Imagine you are in a courtroom, hearing a defense attorney in a murder trial arguing to the judge that his client did not actually commit the murder despite all the evidence clearly pointing to him as being guilty. Imagine the defense attorney then attempts to argue the definition of “murder” and says: “Your Honor, my client did not murder the victim; he simply un-alived her without her consent.”
 
You would think that’s a pretty stupid argument, correct? And yet, that’s the sort of argument the New York Times tried to make recently about the FBI spying on the Trump campaign in 2016.
 
The NYT ran a piece where they attempted to downplay what will be in the Inspector General’s report regarding Obama-era FISA abuses and FBI spying into the Trump campaign before the 2016 presidential election.
 
Of course, the NYT doesn’t have the IG report yet because it will be released on December 9th. So what is their source of information? “People familiar with a draft” of the report aka anonymous sources that may or may not exist.
 
Here is a chunk of what the NYT wrote:
 
“The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.”
 
“… The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up.”
 
“The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page – eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated.”
 
It’s interesting that they would say that conservatives were claiming the FBI was spying on Trump, because that is also what the New York Times essentially admits later on IN THIS VERY PIECE.
 
Later in the piece, we read:
 
“The F.B.I was cognizant of being seen as interfering with a presidential campaign, and former law enforcement officials are adamant that they did not investigate the Trump campaign organization itself or target it for infiltration. But agents had to investigate the four advisers’ ties with Russia, and the people they did scrutinize all played roles in the Trump campaign.”
 
“Mr. Trump and his allies have pointed to some of the investigative steps the F.B.I. took as evidence of spying, though they were typical law enforcement activities. For one, agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopalous while they were affiliated with the campaign. The president decried the revelation as an ‘all time biggest political scandal’ when it emerged last year.”
 
“The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopalous in August 2016…”
 
So what exactly do we have here? An outright contradiction within the NYT piece. Read the very first part I shared with you again. The NYT said earlier that the report would find that there was “no evidence” that the FBI tried to “place undercover agents or informants inside” the Trump campaign. And later on, they say that they DID place undercover agents and informants, at least to engage in conversation with members of the Trump campaign under false pretenses to discuss Trump campaign affairs and report any information discovered back to the FBI.
 
That’s called “SPYING”. What’s worse is that this isn’t even the first time the NYT tried something exactly like this. Back in May of 2018, they had the following piece: “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”
 
Let me go back to my original hypothetical scenario of the courtroom scene. The defense attorney (NYT) has just claimed that his client (the FBI) did not murder the victim (spy on Trump) but simply caused her life to end by his hands without her consent (used an informant to extract information from Trump campaign staffers and report back to the FBI). Do you think the defense attorney is using an even semi-decent argument? OF COURSE NOT! He’s trying to make a distinction without a difference. He’s basically saying the same thing but trying to make it mean something else entirely.
 
“I didn’t rob the bank, your Honor, I just forcefully made a manual withdrawal of all the money in the safe while threatening to kill people with my gun.” It’s an insanely idiotic argument, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from the New York Times. How many stories have I written myself that discuss the outright idiocy of this “news” organization? How many stories have they written that I did not write about myself that are equally as stupid?
 
I don’t know what the IG report will ultimately say, but if it doesn’t fully acknowledge the FBI’s egregious attempts at spying on the Trump campaign, and in particular, James Comey’s actions of using the defunct Steele dossier as a means to try and get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, then Horowitz messed up badly. Even by the NYT’s own admission, there were informants looking into the Trump campaign under false pretenses and trying to report back whatever they found. What the FBI did is out in the open and is, as Trump says, the all-time biggest political scandal in American history.
 
If this wasn’t about politics and only about possible ties to a foreign government, why didn’t the FBI look into Hillary’s ties to Russia and Ukraine? If this behavior is perfectly “normal” for law enforcement practice, why didn’t they plant a spy, oh, sorry, I mean an informant, into the Hillary campaign? With all the allegations regarding her and the Clinton Foundation’s foreign assistance, why didn’t the FBI think to look at her too, if this wasn’t about politics?
 
It’s not like there was any actual proof of Russian ties to the Trump campaign or the staffers themselves; just allegations. So if that was all it took, why did Hillary get a pass despite all the allegations surrounding her?
 
Rhetorical questions, all, as we definitely know the answer. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, something Lisa Page and Peter Strzok acknowledged given their texts about the then-POTUS knowing about it and given the “insurance policy” Strzok mentioned.
 
No amount of mental gymnastics and word redefining will erase the fact that the FBI, under orders from Obama, spied on the Trump campaign.
 
Galatians 6:7-8
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli

It might be rather annoying for some people to read headline after headline regarding a natural disaster being blamed on climate change, but it’s personally become a hobby for me to look at them and take some enjoyment out of it (not because of the people affected by it, of course, as that is always the tragic part of the story, but because of the ridiculous crap these unhinged Leftists have to say about it).
 
And most recently, we have Venice, Italy being hit with what is being considered the worst flood in 50 years.
 
From the AP: “The worst flooding in Venice in more than 50 years prompted calls Wednesday to better protect the historic city from rising sea levels as officials calculated hundreds of millions of euros in damage. The water reached 1.87 meters (6.14 feet) above average sea level Tuesday, the second-highest level ever recorded in the city and just 7 centimeters (2.5 inches) lower than the historic 1966 flood. Another wave of exceptionally high water followed Wednesday.”
 
The mayor of Venice, Luigi Brugnaro, said: “Venice is on its knees. St. Mark’s Basilica has sustained serious damage, like the entire city and its islands.”
 
Suffice to say, many fake news sites (and the mayor himself) are doing their best to blame this on climate change. However, there are a number of problems with this.
 
First of all, as previously established, this isn’t the first time Venice has flooded like this. Venice itself is a city that is permanently flooded. It’s been like this for centuries. The Wikipedia page on Venice itself mentions that 600 years ago, Venetians “protected themselves from land-based attacks by diverting all the major rivers flowing into the lagoon and thus preventing sediment from filling the area around the city. This created an ever-deeper lagoon environment.” The page also notes that in 1608, Venice produced one of the earliest examples of paper currency in order to offset the cost of flood relief.
 
Now, I know that Wikipedia is not necessarily the most factual of sites to use, but I cannot find information like this elsewhere that goes into that sort of detail. But even if literally none of that is true, there is no denying the second point:
 
Just last year, fake news sites were blaming climate change on the Venetian canals RUNNING DRY. From the U.K. Express: “Where’s the water GON-DOLA? Venice’s iconic canals run DRY after weeks without rain.” So it’s climate change when the city overfloods and it’s also climate change when the canals dry up?
 
