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.

President Donald Trump delivered his first Oval Office address this past Tuesday. It was nothing short of great and to the point.
 
The President made sure to immediately call the issue at the border not simply an issue of security, but also a “humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul.”
 
“Every day, Customs and Border Patrol agents encounter thousands of illegal immigrants trying to enter our country. We are out of space to hold them and we have no way to promptly return them back home to their country. America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation. But all Americans are hurt by uncontrolled illegal migration. It strains public resources and drives down jobs and wages. Among those hardest hit are African Americans and Hispanic Americans.”
 
The President made sure to note the horrible things that come as a result of illegal immigration, including the trafficking of illegal and deadly drugs, and the unfettered crime that only rises as a result of poor border security.
 
“In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes and 4,000 violent killings. Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country and thousands more lives will be lost if we don’t act right now.”
 
He also noted some of the particular killings, such as the killing of a legal immigrant police officer in California at the hands of an illegal immigrant who is protected by the state’s ridiculous sanctuary state policies.
 
He also made sure to point out how children are used as pawns at best by criminal illegal aliens seeking to enter the country (and MS-13 gang members often pose as children to enter the country), as well as pointing out the regularity of women being sexually assaulted and raped on the trek to enter the country (which “fact-checkers” at CBS made sure to actually show increased numbers of women who are raped on the way to the border, further helping Trump’s case, before they realized they were helping Trump and got rid of that).
 
“My administration has presented Congress with a detailed proposal to secure the border and stop the criminal gangs, drug smugglers, and human traffickers. It’s a tremendous problem.”
 
Beyond that, he also made sure to call out the Democrats on their inaction regarding the border, pointing out that many of them previously supported stronger border security until Trump became President. He also called out how Pelosi said the wall was “immoral” and yet she, alongside many other Democrats, have walls built around their homes. And he says the reason they build walls around their homes is not because “they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.”
 
He makes sure to point out the horrible deeds of illegal aliens including multiple horrific and grotesque murders in California, Georgia and Maryland. And he makes sure to point out that the families of the victims (some of whom Trump has personally met with) have suffered as a result. “I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices and the sadness gripping their souls. How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?”
 
He finishes very strong by saying: “This is a choice between right and wrong; justice and injustice. This is about whether we fulfill our sacred duty to the American citizens we serve…”
 
Overall, he gave a very emotional and fantastic speech.
 
On the other hand, we have the Democrats, who had Sen. Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi give their rebuttal to the President’s speech.
 
And that was simply a nightmare for the Left.
 
Chuck and Nancy did not look like people trying to reach people emotionally. They looked robotic and like they were better than everyone else. They were stiff and unemotional like they were replaced by aliens who are first learning how to interact with humans.
 
Their speech wasn’t emotional. It was dull and boring and filled with falsehoods. The entire internet mocked the two largely for how they looked, with some making American Gothic references (the painting of the farmer man holding a pitchfork next to his wife completely devoid of emotion) and others making jokes about how they look like disappointed parents scolding their child.
 
In their speech, they talked about how a wall is ineffective (which is not true) and largely talked about Trump, not the American people. Beyond that, they even tried to deny the reality of a crisis altogether.
 
Their rebuttal was so bad that even MSNBC’s Brian Williams and Democrat operative James Carville made fun of them, with Carville saying: “I’ve been more excited about colonoscopies than [Schumer] was giving the speech tonight.”
 
Even people whose entire careers have depended on spinning stories cannot spin this one. It was plain bad for the Democrats.
 
But taking these two things together, one thing is very clear: Democrats don’t care about illegal immigration, Americans who have suffered as a result of it either through being brutally assaulted, killed, or exploited in any way through the use of drugs, and don’t care about the families of the victims. They only care about scoring political points against Trump, castigating him and attacking him, and putting a priority on the criminal illegal aliens than on the American people.
 
By stark contrast, Trump looked very emotional in his speech and looked like he really cares for the people who are/were victimized by this crisis, going as far as to call it a humanitarian one.
 
I’ve held this belief for a very long time, but Tuesday only reinforced it: Trump cares about Americans and Democrats care about their own power. Democrats don’t care who suffers and who is killed and maligned so long as the people who freely enter the country end up defrauding America by illegally voting for Democrats, who are all too happy to accommodate for voter fraud.
 
Trump gave an emotional and great speech, and the Democrats looked heartless.
 
And it’s not just the Democrats that looked bad either. “Fact-checkers” like WaPo tried to correct a large number of the facts Trump gave, but either ended up lying themselves or not actually making the case that Trump was being misleading, which is something they repeatedly tried to say but could not actually prove.
 
Overall, Trump had a great night where I think he successfully reached a good number of people. Of course, I imagine most people who watched his speech were his supporters, considering people like Hollywood celebrities were still trying to say Trump was being racist (even though there was nothing even remotely racist that he said during the speech that anyone could even allude to being racist), but for those who watched it with an open mind, I think can easily be reached.
 
Trump’s message was heartfelt and sincere. He truly wants to help end this crisis, secure our border, and protect Americans. Schumer and Pelosi’s message was heartless, full of misinformation, and like they couldn’t care less about the people whose lives are severely altered by people who have no right to be here.
 
For as much as the Left wants to pretend Trump’s message was full of hate and malice, the opposite is very clearly true. And the Democrats are the ones who had more of a message of hate and malice, if nothing else.
 
Revelation 21:8
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
 
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.

There is a new research poll from the Pew Research Center that asked citizens from 27 different countries if they would want more, less, or about as many immigrants coming in as they do now. There was not a single country in which the majority of the people wanted more immigrants.
 
Now, I know that there are considerably more countries in the world than just 27, so I can’t exactly say that not one country in the world wants more immigration, but of the ones surveyed (including Germany), not one of them wanted more.
 
