying to destroy Trump’s life for years now. But I have never seen them be this despicable.
 
It’s not like these Trump supporters were adults. They were kids with their whole futures jeopardized by an uncaring media that is more focused in driving a narrative than discovering the truth.
 
And this sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. When a huge story breaks, that story gets a lot of attention. When that story is discovered to not have been true, the discovery garners less attention than the original fake story.
 
But again, these are kids we’re talking about. The media was more than glad to go after kids if the narrative demanded it.
 
And that’s exactly what happened.
 
Some people think that Donald Trump calling the media “the enemy of the people” is a bit excessive. Well, what else can we possibly call them at this point?
 
The enemy wishes to destroy you. The media wished to destroy these kids. The enemy uses any lie they can to hurt you. The media used any lie they could find to hurt these kids. The enemy will ignore the truth. The media ignores the truth. The enemy does not care who gets hurt if you ultimately fall. The media does not care who gets hurt if it can ultimately make Trump fall.
 
There is a very good reason I so often compare the Left to Germany’s Nazi Party. The Nazis sought the destruction of their enemies through any means necessary, regardless of who was hurt in the process.
 
The Left, given the chance, would undoubtedly do the same thing Hitler did to Jews, Gypsies, gay people, and anyone not considered optimal in their eyes. In other words, anyone that disagrees with them is made to suffer even if they did nothing wrong.
 
I find it sadly ironic that they seem to be going down the road of anti-Semitism, further emulating the Nazis.
 
But as it stands right now, the media is the enemy of truth. They did not care about the full story of the kids and the protesters. They only cared about the narrative the situation afforded them.
 
They were excited when the story broke out and undoubtedly were highly disappointed that it turned out to be fake news.
 
They were ready to shed some young, Christian, Trump-supporter blood, but were left with black protesters being hateful towards the white kids and the Native American protesters looking to escalate things.
 
Instead of the minorities being the victims, like the Left wants them to be, they were found to be the aggressors while the supposedly racist white kids who happen to support Trump and also be Catholics were found not to be the aggressors but the victims. The complete opposite of what the Left wanted.
 
The media, the Democrat Party, Hellywood, and overall Left are the enemy of the people. That much is clear.
 
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
 
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 know me, you know I do not tend to insult people. I always argue Leftists’ dumb arguments but never really call those people dumb. I call them out for what they are, but typically without insulting them. And if I insult them, it’s typically a part of a joke, to some extent.
 
As for Don Lemon, I will not insult him, since that’s beneath me. However, this needs to be made completely clear: he is, without a shadow of a doubt, a disgustingly hypocritical slimeball.
 
Recently, Don Lemon said some things that will leave anyone to cringe in utter disgust with the man.
 
First, on a CNN panel on Monday, he argued that he doesn’t see Democrats killing people because of political motivations. That the mail-bomber and the Tree of Life shooter were both right-wingers and that that is to blame for the violence.
 
When the issue of the shooter who tried to kill Republicans came up, he argued that there is no equivalency there. No comparison. Of course, that being bullcrap, Lemon does not explain why it’s different.
 
Second, talking with Chris Cuomo, Lemon said “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right. And we have to start doing something about them… There is no white guy ban.”
 
In the same sentence, in the same breath, Lemon urges people not to demonize others, all-the-while demonizing white people and Republicans. It’s truly sickening what goes on in this guy’s mind and what comes out of his mouth. So allow me to slowly, but surely dismantle this guy’s arguments and properly call him out for exactly what he is.
 
Let’s begin with the argument that he doesn’t see Democrats killing people and that the socialist shooter is different from the synagogue shooter and mail-bomber.
 
First of all, even this hypocrite can’t tell me the socialist shooter wasn’t trying to kill people. The socialist shooter didn’t bring his AR-15 to the baseball field and start shooting Republicans because he wanted to have a civil conversation about healthcare. He went there because Bernie Sanders said prior to the shooting that Republicans were going to kill millions of people by getting rid of healthcare or changing it in the least.
 
The socialist shooter was reportedly shouting “this is for healthcare!” while he was shooting. Miraculously, that nut-job didn’t kill anyone. But he definitely tried to, given he was FIRING AT OTHER PEOPLE!
 
