I’ve already noted, time and time again, that the Left has convinced itself that there is no possible way that Trump wins in November. This was echoed in 2016, when they were really wrong, and I don’t expect it to be different this year.
 
The Left relies far too heavily on polls that they can manipulate and rig (and often do exactly that) and determine the likely results of the election from that alone. They look at national and state polls, particularly battleground state polls, and convince themselves that Trump is toast and there is little, if anything, he can do to save himself.
 
I’ve already expressed why this is utter malarkey time and time again, whether you are talking about the 2016 election or the 2020 one, but one writer for Spectator USA (not to be confused with the American Spectator) is not at all convinced that Biden will defeat Trump.
 
The title of his piece is: “Get ready for Trump’s second term,” and the subhead reads: “Much depends on whose hands control each House of Congress.”
 
So this writer, named Leonard Toboroff, is convinced of the exact opposite of what the Left is convinced about: Trump is going to win re-election.
 
He begins by noting who exactly Trump’s opponent is: “President Trump’s adversaries are running Joe Biden, a fallback Beltway lifer who is credibly accused of selling his office, leaking false intel about Gen. Flynn to the Washington Post and handsiness with female political allies. Oh, and it appears that a prosecutor in Ukraine is digging into the potential criminal liability of the one or more persons who gorged on Burisma’s trove of US taxpayer funds. Joe’s son Hunter is named, and so Joe, in a context not yet fully disclosed.”
 
Now, the fake news media will never pay attention to the graveyard that is Biden’s closet, but informed voters will take note of the many illegal dealings of Joe Biden, as well as his questionable character and record of failure as Senator and Vice President.
 
However, the election will be about far more than Joe Biden’s past. Toboroff notes that if there is a criminal investigation in Ukraine, nothing much will come of it, pending a potential Joe Biden plea of cognitive impairment that will allow him to walk (though, if such a plea is made before the election, that would be rather devastating to his campaign because it’s one thing to note he is mentally impaired, but it’s another thing entirely for him to admit it to a court – not that I actually expect anything to come out of Biden’s dealings with Burisma).
 
But Toboroff eventually begins talking more specifically about Trump and brings some much-needed logic to illogical fake news polls. He writes: “How is it possible for Trump to have 54 percent approval on the economy and 70 percent disapproval on the virus – and in the same poll? Nor would 300,000 people have donated a total of $20 million in a single virtual fundraiser by Trump if they believed the near-unanimous propaganda that he’s certain to lose in November. Nor would the ‘peaceful’ (Joe’s word) burning down of a courthouse in Portland, Oregon, cheered on by its mayor, edge Trump into a two- or three-point snap lead over Joe in a solid blue bastion.”
 
And he’s right about this. It makes no sense for so many people to be willing to donate to Trump if everyone and their grandmother believes it’s a lost cause. You don’t donate to a candidate you think will lose just because you might be trying to make a point or because you believe in their agenda or whatever else. You donate because you expect them to win and believe they will win.
 
The Saudis didn’t donate to the Clinton Foundation as much as they did because they expected Hillary to lose. They believed she would win, and when she didn’t, the Foundation saw a sharp decline in donations. The Saudis (and others) were trying to buy access.
 
But with Trump, regular people are donating their money and it makes no sense if they expected him to lose, especially in economic times such as these, when many people’s jobs have either been furloughed or eliminated completely.
 
People do not believe the fake news polls that claim Trump is toast. These polls were claiming the same thing LAST SUMMER, back when even the people RUNNING the polls didn’t really believe the polls and wholeheartedly expected Trump to sweep through reelection. These polls were claiming the same thing in 2016 as well, even up to election day itself, when some people had Clinton’s chances of election to be over 98%!
 
The fake news polls can claim whatever they want – reality will show something far different.
 
At any rate, Toboroff continued, noting the sort of approval ratings he is getting from Rasmussen, which is at around 48% and “trending up.”
 
“Translated logically, this gives Trump a wide lead in all battleground states that would translate into a bit more than 300 Electoral College votes. Let’s take this as grounds for examining what a second Trump term would lead us to expect.”
 
Toboroff notes that a lot will depend on which party gets control of both chambers of Congress. Like Lincoln, he writes, Trump “faces a House divided.” But he expects Trump and Republicans to win back the House, while also keeping the Senate as well.
 
With this expectation, Toboroff says that one of the biggest, if not the biggest focal point for the next four years will be the situation with China, specifically, militarily. “Trump will believe that a military buildup will propel economic growth – and it might, because now ‘military’ encompasses most all of the strands of American energy, from innovation to distribution.”
 
He notes that Trump won’t trust his intel community’s report on the military strength of China and will test and verify for himself just how strong they are, be it through pushing back against the ChiComs at the South China Sea or by possibly protecting Taiwan from a potential invasion (especially since Hong Kong has fallen to the Chinese communists and Taiwan was never recognized by China as an independent nation).
 
Now, I do not exactly want a conflict with China that would escalate into a war, particularly as we are trying to get out of endless wars in the Middle East, which establishment members of both parties have prolonged for as long as possible. But with a militarily-aggressive China, Trump will have to do something, especially if we wish to keep China from growing its influence (which has been a bit shattered by the Chinese coronavirus).
 
On the Homefront, Toboroff writes that “rebalancing the judiciary” aka turning the lower courts away from the radical liberals and towards the Constitutional conservatives, focusing on an American education system that does not promote the failed and dangerous ideology of communism and focusing on punishing the people that tried to undermine Trump’s first term with the Russia hoax are things that Trump will have to keep an eye on.
 
These, I would argue, are some of the biggest issues in America today. The Left’s influence is far too massive and obstructive in the lower (and highest) courts and we need to change that. Regarding education, I have long written about how we need to reform education so that communism does not get promoted and taught (in a positive way) in schools, while also bringing back God into the classrooms (and the atheists who have a problem with that can lick my boot).
 
Toboroff suggests charter schools, which is definitely a good option. Charter schools are schools of choice (not dependent on districting) and are independently run, though publicly funded. The Left HATES charter schools almost as much as they hate homeschooling because they can’t get their filthy paws all over the students to corrupt their young minds and teacher’s unions don’t apply to these schools.
 
They don’t like charter schools because they work fairly capitalistically: if they are better, parents will choose to send their kids there, as opposed to the crappy ones. The Left doesn’t want parents to have a choice as to where to send their kids to school (at least, as long as the parents live in a particular district and don’t move out).
 
Transforming the education system will be crucial for the future of this country, which the Left has had far too much influence in constructing.
 
In any case, to begin wrapping up, Toboroff fully expects Trump to win a second term and expects that second term to be rather full for Trump, what with having to deal with a 21st century USSR, having to ideologically reform the judiciary, having to practically reform the education system so as to not indoctrinate generations into foolishly and dangerously believing communism is not absolute crap, and dealing with American traitors who tried to cheat in the 2016 election, failed, and then tried to undermine Trump’s first term and remove a duly-elected president through the Russia hoax.
 
I, like Toboroff, do not buy into the idea that Trump is finished (as I have demonstrated in numerous articles). The only thing I will add is that no one should buy into the idea that Trump can’t lose and get complacent as a result. The Left will do what it can to cheat in this election; they will pull out every dirty trick they have to in order to ensure Trump doesn’t win again. We cannot afford to get complacent and believe Trump is guaranteed to win. I believe he will, but will go out to vote (IN PERSON) to ensure his victory.
 
Deuteronomy 20:4
“For the Lord your God is he who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The fake news media, for the past couple of months, was reporting on the riots as being “peaceful protests”, and only recently have they figured that showing a bunch of violence does not lend credence to their words, so they have just decided to claim they were peaceful while not showing any of the violence that is objectively happening in many places.
 
As always, despite what the media reports, reality is considerably different. However, there sometimes are fairly objective reporters, even in relatively Leftist organizations like the Associated Press, who are embedded in the thick of the stories and have to report what they are actually seeing themselves – or at least, feel compelled to tell the truth instead of denying the reality they themselves might be witnessing.
 
Mike Balsamo is an investigative reporter for the Associated Press who was in the thick of the riots in Portland, and more specifically, the riots attempting to destroy a federal courthouse.
 
