I’ve said this multiple times before, but I will say it again because it’s particularly true: if you were to just watch the mainstream media, you would think we were on the brink of total collapse. From the MSM, we hear stories about climate change and how it’s all our fault; we hear stories about how Trump colluded with Russia (not anymore, really, but the attitude is still there); stories about how Kavanaugh sexually assaulted multiple women while in college (all of which are not corroborated by witnesses or evidence); and generally, that the world is getting worse and worse.
 
However, a considerable majority of Americans believe that the country’s best days are ahead of us, not behind us.
 
According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 59% of nationwide voters believe America’s best days are ahead of us, in contrast to 41% who believe they are behind us (thanks, Obama).
 
This number includes 60% of conservatives AND liberals who say this, as well as 57% of moderates. 60% of Republicans and Democrats believe the future looks bright and so do 55% of Independents. Across racial demographics, 60% of Hispanics, 58% of whites and 53% of blacks agree with this optimistic idea.
 
And it’s not like this is new. The trend has shown this to be around the average, with 58% of people saying the same back in June and 57% back in March.
 
Interestingly enough, this comes in spite of the fact that only 35% of voters believe the federal government is doing a good job in terms of being a government of the people, by the people and for the people. What’s more, 71% believe the political system in America is broken, while only 16% disagree.
 
This is good news, when you think about it. Yesterday, I wrote an article talking about why socialism was so attractive and came to the conclusion that our capitalist system of economics has been socialized to the point where young people are suffering and the blame is put on capitalism itself. Similarly, one could argue that the socialization of our political system has bastardized it.
 
Yes, the Electoral College is still working wonders, but the fact that California is now an eternal shade of blue when only a few decades ago it at least had the capability of going red is quite the indication of political malpractice (as far as illegal immigration goes, let alone the other kinds of voter fraud present in states like Commiefornia). It also doesn’t help any that Congressmen on both sides of the aisle can be bought by lobbyists like Planned Parenthood and Wall Street, as well as other organizations.
 
Now, one might also be able to assume that at least some of those people who say the system is broken are socialists who claim Capitalism itself is broken. One might be able to do that, but they actually would be wrong to do so.
 
You see, Rasmussen also found that 81% of voters believe the reason for our system being broken is that our elected representatives AREN’T FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION. And while 30% believe the Constitution needs a major overhaul, a considerable majority (56%) believe that any changes that occur should FURTHER PLACE LIMITS ON THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, which is the very thing the Constitution was written to do.
 
The framers of the Constitution all knew what tyranny was like and knew that the best way for people to live free is for the federal government ruling over them to be as limited as possible without making it completely useless.
 
The literal preamble of the Constitution reads as follows: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
 
The entire point of the Constitution is to insure the liberty and power of the PEOPLE of the United States, not the government.

• The first amendment is, first and foremost, about the freedom of religion, followed by freedom of speech, of the press, to peaceably assemble and to petition the government.

 

• The second amendment is about the people’s rights to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed.

 

• The third amendment is about allowing people not to be forced to quarter soldiers into their homes if they do not wish it (it really was more relevant back in the days of the Revolution when the Red Coats were allowed to stay in people’s homes even if the people did not want it, but still important).

 

• The fourth amendment is all about people’s right to not be unfairly searched without a warrant, both on their person or in their property.

 

• The fifth amendment is all about people’s right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves and not being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.

 

• The sixth amendment is all about people’s right to a speedy and fair trial

 

• The seventh amendment is all about a right to a civil trial by jury.

 

• The eight amendment is all about protecting the people from cruel and unusual punishments not befitting the crime they committed.

 

• The ninth amendment is all about the rights of the people not being limited to the ones simply listed in the Constitution. Or in other words, people have liberty and rights even if they are not particularly mentioned in the Constitution.

 

• The tenth amendment is all about powers that are not delegated to the federal government (that are listed in the various articles before the amendments are listed) belonging to the States and to the people of those states (the reason why states can have a constitution of their own, so long as the state constitution does not infringe on the national constitution).

 
In each of the first ten amendments, what is known as the Bill of Rights, we find rights and freedoms and powers that belong exclusively to We the People of the United States of America, if not to the state governments to protect the states from the possibility of a tyrannical President.
 
This is why I say that no matter how socialist the Left wishes for us to be, the United States Constitution stands in the way. So long as there are people in power who are just, the Constitution will remain relevant to everyone.
 
Of course, there are more amendments to the Constitution than the ones talked about in the Bill of Rights, but the general principle still applies: the federal government is necessarily limited in power.
 
The Founding Fathers knew that it had to be limited in order to keep it from becoming tyrannical like the King of England they had fought and beaten. The Bill of Rights is there in order to limit the power the federal government can have on the individual states and on the people of the United States.
 
And with 56% of people saying if any changes are to be made, they should be to FURTHER limit the government, as we think it has gotten too big, that only tells you the type of mentality we still have.
 
So the overall climate in people’s minds, despite all the doom and gloom stuff shared by Democrat politicians and parroted by Left-wing media sources, seems to be that America’s best days are ahead of us, the government is cripplingly flawed and it should be limited in power.
 
This only further tells me that the far-Left people you see so often on Twitter and other social media are extremely fringe groups that do not reflect the overall mindset and views of America.
 
Romans 15:13
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.”
 
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.

Multiple times throughout the past couple of years, particularly since Donald Trump became President of the United States, the American Left has insisted that Trump in some way worked with Russia to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton. Specifically, they say, time and time again, that the guy is a “threat to Democracy”. But therein lies an erroneous presupposition: that we are a Democracy at all. However, a Democracy we most definitely are not, given the institutions we have in place and given what the Founders thought about Democracies.
 
First, it is crucial to identify exactly what a Democracy and a Republic are, because both seem to be used interchangeably, which is a detrimental mistake.
 
A Democracy is a system of government in which the entire population or the eligible members of a state, usually elected representatives, rule. In other words, it’s a system where the majority, or the mob, rules. Where the laws are entirely decided by the majority, through a vote, regardless of what may have been there previously.
 
A Republic, however, is a system of government where, yes, people have a vote and they elect representatives, but where the majority does not inherently rule in a nation. The Electoral College is an indication of our status as a Republic.
 
One of the Left’s most recent complaints (of which there are plenty because these are perpetually angry people) has been that the Electoral College is a “scam” and that that’s the only reason Trump won. And while Hillary did win the popular vote, there is a good reason the Electoral College is what is used to decide elections: so that big states with bigger populations don’t choose the president of the entire country.
 
Let’s look at a couple of things. First, the popular vote. Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes as opposed to Donald Trump’s 62,984,828 (granted, many of those Clinton votes were most likely from illegal aliens, so the real number probably isn’t that, but for the sake of the discussion, let’s say they are all legitimate). Rather close, but Clinton is the clear winner here. However, let’s move on to the counties: Donald Trump won 2,622 counties as opposed to Hillary Clinton’s 490. Donald Trump also won 30 states, as opposed to Clinton’s 20. Looking at an electoral map, be it by county or by state, you mostly see red.
 
So while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, far more states and especially counties voted for Donald Trump. The reason for Clinton winning the popular vote is largely attributed to California and New York, states with some of the biggest populations. California alone has nearly 40 million people living in it (obviously, not all are citizens, but still).
 
The Electoral College allows for states with lower populations to have a say as to who they want to be their President. With it gone, despite how many more counties and states Trump won, Clinton would’ve become President, even though the vast majority of the country (again, by counties and states) wanted Trump.
 
In a Democracy, Hillary would’ve won with the simple majority because that’s all a Democracy does: rule by majority. But since we are a Republic, we have systems in place to keep that from happening.
 
Now, you might be asking why it is we are a Republic and not a Democracy. Well, apart from the reasons I just gave, the Founding Fathers absolutely LOATHED Democracies.
 
Thomas Jefferson is attributed for saying: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
 
John Adams said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
 
Benjamin Franklin said: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
 
And Alexander Hamilton said: “We are a Republican government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.”
 
