A few days ago, NBC News ran a story covering Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), talking about how U.S. Census data from the mid 1800s (1850 and 1860 specifically) showed that Sen. McConnell’s great-great-grandfathers were slave owners.
 
The article, titled “Sen. Mitch McConnell’s great-great-grandfathers owned 14 slaves, bringing reparations issue close to home” is nothing short of an attempt to smear the guy for the fact the guy’s ancestors FOUR GENERATIONS AGO owned slaves, when plenty of people in America are either descended from slaves or slave owners.
 
“The two great-great-grandfathers, James McConnell and Richard Daley, owned a total of at least 14 slaves in Limestone County, Alabama – all but two of them female, according to the county ‘Slave Schedules’ in the 1850 and 1860 censuses,” reported the article.
 
The article also mentions the fact that Sen. McConnell is opposed to slave reparations, an issue that was recently brought up to the House and has been talked about at length by 2020 Democrat presidential candidates, all of whom support it.
 
McConnell made the case against reparations the day before the House hearing, saying: “I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago, when none of us currently living are responsible, is a good idea. We’ve tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation. We’ve elected an African American president.”
 
Obviously, for the uber-woke Left, such words are absolutely unacceptable and he must be put to shame. And it’s not like NBC News tried to hide their intentions for reporting on his ancestors. One paragraph states: “The details about McConnell’s ancestors, discovered by NBC News through a search of ancestry and census records, came in the wake of recent hearings on reparations before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties…”
 
It’s likely the discovery of his ancestry, made by these very same people, came not simply in the wake of the hearings, but largely due to his comments regarding reparations, considering the amount of times they point out that he is against reparations.
 
Still, later down the article, they mention something experts on slavery often say: “descendants of slave owners should not be held personally responsible for the deeds of their forebears.” Despite that, NBC News says that slave experts add that “the families that descended from slave owners, like McConnell’s, are likely to have benefited from the labor of slaves that propped up farm families in earlier generations – a point made by many reparations supporters, who have said that descendants of slaves were never compensated for the economic benefit their forebears made to white families.”
 
And that “argument” seems pretty idiotic to me for one particular reason: THEY WERE SLAVE OWNERS! OF COURSE THEY AND THEIR FAMILIES BENEFITED FROM IT! That’s like saying people and their families today benefit from advanced technology. It’s just the way the world worked at the time!
 
That’s not an excuse to the immorality of the issue, but an explanation as to how and why the families of slave owners benefited from slave ownership. Of course they benefited! Do you think they owned slaves for fun? Slaves were seen as property; as assets. People benefit from assets. Slave owners benefited from the fact they owned slaves. I don’t think that’s an outrageous statement to make, but rather an entirely logical one. Slave owners benefited from the slaves who would work in their fields in a similar manner as to how companies benefit from the work their employees do.
 
That’s not outrageous, it’s adding 2 + 2 and getting 4. It’s an entirely logical outcome.
 
Again, that’s not to excuse slavery in the least, but it’s ridiculous to be outraged at slave owners BENEFITING from slavery when it’s what comes naturally FROM OWNING AN ASSET! What is outrageous is the fact that people, any kind of people, are/were subjected to be treated as nothing more than property and stripped of all their human rights. Not the fact that people benefit from something that is very obviously going to be beneficial.
 
And what exactly is Mitch McConnell supposed to do, then? Burn all his family’s money that he thinks came from ancestral slave ownership? No, I think what he is supposed to do is apologize profusely for daring to challenge the idea that people who didn’t own slaves should be made to pay people who were never slaves themselves.
 
But that is where the entire issue runs into trouble. Just who is descended from slaves and who is descended from slave owners? Do you want to know who is descended from slave owners as well? 2020 Democrat Presidential candidate Kamala Harris and former President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama.
 
In an article from the Washington Free Beacon, Donald Harris, Stanford University professor of economics and father of Kamala Harris said in 2018 that his grandmother, Christina Brown, was a descendant of Hamilton Brown, the man who had an entire town in northern Jamaica named after him (Brown’s Town) and the man who is said to have owned “scores of slaves,” many of whom were brought from Africa, but there were Creole slaves as well.
 
Barack Obama himself even acknowledges that his mother’s lineage can be traced back to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, his wife Michelle has ancestors who fought for the Confederates and, in 2007, genealogists “traced Obama’s roots and discovered two slave owners in his maternal ancestry,” according to the Washington Post.
 
What’s more, when Obama ran for President in 2008, he was also opposed to reparations, believing that they would be used as an excuse “not to work on challenges of racial inequality in education, housing and the workforce,” according to the WaPo.
 
Sen. Mitch McConnell responded to the NBC News article by saying: “You know, I find myself in the same position as President Obama. We both oppose reparations, and we both are the descendants of slave owners.”
 
Which does bring to light the question as to why NBC News chose to focus on McConnell when Obama was the exact same way and when Harris also had slave-owning ancestors. Of course, that is entirely a rhetorical question. We know why they focus on McConnell, a Republican, over Obama and Harris, Democrats.
 
But it is always interesting, if sometimes infuriating, to see the double-standard the media sets up. Just looking at the Jeffrey Epstein case, the media is working overtime to cover the connections between the sick pedophile and President Trump when there hardly is anything there (and Trump kicked him out of Mar-a-lago when he got wind of what Epstein was doing there) and when Bill Clinton has far bigger of a connection to Epstein than Trump does.
 
And when it comes to the issue of slavery, despite the fact that it’s likely people are descendants of slave owners, as McConnell, Obama and Harris all are, only McConnell is focused on for his comments on reparations not aligning with the far-Left’s views on the issue (I’ve decided to start using that term every now and then, since they always label anyone on the Right, or even center, as “far-right”).
 
Now, I’m no fan of Mitch McConnell personally. I believe he holds at least some of the blame for not working with Trump to get the wall built (the Republicans had 51 seats in the Senate before 2018. Harry Reid’s nuclear option was available to be used but the excuse was “we need 9 Democrats to work with us” which was not really the case). And while it’s entirely possible and likely that the House, under snake Paul Ryan, would’ve struck down any bill to build the wall, McConnell could’ve at least tried to get the ball rolling on building the wall and not give us a pathetic excuse of “we need the Democrats who are never going to agree to do this in order to do this”. We absolutely did not need the Democrats, we just needed Republicans who are not traitorous or spineless.
 
But despite my negative views on McConnell (and his ties to China are dubious at best), I do have to at least bring forth the utter double-standard of this whole ordeal. Again, Obama and Harris both are descendants of slave owners, but no one is asking them about that connection or trying to shame them about it.
 
Still, I’m always happy to expose the utter hypocrisy of the far-Left in everything they do.
 
Ephesians 5:11
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

As we draw closer and closer to the 2020 election cycle, with all 200 Democrats getting ready for their first debates later on this month, pollsters are running their numbers again and pitting Trump against potential 2020 Democrat matchups and, surprise surprise, he’s “trailing” all of them by a significant deficit.
 
Quinnipiac University released their first 2020 matchup poll on Tuesday which has current Democrat frontrunner former VP Joe Biden leading the President by 13 points. Biden also leads Trump 60-34 among women and 47-46 among men. White voters are also split among them, but Trump leads Biden 47-46 here.
 
Biden also leads Trump among African-American and Hispanic voters, with Biden leading Trump 85-12 among African-Americans and 58-33 among Hispanics.
 
When it comes to the other Democrats, Trump supposedly doesn’t do much better. Crazy Bernie leads Trump 51-42, Kamala Harris leads Trump 49-41, Fauxcahontas leads Trump 49-42 and the Pence-obsessed South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Cory “Not So Smarticus” Booker lead Trump 47-42.
 
Non-college educated white voters are the only demographic where Trump seems to have a very solid lead against every Democrat candidate.
 
But looking at this poll as a whole, one might think that it’s over for Trump, right? That he’s going to get trounced. He’s finished. Done. Caput.
 