Thirdly, Venice tends to get floods every year, between the seasons of autumn and spring. The Guardian has an article, though a tad outdated by this point, that shows pictures of various floods in Venice’s recent existence. They show floods from November of 1927, December of 1933, March of 1964, February of 1974, 1980 (no month given), November of 1996, November of 2001, October of 2006, January of 2010, November of 2011, October of 2012, and November of 2012 (article was published in 2015, so it doesn’t go much further than that).
 
And even then, those aren’t all the floods the city has endured, as previously mentioned, with the city’s worst flooding having occurred in 1966.
 
But the point I’m trying to make here is that you cannot seriously suggest that flooding that was a regular occurrence since at least the 1600s, if going by the Wikipedia article, or at least the 1800s (there is a painting from Vincenzo Chilone that shows a flood in 1825) could in any way be due to climate change.
 
One common theme across all of the fake news articles blaming climate change is that they specifically blame rising sea levels for the floods. But there is a major problem with that. According to the NOAA, sea levels are rising at 1/8th of an inch per year, or 3.175mm per year. But multiple studies suggest that Venice is sinking at a rate of 1-2mm per year, slower than the average that NOAA gives us.
 
Meaning that rising sea levels cannot be attributed as the culprit of this. Now, I understand that averages don’t necessarily reflect individual cases. However, if sea levels rising are to be blamed, this is something we have to discuss. Venice, a city that is perpetually underwater with canals (that sometimes dry up), is sinking at a lower rate than these Leftists claim the rest of the world is. How exactly does that make sense? If the entire world is at risk due to rising sea levels (which I challenge because the ice caps aren’t melting and even if they were, the water would remain roughly where it is), wouldn’t Venice have to be at extreme risk and shouldn’t the average sinking rate for Venice itself have to be considerably higher than the alleged global average?
 
Even if you think I’m wrong or I make no sense here, there is no denying the utter hypocrisy the fake news media constantly shows. When it gets particularly hot, they blame climate change. When it gets particularly cold, they blame climate change. When there’s a hurricane, they blame climate change to the point they ridiculously claim there were no hurricanes before climate change “began”. When there is a forest fire in California, they blame climate change instead of the dangerous and idiotic Leftist policies that endanger the State, the wildlife, the forest and the citizens. When there is a flooding in a city that is perpetually flooded, they blame climate change. When the canals in Venice dry up instead of continuing to flood, they blame climate change.
 
Basically, if LITERALLY ANYTHING AT ALL HAPPENS, it’s climate change’s fault. Lost your job? Climate change. Significant other cheated on you? Climate change. Got a flat tire? Climate change. These people are like Mr. Turner blaming Dinkleberg for everything, only sadder because that is a cartoon and this is real life.
 
Psalm 101:7
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In this day and age, we never run short of examples of media or overall Leftist hypocrisy. However, this case is one that particularly grinds my gears because it is a story relating to sexual assault, pedophilia and protecting the elites who often act as though they are above the law (and in some cases, unfortunately, are above the law, at least the law of Man).
 
Back when then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was facing an onslaught of ever-crazier stories of sexual assault, rape and misconduct, ABC News was one of the main headliners of these stories, running multiple reports of these allegations, including the most bombastic one: Julie Swetnick’s. If you remember, her story included multiple parties that she had attended some 30 or 40 years prior where in each and every one, she alleges there were “rape trains” occurring but ultimately could not remember if Kavanaugh was one of the guys who allegedly participated in it.
 
I said that that one was likely the single craziest one and least credible one of them all (few, if any, were credible, with Ford’s being the most likely to have been credible and even then, there were many question marks about her testimony), and yet, ABC News ran with the story as though it was 100% credible and as though there was sufficient evidence in the story to run it.
 
Keep that last point in mind, as it will be important later on.
 
In any case, that is what the fake news organization, ABC News, attempted to do to Kavanaugh: smear him with any and all allegations of heinous acts of rape and sexual misconduct. And yet, according to a recent bombshell video from Project Veritas, the same people who pushed for the crazy and unverified allegations against Kavanaugh decided not to report on the heinous, more credible, and more provable actions of now-deceased Democrat mega-donor Jeffrey Epstein.
 
In a leaked video, ABC News anchor Amy Robach said the following on a hot mic:
 
“I’ve had the story for three years. I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (one of Epstein’s alleged victims and accusers). We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein?’, ‘No one knows who that is,’, ‘This is a stupid story.’ Then the (Royal) Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew (who was implicated in the Epstein story) and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will, that also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the planes. [Roberts] told me everything. She had pictures, she had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years, we convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had, (Bill) Clinton, we had everything.”
 
“I tried for three years to get it on to no avail and now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new relevant revelations and I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now, like every day I get more and more pissed because I’m like, oh my God, what we had was unreal. Other women backing it up. Brad Edwards, the attorney (for the alleged victims), three years ago saying like, ‘there will come a day [when] we will realize Jeffrey was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.’ I had it all three years ago.”
 
Of course, this bombshell of a leaked video had to be addressed by both Amy and her employer, ABC News, particularly because of how bad this makes them look as a news organization. This is extremely similar to the NBC News story where they had the opportunity to report on Harvey Weinstein’s rapes and sexual assaults but chose to bury the story.
 
In any case, here is Amy Robach’s statement regarding the leaked footage and what she said on the hot mic:
 
“As a journalist, as the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations. My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private islands were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015. I was referencing her allegations – not what ABC News had verified through our reporting. The interview itself, while I was disappointed it didn’t air, didn’t meet our standards. In the years since no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.”
 
And here’s ABC News’ statement reflecting something similar to Robach’s:
 
“At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story. Ever since we’ve had a team on this investigation and substantial resources dedicated to it. That work had led to a two-hour documentary and 6-part podcast that will air in the new year.”
 
One key element in both statements is the allegation that ABC News has any sort of editorial standards. I, presently, cannot find any corroborating evidence of such an allegation, given what they considered to be “news-worthy” enough for these people to run.
 
Again, they ran the extremely poor and hilariously bad allegation from JULIE SWETNICK. She alleged something insane, where she expected people to believe she would go to a party held by the same high schoolers (she was in college) around ten different times, knowing after the first experience that “rape trains” would occur and STILL went. And ALL OF THAT just to eventually reveal that she wasn’t even sure whether or not Kavanaugh, the subject in question and the one being marred as a serial rapist and sexual abuser, actually participated in any of the sexual assaults or rapes that allegedly occurred at those parties.
 
Not only was her testimony extremely suspicious and completely incredible (as in, not credible at all), but she ultimately couldn’t even really allege much about THE GUY THESE PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO PAINT AS A RAPIST DEMON and they STILL ran her story as though she were sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the whole world needed to hear her story, despite the fact that Swetnick had no corroborating evidence to anything she was alleging.
 
