It might be rather annoying for some people to read headline after headline regarding a natural disaster being blamed on climate change, but it’s personally become a hobby for me to look at them and take some enjoyment out of it (not because of the people affected by it, of course, as that is always the tragic part of the story, but because of the ridiculous crap these unhinged Leftists have to say about it).
 
And most recently, we have Venice, Italy being hit with what is being considered the worst flood in 50 years.
 
From the AP: “The worst flooding in Venice in more than 50 years prompted calls Wednesday to better protect the historic city from rising sea levels as officials calculated hundreds of millions of euros in damage. The water reached 1.87 meters (6.14 feet) above average sea level Tuesday, the second-highest level ever recorded in the city and just 7 centimeters (2.5 inches) lower than the historic 1966 flood. Another wave of exceptionally high water followed Wednesday.”
 
The mayor of Venice, Luigi Brugnaro, said: “Venice is on its knees. St. Mark’s Basilica has sustained serious damage, like the entire city and its islands.”
 
Suffice to say, many fake news sites (and the mayor himself) are doing their best to blame this on climate change. However, there are a number of problems with this.
 
First of all, as previously established, this isn’t the first time Venice has flooded like this. Venice itself is a city that is permanently flooded. It’s been like this for centuries. The Wikipedia page on Venice itself mentions that 600 years ago, Venetians “protected themselves from land-based attacks by diverting all the major rivers flowing into the lagoon and thus preventing sediment from filling the area around the city. This created an ever-deeper lagoon environment.” The page also notes that in 1608, Venice produced one of the earliest examples of paper currency in order to offset the cost of flood relief.
 
Now, I know that Wikipedia is not necessarily the most factual of sites to use, but I cannot find information like this elsewhere that goes into that sort of detail. But even if literally none of that is true, there is no denying the second point:
 
Just last year, fake news sites were blaming climate change on the Venetian canals RUNNING DRY. From the U.K. Express: “Where’s the water GON-DOLA? Venice’s iconic canals run DRY after weeks without rain.” So it’s climate change when the city overfloods and it’s also climate change when the canals dry up?
 
Thirdly, Venice tends to get floods every year, between the seasons of autumn and spring. The Guardian has an article, though a tad outdated by this point, that shows pictures of various floods in Venice’s recent existence. They show floods from November of 1927, December of 1933, March of 1964, February of 1974, 1980 (no month given), November of 1996, November of 2001, October of 2006, January of 2010, November of 2011, October of 2012, and November of 2012 (article was published in 2015, so it doesn’t go much further than that).
 
And even then, those aren’t all the floods the city has endured, as previously mentioned, with the city’s worst flooding having occurred in 1966.
 
But the point I’m trying to make here is that you cannot seriously suggest that flooding that was a regular occurrence since at least the 1600s, if going by the Wikipedia article, or at least the 1800s (there is a painting from Vincenzo Chilone that shows a flood in 1825) could in any way be due to climate change.
 
One common theme across all of the fake news articles blaming climate change is that they specifically blame rising sea levels for the floods. But there is a major problem with that. According to the NOAA, sea levels are rising at 1/8th of an inch per year, or 3.175mm per year. But multiple studies suggest that Venice is sinking at a rate of 1-2mm per year, slower than the average that NOAA gives us.
 
Meaning that rising sea levels cannot be attributed as the culprit of this. Now, I understand that averages don’t necessarily reflect individual cases. However, if sea levels rising are to be blamed, this is something we have to discuss. Venice, a city that is perpetually underwater with canals (that sometimes dry up), is sinking at a lower rate than these Leftists claim the rest of the world is. How exactly does that make sense? If the entire world is at risk due to rising sea levels (which I challenge because the ice caps aren’t melting and even if they were, the water would remain roughly where it is), wouldn’t Venice have to be at extreme risk and shouldn’t the average sinking rate for Venice itself have to be considerably higher than the alleged global average?
 
Even if you think I’m wrong or I make no sense here, there is no denying the utter hypocrisy the fake news media constantly shows. When it gets particularly hot, they blame climate change. When it gets particularly cold, they blame climate change. When there’s a hurricane, they blame climate change to the point they ridiculously claim there were no hurricanes before climate change “began”. When there is a forest fire in California, they blame climate change instead of the dangerous and idiotic Leftist policies that endanger the State, the wildlife, the forest and the citizens. When there is a flooding in a city that is perpetually flooded, they blame climate change. When the canals in Venice dry up instead of continuing to flood, they blame climate change.
 
Basically, if LITERALLY ANYTHING AT ALL HAPPENS, it’s climate change’s fault. Lost your job? Climate change. Significant other cheated on you? Climate change. Got a flat tire? Climate change. These people are like Mr. Turner blaming Dinkleberg for everything, only sadder because that is a cartoon and this is real life.
 