Well, there is a very good reason as to why I am so skeptical about polls that show these kinds of numbers, especially from Quinnipiac University. Well, reasons, not just one, but one major one.
 
Despite the fact it seems like Trump’s campaign will be swiftly defeated come November of 2020, there is one big factor at play here: this very same poll had Hillary Clinton winning by EVEN BIGGER MARGINS THAN THEY SHOW FOR BIDEN!
 
In this recent poll, Quinnipiac shows Biden leading Trump by 13 points. A good lead for Biden if that were to be the truth whatsoever. But the problem here comes in the fact that back in May of 2015, so basically the same time four years ago, Quinnipiac had Clinton leading Trump by 18 points (50-32).
 
What’s more, even among demographics like African-Americans and Hispanics, Hillary held more of the support than Biden does. Again, Biden supposedly has 85% of the African-American support. But Hillary had 88%. And when it comes to Hispanics, Trump’s numbers today (33%) are higher than they were in 2016 (28%).
 
So considering how astronomically wrong Quinnipiac wound up being in 2016, this current poll shouldn’t really elicit confidence for Trump haters. I imagine there will at least be some fairly rational Democrat voters who will remember how much of a “lead” Hillary had over Trump in 2016 and will be at least relatively skeptical about polls that show such wide margins between the two candidates. And yes, a decent portion of the Democrats will still likely be blaming the Russians for 2016 and will likely claim they helped Trump win re-election if he were to do so, but I am giving these Democrat voters some benefit of the doubt here. I don’t think they are all quite so stupid as to take these polls at face value, especially considering they’re even lower than Hillary’s were.
 
Now, that was only one of the components that leads me to be skeptical about these numbers. Not only was Quinnipiac SUPER wrong about the 2016 matchup, but these numbers are way too distant (in terms of time) from the actual election for them to hold any sort of meaning. You can run hypothetical matchups for any race even beyond the next one and that will matter very little.
 
And while we knew fairly well that Hillary was going to be the nominee in 2016, the answer is not quite so clear this time around. Sure, Biden is leading the other Democrats by a good bit but you never really know. Like I’ve said before in other articles, Hillary was in Joe’s place in 2007, leading the Democrat field, before she was beaten by Obama. So just because Biden is leading right now doesn’t mean he is a lock for the nomination in the first place.
 
This far out from the election, what these types of polls say don’t really matter all that much. I’ve even said the same of polls that show Trump winning. Like I always say, we’re still less than two years away from the election. A lot of things can happen between then and now and the vast majority of the things that will most heavily influence the election will not occur until a few weeks before the election takes place.
 
If the economy is roaring just as well, if not better, by November of next year, and if Trump can make the focus of the election about the economy as well, then he’ll almost certainly win. If you recall an article I wrote from March, I said that economists calculated Trump’s chances of victory and how many electoral and popular votes he is likely to garner (at least a percentage for the popular vote) and had him winning with a margin of 294 electoral votes, meaning he is likely to receive 416 electoral votes total (if the economists are correct, of course). In the history of the United States, there have been 14 elections where the total number of electoral votes was 538. 416 would be the sixth highest number in the 538 system, with only George H. W. Bush (who was riding on Reagan’s coattails), Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan twice getting more electoral votes.
 
So as far as the Quinnipiac poll (or any other poll) goes this early in the election cycle, to claim that Biden will likely beat Trump is mostly a pipe-dream. Again, Hillary’s numbers were far better than Biden is showing, had supposedly strong numbers all the way to the morning of election day where she was supposed to have like a 99% chance of winning and then wound up getting stomped.
 
What exactly will happen on election day only God knows. Of course, I pray to Him that He will allow Trump to be reelected, but as of right now, no one on Earth knows what will happen for certain.
 
With the way things are going, particularly considering Trump’s approval rating (which even Quinnipiac is showing a decent number at 42%, one point shy of his record in that poll) and given the current state of the economy, where even CNN’s polls show roughly 70% say it’s good, then there really is no reason for Trump to come out of the election a loser, especially considering he’s running on a strong economy and every Democrat is running on “we hate Trump”, which is hardly a unifying or beneficial message for the country.
 
Philippians 4:6
“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Yesterday was the 75th anniversary of one of the most significant battles in world history. The landing at Normany Beach on June 6th, 1944 is remembered most often as D-Day. Even for those who know very little of World War II and the actual battles that took place, just about everyone knows what D-Day is and for good reason. All things considered, it was the battle that secured the world’s freedom, at least from Nazism.
 
And in remembrance of this day, President Trump delivered what is perhaps one of his best speeches as President. So good, in fact, that even CNN’s Jim Acosta and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinksi praised it.
 
“This is perhaps the most on-message moment of Donald Trump’s presidency today. We were all wondering if he would veer from his remarks, go off of his script but he stayed on script, stayed on message and, I think, rose to the moment as he was talking about the men gathered behind them he described them as being among the greatest Americans who have ever lived. That could not be more of a fact check true if we could have found one,” remarked Acosta.
 
He continued: “It was really one of those moments that Donald Trump needed to rise to in order to, I think, walk away from the cemetery, walk away from this hallowed ground and have people back at home saying, ‘You know what, no matter what I think about the current President of the United States, he said the right thing at Normandy. He did the right thing at Normandy.’ He really hit all of the right moments, I think moments, in that speech when he was paying respect to these heroes who were still with us.”
 
Mika remarked of Trump’s speech: “Trump’s speech… was very good, and measured up to the moment. It really was a true salute to the unity of this day. He spoke about not only the sacrifices that were made, but our allies and the importance of unity. It was a really good speech.”
 
Scarborough replied: “It did measure up to the moment, as you said. It seems that Ronald Reagan… really set the stage for these commemorations… Other presidents did not fare quite as well. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush come to mind. But Willy, the President, President Trump had several high moments. Of course, we’ll all be talking about the men that he spoke of. But there will be headlines from this speech. And certainly across Europe at least, among our allies, they will be positive headlines. The President again talking about British resolve and French valor, talking about the fighting Poles, talking about the intrepid Aussies, but also talking about an alliance that was forged in War, strengthened in peace, and was unbreakable today.”
 
He continued: “And there was one especially beautiful moment, and I loved the thought because any World War II documentary you see… they will tear up and they will say the heroes are the ones that never came back. Well, President Trump said that that’s what these heroes were saying. The heroes were the ones buried here. And yet, he went on to talk about the remarkable life that was created by this generation.”
 
There were also others like David Ignatius of The Washington Post who remarked that Trump “hit pretty much every note right.”
 
Now, while I won’t write word for word what Trump said in his roughly 5-minute speech, I will highlight some parts that I think were quite special.
 
First, and perhaps most importantly, he noted that the men who lost their lives, who shed their blood, did so “for their brothers, for their countries, and for the survival of liberty.”
 
In the moment, no one knows how significant something is. The storming of the beaches of Normandy was a massive pivotal moment in the war, planned for months by the top brass of many nations in the Allied forces, and executed with a decisive victory for the Allies. While many young men died in battle, their sacrifice helped ultimately rid the world of one of the world’s most evil empires. No one, except God, knew what would happen in the moment and what would come of it. But Trump is right in saying that this battle was one for the survival of liberty. Civilization itself was won there.
 
Next, Trump mentioned our allies during the war and the work our countries put in to ensure freedom:
 
“There were the British, whose nobility and fortitude saw them through the worst of Dunkirk and the London Blitz. The full violence of Nazi fury was no match for the full grandeur of British pride… There were the Canadians, whose robust sense of honor and loyalty compelled them to take up arms alongside Britain from the very, very beginning. There were the fighting Poles, the tough Norwegians, and the intrepid Aussies. There were the gallant French commandos, soon to be met by thousands of their brave countrymen ready to write a new chapter in the long history of French valor. And, finally, there were the Americans. They came from the farms of a vast heartland, the streets of glowing cities, and the forges of mighty industrial towns. Before the war, many had never ventured beyond their own community. Now they had come to offer their lives half a world from home.”
 