Our Founding Fathers understood the dangers of a democracy: mob rules. If the majority wanted, they could have voted to remain a part of the U.K. following the Revolutionary War (unlikely, but there were those who were anti-federalists and loyalists to the crown in the colonies who were against the rebellion).
 
Likewise, a Democracy can vote on just about anything else with impunity. If the majority wanted to arrest people wearing MAGA hats, they would be able to in a Democracy, but not in a Republic where we have basic Constitutional rights pertaining to things like freedom of speech, etc.
 
So every time I hear an idiotic Democrat insisting that Trump is a “threat to Democracy” or that we are a Democracy at any capacity (might I also mention that our Pledge of Allegiance says “to the Republic for which it stands” not “to the Democracy for which it stands”?), I can’t help but think how ignorant one can be.
 
We are not a Democracy by any means. We use facets of Democracy, such as voting, in our Republic, but we are not ruled by the majority. The Constitution is the backbone of our legal system and the Bible is the foundation upon which Western society is built. A simple majority cannot add onto or eliminate an amendment in the Constitution because we are not a Democracy. In order to ratify a Constitutional amendment, it takes two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and then three-fourths of the states in order to change the Constitution at all. A simple majority does not rule here.
 
This is because we are a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. And thank God for that.
 
Amos 5:24
“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
 
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.

More and more Democrats have signed on to the idea that they should seek to impeach President Donald Trump, with 130 House Democrats currently wishing to impeach and with the fourth-ranking Democrat having recently announced his desire to go down that route. However, Monmouth University recently ran a poll that shows dire news for Democrats who wish to impeach: it would only help Trump in the long run.
 
Recently, Monmouth University ran a survey asking people a number of things. Questions like Trump's job approval among surveyors, Congress’ job approval and other things were asked (and I’ll get to that first one), but most important are questions 4, 6, 8, and 9-13.
 
Here is what question 4 said: “Do you think President Trump should be impeached and compelled to leave the Presidency, or not?” And here are the results: 35% said that Trump should be impeached or compelled to leave office, while 59% said he should not and 6% said they didn’t know. That is a massive, 24-point difference in the sentiment surrounding impeachment.
 
Despite the Left’s best efforts to accuse Trump of being a Russian agent or being unfit to serve or having broken the law at any capacity, FAR MORE PEOPLE say that he shouldn’t be impeached than he should. This goes to show the failure of the media to try and shape reality. They have insisted for over 3 years that Donald Trump was unfit or was in some way a criminal and none of it has stuck.
 
Question 6 says the following: “Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry into President Trump that may or may not lead to impeachment?” This was the result: 41% said it was a good idea for the House Judiciary Committee, which is led by Jerry “Doughboy” Nadler, to conduct inquiry into impeaching Trump. 51%, in turn, said it was a bad idea to do so. A 10-point difference.
 
Now, I didn’t mention question 7 in the “important questions” list, but it is relevant to question 6, so I will briefly cover it. Question 7 is split into two questions: 7A and 7B. 7A asks the people who answer “good idea” to question 6 why it is that they feel the way they do. 17% of those say that it’s because they believe he broke the law, 18% say because the aforementioned Committee needs to follow evidence, 17% say because of bad moral character/personality, 16% say because he has enacted bad policies or is doing a bad job, 10% say because he acts above the law and must be held accountable, 11% say because he is racist or because he is bad for immigration. There are other reasons, but one I would like to point out is that only 3% say because he has “Russia ties”.
 
While many of these reasons are fake news narratives, such as breaking the law, acting above the law, insisting there is evidence of criminal activity, etc., the 3% Russia ties is quite significant in showing how bad of a job the Left did in trying to frame Trump as a Russian asset or having colluded with Russia.
 
For the most part, I imagine that those who say he broke the law will argue that the law he broke was relating to wanting to fire Mueller or complaining about the investigation being a witch hunt, etc., none of which are an actual crime (though Mueller certainly tried to make it look like they were instances of obstruction of justice), otherwise far more people would be signed on to the idea of impeachment, and none of it really has to do with actual Russian collusion. Three years of insisting Trump colluded with Russia has culminated in people really not buying it. Though, that tends to happen when no actual evidence of the deed has been shown.
 
But in any case, while these may be the (really poor) reasons people have stated to impeach Trump, question 7B asks those who think it’s a bad idea for Nadler to begin impeachment inquiry why they think the way they do. 27% say that Trump did nothing wrong, 22% say it would be a waste of time/money, 12% say Trump’s done a good job, 13% say because it would be a witch hunt and entirely partisan, 10% say Congress should work on other things, and 5% say because it would backfire on Democrats.
 
So while there are those who are insane enough to believe the b.s. of the Left (at least some of it), there are far more people who think it would be unwarranted to call for impeachment of the POTUS.
 
But let’s move on to question 8. It’s rather lengthy and basically explains the impeachment process (House votes to pass articles of impeachment and two-thirds of Senate, or 66 votes, in order to remove the President from office) but it basically asks how likely it would be for the Senate to remove Trump if House votes to impeach. 6% said it would be very likely, 14% said somewhat likely, 25% said not too likely and 50% said not at all likely. That’s 20% to 75% in favor of “not likely” that the Senate would vote to impeach.
 
This largely hinges on the actual rules of the Senate and Trump’s favorability as it stands. 66 Senators would have to vote in favor of impeachment. There are 45 Democrats and 2 Independent Senators, those being Bernie Sanders and Angus King, neither of which like Trump, so they’d likely vote to remove from office. One could assume all 45 Dems would vote to remove Trump from office, so that’s 47 votes. This would require 19 Republicans to vote to remove Trump from office. And while people like Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Ben Sasse might vote to remove Trump from office, that’s still not enough votes to do so and with Trump’s good numbers, it’s unlikely they would vote to remove (well, maybe Romney still would because he’s an idiot, but I don’t know about the rest. When Ben Sasse isn’t talking about Trump, I tend to like him because he tends to be conservative, but I don’t really know what he would do).
 
Sure, there are probably others in the Senate who hate Trump as much as the Democrats do, but wouldn’t dare be vocal about it, particularly now. And considering Lindsey Graham seems to be on Trump’s side now, that’s one less likely vote to remove Trump.
 
But that’s if it even reaches the Senate. With the way things are, I don’t think the House would vote to impeach. Again, only 130 Democrats are signing on to it (and probably a couple Republicans and Independents), but Nancy Pelosi doesn’t even want this on the House floor. So impeachment is not likely at all to occur.
 
Now, for the sake of time, I will briefly cover the remaining important questions.
 
Question 9 asked if people thought it’d be a good idea for the House to conduct impeachment proceedings even if the Senate was unlikely to remove Trump from office. Only 37% said it would be a good idea and 56% said it would be a bad idea.
 
Question 10 asks if Trump would be in a stronger or weaker position to win reelection if impeached but not removed from office. 31% said he’d be in a stronger position and only 23% said he’d be in a weaker position. Though 36% said there wouldn’t be a significant impact.
 
Question 11 is similar to question 10, but asks the same of Democrats keeping the House in 2020. 27% said they’d be in a stronger position to retain the House, 34% said they’d be in a weaker position and 31% said there wouldn’t be a significant impact.
 
Question 12 asks people if their elected representative voted to impeach, would that make voters more or less likely to vote for that representative again? 24% said more likely, 26% less likely and 46% no significant impact.
 
Question 13 is similar but asks if the representative voted against impeachment, would people vote for them again? 16% said more likely, 28% said less likely, 51% no impact.
 
Those last two questions particularly put Democrats in purple states in danger because it’s a no-win situation. If they vote to impeach, more people would be less likely to vote. If they vote against impeachment, the same thing happens. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t for them, which is another reason Pelosi doesn’t want this on the House floor. Not only is it unlikely to do anything to hurt Trump, it would likely HELP him in 2020 and it would likely HURT the Democrats in 2020, particularly in the House.
 
