Logic and reason have almost completely left the Democrat Party, but one 2020 candidate hasn’t been so idiotic as to sign off on employing ideas that will 100% destroy the country. That candidate is Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH).
 
While he is one of the extremely few candidates on the debate stage who did not want to go so far Left as to go off a cliff, he once again demonstrated the ability to be reasonable by sounding the alarm on what the Democrat Party’s agenda could potentially bring them: a landslide defeat comparable to 1984.
 
Appearing on last week’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, Rep. Tim Ryan was asked by Rev. Al Sharpton whether the Party was moving too far to the Left.
 
Ryan responded by saying: “I think some of the lead candidates have taken positions that will lose 48 states, and I’m trying to figure out what the two are we’re going to win. I mean, if you’re talking about free healthcare for undocumented workers, and the average person in some of these states that we have to win are busting their rear end to provide health care for their own families and paying a lot of money for it (he didn’t really have a point to end that sentence, but is saying that that’s a bad idea)… I think decriminalizing at the border is a mistake. If you want to come into the country, you’ve got to ring the doorbell and it should be a crime to just walk into the United States. I think the single-payer idea of telling people they can’t have their private health insurance, you’re going to go to all these union people in the industrial Midwest and tell them they’ve negotiated away wages to get really good health care, and you’re going to tell them we’re going to take that health care from you because we’ve got a better idea in Washington, D.C.? I think that’s a mistake.”
 
It’s rare when I find myself agreeing with a Democrat, but he is completely right here. While I haven’t really talked much about it, the idea of providing healthcare for illegals is a massive insult to the American people in more ways than one.
 
First, there are Americans who still need healthcare. How exactly is it going to look for the average American when an illegal immigrant gets healthcare that Americans had been wanting for ages? What’s more, shouldn’t Obamacare have fixed this issue? I thought it was affordable healthcare. And yet, the Democrats are still talking about healthcare as though Obamacare hasn’t been in effect for the past 9 years. So what’s up with that?
 
Second, *I*, a naturalized citizen, get annoyed when illegals get a pass for their criminal acts. How much more will a native-born American citizen be annoyed that illegals get the “free” healthcare that had been promised to the American people?
 
Next comes the decriminalization at the border. Now, I haven’t talked much about this either, but this is honestly one of the signs that tells me these people are desperate to beat Donald Trump. They are throwing everything at the wall, seeing what sticks, and running with it. They can’t beat Donald Trump in the realm of ideas, certainly after two and a half years of a successful presidency that has brought about great results for the American people, so they have to throw out wild ideas that no sane person would agree with just to make some headlines and some noise. Decriminalizing border crossing is incredibly stupid, not to mention dangerous for the country. And while the idea of having open borders (this is a term the Democrats dispute being in favor of, but what else would decriminalizing border crossing mean apart from having open borders?) might be beneficial for the Democrat Party in terms of bringing in as many low-skilled, uneducated people to make up their permanent underclass of voters and workers, effectively a legal slave class, this would completely destroy the country and get the American people to run away from the Democrat Party.
 
It's political suicide to throw out entire voting blocs. There is a good reason why no Republican candidate has ever won by abandoning the Republican base and trying to attract Independents and Democrats. The Democrats are effectively doing the same, getting rid of many white voters in the Midwest United States, in states they NEED to win to beat Trump. And while there may be white voters who will always vote Democrat, white voters who detest the fact they are white (and these are some of the saddest people on Earth), they are a fringe group of people in America. The point is: you don’t win elections by throwing out votes.
 
And as far as single-payer goes, again, Ryan is right. Eliminating private health insurance isn’t something people want. They want options. There is a reason Medicare-for-All isn’t so widely talked about right now. The reason is that Bernie Sanders, in the second debate, gave the game away when he said that he would increase the taxes of middle-income Americans in order to pay for Medicare-for-All. As it turns out, people don’t want to be told they will have to pay higher taxes on something, so they stop supporting that something when that is the case.
 
The same principle applies to people being told that they’d be given LESS OPTIONS as to what healthcare provider they can choose. Single-payer healthcare forces people to work with the government and only the government. When it comes to people’s health, the more options, the better, which is why people like things like Obamacare and Medicare-for-All. On the outset, it looks as though people are given an extra option as to what healthcare provider to sign up with. But with single-payer healthcare, that option goes away. And with Medicare-for-All, people like it until two things are told to them: their taxes would go up and they wouldn’t have the option to sign up for private healthcare options.
 
Tim Ryan is at least reasonable enough to understand that these policies, as utopian as they make them out to be, would 1) be detrimental to the American people and 2) be rejected by the American people.
 
In Tim Ryan’s mind, the Democrats could lose as many as 48 states. I think the max (in an absolute best case scenario, that is. I doubt it will be that much) would really be 47, with the three being California, New York and Hawaii, but I could be wrong. After all, I don’t know how many people expected Ronald Reagan to win 49 states in 1984. Not that I think anything like that will ever happen again, particularly with an influx of illegal immigration and the ruining of education, but I do expect Trump to win and win by a good bit.
 
Of course, it’s far too early to tell, but again, with the way things are going, and with the policies the Left is adopting, I really see no reason for Trump not to be reelected (not that it’s going to be a breeze; no one has ever won expecting a fight to be easy). The fact that there’s at least one Democrat candidate acknowledging that the vast majority of Americans aren’t going to subscribe to the ideology of “sure, make me pay more so that you can give healthcare to illegal alien criminals” is, I think, good news, but there’s a reason Tim Ryan is polling at less than 1%. The rabid Democrat base is insane and thinks all of these crazy things are reasonable, but they are far from the majority of Americans.
 
Tim Ryan, in acknowledging this, will only further hurt his chances at being the Democrat nominee. The Party no longer cares for reason, logic, truth, facts or civility. They are out for bloody revenge and will deceive as many people as they possibly can and will do everything they can including cheat, to try and beat Donald Trump. They don’t want civil discourse. They want blood. Their rhetoric makes this clear enough, let alone the policies they espouse.
 
Ezekiel 18:20
“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
 
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.

Most Liberals don't know this, but it's not easy to get into Heaven. Not all Liberals believe God exists or that there's Heaven and Hell. But the ones who do, some of whom are within the Church, have un-bliblical beliefs (and that's why they're liberals) that are dangerous, not just for their souls, but for us as Americans.

