While the global Left will undoubtedly choose to call anyone who is against the overrunning of one’s own country by immigrants “racist”, a good majority of people in Great Britain are against giving amnesty to illegal aliens and are worried about what immigration will do for population growth in the country over the next decade.
 
According to a Deltapoll survey commissioned by Migration Watch UK, 51% of Britons do “not support a proposed amnesty for illegal aliens.” 38% are in favor, but only 11% are “strongly” in favor among that 38%.
 
This comes after a rise in illegal boat migrants landing in Great Britain throughout 2019 and the U.K. government suggesting giving amnesty to illegal aliens who had been in the country for 15 or so years.
 
According to a Migration Watch UK spokesman: “Those who enter the UK illegally make their first act in Britain a criminal one and should be returned from whence they came. While those who enter legally and stay on when their visas run out should not be able to run down the clock thinking they will eventually be granted residence.”
 
This is what many who are against illegal immigration (such as myself) often point out. When Donald Trump first pointed out the various types of criminals that illegal aliens often are: murderers, rapists, drug, sex and gun traffickers, etc., he was lambasted by the Left as being racist for saying that “most” of them were criminals. But the reality is that ALL OF THEM, BY VIRTUE OF BEING HERE ILLEGALLY, ARE CRIMINALS. Their very entry into the U.S. in an illegal fashion brands them as criminals, as they should be, because it is ILLEGAL to do that. The same can easily be applied for any illegal immigrant entering any other nation, it’s just that the U.S. and the U.K. are just about the only ones who have brought this issue to light.
 
And even then, it’s not necessarily the governments of these countries that point out the problem. Again, it’s the U.K. government that is seeking to implement an amnesty for illegals who had been living in the country for many years. The people of the country are the ones who are against that and who are pointing out the problem.
 
The spokesman continued: “Amnesties send out entirely the wrong signals, they are a slap in the face to all those who play by the book and simply don’t work – as the Italians, Spaniards and French have all found out. Most importantly, as our Delta polling has clearly shown, the bulk of the British people are also against them.”
 
Exactly as he says, amnesty sends out the wrong signals, is a slap in the face to anyone who does things the right way and doesn’t help out a nation. Amnesty is basically the government giving up on enforcing their own established immigration laws and saying “meh, do what you want, no one’s gonna stop you”. It sets a dangerous precedent, as we have seen not only in the U.S., but in many countries worldwide. If the government doesn’t care about its own laws, why should the people who are entering the country, or even the people already in the country? Why should immigrants, hoping to leave to a (for now) better country, play by the rules, pay their dues and wait their turn in line when the government isn’t going to punish those who don’t abide by the rules and do things the right way? What reason is there to do what is right when those doing things the wrong way don’t get punished for it?
 
And the reasoning behind amnesty is beyond stupid as well. Boris Johnson has said in the past “we effectively have [amnesty]… If you have been here for 10 or 12 years, I’m afraid the authorities no longer really pursue you. They give up. Why not be honest about what is going on?”
 
You would think, then, that he would take steps to avoid people illegally going into the country and taking advantage of this “effective” amnesty, but no, his strategy is “we’re already basically doing it, let’s just make it actually part of the books,” which is extremely moronic, as it doesn’t solve any problems. It incentivizes immigrants to forego the established system of immigration in favor of forcing themselves into the country because they know they won’t be punished for it if they can hide long enough.
 
Doing this also presents problems as population grows in the country, which the Britons are also worried about. According to Deltapoll, 68% of Britons expressed concern about the rate of immigration into the U.K. and its effect on the country’s overall population. Out of this 68%, 36% expressed “great concern” and 32% expressed “some concern”. But regardless, a notable size of the population of Britain is concerned over the rate of immigration and what it would do to the population of the country in the future.
 
Migration Watch UK Chairman Alp Mehmet said: “As ever, the British people, with their usual common sense, have shown themselves to be way ahead of the political class. Their concern about population growth and the scale of immigration that drives it is clear. They also see that the only way to deal with this unsustainable and damaging growth is for a significant reduction in immigration. Why can’t the political class not see that?”
 
I would wager it’s because they largely don’t care, which is ironic considering the massive pro-Brexit victory British people handed to “Amnesty Boris” Johnson last December and considering one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reason for the British people having voted in favor of Brexit (more than once) is because they want to take control of their borders and keep illegals from entering and staying.
 
