 This really shouldn’t be so surprising, considering the last article I wrote was literally about The New York Times blaming airplanes for 9/11, revering Mao Zedong as a “great revolutionary figure” and started the 1619 project to revise our country’s founding to have been on the basis of slavery rather than liberty, as it actually was, but a recent study truly puts the mainstream media on the hot seat. The study was conducted by Bospar, a boutique PR firm, and in collaboration with Propeller Insights, a market research company, and it surveyed 1,010 American adults. What the study found was that “more than 95% are troubled by the current state of media.” No, that’s not a typo. Over 95% OF AMERICANS HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE MODERN MEDIA! The reasons they give for people’s concern are as follows:
What’s more, a full two-thirds (67%) believe “ethics in journalism will be worse during the 2020 presidential campaign.” And when asked “about the impact unethical journalism has on the country, Americans cited four chief problems”:
To repeat, over 95% of people said they were concerned with “the current state of the media”. Considering this is regarding the ethics of journalism, this is quite a horrendous number for the media. However, this does include any and all kind of media, whether it be the NYT or Breitbart News. Looking over the list of reasons for concern, we find that reports on fake news is at the top. That most definitely is a bad sign for the fake news media, considering that is basically Trump’s catch phrase at this point. Now, it’s important to note that things were, as always, divided down party lines. For example, Democrats were more likely to say that cable news anchors and journalists were ethical as opposed to Republicans, according to the study. This makes sense, considering cable news anchors and journalists spread Left-wing propaganda and Democrats tend to side with that sort of thing far more often than Republicans. But a considerable amount of people are very concerned about fake news; about the validity of any particular report and the honesty of the people giving these reports. It’s probably for this reason that Fox News, and more specifically, pro-Trump shows, have enjoyed great ratings over the past couple of years. Sean Hannity’s show was the top-rate cable news show, followed by Tucker Carlson, and Fox News overall had 10 of the top 15 highest-rated cable news shows in the last quarter. Now, allow me to share with you just a few headlines from news organizations around the world pertaining to the “issue” of climate change:
Rinse and repeat for other areas like Russia, Singapore, Finland, Spain, etcetera, etcetera. Now, I don’t know about you, but I think something smells rather fishy here. If the Law of Non-contradiction tells me anything, is that all of these contradicting things cannot all be true at the same time and in the same relationship. If Britain is warming at a faster rate than the global average, then the same cannot possibly be the case for China or any of the other countries listed. That is utterly illogical. And thus, every one of these headlines is likely to be false. Now, there is the possibility that ONE of them is true, but there is no definitive way to discern that from the information given. Each of these has a story that says why and how the particular country or region is warming at a faster rate than the global average, sometimes specifically twice as fast. Each of these stories says something to explain and “prove” the title right, but put them all together and you find it all outright impossible to happen. If they are warming at a faster rate than the global average, there would have to be entire countries and regions that would have to bring down the average in order for this to be true. And no one in the media in any particular country would dare suggest that their country is doing better climate-wise than another country. Of course, this being in different countries, for the most part, only the people living in the particular countries would read their particular headlines and begin to panic (because that is the objective, as the Left’s 16-year-old Swedish puppet admits). But if you and I are looking at these headlines, we will call out the dishonesty of these organizations. And this is just regarding climate alarmism. Regarding the economy, allow me to share two rather interesting news alerts someone shared on Twitter: From The New York Times: “The U.S. economy added 130,000 jobs in August, a sign that the labor market is holding up despite continuing trade war with China.” Not too bad, I’d say. From the Washington Post: “The U.S. economy added 130,000 jobs in August, as hiring slowed sharply amid concerns that the economy is deteriorating.” Trying to spin the good news of jobs growth into something bad to try and incite fear in people’s minds about the possibility of a recession. Both talk about pretty much the same thing, but the second one specifically tries to continue using the narrative of a looming recession. These are but a few of the many, MANY examples of the fake news media delivering fake news. Only go back to when Brett Kavanaugh was being grilled by the fake news media about sexual assaults that he didn’t do and there was no evidence for them. Only go back THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS TO SEE THESE PEOPLE OPENLY ACCUSING TRUMP OF COLLUDING WITH RUSSIA TO STEAL THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION to see evidence of the fake news these people deliver on a daily basis. Two and a half years of Russian collusion, a couple of months of “believe all women” and can you really blame people for thinking ethics in the media is in the toilet? These people are not ethical in the least. They are bloodsucking leeches, who will stick to any story, no matter how ridiculous, to pass their agenda. Trump won the election? Nah, he cheated. A Republican won a closely-contested special election this week? Trump actually lost because it shouldn’t have been even close, even though they were saying for weeks prior that that election was a “bellwether test” for 2020. Brett Kavanaugh is about to be approved to be in the Supreme Court? Take a woman who knows how to cheat a lie detector test because she’s a psychologist and have her pretend to be the victim using the most innocent-sounding voice one can possibly use to try and demonize the guy to protect abortion. Do you want to know why there is so little faith in the ethics of journalism today? Because everything is political and virtually everything can be counted on to be a lie to one extent or the other. If there is good news, they won’t be delivered if it doesn’t help the media. If there is bad news, it’s a sure-fire sign that Trump is toast. If there is no news, they will be made into massive news. There no longer are any ethics in journalism, at least in the type that the fake news media practices. Any story that helps their narrative, no matter how outlandish and poorly-sourced, is made into news. And when called out on it, no repercussions will occur because truth and objectivity is no longer a standard. It’s about delivering as much fake news that helps the Leftist narrative as possible and seeing what sticks. Proverbs 13:5 “The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace.” 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.