One of the points that even Joe Scarborough liked, Trump made sure to remember that what Normandy was was a battle between good and evil, a battle that saw countries who have had long histories of animosity towards one another (France and Britain being prime examples, the U.S. and Britain, etc.) forget the past so that they could ensure the world’s future. Their sacrifice ought to remind us what good we can do for the world.
 
Then, Trump made sure to remember the multitude of men who sacrificed their very lives to ensure Allied victory, going through the numerous battalions, regiments, and armed forces, remembering the words of soldiers who saw victory as the one and only priority, with Colonel George Taylor, of the 16th Infantry Regiment (a regiment that was part of the first wave) remarking when asked what would happen if the Germans stopped them right there: “Why, the 18th Infantry is coming in right behind us. The 26th Infantry will come on too. Then there is the 2nd Infantry Division already afloat. And the 9th Division. And the 2nd Armored. And the 3rd Armored. And all the rest. Maybe the 16th won’t make it, but someone will.”
 
What was important right then and there is not their survival, people’s most primal instinct, but victory for their countries. If the 16th Infantry Regiment didn’t succeed, someone else would, and would have to. That is how important this day was 75 years ago: failure was not an option.
 
Trump then went on to tell multiple stories of different soldiers and even of a farm wife who lived near to the beaches of Normandy, scared to death of the battle happening nearby and crying tears of joy when a soldier went into her house and said to her: “I’m an American. I’m here to help.”
 
Trump then said something that nearly brought me to tears (which would’ve been manly tears, I assure you):
 
“From across the Earth, Americans are drawn to this place as though it were a part of our very soul. We come not only because of what they did here. We come because of who they were. They were young men with their entire lives before them. They were husbands who said goodbye to their young brides and took their duty as their fate. They were fathers who would never meet their infant sons and daughters because they had a job to do. And with God as their witness, they were going to get it done. They came wave after wave, without question, without hesitation, without complaint. More powerful than the strength of American arms was the strength of American hearts. These men ran through the fires of hell moved by a force no weapon could destroy: the fierce patriotism of a free, proud, and sovereign people. They battled not for control and domination, but for liberty, democracy, and self-rule. They pressed on for love in home and country – the Main Streets, the schoolyards, the churches and neighbors, the families and communities that gave us men such as these. They were sustained by the confidence that America can do anything because we are a noble nation with a virtuous people, praying to a righteous God.”
 
The average age of a soldier during World War II was 26. I will be that age in less than three years and could not picture myself being in a land I had never seen before, fighting a terrifying enemy, being 99% certain that I was living my last day on Earth. The human mind cannot remain sane living with the thought and knowledge that it was about to die. We are not wired to think so much of our own mortalities and being faced with them so aggressively.
 
That is why this battle is so incredible. Bravery is not the absence of fear; it’s taking action despite fear. I have no doubt that most, if not all, of the soldiers there were afraid. But they made sure to put that fear aside to get the job done. Again, their survival was not their priority. For humans and animals alike, survival is the number one priority always. But not here. Victory came before survival. If they were going to forego their own lives, they were going to do so fighting for one of the best fights you can get involved with: liberty.
 
That generation is considered the greatest generation and for a very good reason. What we are today is a result of what they did back then. We owe a great debt to that generation that we simply could not repay if we tried.
 
Now if only the Left wasn’t actively trying to undo the sacrifices so many of the best Americans have made.
 
Hebrews 13:16
“Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Earlier this week, NRATV shared a minute-long video of Kim Corban, a woman who had been raped in her college dorm at the age of 20 and had since gotten a gun to protect herself and her family.
 
In the clip, she mentions her horrible rape, what she was thinking while it was happening, and states that “I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.”
 
The woman in the clip gives a very legitimate and fair reason to own a firearm and anyone who watched the clip could understand. However, in comes CNN host Chris Cuomo, replying with a simple: “Only in America” tweet.
 
Usually, that phrase “only in America” carries with it a sort of negative or mocking connotation. So the fact he tweeted that in response to a video of a woman who survived a rape and decided to get a firearm (Cuomo himself owns a gun, btw) and didn’t offer any further explanation for quite a few hours led some people to mock him.
 
Dana Loesch, a spokeswoman for the NRA, replied to Cuomo by saying: “Not sure what you mean by this. ‘Only in America’ can a rape survivor protect herself and her family against any future threat? This is bad how?”
 
Steven Crowder, host of the show Louder with Crowder, mocked: “Man mocks rape survivor who protects her children with firearm… Only on CNN.”
 
Steve Krakauer replied: “Only in America can a woman be raped and held captive for hours, tell her story, and subsequently be snark-tweeted by a CNN anchor so blinded by his own political agenda he can’t display basic humanity.”
 
Jarrett Stepman replied: “Yes, in America we preserve the right for women (in this case a rape survivor) to defend themselves and their families. God bless America.”
 
These are but a few of the kind of replies Cuomo received for his mocking tweet. And after a few hours, he had had enough and attempted to explain. Key word here is “attempted” because he failed gloriously at that too.
 
He first replied to a woman named Janice Dean, who tweeted at him the following: “You might want [to] explain this tweet a little better to those of us who’ve actually had to face predators in our own homes and defend ourselves without a big strong man like yourself?”
 
Cuomo replied with: “1/2 You are right. No offense intended. Too short on twitter. ‘Only in America’ are we still debating the legitimate right to protect oneself like you and many others vs sensible way to keep guns from wrong people. Only here can we not address the issues around school shootings.”
 
Yeah, not a good explanation at all there. It looks more like he’s trying to change the topic of conversation to school shootings and keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. Problem here is that the video does not address that and he acts as though it’s self-evident with his “Only in America” tweet.
 
He then replied to Janice with: “I am sorry for confusion. I take the issue and the stories of violence seriously. Muscles don’t stop bullets, as you know. Again, I have always been clear about the right to own and what needs to be improved. Apologize if you were misled.”
 
He still doesn’t acknowledge that his original tweet made absolutely no sense given the video and offers no real good explanation for the original tweet.
 
Then, when Janice replied with: “That’s a lot of explaining. Honestly I think you just need to apologize to Kimberly Corban. That would be a good start,” Cuomo got defensive: “Of course I apologized for this negative attention that was not intended. You asked a question and I answered. That’s what should happen. This place and sadly this issue brings out the worst in too many. No need. Not helpful.”
 
Oh, of course people asking for an explanation and asking that someone apologize to the person being targeted is out of line. How dare they question the great Chris Cuomo when he offered a shoddy explanation that changed the topic and offered an apology not to the woman he mocked but for not being more clear with his three-word tweet?
 
Basically, Wednesday night was a bad night for Cuomo, trying to explain things away (and failing miserably), trying to shift the subject and getting defensive over it. But despite what a lot of people were saying, I think the biggest problem here is simply that Cuomo did not watch the video he commented on… which is a pretty bad thing considering he’s supposed to be a “journalist” and it’s his job to look into this sort of thing.
 
I think what happened is that he saw the video was from the NRA TV Twitter account, saw that it was captioned: “’I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.’ – Kim Corban,” ignored the part about a predator or someone harming her or her family, focused on the part about “having to come through my firearm first,” which could be considered a threat (a good one, all things considered) and his mind went into auto-pilot and offered criticism towards the NRA and the woman.
 
Had he watched the MINUTE-long video, he would’ve likely not commented like that (or at all) and avoided making an utter fool of himself.
 
Sadly, given the current state of not just CNN but the entirety of the MSM, where things are reported on without the facts or before they come in (i.e. Covington Catholic, some e-mails that supposedly proved collusion but they got the dates wrong, really the entirety of the Russian collusion narrative, and most recently, a story about the USS John McCain’s name being covered up before Trump’s trip to Japan but was reported as having been covered up during it, etc.), this sort of anti-journalistic work is par for the course. There is good reason I largely don’t call them journalists anymore. They are propagandists and use the guise of journalism to pretend objectivity in their highly subjective reporting.
 