The statement from Robach even sounds almost like she had a gun to her head from her employers if she didn’t try and correct the record or issue some sort of clarification that would save ABC News’ face to some degree. It sounds extremely forced and for good reason: ABC News wishes they could bury this story like they did the Epstein one.
 
The Epstein story, having heavily implicated both Prince Andrew and former President Bill Clinton (Clinton had traveled in Epstein’s private jets and the pilot logs frequently note that underage girls would accompany him and Epstein, painting Clinton as even more of a sexual assaulter and demon than he already was due to the Broaddrick, Lewisnky and Paula Jones scandals), would’ve hurt the Democrats, particularly then-hopeful Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton.
 
Yet another story implicating Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct would’ve only piled on more to Hillary’s inability to be an electable candidate. The e-mails and the already-known sexual assault allegations made against Bill were bad enough, the last thing the Democrat Party needed was yet another story where “the comeback kid” (a nickname that now sounds so horrible when you think about it) likely could have raped not only more women, but underage girls.
 
This is the utterly despicable hypocrisy the Left-wing media possesses. If a prominent right-winger gets accused of sexual misconduct, it is treated as fact despite all the lacking evidence and even despite any semblance of credibility. Kavanaugh has been forever marred as a rapist and sexual assaulter by these people. His reputation has been eternally tarnished.
 
But if a prominent left-winger gets accused of sexual misconduct, no matter the available evidence or the credibility of the accusation, the story gets buried, ignored and the left-winger continues to be paraded around as a “woke” character who is of great moral standing.
 
Beyond the fact that this is horrendously hypocritical, what’s even worse is the fact that this only puts sexual assault victims and future victims at risk. Real stories will go unreported because of the fake ones that gain national attention and get recognized as fake and young girls are led to believe that these Democrats are good and kind-hearted people, eager to help you with anything you need and can be wholly trusted regarding anything.
 
It puts young girls at risk of being raped and their testimony shut down. It covers for sexual assaulters and rapists and leaves vulnerable girls at risk of it happening to them in the future. Let’s not forget that the Katie Hill story was covered like the Clinton impeachment story was: that it was just about sex. It wasn’t just about sex. It was about having sex with a subordinate, which goes against House ethics rules, and about sexually abusing the subordinate and pimping her out to the representative’s husband. There were PHOTOGRAPHS of this occurring and the media treated Katie Hill like SHE was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
 
Meanwhile, no attention is paid to how her victims feel about the entire fiasco, no attention is paid to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton (and others) because the allegations made are against the people these Leftists in the media support and favor.
 
ABC News should feel utterly ashamed at what they are doing and what they have done, but we know good and well that they have no shame to feel. They’ll sweep this whole ordeal under the rug and go on to continue to report highly incredible allegations against right-wingers where they might pop up and continue to report on how “screwed” Trump is due to the impeachment scam.
 
These people make me sick.
 
Proverbs 17:15
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

We are in early November. Halloween has passed, people are beginning to prepare for Thanksgiving and are beginning to put up Christmas decorations (way too early, in my opinion, but oh well). In other words, we are near the end of 2019. So imagine my surprise to hear perhaps the singular dumbest take I have ever heard, at least with regards to climate change, this late in the year. That is a spectacular feat, in my opinion.
 
Speaking to MSNBC anchors Ali Velshi and Stephanie Ruhle, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo made the ludicrous and rather audacious claim that there were no such things as hurricanes, tornadoes or storms before climate change.
 
“Ali, anyone who questions extreme weather and climate change is just delusional at this point,” began the idiotic governor, not realizing the extreme irony of his statement. “We have seen in the State of New York and we have seen – it is something we never had before. We didn’t have hurricanes or super storms or tornadoes.”
 
A rather short quote, but it says an awful lot about the man’s intellectual capacity.
 
First of all, he’s hilariously wrong, of course. Even doing a simple Google search of “New York hurricanes”, you can find a Wikipedia article that lists the hurricanes that made landfall in New York. The article itself notes 4 hurricanes and 2 super storms before 1800 alone. It notes that one hit as early as 1278 to 1438 (they aren’t certain of the exact date because no one can know for sure about such events without having some way to document/record them, which is a major reason Cuomo is hilariously wrong and a point I will return to).
 
Second of all, the quote in itself is extremely vague. When has there ever not been a change in the climate as time went on? There was never a point in Earth’s history when there wasn’t climate change. That term is far too loosely and erroneously used. “Before climate change” would have to mean before Earth’s very existence. But even still, we know what this idiot means. He means “before man-made climate change”, which is not real. He means “before we started using cars and A/Cs and planes and we had a lot of farting cows.”
 
But again, to return to the Wikipedia article, we find 4 hurricanes and 2 super storms before 1800 alone and we didn’t start using cars more extensively until the early-to-mid 20th century. So how do you go about explaining those storms before the modern excuses made by the Left were actually around?
 
And how do you go about explaining the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods, which occurred WELL before the introduction of cars, A/Cs, planes, oil-powered ships, and whatever else Leftists blame for climate change? Even the Modern Warm Period, which began in the late 1920s or early 1930s, can’t be explained away with these same excuses because there’s no way they would’ve been widely used throughout the world enough to cause the sort of damage the Left claims modern vehicles and numbers of vehicles produce. The first automobiles to be mass produced in the U.S. were the ones with the crank in the front and that began in 1901. Roughly 20 to 30 years of considerably less than 77 million adults (total population of U.S. in 1901 was 77.5 million people, but that includes children, so there are less adults) both having the knowledge to drive and money to afford a car (the 1901 Oldsmobile sold for $650 or $16,000 today and only 1.6% of the population made over $25 a week, which tells you a lot about the worth of money at the time).
 
What I’m trying to say is that not even the Modern Warming Period can be explained away with the excuses the Left throws out.
 
Now, do you want to know what’s particularly ironic with regard to Cuomo’s idiotic claim? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) notes that there has been a “negative trend” of hurricanes making landfall since the late 1800s and no other research has shown an increase of global hurricane activity. So, if anything, there have been LESS hurricanes since “climate change” began, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
 
The final point I wish to make revisits something I said in my first one: there’s no way to tell what happened even a few hundred years ago with perfect accuracy without a means to document and/or record the incident. We especially have no way to track such hurricane and storm activity with a great amount of accuracy less than a millennium ago. So there is absolutely no way for Cuomo to be even relatively right about what he’s saying because he can’t be certain of it himself, at least not while being backed up with facts.
 
Obviously, the facts already go against what Cuomo claims. Today, when we can track, record and document hurricanes, their strength, their path, etc., we still show less hurricanes than before the 1800s, as I mentioned the NOAA noted.
 