Balsamo reports in a Twitter thread: “I spent the weekend inside the Portland federal courthouse w/ the US Marshals. Mortars were being fired off repeatedly, fireworks & flares shot into the lobby, frozen bottles, concrete, cans & bouncy balls regularly whizzed over the fence at high speeds.”
 
He continues: “We wanted to show you a look inside the protests from both perspectives – out in the crowd with protesters and inside the courthouse with federal officers. It was a really eye opening [sic] experience to see it firsthand. I was inside the courthouse & [a fellow AP reporter] was outside the fence.”
 
“I watched as injured officers were hauled inside. In one case, the commercial firework came over so fast the officer didn’t have time to respond. It burned through his sleeves & he had bloody gashes on both forearms. Another had a concussion from being hit in the head w/ a mortar.”
 
“The lights inside the courthouse have to be turned off for safety & the light from high-powered lasers bounced across the lobby almost all night. The fear is palpable. Three officers were struck in the last few weeks & still haven’t regained their vision.”
 
“When we were out inside the fence line, someone fired off a mortar. It exploded inches away from us, but no one was hurt. A large bonfire had been started in the street & people were aiming fireworks through the fire at officers behind the fence. It was almost 2:30 a.m. then.”
 
“The officers outside the Portland courthouse have been hit by an array of objects from canned food to ball bearings fired from slingshots. On Saturday night, a DHS officer was soaked completely in orange paint thrown from one of many paint cans later seized by authorities.”
 
Balsamo also reports that the “tactical decisions” made by the federal agents were “very thought out”, largely in order to avoid escalation and larger trouble. Reportedly, at one point, the rioters had cut a large hole in the fence and decided not to go out to avoid escalation. They only really acted and dispersed the crowd once the entire section of the fence was pulled down.
 
Before I move on, I would like to speak of a couple of things. First, while I can perhaps understand that this is the AP and they have certain “standards” for reporting on these things, it is still a shame that Balsamo referred to these people as “protesters.” They are not protesters; they are violent communist rioters. Many of them don’t even know exactly why they are there other than to spread chaos and try to “take down capitalism.”
 
This has LONG ceased to be about racism or police brutality or whatever else. Those things may be the excuses thrown by some of the rioters if one were to ask them, and certainly, those are the excuses thrown by the media and the Left, but they are nothing more than that: excuses. If this were about racism, black-owned businesses would not have been burned down within the first WEEKEND that this whole debacle started. If this were about police brutality, Nike stores and jewelry stores would not be constantly looted (not that I care one wit about Nike, considering they benefit from slave labor in China. If looting their stores hurts them financially, good).
 
Secondly, while I can understand decisions made by those in charge of the federal agents, particularly to try and protect the agents themselves, I don’t know why they don’t just stomp all over the would-be communist revolutionaries present. The riots in Portland have been happening for two months straight, and this is without taking into account that Antifa riots had been happening rather regularly in Portland for at least the last few YEARS. Granted, their hands may be fairly tied by the local government and the honest-to-God moronic mayor, but one would think they would try a bit more to defeat the riots, considering these are FEDERAL agents. Not sure if federal agents have to answer to the mayor of a city, but these riots are not going to end any time soon until they are UTTERLY defeated.
 
What that means could be a number of things. Maybe arresting the lot of them, but they can only arrest so many people, and not all of them are taking actions that directly harm the officers, so they wouldn’t be in jail for all that long and would quickly rejoin the riots because these people have no lives. Maybe electoral victories, but that would be outside of the agents’ power and it would have to mean a majority of people in Portland voting out spineless people like the mayor, but the riots would still go on (I also do not at all expect Democrats to lose in that city).
 
I don’t know what the solution to the Portland riots are, especially as they had been happening for some time now, apart from a show of overwhelming force that serves to completely demoralize these criminals, and even then, who knows how effective that would be?
 
At any rate, returning to Balsamo, he then goes on to report on what some agents he had spoken to had to say. A Deputy US Marshal had reportedly told Balsamo: “I am worried for my life, every time I walk outside of the building.” Balsamo reported that that sentiment “extends widely. They are offended by being told to get out of Portland. They live here, work daily to take violent criminals off the street & it is their city too.”
 
Eventually, Balsamo reported: “One thing is very clear: there’s no plan for the feds to retreat right now. Those protecting the building feel a personal & professional duty to protect the courthouse. Many raised the same point – the courthouse stands for justice, for all people. And they aren’t going anywhere.”
 
All of this chaos, as moronic Democrats claim that there is nothing violent going on in Portland (and other places) and yell at AG Barr during a Congressional hearing because he has chosen to DO HIS JOB AS THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
 
Of course, I perhaps shouldn’t be calling Democrats “morons” at least for this. While they are exactly that, they are also evil pieces of crap, who have accused Trump of trying to destroy the country while they are doing exactly that, quite literally at this point. They LOVE the chaos and violence happening right now in places THEY run. Even if their own mayors get insulted and have to have armed body guards protecting them from the violent peasants, those very mayors will still go in front of a news camera and say how “peaceful” the people throwing concrete at police officers are.
 
Meanwhile, they tell you, like mafia gangsters, that all of this violence and chaos (which they do not acknowledge is happening) will all come to an end if we all vote for Biden.
 
Scummier people have hardly been seen before.
 
Ephesians 5:11
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Truth be told, there are far too many reasons I could list that would answer that question for me to fit into one single article. I have already brought up, in the past, how the polls were showing Clinton would win by a landslide in 2016, and even shown the specific poll numbers and electoral vote predictions from a number of people, so there is no need for me to bring that up again.
 
There exists another reason that is far more contemporary than the 2016 polls: 2019 and 2020 polls.
 
You see, Matt Mayer has an interesting piece on Spectator about how “Predictions of Trump’s demise may yet again be premature.”
 
Mayer begins by showing the following numbers coming out of battleground states: in Arizona, Biden is up by two points. In North Carolina, he is up by eight; 11 in Pennsylvania, 10 in Michigan, 9 in Florida and eight in Ohio.
 
Under normal circumstances, and in a world where the news media is honest and objective, such numbers would spell trouble for Trump. However, we know perfectly well that the latter is not true, as we are literally talking about fake news polls. But that is not the only reason those numbers are suspect, and in fact, are not exactly bad news for Trump at all.
 
You see, those numbers that spell doom for the Trump re-election campaign were from last summer, before the Chinese coronavirus (and subsequently, the administration’s response to it, which some would argue was botched or at least not as good as it could have been (not that I am such a person)) and the “racial” riots we are seeing across the country and subsequently, Trump’s response to that as well. Last summer, just about everyone, Left or Right, was just about convinced that Trump would steamroll through the election and easily get re-elected.
 
Now, the Left is convinced (to an extent) that Biden will beat Trump as a result of the last roughly half year. So, then, those numbers that already had Biden winning in those battleground states have to have gotten bigger for Biden, right?
 
No, actually. Aside from Arizona, where Biden is now “ahead” by six points (a four-point increase), Trump has “closed the gap” in the other battleground states, in some by roughly half or even more.
 
In North Carolina, where Biden was supposedly leading by eight last year, he now only leads by one. In Pennsylvania, where Biden used to lead by eleven points, he now only leads by five. In Michigan, his lead is now only 6 (four-point decrease); in Florida, his lead is seven (two-point decrease); Wisconsin, Biden’s lead is 6 (three-point decrease) and in Ohio, Biden supposedly leads by six (two-point decrease).
 
If Trump truly butchered the response to the Chinese coronavirus and has performed abysmally in terms of dealing with racial inequality in America, and subsequently, dealing with the rioting and the destruction and burning down of places of business, homes, etc., - if Trump is truly as big of a screw-up just in the last half year as the Left says he is, how is it that polls show him gaining ground as opposed to losing it?
 
Like I said, last year, just about everyone was fully expecting Trump to easily win reelection. Despite what the polls said, I don’t think even the fake news media carrying those polls were convinced that Trump would be defeated by any of the 666 Democrat presidential candidates. Despite Biden’s lead early on, he would tend to flounder and he inspired just about no confidence at all, or even any energy. NO ONE is excited to vote for Biden, even now. Bernie was the clear opposition candidate for the DNC establishment and they did whatever they could to ensure Bernie would not be their nominee. Bernie got cheated twice.
 