According to Pew Research Center: “Across the countries surveyed, a median of 45% say fewer or no immigrants should be allowed to move to their country, while 36% say they want about the same number of immigrants. Just 14% say their countries should allow more immigrants.”
 
In other words, across all the countries surveyed, 45% said they wanted less or no immigration, 36% were okay with current levels, and only 14% said they wanted more immigration.
 
I won’t list all 27 countries because that’s not necessary, but some of the important ones to look into are countries like Greece, where 82% said they wanted less or no immigration, 15% about the same number, and only 2% wanted more. That is quite telling of the situation in Greece.
 
Hungary is similar in that 72% say they want less or no immigration, 22% say they want the same number, and only 2% say they want more. Of European nations, Spain was more evenly split, with 30% wanting less or no immigration, 39% wanting the same number as current levels, and 28% saying they want more.
 
Of Asian nations, Indonesia most strongly did not want more immigration, with 54% saying they want less or no immigration, 31% saying they want the same number and only 8% saying they want more.
 
In Japan, it’s a little more interesting. Only 13% say they want less or no immigration compared to 23% who say they want more immigration. That’s the only country where there are more people who want more immigration than there are people who want less or no immigration. However, a vast majority, 58%, say they want current levels, so that still means the majority does not want more immigration. And I can understand why there are more people who want more immigrants than there are those who want less because their birth rates have been on a dive for decades now and need a solution. Immigration could provide such a solution.
 
Israel stood at 73% wanting less or no immigration, 15% wanting current levels and 9% wanting more immigration. This makes sense considering the constant danger they are under thanks to Hamas (and shame on the U.N. for not even condemning their terrorist attacks. I mean, seriously, not even condemn them? If they don’t want to do anything about it, that’s bad, but they won’t even acknowledge the terror Hamas causes? That’s even worse).
 
At any rate, Russia also overwhelmingly wants less immigration, with 67% saying so, while 23% say they want current levels and only 7% want more.
 
As far as the U.S. goes, it’s a little bit closer. 29% say they want less or no immigration, with 44% saying they want the same numbers, and 24% saying they want more. Still a majority of wanting less or the same, but closer than I’d like.
 
Now, according to Breitbart, “When Americans get to choose how many immigrants they want added a year to the U.S. population, about 6-in-10 favor a national immigration policy that admits anywhere between 500,000 to zero immigrants a year.” This is important to note because the U.S. takes in about 1.5 million legal immigrants a year, so 60% say they would want to drop those numbers by more than a million. Of course, that poll was from early 2018, so I do not know if there has been much of a change (and I would expect at least some), but still.
 
Now, here’s the thing. The Pew Research Center did not specify whether or not they are talking about legal or illegal immigrants, which makes a world of difference. I think Pew is largely talking about immigration in general, legal or illegal, so it’s hard to discern how many citizens in each country surveyed supported less legal or illegal immigration, but I suppose that doesn’t matter all too much.
 
Most people either want less or current levels of immigration. This still indicates that people largely reject mass immigration plans like the U.N.’s “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” which would really be anything but. It would not be safe and would definitely not be orderly. And unfortunately, it definitely would be regular.
 
But returning to the poll numbers and not discerning between legal or illegal immigration, I would personally be okay with current levels of LEGAL immigration. In my opinion, if you pay your dues, wait your time, and go through the process the right way, there really should not be any reason to deny you access into the country. Such a process tends to include vetting to make sure the country does not allow someone with a criminal past or gang affiliation to enter the country. As long as there are no problems there, I see no reason to deny anyone entry into the country through legal means.
 
Of course, I could be biased considering I was once a legal immigrant (and now naturalized American) myself, but I feel that this is a sound and logical argument.
 
However, the kind of immigration reduction I want here is illegal immigration. I want a wall at the southern border and I still believe Trump can do just that.
 
So if I were asked the same question by Pew Research Center, I suppose I would answer that I’m okay with current levels, unless it is specified that it includes illegal immigrants. If it does include illegals, then I would definitely want less immigration (not zero immigration altogether, but significantly less. Zero illegal immigrants).
 
So that is the biggest problem I have with the Pew Research Center on this. They do not specify. They ask if people want more, less, none or same numbers of immigration. They don’t specify regarding legal or illegal immigration.
 
And that’s something that really bothers me. Honestly, every time a Leftist cries over the “poor immigrants” at the border, I get ticked off. There is a very clear difference between a legal and an illegal immigrant and whenever the Left IGNORES that difference, it annoys me to no end.
 
I am a LEGAL immigrant (well, a U.S. citizen now, but you get my point). Me and my family went through the process the exact right way, paying our dues, waiting our time, doing everything by the book. So I dare any Leftist lunatic to rope me in with an illegal. We are not the same.
 
My family loves this country. Illegals want to take advantage of her, coming in, taking government paychecks, and illegally voting for people who will implement the same disastrous policies that plundered their countries of origin. I wonder where they would go if America fell to socialism and it were virtually no different from other Socialist Latin American countries.
 
I just hope we never get to that situation. But returning to the poll, it does tell me something in particular: most people reject the globalists’ dream of mass migration.
 
Globalists foolishly believe everyone agrees with them, or at least a vast majority do, with a few odd-jobs disagreeing for no good reason apart from their supposed racism and bigotry. Reality is far different. On the issue of immigration, they are soundly rejected. And in France, they are also being rejected on climate change policy, to some extent.
 
Of course, there’s not a single globalist that could care even a little. Like I said in the article discussing France’s own rejection of immigration, globalists are not held accountable for the chaos they sow. They answer to no one but themselves. 99.999% of the world could hate them and they couldn’t care less, with the 0.001% being themselves.
 