Now, another thing that I feel obligated to mention (as I said I would get to) is Trump’s approval rating in the Monmouth University poll. It’s not exactly great numbers for Trump, sitting at only 40% approval rating, but that’s actually par for the course for Trump in this survey. His highest numbers, at least since March of 2017, have been 44 or 43%. 40% is far from the lowest he’s gotten and rather normal for this survey (of which only 25% of registered Republicans participated, 30% Democrats and 45% Independents, so that explains some numbers).
 
I personally think his approval is considerably higher than that, but even taking this number at face value, it’s far higher than the Democrats would want in order to be confident about impeachment proceedings.
 
Pelosi noticed that Clinton’s approval numbers were not bad at all when the GOP sought to impeach and she noticed that move seriously hurt the Republicans moving forward, at least to some extent. She doesn’t want the same thing to happen to the Democrats, not because she cares about the Party, but because that would put her position of power in peril. Pushing to impeach would likely make Trump stronger in 2020 and would likely make any incumbent who voted in favor likely to lose (in districts not in solid blue states, at least).
 
That’s not to say Pelosi doesn’t want to impeach Trump. She does, but she doesn’t want to sacrifice her power in order to *maybe* achieve that (and, of course, it’s not likely at all that the Senate will vote to remove Trump).
 
With more and more Democrats signing on to the idea of impeaching Trump, they may be appeasing the Leftist Hollywood elitists who demand this and maybe even be appeasing some in their base, but as I’ve said before, that base is shrinking. Most people don’t want impeachment and if Democrats go against that, it will only hurt them going forward. Every Democrat who says they should impeach Trump gives ammo to Trump and only to Trump.
 
And that’s why I want them to go for it. I want them to try and impeach because of how catastrophic a failure it would be for them. But we’ll see what happens. We’ll see if Pelosi still has enough political muscle to rein in these lunatic Leftists.
 
Luke 10:19
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One of the main tools of illegal immigrants and traffickers is children. Since 2015, illegals have been able to seek asylum while being accompanied by a child, but a court-ordered rule had made it so that migrants with children had to be released after 20 days of detention – that is, released into the United States, not deported back to their country of origin. As you could imagine, this brought a whole lot of problems.
 
However, the Department of Homeland Security is now issuing a new regulation that eliminates the limit asylum seekers can be detained for, allowing for the full process of asylum seeking to be completed aka, sending the ones who do not qualify for asylum packing as opposed to releasing them into the United States.
 
According to Breitbart: “Officials expect the promise of family detention will sharply reduce the economic incentive for migration from Central America, Africa, and Asia, because it will prevent migrants from getting U.S. jobs to pay their smuggling debts to the cartel-affiliated coyotes. Without the revenue from a job in the United States, migrants know they will likely lose the farms and houses which they typically mortgage to pay the smuggling coyotes upfront.”
 
This also means that there will likely be a considerable drop in numbers of asylum seekers, particularly those who are accompanied by children.
 
According to a Guatemalan coyote named Hugo who recently spoke with the Los Angeles Times: “The child is the treasure. It’s not the adult who takes the child, it’s the other way around: The child takes the adult.”
 
And this is pretty obvious given the number of asylum seekers in recent years. In 2013, before the court order of Catch and Release, only 15,000 people accompanied by a child applied for asylum. So far in 2019, that number is 433,000.
 
So like we have been saying, these people largely use children to go around existing immigration law and enter the country illegally. They enter the country with a child, get detained by BP or ICE, apply for asylum, wait 20 days, get released into the city they stated they planned on living in, get told to show up to court on a particular date to settle the asylum claim, never show up and live amongst the other illegal immigrants who gamed the system in a similar way.
 
But now, thanks to the DHS, that loophole has been terminated (though Left-wing, pro-illegal immigration groups will challenge this regulation for certain) and there is the opportunity to discourage people from trying to enter the country with a child (that in all likelihood isn’t even theirs). This also reduces the chances of a child getting separated from the adult they are with or even dying at the border.
 
A statement from a “senior administration official” says: “Today, the Administration is closing one of the legal loopholes that has allowed human traffickers and smugglers to exploit our vulnerabilities at the southern border. President Trump has made it clear that he’s going to secure America’s border at all cost and this rule plays a vital role in the strategy to restore the integrity to our immigration system and our national security.”
 
Indeed, the way human traffickers have been able to do their business in the southern border is through this loophole. With the huge number of asylum seekers accompanied by children, border agents have had a horrible time trying to enforce our nation’s immigration system and keep illegals out of the country. Releasing these people after 20 days and ASKING THEM to go to a court where they are more than likely to lose their case is something only idiots and people who want this country to fall to ruin want. Few illegals would be stupid enough to go to court following their release into the American city they want to live in.
 
As with criminals in general, illegal immigrants don’t care about American rule of law or immigration law. So why would they be willing to obey the law in regards to going to court to settle the asylum claim, which they are more likely to lose than to win?
 
It’s a stupid system and I’m glad something is being done about it, not thanks to Congress. The Democrats definitely don’t want to close the loophole. They HEAVILY BENEFIT from the loophole. The Republicans aren’t much better because many of them argue that these migrants provide services Americans wouldn’t be willing to do, which is absolute b.s.
 
Now, again, this will most certainly be challenged in courts and likely even be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, but I expect it to rule in favor of the President, or in this case, in favor of the DHS. Being able to close such loopholes is within the power of the Executive, which tends to have a say when it comes to regulation.
 
But as it stands right now, this will definitely help immigration agencies and allow them room to breathe. Just in July, apprehension numbers fell 24%, from nearly 95,000 in June to roughly 72,000 in July, according to the July Southwest Border Migration Report. Still generally higher than in 2018, but this new rule will go a long way towards helping with these apprehension numbers in the future.
 
This marks another Trump campaign promise fulfilled, at least as it stands, to end “Catch-and-Release” that has been plaguing this country for years.
 
Thanks be to God that this is happening now, because I’m certain that if we had had a President Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, things would be far worse than they currently are.
 
Psalm 106:1
“Praise the Lord! Oh give thanks to the Lord, for He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever!”
 
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.

Generally speaking, while I love covering polls that have good news for people like Trump and other conservative Republicans, I tend to admit to the fact that the next presidential election is still quite some time away from us, in well over a year, so a lot of things can happen between then and now. However, there are certain items in the poll that I will show you that I have my doubts they have much of a chance of changing in the near future.
 
According to a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, conducted July 15-17 and with over 1300 respondents, President Donald Trump’s approval number sits at a comfortable 44%, the highest in the Marist poll to date. And trust me, there are a lot more numbers like this that ought to scare the Left for a number of reasons.
 
Now, you might be asking: “why is 44?% scary? It seems relatively normal.” And yes, you would be right when just thinking about the number in and of itself. However, this is from a poll where Democrats are polled far more than Republicans or other people. 33% of the respondents identified as Democrat, as opposed to only 27% of Republicans. There is a clear over-sampling of Democrats in this survey and STILL his numbers are that high.
 
But don’t worry. We are just getting started with the numbers shown in this poll. As it stands, 90% of Republicans support Trump’s job as POTUS, with 42% of Independents and 7% of Democrats. These numbers are also pretty good, particularly for the Independent vote.
 
39% of national adults said they would “definitely” vote for Trump in 2020, with 89% of Republicans and 33% of Independents agreeing. Keep in mind these are just national adults. Typically, the numbers go up when it comes to registered voters and likely voters. What’s more, as Josh Kraushaar points out on Twitter: “Trump definite re-elect % in July 2019: 39%. Obama definite re-elect % in August 2011: 40%.”
 
So Trump is basically polling as well as Obama was at the same time in his presidency and we all know Obama got re-elected with such numbers.
 
When it comes to the economy, 52% said they approved of Trump’s handling of it, which is similar to Obama until August of 2009, only 7 months after taking office. Following that, Obama’s numbers were never quite as good.
 
Now, Obama had different advantages that Trump doesn’t have, such as the fake news media and most outspoken people supporting him and that helped him get elected. But similarly, Trump has different advantages that Obama didn’t have in his own reelection bid, namely the success of the economy and other things that we will talk about momentarily.
 
