Searching through news articles and op-eds for me to find inspiration, I came across an opinion piece published on Scientific American with the following title: “Can Science Rule Out God?”, with the subhead reading: “We must understand the laws of nature before we can deduce their origins”.
 
Naturally, I became interested in what the author of the piece, a man by the name of Mark Alpert, had to say on this subject. The debate between science and religion has existed for centuries at this point since the Age of “Enlightenment” (I put it in quotation marks since it seems to have had just the opposite effect when it came to logic and reason).
 
From the outset, Mr. Alpert notes that he himself is not a religious man, does not outright believe in the existence of God as He is found in the Bible, but is not an atheist either, but something more akin to an agnostic (which has roots to the Greek word “agnostos” meaning “unknown” or “unknowable”, or in other words, basically means ignorant since “agnoia” means “ignorance”, so it is interesting that someone would be willing to call themselves “ignorant”). Mr. Alpert also mentions that for a decade, he had been an editor at the very scientific journal that he is currently writing for in efforts to expose “the falsehoods of ‘intelligent design’ proponents who claimed to see God’s hand in the fashioning of complex biological structures” like the human eye and bacteria.
 
Not quite sure what falsehoods he could be talking about with this. The only other argument here is that these complex things came about entirely by chance, which as I have explained time and time again, is nothing more than mathematical probability of an event occurring and it has no inherent power to act upon anything, but I digress.
 
Mr. Alpert eventually writes something that I found interesting. He notes that “as physicists investigate the most fundamental characteristics of nature, they’re tackling issues that have long been the province of philosophers and theologians: Is the universe infinite and eternal? Why does it seem to follow mathematical laws, and are those laws inevitable? And, perhaps most importantly, why does the universe exist? Why is there something instead of nothing?”
 
That last question is really what intrigues me (and the question about the universe being infinite and eternal, which I will get to). Indeed, why is there something instead of nothing? And here is where we arrive to one of three possible theories to explain the existence of the universe:
 
Theory #1: the universe was created by God, who is a self-existing, eternal being, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
 
Theory #2: the universe is eternal and self-existing.
 
Theory #3: the universe is not eternal but self-created.
 
Let us observe the objective reality that there is, indeed, something, as opposed to nothing. By sheer reason and logic, we can completely eliminate the third theory as a whole. Why? Because of two laws: the Law of Causality (or the Law of Cause and Effect, if you will) and the Law of Noncontradiction.
 
The Law of Causality is, as explained, the law of Cause and Effect. Simply put, this law means that every effect must have an antecedent cause. For a ball to move, force must be applied to it. Someone must move it themselves, be it with their hands or their feet, or simply a strong enough gust of wind or the force of gravity must act on it in order for the effect of motion to occur. Following Newton’s First Law, the Law of Inertia, an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an outside force.
 
Every effect must have an antecedent cause and if there is no cause, there is no effect. The second of the laws I mentioned is the Law of Noncontradiction which simply states that A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. Something cannot BE and NOT BE at the same time and in the same relationship.
 
For example, you can be a father and you can be a son at the same time, but you cannot be both at the same time and in the same relationship. You cannot be your own father and you cannot be your own son. It is logically impossible for such a relationship to exist. Another example would be that you cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship. Or you cannot have a job and not have a job at the same time and in the same relationship, etc.
 
So why do I bring this law into the conversation? Because in order for the universe to create itself, it first must BE and NOT BE at the same time and the same relationship. It must exist and NOT exist, which is not physically or logically possible. In order for something to create anything, even itself, it must first BE. You cannot argue that the universe created itself because you would then be arguing illogically, as the universe must first have not existed and existed at the same time and in the same relationship.
 
NOTHING can create itself, as a result. It is logically, not to mention physically, impossible for something to create itself simply because it would have to literally defy LOGIC in order for this to happen. Not even God has the power to create Himself.
 
If there ever was a time when there was nothing, without the acting of an outside being that is self-existing and eternal, there would be nothing at this very moment. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. So if there is SOMETHING, it absolutely could not have come from nothing, at least out of its own power. So the third theory is eliminated entirely.
 
So let’s move on to the second theory, which is something Mr. Alpert covers, even if unwittingly. Mr. Alpert writes:
 
“Cosmologists don’t know if the universe even had a beginning. Instead it might’ve had an eternal past before the big bang, stretching infinitely backward in time. Some cosmological models propose that the universe has gone through endless cycles of expansion and contraction. And some versions of the theory of inflation postulate an eternal process in which new universes are forever branching off from the speedily expanding ‘inflational background.’”
 
Such theories should be easy enough to discern why they might not hold up. If the universe is endlessly expanding and contracting in cycles, what is causing it and when did that start? To return to the Law of Causality, all effects must have an antecedent cause. If something, anything, including the universe itself, is expanding and contracting like a lung, then what is the CAUSE?
 
It is this very law that also eliminates the second theory. The very existence of the universe, the fact that there is something instead of nothing, is an effect. Again, out of nothing, nothing comes. Even those who believe in the second theory understand this principle and it is the reason why such people do not believe in the third theory. But the Law of Causality also throws a wrench at the second theory. The existence of the universe, being an effect, must have an antecedent cause.
 
Funny enough, even Mr. Alpert notes this: “But other cosmologists argue that inflation had to start somewhere, and the starting point could’ve been essentially nothing. As we’ve learned from quantum theory, even empty space has energy, and nothingness is unstable. All kinds of improbable things can happen in empty space, and one of them might’ve been a sudden drop to a lower vacuum energy, which could’ve triggered the inflationary expansion.”
 
A few things about this. First, I’m glad that he notes that cosmologists have enough logic to argue that this cycle of inflation (if true) had to start somewhere. That’s nice.
 
Second, and most importantly, suppose that the “sudden drop to a lower vacuum energy” is, indeed, what happened and caused this “inflationary expansion”. We return, once again, to the Law of Causality. What CAUSED that sudden drop? I don’t think I need to argue why a “sudden drop” is an effect. When you suddenly drop a coin, that drop had an antecedent cause. The same, therefore, must be applied here.
 
Which brings us to the first theory I talked about: the theory of a self-existing, eternal being with the power to create and manipulate energy and matter itself to create anything and everything.
 
Now, non-believing skeptics might argue “but doesn’t the Law of Causality apply to this theory too? You argued that an eternal, self-existing universe cannot be because of this Law, which says that all things must have a cause. Why is this theory, the one that points to an eternal, self-existing God, any different?”
 
The answer is simple: because the Law of Causality states that every EFFECT must have an antecedent cause. God is not an effect, but the antecedent cause. God is not a creation. He is not an effect, because if He were, literally nothing would make any sense. There’d be no universe and no intelligent being to understand anything for anything to make sense. God CANNOT be an effect and most certainly, He is not.
 
God is the antecedent cause in the Law of Causality. If you argue that the universe came about because of a “sudden drop” to a lower vacuum energy, one must still explain the cause of that sudden drop and the only feasible and logical outcome would have to be the acknowledgement of a self-existing, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being and there is only one such being that can come to mind, and that is the God of the Bible.
 
It is for this very reason that science cannot rule out the existence of God and those who adamantly deny the existence of God are not scientific. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. It’s for this same reason that it is up to the prosecution to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. It is not up to the innocent to prove their innocence (though exculpatory evidence should be looked for, but is not necessary), but for the accuser to prove guilt. One cannot prove that God does not exist, and by virtue of the things that I talked about, it would be illogical for people to say that He hasn’t been proven to exist, because He has.
 
Science can’t rule out God because God is FACT. Science can’t rule out God because without God, there’d be no science in the first place. There’d be absolute nothingness because ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. If there is no God, there’d be nothing right now.
 