Second of all, the mail-bomber already had a history of violence, and even sending bombs in the mail in the past. Not to mention that the bombs were inoperable. They didn’t blow up and were not designed to. If Lemon can’t see Democrats killing people because the socialist shooter didn’t actually kill anyone, then by that logic, we can’t see the mail bomber killing anyone because he didn’t. Lemon’s argument here is largely based on the fortunate technicality that the socialist shooter didn’t manage to kill anyone. But let’s not forget that he was definitely trying to and sent Rep. Steve Scalise to the hospital.
 
Third of all, the Tree of Life shooter was not a right-winger. He was an ardent anti-Trumper who hated the fact that Trump was so pro-Jew and pro-Israel. That line of thinking falls more in line with anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour, Al Sharpton, etc., who are all Leftists.
 
Beyond the socialist shooter, there are countless other stories of Leftists threatening the lives of anyone they disagree with and committing acts of violence. I’ve already written about that sort of thing TWICE, listing the rap sheet from Breitbart about the number of Leftist and media-incited/ignored/acceptable acts of violence against the Right.
 
I don’ trust that any of them wouldn’t go as far as to kill someone they disagree with should they have the chance to. That’s one of the reasons we have the second amendment and why we carry guns, just in case someone threatens and fully intends to take our lives.
 
If they are willing to actually terrorize people they disagree with, the next step is to actually kill them. The only political groups that have shown this tendency and attitude are Leftist political groups like Black Lives Matter, some of whom HAVE gone as far as to kill cops, and Antifa, who are one successful killing away from being labeled a terrorist organization the likes of ISIS, Hamas, etc.
 
Finally, let’s not forget that a Democrat HAS ACTUALLY KILLED a Republican in the past. Need I remind you that John Wilkes Booth successfully assassinated Republican President Abraham Lincoln? Booth was from the Democrat South, which hated that Lincoln was fighting them over their supposed “right” to own a human being.
 
So if Lemon can’t see a Democrat killing anyone for political reasons, he is completely ignorant of history. Not something that surprises me, but something that must be pointed out here.
 
Now, let’s move on to the racially-charged comment that honestly makes me, a Latino man, sick to my stomach.
 
The hypocrisy of that comment leaves me in utter shock. Not because I didn’t expect it – I certainly did - but because within the same breath, he calls on people to stop demonizing others and proceeds to demonize others.
 
What he means by that statement is that Trump and Republicans need to stop demonizing the media and the Left and just take that same demonization themselves. The media definitely doesn’t need to stop demonizing Republicans. Democrats definitely don’t need to stop demonizing Republicans. The Left doesn’t need to tone down on the inflammatory rhetoric, but Trump and Republicans do. Matter of fact, slimeballs like Lemon will flat out deny that their rhetoric is in any way inflammatory.
 
I don’t really know what else to say. Lemon’s comment speaks for itself. Aside from being hugely hypocritical, it is disgustingly racist. Saying that white people are a terror threat? How is this guy allowed on television? Trying to bring up the supposed “Muslim” ban (which doesn’t ban Muslims, just people from a list of Islamic-terror-related countries, and they know that, but they don’t care) and suggesting that maybe there should be a “white guy” ban?
 
Do you see now why I call him a hypocritical slimeball? His rhetoric is more inflammatory than he could claim Trump’s is, his arguments are illogical and flat out racist, and he, as well as the entirety of CNN, all believe what he is saying is acceptable and even right and correct.
 
And this comes in the same week that Far-Left writer Julia Ioffe said, on CNN, that Trump has “radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did.”
 
She later “apologized” by saying she was “exaggerating”. But that, of course, leads us to believe she fully believes Trump has and is radicalizing people much in the same way ISIS does.
 
These two are not the only ones at CNN (or the broader Fake News media, for that matter) who have claimed Trump is to blame for the actions of the mail-bomber and synagogue shooter and is to blame for the current political climate.
 
But in doing all of this, apart from dodging the truth about those two nut-jobs (mail-bomber having a criminal history and the shooter being anti-Trump), they use the same inflammatory rhetoric they claim Trump is using, but even more so.
 
These people are unapologetic about their rhetoric. If they were, they wouldn’t be using it. For all their claims that Trump is dividing the nation, in reality, it is them who are doing that.
 
Trump, after the Tree of Life shooting, decided to go to Pittsburgh. The Left’s response? Attacking him, saying he shouldn’t be there. Trump, after the mail-bombing suspect was caught, gave a strong speech condemning his actions. The Left’s response? Trump is not being sincere.
 