0 Comments
 In the world of the Fake News Media, it can sometimes be difficult to discern just which one is the biggest joke out there. CNN is up there, when they threaten meme-makers with lawsuits and run Russia-collusion stories for two and a half straight years with zero evidence to show for it. But I think The New York Times has pulled ahead in recent times. Of course, I am talking about the horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad week the people at the NYT had recently. First, the NYT Archives page remembered the death of Chinese Communist dictator Mao Zedong, who died on September 9th, 1976. They did this by tweeting: “Mao Zedong died on this day in 1976: The Times said he ‘began as an obscure peasant’ and ‘died one of history’s great revolutionary figures.’” Two things they said about him, one of them wrong and the other one REALLY wrong for different reasons. First, Zedong was never, himself, a peasant. He was born to a farmer who was once a peasant but became “affluent as a farmer and grain dealer,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica’s page on Mao Zedong. To say he was a peasant is historically inaccurate. But that’s, of course, not the worst part. The second part was remembering him as “one of history’s great revolutionary figures.” He was a “great revolutionary figure” in the same way Hitler and Lenin were. That is to say: not at all. He led a communist revolution in China, became dictator of the land, and subsequently murdered 45 million people thanks to his “Great Leap Forward” policy. This is something even THE WASHINGTON POST acknowledges. Yeah, kinda “forgot” to mention that part, didn’t they? But as bad as that is, I believe it pales in comparison to what they did on the 18th anniversary of 9/11. You may have heard a little something about it, as it was all over Twitter and conservative media (apart from the actual remembrance of the victims and events of 9/11). The New York Times posted and promptly deleted the following tweet: “18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center. Today, families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died.” Of course, people pointed out the lunacy of that tweet. It wasn’t airplanes that “took aim” at the towers. It was radical Islamic terrorists. But then again, we really shouldn’t be so surprised at the sort of language and rhetoric these people use. These are people who might actually believe guns can float around and shoot and kill people all on their own, erasing any of the blame on the actual shooter and focusing on the gun. I have already pointed out how shootings tend to not be paid much attention to if the shooter is someone who hurts their narrative. They talked far more at length about the El Paso shooter because he targeted Hispanics than they did about the openly-socialist Dayton shooter. And back when a Berniebro shot at Republicans during a Congressional baseball game, injuring Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), they made the concerted effort not to mention the very intentions the shooter had: to kill as many Republicans because he bought Bernie’s rhetoric that Republicans would kill people by taking away their healthcare. Similarly, since 9/11 is the biggest terrorist attack in American history, and since it was perpetrated by radical Islamic terrorists, any and all semblance of radical Islam must be taken out of the remembrance of the day, because political correctness deems it so. Never mind that it was RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS who hijacked the planes that flew into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania field (though that last one was because the passengers were aware of what happened in New York and realized their plane also got hijacked and bravely fought the terrorists, but ultimately all died). Never mind that radical Muslims all over the world CELEBRATED the attacks in their hatred of America. No, we must avoid talking about radical Islamic terrorism when talking about THE BIGGEST TERRORIST ATTACK IN U.S. HISTORY. It wasn’t terrorists who did it, you see; it was the planes. As though it was one massive accident and no ill-intent was present whatsoever. What an absolute joke of a news organization. The fact it’s the NEW YORK Times, of all organizations, makes it all the sadder. The attack was in THEIR CITY. Their residents and citizens WITNESSED IT HAPPENING LIVE. And they have the nerve to avoid placing the blame where it belongs? And their updated tweet wasn’t much better either: “18 years after nearly 3,000 people were lost, families of those killed in the terror attacks will gather at the 9/11 memorial. There will be a moment of silence at 8:46 a.m., then the names of the dead – one by one – will be recited.” Nearly 3,000 people weren’t “lost”. Again, that erases culpability and makes it appear sort of like an accident or at least like it wasn’t intentional. They were TAKEN by these radical Islamic monsters. The New York Times is incredibly adamant about revising history to suit their agenda. Only a couple of months ago, they launched the 1619 project, if you remember that one. As a reminder, that project aimed (or aims, if they are still pushing it) at revising the history of our country’s very own founding to push the narrative that we were founded on slavery. To say that we weren’t founded on the basis of liberty for all, but that we were actually founded on the basis of slavery due to the very first slave ship arriving in the New World – that is the goal. In the title, I put the word “forgot” in quotation marks because this wasn’t by accident in the least bit. At this point, it’s a pattern of revisionist history:
And it all fits perfectly into their agenda: protecting radical Islamic terrorists even when they kill people (and even when they kill another Leftist “protected” group: gay people), protecting the image of one of history’s most brutal dictators and mass murderers, and insisting that our country’s greatness is illegitimate and bought by the blood of slaves and poor people. All b.s. of the highest order, but that’s how delusional these people are. The New York Times is a massive joke of an organization, and that’s saying something in comparison to all the other fake news organizations. Fredo Cuomo has more dignity than these people. Proverbs 19:9 “A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.” 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 today’s media, if you aren’t hearing about how President Trump did something that makes him a racist or is an “impeachable offense”, you’re hearing about how we are destroying our planet with all our fossil fuels and our capitalism and our very existence and we need to do something like electing Democrat after Democrat in order to stop it before the 666th Doomsday clock runs out. It’s tiring and it’s all b.s., but one might come to ask the simple question of how and when did this all begin? This article, if it seems familiar to you, is similar in nature to a couple of other ones where I either talked about when the first climate change warning came about (as far as we know) and the other talking about how much more the Left can say that a particular climate conference or an election is our “last chance to save the planet”. The first article talked about the first warning from someone in general (to refresh your memory, it was in 1864 that the first climate change warning came up, as far as we know) and the second mentioned a number of media articles that repeated the same phrase of “last chance” to save the planet or reverse course, etc. But this one specifically talks about how far back the media has reported on particular climate change talking points. Of course, given the title spoils the surprise, the media has been doing this since at least the 1930s (again, as far as we know). ClimateDepot.com shared an article that showed various pieces from the media when they talked about something in relation to climate change, at any capacity. The first and earliest example comes from a Jefferson City Post-Tribune paper published on May 2nd, 1932 in Jefferson City, Missouri. The article was titled: “Melting Glaciers Would Flood Earth’s Big Cities.” Sound familiar to you? It’s one of the many talking points the Left often makes: “we are melting the arctic glaciers with our capitalist system and as a result, major cities throughout the world will be flooded.” The article itself started with something we are all very familiar with: “Just raise the average temperature of the earth two or three degrees and you can bid goodbye to all the big cities on earth. Glaciers will melt and oceans will rise… New York, London, Paris, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Washington, Shanghai – all gone.” Well, nearly 90 years later and the glaciers are NOT melting (quite the opposite, actually) and no big city on earth has suffered from such major flooding (apart from cities like Houston, which has flooded time and time again since even BEFORE it was founded in June of 1837, but not once as a result of “climate change”). But the funny thing is that you could just take the title and the content of that article, take out the date it was published, and it would read like a normal climate change article from the NYT. But in any case, another article shown by Climate Depot was published in July 21st, 1932 in Brisbane, Australia for The Queenslander. The title of the article was: “A Warmer World.” “Some great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent,” began the article. “Its glaciers are shrinking… it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries.” One thing I would like to point out is the fact that, given the timeframe of these articles, the Left cannot effectively blame gas-powered vehicles for climate change. That Queenslander article and the Jefferson City Tribune article both mention melting glaciers, which the modern Left has often attributed to the use of gas-powered vehicles such as cars, planes and ships. But the earliest combustion-engine cars, though they were around since the late 19th century, were nowhere near as prominent back then as they are today. And yet, they can be blamed for melting glaciers? But the funny thing is that, while one might be able to b.s. their way around saying that there is, indeed, a connection between combustion-engine vehicles and climate change, that argument doesn’t stand the test of time. What do I mean by that? Well, if one were to research the beginning of the Modern Warm Period, they would find it started at around the same time that these articles began to pop up, in the late 1920s, early 1930s. But there have been two other Warm Periods (as far as we know; there were probably more) in the history of the planet: the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from approx. 