Romans 1:20
“For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Looking through the news, one can’t help but be overwhelmed at the sheer number of problems that people must face on a regular basis. We read stories about shootings, terrorist acts, foreign governments intruding in elections (mainly Ukraine), a whole political party seeking the impeachment of a president on the grounds of “we don’t like him”, people claiming to be a different gender from what they are, people attempting to justify and rationalize the murder of the unborn, people demanding increased immigration, legal or illegal, as a means of “enriching” our country, etc.
 
There are a whole lot of problems in Western civilization (and the world as a whole, but we’ll focus on the West today) and one can’t help but think: how did it all come to this?
 
The answer to this question seems to lie in the past, about 80 years ago, with the findings of Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin in his book called “Sex and Culture”.
 
Unfortunately, I do not currently have access to this book, but thankfully, Father John Peck does and has written a very good article about it on his own website: frjohnpeck.com. The article is titled: “Why Sexual Morality May be Far More Important than You Ever Thought.”
 
In this article, Fr. Peck notes that Unwin examined data from “86 societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual freedom and the flourishing of cultures.” In his book, Unwin described four “great patterns of human culture” and levels of flourishing of those cultures based on architecture, art, engineering, literature, agriculture and other sciences. Fr. Peck says that the “primary criterion for classification was how they related to the natural world and the forces it contains.”
 
These four great patterns are as follows:

• Zoistic, which is completely focused on day-to-day affairs, needs and desires with no inherent interest in the understanding of nature. Unwin describes this as a “dead culture” and is the lowest form of civilization, if one can call it that.

 

• Monistic, where a culture adopts superstitious beliefs and/or “special treatment of the dead to cope with the natural world,” as Fr. Peck describes it.

•  Deistic, where cultures attribute powers of nature to a god or gods.  

• And finally, Rationalistic, where cultures use rational thinking to understand nature and make decisions based on this logic and findings.

 
 
Unwin also noted varying degrees of sexual restraint that tend to appear in any given culture. These degrees are divided into two categories of their own: prenuptial (before marriage) and postnuptial (during marriage).
 
First, there is the prenuptial category of Complete Sexual Freedom. As the name suggests, this is where there are zero restrictions on sexuality before marriage.
 
Second, there is Irregular or Occasional Restraint, where “cultural regulations require an occasional period of abstinence.”
 
The final prenuptial category is Strict Chastity, where the culture demands that people remain virgins until marriage.
 
Then, there are four postnuptial categories:

• Modified Monogamy, where people are married to one spouse at any given time, but this relationship can be terminated by either person for any given reason.

 

• Modified Polygamy, where men can have more than one wife (sometimes, it’s the inverse, where a woman has more than one boyfriend or husband, but that is very rare and a product of our time, not something that would really be found during Unwin’s era), but the wife has the right to leave her husband at any point for any reason.

 

• Absolute Monogamy, where people are married to one spouse at a time and the relationship lasts for life (a more Catholic view, and not something I totally agree with, but ideally, the relationship should and would last a lifetime, provided both parties understand the trinity that exists in their relationship, with God being at the head of the husband and wife).  

• Absolute Polygamy, where men can have more than one wife, but wives cannot leave their husbands and must “confine their sexual qualities (activity) to their husband for the whole of their lives.”

 
So, understanding all of these concepts and the way they work in the real world, what are the effects that Unwin ultimately found with these 86 societies and cultures? The short answer: nothing good for the cultures in the long-term if they allow for sexual freedom.
 
According to Fr. Peck, Unwin found that “increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.”
 
This is very significant because we can easily picture our own culture here. During the 1960s, 70s and 80s, Western civilization went through what is known as a “sexual revolution”, where old norms of chastity and virginity were replaced in favor of allowing people to do what they want with whom they want any time they want, provided no laws or human rights were violated. While it used to be that virginity was something to be kept until marriage, the very concept of it is mocked and ridiculed in our time. If someone doesn’t have sex by their late teens or early 20s, that person is considered an outcast if it is known that they are a virgin.
 
Unwin also found the most influential factor in a society’s flourishing to be whether or not prenuptial chastity was a requirement. If it was, that culture would typically flourish, while if it was not, that culture would descend into collapse and eventual replacement by another culture that has more social energy and for this to happen, the replacing culture has to have more sexual restraint.
 
This would explain, at least in part, why Islam is growing at the pace that it is. Of course, factors such as threatening people with “submit or lose your head” are taken into consideration here, but one of the very few pros of Islam is their sexual restrictions (apart from polygamy and killing of homosexuals, that is).
 
In today’s Western culture, if a girl gets pregnant at an early age, that is not usually seen as that big of a deal, even if it is a hindrance on the family, for a number of reasons. For one, abortion is seen as a viable, often preferable, option. Two, pregnancy is what often follows sexual freedom, so it is not seen as completely unexpected, even if not an ideal outcome.
 
But in cultures where there are high levels of sexual restraint, if a girl gets pregnant at an early age, the girl is subject to scorn and the family becomes extremely upset. This type of behavior, though seemingly harsh, tends to be a tool of discouragement for others to do the same.
 
Another of Unwin’s findings is that, when strict prenuptial chastity ceased to be the norm, categories of absolute monogamy, deism and rational thinking would disappear within three generations.
 
This is also rather easy to see in our own culture. With the sexual revolution happening a generation or so ago, we find less people in Western civilization who accept that marriage should be for life (50% divorce rate is the result of this), less people believe in God and less people accept objective truth and opt for subjective lies that comfort them, such as the belief that a man can be a woman and vice versa.
 
Basically, what we see today is the effect of the sexual revolution of the late 20th century. What Unwin noticed in the societies that allowed for sexual freedom are what is happening today: less acceptance in absolute monogamy and more acceptance of ending a marriage on the basis of “I just don’t feel the spark anymore”; less acceptance of God and His Sovereignty and more acceptance of abstract superstitions like cosmology, giving power to the mathematical concept of chance, and believing in “karma” or “chakras” or other nonsense; and less acceptance of objective, provable truths and more acceptance of subjective, improvable lies that serve to comfort the individual and provide them with zero conflict, or at least, that is the advertised objective.
 
These things, Unwin notes, tend to lead to the collapse and replacement of a culture. As previously mentioned, when a culture allows for total sexual freedom, said culture collapses within three generations to a level of essentially being a “dead culture” where people have little interest in anything apart from fulfilling their most carnal desires day in and day out and not seeking, maybe even rejecting, any attempt at actually understanding nature and creation. It is at this level where a culture is often subject to replacement by another culture.
 
I’ve seen semi-joking tweets from Ann Coulter about supporting Islam when there would be stories about Muslim parents protesting schools imposing LGBTQ curricula on students. As I’ve said time and time again in the past, the LGBT agenda and Islam are very antithetical with one another and, under Hegelian Dialectics, are bound to clash at one point or another. That is one of the examples of these two cultures colliding, and given Unwin’s findings, Islam will come out on top here.
 
If Christians were to do the same (and I don’t see many, if any, stories about Christian parents protesting LGBT curricula in schools, likely out of fear of persecution by Leftwing mobs), Christianity would also come out on top, provided it remains resilient on this issue and doesn’t try to give ground away, like the Catholic Church has done in allowing for gay priests, or like some protestant churches have done in allowing “Same-Sex Attracted” pastors to lead congregations.
 
But the very reason any of that has even happened is because of the sexual revolution being so popular in the Western culture in the first place. Churches, fearing people would abandon them, chose to follow the crowd, even if that meant abandoning God and flocking to what is inarguably considered in the Bible to be sinful. As a result, people have still abandoned churches, seeing no real reason to attend, and the churches have abandoned God, so they provide no actual reason for anyone to attend, given that the Gospel is no longer being preached (again, in some churches, not all of them).
 
The reason pastors like Joel Osteen are so popular is because they actually preach the Gospel and provide the basic message of “God loves you despite what you have done if you trust in Him”. This provides a rest from the secular, shallow world and helps people to find meaning in their lives.
 