Aside from the fact that we already know there is no direct causation between climate change and extreme weather events like hurricanes and other storms, even if there were, the evidence would show that “climate change”, at least during the period the Left claims it began and up until now, has actually been rather beneficial to people. This is assuming the Left is right about the assertion of “when” climate change began.
 
But no matter what way you slice it, what Gov. Andrew Cuomo said is absolutely lunatic. Aside from the fact that there is no way for him to verify that what he says is true, the very basic claim that there was a particular “beginning” to climate change (where he means we have something to do with it) is laughable at best and concerning at worst. Concerning not because he might be right but because we have to live with the knowledge that he is governor of an entire state. This man is the one leading New York right now. Pathetic, isn’t it?
 
The only ones here who actually are delusional are the people that believe man can cause storms like this. That’s some ancient Native American, African tribe type of stuff, where people would try and make it rain through “rain dances”. The belief that man can affect the climate in such a way is not only extremely antiquated, but goes against the very facts that we have and the very knowledge that we possess. It goes against reality itself.
 
But facts don’t matter to the climate cult. Try and explain any of this to someone that fervently believes in man-made climate change and you will be the one tried as a heretic. These people take ancient beliefs about the climate and call it science. An absolute shame.
 
Deuteronomy 4:19
“And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Over the weekend, the U.S. Army’s Delta Force, 75th Ranger Regiment and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment carried out an operation in Syria to assassinate the leader of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and were very successful, getting the terrorist s.o.b. to detonate a suicide vest inside a dead-end tunnel, blowing himself up, alongside three of his children because that’s how much of a psychopath the guy was.
 
And while this is undoubtedly a great moment for the United States and for President Donald Trump, Leftists and people in the media were quick to either refuse praising Trump for this successful raid (odd, considering they praised Obama to the hills as though he personally went to bin Laden’s hideout and shot him in the head after delivering a one-liner like in the movies) or even try to downplay the killing of Baghdadi as not being such a big deal.
 
Leftist “journalists” like John Harwood tried to downplay the killing of Baghdadi by saying: “… in the American psyche, Baghdadi was to bin Laden as an ant is to an elephant.” Bin Laden was the leader of al-Qaeda and was known largely because of 9/11, the biggest terror attack in American soil. Just because Baghdadi never accomplished something quite to that scale (thank God), it doesn’t mean he was basically a nobody. The guy had killed thousands in the Middle East, ruining people’s lives by raping women, making children orphans and killed, captured and beheaded hundreds if not thousands of people.
 
But this insensitive and narcissistic idiot wasn’t alone in trying to downplay the death of Baghdadi. The Washington Post released an article with the title: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”
 
Calling Baghdadi an “austere religious scholar” is like calling Hitler an “austere Darwinian fanatic” or Stalin an “austere fan of food-sharing methods.” The guy was the literal leader of ISIS, a terrorist organization that has killed thousands of people, and he gets the treatment of a Harvard scholar by the WaPo. Unbelievable.
 
Then there was soon-to-be-arrested former Obama National Security director James Clapper downplaying the killing of Baghdadi on CNN’s “State of the Union”:
 
“What is going to be interesting is the extent to which this negatively affects ISIS or does it galvanize ISIS, the remnants of ISIS, which still survive as an ideology and has franchises in other places besides Syria. ISIS is more than just Baghdadi, as important as he was. 14,000 to 18,000 fighters yet remaining and the franchise are branches in other places – notably, Afghanistan where of course we still have forces. ISIS did participate in losing leadership. So they decentralized and groomed people to assume the role. Now, I don’t know that they have anybody [who] would have the symbolic importance of Baghdadi but I don’t think we can say at this point that we can stop worrying about ISIS.”
 
Of course we can’t because the ideology of ISIS stems from radical Islam. As long as that is around, ISIS and other terrorist groups like it will remain. But killing Baghdadi, the founding leader of ISIS, is a pretty major deal (by the way, in doing research on Baghdadi, I came upon his Wikipedia page and they have him as the former leader of “ISIL”, which is the name given to ISIS by those who do not recognize Israel’s sovereignty, and they say that he was “in office” as leader of ISIS as though he was a civilized politician and not the piece of human excrement that he actually was).
 
And even though ISIS is still going to be around after Baghdadi, that doesn’t mean it will likely resurface as a powerful group like it once was (under a certain someone’s presidency). Newsweek, who also downplayed Baghdadi’s assassination, reported that while the group may have a new leader in a man called Abdullah Qardash, they also report that they are on their last legs, as while Qardash may have been hand-picked by Baghdadi to lead ISIS upon Baghdadi’s death, that decision was not made by the group as a whole and it may lead to infighting.
 
And even under the best case scenario for ISIS and the Left, where there is zero infighting and every ISIS officer accepts Qardash and follows him, ISIS has been considered to be reaching its end back in February of 2019, when CBS News reported that the group had lost a lot of ground, being reduced to a little more than a quarter of a square mile in Syria, and that “hundreds” of ISIS fighters and over a thousand civilian tagalongs (meaning families, servants and slaves) had fled the group. ISIS had also been driven out of Iraq in 2017.
 
So while ISIS is still around and is still a threat to people living near them (and let’s not forget there are also radical Islamic terrorists that are in other places like Europe who perform terrorists acts in the name of ISIS as a form of allegiance to them), they have been on the absolute cusp of defeat for a long time now, with zero signs for any sort of resurgence.
 
But Clapper wasn’t the only one who still thinks ISIS is still a major threat. Obama’s Joint Chiefs Vice-Chair James Winnefeld expressed concern over the way Baghdadi’s remains were treated, worrying that it would drive more Islamic violence and arguing that: “If you look back at the bin Laden raid, we treated his body with respect that is due under Islam.”
 
And oh boy do I have a lot to say to this.
 
First of all, Baghdadi’s remains should’ve been picked up and flushed down the nearest toilet, sort of giving him a burial at sea (not certain exactly how his body was treated). That is the LEAST the newest resident of Hell deserves.
 
Second of all, does this moron realize that further Islamic violence came after bin Laden’s death anyway? These terrorists couldn’t care less how “respectfully” bin Laden’s body was treated. They found out that American forces killed him and wanted vengeance for it. Similarly, the remaining ISIS terrorists and supporters will also want vengeance for it.
 
You see, what you have to realize is that these people are not civilized human beings. They are savage dogs who see us being killed by them as justice and us killing them as injustice. They believe they are prophetically-destined to rule the world through Sharia and any who interfere or dissent will be forced to either submit or perish. Their ideology has not evolved in the least since its inception in the 7th century, as evidenced by how much of the Muslim world still works (gays being set on fire or thrown off buildings, blacks being sold in open slave markets, women being sold off for sexual slavery, children being traded for livestock, etc.).
 