Father Edward Beck is a Roman Catholic priest and a CNN commentator. Monday evening in an interview on Cuomo Prime Time talking about "nationalism" and the mass shootings in El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH, he made wrong statements about what the Bible says and who Jesus is relative to "nationalism" and Christianity. If you didn't think carefully about what he said, you'd think that death is the only condition to enter into Heaven and therefore being alive is the only condition to enter America (I wish unborn babies were viewed the same way). But it's not.

Here's what Father Beck said:

"['Christian' and 'nationalism'] is a contradiction of terms. You can't put 'nationalism' and 'Christian' together. Jesus was definitely not a nationalist. The very essence of Jesus is crossing borders. Go into the Samaritan woman. Go into the stranger. How can you put 'Christian' and 'nationalist' together?"

Easy, Father Beck. By obeying God's word.

There's a lot from this short transcript here. Let me get something out of the way real quick: Jesus did NOT go "into" the Samaritan woman or the stranger. He went TO Samaria - where He met the Samaritan woman at the well - to PREACH. So Father Beck here needs to watch his mouth - he essentially blasphemed against God.

Secondly, Jesus didn't cross any borders - the area was under Roman rule. He never stepped foot outside of the Roman Empire - He never crossed the border because doing so would have been AGAINST Roman law.

But most importantly, Father Beck is WRONG about who Jesus is. It's true that He went to Samaria to preach the Gospel. But it's NOT true that you have to imply from His actions that He expects everybody to join Him in Heaven as a result of His preaching. Preaching alone doesn't do it. If you don't believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you cannot enter into Heaven. Heaven, you see, is a very restricted place. Unbelievers are not allowed.

Therefore, God HIMSELF is quite selective as to who gets into His Kingdom. There's only one way - and it's this one way that Liberals attack as too restrictive and the reason they call us bigots. But you see, I didn't write the Bible - God did. So if the Bible is the Word of God, and if we believe it's infallible (which Roman Catholics believe as well) and in it you find that there's only one way to Heaven and that's trusting Jesus Christ, what makes this Priest think that unbelievers will enter into Heaven simply because Jesus preached the Gospel everywhere He went? And what makes him think that Jesus would want America to have open borders when the Kingdom of God doesn't have open borders?. Jesus also said "he who has ears to hear, let him hear". And this means that some people will not have the ear to hear Him, therefore they will not enter into Heaven.

The first time in history when government and boundaries were established was in the Garden of Eden. The Book of Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were created by God in His image and were living freely in the Garden, working the land and enjoying life. There was only ONE rule - one thing they weren't allowed to do: eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This was the only thing they weren't allowed to do...but they failed miserably when they both decided to eat from the tree. What happened next? God KICKED ADAM AND EVE OUT of the Garden...and "at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life" (Gen 3:24)...to prevent unlawful entrance...

In other words, God Himself established the boundaries of, and entry barrier to, the garden of Eden such that Adam and Eve (and the rest of us) would not be able to enter again...unless certain conditions are met.

But, you see, Father Beck has his Theology wrong. It doesn't take a genius - particularly one who claims to know the Word of God - to realize that God is restrictive. And He's restrictive for a reason. We all fall short and if you think that doing good deeds will convince God to let you in, think again. Because the Bible is clear - you only get into Heaven if you trust Jesus Christ. Else, your final destination is Hell.

So in criticizing Trump this "Father" (the only Father, by the way, is in Heaven and that's God, not Edward Beck), is not only misunderstanding what the Bible says and opposing Trump politically in the process, but he's also teaching the wrong things and getting in the way of the Gospel. Gospel is Greek for "good news". The good news is that the only thing required to enter into Heaven is trust in Jesus (you're required ONE thing just like Adam and Eve were required ONE thing) - once you trust and understand the pain He went through just so that we would be saved, then repentance and obedience come in. We're all sinners and we all deserve Hell. But Jesus makes it possible for us to be saved.

The problem with this principle is that Liberals don't like the "obedience" part - they want to kill babies or have gay marriage. They go by preference, not principle. But that's only because they don't understand how much Jesus loves us. Imagine someone saves your life - donates one of his organs or saves you from drowning. If your savior asks you to obey him - and you know he only has good intentions for you because he is holy (he doesn't have one shred of evil in his bones) so everything he tells you to do is for your own ultimate good - wouldn't you obey him?

And part of obedience is to protect the land. God established a barrier of entry into His Kingdom - America must do the same. God kicks you out of Heaven if you don't believe in Jesus. America must kick illegals out of our country if they don't obey our laws. It's that simple.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life"

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: Danielle Cross

It’s one thing to ask people in the United States if they think illegal immigrants ought to be deported or allowed to stay here, but it’s an entirely different thing to ask people in Mexico if they think illegal immigrants from Central America making their way to the U.S. but end up settling in Mexico (either permanently or until they are allowed to enter the U.S.) should be deported or allowed to stay in Mexico. And as a recent Washington Post poll finds, a vast majority want these people out of Mexico eventually.
 
The Washington Post/Reforma poll asked people: “What should Mexico do with the migrants from Central America that cross through the country trying to reach the United States? Give them residency in Mexico, give them temporary residency while the United States decides if it will accept them or not, or deport them to their countries of origin?”
 
Before I tell you what the numbers show, let me point something out about the question. Notice how they don’t mention in what fashion these illegals enter the country? Often times, people from Central America hoping to enter the United States enter not just our country illegally, but the countries that are on the way was well, such as Mexico. Even by Mexican standards, these people are undocumented and are not there legally, but the WaPo doesn’t want to paint them as a people that ought not be there. These aren’t “illegal immigrants” just “migrants” in their minds. That attempts to erase the legal aspects of the entire endeavor and make it about “poor people hoping for a better life” rather than people breaking the laws of a nation to illegally enter and remain in a country they will economically take advantage of.
 
But in any case, let’s get down to the actual numbers of the poll. According to the poll, only 7% said that Mexico should give these illegals residency in their country. 33% said they would be fine giving them temporary residence in Mexico and an incredible 55% said they wanted these illegals deported out of the country.
 