The rest were a random assortment of lunacy, idiocy and radical communism but little personal appeal or notoriety to get very far in the polls. Warren was a cultural appropriator (not that any on the Left would dare call her that), Harris was a cop and an AG who routinely and unjustly would send black people to jail. Bloomberg’s stint lasted all of a half a movie’s run time and was essentially shot out of the sky after his first debate was over; Buttigieg was just the “look at me, I’m gay but somehow also the only person on here who would dare invoke the name of God” candidate; Gabbard was the only one I could even slightly tolerate because of her seemingly actual desire to bring our troops back and her hilarious attacks on Hillary, and the rest were totally forgettable.
 
Seriously, look up the Democrats who ran for president in 2020 and I can guarantee you straight up have not heard of at least a few of them, or forgotten that some of them ran.
 
My point is, despite the large number of candidates the Democrats boasted, time and time again, they all demonstrated a variety of reasons as to why they would lose to Trump by either a little or a lot. And now, the Democrats are stuck with a rapist with Dementia who refuses to leave the basement or answer any questions to the media because any unscripted engagement is 100% likely to result in him saying something else that demonstrates just how mentally unfit he is to run for president, let alone actually be president.
 
And this is the guy they say Trump is guaranteed to lose to? Again, even in their own polls, Trump has only GAINED support in key battleground states, even amidst a period of time in which one could argue Trump wasn’t at his best.
 
And we are still months away from the election. I have said this many times, but a lot can happen in between now and November of 2020. I have said this before the changing of the calendar took place, back when everyone was super confident Trump would easily be reelected, and I say this now, after the last few months of relative struggle. The events that will determine the results of the election have yet to occur. While one would think that the last few months have destroyed Trump’s chances, such a belief is rather short-sighted.
 
Even my own predictions on certain things have not panned out. I expected the Tara Reade story to be one that would haunt the Biden campaign. And while other things have obviously overshadowed that story because they were more important (namely, the pandemic), the fact that Biden is a rapist and hasn’t suffered the consequences in terms of support from women shows I was wrong with my predictions. Even the “you ain’t black” comment didn’t do much to hurt him with black people and he will still likely pull a majority of black voters to him.
 
So for anyone to believe the polls today, let alone a year ago, to be any indication of the results of the election is simply an exercise in madness. And even still, while I did say I wouldn’t bring this up again, I feel the need to mention that polls in 2016, specifically the day of the election, showed Clinton winning big and that obviously did not happen.
 
Not to mention the Cato Institute survey which showed people to be more reluctant to express their beliefs to other people because of fear of persecution, which could be one reason the polls say what they say: it’s entirely possible Trump supporters are either saying they “don’t know” who they will support or will say they will vote for Biden when they don’t actually plan to do so, and are just saying that to not be judged or punished by the pollsters.
 
The polls are wrong. Simple as that.
 
Matthew 7:15
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

As I said in part 1, the fake news media will run b.s. story after b.s. story about Trump to make him look bad, like an idiot, like an evil genius, and sometimes, like both, which often leaves people perplexed if they don’t know the natural illogical fallacy that is the Left’s very nature.
 
They will talk about how Trump has killed over 100,000 people due to his response to the Chinese coronavirus (funny how they never blame Xi Jinping for the “4,000+” deaths the CCP has reported), or how he colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election or how he was in the process of colluding once again, with the Ukrainians this time, to steal the 2020 election, or how he is a massive racist, anti-Semite, a selfish jerk, etc., etc. – all things that are easily disproven by anyone who can tell reality from fiction.
 
However, they would never dare, in this day and age, run with stories that make Trump look good because doing so would go against their established narrative. Anything that makes Trump look good helps him and that bothers the Left, so they don’t do it. In the past, however, there have been plenty of reported stories about Trump’s kindness, generosity, and even courage to fight against racism and anti-Semitism.
 
Here are the final four stories of the eight total that I have been talking about that show Trump for who he is that the fake news media would never dare report.
 
First, there is a story from 1991 about Donald Trump stopping a would-be mugger armed with a baseball bat.
 
On November 20, 1991, the New York Daily News reported: “Call it The Donald to The Rescue. When he saw a ‘big guy with a big bat’ bashing another fellow, Donald Trump did what any self-respecting billionaire would do: He ordered his driver to pull over.”
 
“Witnesses said Trump, with Marla Maples tugging at his arm to try to stop him, leaped from his black stretch limousine Monday evening during the assault on Ninth Ave. near 45th St.”
 
“’Someone in the car looked over and said, “Gee, look at that, it’s a mugging,”’ Trump said. ‘I said to my driver to stop the car because it was brutal-looking,’” according to the NY Daily News.
 
“Trump was at first reluctant to discuss his daredevil deed, but then he warmed to the task.”
 
“The guy with the bat looked at me, and I said, ‘Look, you’ve gotta stop this. Put down the bat.’ I guess he recognized me because he said, ‘Mr. Trump, I didn’t do anything wrong.’ I said, ‘How could you not do anything wrong when you’re whacking a guy with a bat?’ Then he ran away.”
 
The thing about this story is that there were some witnesses who reported that Trump got there after the mugger had left, having joined the crowd of on-lookers, but there are other witnesses, such as one who chose to remain unidentified, who said: “There was a guy with a bat, hitting a guy over the head, and Trump yelled, ‘Put that bat down. What are you doing?’ The guy dropped the bat, came over and started talking to him.”
 
Trump reportedly left the scene once he saw a doctor treating the victim and heard that an ambulance was in route to the scene. Unfortunately, the police said the attack was not reported, so that’s about as far as the whole thing went.
 
While there is some contention to the validity of this claim and the details surrounding the incident, this does sound like something Trump would be willing to do (maybe to a certain extent). Trump has been known to have helped people in time of need (as the other stories both in this article and the last one go to show).
 
The next story happened in 2008, when famous singer Jennifer Kate Hudson lost her mother, brother and nephew, who were found murdered in Chicago (Hudson’s mother and brother in their Chicago home and Hudson’s nephew had been reported missing, with the FBI finding his body three days later).
 
Upon this family tragedy, Hudson, as well as some of her family members, received help from Donald Trump in the form of being allowed to stay at Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago free-of-charge.
 
Trump told People Magazine: “They are safe. She’s a great girl and we’re protecting them well.”
 
The famous singer was, understandably, in total shock over the events that took away some of her family.
 
Seemingly, the perpetrator of this heinous crime was the ex-husband of Hudson’s older sister Julia, who was charged with three counts of first-degree murder and one count of home invasion, being convicted on all counts and being sentenced to three life sentences without parole.
 
While this was a short story with few details (the article is from shortly after the events took place) and most of it centers around the tragedy that befell the Hudson family, it does still somewhat speak to Trump’s kindness, that he allowed the famous celebrity to reside in his hotel with all expenses covered.
 
It’s a small thing, compared to some of the other things I have thus far shared, but I’m certain the Hudson family appreciated the gesture and his kindness.
 
The next story I will share goes as follows:
 
In 2013, a bus driver by the name of Darnell Barton had just picked up 20 high school students to take them home from school. On his route, Darnell “spotted a woman standing along the railing on an overpass, leaning over the traffic below,” according to the UK Daily Mail.
 
Darnell reportedly pulled his bus over and talked the woman down from ending her life. This gesture, which reached Trump’s ears, led to the then-real estate mogul to write a letter to the bus driver, saying: “Your quick thinking resulted in a life being saved and for that you should be rewarded.”
 
Trump came through with that notion and sent Darnell a check for $10,000, by way of then-Mayor Byron Brown’s office.
 
Trump further wrote: “Although I know to you it was just a warm-hearted first response to a dangerous situation… it saved her life.”
 
It’s awfully clear that Trump appreciates people’s lives (as if his pro-life record as POTUS didn’t already indicate that) and when someone goes the extra mile to help someone in need, Trump understands that such a heroic action, though it might often go unrewarded or even unthanked, ought to be rewarded.
 
Finally, there is the story of Donald Trump helping a former Miss Wisconsin with her fatal disease.
 
This one is a tad bit more well-known than the others because it was reported during the 2015 primaries, and the former Miss Wisconsin, Melissa Consin Young, shared this story at a campaign rally for Trump.
 