While not every single Muslim is a terrorist, groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hamas and others exist because of their radical interpretation of an already pretty radical ideology. Much of the Muslim world, such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc., live as though they are still in the 7th century, albeit with major technological advancements at their disposal.
 
The barbaric violence of the past is still commonplace in the Middle East because of this.
 
Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying violence is absent everywhere else apart from the Middle East and I’m not saying that Islam is the only source of violence. Chicago is a pretty violent place, as are many places in California and most Democrat-run cities. Violence is also present in Leftist Europe (a lot due to Muslim terrorists, but obviously, not all of it is due to them).
 
What I am saying is that there will always be violence with regards to Islam because violence is ENGRAINED in Islam. Wives and children being hit by their husbands/fathers is fairly commonplace and disobedience to the paternal figure in the family is grounds for violence up to even death in some cases.
 
Far from the “religion of peace”, Islam is little more than a death cult. Yes, there are moderates in it, as in any other religion, but most moderates tend to not entirely grasp the concepts and doctrines of Islam. Similar to how moderate “Christians” might defend gay marriage or even come out as gay themselves, they do not fully understand the teachings of Christ and merely interpret them to how they wish it would be. They use eisegesis, meaning putting into the Word of God what is not there, rather than exegesis, meaning taking what is in the Word of God out for learning and teaching. They put into the Word of God the words of Man, which utterly distorts the teaching of the Bible.
 
And while one might wish to defend Islam to some extent and point out that we call these radical Islamic terrorists “radical”, we do have to remember that the founder of Islam, the “prophet” Muhammad, would raid, capture and kill people with his armies of followers, ordering the murder of dissenters and criticizers of Islam (kind of like how it is now) and telling his soldiers that it was okay to rape the women that they captured, even if they were married, to be sold or traded, or even were prepubescent.
 
The Quran stands in stark contrast to the Jewish Scriptures and the Bible’s New Testament books. Muhammad taught that it was okay to use violence against dissenters and that his mission was to drive out from the Arabian Peninsula all Jews and Christians.
 
Violence from ISIS sympathizers and fighters will continue, not because they will grow in strength and numbers (at least, they won’t under Trump), but because that’s simply the nature of the ideology they espouse. They believe they are destined to set up a global caliphate and that violence and aggression will be the best course of action for accomplishing that.
 
It doesn’t matter if we treat Baghdadi’s body with respect like we did bin Laden or if we put his remains into a cannon and launch it into what remains of ISIS territory – these people will always hate us and wish to cause us harm.
 
But returning to the overall story of Trump’s accomplishment over Baghdadi and ISIS, I love the fact that these fools would go to such lengths to either try and downplay the significance of this or would outright defend Baghdadi and give him any sort of reverence like the Washington Post did. It goes to show just whose side these people are on and is a great campaign topic for Donald Trump. Of course, there are a lot more examples than the ones I shared with you, but I think you get the idea about who these people are and with whom they choose to side.
 
Romans 2:6-8
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

If you were to go to any politician’s tweets, you would often find a lot of people expressing opposing views to what the tweets say or even to what the politician generally believes, disregarding what the tweet actually says. This is often the case for President Trump’s personal Twitter account, Nancy Pelosi, and even for many news sites that share political news and generally fake news.
 
However, the media finds this to mean heavy opposition to something or someone in general. So when writing their news, they say things along the lines of “social media erupted about person x’s position” or “person y received some major fire on social media for this particular action.”
 
That is often the mistake the media makes, in believing the views expressed on social media are a reflection of the country as a whole. However, that is a mistake for a number of reasons.
 
Reason number 1, and perhaps most importantly, only 22% of Americans use Twitter. That leaves another 78% of Americans without being able to express their own opinions on something and the media takes what they do see as a general reflection of the country’s views.
 
Reason number 2, Pew Research Center found that, while 39% of the users that were studied (out of a total of 2,400) tweeted at least one time about national politics, the vast majority of political Twitter, or 97%, came from just 10% of users. Meaning that the number of people who are often engaged in politics on the social media site is exceedingly small.
 
What’s more, the vast majority of that 10% are heavy critics of Trump, make up 80% of all tweets from US adults (meaning that these anti-Trumpers would tweet far more often than those who do not necessarily actively hate Trump) and generated 72% of the tweets talking about politics. By contrast, those who strongly approve of Trump made up only 11% of tweets from US adults and 25% of tweets about politics.
 
This tells me a few things. First, the Never Trumpers have no lives. Second, some shadow banning or outright banning is likely in play here. And finally, Trump supporters have better things to do with their lives than to stay engaged 24/7 being offended and triggered by just about everything they see. I know that last point is similar to the first, but it’s worth pointing out.
 
What’s also rather interesting are the numbers regarding age demographics. Boomers, those aged 65 and older, while they only produced 10% of all US adult tweets, contributed 33% to the political tweets. Those aged 50 and older produced 29% of all tweets, but contributed 73% of political ones. Finally, those aged 18-29 produced 20% of all tweets, but a surprisingly low 4% of all political tweets.
 
There could be a number of reasons for why these numbers are what they are. For one, millennials might simply not make up too huge of a population on Twitter. Yes, while they are seemingly double the number of boomers (in the study, at least), Twitter is far from the most popular social media site for younger generations. Among 18-24 year olds, 44% said they use Twitter, compared to 73% who say they use Snapchat, 75% who say they use Instagram, 90% who say they use YouTube (though not certain that one counts as social media) and 76% say they use Facebook.
 
For the most part, it seems that millennials are more interested in taking pictures of things or themselves and sharing them on social media sites that are built specifically for those things, like Snapchat and Instagram. Or, they generally also intend to have social lives and use Facebook to chat and hang out with friends.
 
But still, it is rather remarkable that out of the 20% of millennials who made up all US tweets (in the study), only 4% were political tweets.
 
Regardless, it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of political tweets are from a very small number of people. And yet, the media acts as though it’s a reflection of the rest of the country and as though they matter.
 
For example, The Independent recently had an article about Chris Pratt titled: “Chris Pratt called sexist after mocking wife’s cooking: ‘Proud of my darling for trying to cook tonight.’” An article where Pratt lightly mocked his wife’s cooking for having burnt a bagel to a crisp.
 
And while this is indeed not about politics, it does reflect what the media often does with Twitter engagement. What do I mean? Well, while the article makes it sound like a lot of people on social media decried Pratt as sexist, only 6 people actually did that or something of that caliber, none of whom have anywhere close to a thousand followers. They were just random accounts with a few hundred followers at best and far from people anyone would really pay attention to.
 
Had it been a fellow actor or a semi-prominent journalist, that may have been a different story. But 6 people no one knows say the guy is sexist and The Independent writes a whole article about it? Even the tweets that criticized Pratt had no more than THREE LIKES MAX! My average political tweet tends to have a bigger response than that AND I’M EVERY BIT THE SOCIAL MEDIA NOBODY THESE PEOPLE ARE!
 