The secular world, particularly as it allows for sexual freedom, has led to the destruction of the family. Mary Eberstadt researched mass killings, the rise of mental health issues and the surge and dominance of identity politics and found that these are a “primal scream” as a result of “the loss of identity that was once provided by growing up in a long-term, immediate family with siblings and a sizable group of cousins, aunts and uncles, all of which provided identity – essential for well-being,” as Fr. Peck also notes in his article.
 
In other words, the destruction of the nuclear family has given rise to many of the problems we see today, like mass shootings, general mental health issues like depression and anxiety, and the dominance of identity politics and the perceived importance of valuing oneself and identifying oneself based on their physical attributes, sexual desires, or made up victimhoods.
 
And the destruction of the nuclear family can also be traced back to the sexual revolution and to overall sexual freedom. When kids don’t know who one of their parents is, that’s a problem. When kids grow up thinking that having two dads or two moms or more than two parents is normal, that’s a problem. When teenagers are mocked for restricting their own sexual desires, that’s a problem. When people believe marriage to be a “union of love” without any concept of God being a part of that union, that’s a problem. When people conflate love with lust, that’s a problem.
 
These things are all a result of sexual freedom and the sexual revolution of the early 20th century. Western civilization, much as I would hate to admit, will fall if this is not remedied. There is nothing inherently special about Western civilization that would have it be spared of this fate by God, particularly when said civilization is less and less likely to believe in God as time goes on.
 
On this site, we’ve already explained that Israel would often be punished for disobeying God and would be redeemed for returning to God and obeying Him again. Western civilization, having been founded on Christian principles, cannot live apart from such principles, as doing so would divorce it from God.
 
My desire is for Western civilization to return to what it once was: fearful, obedient and loving towards God, who would reciprocate such fear, obedience and love with love and blessings. Note that this does not mean returning to the way everything was in the past. The Left often tries to argue that “Make America Great Again” envisions an America where black people are either segregated from white people or are slaves of white people. That is not what MAGA means whatsoever. It only indicates a desire to return America to the greatness and power it once knew, economically, militarily, and culturally.
 
Unfortunately, while Trump can greatly succeed (and is succeeding as much as he can) in the first two endeavors, the last one is totally out of his hands and things don’t exactly appear to be moving in the right direction in that aspect.
 
If the U.S., and indeed, all of Western culture does not turn this ship around culturally, then it doesn’t matter if the economy is the best we’ve ever seen or if we can win any of the wars we currently are engaged in or possibly could be engaged in, for Western civilization will ultimately be lost as a culture and replaced by another.
 
And given the horrible options of Islam or Chinese supremacy, I would hope that Western civilization will return to God sooner rather than later.
 
Exodus 19:5
“Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Of course, that question in the title is very rhetorical. The answer is that he does not know God. He knows of Him, of course, but does not actually know Him on a personal basis, otherwise, he wouldn’t say the crazy, wrong, and even at times, idolatrous, things that he says.
 
Saint Peter’s Square was holding the inauguration of the Vatican Christmas tree and Nativity scene last Thursday, and the Pope thanked the people of Veneto and Trentino-Alto Adige, who donated the tree and the Nativity scene.
 
But in doing so, Il Papa went on a tangent regarding his favorite topic: not the Gospel, but climate change and the “emergency” that we face.
 
“Today’s meeting offers me the opportunity to renew my encouragement to your people, who last year suffered a devastating natural disaster, with the demolition of entire wooded areas. These are events that frighten us; they are alarm signals that creation sends us, which summon us to immediately take effective decisions to safeguard our common home.”
 
Don’t know about you, but it sure sounds like he believes God is not actually sovereign and that the climate depends entirely on us to survive.
 
Of course, this is far from the first time Pope Francis has said ridiculous and seemingly idolatrous things. He’s often lambasted politicians for being “weak” regarding cutting emissions, has encouraged people to “adopt more simple and respectful lifestyles”, though does not show himself to be leading by example, and encourages people to seek the “old-age” wisdom of indigenous peoples and how they treated and lived with nature. Indigenous peoples were people who worshipped nature, not God, so I can see why Pope Francis feels at home with such ideologies.
 
But to return to his quote at Saint Peter’s Square, funny enough, I have already written an article discussing what he is talking about. In an article titled: “There Is No Link Between Climate Change And Extreme Weather Events”, I talk about… well… how there’s no link between climate change and extreme weather events like what northern Italy recently had.
 
If you remember, the ultimate conclusion reached in that article is that scientists researching this very topic found that “any trend of rising ‘climate damages’ were primarily due to increased population densities and economic activity in the path of storms and that it was, at this time, not possible to determine what portion of those damages can be attributed to greenhouse gases, which is something they don’t expect to change in the near future at least.”
 
What’s more, a 2012 IPCC report called “Special Report on Extreme Weather” ultimately agreed with these scientists on their findings that there was no actual statistical connection between climate change and extreme weather events.
 
The only reason any environmentalist whacko says that hurricanes are due to climate change is to frighten people into believing the cult’s ideologies. Because hurricanes exist and because they can cause damage, even death, then there must be a scientific explanation for them (there is). The Left has hijacked science to be a political tool (look at what they are claiming about gender) and insists that these hurricanes, which are real, is a result of man-made climate change, which is not real, and they provide no actual evidence to this.
 
Pope Francis is among the false teachers that the Bible warns us about. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 says the following: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
 
The Pope, much like other Leftists, hates the fact that he is not God Almighty. What the climate cult hopes to achieve is to turn mere mortals into gods, like Greta Thunberg. They seek to have the power of God, able to create and destroy, to be sovereign over all the universe. Convincing people that they have more power than they actually do, and that such power can be harmful to the environment and that this power must be controlled by the government and by the leaders (like Francis) aims to achieve what that letter to Timothy says. In order to suit their own desires, they get teachers (scientists) to say what they want to hear, instead of the truth.
 
It’s extremely obvious that Pope Francis is a false teacher, a false shepherd, a false prophet. He speaks of things he has no clue about, as evident by the fact that he insisted that extreme weather events are a result of climate change. But what is worse, perhaps, is the fact that he has the Truth available to him anytime he wishes to read it and still adamantly rejects it and perverts it.
 
Of course, he doesn’t explicitly say that he rejects the Truth of the Gospel. Doing so would get him removed from the power he has. But he rejects it every time he speaks such falsehoods. He does not trust that the Lord is in control; that He is sovereign over everything, including the weather and the climate of the world. He has no actual faith in God, so he turns to Man. He believes Man has the power to wrestle away control from God with regard to the climate – that we can turn up the temperature or cause it to severely drop if we so chose to.
 
He does not trust that, even if the climate does warm up or cool down, it is because God has created the Earth this way and because He has ordained it to be so. If God wanted to, He could make the climate completely static, utterly unchanging. He and He alone has the power to warm or cool the planet. To believe we are capable of wrestling away such control is heresy.
 
The Pope often says that we are “harming” the planet that God has given us because of the sin in our hearts. Of course, Man is capable of harming nature, there’s no disputing that. We can pollute lakes and other bodies of water. We can pollute the ground. We can pollute the air (by the way, it’s funny but not unexpected that whenever he talks about climate change, Pope Francis always attacks capitalism and does not say anything about China and their egregious polluting practices). However, being able to do that does not mean we are capable of forcing a warming or a cooling of the climate.
 
As stated in previous articles, the climate engages in a cycle of warming periods. There was the Roman Warming Period, which lasted around the same time as the Roman Empire did; there was the Medieval Warming Period and we are currently in the Modern Warming Period. Each of these Warming Periods denote a time when the Earth was abnormally warm, but even then, one can hardly call that “abnormal”. This is a cycle that appears to happen every thousand years, with one Warming Period and with no Warming Period in a millennium, so if it alternates like this, I’d say that the warming and the cooling is not abnormal at all. What would be abnormal would be any break in the cycle, either making the cycle last longer (the Warming Periods usually last 300-600 years) or making them way shorter.
 