But before we move on to the juiciest details of the poll (yes, THESE NUMBERS aren’t even the worst news for Dems), I will finish off this section by mentioning that the number of those who said they “definitely” will be voting against Trump DROPPED from 57% to 53% since January. Sure, that number is still up there, but it’s falling and it’s contradicting the ongoing narrative of the Left: that Trump is an unpopular President and he will be soundly defeated come November of next year. Less and less people are saying they would “definitely” vote against Trump. That doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote FOR Trump, but that could mean less and less votes for Democrats too. One of the things that hurt Hillary in 2016 was lack of Democrat votes for her. Many were angry that Bernie got screwed out of being the nominee (he still would’ve lost even without the Super Delegate system, but the race was still rigged against him) and decided to either vote for Trump as a result or simply not vote. If that number continues to drop, voter turnout might once again be a problem for Democrats.
 
But it’s not just that number that might pose a problem for Democrat turnout in 2020. Let us now get into the actual policies that every Democrat has signed on to since even before the first debates took place: Medicare-for-All, open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration, giving free healthcare to illegals, and reparations for slavery.
 
Ryan James Girdusky highlighted the results of the poll pretty well:
 
“Voters asked if they support Medicare for All as a replacement for private health insurance (good idea/bad idea): Registered voters: 40/55. Democrats: 64/31. Republicans: 14/83. Independents: 39/55. Whites: 38/56. Non-whites: 46/49. Gen X: 35/61.”
 
The only people that have a more favorable view of Medicare-for-All as a replacement of private health insurance are Democrats, and even then, there is a decent number of those who think it’s a bad idea. The key words here are “replacement of private health insurance”. Usually, on its own, Medicare-for-All polls pretty well, somewhere in the 60s and maybe 70s. However, as you start to dive into what exactly it would mean, such as replacing already existing private health insurance plans, support for it drops like a rock. This is why people like Kamala Harris flip-flop on this issue.
 
When it comes to giving free healthcare to illegals, Ryan highlighted:
 
“Is free healthcare for illegal immigrants a good idea/bad idea: Registered voters: 32/62. Democrats: 60/32. Republicans: 6/93. Independents: 27/67. Moderate Democrats: 43/47. Whites: 28/68. Non-whites: 43/51. Millennials/Gen Z: 45/51.”
 
Let’s not forget that every single Democrat signed on to the idea of giving illegals free healthcare. Well, according to this poll, most people HEAVILY DISAGREE with that idea. But let’s specifically look at two demographics.
 
You might’ve noticed that Ryan included Moderate Democrats into the mix. That is because the poll asked those who identified as “moderate” Democrats this question, and there were more moderates in the Democrat Party that disagreed with the idea than agreed with it. This is another number that could haunt Democrats come 2020 if it doesn’t change, and I don’t see much reason for it to change in a positive direction for Democrats. The candidates surely are not going to change their minds about it and the moderates that don’t want this might choose to at least sit out of this election once again, if not outright vote for Trump.
 
Time and time again, I have mentioned how more and more people are leaving the Democrat Party because of how far to the Left they have gone in recent time. This is some proof of that statement. Plenty of Democrats don’t like the direction the Party is going and will at least consider leaving it.
 
The other demographic to look at is the youngest generations, the Millennials and Gen Z. For even THEM to think free healthcare for illegals is a bad idea ought to wake up the Democrats to try and at least pretend this isn’t something they want. But since they will continue to believe the lie that the fake news media feeds them – that Donald Trump is screwed almost no matter what proposal is brought up from the Democrats – they will have no reason to change course, even if they are defeated in a landslide. In reality, if Trump wins by a massive margin (or even at all), the Democrats will once again cry foul and say that “the Russians did it again!” or something equally as nonsensical.
 
Moving on to decriminalizing border crossings, we find: “Registered voters: 27/67. Democrats: 45/47. Republicans: 10/87. Independents: 24/68. Moderate Dems: 34/58. Progressive Dems: 54/37. Whites: 26/68. Non-whites: 28/63. Millennials/Gen Z: 31/59.”
 
Once again, only one demographic had a positive view on it and that’s Progressive Democrats, and even then, a full 37%, more than one-in-three, still disagreed.
 
Finally, we reach slavery reparations where we find the following data: “Registered voters: 26/63. Democrats: 46/40. Republicans: 3/89. Independents: 23/65. Whites: 19/69. Non-whites: 40/50.”
 
Again, only Democrats had a positive view on it and even then, 40% didn’t.
 
All of these are issues the Democrats are trying to bring front-and-center into a debate not only amongst themselves but also with Donald Trump. All of these are issues they perceive are popular with the vast majority of Americans, but even a poll that OVERSAMPLED DEMOCRATS has pretty terrible news for them.
 
Most people don’t think these proposals are in any way, shape, manner or form a good idea for this country. Basically every single newsworthy policy item the Democrats have brought up is very unpopular with most Americans. And promising people that if they like their health insurance, they get to keep it isn’t going to work when your last President promised pretty much the same thing, only with doctors, and shattered that promise into pieces. (And yes, I know Biden has literally promised the same thing and it’s also not going to work for him).
 
So when you have candidates that all say they agree with these very unpopular items, a fake news media that will coddle them and say “everything is fine” when they are not fine for them, and numbers that show Donald Trump’s approval ratings are only going up and up, you have a recipe for nuclear meltdown in the DNC once Trump wins re-election.
 
Again, I see no reason for these numbers to change for the better for Democrats. And if the economy continues roaring as it is today and Trump continues doing great things for this country and if the Democrats continue sticking to their guns on highly unpopular policy items, I see no reason for Trump to lose come 2020.
 
And once again, I feel obligated to mention that we are still over a year away from that election, but these aren’t items that I think will magically be considered to be good ideas in that time span. No one wakes up one day holding a completely different view on anything. You might begin to change your mind about certain things over time, but free healthcare for illegals doesn’t seem to be a bad idea one day and a good one the next (because it is one of the most idiotic ideas I’ve ever heard of).
 
So if these numbers continue to show up as we draw closer and closer to the 2020 election (as I think they ought to), I don’t see any reasonable way for Democrats to actually beat Trump. Regardless, that doesn’t mean we are afforded the luxury of complacency. We must continue to pray to God that Trump will continue making America great again and will defeat the Satanic Democrats come election time.
 
Matthew 7:7
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.”
 
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 last few days, I (and likely others as well) have heard of two stories from two different campaigns: Beto O’Rourke campaigning IN MEXICO, despite the obvious fact that not one Mexican citizen is bound (or allowed) to vote either in the Democrat primaries or the 2020 election, and the other story of the Trump campaign trying their hardest to reach the evangelical vote.
 
While Beto O’Rourke is campaigning in Mexico (in what is obviously an attempt at securing illegal immigrant votes States-side), the President is trying to reach those of us who follow the Lord.
 
According to Axios, a Trump campaign advisor told them: “There is a significant evangelical outreach effort. It’s going to be state specific. It’s going to exist in important battleground states and focus on churches and areas where we can have an impact. African American outreach will be a component of that… It’s robust, and it will be well-funded.”
 
Another campaign official told Axios that “this is about finding voters,” and Axios reported that in 2016, Trump got 81% of the evangelical vote. As it stands right now, the Pew Research Center says that 69% of evangelicals think the President is doing a good job.
 
Governing.com also reported that evangelicals have moved closer to Trump since his 2016 victory:
 
“Exit polls showed that 75 percent cast their ballots for Republican candidates. That number includes evangelicals of all ages, but surveys taken shortly before the election showed that 78 percent of white evangelicals ages 18 to 29 identified as Republican. ‘Did we see white evangelicals moving toward the middle of the political spectrum in 2018? Clearly no,’ says Ryan Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University (and a Baptist minister). ‘White evangelicals are more Republican now than they were two years ago.’”
 
Burge also noted that the percentage of evangelicals rose in 45 states from 2000 to 2010, coming largely from a rise in Latino evangelicals in states like Arizona, Florida, Maryland and Ohio.
 