They are not elected representatives. They are global communists. Still, I am definitely glad to see many of these countries rejecting an influx of immigration as much as they do.
 
Again, it also comes down to legal or illegal immigration, but the rejection of mass migration comes along with these results all-the-same.
 
Now, the Pew poll also talks about emigration, where people leave those countries, and people also think that’s a problem, but it largely has to do with the fact that emigration happens largely in regards to jobs aka outsourcing and things like that. Not really a part of the conversation for this article, but I felt it was important to note if you were looking into the actual poll.
 
But that is entirely a tangent that has pretty much nothing to do with the topic of this article. Like I said, I am glad to see such numbers, and I completely understand why the Japanese would be more willing to increase immigration than to reduce it.
 
Philippians 3:20
“But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
 
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.

Taking our attention outside of U.S. polls, surveys and studies, let’s take a look at a poll from France, where Macron is facing fire due to proposed carbon tax hikes to “combat” climate change which are resulting in higher gas prices and is seeing a 26% approval rating, a new low in his presidency.
 
But this poll does not really touch upon people’s view of Macron or even the carbon tax. It has to do with immigration and how it affects multiple aspects of the country.
 
According to Le Point, a French news source reporting on the poll, “58% of French people consider negative the role of immigration in general, and the trend is found in almost all the themes declined: growth (54%), future of the country (55%), identity of the country (58%), respect for secularism (61%), social cohesion (64%), or security (66%).”
 
If that paragraph read a bit weird, that is because the original page was in French and I had Google translate it to English, so the phrasing of some things will seem a bit odd.
 
Basically, what that said is that 58% of French people consider immigration in general to be a negative, with increasing majorities believing immigration is bad for the future and identity of the country, social cohesion and national security among other things.
 
The Le Point article continues: “More broadly, 64% believe that welcoming additional immigrants is not desirable, as many illegal immigrants regularly arrive in Europe, and that the migration issue is likely to be important in the public debate before the European elections of May 2019.”
 
According to the poll, 71% consider that economic migration gives way to employers pulling down wages.
 
Now, this being a French news source, I suspect that the French people largely mean illegal immigrants, not simply those who legally enter the country and reside in it. However, they could also be talking about legal immigrants as well. I won’t leave that possibility off the table.
 
Why? Because immigration CAN hurt the economy. If immigrants, legal or illegal, enter the country and live off of government welfare, then they are taking from the economy and not giving anything back. If immigrants enter the work force and earn enough not to rely on the government (which could be difficult for multiple reasons), then they are not a liability, but an asset to the economy.
 
If the majority of French people believe immigrants are hurting the economy, it might be because said immigrants in general might not actually be in the work force and contributing to the economy. Granted, this is a poll that says the French believe this to be the case, not something that proves this to be the case, but the people might believe this for a reason.
 
Of course, something else that might be hurting the economy is the fact that France has a 45% tax rate on income (as opposed to the tax brackets here in the U.S. that range from 10% to 37% depending on your income) and that Macron is proposing raising taxes on carbon, thus raising gas prices, for the purposes of fighting a hoax of a problem, but immigration could also be something to point out.
 
Now, allow me to get to what I consider to be the best part of the poll. Still within the topic of immigration, 63% are in favor of abolishing the Schengen Agreement, which is an agreement that established free movement of persons across borders within the European Union. The abolition of such an agreement would restore national borders and would allow European countries within the Union to have a say in who they allow into the country.
 
In other words, 63% of French people support having national borders and having the national government have authority over migration into the country.
 
Now, that number should, according to common sense and reason, be far higher. It simply makes no sense for the EU to have control over an individual country’s borders, forcing them to take people they might not want to take in. But that’s just globalism for you. Globalism, at the end of the day, is global communism. It’s unelected officials deciding how the world works.
 
It’s for this reason that so many people in Great Britain voted to leave the EU (although May and other pro-EU hacks managed to completely sabotage that). It’s partly for this reason that Italians voted into power a populist, not a globalist. And it’s clear to me that the people of France might be heading back towards nationalism.
 
Let me remind you of two survey items in the poll: future of the country and identity of the country. Both were issues in which a majority (55% and 58% respectively) felt that immigration was harming them. Globalists don’t care about the future or identity of an individual country. These are people who are against borders in general. They don’t care about what people in an individual country think. They don’t care what people think in general! They are unelected. They have no reason to please anyone but themselves. They have no accountability for the chaos they sow.
 
And they are so far up their own behinds they think they can just bully people around without any push-back. Well, the French people seem to be really pushing back here. Sure, this topic is largely about immigration, but there are underlying topics of conversation within this poll alone.
 
The French people in this poll might signify the start of some major push-back against globalism. These people clearly care about their own national identity, which is something nationalists care about, not globalists.
 
They care about their own country’s well-being, whereas globalists only care about an individual country so long as that country plays ball and serves as an asset to the globalists and their agenda.
 
So this, combined with the fact that Macron’s approval rating stands at a record low of 26% for him, and I can’t help but see at least some push-back against globalism and globalists like Macron.
 
Of course, I could be wrong and this could really not mean a whole lot at the end of the day, but I can’t help but notice these sorts of things and remain optimistic with good reason.
 
Now, since this is largely a conversation about immigration in general, I wonder how the Left would react to seeing this sort of thing. Would they call the French racists? I wouldn’t put it past them to do that.
 
In fact, the very source where I got this information, Le Point, wrote that “this survey illustrates the hostility of a French population that has integrated a large number of immigrants for decades, a phenomenon that has contributed to the transformation of society, all in a weak national economic context.”
 
Thinking that immigration has negative effects on the economy is apparently considered “hostile” now. Le Point also repeats that word later on when talking about economic migration, saying: “But [the French] are hostile to economic migration,” before sharing the percentage of people who say that it allows for employers to drive wages down.
 