950 A.D. to 1250 A.D., and the Roman Warm Period, which lasted from approx. 250 B.C. to 400 A.D. Both are periods of particularly high climate warming and NEITHER OF WHICH CAN BE BLAMED ON CAPITALISM AS THAT SYSTEM HADN’T EXISTED AT THOSE TIMES! No one can blame the combustion-engine or fossil fuels for the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods. No one can blame A/Cs or lightbulbs or all the other things Leftists claim cause climate change on Warm Periods that occurred WELL before these things ever existed. What’s more, considering the patterns of these two Warm Periods, the Modern Warm Period should’ve been easily-predictable. Roughly a thousand years passed between the beginning of the Roman Warm Period and the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period. Add another thousand years, and you get to the Modern Warm Period. This tells us that our climate changes in cycles, seemingly every thousand years or so, and in a thousand years, we should see the beginning of another Warm Period. The Warm Periods also seemingly last for around 300 to 600 years, so considering when the last one began, I’d say the Modern Warm Period will likely end somewhere between the 2200s or 2500s, give or take a few decades or even a couple of centuries. Now, while one might then argue that the articles were therefore correct, let me remind you that the articles tried to scare people into thinking we were facing a climate apocalypse totally unprecedented and it would take quite the sacrifice to reverse it. The first article talked about major cities flooding as a result of melting glaciers. The second one was, to its credit, a tad more objective and mentioned that the melting glaciers had been an occurrence for centuries. But then you get an article from The New York Times (because of course it was going to be the NYT) from 1969 that was titled: “Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs,” where the “expert” that was interviewed said that the “North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.” Fast-forward FIVE decades later, and the glaciers are still there and growing in size. Despite the fact that the Earth’s climate is rather obviously cyclical, ignorant people will assert that we must be doing something tremendously dangerous for the climate and that we are uniquely responsible for it and we must raise everyone’s taxes sky high in order to combat this unprecedented emergency. It’s all fake and phony down to the last detail. The climate changes, not because of what humanity does, but because it’s how God made the Earth. It’s not static; it’s dynamic. The fact that it can rain or be completely sunny ought to tell people that (and before you tell me “climate and weather aren’t the same thing”, why does the Left always say that a hurricane, a weather phenomenon, is a sign of climate change?). The Left, since the 1930s, has asserted that the perfectly normal change in the climate is a dangerous thing and that we must fight against it to some capacity. Now, as far as the writers from the 1930s go, I can give them some benefit of the doubt considering their technology and therefore knowledge was not quite as good as ours at the time, but there definitely is no excuse for the modern Left. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they run with the idea that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, specifically as a result of living a comfortable life with our cars and our A/Cs in our capitalist economic system and our Republican governmental system. It’s all b.s., as we well know. There is nothing particularly strange about a changing climate, or even a warming period. It happens in cycles and it’s not caused by us. Certainly, none of the proposals brought up by the Left would do anything to help. Hebrews 11:3 “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” 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.  As with many other times in this country, the issue of gun control is widely talked about by many people. With Democrats demanding mandatory gun buybacks (that wouldn’t work at any capacity), ABC News and the Washington Post released a new poll that they claim shows favorability for more gun control laws. The poll asked people a variety of questions, such as “would you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?” The poll showed that 56% said they would support a nationwide ban on “assault” weapons sales, while 41% oppose. Now, allow me to make one quick point about this, before getting to the major point: there’s no such thing as an “assault” weapon. Literally anything can be used for assault. Anything from an AR-15 to a pencil can be used in an assault. “Assault weapons” aren’t a real thing. And no, AR doesn’t stand for “assault rifle”. Only very ignorant people make that argument. It stands for the company that manufactures it: Armalite. An AR-15 is an Armalite Rifle series 15. But now onto the grander point surrounding this question: that number doesn’t mean what the Left wants it to mean. There’s no doubt that that number is high (of course, there are more Democrats and Independents than Republicans surveyed), but that is actually not a bad number at this point. You see, apart from just showing that number, the poll showed us other numbers from previous polls taken years and years prior, so that we might be able to find a trend or a pattern. That 56% support is rather normal, all things considered. Here is what that question showed in the poll:
Over the last 25 years, support for banning “assault weapons” has DROPPED on average. And while there are some times when it goes a bit back up and goes down, it’s similar to market trends: the trend has been going down, with some shifts and hiccups here and there. The fact that the number sits at 56% is statistically irrelevant considering the trend. People’s views on guns has not gone the way the Left has wanted it, thus far. But wait, there’s more. Like I said, they asked numerous questions. For example, a question read as follows: “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?” This one has to do with that “gun-show loophole” (it’s not really a loophole, as most sellers in gun shows are licensed dealers and rules are not as lax as people think they are). But this one shows a similar story. While the trend isn’t quite as extensive as the prior question, it does show that the number is virtually unchanged in the last 20 years. 89% said they support such a law, but in April of 2013, that number stood at 86%; in March of 2013, 91%; in January of 2013, 88% (there are three numbers for 2013 likely because they came only a few months after the Sandy Hook shooting took place); May of 2000, the number was at 92%; December of 1999, 90%; and May of ’99, 89%. It’s at the same number today as it was back then. Now, again, that number isn’t particularly great, but the number doesn’t jump out at you when compared to prior numbers as it does on its own, which is how the media mostly portray these kinds of numbers: “Look at these numbers, Republicans! You will lose voters if you don’t act on gun control right now!” That is the point of highlighting numbers like these, even though they often don’t mean all that much statistically speaking. But in any case, let’s move on to another example. Another question read: “Would you support a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets?” Now, that’s a bit of an odd question to ask, at least with the second part, because 10 bullets are not “high-capacity”. Often times, that is regular capacity. An AR-15 can hold 30 rounds (though there are many dumb laws that require people to fill it with no more than 12 bullets, as if that makes criminals, who don’t normally obey laws, less deadly). But regardless, we find a similar trend. The number today stands at 60% who support such a ban. That number has been at 56% in April of 2013, 65% in January of 2013 (again, shortly after Sandy Hook), 59% in December of 2012 and 57% in January of 2011. The number is virtually unchanged in that time. Another question asks people if they would support a law allowing the police to “take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others.” This one is also weird, considering it’s already a law, but the two dates show that it’s virtually unchanged (86% support now, 85% support April 2018). So while the numbers the media highlight might make you a bit paranoid or scared that we will be losing our 2nd Amendment rights and that most people hate us for being gun owners, keep in mind that the trends aren’t particularly favorable for the Left, who has been really trying to push for more and more gun control. No statistical change is bad, but trends that go further from what the Left hopes is utterly detrimental to them. 76% also said that improving mental health monitoring and treatment, which is what Trump is focusing on, was something that could help reduce mass shootings as opposed to 58% who said the same about stricter gun laws. Republicans aren’t losing the battle on gun ownership, which is why (among other, more obvious reasons) I get annoyed by supposed “Republicans” who take aim (no pun intended) at the NRA and begin siding with Democrats. It’s similar to abortion. We aren’t totally losing the culture wars here, and we need to understand that. Republicans might be scared about what the media reports and subsequently choose to side with them, but that is ultimately what leads them to lose elections. The media doesn’t report reality, they are trying to shape it – and are failing. Proposals such as mandatory gun buybacks will only come to hurt the Democrats, particularly in rustbelt states. Joshua 1:9 “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.” 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. American’s Assessment Of Current Conditions At 19-Year-High, Contradicting Recession Rumors8/29/2019  On its own, the media can’t speak a recession into happening. They can say whatever they want, have financial “experts” say that a recession is looming, look at particular metrics that could be warning signs of a recession and predict one will definitely happen sometime soon, but they cannot speak a recession into happening if they don’t convince people. And with recent news surrounding some of the most important metrics, consumer confidence and assessment of current conditions, it appears that the whole recession narrative is nothing more than that: a narrative. From Bloomberg, who tend to write headlines that are negative to hurt Trump, they write: “Americans’ View of the Current Economy Is The Highest in 19 Years.” “U.S. consumer confidence declined in August by less than forecast as Americans’ assessment of current conditions climbed to the highest level in almost 19 years, helped by a job market that remains robust,” writes Bloomberg. While consumer confidence did dip down a little bit from 135.8 (the index used by The Conference Board) to 135.1, it is nowhere near what was forecasted, and what’s more, Americans’ views for the current economic situation is at 177.2, the highest it’s been since November of 2000. “The reading shows hiring and income gains are keeping consumers upbeat and assuaging concerns about the economy’s prospects in light of slowing global growth, volatile financial markets and escalating U.S.-China trade tensions. The level of confidence could allow for sustained household spending that remains a mainstay of the economy. The share of respondents who say jobs are currently plentiful jumped to 51.2%, the highest since September 2000, while the share saying jobs are hard to get declined to the lowest in three months,” according to Bloomberg. This is all important to note because these are some of the most important metrics in predicting a recession. As it stands, unemployment levels are at record-lows, wages are rising, taxes are lower, and there are more jobs than there are people available, which is always a good problem to have. But what matters more than these things is how people are feeling about the current economy. It’s for this reason that the Left and the MSM have embarked on a mission to try and bring about a recession. Again, on their own, they can’t do that. But if people’s confidence drops significantly, that spells trouble for the economy. The media has been trying to get people to worry about the economy and fear a looming recession that wouldn’t come without those sorts of storylines being written. What the media is doing is trying to make a recession a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Trump economy is very good and stable, certainly growing, and that presents a problem for any Democrat candidate. For the most part, people don’t care about what the narrative is about Trump. His approval numbers have been climbing and are pretty steady in large part due to how well the economy is doing. When people feel they are doing well, they care more about that than what Trump said on a particular day about a particular subject or person. If the economy is doing well, people don’t see much reason to change the status quo, so Trump’s prospects for reelection are only improved by a strong and growing economy. This is a problem for the Left, and so, they are trying to scare people into thinking there is going to be a recession when plenty of indicators don’t show it. If they can convince people there will be a recession, there will be one. However, it doesn’t appear to be working so far, if these numbers are any indication. Yes, consumer confidence dropped a bit, but less than was forecasted, so it’s probably a rather normal dip that happens all the time in economies (the line graphs aren’t exactly straight in any direction. You have to look at trends). Bloomberg further writes: “U.S. consumers spent more in July than economists expected, the federal government said on Thursday, as retail sales rose 0.7% vs. the 0.3% estimated. Excluding automobile sales, a more volatile component, retail sales rose 1% - double what economists anticipated. Why it matters: Consumers were largely unfazed by the increasing economic uncertainty in July, defying other indicators that point to a global slowdown or recession. The data also comes as Walmart, one of the world’s biggest retailers, posted strong financials for its most recent quarter.” Yeah, who exactly is saying there is “increasing economic uncertainty”? Look at these people, claiming there is such a thing all-the-while reporting that consumer confidence and perception are PRETTY GOOD RIGHT NOW, with a normal dip for consumer confidence at a time when families end their summer vacations and an economic perception that is the highest it’s been since the beginning of the new millennium. In any case, this is, obviously, pretty good news not only for Trump but also for the economy and the people involved with it. No serious dip in consumer confidence means no likelihood for recession. No recession means people won’t be financially hurt, but it does mean Leftists and elitists like Bill Maher, Bill Kristol, etc. will be hurt because it won’t help them get rid of Trump. I just hope and pray these metrics will continue showing good news and continue improving, not only for the benefit of the President’s chances for reelection but also for the benefit of the American people. To wish for a recession to occur like these Leftists are doing is to hope the American people will be hurt to the point they will point the finger at Trump. It helps no one but the heartless Left and it’s sickening. 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 make sure to check it out today! Author: Freddie Marinelli.  Earlier this week, a video surfaced online depicting CNN anchor Chris Cuomo yelling at a man for having called him “Fredo”, in reference to the dumb Corleone brother in the first two movies of The Godfather. The video is nearly 2 minutes long, but it begins with the man telling Cuomo “I thought that’s who you were,” insisting that he really thought Chris’s name was actually “Fredo”. Cuomo replied by saying: “No, punk-a** b****es from the Right call me Fredo. My name is Chris Cuomo. I’m an anchor on CNN.” He continued: “Fredo is from ‘The Godfather’, he was that weak brother and they’re using it as an Italian aspersion… It’s like the ‘n-word’ for us.’” The man then sarcastically told Cuomo: “You’re a much more reasonable guy in person than you seem to be on television.” Cuomo later responded by saying: “You’re going to have a f***ing problem.” This prompted the man to taunt Cuomo: “What are you going to do about it?” It is at this point that Cuomo lost even more of his marbles: “I’ll f***ing ruin your s**t. I’ll f***ing throw you down these stairs like a f***ing punk.” This prompted the argument to get a little heated, but other people in the area separated the two and prevented the situation from getting worse. Now, there is a lot to say about this situation as a whole and what Cuomo said in the video. First, let’s begin with what Cuomo specifically said. First of all, “Fredo” is not like the n-word for us Italians (yes, I’m Italian). To say that the name “Fredo” is like the n-word is ridiculous at best and insulting to black people at worst. There is no racial connotation to the name, but there is plenty of it for the n-word. The name may be meant as an insult, but it’s not a racial one. It’s in reference to the dumber brother in The Godfather, which even Cuomo admits to knowing prior to saying such nonsense. Second, as much as I have seen people on both sides of the aisle defend Cuomo (and I’ll get to that), there’s no denying that the guy literally threatened violence against the man who