At the rally, Young thanked Trump for giving her son “a future” after she is to succumb to autonomic failure, a disease that affects the part of the brain that regulates our heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, respiration, digestion and other vital organs. The disease keeps that part of the brain from functioning, obviously severely altering the functions of the body parts and functions I just described.
 
Young thanked Trump for helping her Mexican-American son, ensuring that he would be cared for following her passing. At the rally, Young said: “You’ve saved me in so many ways. In recent years, I’ve been struggling with an incurable illness and I’m on home care now and it was caused by a doctor’s medical negligence. In those dark days fighting – right now, all the tubes have been removed and I have a ‘do not resuscitate’ order and I have a seven-year-old son – those days in the hospital, I received from you a handwritten letter that says ‘to the bravest woman I know.’”
 
“I wanted to thank you because through you and your organizations, my son, a Mexican-American, through your organizations and just being able to stand on that stage with you in 2005, and the outpouring of love, ultimately provided my son with a full-ride to college,” Melissa went on to say.
 
Melissa explained that, while she was pregnant with her son, she fell very ill. “During my pregnancy, I became very ill. I couldn’t stand without passing out. Just lifting my head was too much. I begged my doctor to help me over and over. My husband would carry me into his office. I was begging him saying I’d sleep there on his floor til he helped me. I told him over and over again for months that I think I’m dying. His response was ‘It’s your first pregnancy, you look great.’”
 
“He failed to hear me or even run simple blood work.” Three weeks before her due date, she explains, she passed out trying to get to the phone and her husband found her and called 911. At the hospital, they had to induce labor.
 
According to the Daily Mail, “She says because of the negligence there is no way to restart that part of her brain and her heart is like that of an 88-year-old woman.”
 
Truly, a heartbreaking story for the former Miss Wisconsin. I certainly wish her the best and pray for a miraculous recovery, knowing God is the Healer and no illness is too complicated for Him.
 
At any rate, the story, alongside all of the others that I shared in this article and the previous one, speaks of an entirely different Donald Trump than the one that the media often depicts.
 
The fake news media will take things out of context, spin things, or even just make things up about the guy when he doesn’t deserve that at all and has, in the past, been renowned for being a very generous individual, completely antithetical to the sort of monster that the MSM portrays him as.
 
They will say he is a racist and anti-Semite when he has, both as POTUS and before he was elected, demonstrated a unique love and interest for minorities and Jewish people (and really, everyone).
 
Donald Trump is far different from what the Left and the fake news media portrays him as. This much is perfectly clear to any rational individual.
 
Ephesians 2:10
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The fake news media will run b.s. story after b.s. story about President Trump in an effort to make him appear to be one of several things: he’s supposed to either be A) an absolute idiot, B) an evil genius setting out to destroy America, or C) somehow, a combination of both – an incompetent buffoon who plots with the world’s baddies and is somehow successfully evading the oh, so brilliant federal and congressional investigators chasing his schemes.
 
It’s all a bunch of phony, agenda-driven crap and anyone with a double-digit IQ can tell. But unlike what the media will say about Trump (now, at least), he has historically been one of the kindest and most generous celebrities around.
 
Here, I will share 4 of 8 stories that the fake news media will never share with you about Donald Trump, or if they do, will try to spin as either not having occurred or actually being bad or some such nonsense. The reason for this is that I really want to include all of them, but doing so would make this article far too long, so I’m splitting this into two different articles.
 
First, the story of Donald Trump saving a woman’s farm from foreclosure.
 
In September of 1986, a then-66-year-old woman named Annabel Hill was facing foreclosure of her Atlanta, Georgia farm, which her family had owned for many generations.
 
Her husband, Lenard, had committed suicide roughly a year earlier in an attempt to save the farm with life insurance money. While she did receive the payment for his insurance policy, it wasn’t enough to cover the family’s debts.
 
Her story was helped be spread by an Atlanta businessman who had helped another farmer to keep his land, when her news conference appeared on NBC’s Nightly News, which was watched by Donald Trump.
 
Trump wrote about her story in a couple of his books – “The America We Deserve”, where he wrote: “I saw a story on the news about Annabel Hill, who’d hit bottom,” and “The Art of the Deal”, where he wrote: “It was a very sad situation and I was moved. Here were people who’d worked very hard and honestly all their lives, only to see it all crumble before them. To me, it just seemed wrong.”
 
The future president reached out to the Atlanta businessman, who got him in touch with the bank that held Hill’s mortgage. Trump wrote: “The next morning, I called and got some vice president on the line. I explained that I was a businessman from New York, and that I was interested in helping Mrs. Hill. He told me he was sorry, but that it was too late. They were going to auction off the farm, he said, and ‘nothing or no one is going to stop it.’”
 
Trump further wrote: “That really got me going. I said to the guy: ‘You listen to me. If you do foreclose, I’ll personally bring a lawsuit for murder against you and your bank, on the grounds that you harassed Mrs. Hill’s husband to his death.’ All of a sudden the bank officer sounded very nervous and said he’d get right back to me. Sometimes it pays to be a little wild. An hour later I got a call back from the banker, and he said, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to work it out, Mr. Trump.’”
 
In the end, the auction was called off and Trump, as well as a few other wealthy people, helped raise, or even contribute, the rest of the money necessary to pay off the debt.
 
In a rather famous picture, Donald Trump invited Hill to Trump Tower on Christmas and, surrounded by members of the media and other people who had donated to help Hill, burned the mortgage papers for the farm (as seen below).

​Hill said of Trump’s motives for the charity: “The only way I can explain it was God touched his heart.”
 
That certainly is likely.
 
Moving on to the next story, a quick one this time, we have the story of an 11-year-old girl named Megan, who faced the terrible challenge of living with a debilitating bone disease called Brittle Bone Disease.
 
Originally, Megan went on the Maury Povich show looking for a friend, because Megan noted that she was lonely and without friends. On Maury’s show, he introduced her to another girl who had the same disease, a girl named Tiffany.
 
Trump had heard of this little girl and wanted to help, so he made a special video for her and gave her a nice gift. In the video, Trump told her: “I think you are so beautiful, both inside and out. I had a little something, a little gift that I gave to Maury, who’s a friend of mine… and I hope you and your mother have a good time with it. And you’re very special, and you just keep it up and keep up that attitude. So good luck, and you stay in touch.”
 
While Trump couldn’t physically be there to give Megan her gift, he had Maury give her the gift, which was a check of an unknown amount, but given the reaction from Megan and her mom, as well as Maury’s commentary of “all those zeroes”, it was likely a very generous amount.
 
The third story I will talk about is the story of a Jewish Orthodox boy with a rare disease who was saved by Donald Trump thanks to his generosity.

Andrew Ten, a then-three-year-old child, and his parents were seeking medical treatment in New York, though they lived in Los Angeles, requiring them to make the trip to NYC via plane.
 
However, they had a big problem: no commercial airline would allow them to fly on their crafts because of the elaborate life-support system (a portable oxygen tank, a suction machine, a breathing bag and an adrenaline syringe) that Andrew could not live without. They had no normal means by which they could get to New York in order to get Andrew the treatment necessary to him.
 
Out of options, Andrew’s parents made a last-ditch effort to save their son and one that most people would think was a long-shot: they called Donald Trump, explained their situation, and begged him to help them out.
 
According to Harold Ten, the father of Andrew, “Mr. Trump did not hesitate when we called him up. He said ‘yes, I’ll send my plane out.’” And that’s exactly what he did. Trump’s private jet landed in New York’s La Guardia airport and out of it, came Andrew, his parents and three nurses working on Andrew.
 
Asked why he thought Trump allowed them to use his private jet, Harold replied: “Because he is a good man. He has three children of his own and he knows what being a parent is all about.”
 
Further, Harold, being Jewish, said he believes Trump fulfilled the following Talmudic saying: “He who saves one person’s life is as if he saved the entire world.”
 
The young boy reportedly was born healthy, but one morning at the age of 10-months, he suddenly stopped breathing. Six months later, the same incident occurred and doctors were unable to explain what was causing this. Andrew reportedly had not cried since he was two-and-a-half (I should mention this story was from 1988, so this was a long time ago and I don’t know what has become of him since then) and required being fed through a tube, having lost his gag reflex and the ability to swallow.
 