Illegals will tend to (illegally) vote in favor of those who allow them amnesty, which is why so many politicians all over the world tend to think of this as a favorable position. This allows for such politicians to remain in power for just about as long as they want, since they don’t really care about the people they are supposed to represent, but care about their own well-beings. Why do you think it is that the Democrat Party has practically abandoned the blue-collar, white class of voters? They lambast them as being “racist” for being concerned over illegal immigration because they are certain that enough Latinos and illegals in general will support them, as well as the white people who feel the idiotic “white guilt”.
 
But the British people, it seems, are mostly not idiotic. Unlike the Germans (who are quickly going back to their Nazi ways, though through a more globalist outlook), the British don’t want immigrants galore in their country. They don’t want their own government to ignore the law that is in the books that is meant to protect their borders and their people.
 
I suppose we will need to wait and see if the U.K. government wakes up to the will of the people, though I don’t expect this to happen any time soon.
 
2 Timothy 2:15
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

With the impeachment hearings trotting out nothing for the Democrats or the fake news media to be able to stick with to attack Trump (they went from Quid Pro Quo to bribery to not letting a foreigner into the WH and are circling back to Quid Pro Quo with Sondland, but that’s not working out either), the Democrats and the fake news media are desperate to find something, ANYTHING, to try and hit Trump with, considering how poorly this impeachment sham is going for them.
 
In comes a U.N. report that tries to utterly tear into the Trump administration. According to the AFP, who wrote a story on the report, “more than 100,000 children are currently being held in migration-related detention in the United States, often in violation of international law, the UN said Monday.”
 
NPR also ran with the story, claiming that the Trump administration “is still holding more than 100,000 children in migration-related detention.”
 
This story was also circulated among Democrats, with U.S. Representative Grace Meng (D-NY) tweeting: “The over 100,000 kids in immigration-related custody are kids the Trump administration has separated from their families, detained in cages, & denied basic necessities & medical care. We can’t let this inhumane treatment continue at any scale.”
 
Certainly, words of condemnation. And she was far from alone. The Democratic Coalition shared the article and tweeted: “Our National Shame: The United Nations has condemned the United States for having the world’s highest rate of children in detention. #KeepFamiliesTogether #ShitholePresident.”
 
By the way, I didn’t censor that curse word so you would fully get what it is these people think of President Trump.
 
In any case, the DNC War Room also tweeted: “This is a disgusting result of Trump’s family separation policies – pushed by Stephen Miller who has cited white nationalist propaganda in promoting his views. It’s also, apparently, a violation of a U.N. treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
 
Ooooh, seems pretty bad. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) also tweeted: “#1 is a slot you want to see… except for when it’s a worldwide ranking of detained children. Not only is it wrong & inhuman to endanger the lives of over 100,000 children in immigration-related custody, but it VIOLATES international law.” In a tweet replying to herself, Rep. Velazquez continued: “I urge each & every member of our #NY7 community to read up & speak out bc this is no mistake – this is a direct result of the Trump admin’s racist, anti-immigrant agenda. This is shameful!”
 
The Latino Victory US, an open borders Leftist organization, echoed Rep. Velazquez’ sentiments: “The United States of America – the richest & most powerful country on the planet – has the world’s highest rate of detained children. Let that sink in. Make no mistake, this is not an accident. This is a direct result of Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda.”
 
My God, what is Trump to do?! He is detaining children, holding them hostage and reportedly treating them inhumanely! Oh God! OH GOD WHAT ARE WE TO… hey, is that the author of the U.N. report? What’s he doing? Is he… is he saying that the numbers in the report aren’t accurate for 2018, but are actually from 2015, when Obama was president? Huh.
 
Yep, the AFP, upon finding out about it, tweeted the following: “AFP is withdrawing this story. The author of the report has clarified that his figures do not represent the number of children in migration-related US detention, but the total number of children in migration-related US detention in 2015. We will delete the story.”
 
Wait, is it not newsworthy anymore that the U.S. was holding so many children in detention now? I get that the story is not new because the figures aren’t new, but the message of the story was supposed to be to take care of migrant children and be humane towards them, right? Or was it just supposed to be a “gotcha” for the Trump administration?
 
Obviously, these are rhetorical questions because we already know the answer: the fake news media is in collusion with the Deep State to take down Trump and this has been the case since even before Trump won the election.
 
Reuters similarly deleted their story upon this revelation, Rep. Grace Meng also seemingly deleted her tweet about it, as did the Democratic Coalition upon discovering that, if they had kept the tweet up, they would’ve inadvertently been calling President Obama a “#ShitholePresident”. But you have to ask, if Trump would’ve been considered that bad word if he had done that, why isn’t Obama being considered the “s**thole president”? He’s the one that did it.
 