While Trump’s use of “enemy of the people” to describe the FAKE news media (I capitalize the word fake because people tend to omit that part) might be inflammatory, it is nonetheless true. The fake news media constantly lies about everything, but that is the least of their sins that label them as the “enemy of the people”. Apart from straight up lying to people, they constantly label those they disagree with as racist, bigot, homophobe, etc. They label others as Nazis and fascists. They call Trump Hitler and a WaPo article even said he’s worse than Hitler.
 
In this labeling, they label everyone who supports Trump as a Nazi. Everyone who even slightly disagrees with them on anything as a Nazi. And Lemon, right here, is labeling those he disagrees with (and white people in general) as terror threats.
 
These people are filled to the brim with hatred. They hate Trump for everything he does and manages to do. They hate us for having ever defied their narcissistic behinds and choosing to support him. And in this hatred, they excuse actual threats and acts of violence against conservatives and right-wingers, all-the-while insisting it is us who are the real threat to democracy, to America, to people.
 
As human beings, I don’t consider the fake news media to be my enemy. As a Christian, I don’t do that. But as a political commentator, someone who wants what is best for the country, I consider them the enemy of the state.
 
Everything they want works towards the systemic dismantling of America as founded. That’s what the 8 years of Obama were all about. That’s what Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and every other Democrat is about. The fundamental destruction of the United States and the fundamental change towards a socialist nation in the likes of China, Venezuela, Soviet Russia, etc.
 
What they want is dangerous, and what they spew is dangerous. No, I would never harm any of them and anyone who wishes harm upon them, I disavow and no longer consider them conservatives because a true conservative would never want or do that.
 
But it truly must be understood that these people don’t care for America. THAT is what makes them the enemy of the people.
 
As for Lemon himself, I have nothing else to say. He’s a disgusting, hypocritical slimeball. I only have respect for him in that I respect his life and his right to his own opinion. Apart from that, he does not get nor deserve any sort of respect from anyone, let alone me.
 
I think he is someone in dire need of Christ. Looking into his eyes, I see someone who is dead inside. A typical trait for those who do not have faith in the Lord, and particularly for those on the Left. I sincerely hope he finds Christ. That is the best I can wish for him.
 
Ephesians 2:8
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift 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. Unlike the fake news media, I won’t lie to you about something being free. When I say this newsletter is free, that is the truth. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

You know the Left is reaching for everything including the kitchen sink when they do what they are doing in trying to destroy Kavanaugh. It’s not enough that he be attacked on sexual assault allegations that have not been corroborated even weeks after the initial allegation. They also have to get him on seemingly “having thrown ice” at someone in a bar some decades ago. And now, NBC News is alleging that Kavanaugh lied under oath about the Ramirez accusation.
 
NBC News showed a series of text messages sent by a number of Kavanaugh’s friends that indicated that Kavanaugh was aware a classmate of his named Deborah Ramirez was looking for dirt on him to make some sort of claim against him. NBC News tried to make all of this sound as though Kavanaugh was aware of exactly what Ramirez was doing, what she was alleging and that Kavanaugh had lied under oath about knowing all of this.
 
According to NBC News: “The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh’s team and former classmates in advance of the story.”
 
The perjury charge the fake news media outlet is looking for is that Kavanaugh had told Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that he was not made aware of Ramirez’ accusation until the story was made public through Ronan Farrow.
 
Here’s the thing: Kavanaugh did admit that he knew Ramirez was trying to do something, but he did not know exactly what until the story was made public.
 
According to the Daily Wire: “Kavanaugh admitted, in a deposition conducted by Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, that he knew Ramirez was looking for dirt and calling around to a handful of shared acquaintances trying to substantiate her own claims, and that he discussed the flurry of activity with an ‘inner circle’ of associates. But Kavanaugh didn’t find out precisely what Ramirez was telling reporters until reporters for the New Yorker asked him for comment.”
 
What’s more, a conservative Twitter user who goes by the handle “@AG_Conservative” goes on the attack against NBC News and clears some things up.
 
First, they share the following tweet: “The media is the enemy. No other way to put it. They have lied intentionally over and over again in the last few weeks. And no one bothers to check.”
 