So the next time some fake news media site says that “Twitter blew up today when such and such said this”, ignore it because it’s far from an accurate descriptor of how the American people feel. And while I do sometimes talk about the reaction someone got on Twitter, like when Ben Rhodes trashed the NBA for kowtowing to China, it’s to point out a surprising moment when even (some) Leftists would not defend such actions.
 
But the next time the media tries to convince you that Trump or someone else they hate said or did something they think is dumb and adds that “Twitter blew up” about it, remember that it does not reflect the overall sentiment of Americans.
 
Psalm 101:7
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The New York Times, ever-so full of integrity and without a shred of disgusting hypocrisy to be found, discovered a YouTube video made by pro-Trump meme-maker Carpe Donktum that depicts the character of a movie called Kingsman: The Secret Service with a superimposed picture of Trump on him killing various people inside a church who all have pictures of various news organizations, Left-wing organizations and even Leftist politicians superimposed on to them.
 
The video, as it featured a superimposed Trump committing violent acts against the media and his typical critics, drew outrage from said media people.
 
CNN released a statement that said: “Sadly, this is not the first time that supporters of the President have promoted violence against the media in a video they apparently find entertaining – but it is by far and away the worst. The images depicted are vile and horrific. The President and his family, the White House, and the Trump campaign need to denounce it immediately in the strongest possible terms. Anything less equates to a tacit endorsement of violence and should not be tolerated by anyone.”
 
Well, the White House did issue a statement on it denouncing the violence depicted in the video, which they claim has not been seen by the President. But here are a few things to note about this whole ordeal:
 
First of all, the video had been up for 16 MONTHS on YouTube before this. The only reason it’s being brought to anyone’s attention is because it was played at the American Priority Conference, a pro-Trump conference in Trump’s Doral resort. However, the video was not played to the public. It was played on a couple of screens inside a big, empty room and the video itself had less than 100,000 views on YouTube before the NYT brought attention to it.
 
Second, what a load of crap CNN is. The past “promotions of violence against the media” they describe are, at worst, depicting Trump doing wrestling moves against the media. Back in July of 2017, CNN cried “foul” over a meme by Carpe Donktum that shows Trump wrestling someone with the CNN logo superimposed on them. It was pure entertainment and very obviously fake.
 
Third, how is it that the video of Trump being depicted killing MSM and political opponents is considered a depiction of violence, but the actual movie that had a guy kill church-goers (who had been driven mad by a chemical released by an environmentalist super-villain) is not considered a depiction of violence against church-goers?
 
 
Similarly, what about the countless times members of ANTIFA have physically assaulted Trump supporters, members of the media (if you want to talk about violence against the media), elderly people and all-around anyone they can possibly find to try and intimidate because they are terrorists? Is that not considered violence?
 
Or what about the Trump rendition of “Julius Caesar” that was SPONSORED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES that shows a character whose likeness resembles Trump an awful lot being assassinated, Julius Caesar style, and calling that art? Is that not considered a depiction of violence?
 
And what about Snoop Dogg making a music video where he “shoots” someone who is very clearly supposed to represent Donald Trump, with a suit, a red tie, blonde hair, an orange face and clown make-up? Doesn’t that depict an “act of violence” against Trump?
 
All of these things either go unreported by the fake news media or are SUPPORTED by the fake news media as being “art” or “entertainment” or something else. I still remember MSNBC host Nicole Wallace saying that ANTIFA were “good people” on “the side of angels” for what they did at Charlottesville.
 
Tell me what’s worse: a very obvious meme video of Trump “killing” fake news and political opponents, or actual acts of physical violence not only against Trump supporters but anyone the ANTIFA terrorists can try and get away with harming, possibly even killing if they could?
 
What’s worse: a meme video of a scene in an action movie being repurposed for the sake of the meme, or plays, videos and pictures of a murdered President Donald Trump? And in case anyone’s forgotten, Kathy Griffin took a picture of herself holding a paper mache version of Trump’s bloodied and severed head, in a picture that honestly makes you think someone from ISIS could’ve taken.
 
The meme video might be in poor taste, all things considered, but regardless of what one can say about it, it’s nowhere near as bad as the things THE LEFT CONSTANTLY DOES. And for the fake news media to feign outrage over this, or to have actual outrage over this, all-the-while ignoring what ANTIFA is doing to Trump supporters, ignoring what Leftist voters are doing to Trump supporters (how many people have had to leave a restaurant or other public place because of their support for Trump?), or even ENDORSING these things is outright disgusting.
 
Do you want to know why I never had a problem with Trump calling the media the “enemy of the people”? Because he was exactly right and every day proves it even more.
 
It’s not just the fake news stories that serve to misinform people (the Russian collusion story, despite having no weight to it, is still believed by most people who still watch their crap), but it’s their very actions and words too.
 
Donny Deutsch calling Trump and his supporters “Hitler” and “Nazis” may be nothing new, but it’s still outrageous because of the sort of danger it puts us in. The idea of “punching Nazis in the face” is seen as perfectly acceptable because these people actually think we are Nazis when they are the ones far closer to that sort of ideology than we are.
 
Let’s not forget that the Virginia baseball shooter only did what he did in trying to kill as many Republicans as he could because Bernie Sanders had him convinced Republicans were going to kill him and many others by “taking away their healthcare”.
 
Let’s not forget that the ICE fire bomber only did what he did because of AOC’s stance against ICE.
 
I’m not going to directly blame these politicians for the actions of their supporters, but they can’t claim that Trump uses inflammatory and dangerous language while calling him Hitler and us Nazis in the same sentence. They can’t say that Trump is hateful when they openly demonize law enforcement agencies who are only doing what they are SUPPOSED TO DO.
 
For the New York Times, CNN and other news outlets to cry “victim” over the MEME VIDEO THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN is, itself, the actual outrage, considering their track record.
 
How is a Donald Trump rendition of “Julius Caesar”, where Trump is brutally assassinated, considered “art” and “entertainment” and a silly video of a movie scene with Trump and his political opponents superimposed onto the actual characters of the movie is considered as “depicting violence” against the media?
 
I’ll tell you how: these people are utterly narcissistic.
 
Remember when the media lambasted a rodeo because someone had a Barack Obama mask that kind of mocked him even though they had also mocked George W. Bush?
 
Compare and contrast the two presidents then: Obama? Can’t even make fun of him. Trump? Can show him brutally assassinated and it’s considered “art” and it’s sacred.
 
The Left is full of hypocritical narcissists who wouldn’t know a joke if they had a debate stage full of them.
 