So 55% of Mexicans want illegals deported ASAP and 33% want them gone eventually, making that 88% of Mexicans that want these illegals gone at one point or another. Keep in mind, this is a sample size of 1200 respondents, so not a small size by any means.
 
Furthermore, the poll asked: “With which of these phrases do you agree the most? The migrants strengthen our country with their work and skills or the migrants are a burden on our country because they take jobs and receive benefits that should belong to Mexicans.” 20% of respondents agreed with the first statement, about migrants (illegals) strengthening the country through their work and skills (don’t make me laugh) while 64% agreed with the second statement about migrants (illegals) being a burden.
 
So 88% of Mexicans want these illegals gone sooner or later and 64% of Mexicans think these illegal immigrants are a burden to Mexico. I distinctly remember asking this when Mexicans protested against illegals back in November of last year, but I might as well repeat myself: is the media going to call Mexicans racist now?
 
Considering they did not say a darn thing about the Mexicans saying the caravans were an invasion and agreeing with Trump, I highly doubt they will say much of anything about this.
 
The Post themselves had to admit their disappointment in the findings of their survey: “Those findings defy the perception that Mexico – a country that has sent millions of its own migrants to the United States, sending billions of dollars in remittances – is sympathetic to the surge of Central Americans. Instead, the data suggests Mexicans have turned against the migrants transiting through their own country, expressing antipathy that would be familiar to many supporters of President Trump north of the border.”
 
I would like to say something along the lines of “well, Mexicans don’t want invaders going into their country. What a shocker,” but polls going as far back as even just last year show us a shift between then and now. According to a Pew Research Center poll from early 2018, 57% of Mexicans said that immigrants made their country stronger, with 37% saying immigrants were a burden. That’s a 27-point jump for those who say immigrants are a burden and a 37-point drop in those who say immigrants strengthened their country.
 
I don’t honestly know what led these Mexicans to have such a major change in mind about illegals in the span of a single year, but it might be in part to changing asylum rules in the U.S. (though that’s very recent and the survey was conducted July 9-14, so there’s a bit of an overlap) that force more illegals to remain in Mexico for longer periods of time.
 
What’s more, a poll from last month by Mexican newspaper “El Universal” said that since October of last year, more Mexicans began to support stricter immigration enforcement to keep illegals from entering the country. 49% of Mexicans said tougher immigration was necessary back in October. That number now sits at 61%.
 
So more and more Mexicans are beginning to get tired of the illegal immigrants that enter their country, as well they should. Granted, many of them probably would like for those illegals to go into the U.S., just as long as they aren’t in Mexico, but still. They ought to understand how much of a burden illegal immigration can be on a country, and I think they are beginning to understand this with the major influx of illegal immigrants flooding their country to try and get to ours.
 
Still, this, alongside my November article discussing the protests and my multiple articles surrounding the topic, ought to be proof enough that illegal immigration and the desire to manage and impede illegal immigration is not a matter of race, but of rule of law and maintaining our country.
 
Tackling illegal immigration is not a “white supremacist” endeavor, otherwise they would have to call the vast majority of Mexicans “white supremacists” which is utterly ludicrous. As I’ve said time and time again, the desire to build a wall and mitigate immigration is not an effort to “make America white again”. I’m not white but I still support Trump, the Wall and the idea of maintaining the American culture, which is at risk from both illegal immigrants (and legal immigrants that refuse to assimilate into the American culture) and the bigoted Left who hates this country to their very bones.
 
And while I’m certain there will be those on the Left who will insist you don’t have to be white to be a “white supremacist” (which should be antithetical to the Jesse Jackson belief that minorities can’t be racist, but they’ll contradict themselves if they feel it benefits them) and will in turn attempt to call me a “white supremacist” for insisting that we protect the country from foreign invaders who wish to turn this country into something it isn’t, I will only laugh at the miserable morons that make such assertions - much like I laugh at those who insist Trump colluded with Russia and will call me Russian names if I defend him (one literally called me Vlad for saying that Mueller did not find collusion, which is a factual statement).
 
The reason they make these assertions is because they completely ignore logic. Of course someone who defends this country isn’t a white supremacist. But that doesn’t matter because the Left has demonized this country so much and insists it’s as bad as it is because it’s so white that defending it is tantamount to Hitlerian rhetoric. It’s nonsense, but these people couldn’t care less. They care about emotions and their emotions don’t let them think logically.
 
They see things like men get paid more than women, get pissed, and presume misogyny without caring about the facts presented to them. And once said facts are presented, they only get more pissed and begin to berate you and call you a sexist yourself.
 
They see things like an ICE facility and compare it to a concentration camp because a moron like AOC made that comparison, and as a result, one of them gets pissed off enough to try and attack it using Molotov cocktails and gets killed as a result, thinking he was being a hero and “fighting Nazis” when all he was doing is commit a terrorist attack. These people don’t think for themselves, and are led by others who don’t think for themselves either and will use emotion as a driving force for their actions.
 
Mass migration, be it legal or illegal, changes a country’s entire culture. I fully believe Europe will become a Muslim continent because of their insistence on bringing in Syrian “refugees”. In turn, those “refugees” demand European countries change their system to accommodate them. And if America continues bringing in more and more immigrants, especially in mass migration attempts, the culture of this country will also be fundamentally changed forever.
 
That is not a racist statement to make, but a logical one. Latin America has a vastly different culture from our own. Even within Latin American countries, there are different cultures. I can tell you for sure that the culture of Mexico and the culture of Argentina are very different from each other. Granted, as a kid, it was easier for me to adjust to a new culture, but the adjustment still needed to be made.
 
If Mexicans are to retain their culture, they have to give the boot to those illegal immigrants and have the legal ones assimilate to their culture. Similarly, we must do the same.
 
But as it stands, I am glad to see such an incredible shift in sentiment towards illegals from Mexicans themselves. The WaPo mentions a perception of how Mexico sympathizes with illegals because many Mexicans illegally immigrate into the U.S. and have done so historically, but it seems things are changing, and maybe for the better.
 