And back in May, White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said that evangelicals and Trump are so close because “there’s a mutual respect. I think they have a good relationship because of the fact that he has delivered on the promises he made during the campaign.”
 
And there’s certainly a lot to that. As far as other Republicans go, the ones that do not keep their promises, like that snake Paul Ryan, seriously tick us off because he was essentially doing the Left’s bidding, which is far from good for the country. We respect Trump because he actually keeps his promises and is legitimately making America great again, despite all the hurdles in his way.
 
Now, I know what rather hypocritical Leftists will say about this: “how can evangelicals support Trump? He likes to grab women by their privates! He has had affairs on his wives and has been married three times! He is far from a man after God’s own heart!” To which I say: while the Access Hollywood tape of him saying what he said was definitely not a nice thing to say, it was locker room talk and he has never actually sexually assaulted or harassed any woman. While he has had affairs with his wives (his second wife was his mistress while he was married to Ivana), while there’s the whole Stormy Daniels thing (which I don’t fully believe anyway), and while those things are certainly sinful and not right, what is important to understand is whether or not Donald Trump has asked for forgiveness for his sins.
 
Which brings me to the last one, about him not being a man after God’s own heart. The biblically-illiterate Left will be quick to judge, but slow to understand, but David, while anointed as a man after God’s own heart by the Lord Himself, eventually sinned greatly by sleeping with one of his most loyal soldier’s wife, Bathsheba, and then plotted to send said soldier off to die in battle to keep his sins buried.
 
The story of King David would be seen as a massive fall from grace if it weren’t for the fact that much of the book of Psalms is about David’s recognition and repentance of his sins, begging for God’s forgiveness and eventually receiving it.
 
And that’s what is important: to be forgiven by the Lord. What Trump did decades ago, or even a few years ago, is irrelevant if he has asked for forgiveness from Jesus Christ.
 
What’s more, what he did in the past is greatly overshadowed by the atrocities the Left advocates for TODAY.
 
I’ll take a former adulterer who cares for this country and loves the Lord over a current advocate for death, lust, obscenity and evil who hates this country and wishes for nothing more than to see it turn into the antithesis of what the founders intended.
 
President Trump has flaws, yes, but that comes naturally as HE IS HUMAN TOO! And while there may be evangelical NeverTrumpers like David French who honestly can’t see past Trump’s former mistakes and judges him on those things as a result (not exactly a very Christian thing to do either), most recognize that if we were to wait for the perfect candidate to show up to run for President, we would literally have to wait for rapture to occur because no one is perfect apart from the Lord.
 
And believe me, Jesus Christ wouldn’t run for President of the United States, as He already is the King of all the Earth and Heaven.
 
The fact that President Trump is trying this hard to get the evangelical vote (which will almost certainly go to him over anyone on the Left who currently advocate for literally demonic things) shows us who he wants to be part of his base.
 
Evangelicals love the Lord, love this country and love Trump in that order. And the reason they (we, really, as I’m also a Christian) love Trump is because he ALSO loves the Lord and this country. Whatever mistake he may have done in the past is forgiven provided he has asked for said forgiveness (and I have no reason to believe he hasn’t).
 
The entire story of the Bible, both the Old and New Testament, is a story of redemption. From the moment Adam and Eve sinned against the Lord, God has provided salvation after salvation for His people – all of them with a similar theme: have faith in the Lord.
 
It was Noah’s faith that saved him from God’s wrath during the flood. It was Abraham’s faith that saved him. It was Lot’s faith that saved his family (minus his wife, who disobeyed God) from the judgment over Sodom. It was Moses’ and the Israelites faith that saved them from Pharaoh. And it is all of our faith in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for our sins, that saves us from God’s judgment. Sola Gratia and Sola Fide. By grace alone, we are saved through faith alone.
 
Even the most spiteful of humans to ever exist can be saved if he or she were to place their faith in the Lord Jesus. Even every single person on the Democrat ticket who currently advocates for Satan’s wish list could be saved if they were to place their faith in Jesus Christ. Granted, that is not likely to happen as it stands, and it is up to the Lord to choose whom He shows mercy, so it is possible none of them will be saved (and no, Buttigieg is not a Christian, he is not saved, no matter how much he tries to say he is a Christian. Outward proclamation of faith does not always equal actual faith).
 
So it really doesn’t matter what Donald Trump did in his past. As long as he has repented of his sins, he has been forgiven by the Lord. As a result, I see no reason not to forgive him myself for those things. So as far as his reelection campaign goes, I, along with many other Christians, will be voting for President Trump.
 
1 John 1:9
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
 
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.

A few of months ago, Democrat candidates began their own races to the Democrat nomination in an effort to unseat President Trump come November of 2020. Part of the big headlines that were made apart from the actual announcements by the various candidates was just how much money they all raised in the span of a single day and even a single quarter.
 
For example, former Vice President Joe Biden made headlines for having raised $6.3 million on the first day of his candidacy. Failed Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke raised almost as much, at $6.1 million in his first day. Lunatic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-USSR) raised $5.9 million in his first day.
 
And in the first quarter, Joe Biden bragged about having raised almost $20 million in that time span, in a fundraiser full of Wall Street donors, saying: “With your help, you’re going to allow me to be able to compete in a way that I’ve never been able to do before. We’ve raised a great deal of money.”
 
Well, if we are to consider money raised as a sign of excitement and enthusiasm for a candidate (and we will), then I suppose raising $24.8 MILLION in the span of 24 hours is a pretty great sign of enthusiasm.
 
GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted: “[Trump] has raised a record breaking $24.8M in less than 24 hours for his re-election. The enthusiasm across the country for this President is unmatched and unlike anything we’ve ever seen!”
 
Tim Murtaugh, the Director of Communications for the President’s 2020 campaign also tweeted: “Jaw-dropping numbers from the 24 hours of the day [Trump] announced his re-election campaign: $24.8 million raised. Do the math: that’s more than a million dollars an hour for an entire day. On top of an electric rally in Orlando, this shows huge Trump enthusiasm.”
 
And that last part also brings up a very good point: Trump has been filling up whole stadiums ever since 2016 and that doesn’t seem to have changed at all.
 
The President announced his bid for re-election in Orlando, Florida, in the Amway Center. That’s the same Amway Center where the Orlando Magic, an NBA team, play. And let’s not forget that back in October of last year, while holding rallies for Republican candidates for the midterm elections in Houston, Texas, Trump also filled up the Toyota Center, where the Houston Rockets, another NBA team, play.
 
The President fills up entire stadiums where sports teams play, while Democrat candidates struggle to fill out their own areas for speaking.
 
Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Well, Trump is the incumbent in this race. Of course he’s going to raise more money and fill up more seats. He’s the only Republican running!” And you would be correct in your thinking if it weren’t for the fact that this has basically been a trend ever since 2015, when Trump first announced his candidacy. He was still drawing huge crowds and raising plenty of money, despite the fact there were another 16 or so candidates also running.
 
There’s no doubt that Trump holds an advantage as the incumbent and being the only Republican running, but if Trump were in as much trouble as multiple polls claim he is, the amount of enthusiasm shown in Orlando alone wouldn’t have been quite as much.
 
The people of Orlando, as well as just about everyone who voted for Trump in 2016, still know for sure that CNN sucks, that Hillary Clinton should be locked up (and honestly, so should Barack Obama) and that we need to build the wall (which Trump is working very hard to do but there’s only so much he can do without Congressional help, something that falls on both parties). So the people who supported Trump in 2016 are still here, and more are likely to show out to vote, considering who he is running against and what he has had to face in the last couple of years.
 
Even The Daily Wire’s Erick Erickson tweeted that he’d rather vote for Trump (don’t know if he did in 2016, but I doubt it as he has always been a NeverTrumper to some extent) than for any of the “baby-killing socialists”, as he put it, currently running on the Democrat ticket.
 