John 3:20
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

With the Democrat Party’s efforts to insist to the American people that President Trump committed impeachable offenses during his phone call with Ukraine (despite the fact the transcript is public and anyone with an internet connection can tell nothing of the sort occurred), Fox News, which always has Trump’s numbers in the gutter, released a recent poll that said 51% of Americans wanted President Trump impeached and removed from office.
 
However, there are a number of problems with that poll.
 
For starters, the sample size is rather small, with 1,003 registered voters. That’s not incredibly small, but smaller than others such as Rasmussen, who tend to have 1,500 registered voters.
 
But the most important aspect is the sample of political affiliation. It’s not hard to get 51% saying Trump needs to be impeached and removed from office when you poll 48% Democrats, 40% Republicans and 12% Independents.
 
There are far more Democrats than Republicans or Independents in this poll (likely on purpose) for this to really be an accurate belief for the majority of American people.
 
Literally all you need is all Democrats and a couple Never Trump Republicans and Left-leaning Independents to achieve 51%.
 
And the kicker? The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. In other words, it could easily still be 48% of Americans want Trump impeached and removed from office, which interestingly enough, is the same percentage of Democrats polled in this survey.
 
Obviously, Fox News is trying to tell Republicans to abandon Trump, as “a majority of Americans favor impeachment and removal” of Trump. But when you get into the details of the survey, you find it to be nothing but a farce.
 
Oversampling Democrats is what all fake news polls do every single time to make the numbers appear to be better or worse, depending on the narrative they want the poll to drive.
 
It’s what multiple polls did throughout 2016, when some polls had Hillary ahead of Trump by DOUBLE DIGITS at the very least and running away with the election. Obviously, that didn’t happen.
 
Rasmussen was the only one that accurately predicted the 2016 election and in their survey, while Trump’s numbers are down a tad, it’s nothing major.
 
Trump’s approval currently stands at 47%. While that’s lower than the low-50s that Trump tends to enjoy, that is actually relatively normal for the President.
 
It’s necessary to note that this is a daily tracking poll of Trump’s approval, which will naturally tend to be rather volatile from day to day. Just two days ago, it was at 45% and it’s been hovering in the high-40s since the beginning of the month a couple of weeks ago.
 
And this is all coming off of the Democrats’ latest attempt at smearing Trump, with suggesting, without evidence, that Trump broke the law during his July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
 
No doubt, the allegation has damaged Trump a little bit, but nowhere close to what the fake news media suggests or would want to be real.
 
Again, the Fox News survey sampled far more Democrats than Republicans or Independents. And even then, they barely got a majority out of the total number.
 
I know very well that the Democrats and their voters want to get rid of Donald Trump. Impeachment is something they’ve been wanting heavily since Trump won in the first place, before the Russian collusion narrative was even formed. They wanted him gone just for winning and that’s still the case, even if they fall back on Ukraine or Russia being the reason.
 
But the rest of America doesn’t seem to be with them, considering that only 39% of Independents said Trump should be impeached and removed and 47% disagreed IN THIS VERY POLL. My guess would be that the real number of people who want Trump impeached and removed from office is somewhere in the mid-to-high-30s or low-40s, if all things are equal.
 
The reason for this line of thinking, apart from the obvious oversampling and poll-manipulating tactics used by Fox News, is that Rasmussen poll.
 
47% is, again, pretty normal for Trump. Heck, despite everything being thrown at him, he still enjoys a better approval rating than Obama did at the same point in his own presidency.
 
In October 2011, President Barack Obama’s approval rating stood at only 42%. And he didn’t have the media with over 90% negative news coverage of him spreading fake news stories about trying to dig up dirt on his political opponents and working with foreign governments to meddle in a presidential election (ironic that he did those things, at least for 2016).
 
Trump has the radical Leftist fake news media trying to destroy him, Fox News hosts who hate his guts and will lie about him just as badly as the rest of the Left, Never Trump Republicans like Mitt Romney pushing for impeachment, and still, despite all of that, he is a more popular president than Barack Obama.
 
Is it any wonder, at this point, why trust in the media is at such an all-time low? When the people whose job is to report reality are trying, instead, to shape it and convince people of a fantasy, what credibility do those people have? What reason does anyone have to trust what Chuck Todd or Jim Acosta or Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper or David Brooks or Shepherd Smith or Neil Cavuto or any of these bozos have to say when all they do is attempt to deceive their audience with poorly-researched pieces, opinion-laden “news” articles and minimal effort in verifying the credibility of the sources they use? Or when they oversample Democrats BY 8 PERCENTAGE POINTS MORE THAN REPUBLICANS IN A SURVEY ABOUT OVERALL AMERICAN VOTER SENTIMENT?!
 
The hiring of Donna Brazile and Paul Ryan are quite symbolic of the kind of organization Fox News is: Never Trump, far-Leftist, Washington Establishment bullcrap.
 
Without people like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Judge Jeanine Pirro, Fox News would sink to the ground.
 
And they would completely deserve it.
 
Psalm 52:2
“Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit.”
 
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.

​With the Democrats jumping the shark with this latest attempt to smear President Trump as having committed a crime (none can be found and they have to make stuff up) and seeking to launch an impeachment inquiry before either the Ukraine phone call transcript or the whistleblower complaint were released, it’s quite obvious that Nancy Pelosi has completely lost control of the Democrat Party in the House of Representatives, which is the reason Trump tweeted that she was no longer the House Speaker (which the humorless Left considered to be an official declaration from him that he doesn’t have the power to do and not a joke at Pelosi’s expense).
 
Along this decision to launch an impeachment inquiry that will ultimately backfire on the Left harder than the Russian collusion hoax (just as little evidence of wrongdoing and tons of made-up bullcrap made to smear the President won’t get rid of Trump, I can assure you), Pelosi told The Texas Tribune CEO and co-founder Evan Smith that it didn’t matter if the Democrats lost the House in 2020.
 
Smith first said: “I want to ask you… heading into the next election cycle, do you have any anxiety at all about any of the stuff we’re talking about or anything that we’re not talking about impacting your ability to hold control of the House in 2020?”
 
Pelosi replied: “Doesn’t matter… Our first responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
 
Yeah, right. If that were what you were seeking to do, you wouldn’t be launching an impeachment inquiry based on a hearsay report… before that report was even made public.
 
She continued: “People say you have to take a political risk doing that. That doesn’t matter. That doesn’t matter because we cannot have a President of the United States undermining his oath of office, his loyalty to his oath of office, undermining our national security, and undermining the integrity of our elections. Our elections are the fundamental point of our democracy.”
 
Okay, two things. First, we are not a democracy. We are a republic. Unfortunately, those two terms are used so interchangeably, even by Pelosi later on in the interview, that most people have completely forgotten what the difference is and think they are the same thing. They are not.
 