We just need to follow suit with Mexico (not something I ever expected to say or write) and insist we enforce the immigration laws we already have in place; insist that we not allow for states and cities to aid and abet criminals by making themselves “sanctuaries” for the law-breakers and ultimately deport as many illegals as we possibly can (and for those who will mock Trump for not deporting as many illegals as Obama did, let me remind you that Obama didn’t have over half of Washington D.C. keeping him from performing those duties of his office).
 
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.

Despite the bogus calls of racism surrounding the addition of a citizenship question to the U.S. Census, a very solid majority of Americans support such an addition, including Latinos and African Americans, according to a recent Harvard/Harris poll.
 
The poll shows that 5 in 9 Hispanics, or 55%, support adding a citizenship question to the Census, and nearly 6 in 10 African Americans, or 59%, also say the same.
 
Overall, 67% of American voters support adding the question to the Census, with 72% of white Americans, almost 90% of Republicans, 63% of swing voters and between 64 and 69% of working class Americans making up that overall number.
 
Despite the Supreme Court foolishly voting to kick the can down the road on this issue, President Trump is reportedly looking to add the question to next year’s Census anyway, with the help of Attorney General William Barr. So it is very likely that the President will sign an executive order to add the question to the Census.
 
But of course, this is all bad news for the Left. To them, adding a citizenship question is “racist” and nothing but an effort to “make America white again” even though nothing about adding a question would really affect how “white” America is. The only REAL reason the Left is opposed to the citizenship question is because of districting.
 
U.S. Senate candidate in Kansas, Kris Kobach, explained: “Right now, congressional districts are drawn up simply based on the number of warm bodies in each district. Not only are legal aliens counted, but illegal aliens are counted too. As a result, citizens in a district with lots of illegal aliens have more voting power than citizens in districts with few illegal aliens.”
 
In other words, this completely jeopardizes our American electoral system because districts all of a sudden have more people to count and receive more voting power. Places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Antonio, etc., if they take more and more illegal aliens who people don’t know are illegal aliens, they receive more power, but it is ill-gotten and illegitimate power.
 
How else do you think California is so irretrievably blue? I often say that the biggest mistake President Reagan ever made is sign the amnesty bill late in his administration. While the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal for businesses to knowingly hire illegal immigrants (like that stopped them), it also legalized illegals who came into the country before January 1st, 1982. Even Wikipedia says that “despite the passage of the act, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States rose from 5 million in 1986 to 11.1 in 2013.”
 
Yeah, it’s not “despite” the passage of the act, but precisely BECAUSE of the passage of the act. This signified that even one of the most conservative Presidents would be willing to sign an amnesty bill. And while it may have been “promised” to Reagan that it would be the only bill of its kind, you absolutely cannot trust the Washington establishment. Paul Ryan often promised Trump that they would be building the wall eventually and they never got around to doing that, hoping to God that Democrats would take control of the House (which they did, as we know).
 
Illegals being able to vote in elections means the electoral system is being rigged and affected by foreign influences. Adding a citizenship question makes it clear who is a citizen and who is not and takes away the ill-gotten power that districts with a lot of non-citizens have received.
 
Simply put: only American citizens ought to be represented in this country. Non-citizens don’t have the right to vote in federal elections in this country for good reason. And even though they have the right to vote in local elections in some states, I think they shouldn’t be able to. They aren’t citizens of this country, so they shouldn’t be represented.
 
Now, I know what some people might say: “But Freddie, aren’t you a foreigner yourself? Aren’t you being hypocritical right now?” To which I say: no, as I never held the belief that non-citizens ought to have the right to vote in a country where they were not citizens of. The representatives of the United States ought to represent AMERICANS, not foreigners, legal or illegal.
 
What’s more, only legal immigrants ought to have a path to citizenship. The ones that become citizens, such as myself, have henceforth the inherent right to be represented in government BECAUSE WE ARE CITIZENS! It makes absolutely no sense to me that any state would allow for non-citizens to be part of the group represented by the government.
 
At the risk of sounding like a right-wing cliché, America is for Americans. That doesn’t mean foreigners aren’t allowed. That doesn’t mean America is strictly for white people. That means the American government ought to represent Americans and ONLY Americans. Those who are either born here or have taken the steps necessary to become U.S. citizens are considered Americans. Other countries like Mexico explicitly prohibit foreigners from participating in the electoral system. Matter of fact, the Mexican Constitution explicitly states (translated, of course) that “foreigners shall not in any way involve themselves in the political matters of the country.” This means that foreigners don’t have the right to vote, run for office or participate in any political event like rallies or demonstrations.
 
Do you know why that is? Well, for one, Mexico doesn’t want to be turned into another country and has the common sense not to allow for foreign interference in their elections. Yeah, they have a slew of other problems, but at least they aren’t dumb enough to allow for non-citizens to be represented politically in that country.
 
Second, Mexico isn’t filled with people who feel guilty about being white (for obvious reasons) or who feel guilty for things they did but fixed or things they flat out didn’t do. Democrats in America, specifically white Democrats, hate the fact they are white and will apologize whenever they can or feel they should; they feel guilty about slavery, even though it was resolved WELL before anyone currently living in this country was born (and even though it was the Democrats who fought for slavery, something they adamantly deny); feel guilty about segregation, even though it has also been resolved; and feel guilty about “making other countries poorer because of our capitalism” which is such a nonsense statement you might as well have spoken Russian to a chihuahua.
 
Thirdly, the Mexican government doesn’t have to worry too much about b.s.-ing people about what they want to do to gain power. Mexico isn’t exactly a very capitalistic country, part of the reason it’s so crappy. But the Left in this country has to work overtime to b.s. people about their intentions. It’s why they cry “racism” at the addition of a citizenship question. It’s not about racism and they know it. It’s about districting and voting power.
 
By adding a citizenship question, districts with more illegal immigrants lose power, while districts with less gain more through the reduction of the other district’s lost power. In other words, uber-Leftist, open-borders cities like Los Angeles lose power, while rural America gains power as a result.
 
The Left HATES rural America, think we are nothing but gun-toting, God-fearing, racist, dumb, inbred hillbillies who ought to be cut down a size. In reality, we are pro-2nd amendment, yes, and God-fearing Americans, but far from racist, dumb or inbred. Matter of fact, I assure you rural Americans are 10 times smarter than Leftists from Los Angeles, etc.
 