Psalm 101:7
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In this day and age, we never run short of examples of media or overall Leftist hypocrisy. However, this case is one that particularly grinds my gears because it is a story relating to sexual assault, pedophilia and protecting the elites who often act as though they are above the law (and in some cases, unfortunately, are above the law, at least the law of Man).
 
Back when then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was facing an onslaught of ever-crazier stories of sexual assault, rape and misconduct, ABC News was one of the main headliners of these stories, running multiple reports of these allegations, including the most bombastic one: Julie Swetnick’s. If you remember, her story included multiple parties that she had attended some 30 or 40 years prior where in each and every one, she alleges there were “rape trains” occurring but ultimately could not remember if Kavanaugh was one of the guys who allegedly participated in it.
 
I said that that one was likely the single craziest one and least credible one of them all (few, if any, were credible, with Ford’s being the most likely to have been credible and even then, there were many question marks about her testimony), and yet, ABC News ran with the story as though it was 100% credible and as though there was sufficient evidence in the story to run it.
 
Keep that last point in mind, as it will be important later on.
 
In any case, that is what the fake news organization, ABC News, attempted to do to Kavanaugh: smear him with any and all allegations of heinous acts of rape and sexual misconduct. And yet, according to a recent bombshell video from Project Veritas, the same people who pushed for the crazy and unverified allegations against Kavanaugh decided not to report on the heinous, more credible, and more provable actions of now-deceased Democrat mega-donor Jeffrey Epstein.
 
In a leaked video, ABC News anchor Amy Robach said the following on a hot mic:
 
“I’ve had the story for three years. I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (one of Epstein’s alleged victims and accusers). We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein?’, ‘No one knows who that is,’, ‘This is a stupid story.’ Then the (Royal) Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew (who was implicated in the Epstein story) and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will, that also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the planes. [Roberts] told me everything. She had pictures, she had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years, we convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had, (Bill) Clinton, we had everything.”
 
“I tried for three years to get it on to no avail and now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new relevant revelations and I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now, like every day I get more and more pissed because I’m like, oh my God, what we had was unreal. Other women backing it up. Brad Edwards, the attorney (for the alleged victims), three years ago saying like, ‘there will come a day [when] we will realize Jeffrey was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.’ I had it all three years ago.”
 
Of course, this bombshell of a leaked video had to be addressed by both Amy and her employer, ABC News, particularly because of how bad this makes them look as a news organization. This is extremely similar to the NBC News story where they had the opportunity to report on Harvey Weinstein’s rapes and sexual assaults but chose to bury the story.
 
In any case, here is Amy Robach’s statement regarding the leaked footage and what she said on the hot mic:
 
“As a journalist, as the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations. My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private islands were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015. I was referencing her allegations – not what ABC News had verified through our reporting. The interview itself, while I was disappointed it didn’t air, didn’t meet our standards. In the years since no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.”
 
And here’s ABC News’ statement reflecting something similar to Robach’s:
 
“At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story. Ever since we’ve had a team on this investigation and substantial resources dedicated to it. That work had led to a two-hour documentary and 6-part podcast that will air in the new year.”
 
One key element in both statements is the allegation that ABC News has any sort of editorial standards. I, presently, cannot find any corroborating evidence of such an allegation, given what they considered to be “news-worthy” enough for these people to run.
 
Again, they ran the extremely poor and hilariously bad allegation from JULIE SWETNICK. She alleged something insane, where she expected people to believe she would go to a party held by the same high schoolers (she was in college) around ten different times, knowing after the first experience that “rape trains” would occur and STILL went. And ALL OF THAT just to eventually reveal that she wasn’t even sure whether or not Kavanaugh, the subject in question and the one being marred as a serial rapist and sexual abuser, actually participated in any of the sexual assaults or rapes that allegedly occurred at those parties.
 
Not only was her testimony extremely suspicious and completely incredible (as in, not credible at all), but she ultimately couldn’t even really allege much about THE GUY THESE PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO PAINT AS A RAPIST DEMON and they STILL ran her story as though she were sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the whole world needed to hear her story, despite the fact that Swetnick had no corroborating evidence to anything she was alleging.
 
The statement from Robach even sounds almost like she had a gun to her head from her employers if she didn’t try and correct the record or issue some sort of clarification that would save ABC News’ face to some degree. It sounds extremely forced and for good reason: ABC News wishes they could bury this story like they did the Epstein one.
 
The Epstein story, having heavily implicated both Prince Andrew and former President Bill Clinton (Clinton had traveled in Epstein’s private jets and the pilot logs frequently note that underage girls would accompany him and Epstein, painting Clinton as even more of a sexual assaulter and demon than he already was due to the Broaddrick, Lewisnky and Paula Jones scandals), would’ve hurt the Democrats, particularly then-hopeful Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton.
 