Second, where was this “patriotism” when Obama had the FBI spy on Trump? Where was it when Obama let 4 Americans die in Benghazi? Where was it when Obama’s IRS began to spy on conservatives? Where was it when Obama’s DOJ gave guns to the cartel? Where was it when Obama promised Medvedev that he would “have more flexibility” after the 2012 election?
 
Every single charge the Democrats throw at Trump has been committed by Barack Obama. Every lie they spread about Trump is a truth about Obama. Democrats didn’t care as Obama superseded the Constitution when he used an EO to bring DACA into law or when he made a nuclear deal with Iran without having Congress ratify it.
 
When a Democrat acts like a dictator, these people have no problem. When a Republican is in office, the Democrats will lie and say he is a dictator.
 
But in any case, allow me to get to the main point of this article. To reiterate, Nancy Pelosi says that it doesn’t matter if the Democrats lose the House in 2020 if Trump gets impeached. I really only have one question: if impeachment of Trump is as popular as some polls would have us believe, such as a CBS poll which says that 55% of people approve of an impeachment inquiry into Trump, why would the Democrats be in trouble of losing the House in 2020?
 
If impeaching Trump is as demanded as the Left claims it is, as the fake news polls claim it is, then how are the Democrats the ones at risk in 2020? You would think that if impeachment is as highly-desired by the vast majority of the American populace that the party moving forward with impeachment would be a lock-in to win the White House, the Senate, and keep the House, if not grow their majority.
 
Pelosi, who only a week or so ago claimed there was no way a Democrat wouldn’t win the White House in 2020, is now accepting the fact that there is a possibility the Democrats would lose the House come 2020?
 
These people aren’t as confident that Trump will be impeached and defeated as they might claim to be. In fact, if Al Green is anything to go by, the only reason they are looking to impeach Trump is because they KNOW he will win reelection.
 
While it only takes a simple majority in the House to impeach Trump, which the Democrats have, impeachment does not mean removal from office. It also doesn’t mean that Trump can’t run for reelection. The removal of Trump would have to be the Senate’s job, where a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, would be required. And given the composition of the current Senate, that would mean a third of Republicans would have to vote in favor of removal, which is unlikely, even with traitors like Romney, Mike Lee and the others who voted against Trump’s National Emergency declaration to build the wall.
 
So even if the House does vote in favor of impeaching Trump, that doesn’t mean he’s defeated. It taints his presidency for sure, but it’s not the complete and utter defeat that the Democrats would want.
 
And again, I highly doubt that the impeachment of Trump is what most people want, as people are reading into these polls. If it were as demanded by people as these polls might claim, the Democrats would not stand to lose anything in 2020.
 
If you remember, I used to say that the reason Pelosi was trying to hold back against the radical Leftists in her party demanding for impeachment was because this would put Democrats in swing states at risk of losing their seats if they were forced to vote on impeachment. If you remember from an article last month where I discussed what would likely happen if Democrats were to seek to impeach Trump (granted, this was before the Russian-collusion 2.0 story came up), Democrat voters in purple states were at risk of losing voters regardless of what way they voted. Simply being forced to vote for it would mean risking their seats.
 
But now, Pelosi has either succumbed to the pressure from the radical Leftists in her party or she has gone full-blown TDS (likely a bit of both).
 
Now, launching an impeachment inquiry into Trump is not the same as holding the actual impeachment vote itself. It could also be that Pelosi is simply trying to buy some time by having an impeachment inquiry, that way they can attack Trump and she can give the radicals a little something to chew on for the time being. But I don’t know for sure why Pelosi has decided to do this, particularly given the timing of the entire thing.
 
It’s one thing if there is an allegation against Trump and there is a whistleblower complaint (that is nothing but hearsay, but let’s pretend it’s relatively legit for the time being) that could then be made public. But launching an impeachment inquiry before people even know the reason for it apart from fake news reports is… surprisingly short-sighted from Pelosi.
 
Although, the more you think about it, with what we know from the NYT, that AG Bill Barr is also trying to work with Australia (who also had a hand in the 2016 smear of Trump), it becomes clear that the purpose behind all of this the Democrats simply have no other choice. Barr might be inching closer and closer to finding the many skeletons in the Democrats' closet which could absolutely destroy them come 2020. They failed in destroying him and now, that failure might come back to bite them, if Barr finds and releases what I think he will find and release. At the end of the day, all this is is a cover up of 2016 and obstruction of justice.

But regardless of what may be the purpose behind this impeachment inquiry, one thing is certain: they are not as confident as they pretend they are that this will get rid of Trump for good. To reiterate, if this is truly what the vast majority of the American people wanted, there would be no risk for the Democrats in the House in 2020, or any other public office. Pelosi could’ve just as easily replied by saying: “I won’t even entertain that thought as it’s not possible” or simply allude to the impossibility of Democrats coming up massive losers here. But she didn’t. She acknowledged the Democrats could lose and lose big.
 
If this truly was the course the American people wanted to take, the Democrats would only stand to gain from launching an impeachment inquiry. I think Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats, are seriously mischaracterizing what the will of the American people is. Not that I can blame them, with fake news polls showing what they are showing. The Democrats live and die by polls telling them they are winning and they are special. If a poll essentially gives them the green light to begin an impeachment inquiry or even formal proceedings, even if it’s nothing but fake news, these people will roll with it. They are that self-involved and narcissistic that they believe they can do no wrong and everything they do is seen as perfection by the majority of people.
 
But reality has to set in at one point or another. Likely, that point will be November 4th, 2020, the day after the election when a winner will have been decided.
 
Proverbs 6:12-15
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
 
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 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:

• Reports on fake news – 53%
• Reporting gossip – 49%
• Lying spokespeople – 48%
• Celebrity opinions – 36%
• Left-wing agendas – 34%
• Gotcha journalism – 33%
• Right-wing agendas – 32%
• Puff pieces in exchange for access to other important interviews – 31%
• Blind items being reported in the news – 30%
• Hit pieces – 21%
• Rise of independent contributors versus on-staff media – 14%

 
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”:

• 64%: It creates division and partisanship
• 63%: It fuels inaccuracies
• 60%: It incites hate
• 57%: It creates fear

 
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:

• From The U.K. Telegraph: “Britain warming faster than average.”
• From China Daily News: “China warming faster than global average.”
• From CBC (Canadian news): “Canada warming at twice the global rate, leaked report finds.”
• From a Swedish news org: “Sweden’s temperature is rising more than TWICE as fast as the global average.”
• From an Australian news org: “Australia Is Heating Up Faster Than The Rest Of The World.”
• From a Swiss news org: “Global warming to impact Switzerland at twice average speed, warns researcher.”

 
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.