Then, they get into the meat of their calling out of NBC News: “The catch is the ending where they essentially accuse Kavanaugh of perjury. Wow. Really seems from that like they got him lying about when he heard the allegation, right?” and showing a bit of the news story where they accuse Kavanaugh of lying under oath.
 
They follow up that tweet with this: “Take note that they omit most of the actual transcript. All their evidence simply shows that someone in his group seemed to know Ramirez was trying to accuse him of something. Here is the relevant part of the interview Kavanaugh did. Note: ‘Incident matching this description'’” and proceeds to share this part of the transcript:
 
“All right. My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?”
 
Kavanaugh replies with: “No”.
 
This is what NBC wants to get Kavanaugh on. However, AG_Conservative offers some insight with this tweet: “What NBC omits? Ramirez had been calling mutual friends for weeks looking for dirt on him. That’s how we know that she had admitted she wasn’t even sure it was Kavanaugh. Here is Kavanaugh later in the same interview with the committee:” and proceeds to share more of the transcript:
 
“What’s your reaction to that?”
 
Kavanaugh responds: “They couldn’t – the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least – and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that. And you know, that just strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people, is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound – that doesn’t sound good to me.”
 
AC_Conservative follows that up by saying: “In other words, Kavanaugh had already heard and testified in the very same interview that Ramirez was calling around looking for dirt on him. He didn’t know the specific allegation, but he had every reason to try to pre-empt something from her.”
 
That’s why AG-Conservative pointed out in one of their tweets: “Note: ‘Incident matching this description.’”
 
Kavanaugh knew that Ramirez was looking for dirt, but was not aware exactly what Ramirez was accusing him of. So NBC News lied about Kavanaugh lying under oath. He was 100% truthful in what he knew about at the time: Ramirez was looking for something but he did not know exactly what it was until the story broke out.
 
But wait, there’s more.
 
According to the Daily Wire: “After @AG_Conservative’s systematic dismantling of their story went viral, NBC News made corrections, but Tuesday morning, the network was still pushing the story (though now with a vague reference to Kavanaugh’s deposition).”
 
Another Twitter user called them out saying: “The NBC story accusing Kavanaugh of perjury has been updated – without any note, or acknowledgment of that fact – and now includes a reference to the full September 25th testimony that flatly contradicts the claim being made. And yet NBC is still pushing it.”
 
This is the very definition of fake news. NBC News ran a story that was blatantly false by omitting key parts of the testimony so as to make Kavanaugh look like a liar when he isn’t and then updates the story, without making a note of it, and offers the evidence that contradicts their claim but does not retract the story or offer any sort of apology.
 
By which I mean not an apology to Kavanaugh, which honestly they (and everyone else in the media) owe to him, but an apology to their readers who take what they say to heart. They blatantly lie and omit things to shape reality instead of reflect it and then keep pushing the story but with the added bonus of offering the evidence to contradict the very ludicrous claims they are making.
 
This IS fake news. Every bit of it.
 
One way I would describe the media and the Left’s treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is the following: they treat him the same way they have treated Trump, but on steroids.
 
What do I mean? Just look at all the different news articles about Kavanaugh. There’s the accusations of sexual abuse, assault, rape, etc. made against him, with no presumption of innocence and no need to corroborate the claims or issue any evidence in support of the claims being made.
 
They’re reaching for anything and everything including supposedly lying under oath, supposedly having thrown ice at someone in a bar decades ago, and even having preferred to play basketball while he was in college (I already wrote an article on that, so I won’t get into too much detail).
 
Compare all of this with the way they have treated Trump. They accuse Trump of having colluded with Russia and demanded investigations be made against him because of this. There was no evidence to suggest it before and during the investigation (I would say after, but it’s still ongoing, as much of a train-wreck as it may be).
 
Aside from that, they also accused him of sexual predation with that Access Hollywood tape (which doesn’t even accuse Trump of actually doing anything, just shows him commenting on something celebrities do) and have tried to bring forth multiple women to accuse him of sexual assault (though they all pretty much were abandoned when Trump won).
 
So the way they are treating Kavanaugh is the same way they have been treating Trump, but in a far bigger and more rushed scale.
 
Which is why it doesn’t come as a surprise to me when a fake news source like NBC News publishes a story accusing Kavanaugh of perjury while either ignoring the facts or letting people see the facts that contradict their claims.
 