Like I said, I don’t know what has become of the guy, but I hope he is well.
 
The fourth and final story I will share in this article is a story that really should dispel any insinuations that the guy is anti-Semitic or racist in any way (and there are plenty more stories that show he isn’t a racist or an anti-Semite, not that the Leftist media would ever care to acknowledge this, since doing so would run contrary to their narrative).
 
This story is about Donald Trump insisting on including Jews and black people at Mar-a-Lago in the 1990s, a time when it was common for both to be, at one level or another, excluded from entering or being a part of the clubs.
 
Talking on Newsmax in a July 2015 interview, author Ronald Kessler said: “When Donald opened his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews. The old guard in Palm Beach was outraged that Donald would accept blacks and Jews so that’s the real Donald Trump that I know.”
 
You see, when Trump was trying to open up his golf course in Palm Beach, he had trouble getting approved by the town council, which was imposing restrictions on his bid.
 
The Washington Post, on Nov. 14, 2015, reported: “Trump undercut his adversaries with a searing attack, claiming that local officials seemed to accept the established private clubs in town that had excluded Jews and blacks while imposing tough rules on his inclusive one.”
 
“Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: ‘A Gentleman’s Agreement,’ about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and ‘Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner’ about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiancé.”
 
Trump, obviously, ultimately won the fight and in 1997, then-Anti-Defamation League President Abraham Foxman praised Trump for “elevating the issue of discrimination at private clubs,” according to Chron. It’s rather interesting how the ADL treated him then, having fought against racism and anti-Semitism, contrasted to how they treat him now, claiming racists and white supremacists support Trump. The ADL is phony Leftist garbage anyway, but it’s worth noting what one of their presidents said about Trump fighting racism in an industry seemingly filled with it.
 
“Foxman credited Trump’s move with encouraging other clubs in Palm Beach to do the same as Mar-a-Lago in opening up” for Jews and black people, according to Chron.
 
Tomorrow, I will share another four articles that the media won’t share about Donald Trump, but for now, it is quite obvious to anyone with an Internet connection and the desire to find out the truth about anything that Donald Trump is not the hideous monster the fake news media constantly portrays him as.
 
He is not a racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, selfish anti-Semite. Story after story of his actions speaks to the guy’s generosity and kind-heartedness.
 
I mean, the very fact that he decided to run for president when he absolutely had no need to do so and only stood to lose by doing so, just to get the chance to save the country he loves, is an extreme indication of the guy’s selflessness.
 
Donald Trump is a good, Godly person (as in someone who acts according to the Will of God, not someone who is comparable to God, so don’t get it twisted) and anyone telling you otherwise is either ignorant of that or a hateful moron.
 
Matthew 5:16
“In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The New York Times is up there with CNN as some of the most vile and disgusting fake news that there is in this country. Truly, the only difference between the two is that CNN is also a cable “news” organization. Seeing how utterly fascistic and communistic the general narrative that is found in the NYT is, it’s not at all surprising to see someone who does not fully support such ideals be bullied and pushed out of the company.
 
Bari Weiss had been writing for the NYT for the past few years, following the election of Donald Trump, supposedly, according to her, because the Times was so wrong about who would be elected that it clearly needed a better understanding of the country that it covers.

Of course, she herself HATES Trump and has outright alleged he was sympathetic to neo-Nazis (which we shall see is rather hilarious in a moment) and would likely cancel anyone who is pro-Trump were she to have the power (she advocated for censoring Alex Jones), however, due to her not adhering in full with the communistic rhetoric of the company, at least in everything she wanted to write, Weiss has decided to resign from the NYT. In her resignation letter, Weiss utterly crushed the company by exposing precisely who they are: elitist, communist bullies who are wholly intolerant while preaching “tolerance”.
 
And yes, she is a massive hypocrite, but she is ripping the NYT, so let’s hear her out for a second, while still keeping in mind the fact that she is just as despicable.
 
In her resignation letter, Weiss lambasts the Times for being a paper more concerned with getting clicks from people on Twitter than actually being remotely objective or journalistically proper. “Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.”
 
In essence, Weiss is accusing the NYT of writing stories that will get them on Twitter’s “trending” list rather than writing stories of importance and significance to the vast majority of the country.
 
Later, Weiss takes note of some of the personal experiences she has had while working for the communist paper: “My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again.’ Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.”
 
One, I told you that it was rather hilarious that she essentially called Trump a Nazi when she herself had been called that. Two, this is not at all unexpected behavior from communists. They HATE anyone who does not think like them and in this day and age when literal crime is hardly punished, such people feel comfortable showing their truly monstrous side. Communists are hateful bullies who somehow have deluded themselves into thinking they are angels doing God’s work. They are awful people, the embodiment of intolerance and hatred itself.
 
To me, it is EXTREMELY ironic that ANYONE at the New York Times would accuse someone just slightly right of Marx (and Weiss isn’t exactly Ronald Reagan) to be a Nazi when the publication itself has published the following article: “THE ART OF PROPAGANDA – By Adolf Hitler,” written June 22nd, 1941.
 
The New York Times published a piece by Adolf Hitler on the same day as Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi operation to invade the Soviet Union, and all-the-while the guy was killing Jews and other political opponents in concentration camps.
 
I don’t know what’s worse, the fact that the NYT chose to publish a piece by Adolf Hitler, or the following piece, written on November 21st, 1922:
 
Headline: “NEW POPULAR IDOL RISES IN BAVARIA; Hitler Credited With Extraordinary Powers of Swaying Crowds to His Will. FORMS GRAY-SHIRTED ARMY Armed With Blackjacks and Revolvers and Well Disciplined, They Obey Orders Implicitly. LEADER A REACTIONARY is Anti Red and Anti-Semitic, and Demands Strong Government for a United Germany.”
 
Yes, long headline, but this was a different time. At any rate, the piece later on said the following:
 
“But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic and inline for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.”
 
We often times rip “experts” and supposed, anonymous “sources” from people who act in bad faith, but I don’t think anyone could top “our sources say that Hitler is not as anti-Semitic or violent as people think he is.”
 
This is on record for The New York Times, and it’s not like featuring egregious personalities is anything new for them. They have, just in the last decade, allowed for op-eds from Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin to be published on their paper. Hitler, Erdogan and Putin all enjoy or have enjoyed a great deal of liberty and even veneration from The New York Times.
 
So again, for anyone in the NYT to accuse anyone else of being a Nazi is EXTREMELY RICH (though for Weiss to play victim to such attacks is equally rich, considering she does the same to Trump).
 
Returning to Weiss’ resignation letter, she noted that “if a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”
 
These people claim to be “tolerant” and “inclusive” but have an outright allergic reaction to a Republican Senator writing that we should use the military to defeat the riots. They claim to be tolerant people while not tolerating anyone’s opinion should said opinion dissent from the pre-approved one. If you even remotely do not share much hatred for Trump, you are compared to Hitler himself (again, an extremely rich thing for anyone at the paper to do).
 
Anyone right of Karl Marx is considered a danger, a Nazi, and less than human. These people go around calling other people bigots when there are no bigger bigots than them.
 
At any rate, Weiss continued by excoriating the paper, taking note that Tom Cotton’s op-ed cost two people their jobs, all-the-while the paper celebrates an interview with a disgusting anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist who, to Weiss’s words, “believes in lizard Illuminati.”
 
Of course, considering the paper is willing to have an op-ed from Adolf Hitler, it’s not really so surprising that they have such a high regard for known anti-Semites.
 
Furthermore, Weiss writes: “The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its ‘diversity’; the doxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.”
 
Considering the history revisionism that the Times is involved in with its “1619 project”, it’s not at all surprising that these people live in the land of Looney Tunes, and even then, I would assume Buggs Bunny has more of a sense of reason than the people most often featured on that communist publication. Time and time again, Buggs Bunny showed considerably more wit than any of the people I have seen write for the Times, if I’m honest. I wouldn’t be surprised if he could trick them by flipping a sign that says “commie season.”
 