called him “Fredo”. It’s entirely likely that the guy was heckling Cuomo and trying to get him worked up, given that there is video that was most likely shot from the guy’s cell phone in order to record the conversation, with the camera facing both men, but as Chris himself admitted the following day, he “should be better than the guys baiting me.” He definitely could have reacted better to the situation instead of getting in the guy’s face about it. Whether or not you think the guy was sincere about him thinking Chris’ name was “Fredo” (doubtful, considering how often his name is shown on t.v. and social media) or he was really just heckling the guy, Cuomo took the bait and escalated things himself. He could’ve walked away, which would’ve been the smarter and more mature thing to do, but he let himself get dragged down to the other guy’s level. Certainly, threatening violence against the guy, even if he didn’t have any intention on doing anything, is not right. And that’s what people on both sides of the aisle are missing: Cuomo THREATENED the guy with violence. CNN and the Left insist Cuomo was the victim of racism. He wasn’t and it’s, again, ridiculous at best and insulting at worst to claim he is the victim of racism. People like Jesse Kelly and Matt Walsh make the rational defense that people shouldn’t accost other people in public, particularly celebrities or pseudo-celebrities like Cuomo. Fair enough, and I agree, but again, half of the incident falls on Cuomo’s response to the accosting. If the argument for Cuomo is that he was just standing up for himself, even then, there are better ways of doing it without 1) pretending you’re the victim of racism and 2) threatening violence. You can demand respect without asserting that you are willing to be violent. And for those who might try and make some sort of argument about “Fredo” actually being a racial slur when directed at Italians, consider that multiple people in CNN have attacked others and called them “Fredo”. CNN’s Ana Navarro called Don Jr. “Fredo” live on Cuomo’s show, right in front of Cuomo, and he didn’t react in any way about it. If that name is a racial slur in any way, you would think he would’ve had some sort of problem with it being said on his show. Devin Nunes was also referred to as “Fredo” by CNN back in March by Rick Wilson and Don Jr. was also called “Fredo” by CNN’s David Gregory. Not once was there flak about it being a racial term. And all of a sudden, it’s racist to call someone “Fredo”? Give me a break. And as far as the threat of violence goes, the Left and some people on the Right might try and ignore that, but it’s right there on video. Defend it as Cuomo “standing up for himself” all you want, but there are better ways to go about that whole situation. Even just threatening violence could give Cuomo some legal troubles, particularly as it was recorded and posted online, so being this quick to anger is never the right approach to take, regardless of whether or not he actually had done something to the guy. Even in the recording, Cuomo admits that throwing the guy down the stairs would lead to him getting sued, so he knows he shouldn’t actually do that, but the threat itself could put him in jeopardy. Looking at the whole situation as objectively as I can, here is my final analysis: 1) The unnamed guy was most likely heckling Cuomo and trying to provoke him. Given how the video was shot, with the phone down but the camera facing up, that’s likely the case. He might have been trying to get a picture of Cuomo and himself, selfie style, so that can explain the way the camera was facing, but not the actual recording of video. That’s a different thing entirely. The guy also didn’t do much to try and deescalate the situation. At one point, he said: “What are you going to do about it?” That’s a pretty obvious tell that he was trying to provoke Cuomo into doing *something*. If he actually thought Chris’ name was “Fredo”, you would think he would’ve apologized about the mistake and tried to deescalate the situation. He didn’t do that, so some of the blame definitely falls on the guy, as far as one can tell. 2) Cuomo reacted extremely poorly, was quick to anger, carelessly claimed the name was a racial insult against Italians when it most definitely is not and carelessly threatened violence against the guy, even if he knew actually doing anything would put him in great legal jeopardy. All for being called “Fredo”, which isn’t even an actual insult. This is the same guy who often draws comparisons (which are nonexistent) between Trump and Hitler. The same guy who attacked a Catholic kid for awkwardly grinning at a Native American protester who went up to the kid’s face to accost him. The same guy who completely supports ANTIFA and what they do. Cuomo can dish it out, but the minute he even perceives to be insulted in some manner, he blows his lid and threatens violence? And this was in front of his family too. In an objective manner, Cuomo isn’t entirely to blame for the situation, though he does bear much of it through his reaction alone. Had he gone about it differently, the situation wouldn’t have escalated like it did, or at least it would not have been his fault for the situation escalating. He did himself no favors by acting the way he did, even if he was “standing up for himself”. What he did was verbally attack a guy who, yes, was heckling him and provoking him a little, but it started because of the name “Fredo” being thrown at him. Nothing more than that. While Cuomo may not have initiated the conflict here, he certainly did nothing to make the situation better. And considering how often he uses hateful language against other people, or allows hateful language against others on his own show, and considering he escalated things over being called a NAME, he doesn’t get sympathy from me. The Left and the MSM have applauded the heckling and driving away of conservatives from public spaces, so forgive me if my sympathy well is a bit dry. James 1:19-20 “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today! Author: Freddie Marinelli.  Following the two shootings that occurred over the weekend, President Donald Trump issued a televised statement from the White House condemning white supremacy, racism and hatred that likely fueled the shootings to take place, something the Left had been demanding Trump do following the tragedies. However, having done so, the Left is ticked off that he did, insists he is insincere and continues to spread the lie that Donald Trump is a racist white supremacist who enables people like the shooters (who both held Leftist beliefs) to commit those kinds of heinous acts. But for a brief period of time, the New York Times actually acted like a news organization and planned to deliver a story surrounding the event in a relatively unbiased manner. Their original headline was: “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.” I will share a few of the statements the President made shortly, but I would have to say that that is an apt summation of what was said. President Trump fully condemned the shooters, as well as the white supremacy ideology that likely fueled at least one of them. However, this unbiased headline was too “far-right” and too unbiased for the ever-so tolerant and not-at-all full of crap Leftists who are still subscribed to the paper. Nate Silver from FiveThirtyEight, a notable far-Left source, tweeted: “Tomorrow’s NYT print edition. Not sure ‘TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM’ is how I would have framed the story.” Him being a Leftist, that doesn’t surprise me. Neither does it surprise me that 2020 Dem hopefuls also announced their frustrations over the truthful headline. Cory Booker tweeted: “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.” Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted: “That’s not what happened.” Allow me to briefly address the two failures. First, let’s start with what Not So Smarticus said, “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.” Am I the only one getting 1984 vibes here? Cause to me, it sounds like a politician is shaming the publication for reporting the truth and insists that people’s lives are in danger as a result of it. Because, you see, the truth is dangerous. When people find the truth, they stop believing the lies. The lies that Donald Trump is a racist and a white supremacist. The lies that Donald Trump colluded with Russia. The lies that Republicans have blood on their hands when tragedies like these happen. And to me, it looks like Cory Booker is attempting to channel his inner Joseph Goebbels: “Let me control the media and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs.” He doesn’t want the media to report on the truth because that has consequences dire to his agenda – to the Leftist agenda. Lives are not put into danger because the New York Times’ original headline featured objectivity and truth. Lives are not put into danger because the headline, for once, featured a Trump who offers unity (which he had been for years, but the MSM never reported on it, likely because of crap like this). But in the mind of a Leftist, Trump is Hitler (who was also an extreme Leftist, but no one will care to admit that on the Left) and as a result, to give him any sort of objectivity is the same as allowing him to start a Holocaust. This is why they say ICE detention centers are “concentration camps”. Having lived their lives in the constant toxic bullcrap they spew, they