So the very source that’s reporting on the poll has some negative things to say about the French people who feel this way. As a result, were this to be talked about by any American mainstream source, I could imagine that source also having negative things to say, though would perhaps go further than simply suggest this is a “hostile” attitude.
 
Luke 10:19
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In recent time, as entirely expected by those who did not take the threat of this invasion lightly, the migrant caravan, or at least a number of them, have been storming the border to the United States and have been met by opposing forces from Border Patrol agents.
 
The media and the Left will be quick to point out that Border Patrol was using pepper spray and tear gas on the “immigrants” (I won’t call them immigrants. I AM an immigrant; they are invaders). But they will just as quickly ignore the fact that the invaders were unwilling to line up to apply for asylum and started throwing rocks and bottles at border agents, prompting the agents to defend themselves.
 
I don’t give a rat’s behind what anyone says, you cannot credibly say these people are asylum seekers anymore. Never mind the fact that, if they were just seeking asylum from their own countries, they would’ve stopped at other Latin American countries or Mexico and sought asylum there. But if the argument is that they are trying to seek asylum here in the U.S., then why would they storm the border instead of waiting in line to get it done?
 
Not a damn Leftist can possibly tell me now that these people are asylum seekers. If they were not invaders before they got to the border (which they were), they definitely are now.
 
But in any case, due to the appropriate-to-sane-people response from the borders, the Left is livid and absolutely bananas over it. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) tweeted (and later deleted the tweet) a comparison between using tear gas and chemical weapons. Then, he tweeted (and kept) the following: “Anyone uncomfortable with spraying tear gas on children is welcome to join the coalition of the moral and the sane. We can argue about other stuff when we’ve got our country back.”
 
Basically, he’s accusing border patrol, without proof, that they were specifically targeting children and families.
 
Qasim Rashid, a Muslim activist, tweeted a very dumb list of nations that have used gas on civilians that actually ties into the main point of this article.
 
Here’s what he writes: “Updated list of Nations that have used gas on civilians: Italy, Mussolini (1934), Japan, Hirohito (1937-39), Germany, Hitler (1940-45), USA, Nixon (1961-71), Egypt, Nasser (1963-67), Iraq, Hussain (1978-91), Syria, Assad (2012-13), USA, Trump (2018-??). This must stop.”
 
A couple of things. First, notice how he doesn’t specify what kind of gas is being used. He just says “gas”. The kind of gas Hitler, Saddam, and Assad used was chemical gas. The kind that kills people. Trump is using tear gas. The kind that doesn’t kill people. So he’s trying really hard here to draw comparisons between Trump and Hitler, or Trump and Assad, or Trump and Saddam, but to do that, he ignores the kind of gas being used by either and just leaves it at that. Talk about fake news.
 
Second, he mentions Nixon from 1961-71. Even that has a number of things to cover, such as the fact that Nixon was not President for 10 years, and he was not President until 1969. From 1961 to 1969 (before Nixon took office), the Presidents were John F. Kennedy (1961 to 1963) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969). So if he wants to say that the U.S. used “gas” against civilians in that time period, it largely falls on two Democrat Presidents.
 
Finally, he creates the illusion that the U.S. did not engage similarly with illegals from 1971 to 2018. And this is what ultimately ties into the main point of the article. Because on November of 2013, now a little over 5 years ago, roughly 100 people tried storming the border near “the San Ysidro port of entry” and they “threw rocks and bottles at U.S. Border Patrol agents, who responded by using pepper spray and other means to force the crowd back into Mexico,” according to The San Diego Union-Tribune.
 
It’s not explicitly stated whether or not the Border Patrol in the 2013 incident used tear gas, but they used other things as well to defend themselves and the border, other things that were obviously non-lethal, otherwise lethal action would’ve made the mainstream news.
 
According to Mary Beth Caston, a Border Patrol spokeswoman, Border Patrol back in the 2013 incident fired pepper balls and other “intermediate use-of-force devices.”
 
Obviously, such actions should be commended, not condemned, and the media definitely made sure not to condemn them back when Obama was President.
 
But this news story details an eerily similar situation in a gap of 5 years, and in similar areas. A large number of illegals storming the border, throwing rocks and bottles (which could lead to serious injury and/or death), being met by non-lethal force from Border Patrol. The only difference is that it’s okay when Obama does it, but it’s not okay when Trump does it.
 
It’s perfectly smart and reasonable to do it when Obama does it, but it’s inhumane and insane when Trump does it. I’m not saying this to attack Obama. The actions his Border Patrol did in 2013 were the right ones. And Obama, on the same day as this invasion, even went to a rally and talked about the need to secure our border (video below).
 
He talked about a measure in the Senate about immigration reform and urged House Republicans (who had the majority at the time) to pass the bill.
 
So it’s perfectly reasonable when Obama says we should secure our borders (and it is, though I know for certain he didn’t really want that), but it’s absolutely insane when Trump wants to secure our borders.
 
If Trump is inhumane and evil for doing this with the invaders, then Obama was just as inhumane and evil for doing something extremely similar.
 
Obviously, the actions that occurred earlier this week and 5 years ago by Border Patrol were the correct ones. You do what you can to protect yourself and do your job. However, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left highlights exactly why I think they’re insane.
 
Again, when Obama does something, it’s good. I’m old enough to remember the Left was pretty much on board with Obama going to war against Syria. The same group of people who supposedly want peace were supporting Obama when there were talks of a possible war with Syria.
 
Need I remind you that Obama, according to ABC News, deported “more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century” that is, he deported more people than all the Presidents of the 20th century (1900-1999) combined. Of course, I suspect things were a bit different back then, but still.
 