Remember all those pictures of kids locked up in cages (like the one above) that the fake news media, like with this story, tried to pass off as Trump’s doing until it was found out that the pictures were from 2014, so it was during Obama’s tenure? Why doesn’t Obama, who was the one that actually kept these kids in these conditions and apparently in violation of international law, get the ire that Trump was getting when these idiots thought it was him?
 
Again, rhetorical questions, all of them. Rep. Grace Meng said that the Trump administration was separating families, detaining kids in cages and denying them basic “necessities & medical care”. Quite a horrible thing had it been Trump who did it, but all of a sudden, it doesn’t matter because it was actually Obama who was separating families, detaining kids in cages and denying them basic necessities and medical care?
 
Was it only “Our National Shame” when it was thought that Trump was keeping these kids in cages but it wasn’t “Our National Shame” when Obama was the one actually doing it? And surely, one cannot blame Trump’s “family-separation policies” when Obama was the one separating the families. Furthermore, apparently it was only “wrong” and “inhuman” to “endanger” the lives of 100,000 children when they thought Trump was doing it, but when Obama was actually doing it, it wasn’t “wrong”, “inhuman” or “endangering” the lives of children.
 
Apparently, it’s only racist if they think Trump did it, but when Obama was actually doing it, it was perfectly fine. These are all things that the people I mentioned earlier charged Trump with. They said he was endangering kids’ lives, that it was racist, that it was wrong, that it was shameful, that he was denying them basic human rights, and they have no problem levying these false charges against Trump, but the minute they find out Obama was actually the one whom they should be levying these charges, they keep utterly quiet.
 
For the record, I have come around to supporting the “family separation” policies (as the Left calls them) because these “families”, more often than not, are not actually families but minors being accompanied by total strangers hoping to enter the country with essentially a free ticket. Notice how throughout the story, any point where I said “oohh, seems bad” was entirely sarcastic not only because I knew very well that it was actually Obama doing this, but because even if Trump actually had been the one doing this, I wouldn’t have minded.
 
Better to keep these kids separated from total strangers who could easily abuse them or sell them off to slavery than keep them with these strangers, running these risks, all for the sake of putting up an act of “keeping families together”.
 
But regardless of what I think about it, these Leftists have made their own thoughts about it plenty clearly, at least when they think it was Trump. When they think it’s Trump, just about every bad story that can come out is pushed to its extreme to attempt to make him suffer for it. But one comes to find that just about every charge they levy against Trump is actually something that Obama did.
 
Collusion to rig an election? Obama weaponized the intel community to spy on the Trump campaign and sought the services of Ukraine.
 
Family separation at the border? Obama kept kids in these cages.
 
Quid Pro Quo? Biden, with Obama’s blessing, threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a top prosecutor investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden.
 
OBAMA was the one who was separating families at the border, denying them basic necessities and medical care. OBAMA’S administration is what “Our National Shame” was. OBAMA was the “s**thole president”. OBAMA was the one doing what these people considered wrong. But the minute they find out the truth, they go silent. It wasn’t wrong if OBAMA was doing it.
 
It’s utterly twisted and the reason as to why I cannot take these fools seriously when they try to claim moral superiority on any and every issue. They are completely IMMORAL to the bone.
 
To them, right and wrong are entirely subjective. Separating families is wrong when Trump does it but right when Obama does it. Colluding to rig an election is wrong if Trump is accused of doing it but perfectly legitimate when Obama does it. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds and it’s pathetic.
 
Romans 2:1
“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Yesterday, I talked about a poll that said a good amount of people thought America’s best days were ahead of us, and that a good majority of people thought that if any changes were to be made to the Constitution, that they should further limit the power of the federal government, as opposed to giving it more power. Though I did not strictly mention this in that article, that is a very conservative ideology that is still shared amongst the majority of American voters.
 
Similarly, a recent Harvard/Harris poll showed that nearly three in four swing state voters, the kind that Democrats need to get in order to win elections, are against the idea of giving illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.
 
But wait, there’s more. It’s not just a policy that is rejected by swing voters. Across the country, and even across the political spectrum, the idea is widely rejected. According to the poll, 72% of all U.S. voters said they opposed the idea of giving illegals driver’s licenses, which includes 74% of swing voters, as mentioned previously, 85% of Republican voters, 73% of moderate voters and even almost 60% of Democrats.
 