Chris Cuomo likely didn’t watch the clip (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here. If he did watch the clip, this makes it all the worse), made assumptions based on the source and what was captioned (even then, he had to have ignored the part about harm coming to her) and offered a rather vague, mocking criticism that has led (unsurprisingly) to people thinking he was mocking a rape survivor (which he was, but I don’t think he intended to do that).
 
Given his title as “journalist”, one would expect him to watch the video before saying anything about it. But this is the state of the media: facts be damned; if a story hurts Trumps/the Right, roll with it. And if the NRA has someone saying someone will “have to come through my firearm first”, mock that to oblivion without first checking to see who is giving that sort of threat and why. No investigative journalism, or even watching the video easily offered, is necessary. Just type away, criticize and be on your merry way.
 
This encapsulates the state of the media. They are not trying to report on reality but rather shape it. Facts will only get in the way of their reporting if the facts don’t agree with their narrative.
 
“A bunch of high school kids wearing MAGA hats are pictured, with one of them smiling at a Native American who is right in his face? Obviously it’s the MAGA kid’s fault and he’s a racist and white supremacist and clearly hassling the Native American! And it’s all Trump’s fault!”
 
“You’re telling me the Native American guy was accosting the high school kids and the kid at the center of the picture was simply smiling out of awkwardness of the situation, not knowing how to react to such a strange situation? You’re saying the kids were on a school trip, happened upon a group of racist black supremacists yelling obscenities at the white kids (and even the black kids of the group) and the Native American guy escalated the situation? And the Native American guy has a history of this sort of thing? Nonsense, put him on an interview where he will act like the victim. You mean to say he has done that in the past too? Bury the story and never admit fault. It’s still because of Trump that this even happened in the first place. There were no racial problems in America when Democrats were President.”
 
“We have a Congressman who claims he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia? Have him speak about it but don’t ask him to show the evidence at all. Just affirm our petty beliefs that Trump did collude with Russia and Saint Mueller is coming down from heaven to rescue our poor souls.”
 
And this is when they are not actively colluding with the FBI to report on a dossier even the FBI admits is not verified.
 
A CNN anchor opined on a topic he did not care to even slightly research. Only on planet Earth.
 
Proverbs 1:7
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
 
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.

Remember when Trump first won the election and everyone from the media to Obama to Hillary and everyone in between was crying out that Russia somehow hacked the election? And when that fell through, especially considering it was Obama himself who insisted months prior to the election that it was not possible for a foreign entity to mess with the voting ballots (something the Left likely regrets to this day), they turned towards Russian collusion, starting phony investigation after phony investigation, with liar Congressmen claiming to have evidence but refusing to turn such evidence over.
 
Well, now that the Russian collusion narrative is basically dead (though there are those who still refuse to accept the truth even found in Mueller’s report surrounding that subject), the Left is looking at alternatives to getting Trump out of office. That much is clear considering Rep. Al Green (D-Impeachmentland) said he’s “concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected” and considering Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Californistan) said “we cannot accept a 2nd term for Donald Trump”.
 
They are absolutely desperate to get rid of the guy and have no hope whatsoever of beating him in 2020 (and side note: Democrats didn’t accept his first term either, Nancy).
 
So they have two options: look into possible obstruction (not gonna work) or somehow force Trump to release his tax returns (not sure what that would accomplish. If there was some sort of “payment” from Russia to Trump at some point or another, people in the IRS would’ve flagged it down far sooner than Mueller would have and neither party has done anything of the sort).
 
I have a feeling they will want to explore the first one more intensely, but if they can hit Trump about his taxes, they will. And that’s precisely what the New York Times tried to do recently. Key word here is “try”.
 
The New York Times released a story talking about Trump’s tax returns from the late 80’s and early 90’s, where Donald Trump actually was not doing quite so well financially.
 
“Mr. Trump was propelled to the presidency, in part, by a self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome. He has attributed his first run of reversals and bankruptcies to the recession that took hold in 1990. But 10 years of tax information obtained by The New York Times paints a different, and far bleaker, picture of his deal-making abilities and financial condition,” read the Times.
 
Basically, their aim is to say “Trump is not as successful as he’d like you to believe! He actually lost money for a period of time!” However, there is one crucial point that they fail to make: EVERYONE IN NEW YORK CITY REAL ESTATE WAS LOSING MONEY AT THE TIME!
 
Overall apartment rental prices in the city fell by 15% beginning in 1988. Manhattan homes crashed by roughly 33% between ‘89 and ’96 and the area Trump invested heavily in, a railyard which he hoped to turn into a neighborhood, home prices crashed even worse at 40%. The real estate company Olympia & York, at one point the biggest landlord in the entire city, had to declare bankruptcy. Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan had to fire or stop doing business with real estate bankers in the early 90’s.
 
The New York real estate market was collapsing. Everyone involved in the craft was losing a lot of money. Naturally, so did Trump.
 
And that is something Trump himself admits. Here are a few paragraphs from Donald Trump’s 2007 book titled: “Think Big and Kick Ass”.
 
“My company owed billions and was much too heavily leveraged. I was in debt personally for $900 million. One day I was walking down the street and I said to my then wife Marla, ‘That beggar over there Is worth $900 million more than I am.’ She said, ‘What do you mean?’ I said, ‘Because I’m $900 million in debt, and at least he has money in his pocket.’”
 
“I used to say to myself, ‘Oh, my God, am I in trouble. I am going down.’ That was big league. I was not focused but I never blamed myself, because from the day I graduated from Wharton in 1968, I did well. For twenty-one years I was doing fantastic. I felt like I had the right to take it easy. I really felt that after twenty-one years I had the right not to focus.”
 
“Reality taught me an important lesson: I could not have it both ways. If I wanted to be the greatest, the amazing Donald Trump who makes everything he touches gold, then I needed to focus. I could not have one without the other. I decided that I still wanted to be the old Trump and started focusing like never before. In 1991, the world was collapsing. It was so bad in real estate that if a person walked into a building, just looking around, we considered it to be a sign that the market was changing.”
 
“I have been through a lot. I have had great success. I have also had some really tough times, like when the real estate market collapsed in the early 90s. I owed many billions of dollars, and the banks were after my ass. It was not exactly fun! I had every major bank after me. Everybody in my industry was in big trouble. I had some friends and some enemies in the business who I thought were really tough guys, but most of them could not handle the bad times like they handled the good times. Most of them went out of business. All my friends were going bankrupt. I was very close, but I never went bankrupt. Even though it was not much fun and I never want to go through it again, in some ways it wasn’t so bad. I slept very well, and I managed to keep my faculties. It is not that I trained for it; I didn’t train for it. But that awful experience taught me that I can handle pressure. Most people crawled into a corner, put their fingers in their mouths, and said, ‘Mommy, Mommy, take me home!’”
 
“I learned that I can handle pressure. I did not back down under pressure. I turned it back on the banks and let them accept some of the blame. I figured it was the bank’s problem, not mine. What the hell did I care?”
 
While that may be an awful lot to look into (and I certainly won’t be analyzing everything) the main point I wanted to make here is the fact that Donald Trump knows very well, more than anyone, especially some NYT reporter, how bad things were for him and his business.
 
Everyone around him was going bankrupt and/or losing tons of money. He himself was losing tons of money and ALMOST went bankrupt, as he himself admits. And yet, he did persist, unlike the Times wishes to insist.
 
Look at that quote from the Times once again: “Mr. Trump was propelled to the presidency, in part, by a self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome… But 10 years of tax information obtained by The New York Times paints a different, and far bleaker, picture of his deal-making abilities and financial condition.”
 
It’s not his tax returns that paint a different and bleaker picture than what Trump was boasting about himself, it’s THE TIMES THEMSELVES PAINTING A DIFFERENT PICTURE! Donald Trump, unlike many in his industry, actually did not go bankrupt. He was losing money, yes, as was everyone else. But he persevered, worked harder than everyone else, and he became the city’s prime real estate figure.
 