Not to mention that, according to ABC News, Bush deported “just over two million during his time in office”. By comparison, Obama had deported 2.5 million from 2009-2015. The article I’m citing here came out on August 29th, 2016, so Obama had yet to leave office at the time. According to an article on the Washington Post, by the end of his presidency, Obama had deported more than 5 million illegals. Pro-immigration groups even dubbed him “Deporter-in-Chief”.
 
And yet, I do not remember the Left attacking Obama as though he was some sort of evil man. I don’t remember them idiotically quoting a poem about the Statue of Liberty to argue that he stop deporting illegals.
 
It was completely fine for him to do it, in their minds, but it’s full-on Armageddon when Trump does it. Although, with all their apocalyptic virtue-signaling, I wonder if there are any people left after the apocalypse brought on by the repeal of Net Neutrality or the apocalypse brought on by the GOP tax cuts, or the apocalypse brought on by Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, or the apocalypse brought on by Trump’s 2016 election victory.
 
Jokes aside, the hypocrisy of the Left is absolutely stunning. Trump gave these people a chance to enter the country legitimately. They chose to invade, just as I knew they would.
 
I won’t take any crap from any Leftist on this. These people are not asylum seekers, otherwise they wouldn’t have thrown away the opportunity to receive asylum. These people are not seeking a better life in the U.S., they are seeking to exploit our economic opportunities without offering to be part of the American way of life, without offering to assimilate, and contributing nothing to the country.
 
The Left is ridiculous in their insistence that these people want asylum. On contraire, they want to invade and their actions show that precise desire.
 
Apart from that, the Left is ridiculous in their insistence that Border Patrol is being inhumane under Trump’s orders. If they are inhumane under Trump, they were inhumane under Obama back in 2013.
 
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

As I thought, the news of the migrant caravan that initiated about a month ago are still in the news cycle (at least in conservative news cycles, with the MSM either ignoring them or defending them), and there are a number of things to be said about it. Now, I have already written an article as to why the caravan is bad (sugarcoating it, right there) and why we should not let them in illegally, so I won’t talk much about that here. What I mostly want to talk about is the fact that, over the weekend, a protest was held in Tijuana against the caravan.
 
The Associated Press reported: “Tijuana residents waved Mexican flags, sang the Mexican national anthem and chanted ‘Out! Out!’ in front of a statue of the Aztec ruler Cuauhtemoc… they accused the migrants of being messy, ungrateful and a danger to Tijuana. They also complained about how the caravan forced its way into Mexico, calling it an ‘invasion’. And they voiced worries that their taxes might be spent to care for the group.”
 
On Twitter, the Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra reported on it, sharing a video of the protest, with one of the protesters saying: “Donald Trump was right, this is an invasion! What Donald Trump said was correct: this is an invasion!”, with the crowd later chanting: “Get out Hondurans, we do not want you here. Get out Hondurans, we do not want you here.”
 
So you can see some of these people voicing their concerns and complaints about the migrant caravan that literally forced its way into Mexico, which prompted Mexican law enforcement to give up and even escort them north towards the U.S.-Mexico border.
 
According to the Department of Homeland Security, there are over 500 criminals in the caravan, and the vast majority of the people in the migrant caravan are men, not women and children as the MSM has reported.
 
Criminals with records that include: “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, sexual assault on a child, and assault on a female,” according to the DHS. Add that to a report from one migrant admitting to Fox News back in late October that he was heading to the U.S. because he “got in trouble” in his home country for “attempted murder”.
 
So while not all of the people in the caravan are criminals, there are still some dangerous people within that group that cannot be allowed entry into the United States, but that Democrats will believe are “angels” or some other nonsense.
 
However, that’s not the main discussion of this article. That can be discussed at another time, but I really want to focus on the Mexicans protesting against the caravan.
 
First, I am surprised and delighted to hear a Mexican citizen saying that Donald Trump was right about anything. It doesn’t happen very often, or at least we don’t see this happen very often.
 
Second, I am delighted to see these people taking a stand for their country and community. They are completely right in their assessment of the caravan as an invasion. Weeks ago, the caravan had forced their way into the country en masse. What in the world could you possibly define that as apart from an invasion? If you enter someone’s property by force, that’s trespassing and you are basically invading that space. So why is protecting our borders any different?
 
These Mexican protesters are Mexican nationalists. Now, I know that word triggers SJWs and snowflake Leftists and makes them rush to their nearest “safe space” with their complimentary blankies, but let me explain what that word means. Nationalism is not Nazism. It’s not white supremacy. It’s patriotism. I don’t care what Emmanuel “25% approval rating” Macron says, it’s not a betrayal of patriotism. It’s its very definition.
 
When you watch the world cup or the Olympics and root for your country’s team, aren’t you essentially rooting for your country to do well? That’s, to some level, patriotism. It’s setting yourself apart from others to support your own country.
 
When you watch these migrants in the caravan waving the Honduran flag, wouldn’t you characterize that as patriotism for their own country (even though they are leaving it)?
 
Being a nationalist means putting your country first. It means being patriotic and proud of your country, even despite its imperfections. I am proud of the United States. Now, a Leftist lunatic could say “HOW COULD YOU BE PROUD OF OUR RACIST AND GENOCIDAL COUNTRY!!!!!” and some other nonsense that would usually be accompanied by saliva because such a person is largely uncultured.
 
To which I retort: “Hey, wasn’t the Democrat Party the one that segregated from the Republican North to keep slaves? Wasn’t it the Democrat Party that was largely divided when it came to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while the Republicans were largely united in favor of it? Wasn’t it Andrew Jackson, the first Democrat President, the one that signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which then led to the infamous Trail of Tears?” As it turns out, the Democrat Party is largely, almost entirely responsible for the racism and genocide that occurred in the United States. I mean, the Party was founded just two years before the Indian Removal Act, and that’s what they basically start with? Geez.
 