Across racial lines, nearly 66% of African Americans oppose the idea of giving licenses to illegals, as well as 76% of whites, and 57% of Hispanics.
 
And it’s not like this was a small survey. The sample size exceeded 2500 registered voters, which is a pretty big sample size for a survey.
 
This just goes to show just how out-of-touch and divorced from reality the Democrat Party is in terms of the policies they espouse. Even in the state of New York, where they made it legal for illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, 61% of New York voters opposed the idea, according to a Siena College poll from March 2018.
 
In that poll, 45% of Democrats opposed the idea of giving licenses to illegals, alongside 84% of GOP voters, 71% of swing voters, 73% of upstate residents, 60% of those in the working or middle class, 70% of Jewish New Yorkers, and 66% of Catholic New Yorkers.
 
Virtually every demographic is hugely opposed to the dangerous idea of giving licenses to illegal immigrants, which basically allows them to go to polling places and vote, even if they are not registered (and, of course, ARE NOT SOVEREIGN CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY).
 
Illegal immigration, and the fact that California has been giving illegals licenses since 2015, is what I think is a considerable part of the reason for the GOP to basically not exist in Commiefornia (as well as ballot harvesting and mysteriously finding more ballots with votes for the Democrat candidates after the polls closed).
 
Not that the Democrat Party cares one wit. If their policies aren’t popular with Americans, they’ll just import voters from Latin America, who are begging to come to the States and be taken care of by the government, and the Democrat Party is all-too happy to oblige them.
 
Like I have said multiple times in the past: their voting base is diminishing. They are pushing away longtime Democrat voters like union workers and working class white people in favor of illegal immigrants. They don’t care to get these people’s votes anymore because they can easily be replaced both in the job field and in the polls. As long as the Democrat Party has a permanent underclass that they can exploit and abuse, they don’t really care what most people think.
 
Back in May of this year, I shared an article talking about a poll that said that 90% of Venezuelans wanted Maduro ousted and for socialism to be eradicated in their country. Nine out of ten Venezuelans want a complete overhaul of their political and economic system. Do you think Maduro cares? NOT AT ALL!
 
He’s the guy in charge. So long as the military is on his side, he will be dictator in Venezuela until he dies, similar to Hugo Chavez. And after his death, an equally-socialist dictator will take his place. These people in power in Venezuela couldn’t give half a damn about what the people they rule over think. So long as their power is not at stake, they could not care less if almost 100% of Venezuelans hated their guts.
 
The same thing applies to the Democrats. It doesn’t matter if American voters disagree with a particular policy of the Democrat Party. Any policy that gives them more power is a policy they will fully embrace. And any person who disagrees with them will be cast out of the Party and replaced by either a brainwashed millennial or a family of illegal immigrants (and even some legal immigrants) seeking a hand-out.
 
The Democrat Party cares not for the environment, for women’s rights or freedom, for Latinos, for blacks, for minorities in general. They use all of these things to get as much power as they possibly can. Just look at the GND and the fact that AOC’s former chief of staff admitted that it wasn’t about climate change but economic change in America. All they care about is power and they will put on a face to fool people into following them and voting for them.
 
They claim to care for the illegal immigrants coming into the country. They do not, as evidenced by Obama putting them in cages. They only care about their ability to get these uneducated people to buy into everything the Democrats are selling. In the meantime, they can be put into ghettos and be forgotten until the next election.
 
These people thirst for power and are corrupted by it. Everywhere you see socialism, you see these people’s true colors. Maduro cares not for the people of Venezuela. Kim Jong-un cares not for the people of North Korea. Xi Jinping cares not for the people of China. The only difference between people like Maduro/Kim Jong-un/Xi Jinping and the Democrat Party in countries like the United States, or the ideological equivalents in Canada, the U.K., Germany, etc. is that Maduro, Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping have enough power and stability in their power to not have to pretend to care about people.
 
Left-wing politicians in the States, in Canada and in Europe have to pretend that what they are doing is for the “greater good.” Communist dictators do not have to do that because they have all the power they can have.
 
This is the reality of the Left; this is who they are. They care only for themselves and their own power. They may say they care for other people, and they might actually believe they do, but at the end of the day, all that matters to them is how much power they have over the people they can rule over.
 
Illegal immigrants do not care for the American culture or way of life. This is something they share in common with the American Left. It’s a match made in Hell and these people should not be in charge of a lemonade stand, let alone entire cities, counties, states and the country.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
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.

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.