It’s not a “self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome”, it’s a retelling of actual events and life experiences that he underwent. He had major business success, otherwise HE WOULDN’T BE A BILLIONAIRE! He had setbacks that he triumphantly overcame because HE DIDN’T GO BELLY UP WHEN EVERYONE AROUND HIM WAS!
 
Not that they bother to mention any of the other information in their article. Their sole focus is to attack Trump in any way they can. They willfully ignore that he came out of the 90s a real estate winner, particularly in comparison to many of his friends and competitors in the business.
 
The late 80s and early 90s were tough on Trump, and yet, he never declared bankruptcy himself. How then can one consider him a failure for NOT crumbling alongside the markets? How can he be considered a failure for having a few really bad years but eventually overcoming them?
 
The answer is that you can’t, but the Left will try their hand at anything that can possibly hurt Trump. Just conveniently forget that everyone was doing poorly (quite an understatement) in New York real estate around the same time as Trump was and all of a sudden, it looks like Trump was a really bad business man. Although you also have to conveniently forget that he did become a billionaire again as time went on and his businesses thrived.
 
You have to do an awful lot of misremembering and convenient forgetting of the facts in order to think and say that Donald Trump was not a good business man.
 
While everyone else was going bankrupt around him, God blessed Trump throughout. He did not go without some bad periods and without his struggles, but the Lord was guiding his footsteps the entire way. I hope Trump thanks God as often has he can for what He did for him.
 
Psalm 138:7
“Though I walk in the midst of trouble, you preserve my life; you stretch out your hand against the wrath of my enemies, and your right hand delivers me.”
 
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.

The biggest story of the weekend was the fact that on Easter Sunday, the day when Christians around the world celebrate the rising of the Lord Jesus Christ from the grave, signifying His defeat over death, multiple bombs, most of which were suicide bombings, targeted churches and luxury hotels, killing around 300 people (and expected to increase) and wounding 500 others in Sri Lanka.
 
The attack is believed to have been perpetrated by a radical Islamist terrorist group called National Thowfeek Jamaath, which might have ties to ISIS.
 
Included in the death toll are over 30 foreigners and 2 Americans.
 
Obviously, this is a very big deal. The death toll is very high and the attacks were numerous, with reportedly 7 locations being targeted: three churches and four hotels. According to the Wall Street Journal, six of the attacks were suicide bombings and the other one was a failed car bombing outside the St. Anthony Shrine. Another bomb was also found near Sri Lanka’s airport, but was found and defused before it went off.
 
The Wall Street Journal also reports that 85 other detonators were found abandoned in a bus station, indicating that the attacks carried out on Easter were supposed to only be the beginning of more chaos, death and destruction.
 
Considering this is major news, influential people took notice and wished to share their thoughts. However, one must recognize the sort of language used by people like former President Barack Obama and failure Hillary Clinton.
 
Obama tweeted: “The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.”
 
Clinton tweeted: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.”
 
“Easter worshippers”?
 
And they’re not the only ones who used that odd term. Presidential candidate Julian Castro tweeted: “On a day of redemption and hope, the evil of these attacks on Easter worshippers and tourists in Sri Lanka is deeply saddening. My prayers today are with the dead and injured, and their families. May we find grace.”
 
Even ABC News tweeted: “Tourists, Easter worshippers lament the closure of Notre Dame.” Though that one was sent the day before the attacks, but still used that strange term.
 
Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? Because Christians are not “Easter worshippers”. I’ve seen many people tweeting at Obama, Hillary and others about how they can’t seemingly use the term “Christians” (maybe it burns them to mention Him) but they gloss over the fact that no Christian worships Easter. NO ONE worships Easter.
 
Do we celebrate Easter? You bet we do. But we do not worship it. We worship Jesus who rose again from the dead, which we celebrate on Easter Sunday.
 
It’s such a strange term to use in what is supposed to be a replacement for “Christians”.
 
But in any case, notice how they really can’t seem to be able to use that word. Why wouldn’t they note that Christians were targeted and killed on Sunday? Why would they use such a strange and erroneous term to replace the far-easier-to-type “Christians”?
 
These are really just rhetorical questions, of course. These people are themselves not Christians and absolutely hate Christians, so at any point where Christians are targeted, especially in such a grand and horrific way, they have to completely avoid mentioning it. To them, Christians are oppressors and vicious rulers, not victims and targets of persecution and execution.
 
Notice the sort of language they use to talk about multiple horrific acts of violence against Christians versus what they said about the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand.
 
Here’s what Obama said after the NZ shooting: “Michelle and I send our condolences to the people of New Zealand. We grieve with you and the Muslim community. All of us must stand against hatred in all its forms.”
 
And now Hillary: “My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”
 
Rightly, they were outraged over the New Zealand shooting that killed 50 Muslims in a mosque. But they have no problem pointing out that Muslims were targeted in that attack while they perform verbal gymnastics to avoid pointing out that Christians were targeted in Sri Lanka.
 
The Left has no problem pointing out hatred and violence against Muslims when it happens (unless it’s Shiites being killed by Sunnis, as both are Muslims) but makes it their mission to try and diminish the effect of a far more destructive and deadly event. Not to minimize the horror of the New Zealand shooting, any destruction of life is tragic, but this attack led to more deaths and injuries, not to mention it was supposedly only the beginning of more planned terrorist attacks, likely targeting Christians.
 
50 dead Muslims is a major deal to the Left (as it should be) but 300 dead Christians and they can hardly pretend to give a damn.
 
Not that I expected anything less from these people, but it is a reminder of the sort of vile that they are. Especially looking over Hillary’s tweets. She wanted the NZ shooter’s head on a platter, denouncing Islamophobia (how come no one talks about Christophobia? Is that even a term?) and “racism in all its forms”. She says that “white supremacists terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere,” and insists that that sort of “murderous hatred must be stopped”.
 
But when Christians are the targets: they don’t get mentioned and are even lost in the crowd. “On this holy weekend for many faiths…” while not exactly wrong, as it is also Passover for Jews, this is an attack that specifically happened on Easter, a strictly Christian holiday, with Christians being the targets of the attacks.
 
They insist that we must stand in solidarity with the Muslim community around the world when they are targeted (which is rare, again, unless it is Muslim-on-Muslim violence which is frequent) and condemn Islamophobia, while not calling for any solidarity with the Christian community around the world when we are targeted and there are no calls for condemnation of Christophobia or the targeting of Christians at all.
 
And while Christophobia is technically a term, it is never outright used at any point. When someone targets gay people, that’s homophobia. Fine. When someone targets someone for their skin color, that’s racism. Fine. When someone targets women, that’s misogyny. Fine. When someone targets transgender people, that’s transphobia. Fine. When someone targets Muslims, that’s Islamophobia. Fine. But when someone targets Christians, the Left does not even recognize that they are Christians and certainly does not recognize any sort of trend of hatred towards Christians. Not fine.
 
But what makes this even worse is the actual term they use instead of Christians. If it had been “Easter observers” or “Easter celebrators” or something like that, it might’ve been marginally better. But “Easter worshippers” just rubs me the wrong way. It insinuates that what we worship is not Jesus Christ Himself, but the holiday. That we worship and have reverence towards a simple day on the week and not the Lord who made this day special with the unique and unprecedented feat of COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD. That we worship something that is not God.
 
THAT is what ticks me off more than anything else. Again, I fully expected this sort of behavior from the Left. I’m not at all surprised that they gave every damn they had about Muslims being killed in New Zealand but couldn’t be bothered to pretend about Christians. That is expected, but that term is outright insulting.
 
What Christian worships Easter? Point one out to me and I will tell you that he or she is not a Christian.
 
This is the definition of passive aggressive behavior. Implicit disdain of Christians.
 
Again, not exactly surprising behavior coming from the Left, whose heart is filled with hatred and evil, but we are yet again reminded of the sort of hatred and evil that they harbor.
 
John 15:18
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

While I 100% knew that the Russian collusion narrative was not going to die even after Mueller cleared Trump of that accusation in his report, I’ll admit I thought the Left would not be THIS desperate to keep the narrative alive so soon.
 