Want to know what makes me think that? Rural Americans aren’t spending all their time dreaming about a socialist “utopia” that is entirely unrealistic. We don’t spend our time hating the color of our own skin or the color of another person’s skin (which is what racism is by definition, but the Left wants to change that definition really badly). We don’t spend our time foolishly believing giving away everything for free is at all a realistic and achievable objective. We don’t spend our time worshipping equally-as-flawed humans who make movies. We don’t spend our time watching the fake news media and parrot everything they say online. We don’t spend our time worrying about an issue that is not caused by us and cannot be solved by us. We don’t spend our time foolishly (at best) thinking that human life inside the womb is akin to Jell-O. We don’t spend our time thinking people can realistically change their genders on a mere whim or think there are an infinite number of possible genders.
 
In the final analysis of American cultures, you will find that the only people who are racist, sexist or in any way moronic are the Left, who constantly harp about people’s skin color, judge people who are white, judge people who are male, judge people who are straight and judge people who disagree with them in any way. It’s those who attack white people for being white that are racist, not those who defend white people. It’s those who attack men for being men that are sexist, not those who defend them. It’s those who believe gender is a social construct and will call that “science” who are truly moronic at best and outright demented at worst.
 
And these are the people who DEMAND we hand over our electoral power for them to do with as they please, legislating things that get closer and closer to resembling the Soviet Union? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The American people should not fall for their idiotic words regarding the citizenship question, and if that poll is any indication, it looks like most are not.
 
Americans ought to be represented in America. If a foreigner wishes to be represented, then they better go to whatever country they hail from because that is where they will be represented. Otherwise, they better hope they are here legally and wait to become American citizens like the rest of the legal immigrants here do, because they should not and likely will not be represented in this country otherwise.
 
And no, to demand American-exclusive representation in America isn’t racist. IT’S COMMON SENSE THAT LITERALLY EVERY OTHER COUNTRY EMPLOYS!
 
And before anyone says that the Bible dictates we allow foreigners and sojourners into our land, take a look at Exodus 12:48-49: “If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
 
Sojourners, foreigners, are supposed to follow our LAWS and will be punished if they do not follow our laws. Our laws dictate that illegal immigrants are, well, ILLEGAL. The Bible doesn’t speak in favor of illegal immigration whatsoever, unlike some fake, Leftist preachers and Christians would have you believe.

We are to treat foreigners fairly, but on the condition they follow THE LAW WE HAVE SET IN PLACE. Should they fail to do so, they ought to be punished accordingly. THAT is equality.
 
Leviticus 18:26
“But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or 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.

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.

For those of you who have been reading my articles for some time, you know pretty well that I do not like Pope Francis. I mean, sometimes he says the right things, but most of the time, his socialist self can’t help but come out of him and use God to perpetuate the idea that socialism is good, as often do many Leftists who have absolutely no idea about the character of God and only use Him as a political weapon when they can all-the-while they treat Him like He is, at best, an imaginary friend for people who are “stupid”.
 
Pope Francis isn’t all too different, and recently, in a message for the third annual World Day for the Poor, the supposed head of the Catholic Church disparaged the idea of countries building walls, claiming it was to keep those poor, defenseless, oft-exploited immigrants out. Of course, that couldn’t be further from the truth as the purpose of walls is to PROTECT THE CITIES AND NATIONS THEY SURROUND! Just look at Israel. Is it wrong that they want to protect themselves from radical Islamic terrorists who daily promise they will destroy, sack, pillage and rape the nation of Israel until there’s nothing left?
 
But in any case, here’s specifically what the Pope said:
 
“We can build any number of walls and close our doors in the vain effort to feel secure in our wealth, at the expense of those left outside. It will not be that way forever… The ‘day of the Lord,’ as described by the prophets, will destroy the barriers created between nations and replace the arrogance of the few with the solidarity of many.”
 
Okay, a few things here. First of all, while I already talked about Israel’s wall, there is one wall that is close to home for Il Papa. Vatican City itself is surrounded by a wall. Technically, Vatican City is its own nation, as well. So why isn’t the Pope suggesting they tear down that oppressive and wealth-separating monstrosity that separates Vatican City from the rest of Rome? And if wealth disparity is as big a deal to this guy as he says it is, why doesn’t he open the doors of the Papal Palace (or Apostolic Palace, if you wish to call it that) and let all those poor, starving immigrants in?
 
Of course, the answer is obvious: he’s a socialist. Socialists don’t believe they have to live by the rules they set up. Other people have to take care of the less fortunate, not they themselves. Bernie Sanders doesn’t have to give up any of his three huge homes to any poor person because he’s a socialist. Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Gore and all these other environmentalist wackos don’t have to reduce their carbon footprint, one of the biggest “threats” to the planet, because they are socialist themselves. They tell other people they have to reduce their carbon footprint, so they don’t have to do it themselves! See? It’s only logical and equal! (Legit, I’ve seen that argument be made that they don’t have to do anything about their own carbon footprint because they are talking about other people doing it, completely missing the irony in that hypocritical acknowledgment).
 
But I believe there are a couple of Bible verses that ought to speak to the Pope’s heart if he truly is a Christian. First, Matthew 7:5: “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
 
I’ve used this one plenty of times when talking about hypocrites. But of course, hypocrites don’t think of themselves as hypocrites. When called out on it, they will vehemently deny it, thinking they are doing the right thing.
 
But this next verse really ought to make the Pope think, especially considering where he gets to live: Romans 2:3: “Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
 
You see, the Pope doesn’t gain the Grace of God by telling other people they are selfish and should be more welcoming of immigrants when he himself LIVES IN A LITERAL PALACE PROTECTED BY THE VERY WALLS HE SUPPOSEDLY IS AGAINST!
 
The Pope is the Holy Book definition (was going to say “textbook”, but thought this made more sense) of a hypocrite: he lives in a palace, a house that an elite and wealthy few can claim they have lived in, in a city that is technically its own sovereign nation and surrounded by walls.
 
Meanwhile, he dislikes the idea of other countries building walls? Trump shouldn’t build a wall at the southern border so as to not keep out the dangerous criminals that take advantage of the poor infrastructure and traitorous Democrat legislators? Israel shouldn’t have a wall so as to not keep out the radical terrorists who wish to destroy them?
 