They are people who adamantly hate this country and spend their lives and careers excoriating it. That they compare America and Nazi Germany for their “caste system” is no surprise to someone who expects such nonsensical and offensive crap from human garbage like the NYT.
 
Anyway, Weiss concludes with a few things, such as a “set of rules” for writing for the NYT, including “Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.”
 
One does not have free speech when writing for the New York Times. They either speak the way the Times wants them to speak, whether willingly or not, or they can find themselves in an unemployment office.
 
This, my friends, is communism. Not that I needed to remind you of that.
 
In the end, Weiss quotes Adolph Ochs, former owner of the NYT, in a famous statement he made in 1896: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs wouldn’t even be allowed to write for the Times’ opinion piece nowadays with such a mentality, let alone be allowed to own the paper. Such an opinion runs contrary to the Left’s. The idea that people be allowed to have differing opinions and, worse yet, be allowed a platform through which to express such opinions is considered a threat to democracy itself in the minds of the politically insane.
 
Of course, Weiss herself has hypocritically gone against Ochs’ words in her trying to cancel Alex Jones, and I doubt she would be willing to have an honest debate with a pro-Trumper, but at least she gives us some ammo to use against the Times.
 
The NYT is garbage. Sane people are better off not reading it or contributing to it. While I do not exactly have much sympathy for Weiss, considering she herself has acted in that exact same manner, with the exact same attacks thrown at Trump and his supporters, I am at the very least glad that she attacked the NYT like she did on the way out.
 
Love it when the Left goes after its own.
 
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.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

To paraphrase Tucker Carlson, you have to be extremely stupid to work at CNN because you will never stray from the topic that is handed to you. You never have to think on your own, you just have to repeat what is on the teleprompter or your notes, and when not speaking, mindlessly nod at whatever someone else said even if what someone said is monumentally stupid, incoherent, illogical or even extremely bigoted.
 
The dumbest man on news, working alongside Fredo Cuomo, let some of his idiocy shown recently when talking about the Founding Fathers and, more specifically, the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
In a discussion with the man who has as many IQ points as he does brothers, Don Lemon criticized the Founding Fathers, “So why are we deifying the founders of this country, many of whom owned slaves, and in the Constitution – the original one – they didn’t want, they put slavery in there, that slavery should be abolished because it was the way the king wanted. And then the Congress said, ‘No way!’”
 
The man’s stupidity knows no bounds, as he unwittingly praised the Founders whom he is trying to crap all over (and I’ll get to that in a brief moment).
 
Yes, many of them owned slaves because that was a violent and disturbing time in history when people owned other people. This has been the history of humanity for millennia and the idea that people shouldn’t own others is relatively new. White people used to own black people. Black people also used to own black people, both in Africa, with the tribes that fought and enslaved other tribes, and in the States, with black people legally owning other black people. Native Americans owned other Native Americans, at least, the ones that chose to enslave the tribes they conquered. Often times, tribes like the Comanche would simply choose to slaughter the tribes they defeated.
 
The Jews used to be slaves in Egypt and Babylon. Romans had slaves. Europeans would enslave one another when possible, particularly in Eastern Europe.
 
Slavery has been a part of humanity’s history for ages and is not something that has strictly applied to black people (especially considering there were black people back then who were either never slaves or outright owned other people). And let’s not ignore the fact that slavery is still a thing in this day and age, specifically in the Middle East.
 
Now, does this justify the horror that is slavery? Of course not. But it does put necessary context in a discussion that the Left chooses to not put any into just to get a chance at delegitimizing the United States. These people want Americans to believe that slavery was strictly an American thing, created by the U.S. and every other country in the history of the world was more “civilized” and “progressive” while the U.S. was anything but.
 
Ironically, Lemon PRAISED the Founders by noting that they wanted to abolish slavery in the first iteration of the Constitution. If these people were senseless barbarians who saw no issue with owning people, why would they try to put the abolishment of slavery into the original Constitution? Never mind why it was not actually put into it (the South wanted to keep their slaves, the North didn’t want that, but prioritized keeping the Union together and kicked the can of slavery down the road, though made provisions for the eventual abolishment of slavery), the fact that they DID WANT TO put it in there shows that they were not demons who wanted perpetual slavery.
 
At any rate, the dumbest man on news went on to further show why he has earned the moniker from President Trump by saying: “Here’s the thing: Jesus Christ – if that’s who you believe in, Jesus Christ – admittedly was not perfect when he was here on this earth.”
 
On who’s admission, Don? Yours? Because it’s certainly not to Jesus’ own admission or God’s own admission or any of the human authors of the Bible’s admission.
 
Jesus Christ was perfect, otherwise He would not have been an adequate sacrifice for the sins of those whom God has called. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says: “God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.”
 
Hebrews 7:25-26 says: “Therefore He is able to save completely those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest truly befits us – One who is holy, innocent, undefiled, set apart from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”
 
John 7:17-18 says: “If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether My teaching is from God or whether I speak on My own. He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory, but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is a man of truth; in Him there is no falsehood.”
 
Luke 1:35 says: “The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.’”
 
The One who is holy cannot be imperfect. Not that I expect the dumbest man on news to understand this. Furthermore, it’s not even about how dumb or smart he is (though he is definitely not the latter). Intelligence matching that of Albert Einstein is not required in order to understand that Jesus Christ is perfect, and was perfect while He was walking on the Earth. What is required is faith and at least a basic level of understanding of the Christian tenets. It is made abundantly clear, day in and day out, fake news story after fake news story, that Don Lemon possesses neither of those requirements.
 
Don Lemon is not a Christian, so it’s not exactly a surprise that he would know nothing of the Lord. He has no excuse, of course, given the prevalence of evidence of God’s existence, Christ’s divinity and holiness, and availability of the Bible, both in book form and via the internet, but still not surprising that he would not know who the Lord is, even to this level.
 
The guy is a charlatan and is employed by the Charlatan News Network. That Chris Cuomo, who is supposedly Catholic, mindlessly nodded along (like I said was a requirement for working for CNN if you weren’t the one speaking), is also not surprising because he is every bit the charlatan that Don Lemon is, that his genocidal governor brother is, that Nancy Pelosi is, etc. They are not true Christians in the least.
 
Don Lemon is like the sort of person spoken of in 1 John, specifically chapter 2, verses 22 and 23: “And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. Anyone who denies the Son doesn’t have the Father, either. But anyone who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”
 
Denying the perfection of Christ is denying the holiness of Christ, as the two are inseparable. Denying the holiness of Christ is denying the deity of Christ. Denying the deity of Christ is denying the deity of God. Denying the Son is denying the Father. That is precisely what Don Lemon (and Fredo) is doing, of which he should repent immediately, knowing that Jesus said, in Matthew 10:33: “But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”
 
Denying the Son is not the path to salvation; in fact, it’s literally going the opposite direction. Do I think Don Lemon is seeking to be saved? No, otherwise, he likely would have been, because if he was seeking to be saved, he would have been called to the Lord. But regardless of whether or not Lemon is seeking to be saved, or believes he must be saved from the punishment of his sins, what he did was deny the Son, which is to deny the Father.
 
Claiming Jesus was not perfect is extremely ignorant and shows the state of his soul. It also shows the state of Fredo’s soul (and the emptiness of his head) that he mindlessly nodded along as Lemon publicly rejected Christ on live TV.
 
I pray that these two repent of their abhorrent sin and come to the Lord in repentance and submission.
 
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It’s not a rare occurrence to see the fake news media being proven wrong by either other media or by itself, but what is a fairly rare occurrence is for the fake news media to make a bold claim and then proceed to disprove themselves with facts and data in the same article.
 
Last week, President Trump said the following during a White House event: “You hear about certain places like Chicago and you hear about what’s going on in Detroit and other – other cities, all Democrat run. Every one of them is Democrat run. Twenty out of 20. The worst, the 20 most dangerous are Democrat run.”
 
Philip Bump, writing for the Washington Post, insisted, as his headline suggested, that “Trump keeps claiming that the most dangerous cities in America are all run by Democrats. They aren’t,” and then proceeds to write the following: “It’s not clear how Trump is defining ‘most dangerous’ in this context.”
 