The New York Times (at least in their online article) had a headline that read: “Washington’s Most Popular Russian (and His Teammates) Honored at White House.”
 
Now, that headline on its own is a bit ambiguous. It’s not an outright lie, but it’s fairly misleading, though there are clues in it that should tell you (at least if you’re a sane person) that Trump was actually meeting with the Stanley Cup champions the Washington Capitals, led by Alex Ovechkin, the team’s star player and Russian native.
 
But there is more to this than just what the headline tells you. In the beginning paragraph, the NYT mentions the recently wrapped up Russian investigation: “A day after President Trump reveled in the apparent fizzling of a two-year effort to prosecute him for possible illicit coordination with Russia during the 2016 campaign, Washington’s most prominent Moscow native arrived at the White House on Monday to celebrate.”
 
Now, tell me, is it at all necessary to mention the Russian investigation in an article about the President meeting with a championship-winning sports team? What does it add to the story’s main point – that Trump met with the Washington Capitals in the White House, and meeting with the team’s star player who just so happens to be from Russia – to make mention of the fact that Trump was under investigation for two years for supposed collusion with Russia?
 
By the way, I also love the subtle hint that they don’t think this is over. Saying “apparent fizzling” tells me how they 100% do not plan on this being settled just because Mueller couldn’t find anything. Poor desperate demons.
 
And it’s not just that beginning paragraph. According to the Daily Wire (the NYT has a subscription wall and I have no intention of giving them any of my money), later down the NYT article, they talk about a “2017 Oval Office meeting between Trump, the Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, and then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey I. Kislyak. Naturally, the Times took the opportunity to claim the conversation between these men ‘reinforced the belief that Mr. Trump had fired Mr. Comey because of the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between Russian operatives and the campaign – a move that would have potentially implicated him in another crime, obstruction of justice.’”
 
Again, in an article talking about the President meeting with the Washington Capitals months after they won the Stanley Cup, the most coveted prize in the NHL, what does it add to the story to mention this random meeting from ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO!?
 
You see, I could take that headline and beginning paragraph as a little joke about how Trump is meeting with a Russian the day after the Mueller investigation wrapped up. I have a sense of humor, so I can see the fun little irony of meeting with a Russian-born man the day after the Russian collusion investigation wrapped up, clearing him of the charges. But the fact that the article also mentions the Oval Office meeting with those two Russian diplomats from 2017 tells me the writer of this article did not mean any of this as a joke.
 
It tells me this is still an effort to maintain the Russian collusion narrative and even try and bring along the obstruction of justice narrative (which is as b.s. as the collusion narrative, given Trump has the legal power to fire the head of the FBI for any given reason or no reason at all). It tells me that none of this is funny and Trump meeting with Ovechkin (and his teammates) is another piece of evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. That somehow, a hockey player who led his team to winning the Stanley Cup and happens to be Russian (though he’s also a fan of Putin, for some reason, but that hardly implicates him as being an operative) plays some small part of the overall conspiracy to steal the election away from Hillary (and by extension, the Democrats, given that they could not give a single damn about her now) and thus shows that Trump is guilty of everything he’s been accused of.
 
It’s sad, to be quite honest. The Mueller report just cleared Trump of the very charges it was supposed to prosecute him on, so the Left is grasping at straws. Like I mentioned in my previous article, the Left has turned on Mueller, with some thinking he might’ve been compromised by the Russians or something.
 
This narrative was the only explanation the Left had for Trump winning in 2016, with the obstruction of justice charge coming a bit later, but also leading nowhere.
 
This is downright derangement. And not just Trump Derangement Syndrome, but outright derangement. They refuse to believe Trump didn’t collude with Russia. These people do not rely on facts or logic at all, but entirely on feelings.
 
They want Trump in jail because he ticks them off to no end. He didn’t commit any crimes, was elected fairly and legally, but he is an affront to them just by existing and must be rid of. That’s why people like Rep. Al Green (D-TX) (seriously, Texas, what are you doing electing this doofus?) repeatedly tried to bring up articles of impeachment throughout Trump’s presidency. He had no grounds for impeachment, only claiming things like obstruction of justice and so forth, but nothing substantial. And yet, he tried multiple times to have it be brought up for a vote on the House floor and was repeatedly rejected. Matter of fact, even after the Mueller investigation wrapped up, he keeps saying that he will continue to seek impeachment of the President.
 
That’s because impeachment is not about justice, but politics. The grounds for it have to be justified, for the most part, but if there is enough support for it, justice doesn’t matter. If enough Democrats and Republicans wanted Trump out, they could do it with the most b.s. reasons imaginable.
 
The Russian collusion narrative should be dead, and some Democrats like James Clyburn are trying to get them to move on (particularly to the narrative that Republicans want to take away people’s healthcare), but I’m certain these people will not move on. They will keep going back to the well that has dried up. They don’t care if nothing comes from it, they are desperate enough and deranged enough to think it will hurt Trump.
 
It won’t. And the more desperate they get, the less appealing they will be to most voters.
 
Of course, I imagine a fair majority of the Democrat base also believed in the collusion story and will likewise not want to let it go because it does not compute that Mueller found no evidence. After all, if the average Democrat voter only receives information from the MSM, time and time again, people like Rep. Adam Schiff told them they themselves had evidence of collusion, so Mueller must also have evidence of collusion. Finding that Mueller did not, actually, have anything goes against the garbage the media was feeding them and these people might come to the conclusion that something was amiss regarding Mueller. That he must’ve somehow been compromised or something else that might explain this new reality.
 
But I don’t think the majority of people are that nutty. Being cleared by Mueller is a massive win for Trump that could very well help him out in the future.
 
But again, I doubt this will do anything to change any on the Left’s minds. Some might be more willing to cut their losses and move on, but most I imagine will go even more insane than they already were. Before, while they still accused Trump of all of these things without any evidence, they at least had the Mueller investigation going on to fall back on, hoping it will find something. Now, they will try to claim things without evidence and without even the support of the Mueller investigation. In fact, the report directly contradicts what they would have to say, so that puts them in an even worse position.
 
But this is just how desperate they are. Again, I could’ve taken that headline and opening paragraph as a little joke, but these people have no sense of humor and did not intend those things to be a joke. They think Trump meeting with any Russian at all is tantamount to him meeting with Putin and drinking vodka in celebration of getting away with something malicious.
 
The desperation is real and it’s just beginning.
 
 Jeremiah 17:9
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”
 
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.

Recently, I’ve been one to opine that nothing Trump does today will singlehandedly win or lose him the 2020 election. And while that holds true for the most part, what he does with regards to the economy is, indeed, something that could win or lose him in 2020, at least that’s what economists predict.
 
In a story on Politico, written by people who 100% do not want Trump to win again and try and tell their audience “it’s okay, because even though he’s likely to win in 2020, a number of mess ups and his unpopularity (which are really only featured in MSM polls) could derail his chances,” a number of economic experts, some of whom do not like Trump themselves and others who predicted his victory in 2016 all agreed that the strong economy will likely lead Trump to a huge victory in 2020.
 
Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of TrendMacrolytics, a source that predicted Trump’s 2016 victory, said: “The economy is just so damn strong right now and by all historic precedent the incumbent should run away with it.” He also mentioned that the economy “would have to slow a lot to still be not pretty good.”
 
According to Politico: “Luskin’s current model – which looks at GDP growth, gas prices, inflation, disposable income, tax burden and payrolls – has Trump winning by a blowout margin of 294 electoral votes.”
 
Again, that’s a MARGIN. If Trump is going to win by a margin of 294, then that means he’ll receive 416 total electoral votes (538 total votes in the electoral college). The way this was calculated is taking T (for Trump) to be = D (Democrat) plus the estimated 294. D = 538 (total possible votes) – T. So calculating T = D + 294, you replace D with 538 – T so the formula reads T = 538 - T + 294. Moving the two variables to the same side gives us T + T = 538 + 294. So 2T (or T + T) = 832. Dividing both sides by 2 gives us T = 416. 538 – 416 gives us 122, which is what the Democrat will get. 416 -122 = 294, the margin Trump is predicted to win by.
 