This is the way that God has ordained the world to exist for now. One cannot realistically argue that any of these Warming Periods, particularly the Medieval and Roman ones, are a result of man-made climate change or are a result of our lifestyles.
 
The third chapter of the Westminster Confession of faith (which I recognize is a Protestant document, not a Catholic one, but I believe it to be accurate doctrine applicable to anyone who is a follower of Christ) begins with the following words: “God, from all eternity, did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and immutably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”
 
You don’t have to be a Protestant to believe these words to be true. You don't even have to be a Christian. If you believe in an all-powerful, sovereign God, you have no choice but to believe these words to be true. Whether you are a Christian, Jew or Muslim, this is something all theists believe and what all atheists do not believe. God, for all of time, by his own wisdom and holy counsel of His very own will, entirely freely and unchangingly ordains whatever happens. That means that nothing happens without His ordaining so. He isn’t caught off-guard by anything; nothing is a surprise to Him. He doesn’t look at anything and say “Didn’t see that one coming”.
 
So to assert that mere men, creation made from dirt by the Holy power of God and made in His own image, are capable of acting in a way that overpowers the will of God is an assertion made by someone whose life and heart and being do not totally belong to Christ. To believe that we are capable of wrestling away control from God in this manner is antithetical to the very belief system present in Christianity.
 
If one does not believe God to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and one does not believe that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, one cannot be considered a believer in God, because whatever god such a person believes in is not the One True God of Scripture and is nothing more than a fictitious, man-made deity, whose characteristics are created by Man, and not the other way around.
 
It is shameful that the man who is considered the head of the Church would be so lacking in faith. And even though he is far from the first Pope to not be a Christian, it is still shameful that such secular people could be put into what is considered the highest honor of Christendom in the mortal realm.
 
Ezekiel 13:9
“My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign Lord.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Despite the fact that we recently had the Democrats hosting the first day of the Impeachment Circus, little news came out of it (just like with the Mueller hearings) other than things that are to the detriment of the Democrats (regardless of what people deep in denial might say about this). So, I turn my attention to another piece of recent news: The Salvation Army being defamed by hateful Leftists who pressured a spineless celebrity to threaten to pull out of their halftime show during the Cowboys-Bills Thanksgiving Day game.
 
Singer Ellie Goulding had initially partnered with the Christian organization that helps the homeless and the poor to sing during their halftime show for the Cowboys-Bills game on Thanksgiving Day. But angry Leftists bashed her for helping out The Salvation Army (Goulding had also been volunteering with them in New York) because they accused the organization of having an “anti-LGBTQ” agenda. In other words, Leftists hate that a celebrity would help out a Christian organization, so they throw out this accusation, which is the same one they use for Chick-fil-A, and just like with the chicken sandwich restaurant, it’s nothing but defamation.
 
Goulding, like many other celebrities, caved to the outrage mob and gave the following statement: “Upon researching this, I have reached out to The Salvation Army and said that I would have no choice but to pull out unless they very quickly make a solid, committed pledge or donation to the LGBTQ community. I am a committed philanthropist as you probably know, and my heart has always been in helping the homeless, but supporting an anti-LGBTQ charity is clearly not something I would ever intentionally do. Thank you for drawing my attention to this.”
 
In other words, she did NOT make any research on this and is taking the word of outright liars as the truth, threatening to pull out of the show if The Salvation Army does not quickly make a contribution to the LGBTQ community, aka extortion.
 
The reason I say she did not make any research is because she herself said that The Salvation Army was anti-LGBTQ when they are not.
 
The Salvation Army began in East London in 1865. It was a Protestant church and is now commonly known worldwide as an international charitable organization with the aim of ministering to the needy and bringing the Gospel to the streets. The Salvation Army’s website has a whole section regarding their helping LGBT homeless people. They explain how 40% of homeless youth in America identify as LGBT, nearly 33% of homeless transgender people are rejected from emergency shelters (not associated with The Salvation Army) and that LGBT Americans have a higher chance of being poor.
 
“The Salvation Army USA serves more than 23 million Americans every year. In every ZIP code of America, services are offered without discrimination… When a transgender person seeks help from us, we serve them in the same manner as any other person seeking assistance,” read their site.
 
Even the Prairie Pride Coalition, a gay rights organization in Illinois, advised locals in their community to go to The Salvation Army for help. The Salvation Army also provides people with shelter, job training, and help with substance abuse and food insecurity.
 
To say that The Salvation Army is anti-LGBTQ is a despicable lie. It’s a Christian organization and as such, they have the OBLIGATION to serve, as followers of Christ are called to serve, those around us who need help. That isn’t to say that they promote or support the LGBT agenda or anything of the sort. But doing so isn’t necessary for an organization to do good. Not that hateful bigots on the Left will see it that way. In their eyes, if an organization doesn’t kowtow to their every whim, it should be considered illegitimate in people’s eyes and should be defamed and destroyed.
 
As I have said multiple times in the past, no Christian or Christian organization (at least no true Christian) hates gay people. Why? Because hate is for evil; for Satan. We hate evil because God hates evil. We recognize that homosexuality is a sin and that it’s evil, which is why we do not endorse it or support it. But everyone is a sinner, including Christians, and if we were to discriminate against anyone who was a sinner, literally nothing would ever be done because there isn’t a single person on this earth who isn’t a sinner.
 
Jesus dined with sinners, not because He agreed with their sin or because He was accepting of their sin. Far from it; He dined with them because He did not want them to sin any longer. He forgave the adulterous woman not because He was okay with her sin but because He called on her to not sin any longer. He healed the blind and the lepers, who were considered to be that way because they sinned, not because He agreed with their sinful ways but because He loved them and called on them to not sin any longer, having them recognize Him as the Son of God and do what’s right in God’s eyes.
 
One doesn’t have to be accepting of homosexuality to be charitable to a homosexual. One doesn’t have to agree with the LGBT agenda in order to help the LGBT community where help might be needed.
 
God loves us despite our sin, not because of it. Likewise, we are to love our brothers and sisters in Christ, love our neighbors and even love our enemies, hard as that last one might prove to be. The Salvation Army, being a Christian organization, knows this extremely well and shows that in their good works. For anyone to defame them is utterly shameful, but not something I can be surprised by considering who is doing the defaming.
 
The Left hates Christians, hates God and hates anyone who would dare disagree with them. The Salvation Army, being a Christian organization, is one of their targets for defamation and destruction.
 
But The Salvation Army had a very good response to such defamation:
 
“We’d like to thank Ellie Goulding and her fans for shedding light on misconceptions and encouraging others to learn the truth about The Salvation Army’s mission to serve all, without discrimination. We applaud her for taking the time to learn about the services to the LGBTQ community. Regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity, we’re committed to serving anyone in need. Every day, we provide services such as shelter for the transgender community and resources for homeless youth…”
 
The Salvation Army knows that they are not what the hateful Leftists claim they are and are not afraid to fight back against such shameful defamation and ludicrous accusations.
 
As Christians, we are called to witness the Truth of the Gospel to everyone. I don’t know for certain if that is what they do in these shelters still, but I certainly hope they do, as that is what they are supposed to do.
 
But to reiterate, as Christians, we are called to serve and not to judge or discriminate against those who sin. We are, ourselves, sinners and we will be measured by the same rod with which we measure others. When it comes to LGBT people, we are called to rebuke them for their sins with love and try to help them to receive Christ. Same as we would adulterers or criminals or other kinds of sinners, we are to rebuke and help them receive Christ if possible.
 
2 Corinthians 5:21
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Back in late November of last year, I wrote an article discussing the harrowing situation a family, or more specifically, a father and his young son were in because of the son’s monster of a mother, wherein she forced him to dress and act like a girl around him and in the school he would attend.
 