So the guy is trying to say “no, Trump is lying!” while also saying “I don’t know what Trump means specifically”. This is the caliber of fake news we are dealing with on a daily basis. They deny Trump’s claims while also not knowing exactly what he’s talking about.
 
What Trump is talking about in this current political context is the fact that Democrats are running the cities where there were riots, looting and burning of buildings supposedly over the death of George Floyd. Democrats are running the cities where ANTIFA and BLM are trying to tear down, or are succeeding in tearing down, statues of historical figures, regardless of what they supported: be they Confederate officers, abolitionists, segregationists, even Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and St. Louis IX, a FRENCH king, have been targeted. The ONLY places where there were riots, and in particular, where riots were ALLOWED to occur by governing authorities, are all run by Democrats.
 
That is largely what Trump means, but even according to Bump’s own interpretation of what Trump means, Trump is still largely right.
 
You see, Bump, likely believing the riots were either not real or they were “largely peaceful”, thought Trump meant “most dangerous” in terms of crime data; that Trump was saying that the 20 cities with the most violent crime and most violent crime per capita were all run by Democrats.
 
And technically speaking, Trump is wrong. Not all 20 cities with the most violent crime and most crime per capita are Democrat-run. Only ALMOST ALL of them are. Yeah, what a difference.
 
Bump shares the following data:

​As you can see, only 17 of the 20 most violent cities in America are run by Democrats. Checkmate, Drumpf!
 ​
No, but seriously, Bump himself gave us this little gem and I think he realizes how much of an idiot he is for sharing it IN HIS OWN ARTICLE.
 
Likely after noticing that there is only ONE Republican in that list of most violent crime and ZERO Republicans in the per capita graph, Bump said that “it doesn’t really matter that the other mayors are Democrats.”
 
His reasoning? That cities generally have more crime than suburban and rural areas do, and cities tend to vote for Democrats.
 
While that may be true, it’s a red herring argument. It absolutely matters that the mayors are Democrats because Republicans and Democrats (usually) have different policies when it comes to crime, particularly in this current climate.
 
Democrats are calling for the “defunding” or abolition of police departments nationwide. Many demand the abolition of prisons. They demand asinine crap like bail reform that allows for violent criminals to walk in and out of prison like they’re going in for a haircut. They demand the decriminalization of things from prostitution to marijuana. They ENCOURAGE violent mobs destroying statues and businesses and even other people’s homes, provided that their own homes are never targeted. In Minneapolis, Democrats have voted to make a referendum for citizens to vote on whether or not to dismantle their police department this November.
 
Republicans, on the other hand, tend to be tougher on crime and friendlier to police (again, usually, though not always). They want criminals to be held accountable for their crimes and for citizens to be able to live peaceful lives as much as possible.
 
Given these differences, it’s ridiculous to suggest that it doesn’t matter that Democrats run 17 or 19 of the 20 most dangerous cities in the country (by violent crime standards, though also by the standards Trump used in his own context). If people keep voting Democrat, these are the crime rates they should be expecting to see. Do cities tend to have higher crime rates anyway? Perhaps, but that’s not the only or even the biggest contributor to that.
 
By the time Rudy Giuliani left office as mayor of New York City, the violent crime rate and murder rate dropped 55.6% and 66.4% respectively since he first took office. And while the crime rate was already going down somewhat before he took office, it PLUMMETED once he became mayor. And yet, what city did we see topping the chart for most violent crime in recent time? New York City, where a Democrat is running things.
 
Mayoral policies, obviously, affect what happens in the cities. What policies a mayor has and chooses to employ will have an effect on the city, and Democrats tend to be awfully soft on crime, which is why we see the numbers and figures that we’re seeing. It absolutely matters what political party a mayor belongs to and we are seeing the results.
 
Democrats run the “s**holes” precisely because their policies are designed to turn whatever place they run into such a hellish land. Yes, the fact that cities have higher populations is an important factor, but what is even more important is what sort of policy the mayor employs.
 
But enough with trying to argue against the deceiver’s red herring argument. The main thing is that the guy tried to “disprove” Trump only to come right out and say he didn’t exactly understand what Trump meant and went on to provide evidence that just about proves Trump right, for the most part.
 
No, not all 20 of the most violent cities are run by Democrats. Only 17 of them are, and 19 when talking about per 10,000 residents. What a great technical victory for the Democrats it must be that not all of the most dangerous cities are run by them, only almost all.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The two biggest stories over the past few weeks have been pretty strictly about the Chinese coronavirus (though that has been a story for months) and the death of George Floyd, which was followed by the riots that have devastated communities and a desire by Leftists to “defund the police”, very much meaning abolishment of the police system (with no clear replacement ever brought up by them because these people worship chaos).
 
Following the rise of this desire to defund the police (even with gaslighting attempts to salvage it by saying that “defund the police” doesn’t actually mean “defund the police”), ABC News ran a poll released last Friday regarding both the sentiment amongst Americans regarding the “defund the police” movement and their concerns regarding the Chinese coronavirus.
 
Let’s begin with the “defund the police” movement, which if the Democrats continue to insist on actually doing this, they will be utterly defeated come November.
 
According to the poll, 64% of Americans oppose the movement to “defund the police”. The fact that it’s not far higher is a bit of a worry, all things considered, but this still presents a clear issue for Democrats: run on this platform and expect to lose soundly.
 
It’s perhaps for this reason that Democrats like Joe Biden and James Clyburn voiced “concerns” with the idea of defunding the police (let’s not pretend, however, that if this were a far closer issue, or it tipped in the Left’s favor, that they wouldn’t support it wholeheartedly. They are not moral people).
 
What’s more, 60% oppose reducing the budget of police departments to reallocate their funds to other social programs. This is what some on the Left have been gaslighting us on with regard to the meaning of “defund the police”. They try to make the case that “defund the police” really just means “reallocate some of its resources and funding to other social programs.” Right, because when we say “defund Planned Parenthood”, we only mean reallocating its funding to other programs. Yeah, no one is buying the idea that “defund the police” doesn’t mean getting rid of it entirely or leaving it financially incapable of operating. At least, no one with half a brain would buy that.
 
This is particularly the case when the Minneapolis City Council unanimously voted to replace the MPD with a “community-led public safety system” that would be hilarious if it didn’t guarantee an increase in crime once the department is obliterated. No Leftist can honestly say that “defund the police” means reallocating some of the department’s resources when a major city has just voted to abolish the police. “Defund the police” means abolish the police.
 
And this is something that the vast majority of Americans agree would be extremely ridiculous. Interestingly, however, ABC News found that a majority of black Americans agree with defunding the police (57%) and reallocating the money to other social programs (64%). This is not particularly surprising, however, considering a lot of African Americans are conditioned and programmed (by the Left) to distrust and hate the police, believing them to be a major threat to their safety.
 
The Left has destroyed the minds of African Americans to the point where they make themselves out to be victims of a phantom racist system that unfairly treats and judges them differently from others based on the color of their skin, when that is not at all the case. Remember when I talked about the Left owning many of the pillars of power and how education was part of one of them? With the Left controlling the education system, it’s not surprising that teachers would teach their students that the system is unfair and needs reform or a total overhaul (these are Marxists, after all) and that minorities suffer because of “white privilege”.
 
It’s all bogus, but the Left is conditioning African Americans to be victims, so to find many of them supporting the idea of defunding the police is not that surprising. They believe the police are more of a threat to them than a benefit, even as statistics show otherwise.
 
According to the poll, “nearly three in four white Americans and 57% of Hispanics are against defunding the police, and two-thirds of whites and 58% of Hispanics oppose moving budgets elsewhere.”

What is also not surprising, however, is that 55% of Democrats support defunding the police and 59% support reallocating its resources to other social programs. These people are also conditioned to distrust and hate the police (though they will be the first to call them whenever they are in trouble, without a doubt). A funny hypocritical aspect of the Left is that they hate the police but they also believe police should be the only ones with access to lethal weaponry.
 
Suffice to say, however, the Democrats would not win running on this issue. Most people who agree with this movement either are criminals who would benefit from it, are black people who have fully bought into the Leftist bullcrap idea that America is systematically racist or are affluent white liberals who will never suffer the consequences of such a movement because they are periodically protected by people with guns.
 