This is fake news in a nutshell. And this is why Trump calls them the “enemy of the people”. To them, if you don’t agree with them, you are someone that must be destroyed. It doesn’t matter if you haven’t done anything majorly wrong in your life, they will make up anything they can and need in order to destroy you.
 
They would accuse Jesus Christ of sexual assault if they had to. That’s how depraved these people are.
 
Micah 2:1
“Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in the power of their hand.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. Inside, you will find a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right to your inbox. And as the name suggests, it is completely free of cost. Unlike the fake news media that constantly praises socialists’ call for free everything, I won’t lie to you when I say that this is free. So check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

While I have mostly been trying to stay off of this topic since everyone else is talking about it and I have already said likely what is the most important thing surrounding this issue: that the #MeToo movement is a Socratic issue of logic vs. ignorance, I feel compelled to talk about something that happened recently surrounding this entire issue, at least in regards to the way the MSM wants to portray this entire matter.
 
CNN interviewed a group of five Republican women from Florida last week to ask them some questions on their opinions surrounding this entire case.
 
Randi Kaye, the interviewer from CNN, asked: “A show of hands, how many of you believe Judge Kavanaugh when he says this didn’t happen?”
 
To which all five women raised their hands.
 
One of the women, named Lourdes Castillo De La Pena, elaborated further: “How can we believe the word of a woman from something that happened 36 years ago? This guy has an impeccable reputation. Nobody, nobody that has spoken ill will about him. Everyone that speaks about him. This guy’s an altar boy, a scout. Because one woman made an allegation? Sorry, I don’t buy it.”
 
Another, named Inna Villarino, added: “In the grand scheme of things, my goodness, there was no intercourse. There was maybe a touch. Can we – really? 36 years and she’s still stuck on that?”
 
With another woman, named Gina Sosa adding: “I mean, we’re talking about a 15-year-old girl, which I respect. You know, I’m a woman. I respect. But we’re talking about a 17-year-old boy in high school with testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasn’t done this in high school. Please, I would like to know.”
 
And another woman, named Angie Vazquez, was savvy enough to ask: “Why didn’t she come out when he was going into the Bush White House? Why didn’t she come out – he’s been a federal judge for over a decade.”
 
Now, I have mixed feelings about these responses. While I do appreciate that these women are smart enough not to fall for Ford’s evidence-less accusations, some of the answers here are fairly questionable.
 
Let’s begin with the first answer, the one that Lourdes gave. She mentions that it’s been 36 years since this incident happened and that it’s only been one woman stepping forward to accuse him. While I am of the belief that the Left could and likely would recruit other women to come forth and accuse Kavanaugh of things he likely didn’t do, my bigger issue is with her initial response.
 
It doesn’t really matter how long ago something happened if it was wrong. Assuming that what Ford is saying is the truth (this is basically the only time I will do this as I do not believe she’s telling the truth), objectively, the only problems I have with this being so old are that:
 
     1)  Ford likely won’t be able to remember things in too great a detail. As traumatizing as such an even is for women, it’s also something they’d like to forget. 

     2)  I really do have to ask why she didn’t come forward earlier than this. I believe that maybe she didn’t go to the police because it’s either an embarrassing thing to admit (though it was just groping, according to her, so it’s not as embarrassing as full-blown rape) or the police wouldn’t do much to investigate the issue.
 
So while I do have problems with the fact that this is an allegation of something that happened 36 years ago, if it did happen, it doesn’t matter how long ago it was. Now, Lourdes could mean to say that Ford’s memory likely won’t be too good and thus, the accusation might not be very credible, but she did not elaborate much further on what she meant by mentioning how long ago it was and why should we believe her considering how long ago it was.
 
And perhaps my argument is shaped this way because of what the second woman, Inna, said, about it having been 36 years ago and she’s “still stuck on that”. Maybe that’s the reason I made the argument that it doesn’t matter how long ago it was, and I believe that’s a fairly good argument, but Lourdes might not necessarily have meant it as “it was over 30 years ago, just let go!” That’s how I heard it, but maybe she didn’t mean it that way.
 
Now, the answer that Gina Sosa gives, about this being a 17-year-old boy with raging hormones and “what boy hasn’t done this in high school” does irk me a lot.
 
Understanding such behavior does not necessarily mean excusing it. Using the “boys will be boys” argument in this instance, under the assumption that Ford is telling the truth, is asinine and wrong. If Kavanaugh did grope Ford when they were teenagers (I feel compelled to remind everyone that I do not believe Ford’s accusation and this is entirely hypothetical) and if they were both drunk, the fact that they were teenagers does not excuse their behavior.
 