As a reminder, court documents said that James Younger, the young boy in question who is only 7 years of age at this point, would only dress as a girl when he is with his mother and was enrolled into school under the name of “Luna”. He would have to use the girls’ restroom and he would be addressed as “Luna” by his teachers, principal, librarian, and most other authoritative figures in his life… except his father, who is trying to save the young boy.
 
But unfortunately, evil reigns supreme in this case, as a Texas jury has decided that Jeffrey Younger, the father of James, will not be the Sole Managing Conservator over his “two twin boys” (Yes, there are two, but it appears James is the only one that is being forced to be transgender by his mother, though it’s uncertain that his twin brother will not be forced as well).
 
James’ mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, according to LifeSiteNews, has been granted authority to “transition” James from a boy to a girl, meaning chemical castration when he turns 8, putting him on puberty blockers and eventually, put him on a hormone treatment in his mid-teens.
 
LifeSiteNews also says that “the jury’s decision likely means that Mr. Younger will be required to ‘affirm’ James as a girl, despite his religious and moral objections, and will also be forced to take a class on transgenderism.”
 
Jeffrey Younger recently was a guest on The Luke Macias Show and shared with the host:
 
“I want you to imagine having electronic communication with your son on FaceTime, and imagine that your ex-wife has dressed him as a drag queen to talk to you. He has false eyelashes and makeup. His hair has got glitter in it. He’s wearing a dress. Now imagine how you would feel seeing what I believe is actual sexual abuse – I believe this is not just emotional abuse but is the very, most fundamental form of sexual abuse, tampering with the sexual identity of a vulnerable boy… [James] wears a dress at her (Georgulas’) home; he has a new made-up name, Luna – it appears in the court filings. He goes to school; the teachers call him ‘Luna’. He uses the girl’s bathroom at school. All of his authority figures – his mother, his teacher, the librarian at school, the police officer at school, the principal at school – tell him he’s a girl. I’m the only authority figure in his life that tells him the truth; that he’s actually a boy.”
 
Furthermore, Jeffrey notes that, in his opinion, he has witnessed his then-wife “was only giving [James] love and affection when he was acting like a girl,” adding that she used to lock the young boy in his room and tell him that monsters only eat boys.
 
He continued: “Every. Single. Day. You have to see your son sexually abused, and you have to maintain your calm, because the courts are not going to be fair to you. And the only way you can survive this and get your son through this alive is to calmly allow your son to be tortured right before your eyes and outlast the opposition. That’s what it’s like. They’re asking me to affirm a delusion.”
 
It is utterly despicable what this mother is doing to her own son. I believe Jeffrey’s account regarding withholding affection unless James acts like a girl and locking him in his room and telling him monsters only eat boys, but even if they aren’t true, the situation as a whole is very much true and is horrifying.
 
The mother is a vindictive (I really want to use a bad word here, that’s how mad I am, but you can use your imagination) and is sexually and emotionally abusing her OWN SON. And now, because of course it’s this way, a jury, the people who decide the boy’s future, have sided with his mom likely because of “political correctness.”
 
If I were Jeffrey, I would go to my ex-wife’s house, barge in, take my kids and go to a non-extradition country, safe from that monster’s predatorial hands.
 
I would honestly not give one single flipping crap (I really wish I could say something stronger) about what the legal consequences of this are. I would much rather obey God’s Law over Man’s law if Man’s law contradicts with God’s.
 
What happened in that courtroom was an abortion of justice. Even by the Left’s own standards, this should be considered extremely evil because it’s FORCING A CHILD TO BE A GENDER HE DOESN’T WANT TO BE!
 
Court documents show that he very aggressively does not want to act or dress like a girl when he is with his father. He KNOWS he’s a boy, but is being FORCED to act like a girl when with his “mom” (I wouldn’t even call her that, as calling her that is an insult to all mothers) or when in school.
 
One of the Left’s arguments in favor of transgenderism is “letting people choose who or what they want to be.” Dumb as it is to deny biological and scientific FACT, adults can do whatever they damn well please, so if one wishes to be a different gender from what they are, then fine. They are definitely wrong to do so and if they go through the transition procedure, will permanently alter their bodies and will likely come to regret it, but it’s their decision to make.
 
But here? The only decision being made is by the “mother” and by the courts, siding with the “mother”. The young boy doesn’t have a choice in the matter. His mother wants him to be a girl, so he has to be a girl. And not one Leftist will care because “woke”, even though if the roles were reversed, and it was the boy who wanted to be a girl and the mother who didn’t want that, the Left would accuse her of bigotry and transphobia and say it’s “the kid’s choice”.
 
Apparently, the kid only has a choice when it’s a choice the Left agrees with. Why am I not even surprised at this in the least?
 
It’s pure evil what is happening and the judge preceding over the case should lose her job and her law degree. This is the very perversion of justice, the state allowing a woman to sexually, emotionally, biologically and physically abuse her child just because she’s on the “right side of history.”
 
Injustice is never on “the right side of history.” History, but most especially the Lord God, who is the creator of the universe, will utterly condemn this action by the woman and by the court.
 
The Mayo Clinic says that possible side-effects of cross-sex hormone therapy include: blood clots in a deep vein (deep vein thrombosis) or in a lung (pulmonary embolism), high triglycerides which are a type of fat in the blood, gallstones, weight gain, elevated liver function tests, decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, infertility, hyperkalemia or high potassium, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hyperprolactinemia, where a noncancerous tumor in the brain causes the pituitary gland to overproduce the hormone prolactin and have it rush through the veins.
 
In other words, there are a LOT of health hazards when it comes to the hormone treatment of transgenders itself, let alone the chemical castration and things like gender transition surgery.
 
The young boy will be forced to live a life, perhaps a short one, full of chemical and biological, let alone social, misery all because his mother FORCED HIM TO BE A TRANSGENDER GIRL!
 
Now, I don’t usually do this, but I highly recommend visiting the website: savejames.com. In this site, you can find more information regarding the case, including multiple court documents detailing the situation, such as documents showing Georgulas accusing Jeffrey of domestic violence (thankfully, he was acquitted) and everything else regarding the actual case. They also allow for people to donate to the site to help Jeffrey keep his son, though it’s not likely that this story will have a happy ending. If you wish to donate, that is your decision. I will not ask that you do, as I am not certain it would help any at this point, but do as you wish.
 
As far as Jeffrey and James go, I pray to the Lord that He will watch over them and keep them safe. From what I understand, Jeffrey is religious and the site says that he has volunteered to serve on the board of a private Christian school that his step-daughters attended, so it’s likely that he already is a Christian, which is good. Regarding James, it’s unclear. With limited contact with his father, he will likely have limited contact with his father’s faith as well and more contact with his devilish “mother”.
 
The entire situation is horrible, but I pray that James will be able to go through this as safely as one possibly can when being hurled into permanent harm’s way, and I pray that things do get better for James, his father and his twin brother, who might be subjected to the same things as James in the future (if he isn’t already).
 
One can only hope that the young boy is as safe as possible, the father will be as strong as possible and will eventually be justified and given custody of the boys and that the Lord will appear strongly in everyone’s hearts, especially Georgulas’, who absolutely needs Him the most. Don’t misunderstand, they all need Him badly and need His comfort and love badly, but it’s her evil heart that needs the most purging and cleansing with the Holy Spirit.
 
I hate what this woman is doing and even slightly hate her for doing it, but if there ever was a case of demons plaguing someone, this is it (you particularly think this if you read the “James’ Story” section of the aforementioned website that says “Ms. Georgulas [believes] she is called by God to do these terrible things,” which really only makes me think Satan is behind this, using his demons on her). This woman is being utterly plagued by demons and only the power of the Lord can save her.
 
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will end by saying this one more time: I pray that everything will turn out well for everyone in question, with everyone finding comfort, love and security in the Lord.
 