Moving on to the other issue on the poll, let’s talk about the Chinese coronavirus and people’s attitudes towards it months after the lockdowns first began.
 
While 69% of Americans are still concerned about contracting the virus, that is a near 10-point drop from mid-May and is the lowest since mid-March, around the time when we first began locking things down or prepared to lock things down. 31% are also “not concerned”, the highest since mid-March.
 
59% say they are willing to eat at a restaurant, which is considerably higher than the 41% who said the same in mid-May. 57% also would be willing to stay in a hotel, compared to 45% in mid-May, 44% are willing to fly on a plane, compared to 29% back in mid-May, 57% said they are willing to attend church compared to 42% in mid-May and 54% are willing to send their children to school, compared to 31% in mid-May.
 
82% also said they are willing to go to work, but the thing about that is that, while this is an increase from mid-May, it’s not a massive increase, as 71% were willing to go back to work back then.
 
People have had it with the lockdowns and want to get back to normal while also keeping in mind that the virus is still a thing (not that it seems to matter to the Left when it comes to protests and riots, so it shouldn’t matter to anyone else, given the inconsistencies in enforcing lockdown orders).
 
It’s already painfully clear that the lockdowns didn’t help at all in saving lives an only served to ruin them financially, so there is no point whatsoever in continuing with these draconian measures (the Left will continue using them as much as they can, however).
 
Both of the issues discussed here indicate that the Left is not faring particularly well. Most Americans don’t want to defund the police, an issue the Left has espoused, and many Americans want to go back to their normal lives without restrictions (though with cautions).
 
The Left, however, in all their splendid stupidity, will likely continue pushing for draconian lockdown measures and defunding the police (likely without realizing that you can’t enforce lockdowns without a police force).
 
Proverbs 18:6
“A fool’s lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

After years of nothing but fake news, we all have come to the understanding that the fake news media is the enemy of the people. They will embrace the outright insane, so long as such insanity does not at all affect them, and demand that insanity become the status quo.
 
And with the recent riots, particularly with Leftist radicals demanding the defunding/abolishment of the police in various major cities and towns, CNN is now trying to make the case for going forth with such an insane and idiotic idea, particularly as the city of Minneapolis begins to prepare to have a vote on whether or not to dismantle their police.
 
Specifically, CNN is looking at a few “cities” which have kind of done that (and I will explain further in a moment) and what the aftermath of such actions were in order to see if such an idea could possibly be feasible.
 
First, and mostly, they talk about Camden, New Jersey, which is the biggest city CNN talks about with a population of a whopping 75,000 people, compared to Minneapolis’ 429,000+, and you can clearly see a massive difference. And again, that is the biggest city CNN found that “got rid” of its police department.
 
I would hope you would see why the population difference is so important: smaller cities and towns are easier to handle by smaller police forces.
 
But that’s not the only pathetic thing about the CNN article. You see, CNN correctly points out that in 2012, the city broke up its entire police department:
 
“The city, home to a population about 17% of Minneapolis’ size, dissolved its police department in 2012 and replaced it with an entirely new one after corruption rendered the existing agency unfixable.”
 
So Camden didn’t get rid of its police force, but rather, they completely renewed it. That is a far cry from the calls of defunding/abolishing the police (which Leftist are now trying to gaslight us, telling us “defund the police” doesn’t actually mean “defund the police”).
 
As Jazz Shaw from Hot Air put it, “the total time that Camden was actually ‘without’ a police department was the period of time it took to sign a few papers.”
 
The city was never actually without a police department in the sense that they disbanded it and just let things be. They actually ensured that their broken, corrupt police department which hardly did its job (Camden has, for a long time, been one of the most dangerous cities, but it was even more dangerous before the reformation of the department) could be replaced by something that is MORE effective, not less, as Leftists are attempting to do. They are not a city which could be said “got rid” of their police department. They reformed it, not destroyed it, defunded it or abolished it. Even then, they still rehired a hundred of the previous force’s police officers.
 
The second city they talk about, far more briefly, is Deposit, New York. CNN points out: “Earlier this year, the village of Deposit, New York, dissolved its department because it cost $200,000 per year. Now, a single sheriff’s deputy is assigned to the village, CNN affiliate WICZ reported.”
 
Care to read that quote again and pick out a key word? Go ahead. Did you catch it? Deposit, New York is not a city – it’s a village.
 
It’s population, you might ask? 250. No, not 250,000. Just 250. Care to take a look at the village on Google Maps? That entire area within the highlighted shape comprises two miles across from the southwestern point to the northeastern one.
 
Knowing this, it makes plenty of sense as to why the city decided that spending $200,000 a year on a police department was unnecessary: a single sheriff, maybe with some backup from state police, was really all that was necessary. This is a modern-day Wild West town, pretty much.
 
What’s more, the village is hardly a place of crime. Over the last 15 years, the number of murders has been a brisk 0. In that time frame, only 2 rapes have been committed, three robberies and you have to go back to 2012 to find a single assault committed in recent time, with 10 having been the most in that 15 year time frame back in 2006.
 
The final “city” CNN talks about is Garden City, Missouri, which “laid off all of its officers and suspended its police chief because, as its mayor said in 2018, the city couldn’t afford to keep them employed,” according to CNN.
 
As with Deposit, New York, Garden City is not exactly a Metropolis or a Gotham City. Its population, according to the 2010 census (so it could be a bit more today) is around 1,600 people. Crime data for Garden City shows that, in the last 15 years, only one murder has been committed, only one rape, three robberies and in the last five years, only three assaults have occurred.
 
Garden City is extremely small and there are not a whole lot of crimes happening there. To use this, or the other two cities, as an argument for getting rid of entire police departments in a city as massive as Minneapolis is extremely idiotic and insane, though that seems to be par for the course, all things considered.
 
Again, the biggest of the cities talked about went without an official police force all of the duration of a bathroom break and the other cities are extremely small and fairly crime-free.
 
It also helps that gun laws aren’t exactly restrictive, allowing for people to defend themselves should the need arise, which definitely contribute to the low crime rates. Minneapolis, on the other hand, is a deep-blue city with a lot of crime. According to its crime data, it is the most crime-riddled city compared to the other ones nearby. Over the last 15 years, 536 murders were committed.
 
Do you really think an absent police force would make things better? Do you really think that having less police would solve any sort of issue? Keep in mind the Washington Post data that said only 9 unarmed black people were shot and killed by police in the entire country. Minneapolis getting rid of its police department, or defunding it to the point where it is practically useless even if not entirely defunct, is not a solution at all to the problem the city council is faced with.
 
Compare the 9 unarmed black people killed by cops to the number of black people killed by other black people. According to US News, “among the 6,000 cases in which the race of the victim and the offender were known, the number of blacks killed by blacks rose to 2,380 [in 2015].”
 
The percentage of black people killed by another black person stood at roughly 90%, and 2015 was the first time this century when the rate of black victims killed by another black person stood below 90%, at 89.3%.
 
How come those black lives don’t matter? Why is it that black lives only matter when it’s police officers who take them, justified or not? Why is it that David Dorn’s life didn’t matter? Why is it that Dave Patrick Underwood’s life didn’t matter? Why is it that David McAtee’s life didn’t matter (ironically, he was accidentally killed by police who returned fire after hearing gunshots in one of the riots and hardly anyone brings him up)? Why is it that Chris Beaty’s life didn’t matter?
 
The four people I mentioned were all black people who were killed during the riots, either by the rioters themselves or by the police on accident (McAtee was not a rioter and he often was amicable with the police in his barbeque restaurant). But you tell me that getting rid of the cops will save black lives? Give me a break.
 
Not that it matters any to the Left. There is good reason as to why those names (and there are others) are not being mentioned by the media: it goes against their desire to sow discord and chaos. Many on the fake news media have embraced, excused and even tried to justify the wanton destruction and ruination of lives (many of which are minorities’ lives, as rioters destroyed plenty of businesses that are either run by or employ minorities).
 
And now, CNN is not-so-subtly trying to make the case for dismantling the police in a city that is already ravaged by crime by bringing up three cities that are not at all comparable to Minneapolis and have not exactly abolished the rule of law, like the Left is trying to do.
 
The more time goes by, the more Trump seems to be proven right: the media truly is the enemy of the people.
 
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.