Given that I have already stated that I believe this race will, in large part, be about the very soul of this nation, I think there will be some people who look at what the Democrats are running on – higher taxes, “free” everything which only leads to higher taxes, restricted free speech for political opponents of the Left, restricted religious freedom for bakery shop owners, legalizing actual infanticide, forcing female students to compete with males, etc. – and recognize the actual threat these people possess and come to the realization that they ought to be as far from political office as one can get. Because for all of people’s personal gripes with Trump (which are entirely petty, but to each their own), he is Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and George Washington put together on steroids in comparison to Karl Marx’s All-Star team of Democrat candidates.
 
All of this is yet another reason not to trust the fake MSM polls that show what the Left hopes is reality. Never mind that these polls showed even worse numbers for Trump all throughout the 2016 campaign and were all incredulously wrong, never mind that the polls always tend to over-sample Democrats, an already well-known tactic used by Democrat pollsters, never mind that these are the same people who claimed for two and a half years that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 Presidential election away from Hillary without any actual evidence, salivating at the idea that they might one day actually get something solid so they could impeach Trump. The fact that Donald Trump has raised a record-breaking amount of money for a single day as a candidate, far beating out their original $7 million goal and far beating out Joe Biden’s numbers from an entire quarter, AND he is still filling out entire stadiums used for sporting events shows the amount of enthusiasm for Trump hasn’t wavered in the least.
 
Of course, as I’ve been saying for some time now, it’s still too early to determine anything happening right now as being a big factor in 2020. An awful lot of things can change from here and Trump will eventually be facing one candidate, not making generalizations about what the Democrats are proposing (which he still can do if Biden is A) the nominee as most people expect him to be and B) runs on the same socialist crap all the others are running on because he’s a serial plagiarizer and does not have the mental capacity to formulate a single original thought).
 
But as things stand currently, Trump is off to a pretty great start for his re-election bid. I just hope and pray things stay like this and even get better as we go forward.
 
1 Timothy 2:1-4
“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

This is far from the first time I have written about Hispanics supporting Donald Trump at any capacity. Given that I, myself, am Hispanic, I can at least fairly decently relate with credibility why it is that Hispanics are so willing to support the President. But to entitled Leftist elitists who view minorities as voting mules, Trump being supported by as many Hispanics as previous Republican candidates/presidents makes absolutely zero sense.
 
Take David Drucker from the Washington Examiner for example. While I wouldn’t necessarily call him a Leftist per se (what I have seen from him doesn’t paint him with the same brush as pretty much everyone else on the MSM), he does appear surprised at the fact that Trump is rather popular with Hispanics. In fact, the title of his article I will be quoting from is: “Hispanics stick with Trump despite tough border stance”.
 
Now, to me, I find that rather hilarious. “Despite” tough border stance? Try BECAUSE of tough border stance.
 
Keep in mind that exit polls back in 2016 showed that Trump garnered 28% of the Hispanic vote, which is admittedly lower than it is today. 28% is around the support other Republicans have received from the Hispanic population. Mitt Romney back in 2012 got 27% of the Hispanic vote.
 
So while you can attribute a strong economy causing his support to grow (something I do as well), there was still a decent portion of the Hispanic population that voted for Trump despite the fact he hadn’t done anything for the economy just yet (naturally, having not been POTUS at the time). Also keep in mind that his entire campaign centered around illegal immigration and building a wall at the southern border.
 
So you would think people would be able to figure out that a tough border stance is not detrimental for Trump when it comes to Hispanics. WE ARE TOUGH ON THE BORDER TOO!
 
But here’s what Drucker said specifically in his rather short article. He starts by noting that Trump’s initial remarks upon launching his campaign “mortified” Republicans, establishment and otherwise, fearing that nominating Trump, let alone electing him, would doom the GOP with the Hispanics. He also notes that it hasn’t quite worked out that way, given he has support around 30%, give or take depending on the poll.
 
Even Daniel Garza, a Koch brothers minion and former Bush official said: “[Trump] starts in a much better place for reelection than when he launched his 2016 campaign. One would think immigration would be a major anchor for him, but he’s turned it into at least a push.” Even Drucker notes that Garza’s comments are quite the turnaround from what he said back in 2015, shortly after Trump launched his campaign: “His positions are indefensible. I would actually rise up against him.”
 
In any case, Drucker then continues by citing a YouGov poll that shows Trump’s job approval rating among Hispanics sits around 29% and on immigration, which is, in Drucker’s mind “presumably a tougher issue for the president with this demographic”, is at 30%. Drucker then notes that 30% is rather usual for Republicans, as around 30% of Hispanics tend to be “die-hard Republicans”, as Joe Heck, a former Nevada congressman who usually was popular with Hispanics noted.
 
And then Drucker supposedly warns Trump and conservatives that roughly 30% is “dangerously low for competitive contests”, saying that “it can leave Republicans too reliant on the white vote, the largest segment of the voting population nationally but one that is declining.”
 
But wait, didn’t Trump get 28% in 2016? And wasn’t Hillary supposed to absolutely cream Trump? Virtually every poll out there said that Hillary was going to win, so if Trump ended up winning anyway, doesn’t that mean that 30% is at least decent enough for someone like Trump?
 
What’s more, we are seeing a strong economy today with the lowest unemployment rates for Hispanics (and other demographics, but the focus is on Hispanics) that we’ve ever recorded, so Trump has that going for himself, particularly with Hispanics.
 
But then, Drucker quotes Albert Morales, a senior political director for Latino Decisions (admittedly a group I have never heard of), that typically studies Hispanic vote patterns and other things. Morales said that, according to recent internal polling, 80% of Hispanics intend to vote in 2020, as though that is a massive warning for Trump.
 
“That figure ‘is usually around 50%,’ Morales said. Republicans hope a booming economy will supersede Hispanics’ lingering reservations about Trump over his crackdown on illegal immigration and aggressive tactics to secure the border…”
 
Ok, what? This article, up to this point, was talking about how despite Trump’s tough border stance, Hispanics still support him. And now, it’s likely going to be a problem for him that he’s hoping will be superseded by a strong economy? Did Drucker start writing an entirely different article in the middle of talking about how Hispanics don’t actually distance themselves from Trump because of his strong border stance?
 
I honestly don’t understand the logic here. Back in 2016, Trump garnered a fair bit of the Hispanic vote, a typical number for Republicans to garner. Despite the fact Trump centered his entire campaign around the idea of Making America Great Again (which is somehow supposed to turn off Hispanics because apparently we can’t be happy for America and hope it does well) and securing the southern border with a great and beautiful wall, these same ideas are likely going to sink him in his reelection bid with Hispanics?
 
What’s more, Drucker went on to say: “Morales was doubtful (about Trump superseding supposed Hispanic reservation about Trump’s tough border stance, which we just established is not really there), explaining that Hispanic anger at the president’s policies evident in the midterm elections has not dissipated. ‘I think that question needs to be posed to the 40 Republicans who lost their [House] seats,’ Morales said concerning whether the economy would be enough. ‘That’s what they were relying on last cycle, but it just wasn’t enough,’ Morales said.”
 
Are these people seriously forgetting that almost all of the seats the Republicans lost in the midterms was because the incumbents conveniently retired and incumbents tend to get reelected? Had fewer, or even none of the Republicans who retired last year not decided to retire and run again, it’s entirely certain Republicans would’ve lost far less seats and maybe would’ve even retained a majority in the House, even if it was a slimmer one.
 
And let’s not forget the rather suspicious manner in which some Democrats wound up winning their races, conveniently “finding” a whole bunch of extra ballots in the trunks of people’s cars that conveniently went to the Democrat candidate and counting those ballots WELL after the polls closed and some elections should’ve been decided. (Seriously, I highly doubt the elections in Orange County, CA, which originally went to the Republicans but after some of this crap went to Democrats, were in any way legitimate).
 
The only part about that “80% of Hispanics” that intend to vote in 2020 that scares me is the high chance some of them are illegal immigrants who intend to illegally vote for the Democrats that will allow them to stay where they are and will even go as far as to allow them sanctuary even if they commit heinous crimes against Americans.
 