And what’s more, God is supposedly going to destroy those walls come judgment day? Not evil, not the unrighteous, not Satan, but the walls? That’s the other thing I wanted to talk about with that quote about the day of the Lord.
 
Hey, here’s another Bible verse for you, Frankie: Matthew 15:7-9: “You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
 
Often it is that we see people like Pope Francis doing this sort of thing – teaching the commandments of men as though they were doctrine from God.
 
Now, let’s move on to what the guy said about the poor in particular. For the sake of time, I will only quote a few things that are important:
 
“The marginalization painfully experienced by millions of persons cannot go on for long. Their cry is growing louder and embraces the entire earth… The inequitable distribution of wealth created a significant number of poor people, whose condition appeared all the more dramatic in comparison with the wealth attained by a privileged few… the poor are always poorer, and today they are poorer than ever.”
 
Just what in the world is he talking about? Wealth did not create poor people. PEOPLE ARE POOR BY NATURE! When born, someone’s net worth is zero. They don’t get money until they either start working or they are lucky enough to have parents who will give them an allowance. People create wealth, not the other way around. Out of poverty comes wealth if a person works smart and hard for it.
 
The Brookings Institution reported late last year: “2019 will start with the lowest prevalence of extreme poverty ever recorded in human history – less than 8 percent. In all likelihood, this level will set the ‘ceiling’ for a new era of even lower single-digit global poverty rates for the foreseeable future.”
 
The international poverty line defines someone as living under extreme poverty as being someone who lives on less than $1.90 per day or its equivalent. Today, less than 10% of the world lives in extreme poverty compared to just 30 years ago (1990), where around 37% lived in extreme poverty and compared to 200 years ago when almost EVERYONE lived in extreme poverty. Beyond that, poverty itself ($10 a day) is lower today than it ever was. So the poor are not getting poorer, they are becoming fewer.
 
Pope Francis is not only a massive hypocrite for telling other people to take care of poor, little immigrants when he doesn’t have to make any adjustments for himself to live by that very example, but he is also completely wrong and inaccurate in his claims.
 
Not that I think any of this will change his mind. I sincerely don’t think this guy is a Christian, just says he is out of convenience. He focuses far more on the works of Man than the works of God. Being socialist, he views governments as the solution to things like poverty, etc. He thinks it’s up to the government of other nations to take in these immigrants who will take advantage of the economic opportunities and not care to even try to assimilate into a new society and culture, clinging to their old ones and bashing the countries that take them in, harming its citizens, etc.
 
Newsflash: we are called to serve, not to be abused. I’d rather prioritize poor Americans over poor and ungrateful immigrants who are in all likelihood here illegally.
 
James 1:26
“If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.”
 
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.

​Last week, President Trump signed an omnibus spending bill that will include $1.375 billion for the border wall, and he also declared a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act of 1976 in order to get $8 billion (so far) for border wall funding.
 
And this has caused many people to have some negative reactions. Of course, while the omnibus bill signing might make some Democrats happy (and I will momentarily explain why this was actually bad for them), they see the national emergency declaration as a bad thing and will try to challenge it in the courts (until it reaches the Supreme Court where it will be seen as perfectly constitutional and legal because of the aforementioned Act).
 
On the Right, many see the signing of the omnibus bill as Trump “caving” in some manner and see Trump giving far more to the Democrats than he got. Once again, I will explain in a brief moment why it’s nowhere near as bad as they might think.
 
So let’s get down to it and see just why it is that I am defending this move by Trump, even if it’s not even close to perfect.
 
First things first, I perfectly understand that this bill is pretty bad. Putting aside border wall funding (and it’s not even all that much, but I will explain why it’s better than you might think), the bill includes a lot of things Democrats want, such as weakening ICE and border patrol, making it harder to deport some illegals, and a bevy of other things they really want.
 
By no means is this a fantastic deal – not even close. However, there are a number of points I would like to make. First, this deal makes it so that the Democrats, who previously condescendingly would say that maybe they’d give $1 for the wall, actually give Trump well over a billion dollars more for it.
 
Of course, they will try and say that it’s not border wall funding, just fencing, etc. but I think people, even in the Democrat party, can see that this is the Democrats compromising to Trump more than Trump compromising to the Democrats. The Democrats promised, time and time again, that not one cent would go towards funding Trump’s wall. Even the condescending joke from Pelosi about maybe giving him a dollar was just that: a joke. That is, until recently.
 
Now, the Democrats are giving Trump at least some money for something he wants. How is that going to make the Democrats look in the eyes of their own constituents? They can throw out whatever excuse or misleading explanation they want, but let’s be honest here: they promised no money for a wall. And Trump’s getting a wall.
 
Second, had this deal not come about, many of the things the Democrats wanted in it that they got they would’ve gotten eventually. Trump won’t be in office forever. And there’s no guarantee that the next Republican president will be as conservative as him or as willing to fight the Left as him. The things the Democrats got here they were slowly but surely going to get eventually. The difference between this deal and no deal is that we actually get a little bit of funding for the wall, courtesy of the Democrat Party, and the national emergency declaration.
 
Third, I’ve seen comparisons of this omnibus bill to last year’s atrocious omnibus bill. And truly there is no comparison. Yeah, the Dems get a lot of things they wanted, but so do we this time around. There was nowhere near this kind of money for a wall in the previous omnibus bill, which was subsequently promised by the snake that is Paul Ryan. The only reason Trump signed the previous omnibus bill is because RINOs promised him he’d get his wall. He didn’t. But he does with this one.

Finally, and perhaps the most important point of all: this deal is a budget deal. Meaning that this deal is only good until the end of September. What the Democrats get out of it is temporary. What we get out of it is considerably more permanent.
 
So while the deal is far from perfect, it’s nowhere near as bad as some people might think. We get some money for a wall, ammo against the Left in terms of rhetoric, and something more permanent than what the Left gets.
 
Now, had the deal been signed without a national emergency declaration, I would’ve been considerably less happy about this. The national emergency declaration gives Trump around $8 billion (again, so far) to build more walls. This is considerable progress from where we were last year (even though Republicans owned Congress last year, many NeverTrump rats made sure to betray the country).
 