Yet another story implicating Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct would’ve only piled on more to Hillary’s inability to be an electable candidate. The e-mails and the already-known sexual assault allegations made against Bill were bad enough, the last thing the Democrat Party needed was yet another story where “the comeback kid” (a nickname that now sounds so horrible when you think about it) likely could have raped not only more women, but underage girls.
 
This is the utterly despicable hypocrisy the Left-wing media possesses. If a prominent right-winger gets accused of sexual misconduct, it is treated as fact despite all the lacking evidence and even despite any semblance of credibility. Kavanaugh has been forever marred as a rapist and sexual assaulter by these people. His reputation has been eternally tarnished.
 
But if a prominent left-winger gets accused of sexual misconduct, no matter the available evidence or the credibility of the accusation, the story gets buried, ignored and the left-winger continues to be paraded around as a “woke” character who is of great moral standing.
 
Beyond the fact that this is horrendously hypocritical, what’s even worse is the fact that this only puts sexual assault victims and future victims at risk. Real stories will go unreported because of the fake ones that gain national attention and get recognized as fake and young girls are led to believe that these Democrats are good and kind-hearted people, eager to help you with anything you need and can be wholly trusted regarding anything.
 
It puts young girls at risk of being raped and their testimony shut down. It covers for sexual assaulters and rapists and leaves vulnerable girls at risk of it happening to them in the future. Let’s not forget that the Katie Hill story was covered like the Clinton impeachment story was: that it was just about sex. It wasn’t just about sex. It was about having sex with a subordinate, which goes against House ethics rules, and about sexually abusing the subordinate and pimping her out to the representative’s husband. There were PHOTOGRAPHS of this occurring and the media treated Katie Hill like SHE was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
 
Meanwhile, no attention is paid to how her victims feel about the entire fiasco, no attention is paid to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton (and others) because the allegations made are against the people these Leftists in the media support and favor.
 
ABC News should feel utterly ashamed at what they are doing and what they have done, but we know good and well that they have no shame to feel. They’ll sweep this whole ordeal under the rug and go on to continue to report highly incredible allegations against right-wingers where they might pop up and continue to report on how “screwed” Trump is due to the impeachment scam.
 
These people make me sick.
 
Proverbs 17:15
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”
 
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.

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.

​With the Democrats jumping the shark with this latest attempt to smear President Trump as having committed a crime (none can be found and they have to make stuff up) and seeking to launch an impeachment inquiry before either the Ukraine phone call transcript or the whistleblower complaint were released, it’s quite obvious that Nancy Pelosi has completely lost control of the Democrat Party in the House of Representatives, which is the reason Trump tweeted that she was no longer the House Speaker (which the humorless Left considered to be an official declaration from him that he doesn’t have the power to do and not a joke at Pelosi’s expense).
 
Along this decision to launch an impeachment inquiry that will ultimately backfire on the Left harder than the Russian collusion hoax (just as little evidence of wrongdoing and tons of made-up bullcrap made to smear the President won’t get rid of Trump, I can assure you), Pelosi told The Texas Tribune CEO and co-founder Evan Smith that it didn’t matter if the Democrats lost the House in 2020.
 
Smith first said: “I want to ask you… heading into the next election cycle, do you have any anxiety at all about any of the stuff we’re talking about or anything that we’re not talking about impacting your ability to hold control of the House in 2020?”
 
Pelosi replied: “Doesn’t matter… Our first responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
 
Yeah, right. If that were what you were seeking to do, you wouldn’t be launching an impeachment inquiry based on a hearsay report… before that report was even made public.
 
She continued: “People say you have to take a political risk doing that. That doesn’t matter. That doesn’t matter because we cannot have a President of the United States undermining his oath of office, his loyalty to his oath of office, undermining our national security, and undermining the integrity of our elections. Our elections are the fundamental point of our democracy.”
 
Okay, two things. First, we are not a democracy. We are a republic. Unfortunately, those two terms are used so interchangeably, even by Pelosi later on in the interview, that most people have completely forgotten what the difference is and think they are the same thing. They are not.
 
Second, where was this “patriotism” when Obama had the FBI spy on Trump? Where was it when Obama let 4 Americans die in Benghazi? Where was it when Obama’s IRS began to spy on conservatives? Where was it when Obama’s DOJ gave guns to the cartel? Where was it when Obama promised Medvedev that he would “have more flexibility” after the 2012 election?
 
Every single charge the Democrats throw at Trump has been committed by Barack Obama. Every lie they spread about Trump is a truth about Obama. Democrats didn’t care as Obama superseded the Constitution when he used an EO to bring DACA into law or when he made a nuclear deal with Iran without having Congress ratify it.
 
When a Democrat acts like a dictator, these people have no problem. When a Republican is in office, the Democrats will lie and say he is a dictator.
 