But as far as Trump’s reelection efforts go, there really is no good reason for him to lose, both the election and Hispanic support. There are Hispanics such as myself who HATE the fact the Left is allowing illegal immigrants to cross the border without any sort of punishment or care for the rule of law. Legal immigrants like my family hate the fact Democrats give ILLEGALS special treatment despite whatever they may do.
 
Seriously, do you remember when the trial for Kate Steinle wrapped up? Where Kate Steinle’s murderer was acquitted of all charges except for the illegal possession of a firearm? And do you remember the trial for George Zimmerman?
 
When a delinquent African American kid is tragically killed because a half-Hispanic and half-white man defended himself, people were basically up in arms when Zimmerman was found not guilty. But when a poor white girl gets shot and killed by an illegal immigrant who had been deported FIVE TIMES in a case that should’ve at the very least found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter is acquitted of almost all charges, no one bats an eyelash.
 
Illegals essentially get this message from the Democrat Party: do whatever the hell you want, even kill people, because we are going to do everything in our power to keep you here in the States and protected from law enforcement.
 
No worse form of injustice or corruption could be found than in this. Kate Steinle’s murderer gets off scot free because he’s a precious little illegal immigrant who did nothing wrong and Kate was simply dumb enough to be walking on a walkway like a weirdo.
 
Legal immigrants such as myself go through the process the right way, waiting our time, paying our dues, etc. and illegals just get to walk past the border with zero documentation and can get away with anything and the Democrats allow this? Gee, I wonder why so many Hispanics support Trump.
 
Not that I’m asking that legal immigrants get any special treatment either. Far be it from me, a conservative, to wish to receive something from the government. What I am asking for, however, is that we observe and respect the rule of law.
 
If there is one thing I disagree with Trump about is when he said something along the lines that most illegal immigrants are criminals, coming here and raping or dealing drugs or killing, etc. Most of them are not criminals. ALL OF THEM ARE! It’s in the name ILLEGAL immigrant. Even if you want to use the stupid PC version of it, “undocumented immigrant”, that still poses a legality problem. You can’t be here WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION!
 
So for those who are here illegally, I want them out. They have no RIGHT to be here. If they wish to come back in, they have to go through the proper, LEGAL process, in which case, they absolutely would have the right to be here. But until that happens, they need to get the hell out of this country.
 
And if Trump can manage to do that (of course, he’ll need the help of typically spineless Republicans, so it’s a tough road for him), then he’d garner even more Hispanic support. Because we don’t support him “despite” his tough immigration stance. We support him PRECISELY BECAUSE of his tough immigration stance. Those that fail to understand that are nothing but arrogant Leftist snobby elitists who have a seriously annoying superiority complex and an ironic “holier than thou” mindset who think they are better than the people they claim to “support”.
 
Exodus 12:49
“There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

If you asked me yesterday what the likelihood was that there was an illegal immigrant out there who supports Trump and believes illegal immigration to be a bad thing, I would’ve said that there was next to no chance at all that there would be any such person out there today. However, on Breitbart News Daily, a SiriusXM radio show, Sergio Eduardo Velasquez appeared telling his story about being a DACA recipient and supporting President Trump.
 
Sergio is a Turning Point USA activist, a student at Cal State Los Angeles, and a former Leftist who supported Bernie Sanders.
 
He said on the radio show: “In 2016, I supported Bernie Sanders. I fell into your typical leftist stereotype. I was self-entitled. I believed that more government was the answer to everything. I chanted racism. I failed to look at myself in the mirror and failed to consider that if there was an issue it might be not that society was the problem, but that I myself was the problem.”
 
He continued: “I think part of being a conservative, part of realizing that essentially conservatism is the way to go, a lot of it was growing up.”
 
The host of Breitbart News Daily, Alex Marlow, proceeded to ask Sergio about his own life, particularly since he is an illegal immigrant: “So let’s talk about you not just becoming right of center but ultimately becoming an activist particularly with your history because you would be someone who’s part of the group who is the dreamers, the DACA recipients. I assume you don’t know another home. But at least one of your parents was not here legally – so this is your home as far as you know, though your status as an immigrant is not a legal status aside from this DACA protection, but still Trump resonates with you, why?”
 
Sergio replied by saying: “Well first of all, I think that part of it is, it goes back to realizing that it’s one of those things where you have to realize you’re the problem. I have no problem with saying I’m an illegal immigrant, the term doesn’t offend me. And the thing is, I can recognize that illegal immigration is not a good thing. I can recognize that legal immigrants have to come first. America is a sovereign country. You don’t barge into someone’s home and tell them, ‘Okay, I’m here to stay, give me free stuff.’ Immigrants in general, we’re guests, I like to tell people that illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, no one’s entitled to everything. Immigrants owe absolutely everything they have to this country, and we need to stop this nonsense of entitlement.”
 
So what we have here is a young man who used to support Bernie Sanders and was by all intents and purposes a full-on socialist, with the idea that more government was the solution to every single problem there exists in this world, but then went on to recognize the fallacy of those ideals and came to recognize that conservatism, capitalism, is the way to go when it comes to solving problems and came to support Donald Trump, and even recognize that illegal immigration is not a good thing. There are plenty of other people who took at least a fairly similar path in life, going from liberal or Leftist to full-blown conservative. However, I would not really expect an illegal immigrant, even a DACA recipient, to undertake such a path.
 
The argument conservatives (especially myself) often make is that the only reason Democrats support open borders is to have a permanent underclass that would vote for them and help them take and keep power permanently. If they believed for one second that open borders policies had the potential to help their political opposition, they would pass legislation to fund and build Trump’s Wall in a heartbeat. And ironically, it looks like at least one illegal immigrant is willing to support the Democrats’ opposition.
 
Now, you might be asking what my own views are about this entire situation, particularly pertaining to the young man’s illegal status in this country. While I certainly agree with what he said (not everything, as I believe Americans ought to come first, not even legal immigrants), there is the awkward reality that he is in this country illegally due to the unconstitutional DACA executive action signed by Obama that protects people like him.
 
Marlow, the host of the radio show, mentioned that at least one of his parents was not here legally, suggesting that he may have been an anchor baby (I tried looking him up on TPUSA and outside of it, but could not find anything about his background, so that is all I have to go on) so one cannot really blame him for his illegal alien status anymore than one can be blamed for the family they are born into, the financial situation they are born into, or the country they are born into (assuming that he is, indeed, an anchor baby).
 
And while I am not about to backtrack on my belief regarding anchor babies and illegal immigration in general just because I found an illegal immigrant I actually like and agree with, I do empathize with the guy. He did not ask to be born into an illegal immigrant status, but the actions and decisions of one (or both) of his parents led him down that path.
 
But regardless of his unfortunate circumstances, I still stand behind the belief that any illegal immigrant is a criminal by definition. That’s not to compare this guy, or even other illegal immigrants, to murderers and rapists (except the illegals who do murder and rape), but that is to say that those who are here who are not legally allowed to be here are, by definition, law-breakers and as such, must face the appropriate punishment. For illegals, regardless of how they got here, that means deportation to their home countries (or the home countries of the parents for those who were born in the U.S.).
 
Because the main thing about this entire debate, this entire issue is, as I’ve said time and time again: the rule of law. We cannot simply twist and bend the rule of law to suit our own wishes and desires. Do I like this guy because he’s a conservative, a Trump supporter and (might be) a Christian? Yes, no doubt. I think he stands up for the right things. But softening my views on the issue of illegal immigration and DACA would only make me look like a hypocrite and make me no different from the Left.
 
I like the guy, but I still stand by the belief that all illegal immigrants should be deported to their home countries. Now, if they then go through the immigration process legally, pay their dues, wait their time, go where they are supposed to go and do what they are supposed to do, then this country welcomes them with open arms. What is expected of them is to obey our laws; if they don’t obey our laws in how they enter the country, why would we expect them to obey any other laws from that point on? What is expected of them is to obey our laws, respect them, and come to assimilate into the American lifestyle, because as Sergio says, immigrants (legal or illegal) owe an awful lot to this country. The least they could do is learn the language and adopt our culture as their own, without even necessarily abandoning their previous one.
 