Sorry for the (sort of) short math lesson, but I felt it was important to note just how exactly we arrived at that number. While the Politico article doesn’t specifically mention how many votes Trump is predicted to get, I felt it was necessary to try and calculate this to get a bit more of a clear picture around this.
 
Yale economist Ray Fair, who also predicted Trump’s 2016 victory, said something similar: “Even if you have a mediocre but not great economy – and that’s more or less consensus for between now and the election – that has a Trump victory and by a not-trivial margin.” Fair said that, if the economy remains to be this strong (and while economists predict it will slow down significantly, I don’t see much reason for it to do so), Trump will likely win 54% of the vote.
 
Another economist, Mark Zandi, used 12 different economic models to predict the 2020 election. Trump won in every single one of them, with him winning relatively closely in only “three or four” of them, according to Zandi.
 
Something else that might help Trump is the fact that the Fed announced last week that they would hold off on raising interest rates, something they promised they would do last year, which helps in keeping the economy growing at a good rate. Trump himself says that had they not done so at least as often in the past, we’d likely have around a 4% GDP per year right now, but even with those continual rate hikes, the economy still grew by 3.1% for last year, which Trump celebrated as being the best number in 14 years (and yet another reason I doubt the economy will come to the grinding halt so many “experts” predict).
 
Now, like I said, the writers of this Politico article definitely do not want Trump to succeed. They cite everything from what other economists are saying about the future of the economy (again, not much reason for it to stall like they predict) to citing MSM polls that say Trump’s approval numbers are not great, around the low 40%.
 
But regardless of what kind of message they may want to portray, economic models tell the story that Trump is on track to destroying any opposition he meets based on the state of the economy alone.
 
Of course, these are estimates that are most likely not going to be 100% accurate in everything they show, but the trend seems to be that Trump’s strong economy (which is so strong the Left tries to connect it with Obama but no one’s buying what they’re selling) will likely be enough to ensure him victory, barring any major scandal (which the Left will try to promulgate, but the Russian collusion narrative is dying and they’re doing their best to revive it now that Mueller found no collusion) or the economy absolutely tanking (again, no real reason it should).
 
These people could NOT have been happy to report these models. Kind of surprised they did in the first place. Not that it’s all that likely that other MSM sources will report on it, even a little. Any good news for Trump has to be buried as much as possible.
 
1 Corinthians 15:57
“But thanks be to God, who gives us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I always love sharing good and happy news, particularly the kind that really bring a smile to my face, and this article has such news.
 
In a recent Siena College poll asking New Yorkers a number of questions, such as whether they think New York is on the right track or headed in the wrong direction (43 and 46% respectively, interestingly enough), the poll asked how New Yorkers viewed a number of people ranging from Chuck Schumer (51% approval), to Kirsten Gillibrand (43% approval) to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bill de Blasio and President Donald Trump.
 
And this is where we find the best part of the entire thing. President Trump has a 36% approval rating in the state of New York. Now, that’s not exactly ground-breaking, although higher than I honestly expected, but not all that high either. It’s a reasonable amount, all things considered.
 
However, current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is two points BEHIND Trump at 34% and freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was touted as being the future of the Democrat Party, is at an embarrassing 31% approval, with 44% disapproving.
 
This is downright HILARIOUS to see. But wait, there’s more. A plurality of New Yorkers (38%) view her as the villain responsible for 25,000 New Yorkers not getting new jobs after the Amazon deal fell through.
 
Now, this is not the first poll to signal AOC’s unpopularity. Last week, Gallup found Ocasio-Cortez’s popularity taking a tumble, even finding that the more people get to know her, the less she is liked.
 
At least that’s something that she has in common with Hillary.
 
But due to these numbers, AOC went on a tirade online, blaming everything from Fox News to racism and sexism and bigotry for her poor numbers.
 
“[P]eople know more [about me] bc Fox News has turned into ‘AOC TMZ’ (no offense to TMZ), so awareness is growing w/GOPers,” the unpopular lunatic tweeted on Friday.
 
To which I would say the following: GOPers already know about you, you dimwit. We abhor the things you stand for and know for a FACT that they don’t work and would bring about the destruction of the United States. It’s not like she has been a silent, out-of-nowhere Congresswoman or even a candidate. Her defeat of Crowley in the primaries was a big surprise and her notoriety, not to mention popularity, rose since then. She has been EXTREMELY loud about her insane rhetoric since even before she won her race, so it’s not like Republicans were not aware of her.
 
Not that this amount of logic exists within her mind. No, she instead chose to pull the “racist” and “sexist” cards:
 
“When ‘centrists’ care more about the GOP base than the Dem base, bigotry gets legitimized. This is *the* playbook. GOP does it w/ virtually every Dem figure who isn’t a white male: otherize, demonize + splinter. It’s vital that we adapt & dismantle this approach, not cow to it.”
 
Yeah, I don’t even know where to start with that considering how this is so incoherent you’d think a 2nd grader wrote this.
 
But let’s give it a shot. Perhaps it’s important to note this is a reply to a tweet that read: “It’s interesting to see centrists suddenly downplay or ignore the effects of racism, sexism and Fox News targeting when discussing AOC’s overall approval ratings.”
 
Yeah, that’s too great a leap in logic for me to follow. How is it that she was fairly popular in the past (not by that much, but she wasn’t in this much of a hole) but all of a sudden, because Fox News is reporting on her unpopularity, she’s unpopular and it’s because she’s a female minority? What exactly changed here?
 
Not to mention neither the original tweet nor the AOC lunatic and victim reply do anything to answer just why she’s LESS POPULAR THAN TRUMP IN HER OWN STATE!
 
Did the people that elected her (and she received less votes than someone typically does for winning nearly 80% of them at barely over 100,000) all of a sudden become racists and sexists? Is that what we ought to believe here? Because AOC is saying she’s only unpopular now because Fox News is talking about her more (don’t know how that would negatively affect her like this, but sure, let’s go with that excuse) and because people are racist and sexist. So does that make her constituents racists and sexists?
 
I would argue her killing 25,000 jobs for New Yorkers and costing the state billions of dollars in tax revenue are at least some of the reasons people are unhappy with her. Or maybe the fact that she essentially defended Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism by making HER the victim of Islamophobia, which is adamantly ridiculous.
 
Either way, I don’t imagine her little tirade will do much in the way of regaining some of her popularity. It certainly doesn’t help to try and blame Fox News. It wasn’t a Fox News poll that initially showed these results. It was Gallup, which has Trump’s approval rating at only 39%, which is ludicrous.
 
But to the Left, they would be happy to see such numbers for Trump, but all of a sudden, when it comes to AOC, the data is flawed or bigoted?
 
And it’s not like you can even make the same argument for me. Yes, I take Gallup’s approval rating of AOC more legitimate than of Trump’s but that’s because it’s backed by even a New York poll that shows similar numbers.
 
That’s not to say that Gallup is 100% trustworthy, but it does appear to come to agreement with EVEN ANOTHER LEFTIST POLL, which actually tried to casually bury those numbers. If you look at the datasheet of the poll, which has 36 questions total, the question about Trump’s approval rating, de Blasio’s approval rating and AOC’s approval rating are a bit further down in the poll.
 
And by the way, the poll says that the sample had 47% Democrat registered voters and 21% Republican, so even with that sort of disparity between parties, Trump is STILL MORE POPULAR THAN DE BLASIO AND AOC!
 
Granted, part of that may be the fact that you’re more likely to find Democrats than Republicans in that state, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Trump is still more popular.
 
If you divide things down party lines, it shows that Trump’s favorability with Democrats sits at 15%, but with Republicans it sits at 79%. De Blasio’s favorability with Dems sits at 48%, but only 14% with Reps and AOC’s favorability with Dems sits at 47% with only 6% of Reps favoring her.
 