But in any case, allow me to get to the main point of this article. To reiterate, Nancy Pelosi says that it doesn’t matter if the Democrats lose the House in 2020 if Trump gets impeached. I really only have one question: if impeachment of Trump is as popular as some polls would have us believe, such as a CBS poll which says that 55% of people approve of an impeachment inquiry into Trump, why would the Democrats be in trouble of losing the House in 2020?
 
If impeaching Trump is as demanded as the Left claims it is, as the fake news polls claim it is, then how are the Democrats the ones at risk in 2020? You would think that if impeachment is as highly-desired by the vast majority of the American populace that the party moving forward with impeachment would be a lock-in to win the White House, the Senate, and keep the House, if not grow their majority.
 
Pelosi, who only a week or so ago claimed there was no way a Democrat wouldn’t win the White House in 2020, is now accepting the fact that there is a possibility the Democrats would lose the House come 2020?
 
These people aren’t as confident that Trump will be impeached and defeated as they might claim to be. In fact, if Al Green is anything to go by, the only reason they are looking to impeach Trump is because they KNOW he will win reelection.
 
While it only takes a simple majority in the House to impeach Trump, which the Democrats have, impeachment does not mean removal from office. It also doesn’t mean that Trump can’t run for reelection. The removal of Trump would have to be the Senate’s job, where a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, would be required. And given the composition of the current Senate, that would mean a third of Republicans would have to vote in favor of removal, which is unlikely, even with traitors like Romney, Mike Lee and the others who voted against Trump’s National Emergency declaration to build the wall.
 
So even if the House does vote in favor of impeaching Trump, that doesn’t mean he’s defeated. It taints his presidency for sure, but it’s not the complete and utter defeat that the Democrats would want.
 
And again, I highly doubt that the impeachment of Trump is what most people want, as people are reading into these polls. If it were as demanded by people as these polls might claim, the Democrats would not stand to lose anything in 2020.
 
If you remember, I used to say that the reason Pelosi was trying to hold back against the radical Leftists in her party demanding for impeachment was because this would put Democrats in swing states at risk of losing their seats if they were forced to vote on impeachment. If you remember from an article last month where I discussed what would likely happen if Democrats were to seek to impeach Trump (granted, this was before the Russian-collusion 2.0 story came up), Democrat voters in purple states were at risk of losing voters regardless of what way they voted. Simply being forced to vote for it would mean risking their seats.
 
But now, Pelosi has either succumbed to the pressure from the radical Leftists in her party or she has gone full-blown TDS (likely a bit of both).
 
Now, launching an impeachment inquiry into Trump is not the same as holding the actual impeachment vote itself. It could also be that Pelosi is simply trying to buy some time by having an impeachment inquiry, that way they can attack Trump and she can give the radicals a little something to chew on for the time being. But I don’t know for sure why Pelosi has decided to do this, particularly given the timing of the entire thing.
 
It’s one thing if there is an allegation against Trump and there is a whistleblower complaint (that is nothing but hearsay, but let’s pretend it’s relatively legit for the time being) that could then be made public. But launching an impeachment inquiry before people even know the reason for it apart from fake news reports is… surprisingly short-sighted from Pelosi.
 
Although, the more you think about it, with what we know from the NYT, that AG Bill Barr is also trying to work with Australia (who also had a hand in the 2016 smear of Trump), it becomes clear that the purpose behind all of this the Democrats simply have no other choice. Barr might be inching closer and closer to finding the many skeletons in the Democrats' closet which could absolutely destroy them come 2020. They failed in destroying him and now, that failure might come back to bite them, if Barr finds and releases what I think he will find and release. At the end of the day, all this is is a cover up of 2016 and obstruction of justice.

But regardless of what may be the purpose behind this impeachment inquiry, one thing is certain: they are not as confident as they pretend they are that this will get rid of Trump for good. To reiterate, if this is truly what the vast majority of the American people wanted, there would be no risk for the Democrats in the House in 2020, or any other public office. Pelosi could’ve just as easily replied by saying: “I won’t even entertain that thought as it’s not possible” or simply allude to the impossibility of Democrats coming up massive losers here. But she didn’t. She acknowledged the Democrats could lose and lose big.
 
If this truly was the course the American people wanted to take, the Democrats would only stand to gain from launching an impeachment inquiry. I think Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats, are seriously mischaracterizing what the will of the American people is. Not that I can blame them, with fake news polls showing what they are showing. The Democrats live and die by polls telling them they are winning and they are special. If a poll essentially gives them the green light to begin an impeachment inquiry or even formal proceedings, even if it’s nothing but fake news, these people will roll with it. They are that self-involved and narcissistic that they believe they can do no wrong and everything they do is seen as perfection by the majority of people.
 
But reality has to set in at one point or another. Likely, that point will be November 4th, 2020, the day after the election when a winner will have been decided.
 
Proverbs 6:12-15
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
 
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 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.