Mark 3:11
“And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, ‘You are the Son of God.’”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

I have long made the argument that climate alarmism is nothing short of a religious cult following and deeply devoting its members to a “truth” they cannot prove and call those who do not believe “deniers”. However, you would hope and expect Christians to be able to understand what a sham this is and how dangerous it would be to fall for this fake gospel. And yet, people like the Pope and the Church of Sweden have fallen away from Christ and succumbed to the cult of climate change.
 
But while the Pope might be idiotic regarding this, at least he hasn’t been as heinous as to be heretical about it (from what I can tell, at least). No, the Church of Sweden has gone as far as to do that.
 
Back in December of last year (so admittedly, it has been some time, but it’s still necessary to point this out), the Church of Limhamn tweeted the following (which has obviously been translated): “Announcement! Jesus of Nazareth has now appointed one of his successors, Greta Thunberg.”
 
Before I rebuke these guys for saying this, the reason this is being talked about right now is because it resurfaced after its most recent support for the teenage climate puppet, and following an announcement by the Church of Sweden Malmo that they would be ringing their church bells in conjunction with last week’s Global Climate Strike:
 
“In conjunction with the Global Climate Strike, church bells ring and we gather in prayer for the future of the earth. We pray that we believe that man is responsible for nurturing and managing Creation so that children are given the opportunity for a future. We pray that we know that climate change affects the most vulnerable – poor, children and women. We pray that we believe in man’s ability to change and change.”
 
The church’s site also reads: “When the Amazon burns, we gather to fight for Mother Earth together. WELCOME!”
 
So, it’s pretty obvious that these people have abandoned the teachings of Jesus Christ in favor of New Age heresy that preaches man’s role in affecting the climate of the entire planet.
 
The fact that these people say they “fight for Mother Earth” ought to be a sign as to the kind of heresy these people practice. Earth isn’t our “mother”. We live on it and it is part of God’s Creation. To elevate it to the status of “mother” would be to equate it to God and His importance as Father.
 
But as inappropriate as this might be, I have a bit of a bigger issue with the Church of Limhamn’s December 2018 tweet.
 
How in the world could any self-professed Christian even allude to there being any “successor” to Christ? And take note that they aren’t just elevating the teenage climate puppet to Christ’s level. They said “one of [Jesus’] successors.” This indicates a plurality and I only have to wonder who else these people may have elevated to Christ’s level.
 
This goes even beyond idolatry. This is committing one of the most heinous acts one can commit: heresy. One could even make the case that this is blasphemy, the unforgivable sin, but no one can argue against this being heresy, at least not honestly.
 
These people are putting words into Jesus’ mouth by saying He is appointing someone, let alone the teenage climate puppet, as His successor.
 
These people are making the same mistake as the churches of Galatia did in the early life of the church.
 
If you’ve read the book of Galatians, you know that Paul primarily addresses the fact that the churches had turned away from the gospel of Christ, which he had shared with them, in favor of different “gospels”.
 
Galatians 1:1-10 says the following:
 
“Paul, an apostle – not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead – and all the brothers who are with me. To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
 
The churches of Galatia, after Paul had preached to them and shared with them the gospel of Jesus Christ, quickly turned to other “gospels” that were contrary to the gospel of Christ. In a similar manner, the Church of Sweden is doing the same thing. The gospel of Jesus Christ has been shared with them and they have the Scripture readily-available and yet, they turn away from it and turn to other “gospels”, namely the “gospel” of man-made climate change.
 
Man-made climate change is what Man believes nowadays. But regardless of whether it’s that or it’s believing in Baal or the gods of Babylon or any other, let not one Christian turn away from Christ’s gospel in favor of another because no other saves, regardless of its promises.
 
Man-made climate change stands in contradiction to both science and Christianity. For you see, to believe that Man has such a great power as to influence the climate is to believe that he can wrestle away control of it from God.
 
Apart from the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea (no, man-made climate models don’t count, specifically when shared by the highly-corrupt IPCC), it is very disingenuous, maybe even blasphemous, to suggest Man could have any power that even closely matches or even outdoes God’s.
 
It stands in direct conflict with the basic Judeo-Christian principle that God is Lord of all. For if Man could wrestle away power from God in any aspect, God would not be sovereign and would not be God.
 
As far as people like the teenage climate puppet go, we have known for a very long time to watch out for false prophets. She is one of the many, many people prophesying that the world will end in a decade or so and that there is currently no future for children as a result, so to call her a false prophet, particularly when supposed Christians are elevating her to the level of “successor to Christ”, whatever that’s supposed to mean, is not exactly inaccurate in my mind.
 
Why would anyone be willing to listen and take seriously such false prophets? Because we seem like ignorant bullies if we don’t? Paul himself raised the question: “for am I seeking the approval of man, or of God?” To bend the knee to this Satanic line of thinking, to accept what these people are saying simply because of the kid’s age is to try and appease Man, not God.
 
And if we were to do so, we would not be servants of Christ.
 
I hope that there are people within the Church of Sweden that are seeing all of this and are spiritually disturbed by it. And I certainly hope the Church of Sweden turns back to the gospel of Christ and not continue down this heretical path, lest they find themselves in the same place as the vast majority of mankind will.
 
I pray that these people will return to Christ and not commit this heresy any longer, submit to another “gospel” or further attempt to please Man as opposed to God.
 
And while the Church of Limhamn did ultimately apologize days later for the tweet, that apology also came with a defense of it, saying: “Our sense has been to talk about Jesus Christ in our own way.” A poor defense on its own, considering the tweet focused more on Greta than it did about Jesus, but any defense of the tweet is an indication that they are still not under the understanding of what they did wrong, so I pray that wisdom and revelation comes their way.
 
1 John 4:1
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
 
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.

In this world, seculars and Christians find two distinct ways of being happy. Christians find joy in Christ, even when they find themselves going through a period of tribulation. Christians understand there is a purpose and meaning to life – to serve God and enjoy Him – and find comfort through difficulty in prayer, a direct connection to the Lord.
 
Seculars, on the other hand, believe in making your own happiness and finding your own meaning in life apart from God. That is naturally a bad idea, as we cannot divorce ourselves from God, much as we might try. The fact we have a conscience, have aspirations, dreams, and other logical abilities that are not shared by animals points to our relationship to God, as we were created in His own image.
 
But those who try and stay as far away from God as possible tend to find themselves unhappy, unfulfilled and without any meaning and purpose in their life. It is for this reason that seculars encourage people to “find their own meaning and purpose in life.” Separate from God, they don’t have much in the way for hope. It’s also why they attach themselves to causes like the climate change movement. It’s utterly unscientific, but it gives people meaning and a purpose, as misguided as it may be. As a result, they get attached to it and will defend it, even against reality.
 
But the side effect of encouraging people to “find their own meaning” in life is that people find themselves without meaning and are told to find it basically on their own. They sink themselves in drugs, alcohol, sex and other carnal desires, not knowing they are sinning and not knowing that that is not the purpose for their existence.
 
It’s no surprise, then, that Galaxy Chocolate, in running a study of generational happiness, found the millennial generation the least happy generation in Great Britain. Granted, for the most part, the reasons they give are working too much (Brits work the second most amount of hours in Europe, only behind Greece) and that they are stressing over money and employment, but there is another important aspect to this entire thing: secular vs. Christian beliefs.
 
A poll from early August found that nearly 90% of millennial Brits believed their lives have no meaning or purpose. The poll also found that 84% believed they were failing to “live their best life.” And across every age group, 51% believed the purpose of life is to be as happy as one can be, 37% believe the purpose is to make others happy and 31% said that it was simply to do good.
 
These numbers are depressing, but make sense when you consider that the amount of Brits who consider themselves Christians is at its lowest recorded level: 38%, and only 1% of millennials say they belong to the Church of England.
 