But that can be discussed at another time. My point is that this country is great and has been great for a long time, despite the imperfections brought about by the Democrat Party. I am a patriot – a nationalist. I prioritize my country ahead of all others. That doesn’t mean “America Alone”, it means “America First.”
 
So I am glad to see these Mexican nationalists standing up for their country, waving the Mexican flag, singing the Mexican national anthem (which I was required to sing every day as a foreign child when I was going to school there in the few years I lived in Mexico, but kids in America don’t do it because Democrats hate this country), and overall prioritizing their country and their people ahead of foreign invaders.
 
Which leads me to my next point: will the Left characterize these people as racist? As white (excuse my chuckle) nationalists? Will they say that it is wrong for them to prioritize Mexico ahead of the foreigners? The Left certainly has no problem prioritizing Mexicans when they are the foreigners.
 
But you see, this is the problem with the Left’s rhetoric: it’s bogus. There are people all over the world who love their country and would consider themselves nationalists. And that word doesn’t equal Nazism. Yes, the full name is “National Socialist German Worker’s Party”, but if that’s the argument, then why is “National” so important but “Socialist” is utterly ignored?
 
Yes, Hitler was proud of Germany – he was a nationalist. Mussolini was proud of Italy – he was a nationalist. Abraham Lincoln was proud of America – he was a nationalist. Ronald Reagan was proud of America – he was a nationalist. Trump is proud of America – he is a nationalist.
 
Being a nationalist, in itself, isn’t a bad thing. Being proud of your country isn’t a bad thing, unless your country does horrible things like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy did (and if you try to argue that we did equally horrible things, let me refer you to the hypothetical argument I had earlier this article). These protesters are Mexican nationalists. They are proud of their country and prioritize their country. They are Mexican patriots, as they should be.
 
The media, in all likelihood, won’t antagonize these Mexican nationalists. Not because they agree with what they are saying, but because their own rhetoric and racist beliefs won’t allow them to. They can call white people “white supremacists” even if that’s utterly ludicrous, but I would like to see these people try to call these Mexican patriots “white supremacists”.
 
In their desire to pander to minorities and not see people past their skin color, the Left faces a dilemma. Do they say that opposition to the caravan is “white supremacy” even though Mexicans are also opposed to it? Or do they give credence to the Mexicans, therefore undermining their efforts with the caravan? If the Mexicans can say what they’re saying about the caravan and that doesn’t make them racist, why would a white person saying the same thing make it racist? Or why is it racist for white people to oppose it, but not racist for these Mexicans to oppose it?
 
It’s similar to the issue of choosing Muslims over gay people. The Left will support gay people until a Muslim kills a gay person. They support gay rights to marry one another, but not the basic right to life in the Middle East.
 
It’s a similar dilemma, but different because both parties are Hispanic in this instance. So their own pandering and overwhelming racism gets in their own way.
 
Meanwhile, us conservatives try to stand up for what is right, despite anyone’s skin color, ethnicity, gender, etc. This caravan is an invasion and cannot be allowed entry into the U.S. illegally, particularly those who have criminal backgrounds and would only cause chaos and sorrow for American families.
 
With the kinds of backgrounds the DHS informed us were part of the caravan, we can’t allow the unhinged assaulters to get in (we already have Antifa for that), we can’t allow for sexual predators to get in (we already have Hollywood for that), we can’t allow for child molesters to get in (again, Hollywood), and we can’t allow for murderers to get in (we already have unhinged Leftists for that).
 
I don’t care about these people’s race, particularly since I’M ONE OF THEM. But the Left cannot see anyone past their skin color. It’s an issue they have always had and will always have, but will never accept and try to solve.
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
 
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 delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Some time ago, I wrote an article talking about how insanely hypocritical it was for Democrats and Leftists to say that they are “doing the Lord’s work” or something to that extent when opposing Trump, or simply being their Leftist selves. Well, that also applies to establishment Republicans who for some reason feel as though they can speak for God now.
 
In an interview with CNN, John Kasich said the following:
 
“You know, we have a caravan coming north. We don’t want all those people coming across our border, and there are ways to deal with it. I believe if we could check those who are legitimately in need of asylum, could be vetted before they even get to the border. But you know what? We’re born in America. You know how lucky we are to be born in America and not be born in Guatemala where they would say to your daughter, you know, if you don’t do what we want, we will rape your daughter or we will kill your son if he’s not a drug mule? Now they’re marching north, and you know what? It could easily have been all of us, that we’re in the caravan, that we’re marching north trying to save our families and save our children… If we have been spared… by the grace of God, let us be appreciative, let us count our blessings, and let us reach out to those who have less. And let’s stop putting up walls around ourselves and not understanding the plight, the trouble, and the problems of others. It is not right. And the Lord doesn’t want it…”
 
That is a lot to cover, so let’s go little by little. Overall, I both agree and disagree with what he is saying.
 
People born in the U.S. SHOULD count their blessings for being born in the greatest nation on Earth. And we SHOULD try and help people who need help. In fact, doing so is very much a Christian thing to do.
 
However, there is a difference between helping people and being forced to take care of them.
 
Not to mention that the border wall isn’t meant to drive away immigrants. It’s meant to drive away ILLEGAL immigrants.
 
John Kasich believes that we should “help” these people. The problem comes in the fact that it’s likely dangerous people, like members of MS-13, are part of this caravan. Letting these people in means many, and I mean MANY, dangerous people seeing our compassion and exploiting it, entering the country and hurting Americans.
 
We should not be helping people if that comes at the expense of America and Americans. And we certainly should not be guilt-tripped into helping people who very well could come in to exploit our system at best and harm Americans at worst.
 
Besides, let’s not ignore that we do help people, or at least their countries of origin. We give over $120 million to Honduras alone annually (though that number is bound to come down after this). So our government does try and help other countries.
 