started to believe it. They truly believe that Donald Trump is in any way comparable to Hitler, so to portray him objectively in any way would be the equivalent of giving Hitler a pass, in their minds. This is how utterly corrupt these people are, and the reason I say that there is truly no longer freedom of the press. Constitutionally, and officially, there is freedom of the press as it is detailed in the First Amendment. But when news organizations are hit with so much blowback not only from other “journalists” but also politicians and people threatening to unsubscribe, the organizations under fire for reporting the truth no longer have the right to report freely. So, they changed the headline to: “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.” Because of course the focus has to be on the guns. The two shooters held Left-wing ideologies. That can’t be mentioned whatsoever. The Left is lucky one of them was a white supremacist, because otherwise, they would have to avoid talking about motive, for the most part. They certainly avoid the Dayton shooter, who had very openly-Leftist social media activity before the shooting. Now, let’s discuss what Kirsten Gillibrand thought of the original headline. To repeat, she tweeted: “That’s not what happened.” Oh, isn’t it? I understand Leftists tend to live in their own world, but please at least try to provide evidence to back up your claims. You claim that Trump didn’t call for unity against racism? Well, what’s this then?: “Together, we lock arms to shoulder the grief. We ask God in Heaven to ease the anguish of those who suffer. And we vow to act with urgent resolve… The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online, consumed by racist hate. In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul… In the two decades since Columbine, our nation has watched with rising horror and dread as one mass shooting has followed another, over and over again, decade after decade. We cannot allow ourselves to feel powerless. We can and will stop this evil contagion. In that task, we must honor the sacred memory of those we have lost, by acting as one people. Open wounds cannot heal if we are divided. We must seek real bipartisan solutions – we have to do that, in a bipartisan manner – that will truly make America safer and better for all.” This is only a portion of what the President said recently, followed by similar remarks on social media. Exactly which part of this is him not trying to unite our country against racism? The part where we “lock arms to shoulder the grief”? The part where we “vow to act with urgent resolve”? The part where “our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy”? The part where we must act “as one people”? The part where our “wounds cannot heal if we are divided”? Or the part where “we must seek real bipartisan solutions… in a bipartisan manner… that will truly make America safer and better for all”? Exactly how is the headline: “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” not a factual and accurate summation of what the President said? No, the President didn’t assail against guns because, as I said in my previous article covering these tragedies, that wouldn’t solve anything because guns are not the root cause of shootings. But in what way is the original headline in any way dangerous or fictitious? In the Left’s mind, any story that does not portray Trump as the literal devil is dangerous to their narratives and rhetoric and their opportunity to defeat him at any capacity. That’s the Left’s current goal: defeat Donald Trump at any cost. Evidently, that comes even at the cost of a free press, but we already knew journalism was long dead. This just further proves that to be true. John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” 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.  It appears as though the Left’s favorite word is “racism”, given they so often call the likes of Trump and those who support him that word. And in recent time, an Atlantic article tried to make the case that former President Ronald Reagan was a racist because of ONE STATEMENT he made that was bad. NYU professor Tim Naftali, who is himself a connoisseur of John F. Kennedy (and we’ll get to that) recently wrote an article for The Atlantic titled: “Ronald Reagan’s Long-Hidden Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon.” As with many things on the MSM, this is, for the most part, fake news. Ronald Reagan did say something bad in the 12-minute conversation, but the title suggests the entire thing was filled with Reagan ranting to Nixon about minorities and smearing them. That is far from the truth. The conversation between Reagan and Nixon occurred in October of 1971, when then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan called then-President Richard Nixon regarding the U.N.’s decision to recognize the People’s Republic of China (with representatives from African countries voting against the interests of the United States). Given these are communists now being recognized on the world stage, this severely irked conservatives like Reagan and Nixon. Naftali sets up the context of the conversation: “The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then-California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. ‘Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,’ Reagan said. ‘Yeah,’ Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: ‘To see those, those monkeys from those African countries – damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!’ Nixon gave a huge laugh.” So very obviously, Reagan offered a pretty elitist remark here (not racist. He was referring to the people in Africa, who are underdeveloped, not black people in general). Still, CNN certainly had a field day, attacking Reagan on it (and also pretending the entire conversation was racially-charged) as well as alleging plenty of things calling Reagan a racist and that we “shouldn’t be surprised” by this. However, Reagan historian and connoisseur Paul Kengor makes the case that Reagan, generally-speaking, didn’t have “a racist bone in his body”. After reviewing the call and the elitist statement made by Reagan, and acknowledging that it definitely was bad, he went on to insist: “It’s very important to know, however, that Ronald Reagan was not a racist. This is the only – and I mean only – statement that I’ve ever read from him like this (and I’ve read just about everything). It’s so out of the norm that I find it hard to believe,” and then he goes on to mention how other Democrat Presidents (which I will also get to) like LBJ, Truman or Wilson have, themselves, often said highly offensive and racist things, but are not often talked about because the Democrats will do everything they can to subvert the truth of their history of racism and heavily imply, if not out-right assert, that it was Republicans who fought to keep slaves and segregation, when literally the opposite is true. As far as Naftali goes, even he goes on to concede that, “Reagan’s racism appears to be documented only once on the Nixon tapes, and never his own diaries.” So despite how many tapes there are of Reagan, and how much of a public figure he was before and while he was President, this is really the only documented time when he made a bad remark of this caliber about anyone. And THAT shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone because, unlike what CNN would like to assert, Reagan was NOT a racist and he doesn’t have a history of racism. Ronald Reagan was raised by devout Christian parents and believed racism to be a literal SIN. And there are plenty of times in which he made public and not-so public remarks or displays that highlight how he was most definitely NOT a racist. For example, President Reagan once told the National Council of Negro Women at a White House event in July of 1983 that, “I’ve lived a long time, but I can’t remember a time in my life when I didn’t believe that prejudice and bigotry were the worst of sins.” Even in his Evil Empire speech regarding the Soviet Union, he made mention the fact that the U.S. itself struggled with an evil sin in its slavery days: “There is sin and evil in the world, and we’re enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might,” later mentioning “our nation” which itself held a “legacy of evil with which it must deal… There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country.” And even going back to his childhood, biographers often take note of the fact that, in the early 1930s when Reagan was in college, he brought home two African-American football teammates, who both were barred from staying in a local hotel due to the color of their skin. Reagan (or “Dutch”, as people called him then), offered to let his two teammates spend the night at his house. Despite Dutch being so amicable towards them, the two were not so sure how his parents would be. Given the atmosphere of racial segregation and discrimination against black people at the time, it definitely was extremely rare for white families to be so friendly with African-American people. But when the three got to Reagan’s house, Reagan’s mother greeted them by saying: “Come in, boys,” all with a warm smile as well. Reagan himself recounted that “she was absolutely color-blind. These fellows were just two of my friends. That was the way she and Jack [Reagan’s father] had always raised my brother and me.” Keep in mind that this was in the early 1930s. Beyond the difficult economic hardships