Christ is fading away from Brits’ lives, so is it any wonder the younger generations are feeling miserable? As I talked about in an article about why young people are drawn to socialism, it is the socialization of the economic system in America (and subsequently blaming it on capitalism) that has allowed younger generations to fall through the cracks and wish for radical change to the status quo. But for as much as the American economic system has been socialized, it is dwarfed by the socialization that has been occurring in Europe.
 
The very existence of a European Union should be a warning sign of globalism having been on the rise in the past few decades. The governments of Europe are trying to replace God (whether or not they admit it), but fail spectacularly in every single aspect, but especially for the purpose of joy. Because the government cannot provide joy to anyone. Have you seen any European politicians? Most of them are bitter, angry and resentful. They can’t even bring joy to themselves, so of course they would not be able to bring joy to others.
 
And it shows plentifully in this survey. The younger generations are being taught that their life has no meaning because of “evolution” and that they have to find their own meaning in life. In doing so, they get attached to the first thing they can find: climate activism.
 
The fact that some people have confessed their sins to plants is an indication of the kind of religious cult the climate change movement is. They find a meaning in such activism… but they don’t find joy.
 
Climate activism brings the opposite of joy and happiness. Back in January, the climate change movement’s youngest puppet, Greta Thunberg, gave a speech in front of the World Economic Forum where she said “I want you to panic” and that “I want you to feel the fear I feel every day.” Obviously, the Left is abusing her if she feels this much fear over something that is not exactly a problem. But she gives away the entire point of climate activism: it’s not about hope or happiness or joy for a better future. It’s about fear and panic and dread.
 
The girl is 16 years old and I believe she legitimately fears what she has been taught. Why? Because of a distinct lack of Christ in her life, let alone her heart.
 
Aside from the logical and scientific reasons to not panic about climate change, the reason I don’t believe the world is in the kind of danger the Left says it is (apart from the fact these people have no credibility in my eyes and it’s largely a political ploy to attain more power) is because I trust God and His plan for the world.
 
I know that He is sovereign over the entire universe. I know that everything happens for a reason. I know that He has already sent His own Son to die on the cross for the elect, that whoever might follow His Son might not perish but have everlasting life. If God’s plan for the judgment of the world were about burning the planet to a crisp slowly over time, then it becomes all-the-more important to try and find the elect and help them to find salvation in Christ.
 
Of course, I have biblical reasons for not believing that to be how the world will be judged and ended, but the point remains: God is sovereign and holy, holy, holy. No evil is found in Him.
 
I know God’s character enough to understand His love for us and to trust Him no matter what, even if that is tested sometimes in life. But people like Greta, or like the other 62% of Brits, they don’t know God in this way. They either actively avoid Him or have been taught to ignore Christianity as “fanatical” or “mythological” or “unscientific” or “bigoted”.
 
As a result of being so separated from God, they feel like their lives are meaningless and worthless. Even worse, they find meaning in things that are bad for them and only further poison the soul. Climate activism is one of the most toxic ideologies out there currently, but it gives people a heavily-misguided purpose.
 
The first of the Shorter Catechisms in the Westminster Confession of Faith is to answer what the chief end of Man is. The answer is “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”
 
This is the purpose God has put into our lives. This is the meaning of life. We are to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. We might go about it in different ways in as far as how to accomplish it goes (for example, some people were meant to preach in church, others to write articles, others to lead countries, others to do business. All different professions but that all should seek to glorify God and enjoy Him forever), but this remains the chief purpose of Man.
 
This is the type of faith that is either completely absent in most young Britons (and generally many young people) or is outright replaced by the cult of climate change.
 
So I ask again: is it really so surprising to find these types of numbers in generations of people who are mostly ignorant to God? Is it really so surprising to find so many young people without meaning and a purpose in their lives, feeling inadequate and without hope?
 
I’ve already said time and time again about the need for America to return to God if we wish to continue to be blessed by Him. This can also apply to literally any nation on Earth. If God is to save the Queen, God needs to be a considerable part of British life.
 
It’s no surprise that the countries that are faithful to God tend to be so successful. America and Great Britain (and others) succeeded against the Godless Nazis (yes, there is no denying the contribution of the equally-godless Soviets, but they happened to have chosen the right side at the time. They were really no different, ideologically, from the Nazis apart from particular details. They were not exactly friendly to Jews). America, Great Britain and the Vatican, led by an actually good Pope in John Paul II, succeeded against the Godless Soviets in bringing down the USSR.
 
Abandoning God tends to be a self-imposed death sentence against a nation and this is not realized until after the fact. Trusting and having faith in the Lord, though it does not mean absence of trouble, means taking God’s side and being by His side on particular matters.
 
Nations may rise and fall, but God lives forever.
 
1 Corinthians 2:5
“That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Within the Christian religion, there are a number of different denominational beliefs that sometimes present challenges to people. For example, Catholics tend to pray to statues of the Virgin Mary or other Saints, asking them to essentially pass on a message to God that He may bless the praying people or help them to some capacity. And while there may be arguments in favor of doing this, I cannot help but think of this as a form of idolatry, because one is praying to statues, not God.
 
But while I am one to believe that while there are a lot of doctrinal problems within the Catholic Church, I believe there are those who are legitimately Christians and are actually saved among Catholics (though I highly doubt people like the Pope or other “progressive” leaders in the Church are saved).
 
I cannot say the same for anyone within the Union Theological Seminary, a non-denominational Seminary in New York.
 
You see, this past Tuesday, members of the UTS placed plants in the middle of a chapel and confessed their sins to them. “Today in chapel, we confessed to plants,” tweeted UTS, sharing also a picture of the ritual. “Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor. What do you confess to the plants in your life?”
 
Upon receiving tons of mockery and rebuking from actual Christians, UTS then tweeted: “When Robin Wall Kimmerer spoke at Union last year, she concluded her lecture by tasking us – and all faith communities – to develop new liturgies by which to mourn, grieve, heal and change in response to our climate emergency. We couldn’t be prouder to participate in this work. So, if you’re poking fun, we’d ask only that you also spend a couple moments asking: Do I treat plants and animals as divinely created beings? What harm do I cause without thinking? How can I enter into new relationship with the natural world?”
 
There is quite a bit to talk about here, but let’s begin with the obvious: THESE PEOPLE ARE COMMITTING IDOLATRY, A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST COMMANDMENT!
 
Taking aside the fact that these people are obviously environmentalist whackos, they not only violate God’s First Commandment, but also insult Him in doing this.
 
When we sin, we sin against God. Sin is to do evil in the sight of God. We do not sin against PLANTS. We may sin against other people by doing wrong by them, but we do not sin against plants because they are NOT EQUAL to us in the sight of God. That isn’t to say we should not care for the environment, because God tasked Man with taking care of the land in Genesis, but we should not elevate plants and animals to our level or sink Man to the level of plants and animals.
 
Genesis 1:26 reads as follows: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’” When God created Man in His own image, He also gave him dominion over all the earth and the things of the earth. In the hierarchy of natural creation, you find plants and animals below Man.
 
To imply that we can in any way sin against plants would be to consider plants to be equal or greater than Man. They are not, as we have dominion over them, given to us by All Mighty God. You don’t even have to be a Christian to read that far into the Bible, and these people somehow got it into their heads that Man is not above animals and plants?
 
They use language like “divinely created beings” to refer to animals and plants yet have no idea what that actually means. God created everything. All things have been divinely created. Are we not to enjoy and rule over that which God has given us dominion?
 
These people aren’t doing God any favors or pleasing God in the least. Aside from the fact that they said the plants sustain us (God sustains us, not the plants), they don’t even trust Him regarding the CLIMATE for crying out loud! Remember, they used the Leftist term of “climate emergency.” Apart from the fact that that’s b.s. largely because we are NOT in a “climate emergency” and are in the middle of what is considered the Modern Warm Period, something that is not exactly rare for the planet, these people believe that God is not powerful enough or sovereign to be able to control the climate of ONE planet.
 