But even with much of the Democrat Party favoring AOC and de Blasio, both still fall short of Trump by a few points. And again, this is with a 47% Democrat sample compared with only 21% of Republicans. Which means that Independents also disapprove of both.
 
The sample had 26% Independents, with 40% favoring Trump, 29% favoring de Blasio and 22% favoring AOC.
 
Overall, it is fantastic to see Republican President Donald Trump polling better (if slightly) than Bill de Blasio and even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is essentially the face of the Democrat Party (sorry, Nancy).
 
This is the sort of thing that puts a smile on my face.
 
Proverbs 16:7
“When a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Earlier this past week, President Donald J. Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un had their second historic summit to discuss the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Unfortunately, the talks fell apart when Kim Jong-un made a proposition that Trump thought was simply not good enough, prompting the President to walk away from the deal.
 
In specific, what the North Koreans wanted was full removal of all U.S.-led sanctions in exchange of shutting down nuclear facilities in Yongbyon, but not outside of that area. President Trump in a presser later said he was not willing to make a deal without the Norks committing to giving up their other secretive nuclear facilities and their missile and warhead programs.
 
“I’ve been saying very much from the beginning that speed is not that important to me,” Trump said before the summit. “Speed is not important to me. What is important is that we do the right deal.”
 
After the talks fell through, he again noted the importance of making the right deal, saying: “It wasn’t a good thing to be signing anything. We had some options, and at this time we decided not to do any of the options, and we’ll see where that goes… Sometimes you have to walk, and this was just one of those times.”
 
However, many (though surprisingly not all) on the Left criticized Trump for this and began calling the summit a collapse in talks and a disaster. Some on the Right also expressed criticism, though it’s very asinine to criticize Trump for NOT caving to Kim Jong-un.
 
Still, the Left makes it a point to call this summit an absolute failure, Trump a complete buffoon for failing to make a deal with the Norks (which they would’ve criticized had he made a bad deal with them anyway, so he can’t possibly win with them), and overall, they are repeating history.
 
Let’s not forget that President Ronald Reagan also held talks with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986, in which Gorbachev demanded Reagan give up his Strategic Defense Initiative, a plan proposed by Reagan in 1983 of a missile defense system in space to counter nuclear weapons launched by the Soviet Union targeting America.
 
Gorbachev knew full-well that the Soviet Union’s economy simply couldn’t compete with America’s economy, so the Soviet Union couldn’t compete with Reagan’s “Star Wars” program. However, Reagan knew this as well and decided to walk away from the table, for which he was soundly criticized by the Left and the fake news media (before they were called the fake news media, but the name still applied).
 
The fake news media said Reagan messed up, that he was an idiot, that he was a national security threat, that those talks were a massive failure, etc. They are doing the exact same thing with Trump.
 
Now, there are some major differences that need to be pointed out between the Reagan-Gorbachev talks and the Trump-Kim talks.
 
First, there basically was a third, non-present party at the Hanoi summit this past week: China and Russia.
 
On its own, North Korea’s economy would absolutely collapse. They barely have anything as it is, only managing to stay afloat thanks to trades with Iran, Russia, and particularly China, because North Korea is essentially China’s puppet state.
 
The Reagan-Gorbachev summit featured a Soviet Union that essentially stood alone and was 5 years removed from completely collapsing (and the SDI is actually accredited for having been what finally destroyed the Soviet Union. The Communists couldn’t match the SDI and sank trying to). I don’t think North Korea will collapse in the next 5 years, especially if they are essentially being subsidized by China and Russia.
 
Second, and really the only thing that I can even remotely excuse the fake news media for, we are under no threat from North Korea in these talks, unlike with the Soviet Union. I can realistically see the fake news media being afraid of the Soviets launching nukes at America if Reagan is seen making some sort of mistake. Of course, they thought his entire presidency was a mistake, but Reagan walking away from a bad deal with the Soviets could realistically be seen as a scary thing, particularly if Gorbachev was furious with Reagan afterwards, as the media was reporting.
 
While Reagan, like Trump, very much had the upper hand going into the summit, the Soviet Union still posed a nuclear threat to America. North Korea, on the other hand, barely does. They JUST figured out how to keep their rockets from exploding mere seconds after launching them and do not have the nuclear capability America has.
 
Notice how all the threats from Kim Jong-un stopped pretty soon after Trump pushed back against him? Notice how North Korea stopped testing their nukes less than a year into Trump’s presidency (or around that time. It’s been over 400 days since North Korea tested a missile according to multiple sources)?
 
And another thing to notice is the fact that China outright said that they would not support North Korea if they made the first move against America.
 
So North Korea does not present anywhere close to the same threat that the Soviet Union presented. As a result, while I can realistically see why the fake news media might’ve been afraid of a Gorbachev retaliation of sorts, there is no reason for the fake news media to think that this summit essentially puts us back in square one with the Norks or this “failure” by Trump could present any sort of threat to the country.
 
Not that I’m seeing much of that from the fake news media, but it should be noted that the stakes are lower in these talks than they were in the Reagan-Gorbachev talks.
 
Finally, there is the Otto Warmbier tragedy in place in this summit. I do not know if the Soviet Union ever had a case similar to Otto Warmbier in which an American student was arrested in the Soviet Union and horrendously mistreated to the point that he was in a coma and died as a result. But that’s what the North Koreans did and something that was discussed at least somewhat in the summit.
 
The one criticism I have of Trump in this summit is his defense of Kim Jong-un when the dictator said he was not aware that this happened. However, I can absolutely understand why Trump wouldn’t outright attack or accuse Kim Jong-un in this situation.
 
Trump is trying to get the Norks to denuclearize. And while I do not like Trump’s defense of Little Rocket Man, who very much reminds me of Obama when he said he did not know about Hillary’s e-mails until he learned from the newspapers, what exactly is Trump supposed to do here?
 
Kim Jong-un doesn’t trust America and Trump all that much because he’s been raised not to trust Americans. Trump wants to get Kim Jong-un to trust him so that they can get deals done that are mutually beneficial. In order to do that, he wouldn’t call Kim a liar to his face (or even to the media), risking derailing and setting these talks back significantly over this issue, bad as it is.
 
In order to get anything substantial done with North Korea, as he promised during the campaign trail, he has to do things even he himself might not like. I seriously doubt he takes pride and pleasure in saying that he believes Kim Jong-un when he says that he was not aware of the Otto Warmbier situation. No person in his right mind would believe Kim Jong-un here, but Trump has to play nice if he wants to get things done. It’s what he often has to do when dealing with foreign leaders like Putin or Xi Jinping, etc. It may not be a pretty sight to see the President of the United States cozying up to them, but the alternative is nothing positive gets done at best and things worsen at worst.
 
If you want to get things done, you don’t attack the one other person who can help get things done, much as they might deserve it.
 
And it’s not like Kim Jong-un is not willing to appease Trump either. In a rare interview with press that is not North Korea’s, Kim Jong-un, through a translator, of course, said that he wouldn’t be in that summit if he wasn’t willing to give up his nukes.
 
Both sides want to make progress, obviously, so it’s not like Kim Jong-un is yanking Trump’s chain on this.
 
Now, one final thing I want to mention is that Trump himself is an intelligent businessman. He knows how to negotiate and knows when to walk away from a bad deal. Reagan was smart to walk away from that SDI deal and Trump is smart to walk away from this sanctions deal.
 
Because let’s be honest, had Trump signed a bad deal, as was honestly expected from the Left, he would’ve been attacked just as much for that as he is for having walked away, or maybe even more so. He simply cannot win with these people.
 
If he cured cancer, the Left would attack him for putting millions of doctors out of a job. The Left will always find a way to make a good move by Trump appear to be catastrophically bad for him. He will never win them over no matter what he does and he knows that pretty well at this point.
 
Better to have walked away from a bad deal than sign a bad deal just to make “progress”.
 
Joshua 1:9
“Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.