I was a teenager once and I dealt with my share of hormones. I would look where I ought not to look, I would think what I ought not to think and had impulses. But I never acted on those impulses, at least not with other people.
 
Sosa asks what boy in high school hasn’t done something like that, well I’ll raise my hand and say that I never did. In high school is when I converted to Christianity. Of course, I still dealt with hormones and emotions and impulses, but I knew better than to act on them. If Kavanaugh was a Christian when he was 17, and I mean truly Christian, knowing right from wrong and doing things with the aim to please God, then I have a hard time believing that 1) Kavanaugh groped anyone and 2) he was illegally drinking and getting hammered to the point where he would grope someone.
 
That’s not to say we don’t sometimes stumble and do something wrong, of course. As I’ve explained in the past, we are all sinners and sin is wrong. But being a Christian tends to lower the chances of doing something like that (and don’t bring up the Catholic Church priests molesting young boys because those “priests” are not Christians and neither is the Pope for ignoring it).
 
So Sosa’s answer really is not good at all. Understanding that teenagers have hormones does not excuse the actions they partake because of those hormones. If my 15-year-old daughter went to a party, got drunk and got groped by a 17-year-old boy who was also drunk, I would do a number of things.
 
First, of course, ground her for going to an unsupervised party (I assume it was unsupervised if there was alcohol) and getting drunk at said party.
 
Second, I would go to the boy, give him a stern talking-to, give his parents a stern talking-to and encourage my daughter to file charges the following day (and not 36 YEARS LATER).
 
Finally, I would give her a big hug and tell her everything’s taken care of.
 
But that last one is beside the point. The point is that I would be righteously pissed if a boy did that do my daughter. She would not be entirely without blame for being there and getting drunk in the first place, but I would be angrier with the boy. So Sosa’s answer, even without having a daughter, honestly annoyed me. That’s entirely the wrong answer to give, truthful accusation or not.
 
Finally, we move on to the one answer to the interviewer’s question that I actually liked, which is Angie’s. Why didn’t Ford bring this up in the past? Why didn’t she bring this up when Kavanaugh was going to the Bush White House? Why not at any point when he was a federal judge, or when he was going to get confirmed as a federal judge? Why wait until now when he’s about to be on the Supreme Court, nominated by a President Ford adamantly disagrees with?
 
A lot of things surrounding this case raises questions. Such as: “why didn’t she go to the local police soon after it happened?” Or “Why did she write a letter to a Senator 36 years after the incident happened?” Or “If Ford really did not want to come out to accuse Kavanaugh, why write the letter in the first place?” Or “Why did Feinstein sit on that letter until about a week before his confirmation vote? Why not raise this during the hearings I will henceforth dub ‘the Spartacus hearing’?” Or “Why did no one find this issue during the extensive vetting process Kavanaugh underwent before the hearings?”
 
So there are a lot of questions surrounding this issue that, to me, diminish some credibility of Ford. Add that to the fact she has no evidence or witnesses to corroborate her story or even the willingness to go under oath to testify in a trial that would be equally fair for Kavanaugh and I find it astonishing for anyone to believe her for any reason other than that she’s a woman.

Now, there were more questions from the CNN interviewer that you can hear in the video posted below, but I won’t talk about those as this article is long enough as it is.
 
The overall point of sharing this is that I believe CNN’s intent for this interview was to have Republican women openly going against Kavanaugh. I think it was an effort to have other Republican women be against Kavanaugh because these ones were. Although, it clearly backfired. I don’t think CNN expected any woman, conservative or liberal, to support Kavanaugh regarding this issue.
 
Although, I find it interesting that they didn’t get 5 Democrat women to lie and say they were Republicans who were against Kavanaugh. I feel like that would be more along the lines of the fake news nature of CNN, but I guess they decided to go with legitimately Republican women here and thought even Republican women would be against Kavanaugh.
 
Regardless, CNN failed once again and I get to laugh at their flimsy attempt to destroy Kavanaugh and subsequently Trump, since that’s always the aim of CNN.
 
Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are His delight.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles as well as access to our online store sent straight into your inbox. And the best part is that it won’t cost you a single cent. And given the verse above, you know that I wouldn’t lie about that.
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.