This is the same thing I charge the socialist Pope of: not actually having faith in the Lord.
 
These people aren’t Christians. How could they be, when they don’t trust Him for their salvation and resort to CONFESSING TO PLANTS in order to feel satisfied with themselves?
 
Not to mention the focus on having a relationship with the natural world. Having a relationship with other people is not inherently a bad thing whatsoever. However, the focus should be on the supernatural, not on the natural. The focus should be having a relationship with the God who created the natural world, not the natural world itself.
 
To elevate the natural world in this manner is to do the same as worshiping a statue of a god or a golden calf. It’s utter idolatry, a detestable and abominable thing in the sight of God.
 
Plants cannot save you. Animals cannot save you. The natural world cannot save you. Man cannot save you. Only Christ can save you. These “Christians” have clearly forgotten that, if they ever knew it to begin with.
 
Exodus 20:1-6
“And God spoke all these words, saying, ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.’”
 
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 United States is facing a seldom-talked-about crisis: declining birth and marriage rates. While the first is largely in part to Planned Parenthood’s success in routinely massacring the unborn year after year, the second has a number of plausible reasons for happening. But one study finds that the reason, or at least one of the biggest ones, is the lack of “economically-attractive men” who are unmarried.
 
The study’s authors examined data gathered on recent marriages from 2007-2012 and 2013-2017 (5-year marriages). According to studyfinds.org, the “data was used to estimate the financial and sociodemographic characteristics of unmarried women’s potential husbands by creating economic profiles that resembled real husbands who had married comparable women.” These husbands then were compared to actual data of unmarried men throughout the country, including state and local locations.
 
The researchers found that these “dream” husbands had an average income 58% higher that the real unmarried men, were 30% more likely to be employed than real unmarried men and were 19% more likely to have a college degree than unmarried men.
 
Dr. Daniel T. Lichter, lead author of the study, explains: “Most American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men – men with a stable job and a good income – make this increasingly difficult, especially in the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs. Marriage is still based on love, but it also is fundamentally an economic transaction. Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors.”
 
Of course, this is on average and I believe there are a multitude of factors that affect the current marriage rates (and I’ll get to them), but this does point out quite a delicious irony for the feminist movement: women may be strong and independent, but they still DESIRE a husband who is not a deadbeat, beta loser.
 
I am reminded of an article I wrote a long time ago, back in November of 2017, about a similar subject. In that article, I talked about how the UK Daily Mail said that women, even those who considered themselves “feminist”, still found muscular and wealthy men to be attractive.
 
I also talked about the reasons for that to be the case: muscles are a sign of potential safety from physical harm (as long as the guy is a good man and not an abuser) and money is a sign of potential safety from financial harm (no one wants to starve).
 
So it makes sense that these mentalities that are as old as time itself remain in humans: we seek safety and comfort. Men seek to be able to protect their women and women seek to be able to be protected by their men. This isn’t sexism or misogyny but basic biology. The strong and fit will seek to protect those they have an emotional connection to. This is why men and women can become pretty much superhuman when their children are in danger.
 
But that’s physical protection. Financial protection is a rather new form of protection (in the grand scheme of things, but it has been around for millennia as well). Women seek men who are financially stable and capable of providing for a family. This is as true today as millennia ago.
 
In a day and age when student loan debt financially cripple most people, and in an age when more women are enrolled into colleges than men are (56% of college students nationwide are women), it comes as no surprise that there is such a hole in desirable men. Women tend to want to marry up, not sideways or down. When a woman does financially better than a man, she finds little to no reason to get married to that man (again, there are other factors to marriage, but this is an important one).
 
If she is able to sustain herself financially, that is one less reason to get married. Now, I’m not saying we should roll back the clock to a time when a woman was legally incapable of working, but I am saying that the feminist movement regarding female independence creates this sort of scenario: almost no man is good enough.
 
And that is another major reason, at least as far as I can see, for declining marriage rates. Cornell University points out the lack of economically-attractive men, and they are not wrong, but I do not think they quite got to the root of the overarching problem.
 
The lack of economically-attractive men is an effect, not a cause. The cause, at least one of the biggest ones, in my opinion, is the feminist movement. The idea of a “strong and independent woman”, while the norm today, naturally serves to divide men and women. Now, I’m not saying women shouldn’t be strong and independent, but independence itself indicates a separation. Independence means to be apart from another thing upon which one might at one point have depended.
 
It’s a matter of cause and effect: women seeking “independence” from men means women being apart from men and not really finding it necessary to be with men. As such, declining marriage rates seem logical and, in my opinion, by design.
 
 
Women’s ability to be financially independent and equal, while not a bad thing in itself, does render men with one less asset to bring into the “marriage bargain”, as Dr. Lichter mentioned. Again, women tend to want to marry up. With the standard rising, less men become financially attractive and marriage rates go down.
 
It also doesn’t help that extreme militant Leftists insist that all men are rapists, men rape women in college all the time, that toxic masculinity is even a thing and that men are, overall, not to be trusted with anything, least of all women.
 
Much as the feminist movement might try and suggest they are for “equality”, they really are not doing that. Men and women are already considered legally equal. The “problems” they bring up, such as the fictitious wage gap, comes as a result of women working less total hours than men on average, not as a result of sexism. Not to mention that they regularly attack “straight, white men” as often as they can, highlighting not only their hatred towards straight and white people, but also towards men.
 
The problem of declining marriage rates is multifaceted, but the constant attacks against men just for being men certainly don’t help matters any. It only serves to create distrust on impressionable young women.
 
The study points out an interesting portion about this problem, but I wouldn’t say that a lack of economically-attractive men is a cause of declining marriage rates. It’s an effect, as is declining marriage rates, of militant feminazism.
 
But another major cause, I’d say, is the overall lack of regard for the importance and value of marriage. What do I mean by that? I mean that most people view it as a unity of love, and while it is that, that’s not the entire point. Marriage is a unity, not only between a man and a woman but also a unity between the two and the Lord, who is at the head of the marriage.
 
Let me share with you what Ephesians 5:22-33 says:
 
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
 
That is a lot to cover, and I do not quite have the time to do so, but one important thing about this is just who created marriage: God. The same God who created you and me created the unity between a husband and wife; created the marriage between the two. It’s why we say it’s “holy matrimony”. But the “holy” part has largely been taken out of the idea of marriage. From gay marriage to an unmarried man and woman living in the same place and even having a baby together while not even thinking on the need for marriage, these things deprive marriage of all its spiritual meaning.
 
The fact that marriage rates are down is a crisis to people like us, Christians, but not to people like the Left, who do not value marriage in the least. Marriage means nothing more to them than unity of the flesh, and even then, they understand they don’t need marriage for that. What they advocate and support fervently is sexual immorality that goes against the meaning and significance of marriage, not to mention God’s Word.
 
As with shootings, this is yet another effect of our turning our backs against the Lord as a nation. Slowly but surely, His Word is becoming less and less recognized as the ultimate authority. His Word is becoming less and less relevant in people’s eyes and seek to outright rebel against every bit of it. Marriage, an institution built by the Lord, is becoming less and less relevant, and so, less and less sought after by people.
 
Now, again, the study pointed out that women do, indeed, still want to get married, which points to the feminazis’ failure, at least to a certain extent. But it’s only a matter of time until marriage itself becomes completely irrelevant in many people’s eyes. Its definition and significance has certainly already been heavily altered from what God intended it to be.
 
But in sum, what I’m trying to convey is the eternal importance of following the Lord, His Word and His Authority. Marriage is extremely important, in my opinion, and it’s taken quite the beating in recent time. I can only hope and pray that these trends, of declining marriage and birth rates, will be bucked and overturned so that people will get married more and have beautiful families together.
 
Proverbs 18:22
“He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from 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.