of the time (and I think even that is an understatement), African-Americans suffered plenty due to the added general atmosphere and environment of racism and discrimination. But Reagan’s family, and Ronald himself, were people ahead of their time. They were Christians who absolutely believed that Christ is for everyone and everyone ought to be treated with love and respect (and people that I’m sure, if they were alive today, would be absolutely repulsed by the hatred of today’s Democrat Party). Reagan has a history of being against racism, even long before he was a public figure. To smear him as one because of ONE bad and elitist statement is outright unfair, and something Naftali himself has admitted would not want done to JFK. Naftali once wrote: “As I write a biography of JFK, I’ve found that this sort of racism did not animate President Kennedy.” It’s not clear exactly what Naftali was referring to, but it’s not like JFK or other Democrats are free from racist remarks tainting their pasts. I’ve said this before, but JFK himself said that he thought of Hitler as a sort of “legend”. After touring Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Kennedy came back to write in his diary: “I have come to the conclusion that fascism is right for Germany and Italy... The Nordic races appear to be definitely superior to the Romans.” And JFK, going back to that “legend” remark, specifically noted that Hitler was the “stuff of legends… Hitler will emerge from the hate that now surrounds him and come to be regarded as one of the most significant figures to have lived.” As far as Harry Truman goes, 10 months before Israel was independent, he wrote: “The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as DP [Displaced Persons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist, he goes haywire. I’ve found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.” In other words, Truman was saying that the Jews were no different to, perhaps even worse than, the very Hitler whom he just fought against and defeated and whom just subjected millions of Jews to extremely harsh conditions that killed 6 million of them, or 60% of those who were killed during the Holocaust, according to some estimates. This is the same kind of anti-Semitism that Reagan despised and called evil and the same kind of anti-Semitism that one can easily believe would be shared by the modern Democrat Party, particularly from members of “The Squad”. And Woodrow Wilson is often credited for almost single-handedly reviving the Ku Klux Klan, having had Southern sympathy following the Civil War and the reconstruction period (having been raised and lived during and after those events in the Democrat South). And let’s not get into the Democrat Party of today and their anti-white racism that they arrogantly claim is not actual racism. Historically and presently, the Democrat Party is MARRED in racism, bigotry and hatred. From the first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson, essentially screwing over Native Americans, to just about every Democrat President moving forward all having racist and bigoted sentiments towards those different from them (and including Democrats who were not President as well), racism DEFINES the Democrat Party. To allege that Reagan is a racist because of one unfortunately elitist comment (that is being regarded as racist, when it is not) is ludicrous and totally unfair to the guy, not to mention hypocritical of those alleging this. What Reagan said was definitely unfortunate, but hardly enough to ruin his entire legacy. And he certainly should not be the only one to be looked at when it comes to former Presidents being racist when an entire political party has an entire history of it that lasts to this very day. 1 Samuel 16:7 “But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: a man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today! Author: Freddie Marinelli.  A few days ago, NBC News ran a story covering Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), talking about how U.S. Census data from the mid 1800s (1850 and 1860 specifically) showed that Sen. McConnell’s great-great-grandfathers were slave owners. The article, titled “Sen. Mitch McConnell’s great-great-grandfathers owned 14 slaves, bringing reparations issue close to home” is nothing short of an attempt to smear the guy for the fact the guy’s ancestors FOUR GENERATIONS AGO owned slaves, when plenty of people in America are either descended from slaves or slave owners. “The two great-great-grandfathers, James McConnell and Richard Daley, owned a total of at least 14 slaves in Limestone County, Alabama – all but two of them female, according to the county ‘Slave Schedules’ in the 1850 and 1860 censuses,” reported the article. The article also mentions the fact that Sen. McConnell is opposed to slave reparations, an issue that was recently brought up to the House and has been talked about at length by 2020 Democrat presidential candidates, all of whom support it. McConnell made the case against reparations the day before the House hearing, saying: “I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago, when none of us currently living are responsible, is a good idea. We’ve tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation. We’ve elected an African American president.” Obviously, for the uber-woke Left, such words are absolutely unacceptable and he must be put to shame. And it’s not like NBC News tried to hide their intentions for reporting on his ancestors. One paragraph states: “The details about McConnell’s ancestors, discovered by NBC News through a search of ancestry and census records, came in the wake of recent hearings on reparations before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties…” It’s likely the discovery of his ancestry, made by these very same people, came not simply in the wake of the hearings, but largely due to his comments regarding reparations, considering the amount of times they point out that he is against reparations. Still, later down the article, they mention something experts on slavery often say: “descendants of slave owners should not be held personally responsible for the deeds of their forebears.” Despite that, NBC News says that slave experts add that “the families that descended from slave owners, like McConnell’s, are likely to have benefited from the labor of slaves that propped up farm families in earlier generations – a point made by many reparations supporters, who have said that descendants of slaves were never compensated for the economic benefit their forebears made to white families.” And that “argument” seems pretty idiotic to me for one particular reason: THEY WERE SLAVE OWNERS! OF COURSE THEY AND THEIR FAMILIES BENEFITED FROM IT! That’s like saying people and their families today benefit from advanced technology. It’s just the way the world worked at the time! That’s not an excuse to the immorality of the issue, but an explanation as to how and why the families of slave owners benefited from slave ownership. Of course they benefited! Do you think they owned slaves for fun? Slaves were seen as property; as assets. People benefit from assets. Slave owners benefited from the fact they owned slaves. I don’t think that’s an outrageous statement to make, but rather an entirely logical one. Slave owners benefited from the slaves who would work in their fields in a similar manner as to how companies benefit from the work their employees do. That’s not outrageous, it’s adding 2 + 2 and getting 4. It’s an entirely logical outcome. Again, that’s not to excuse slavery in the least, but it’s ridiculous to be outraged at slave owners BENEFITING from slavery when it’s what comes naturally FROM OWNING AN ASSET! What is outrageous is the fact that people, any kind of people, are/were subjected to be treated as nothing more than property and stripped of all their human rights. Not the fact that people benefit from something that is very obviously going to be beneficial. And what exactly is Mitch McConnell supposed to do, then? Burn all his family’s money that he thinks came from ancestral slave ownership? No, I think what he is supposed to do is apologize profusely for daring to challenge the idea that people who didn’t own slaves should be made to pay people who were never slaves themselves. But that is where the entire issue runs into trouble. Just who is descended from slaves and who is descended from slave owners? Do you want to know who is descended from slave owners as well? 2020 Democrat Presidential candidate Kamala Harris and former President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama. In an article from the Washington Free Beacon, Donald Harris, Stanford University professor of economics and father of Kamala Harris said in 2018 that his grandmother, Christina Brown, was a descendant of Hamilton Brown, the man who had an entire town in northern Jamaica named after him (Brown’s Town) and the man who is said to have owned “scores of slaves,” many of whom were brought from Africa, but there were Creole slaves as well. Barack Obama himself even acknowledges that his mother’s lineage can be traced back to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, his wife Michelle has ancestors who fought for the Confederates and, in 2007, genealogists “traced Obama’s roots and discovered two slave owners in his maternal ancestry,” according to the Washington Post. What’s more, when Obama ran for President in 2008, he was also opposed