Switching gears, many on the Right will say that using this power sets a bad precedent for future presidencies, particularly for Democrats.
 
One particularly juicy suggestion of this came from Pelosi of all people (yes, I know I was talking about people on the Right, but you’ll want to hear this one). She said that Trump’s emergency declaration for this opens the door for Democrats to use that power once they have the White House again to declare a national emergency on gun violence.
 
Yeah, no. It would be unconstitutional to do that for that sort of “emergency” because of the 2nd Amendment. However, the constitution makes it so that the President’s very DUTY is protecting the nation, and that’s what this declaration is aimed to do.
 
And as far as people on the Right claiming this sets a bad precedent for Democrats to use this power, let me just say I’d rather a Democrat use this power, a constitutional power, to declare a national emergency on something that may not even really be an emergency than have something like what Obama did with DACA, an act that was enforced unconstitutionally.
 
And that’s far from the only unconstitutional act Obama did. But no one talked about Obama setting a bad precedent for Republican presidents (not that they’d willingly do anything unconstitutional but still).
 
Obama tried his best at ruling the country like a king. No one dared try and stop him. So how is exercising constitutional powers setting a bad precedent for future presidents? If anything, it sets a good precedent, particularly in the way Trump did this. A national emergency wasn’t the first thing he tried. Otherwise, we probably would have more walls at the border. In any case, the national emergency declaration is a sort of last-ditch effort to do this. It’s perfectly constitutional and legal. It’s a power that’s there for this precise reason.
 
And no, it’s not going to get struck down in the courts. Yes, the Democrats will challenge it as best they can, considering it presents a very serious threat to their present and future voting base. But like I said, it’s legal. The matter will be taken up to the Supreme Court, where it will almost certainly be upheld (unless they decide to be stupid traitors).
 
Why would it be upheld? Because the point of this declaration isn’t to fulfill some nonexistent racist dogma that supposedly runs through Trump’s mind. It’s to mitigate ILLEGAL border crossing, gun, drug, human and sex smuggling and trafficking, prevent future American deaths at the hands of people who HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE HERE as best as it can and overall truly make the country safer from what can only be considered a subtle invasion of our homeland.
 
For as much as the Democrats want to close their eyes, cover their ears and shout that there’s no emergency at the border, nothing could be further from the truth. That is what we are faced with and it’s the reason we elected Trump.
 
This declaration is 100% legitimate. And this declaration, as well as the money given to us by a reluctant Democrat Party, will make it so that we can finally make progress in our efforts to secure the border.
 
Regardless of what people will say about this whole ordeal: that the deal was terrible and Trump shouldn’t have signed it because it gives so much more to the Democrats, that the declaration of a national emergency sets a bad precedent (somehow) or that it will be struck down by the courts (challenged? Yes. Struck down? Highly unlikely), this deal (at least the part about border wall funding) and declaration will be a good thing for the country and for Trump in the long term.
 
If people are worried that Trump’s base is going to abandon him, let me remind you of some things. Despite everything that happened, even all the times when some people thought Trump caved in any manner, despite him signing that horrible omnibus deal last year, despite him reopening the government and seemingly getting nothing out of shutting it down in the first place, despite every negative attack against Trump from both sides for the past 2 years, his latest approval rating from Rasmussen is 52%. In many polls, his approval ratings either did not move or went up since the shutdown.
 
And his approval ratings were, on average, improving even after all the attacks and conspiracies waged against him. So even if his approval does take a hit with this, it’s not like he just lost 2020. We are still a little less than two years away from that election. An awful lot of things can happen from here to then.
 
And even if people think he messed up on something, his base is not going to abandon him, at least the ones that know what’s at stake.
 
Just look at the people the Democrats have to offer. Each one of them, likely without reading it, signed on to the laughable Green New Deal. Each one of them is in a battle to show who is the most devout socialist. Who is going to grow the government faster and bigger. Who is going to fundamentally alter America to be something it was never meant to be.
 
Those who truly love this country as it was founded (no, that doesn’t include slavery. We Republicans ended it, remember?) know perfectly well the gift from God that Trump is. I’ve already written an article about how big of a bullet we dodged in 2016 thanks to the Grace and goodness of God. Every day that passes, I become more and more convinced that things would’ve gone horrible awry, to the point of no return, under a President Hillary Clinton.
 
How much worse would things be with a President Kamala Harris or a President Bernie Sanders or a President Joe Biden or a President Cory Booker?
 
We know perfectly well what’s at stake. Those who love this country aren’t about to abandon Trump just because he gave a little too much away for this deal. Because, as I said before, they were going to get that with a future Democrat President anyway. We at least got money for a border wall and a subsequent national emergency declaration to help out in that manner.
 
We knew perfectly well Trump’s presidency wouldn’t be easy and that he’d likely have to make some compromises. But let me tell you, this is considerably more than a President Jeb Bush or President John Kasich would’ve gotten, if they even would’ve been able to beat Hillary in the first place.
 
They would’ve bowed down to the Deep State as if it was their god, and in many ways, it is.
 
It cannot and should not be understated how significant and good it would be to get a wall built along the southern border. That, in itself, does a whole lot for our country.
 
Thank you Lord that you are with us always and gave us a President like Trump.
 
Deuteronomy 20:4
“For the Lord your God is he who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.”
 
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’ve already said multiple times in the past, whenever I would bring something up regarding Mexico and their own immigration issues, that the Left will never call these people racist despite wanting the exact same things as Trump.
 
Some time ago, I wrote about people in Tijuana who were calling the migrant caravan that rose up late last year an “invasion” much like myself and President Trump have done.
 
I talked about how the Left will not call these people racist even though they themselves are calling the caravans an invasion.
 
Well, recently, according to the AP, Mexico’s new president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has promised to increase border control at their southern border with Guatemala in anticipation of another caravan springing up.
 
While they will allow the caravans to still get in, for some reason, they insist that they do so in an orderly fashion and not try to force their way inside.
 
I mean, from what I can tell, an invasion is an invasion, whether or not you allow the invaders inside, but what can you do?
 
The AP reports: “Mexico to regulate 370 illegal crossings on Guatemala border.”
 