But it shouldn’t fall on us to babysit them. It shouldn’t fall on us to take these people in, particularly in this way, and sacrifice Americans’ livelihoods, jobs, etc. We have to take care of our people first, and that’s not what the Democrats and establishment Republicans seem to want.
 
We especially should not be made to believe that it is our fault that other countries are poorer than us. Socialism is killing Venezuela. It’s also slowly, but surely killing other countries as well. I’ve mentioned in the past that the only time Argentina was prosperous was when it abandoned socialism at least economically, through deregulation and such.
 
We are as rich and plentiful as we are because our capitalist system of government and economics are built to help people be prosperous. Key word “help”. It doesn’t guarantee or make it a right that people be prosperous. You have the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not a right to given happiness.
 
But let’s focus a bit more on Kasich bringing God into the mix. He claims that God doesn’t want us to surround ourselves in walls. He’s wrong on this as well. You have to keep in mind what the wall is meant to do. Like I said earlier, it’s not meant to keep immigrants out. It’s meant to keep ILLEGAL immigrants out.
 
It’s meant to secure our border and protect our people. It’s a national security issue just as much as an immigration issue. Not to speak for God, but I believe He would want us to be safe. After all, He instructed and led Nehemiah to build a wall too. And Jerusalem currently has a wall that keeps Hamas and other Islamic terrorists out of the promised land (that was promised to the Jews, not Muslims or any other type of Gentile).
 
Why have those walls? To protect the people inside. That’s what Trump’s border wall is meant to do.
 
We are a country that welcomes immigrants. Heck, we ARE a nation of immigrants. But the difference between the immigrants that came from Europe and the ones that are marching to our border is that the world was far different, with far different laws and dangers to be met.
 
Not to mention that the pilgrims set out for America to be free to express their religious beliefs without fear of persecution from the Crown.
 
On the other hand, these illegals are fleeing their crappy countries to enter the country illegally and forcefully, very much like an invading force.
 
A border wall can stop such an invading force, and there is no honest person who should oppose prioritizing the safety of our people.
 
I won’t be too harsh on Kasich here because he is not completely wrong with what he’s saying. He’s wrong about the purpose of wanting a wall. He’s certainly wrong about what he thinks Trump’s intentions are with a wall. But he’s not wrong that we should help people.
 
However, that’s what we’re already doing. Allowing an invading force to enter the country like this will not help those people and certainly will not help us. If we don’t help ourselves, how could we possibly help others?
 
Regarding the caravan itself, I have already written an article surrounding that topic, so there’s not much else for me to say that would be too different from what I said in that article.
 
The larger point I wanted to make here is that Kasich is wrong in believing God doesn’t want a border wall. I won’t claim to know what God does or does not want. I cannot fully understand what God wants because I cannot fully understand Him, being one of His creations with a limited mind. However, I do believe He wants us to be safe from the dangers of this world and a border wall would help towards that end.
 
Not to mention that, in order to help people, they also have to help themselves. The governments of Central America, maybe with some exceptions, are largely central in their power. Meaning that government is everything and they keep expanding it, bringing in more socialism into the mix. We want to help other countries, but those countries also have to do their part in implementing a system where they are not reliant on us for so much.
 
I’m all for helping others. But that help should not be a one-way street. That help should not be rewarded with being invaded by illegals, likely many of whom look to exploit our system all-the-while trashing it and us, and maybe even harming people by raping young girls and/or killing them.
 
America and Americans must always come first. I want to help Americans first. Otherwise, how could we help anyone else?
 
Luke 6:38
“Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One of the biggest stories this week, which will likely continue being as big, or even bigger in the days and weeks to come, is the fact that anywhere between 5,000 and 10,000 illegal immigrants are marching towards the United States, likely seeking “asylum”. It will soon be clear why I am putting that in quotation marks.
 
Anyway, I say that the caravan is in that range because I have seen multiple different numbers. Many report 5,000 to 7,000, while others like the Daily Wire report 10,000, so it’s not entirely clear which number is most accurate. But regardless of the actual number, that is a lot of people staging what can only be described as an invasion, even if it is an unarmed (though I imagine many people are armed) invasion of the U.S., which is the reason Trump is perfectly justified in using the military to stop this caravan, if that is the route he opts in taking.
 
However, reading the title, you must know that there is something within this story that yours truly sees as a good thing. I can assure you, I am not becoming a Leftist. I’d rather bathe in a tub of acid than be a Leftist.
 
I am, however, seeing what can be considered the big picture here. Allow me to explain.
 
Reading the news of the caravan starting up, leaving Honduras, swelling in size, and forcefully pushing past Mexican police and MPs, how does that make you feel? I imagine disturbed at the very least, or even downright terrified. If so, you can be safe in knowing that you are not alone in this.
 
While the Democrats might see this caravan as a good thing (without necessarily saying that outright) and while they might choose to ignore it as though it’s not happening, we can’t help but acknowledge it and see it as a very bad thing.
 
Let’s not beat around the bush. This is an invasion. With this many people, likely being helped in being fed, sheltered, etc. (likely by George Soros, but I can’t prove that), all seeking “asylum”, you can’t help but think of this as an invasion. And by the way, I put asylum in quotation marks because these people aren’t seeking asylum from their own countries. If you’ve seen the pictures, you’ll see some people waving the Honduran flag, the Mexican flag and whatever country’s flag these people are from.
 
If they were seeking asylum or refuge from those countries, they wouldn’t be proudly flying those countries’ flags. When have you seen a North Korean defector waving the North Korean flag? Or a Cuban escapee waving the Cuban flag? When have you seen someone escaping oppression, socialism, etc. waving the flag and proudly representing the country they just “escaped” from?
 