That’s the way it should be, that’s the just way to do things, the right way to do things. I feel for the guy, and if he were to get deported to whatever country his parent(s) is/are from, I would hope he and his family would go through the right process to return to this country. Matter of fact, I would hope that for any illegal immigrant that is currently here. I don’t dislike them for being immigrants (I’m an immigrant myself, after all), I dislike them for being here illegally. If they go through the process the right way, they would be fine in my book (except the murderers and rapists, of course, but that generally goes for any murderer or rapist).
 
And while I don’t know for certain what the guy thinks or feels about being here illegally, he at least recognizes why illegal immigration is a bad thing. He recognizes why the things Leftists want are all bad things.
 
He used to believe the government was the solution to life’s problems. But the reality is that the government is the CAUSE for many of life’s problems (for example: want to get rid of student loan debt? Get rid of student loans in the first place and watch the stock of college degrees go up and tuitions fall down). We wholeheartedly agree on many things politically, including on illegal immigration. I just hope he recognizes that what is right here (and I think he does recognize this, as he admits he is part of the problem) would be to be deported and go through the immigration process legally to return to the country he was (likely) born in.
 
That’s what I want for any illegal immigrant, to be honest. But I am glad (as well as delightfully surprised) that there is at least one illegal immigrant out there who is NOT part of the Left’s permanent slave underclass.
 
May God bless this young man and guide him.
 
Isaiah 1:17
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”
 
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.

These last couple of weeks have been absolutely fantastic for the pro-life movement. First, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law a bill that would ban abortions once a heartbeat has been detected in a fetus (around 6 weeks into the pregnancy), soon after that, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed into law the country’s most pro-life law, banning abortions outright, and criminalizing the act of performing an abortion (not receiving one, which is what Leftists often lie about) and the Missouri House of Representatives and Senate passed their own heartbeat bill.
 
Naturally, Hollywood and the Left went absolutely nuclear regarding these great news, though primarily on Georgia, considering how often movies tend to be filmed there thanks to the state’s fairly low tax on production (in other words, it is cheap to film there).
 
Hollywood Leftists decided to boycott the state, citing the heartbeat bill as the reason for it:
 
“This law would make Georgia an inhospitable place for those in the film and television industry to work, including our members,” the Writers Guild of America said in a statement.
 
“It should instead be called a ‘forced pregnancy bill’ – because it would outlaw abortion before a woman even knows that she is pregnant,” C-list actress Alyssa Milano said. “It’s the most anti-woman bill of its kind in the country, and it sends the exact wrong message about the kind of state Georgia’s leaders wish to create. In short, HB 481 (the official name of the bill) would make Georgia the most regressive state in the country.”
 
I personally have an awful lot to say about these things. First, regarding the Writers Guild’s statement, how exactly is outlawing the murder of an unborn baby creating an inhospitable place for the film and television industries? Not being able to kill a child makes the state inhospitable to these industries? Perhaps, then, it’s the industries’ problem, not the State’s, if they literally cannot live or work in a state where killing children in the womb is deemed illegal.
 
Second, regarding Alyssa Milano’s statement, half of the victims of abortion are women, or girls. Why isn’t that taken into consideration when discussing how a bill is “anti-woman”? And this is without even taking into consideration how truly heartless (pun not intended) you must be to understand that a fetus has a heartbeat, a rather strong indication of its viability, and still think it is okay to kill it.
 
Third, as far as “regressive” goes, I would think that the slaughter of the innocent for literally no reason is more regressive and barbaric than the pursuit of saving and preserving a life, one of the inalienable rights given to us by God as detailed in the Declaration of Independence.
 
But regardless of what Hollywood Leftists will say, claim and think, the vast majority of America actually disagrees with them, at least when it comes to the heartbeat bill.
 
According to a Hill/HarrisX survey, most voters think that six-week abortion bans are either “just right” or “too lenient”.
 
34% of voters said they believe six-week abortion bans are “just right”, while 21% believe they are “too lenient”, with 45% of voters saying the bans are “too restrictive”.
 
In other words, 55% of voters support these types of bans while 45% are against them, a 10-point difference.
 
What is interesting is the fact that younger voters are actually more supportive of these bans.
 
The Hill reports that 52% of “respondents 65 years of age and older said they believed that six-week abortion bans are too restrictive. Thirty-one percent said they were just right while 17 percent said they were too lenient.” That’s a 52-48 split, and a 4-point difference.
 
“Among voters between the ages of 50-64, 41 percent said the new laws were too restrictive, 38 percent said they were just right, and 21 percent said they did not go far enough.” That’s 59% of voters in that age range who support such a ban, while only 41% oppose it, an 18-point difference.
 
“A 45 percent plurality of voters between 35-49 said the laws were too restrictive, 36 percent said they were just right and 18 percent said they were too lenient.” That’s 54% in favor of the bans and 45% against it, a 9-point difference.
 
“The youngest voters polled, those 34 and under, were most likely to say the abortion bans did not go far enough, although far less than a majority – 27 percent – said this. Forty-three percent said the laws were too restrictive while 30 percent said they were just right.” That’s 57-43, a 14-point difference.
 
I cannot imagine how hard a pill this must be to swallow for the Left. Ignoring the fact that a majority of voters polled said they supported these types of bills, the younger generations all had considerably bigger gaps between those who supported these bills and those who did not support them.
 
Younger generations are the ones the Left most want to get their hooks on. It is often said that “children are the future”, so it stands to reason that the Left wants younger voters siding with them on such issues than they would care about older ones. After all, they’ve already cast out old, white men from their voting bloc. They don’t care about getting their votes, only younger generations’.
 
Why do you think the Left is so adamant about lowering the voting age to 16? Because a young person is more likely to believe the bull crap the Left spews than someone who has been alive for a long while, has life experience, and understands that what the Left is spewing is bull crap.
 
Winston Churchill is often attributed (though has never been confirmed) for saying: “If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.”
 
The quote (whether or not it’s Churchill’s) speaks at the fact that young people are often more emotionally-driven rather than intellectually-driven. Take climate change as an example. Young people are indoctrinated since Kindergarten now-a-days to believe we are destroying our planet. Obviously, that would not be a good thing if that were true, but because young people are TOLD what to think and will not often challenge such deeply-engrained beliefs, they go through life believing this sort of thing. After all, you would have to be a monster to be okay with killing our planet… if that were actually what was going on.
 
But as people grow older and garner more life experience and start to develop their own line of thinking, they will come to challenge things they’ve been told in their youth and seek to find out if those things are actually true. That’s not to say that is what always happens, of course. Bernie Sanders was around when fire was discovered and he still thinks socialism is a great thing.
 
But what is expected of people is to learn basic truths about the world and shift from an emotional liberal to an intellectual conservative –  going from believing we are killing our planet to using logic and reason to understand that we could do no such thing, at least with the methods described as being the culprit of such fabled destruction.
 
However, as we find in the aforementioned poll regarding six-week abortion bans, those who are younger actually take the more pro-life stance than the boomer generation, which saw the 1973 Roe v. Wade case essentially legalize abortion.
 
And even the boomer generation’s statistics in the poll find that there is a slim majority of boomers who are against these types of bills. 52-48 is considerably closer than the Left would want.
 
But in any case, I am thankful to God that so many people are aware of the fact that there is a life growing inside the woman and that no “my body, my choice” argument seems to be effective in the least bit. After all, what we are talking about is not a woman’s body, but the body that grows inside a woman. A separate entity with its own genetic code that is its own individual, will have its own name, life, and everything else that is attributed to humans once it is born. The general understanding here is that life is growing inside the womb, something even some (rather evil) Democrats understand.
 
While the fate of these bills in court is not exactly certain (let’s just say I don’t trust Kavanaugh any more), it is clear that a good number of Americans do not fall in line with the Left’s barbaric thinking that women have the “right” to slaughter their own children growing inside the womb.
 
Thank God for that.
 
Ephesians 2:10
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.