“The Mexican government has pledged to put guards at some 370 illegal crossing points along the country’s southern border with Guatemala. The crossings ‘will be guarded and controlled to prevent the entry of undocumented people,’ Interior Secretary Olga Sanchez Cordero said Monday.”
 
Sanchez Cordero explained that Mexico did not want a repeat of what happened last time Mexican law enforcement encountered a migrant caravan, where the caravan scuffled with police and just crossed the river to get into Mexico. “There are leaders in the caravan that are directing it, trying to burst into our country, but we will not allow any entry that is not orderly, safe and controlled by Mexican laws,” said Sanchez Cordero.
 
Now, personally, I don’t think they will actually follow suit on that. Regarding the last caravan, they had promised they would not allow the caravan to enter the country, certainly not in an unruly fashion, and they allowed them to almost literally walk all over them, gaining entry into Mexico, heading for the United States.
 
Here in the U.S., we allow for people even in the last caravan to seek asylum, and they still choose to ignore that and enter the country by force, as though they somehow deserve to come in here.
 
So as far as Mexico’s attempt at controlling the caravan, I don’t think they will be successful. I certainly don’t expect them to. However, they are still trying to lock down some points of illegal entry to keep people from coming in illegally. Why is that not seen as racist by the Left?
 
Beyond that, here in the U.S., Democrats will say that “everyone wants stronger borders” but will turn around and call ICE and Border Patrol racists, and suggest any attempt at controlling the border is racist.
 
They will often call a border wall “immoral” or “racist”. So it’s either immoral and racist to secure the border or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways, with Democrats saying they want to secure the border and turning around and doing things that won’t.
 
Of course, that doesn’t exactly come as a surprise to me because Democrats are lying snakes who can’t tell the truth if it could save them.
 
But regarding this particular discussion, it’s basically what Trump wants to accomplish: a safer and more secure border.
 
No, there hasn’t been any suggestions of a border wall at Mexico’s southern border, but they seemingly are trying to secure their borders against illegal immigration. Why is it okay for them to do that, but it’s racist for us to do it?
 
Mexico doesn’t want people to illegally enter their country. Neither do we. And yet, it’s okay for them to want that and act according to that, but it’s racist and bigoted for us to do it?
 
Why? Because America is supposedly a “white” nation? Don’t white people deserve a secure border just as much as Hispanics?
 
You see, the real racists in this discussion aren’t Trump or Republicans who call for a wall and stronger security at the border. The real racists are Democrats who will not call out Mexicans for trying to do pretty much the same thing we are trying to do. Democrats who think it’s perfectly reasonable for Mexico to secure their borders (because it is) but think it’s outright racist and bigoted for us to want to do the same.
 
Allow me to paint you a couple of pictures. A young black girl is gunned down for no apparent reason. People are up in arms about it and seek to blame someone. Someone randomly floats around the idea that it was a white person who did it. Shaun King, the whitest black guy in the world who leads the BLM movement, actually initializes a manhunt for the suspected white person.
 
With just that, you can only guess that the motive was racism. As a result, people who are uninformed or misinformed about it, will come to that conclusion, and will want some sort of retribution for it.
 
When a white person kills a black person, it’s a horrible thing. (By the way, it wasn’t a white person that killed 7-year-old Jazmine Barnes, but a black guy named Larry D. Woodruffe).
 
But in any other case when a black person is killed, 1) a white person is suspected and 2) they think it’s strictly because of racism.
 
Now, let’s look at an example that is fairly different. Illegal immigrants kill hundreds of Americans, the media has a discussion panel to talk about it, and one of the people in the panel makes it her mission to look as disinterested and uncaring as possible by filing her nails, rolling her eyes, and sighing.
 
Of course, I’m talking about Ana Navarro, who did just that recently.
 
Regardless of the color of the skin of the victim, she is not at all interested in the FACT that illegal immigrants are killing Americans, such as Corporal Ronil Singh, a legal immigrant police officer in California who was brutally killed by an illegal immigrant protected by the state’s stupid sanctuary state laws, or the famous Kate Steinle case, or Pierce Corcoran in Tennessee, or Sabrina Starr in New Jersey, or 14-year-old Justin James Dennis Lee in Michigan.
 
The list goes on and on and on and on. And Ana Navarro couldn’t give a single damn about any of these victims.
 
The reason I brought up these two examples is because in the former, a white person was immediately suspected with no evidence and it turned out a black guy killed the 7-year-old black girl, so instead of making this about racial tensions in the U.S., it’s yet another statistic of black-on-black crime and next to no one in the media or the Left could care even a little, given how often it occurs and next to no one talks about it.
 
If they think a white person killed a black person, they think they can score political points off of it. But if it’s a person of color that committed that crime, the story pretty much dies.
 
If they think or KNOW an illegal immigrant killed an American, regardless of the victim’s race, they couldn’t care less.
 
Illegal kills white man? Perfectly fine. Illegal kills white woman? Acceptable. Illegal kills Hispanic? Who cares? Illegal kills gay person? Oh, well. Illegal kills child? Oopsie, daisie. Illegal kills transgender person? Where’s my nail-file, I’m getting bored.
 
Why don’t they care about the victims of illegals? Because even addressing them makes it look like Trump is even remotely right (which he is). They hate Trump more than they love people by a very wide margin.
 
If building a wall at the southern border could cure cancer, solve world hunger, cure AIDS, “solve” climate change, solve poverty and make the world’s problems all go away, they would still oppose it because it’s Trump’s wall.
 
They honestly couldn’t care less about Mexican immigration, legal or illegal, or even U.S. illegal immigration. If anything, the more illegal immigration, the better.
 
The Left is full of hypocrites and they don’t even know it. But everyone else can see it clear as day.
 
Good on Mexico for at least seemingly seeking to secure their borders. They certainly should. Every country should look to secure their borders, not dismantle them.
 
And it’s not an issue of race. Like Trump said in his great Oval Office speech, the reason politicians (or people in general) build walls around their homes is not because “they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.”
 
I don’t want a wall because I hate illegals. I want a wall because I love America and Americans and want to protect them.
 
The only ones that actually come off as hateful in this debate are Leftists who roll their eyes at victims of illegal immigrants, or altogether ignore them in their stiff rebuttal to the President’s speech.
 
Psalm 106:3
“Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times!”
 
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.