These aren’t refugees, or asylum seekers, or immigrants. They are invaders.
 
Knowing all of this, don’t you think this will make Americans like me and you want a border wall at the Southern border? The reason the Great Wall of China was initially built was because during the Qin Dynasty, the First Emperor of Qin wanted to prevent invasion from northern nations. Sure, later it was used to protect Silk Road trade, but it was initially built to guard China from invasion.
 
Likewise, we see something similar. We have nations down south who don’t want to invade the country themselves, waging war against us, but nations who allow their people to illegally migrate to another country en masse.
 
It may not be any one particular nation that is the invading force of this caravan, but it is those nations’ people who are forcefully making their way here, all-the-while still representing their countries of origin through the proud waving of their flags.
 
The idea of a foreign entity invading the U.S. is downright terrifying and should put everyone on edge. This is what we are facing right now, so we have to come up with viable solutions. Allowing this caravan entry into the country means other caravans popping up and doing the same, eventually leading to the utter invasion and transformation of the U.S. away from its founding principles (which are already under attack by the Left anyway) and into a country similar to the rest of the continent.
 
The blessing in disguise that this caravan brings is that people might become more warm to the idea of a border wall.
 
When Trump initially came up with the idea of building a “big, beautiful wall” in our border with Mexico, many people loved it, but many people also hated it. The media, unsurprisingly, was adamantly against it, as were the Democrats.
 
But given how toxic the Left has shown themselves to truly be, I imagine there will be more and more people choosing to vote Republican this November. As time goes on, the media has been a little less adamant to claim victory of a “blue wave”, saying that it might be a close race. Even DNC Chairman Tom Perez recently said that “we (Democrats) always knew that this election was going to be close.”
 
At the start of the year, everyone was making the same claims that they were making in 2016: Trump is going to lose, Democrats are going to win in the biggest landslide ever, blah, blah, blah.
 
And now, he says it’s going to be close?
 
This sort of thing tends to be the case as the race grows near. People become slightly less confident and think it will be closer than previously anticipated. But this sort of thing, coming after a year of touting a blue wave that would sweep the Republicans and crush Trump, is indicative that the Democrats legitimately fear there will be no such blue wave.
 
Why? Because their attitude and actions have been so toxic that they’re driving people away. Not that they would ever admit to that, of course, but the results will show. The “#WalkAway” movement started for a reason and I believe it has far more traction than the Left believes it has.
 
This caravan can only help Republicans and Trump come November. It’s indicative of the failed immigration policies of the Democrats that have slowly, but surely been eating away at our border safety, leading millions to enter the country illegally. Now, we have large groups of people forcefully making their way to the U.S., not in the hopes of assimilating, being part of our capitalistic economic system, but in the hopes of exploiting it at best and changing it at worst.
 
Trump, for his part, is rightly putting the blame on the Democrats. It’s THEIR immigration policy and lack of enforcing immigration laws that has led to this invasion.
 
Now, the ironic thing is that a recent NBC/WSJ poll, which has Trump at a record high of 47% approval rating (record high for the poll itself), says that Democrats are ahead when it comes to the issue of immigration (up by 4 points on Repubs). Meaning that likely voters trust Democrats a little more on immigration than they do the GOP.
 
Well, while I find that awfully suspicious given Trump’s high approval in the poll itself and given that immigration is what Trump won on, I doubt such an advantage is actually there. It might’ve been back during the summer when the Left were screaming at Trump over keeping kids in cages (which is what Obama was doing, but no one pay attention to that) and separating kids from their parents (which Clinton started, but again, no one pay attention to that). That’s when Democrats might’ve taken the lead in immigration, but definitely not now.
 
And with this caravan, there’s no way people aren’t at the very least disturbed by it enough to want to build a wall.
 
I hate the idea of a caravan of illegals making their way to the U.S. I imagine many people feel the same way. But while Trump might be able to stop this caravan, and God-willing he will, what’s to stop another caravan in the future from popping up?
 
Trump won’t be President for life like his Chinese counter-part. Eventually, someone else will be President. Hopefully a Republican, but who’s to say that they would be able, or even willing, to stop a future caravan?
 
A wall, on the other hand, is imposing and permanent (unless you tear it down, of course, but you get my point). A wall would/will be more able to stop invaders. Of course, it will also have to be accompanied by actual enforcement of our immigration laws, but a wall is at least a start.
 
This caravan, quite frankly, terrifies me. I am not in a border state, so I will not be directly affected by this, but the number of people coming in here illegally, who will definitely be voting Democrat because Democrats don’t care about voting laws (or any laws that don’t benefit them), as well as the fact that, if not stopped, this will definitely encourage more and more caravans popping up makes me afraid for our future.
 
Because while today it may be anywhere between 5,000 and 10,000, more caravans means more and bigger numbers to the point where we are either completely overrun or our economy is so garbage that people won’t want to come anymore because it’d be no different from Central America. Frankly, it could easily become both.
 
At this point, I don’t see voting Republican this November as voting for a political party that I more agree and identify with. I see it as the safeguarding of our country both now and in the future. The Democrats have proven they have no desire to protect America, particularly as it is now. They wish to transform it no matter what, even if that means being overrun by illegals.
 
I’m not gonna be voting Republican just to punish the Democrats for their recent behavior. I’m doing it because they seem to be the only ones that actually give a damn about protecting this country.
 
This is no longer about certain policies working or not. It’s about the survival of our country as we know it. It’s about defending our country from foreign invaders.
 
Everyone says this is the most important election of our lifetimes, or at least one of them. They’re certainly not wrong, because this means we either protect our nation from future invasions and the evils of the Left, or we surrender to future invasions and the evils of the Left.
 
Romans 12:12
“Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes entirely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. It’s easy and, like I said, completely free. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.