to reparations, believing that they would be used as an excuse “not to work on challenges of racial inequality in education, housing and the workforce,” according to the WaPo. Sen. Mitch McConnell responded to the NBC News article by saying: “You know, I find myself in the same position as President Obama. We both oppose reparations, and we both are the descendants of slave owners.” Which does bring to light the question as to why NBC News chose to focus on McConnell when Obama was the exact same way and when Harris also had slave-owning ancestors. Of course, that is entirely a rhetorical question. We know why they focus on McConnell, a Republican, over Obama and Harris, Democrats. But it is always interesting, if sometimes infuriating, to see the double-standard the media sets up. Just looking at the Jeffrey Epstein case, the media is working overtime to cover the connections between the sick pedophile and President Trump when there hardly is anything there (and Trump kicked him out of Mar-a-lago when he got wind of what Epstein was doing there) and when Bill Clinton has far bigger of a connection to Epstein than Trump does. And when it comes to the issue of slavery, despite the fact that it’s likely people are descendants of slave owners, as McConnell, Obama and Harris all are, only McConnell is focused on for his comments on reparations not aligning with the far-Left’s views on the issue (I’ve decided to start using that term every now and then, since they always label anyone on the Right, or even center, as “far-right”). Now, I’m no fan of Mitch McConnell personally. I believe he holds at least some of the blame for not working with Trump to get the wall built (the Republicans had 51 seats in the Senate before 2018. Harry Reid’s nuclear option was available to be used but the excuse was “we need 9 Democrats to work with us” which was not really the case). And while it’s entirely possible and likely that the House, under snake Paul Ryan, would’ve struck down any bill to build the wall, McConnell could’ve at least tried to get the ball rolling on building the wall and not give us a pathetic excuse of “we need the Democrats who are never going to agree to do this in order to do this”. We absolutely did not need the Democrats, we just needed Republicans who are not traitorous or spineless. But despite my negative views on McConnell (and his ties to China are dubious at best), I do have to at least bring forth the utter double-standard of this whole ordeal. Again, Obama and Harris both are descendants of slave owners, but no one is asking them about that connection or trying to shame them about it. Still, I’m always happy to expose the utter hypocrisy of the far-Left in everything they do. Ephesians 5:11 “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today! Author: Freddie Marinelli.  As we draw closer and closer to the 2020 election cycle, with all 200 Democrats getting ready for their first debates later on this month, pollsters are running their numbers again and pitting Trump against potential 2020 Democrat matchups and, surprise surprise, he’s “trailing” all of them by a significant deficit. Quinnipiac University released their first 2020 matchup poll on Tuesday which has current Democrat frontrunner former VP Joe Biden leading the President by 13 points. Biden also leads Trump 60-34 among women and 47-46 among men. White voters are also split among them, but Trump leads Biden 47-46 here. Biden also leads Trump among African-American and Hispanic voters, with Biden leading Trump 85-12 among African-Americans and 58-33 among Hispanics. When it comes to the other Democrats, Trump supposedly doesn’t do much better. Crazy Bernie leads Trump 51-42, Kamala Harris leads Trump 49-41, Fauxcahontas leads Trump 49-42 and the Pence-obsessed South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Cory “Not So Smarticus” Booker lead Trump 47-42. Non-college educated white voters are the only demographic where Trump seems to have a very solid lead against every Democrat candidate. But looking at this poll as a whole, one might think that it’s over for Trump, right? That he’s going to get trounced. He’s finished. Done. Caput. Well, there is a very good reason as to why I am so skeptical about polls that show these kinds of numbers, especially from Quinnipiac University. Well, reasons, not just one, but one major one. Despite the fact it seems like Trump’s campaign will be swiftly defeated come November of 2020, there is one big factor at play here: this very same poll had Hillary Clinton winning by EVEN BIGGER MARGINS THAN THEY SHOW FOR BIDEN! In this recent poll, Quinnipiac shows Biden leading Trump by 13 points. A good lead for Biden if that were to be the truth whatsoever. But the problem here comes in the fact that back in May of 2015, so basically the same time four years ago, Quinnipiac had Clinton leading Trump by 18 points (50-32). What’s more, even among demographics like African-Americans and Hispanics, Hillary held more of the support than Biden does. Again, Biden supposedly has 85% of the African-American support. But Hillary had 88%. And when it comes to Hispanics, Trump’s numbers today (33%) are higher than they were in 2016 (28%). So considering how astronomically wrong Quinnipiac wound up being in 2016, this current poll shouldn’t really elicit confidence for Trump haters. I imagine there will at least be some fairly rational Democrat voters who will remember how much of a “lead” Hillary had over Trump in 2016 and will be at least relatively skeptical about polls that show such wide margins between the two candidates. And yes, a decent portion of the Democrats will still likely be blaming the Russians for 2016 and will likely claim they helped Trump win re-election if he were to do so, but I am giving these Democrat voters some benefit of the doubt here. I don’t think they are all quite so stupid as to take these polls at face value, especially considering they’re even lower than Hillary’s were. Now, that was only one of the components that leads me to be skeptical about these numbers. Not only was Quinnipiac SUPER wrong about the 2016 matchup, but these numbers are way too distant (in terms of time) from the actual election for them to hold any sort of meaning. You can run hypothetical matchups for any race even beyond the next one and that will matter very little. And while we knew fairly well that Hillary was going to be the nominee in 2016, the answer is not quite so clear this time around. Sure, Biden is leading the other Democrats by a good bit but you never really know. Like I’ve said before in other articles, Hillary was in Joe’s place in 2007, leading the Democrat field, before she was beaten by Obama. So just because Biden is leading right now doesn’t mean he is a lock for the nomination in the first place. This far out from the election, what these types of polls say don’t really matter all that much. I’ve even said the same of polls that show Trump winning. Like I always say, we’re still less than two years away from the election. A lot of things can happen between then and now and the vast majority of the things that will most heavily influence the election will not occur until a few weeks before the election takes place. If the economy is roaring just as well, if not better, by November of next year, and if Trump can make the focus of the election about the economy as well, then he’ll almost certainly win. If you recall an article I wrote from March, I said that economists calculated Trump’s chances of victory and how many electoral and popular votes he is likely to garner (at least a percentage for the popular vote) and had him winning with a margin of 294 electoral votes, meaning he is likely to receive 416 electoral votes total (if the economists are correct, of course). In the history of the United States, there have been 14 elections where the total number of electoral votes was 538. 416 would be the sixth highest number in the 538 system, with only George H. W. Bush (who was riding on Reagan’s coattails), Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan twice getting more electoral votes. So as far as the Quinnipiac poll (or any other poll) goes this early in the election cycle, to claim that Biden will likely beat Trump is mostly a pipe-dream. Again, Hillary’s numbers were far better than Biden is showing, had supposedly strong numbers all the way to the morning of election day where she was supposed to have like a 99% chance of winning and then wound up getting stomped. What exactly will happen on election day only God knows. Of course, I pray to Him that He will allow Trump to be reelected, but as of right now, no one on Earth knows what will happen for certain. With the way things are going, particularly considering Trump’s approval rating (which even Quinnipiac is showing a decent number at 42%, one point shy of his record in that poll) and given the current state of the economy, where even CNN’s polls show roughly 70% say it’s good, then there really is no reason for Trump to come out of the election a loser, especially considering he’s running on a strong economy and every Democrat is running on “we hate Trump”, which is hardly a unifying or beneficial message for the country. Philippians 4:6 “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today! Author: Freddie Marinelli. |
AuthorsFreddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free... Archives
September 2019
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed