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

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

Looking over topics for me to cover, I came across a Daily Caller article with the following title: “Over 90,000 Sign Petition To Rename Street Outside Trump Tower After Obama.”
 
The article is short, considering there isn’t much to say about this. It covers the fact that over 90,000 people signed the aforementioned petition “in order to spite President Donald Trump,” according to The Daily Caller.
 
The article says that “[T]he woman behind the petition told Newsweek that she wants to honor Obama because Osama bin Laden was killed by American forces during the Obama administration.” Elizabeth Rowin, the woman behind the petition, went on to say: “I honestly started it as a joke. I saw a comedian joke about how it would make Trump so mad if it was named after former President Obama and thought why not.”
 
Rowin went on to tell Newsweek that the New York City Council told her they would pursue the project and she intends to write a letter to Mayor Bill de Blasio about it.
 
While there isn’t an awful lot of detail about this story, considering just how unimportant it is in the grand scheme of things, I do have a bit to say about this.
 
First, I love the fact that Rowin lists bin Laden’s death as the reason for this. It’s almost literally Obama’s only good accomplishment as POTUS. If you asked people to name Obama accomplishments, first and foremost (and quite possibly on its own) would be killing Osama bin Laden. But they would struggle to name other accomplishments. Obamacare is garbage, the economy was horrible when he was in charge, foreign relations were terrible and whatever damage he caused, Trump has been working to fix them.
 
Even if one were to consider the Iran nuke deal as an Obama accomplishment, that’s been thrown out the window long ago. President Donald Trump is shredding Barack Obama’s legacy and his accomplishments far outweigh and outnumber Obama’s.
 
And that’s really the irony behind this entire story. Leftists will cheer at the renaming of the street Trump Tower is on after Barack Obama, thinking Trump will fume about it. If he’s half the internet troll (in a good way) that I think he is, he will be delighted about the change.
 
Why? Because of the symbolism of Trump Tower literally towering over Obama.
 
Trump can tweet something along the lines of: “So glad New York City changed the name of the street Trump Tower is on to President Barack H. Obama Avenue. A great symbol of my accomplishments (Trump Tower) towering over President Obama’s.”
 
It would turn the Left’s spiteful intent to rename that street completely against them. There literally would be a massive symbol of Trump’s accomplishments, that being the Trump Tower, being far more important and impressive than Obama’s. At least, that’s what I would say if I were on Trump’s shoes regarding this.
 
To repeat myself, just about everything Obama did as President of the United States has been eliminated. Obama’s legacy is down to only a few things.
 
Obamacare is still around, unfortunately, due to either spineless or traitorous Republicans.
 
The economic stagnation that Obama insisted was “the new normal” for America is far behind us, with record low unemployment across the board, millions of jobs created with Trump’s “magic wand”, the economy growing at 3% annually, paychecks going up, consumer confidence skyrocketing, the cutting of taxes, etc.
 
The disastrous Iran nuke deal is also gone, at least when it comes to the U.S. funding the world’s lead sponsor of terror.
 
Relations with North Korea are… peculiar, but not at levels of U.S. bending over backwards to appease them.
 
ISIS is pretty much destroyed and the last major Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil happened in late 2017, with the latest Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil happening in January of this year (no fatalities, but one injured in a “lone wolf” ISIS loyalist knife attack against a police officer), according to thereligionofpeace.com, a site that tracks Islamic terrorism among other things.
 
The U.S. is no longer a part of the Paris Climate Accord, so we are no longer wasting hundreds of millions of dollars fighting a boogey man.
 
The number of people on food stamps is getting lower and lower as more and more people can afford to pay for their own meals.
 
The U.S. embassy in Israel is now in Jerusalem, something many of Trump’s predecessors promised they would do but never got around to doing it for various reasons.
 
And most of these accomplishments are just off the top of my head. I could continue with that, adding smaller accomplishments as well, but these are the ones I wanted to cover. The point of this is to highlight the fact that Donald Trump’s presidency has been the total polar opposite of Obama’s: actually good for the country.
 
In reality, whether the Left will care to admit it or not, Trump has far more accomplishments than Obama, particularly since Trump’s accomplishments include OVERTURNING OBAMA’S LEGACY. The fact they want to rename the street Trump Tower is on to President Barack H. Obama Avenue shows you how petty these people are, but it could really backfire on them spectacularly.
 
It wouldn’t be a major story by any means, just one of the many episodes relating to Trump’s Twitter wars with others, but in trying to tick the guy off, they could very well end up just symbolizing Trump towering over Obama. And that’s something I would absolutely love to see, even if it’s mentioned for only a moment.
 
You just have to love it when the Left dunks on itself.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

One particular quirk about the fake news media that I seriously dislike but sometimes find deliciously ironic and hypocritical is the fact that they will always attack Trump no matter what he does. And late last week, they did that again, regardless of what Trump had been planning on doing or what he actually ended up doing when it came to the situation surrounding Iran.
 
As I suspect many of you know, late last week, President Donald Trump had originally ordered a strike on multiple different Iranian targets like radar stations and missile batteries, but ultimately decided to pull out of that strike 10 minutes before it was scheduled to begin.
 
Despite the fact that he decided AGAINST bombing Iran, the fake news media and (perhaps rather predictably) the war-hawks of the NeverTrump movement berated the President for his inaction, with many trying to compare him with Obama and his “red-line” comments regarding Syria and overall inaction against a terrorist group the former POTUS called a "JV team". However, this is, obviously, a very dumb comparison.
 
Regarding ISIS, Trump was FAR stronger in dealing with them, considering they basically hold no territory anymore compared to the entire caliphate they owned while Obama was President. Trump DESTROYED ISIS, not that you would know if you were watching the fake news media. Even with Syria, Trump actually DID SOMETHING. Remember the missile strikes back in April of 2017? That's what Obama SHOULD have done, but Trump ultimately did.
 
But attacking Iran would definitely launch us into yet another costly and unnecessary war in the Middle East, which, considering Iran’s alliance with Russia, could also have the potential to escalate into World War III. And for what? Some oil tankers and a drone getting destroyed? No actual casualties in any of the situations?
 
Like Trump said on Twitter, such a strike against Iran would’ve been disproportionate to the next to harmless acts of Iran. It’d be like beating someone up because they shoved you a little.
 
Here’s what Trump said following the reporting of his decision to not attack Iran:
 
“President Obama made a desperate and terrible deal with Iran – gave them 150 billion dollars plus 1.8 billion dollars in CASH! Iran was in big trouble and he bailed them out. Gave them a free path to nuclear weapons, and SOON. Instead of saying thank you, Iran yelled Death to America. I terminated deal, which was not even ratified by Congress, and imposed strong sanctions. They are a much weakened nation today than at the beginning of my presidency, when they were causing major problems throughout the Middle East. Now they are bust! On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!”
 
So what is it we are looking at here? Well, first, the President is rightly pointing out the fact that Iran is very much in the position they are today because Obama basically bailed them out and let them have a path to nuclear weapons (which I’m certain they currently have) in a deal that was not constitutional but everyone was too afraid to actually fight Obama on this terrible deal.
 
This is important to note because one of the arguments being made by the Left and the MSM is that Iran destroyed the oil tankers and the drone because we pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. Obviously, that’s asinine. If that were the reason, they would’ve attacked shortly after the deal was terminated, not over a year later. If the reason for those attacks were because the Iranians are mad that Trump actually stood up to them and did not let them have their nuclear deal anymore, then this is one hell of a slow reaction to that.
 
The second thing we are looking at here is the very reason for not striking Iran: 150 people would’ve died in comparison to not a single one on our side. That’s not to say we should wait until someone gets killed by the Iranians to act. But that is to say the actions we partake shouldn’t be rash. Let’s not bomb Iran just because they destroyed a couple of oil tankers and an unmanned drone. Sanctions against Iran have been working pretty well, haven’t they? Like Trump said, Iran is far weaker today than a few years ago. That’s because the U.S. is applying the most sanctions it ever has on a country. And now, they are desperate.
 
But notice how the media is portraying this: they are comparing him to Obama’s inaction against ISIS, Syria and Russia. Again, it’s nothing like that. But what do you think the media portrayal would’ve been had Trump not called off the strike? Would they have said that he was tougher than Obama because he didn’t pull out of the strike? OF COURSE NOT! They would’ve compared him to Bush and ran the same tired stories about how we were bombing innocent children and families in Afghanistan and comparing this to that. They are convinced Trump is a war-hawk, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and the fact he did not actually strike Iran goes against their narrative.
 
Trump promised we would not enter a war while he was President. So far, he’s the only president to actually stick to such a promise. Remember when Obama promised he would pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Remember how he did not do that and almost pulled us into a war with Syria on top of the other two wars we were already having? Trump, unlike Obama, doesn’t really care for the military industrial complex if it means that war is necessary. War is not necessary, for the most part. There are times, yes, when war is necessary. The Revolutionary War, for example. But war is usually unnecessary, especially if the reason for it is a couple of ships and a drone being destroyed but no casualties actually being tallied.
 
Now, another argument Leftists make is that Trump was a buffoon for waiting until there were ten minutes left to ask how many casualties there would be or he was a buffoon for waiting until there were ten minutes left until the strike to actually call it off. Both are arguments being made right now and both are equally dumb.
 
Regarding the first argument, we don’t know if he waited until there were only 10 minutes left to ask how many casualties there would’ve been. We only know that he asked how many there would be and that he called it off 10 minutes before the strike, citing those reasons. My guess is that he asked prior to those ten minutes how many casualties there’d be and he mulled it over, ultimately concluding such casualties would be an overreaction on our part, calling it off as a result.
 
Now, I know what the Leftists in the audience (if there even are any) are saying: “Well, that’s even worse! He considered killing 150 people but only ultimately decided not to because he has no idea what he’s doing!” To which I say: that’s insanely idiotic. I do think Trump was mulling it over, but likely only because he has war-hawks advising him as to what they ought to do. For as much as I love John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, they are both war-hawks. Sometimes, it’s good to have such people advising you, because they’re likely to offer the best advice if you are looking to be strong in a war. But such people are not very interested in ending one.
 
Killing 150 Iranians would’ve been an overreaction considering what little Iran did by comparison. When it comes to Iran, we hold all the cards. Getting pulled into a war would dilute that advantage. And while I have no doubt we would win a war against Iran, it’s entirely unnecessary to get into one in the first place.
 
President Trump isn’t “weak” because he pulled out of striking Iran. Again, he was plenty strong against ISIS and the results show. And he launched strikes against Syrian targets when the Syrian government gassed their OWN PEOPLE. He’s not weak. He’s just a rational person who knows that killing 150 people just because they destroyed two oil tankers and a drone, which can all be replaced, would be a gross overreaction. And even the MSM would’ve said so, had Trump not called off the strike.
 
Trust me, we are all better off not having attacked Iran over this. If Iran truly wants a war, then they’ll have to throw the first punch. Destroying oil tankers and a drone, and then waiting on forensic evidence to be done to determine who attacked the tankers, not claiming responsibility for it after it happened and claiming they had the right to destroy the drone as it was “over Iranian airspace” is not indicative of a country that really wants a war. If they did, they would’ve claimed responsibility for the oil tankers and would’ve said “so what if we destroyed a drone over international air space? Fight me”. Beyond that, they would’ve done far worse damage than that.
 
Iran doesn’t want a war. They want to talk to Trump to remove the sanctions and believe attacking U.S. property will give them some leverage in negotiations.
 
But we’ll see what happens as things progress, of course. I could be totally wrong here and things could escalate to an actual war, but I don’t think I’m wrong here.
 
Romans 12:18
“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One of the Left’s most often-used charges against Donald Trump, apart from the charge that he colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election, is that Donald Trump is a racist bigot who hates minorities and wishes to kick all of them out of the country, turning America into a sanctuary for white people.
 
Despite how utterly asinine that sounds, there are those who believe that to be the case and often look to Charlottesville as the proof of this (despite the fact that he is not a white supremacist and he disavowed it in Charlottesville too). Many on the Left, and indeed in the academic world, believed that racial tensions in the U.S. would only get much worse under the Trump administration.
 
However, Daniel J. Hopkins and Samantha Washington, a pair of University of Pennsylvania sociologists, ran a study measuring the “racial attitudes” of 2500 random Americans since 2008.
 
Even within the report, the pair admit they honestly believed they would see an increase in racist opinions within the study, stating: “Normalization of prejudice or opinion leadership both lead us to expect that expressed prejudice may have increased in this period, especially among Republicans or Trump supporters.”
 
In other words, they fully bought into the idea that Trump and his supporters are racist and fully expected there to be a rise in racism within the group that most supports the presumed-to-be racist POTUS. They even believed that such racism and prejudice was completely normalized, at least within a specific group of people on the Right.
 
However, they found the complete opposite to be the case:
 
“Americans, claim Hopkins and Washington, have actually become less inclined to express racist opinions since Donald Trump was elected. Anti-black prejudice, they found, declined by a statistically-insignificant degree between 2012 and 2016, when Trump was elected. But then, after 2016, it took a sharp dive that was statistically significant. Moreover, contrary to their expectations, the fall was as evident among Republican voters as it was among Democrats. There was also a general fall in anti-Hispanic prejudice, too, although this was more evident among Democrat voters.”
 
So there are a few things to discuss here. First, let us return to the previous statement, the one about the researchers expecting a certain result. They expected this, according to Spectator (the original source of this study) because they “had been led to expect this… through an extensive reading of recent literature in social sciences which, they say, supports the notion that racist attitudes lie dormant inside many people, waiting to be triggered by certain events…”
 
Basically, they fully believe there is a racist in all of us and certain events, like the election of a supposed racist, are supposed to let out that little racist demon in us, at least for some. And while I believe we are all naturally evil, I also believe racism is more nurture than it is nature. Most people don’t hate people that look different from them from the get-go. Even Hitler had to come to the belief that Jews were bad through nurture. He wasn’t born hating Jews and people aren’t born racist.
 
Second, going back to the results that seemingly shocked the researchers, take note of the fact that racial tensions did not statistically (at least significantly to show any changes) get better at all during the Obama years. What was it that his election was supposed to end? Didn’t the Left promise that, through electing Obama, racism would end in America? That we would be proving to the world (because we apparently have to prove something) that we are no longer racist because we elected a black President (which is entirely ironic and actually racist if the only reason anyone voted for Obama was because he was black)?
 
On the contrary, Obama served to only make racial tensions grow worse. The Ferguson and Baltimore riots and the insistence that cops are racist for (unfortunately) killing a few black people in individual cases (some of which are entirely justified, as the suspect was either about to hurt the officer or in the process of doing so) only made us a more racially divided America, and it can be attributed, at least to some extent, as the big driver of a Dallas shooting of police officers in 2016.
 
Not to mention the fake news media constantly parrots the Democrat Party’s idea that Republicans are racists who “want to put [black people] back in chains”, according to the current Democrat frontrunner.
 
But put that in contrast with what they found during the Trump administration and you see that all of that was fake news. We are not unbelievable racists that jump at the chance to make any minority’s life hell. Quite the contrary, as the Trump economy has seen record-low unemployment rates for African-Americans and Hispanics, and the fact that Trump signed into law criminal justice reform as well as his desire to prioritize illegal immigration, which disproportionately hurts minorities in America.
 
The third thing I want to discuss here is that last bit about anti-Hispanic prejudice falling more on the Democrat side than the Republican side. That one I would like to challenge a little bit, at least in the definition of prejudice against Hispanics.
 
I take it the recent desire by many on the Left to open our borders to “asylum seekers” and “refugees” counts towards a sort of drop in anti-Hispanic prejudice. I would like to challenge this as not being a drop in anti-Hispanic prejudice but as being a drop in IQ points on the Left in terms of what makes America safe.
 
As I have often said in the past, the immigration debate is not about race, despite the Left’s best efforts to make it about race. We don’t deny entry to certain people based on the color of their skin. We deny entry to certain people based on certain qualifications such as not having proper documentation. Those who are here who do not have the right to be here simply should NOT be here. How hard is that idea to grasp?
 
It defeats the entire purpose of even having an immigration system at all if we are just going to let anyone in who wants to come in (since our current economy is thriving under this administration, I imagine many people want to come here). We are a nation ruled by laws. Ignoring our laws means we have no nation, certainly not a stable one. A nation must be able to control its borders and we don’t have much of that currently because of the Left’s incessant promise that they will get rid of Trump and open up our borders, leading whole caravans to start up (likely funded by people like George Soros because these caravans don’t just spring up out of nowhere with no leadership).
 
Just because we, conservatives, do not want our borders flooded by illegals doesn’t mean there is anti-Hispanic prejudice. And just because the Left wants our borders to be open doesn’t mean they are less prejudiced against Hispanics. Matter of fact, I would argue that they are FAR MORE prejudiced against Hispanics than conservatives are. Illegal immigration hurts minorities, including Hispanics. And yet, it’s exactly what the Left wants more of. They want open borders not to help poor, helpless Hispanics but to have a permanent underclass base, who will depend on the Democrats’ various government programs to take care of them in exchange for them voting for Democrats, whether or not they are legally allowed to.
 
They don’t care about the Hispanic population. They just want the Hispanic (legal or illegal) vote. They want Hispanics to be permanently dependent on their “help”. They don’t see us as humans (much like they never saw black people as humans), but rather, they see us as votes that can help them get and stay in power. Meanwhile, they pass law after law that makes it harder for people to prosper.
 
Wanting open borders is not a lack of anti-Hispanic prejudice. If anything, it only leads to more prejudice and injustice.
 
But in any case, these two researchers discovered what Trump’s supporters have known for years now: Trump is not racist. Or at least, racial relations are not worsening under Trump. I don’t think these researchers will give up on the idea that he is racist, but you never know.
 
What matters is that they at least had the integrity to release their study finding that America is less racist today than it was during the Obama administration. This is not something that will be reported by the fake news media, as it defies one of their most used narratives, but we know the truth. The only racism that one can find exists solely on the Left and the fake news media.
 
Hebrews 12:14
“Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”
 
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.

After roughly two years of Attorney General Jeff Sessions doing nothing to run his Department of Justice, choosing to look into low-priority weed-related crimes, new Attorney General William Barr has already done more for this country in a couple of months than Sessions did in his entire time as AG. And as far as we can see, this is only the beginning for AG Barr.
 
After telling Special Counsel Robert Mueller to wrap up his investigation, leading the Special Counsel to find no evidence of collusion and leaving it up to Barr to determine whether the firing of James Comey and the Twitter rants against the Special Counsel were considered obstruction of justice (spoiler alert: they’re not), Attorney General William Barr is set to “assemble a team to investigate the origins of the Obama administration’s FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
This also comes a day after William Barr had spoken to the House Judicial Committee, where he mentioned that he believes that there was spying of the Trump campaign (why would he even say, under oath, that he thinks so and plans to investigate it if he didn’t honestly believe there was anything wrong there?), saying he would look into whether such spying was warranted or not (which is likely just a means to keep the Dems from looking too much into what he is doing).
 
During the hearing, Barr said: “I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016.”
 
What’s more, Fox News has reported that “the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) is separately looking into whether Comey mishandled classified information by including a variety of sensitive matters in his private memos” and will look into “the FBI’s FISA application process.”
 
And if they find what I think they will find – an FBI director (and perhaps a former CIA director) using the FBI as a political weapon against someone he doesn’t like with the purposes of swaying, if not outright fixing, the results of an election – then we could see James Comey in some serious trouble at some point down the line.
 
And that would only likely be the beginning of it. People like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and whomever was involved in the spying on the Trump campaign could face some time as well. And that’s just from these two investigations alone. If they result in what I think they will result (or at least hope they will result), other investigations could be opened as well, namely things like investigating the Steele dossier, investigating Hillary Clinton’s e-mails again (remember: Comey said there would be no charges against her, but he was overreaching his power as he was not the AG at the time and there was never a trial, only Congressional hearings, so double-jeopardy does not apply here), investigating the Uranium One deal, investigating the Clinton Foundation with regards to Haiti (reportedly, the Foundation stole money that was donated to the people of Haiti after a terrible earthquake back in 2010), and some other things.
 
Of course, this is largely a pipe dream at this point. Possible, but I don’t know if entirely likely. For one, they would likely have to wrap up this planned investigation before moving on to other things. Not to mention I am not entirely certain that the DOJ will ever actually prosecute the Clintons for anything. And as far as Obama goes, while I think he was the head honcho of the FBI spying on Trump, I am not certain the DOJ will prosecute him either for some of the same reasons as with the Clintons.
 
Still, this is definitely a step in the right direction of applying some seriously overdue justice on those who have sought to use the power of the State to influence an election and overturn its results when it wasn’t what they wanted.
 
For two years, the media has insisted that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. And while this 100% is not going to stop, regardless of what Mueller has said in his report (Schiff is so full of it he claims the evidence is plentiful and out there for anyone to see, despite Mueller’s findings pointing to the contrary), we are at least beginning to turn the tides a little bit.
 
Rush Limbaugh theorizes that the Mueller investigation was the “insurance policy” as noted in one of the released text messages between Strzok and Page. He theorizes that the investigation is meant to be a sort of cover-up for the Obama administration spying on Trump and people working for Trump, as well as a sort of cover-up for Hillary for her role in the Steele dossier (you know, funding the thing?).
 
I’m not 100% sure if the Mueller investigation in itself was meant to be the “insurance policy” considering Strzok wrote that text months before the election even took place, but I do think the FBI spying on Trump (at the behest of Obama, whom Strzok and Page mention in their texts) was supposed to be the “insurance policy”, with the Mueller investigation eventually being a sort of bonus after Trump fired Comey (which a lot of people honestly should’ve expected).
 
But whether I am right or Rush is right, what is important here is the fact that, after two years of investigative resources being wasted in a witch hunt, Attorney General William Barr has the guts to do what Sessions could not be bothered to do: investigate the rotten stench coming from the Left.
 
Sessions should’ve looked into SOMETHING when the Strzok-Page texts were revealed. He should’ve looked into something when we discovered that the FBI was, indeed, spying on Trump. He should not have recused himself from the Russia investigation, which sought to look at everything in Trump’s life going back to the day he was born, seeing if he was colluding with Russians in the utero.
 
Instead, the biggest news Sessions announced since his recusal was his intention to look into weed farms and other dumb things. Yeah, because in the midst of one of the biggest political scandals in American, if not world, history, one of the few people who can do something about it ought to spend his time busting potheads.
 
Thankfully, we now have an Attorney General who is not afraid of actually investigating wrongdoings (not people, for the record, but reportedly criminal actions, as investigators in countries not in a banana republic tend to do).
 
Because what we know, and what AG Barr knows, is that the FBI did, indeed, spy on the Trump campaign. One can make the case for this being legitimate or illegitimate (guess which side I am taking), but that’s precisely what Barr is going to look into. Not Comey specifically to find if he did something wrong, but a particular action that Comey was involved with, or at least heavily responsible for, and investigating if there was reasonable cause for what he did.
 
But regardless of the findings, this is at least a step in the right direction. The FBI spying on Trump is a big deal that should be looked into, regardless of whether or not the FBI had a legitimate reason for doing so (I’m willing to bet they didn’t if the Steele dossier is all they had to go on, which has been confirmed to be garbage).
 
We should thank God for this.
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
 
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.

We’ve likely all seen Jim Acosta’s video of him at the border, pointing out that there doesn’t seem to be a crisis or emergency like Trump is talking about, but failing to realize that he is walking right next to steel slats much like Trump wants to build in much of the Southern Border. That gaffe has been rightly called a self-own.
 
But once in a while, you get a self-own so magnificent, you wonder if the person responsible for it has any idea what he or she has done.
 
While Jim Acosta made a short video about his own opinions on the state of the border, Vanity Fair writer T.A. Frank unwittingly made perhaps one of the best cases I’ve ever seen against Obama and Leftist policies.
 
Now, before you ask: yes, T.A. Frank is, himself, a Democrat.
 
Vanity Fair is one of the most Left-leaning sites out there, and that’s saying a lot. Which is why it’s so surprising to see them write the following piece and publish it on their site.
 
Frank’s article is titled: “Hope vs. Change: Why Some Democrats Are Turning On Obama’s Legacy.”
 
Pretty juicy and interesting title.
 
But it’s what he says next that is even juicier:
 
“Obama was a visionary who gave us the Affordable Care Act, DACA, and the Paris deal, but many of the country’s most ominous trends also proceeded apace under his watch…”
 
That was his subhead.
 
Now, I won’t go over everything in the article. He begins by talking about this difference in Washington between what is considered the establishment, which wishes to maintain the status quo (I would argue somewhat differently, but fine), and the radicals on both the Democrat and Republican parties.
 
Frank says that, while much of Obama’s rhetoric was more on the radical Left of the spectrum, much of his actions were fairly establishmentarian.
 
He argues that when the establishment told Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan, he did just that. When “they told him to keep the records of detainee abuse under Bush concealed,” he “hid them”. When “they said that nationalizing the banks or prosecuting the executives would be too risky”, he “avoided it”. When “they said that our trade agreements enriched the nation”, he “promoted them”. And when they “called him callous when he originally refused to intervene in Libya”, “he toppled its leader”.
 
Basically, Frank argues that Obama was at the beck and call of the Washington Establishment and he would do pretty much whatever they told him to do, even though Frank also argues that Obama was not, himself, an establishment President.
 
Remember the days when the media would not dare attack or challenge Obama in any way whatsoever? They would stick up for him no matter what, so for this guy to be saying these things, even if Obama has not been President for two years, is pretty fascinating and unexpected.
 
Now, the reason Frank argues for saying these sorts of things is that 2020 Democrat candidates have to look at how to tackle Trump, whom he says is a wild card of a candidate. (He also says Trump is failing in countless ways, which I would strongly disagree with, but to each their own).
 
He argues that since Obama was so rooted in establishmentarianism, Dem candidates may want to look at what might be best for them. He says Elizabeth Warren might want people to think she’s a radical and Joe Biden wants people to consider him the establishment choice.
 
As far as Warren goes, I don’t think she has much hope of winning the nomination, if I’m honest. That DNA test result that she stupidly claimed proved her heritage when it did the exact opposite has seriously derailed any chances she may have had at becoming the Dem nominee.
 
Biden, on the other hand, might have the best shot out of anyone to be the Dem candidate, even if he is more of an establishment guy and many other Leftists seek a radical.
 
But here’s the thing: like I said before, Frank makes the best case against Leftism as well.
 
There are two paragraphs I want to point towards, where he makes the best case against Leftist policies, even if he does not outright make any connections between a cause (Leftist policies) and effect (the negative things I am about to share with you).
 
Without further ado, here are the two paragraphs I’m talking about:
 
After talking about the differences between the establishment and the radicals in both parties, he writes: “Where does this leave us (Democrats), and what does it portend for Democrats in 2020? On the one hand, it’s unfair to call Barack Obama an establishment president with all the status-quo overtones of the term. He gave us the Affordable Care Act, the stimulus, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform, an executive action for Dreamers, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, a nuclear deal with Iran, diplomatic relations with Cuba, a climate deal in Paris, a New START treaty, a reform of student-loan programs, and two liberal Supreme Court appointments. On the other hand, many of the country’s most ominous trends proceeded apace under his watch. The financialization of the economy kept increasing (whatever that means). Student debt kept exploding. Trade policy kept its same priorities. Opioid addiction kept spreading. Suicide numbers kept rising. Disparities in life expectancy between rich and poor kept widening. Union membership kept declining. Illegal border-crossers kept coming. Our defense commitments kept growing. In towns like Jasper, Indiana, and Mebane, North Carolina, factory workers – a hundred here, a couple of hundred there – kept losing their middle-class jobs, outcompeted by giant Chinese mills with appalling conditions.”
 
“The concise and indispensable new book The Nationalist Revival, by the left-leaning John B. Judis, contains one especially haunting statistic: 3.4 million jobs lost to the growth of trade with China since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization. For many of these forgotten Americans, Obama’s final State of the Union address lauding a manufacturing surge rang hollow, and so did his vision of making ‘change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people.’ They had already heard, many times, that ‘they may have to retool, they may have to re-train.’ It was Bill Clinton, still a canny reader of the public, at times, who had to observe that ‘millions of people look at that pretty picture of America he painted and they cannot find themselves in it.’”
 
That is an awful lot to go through and I cannot possibly go through everything and still keep this article at standard length.
 
One of the main things I want to point out is that, in the first paragraph, as I have stated previously, Frank unwittingly makes the best case against Leftism.
 
He recognizes all the things that Obama was doing. And he also recognizes many of the ominous things that were happening in pace with the things Obama was doing. But he still somehow does not make the connection between the two of them.
 
What Obama was doing was choking the American economy and allowing for other countries to make deals with us where we would be utterly screwed. The Paris deal, as an example, is not something we needed to be a part of at any point. We were spending a ton more money as part of the deal in “fighting” climate change. However, with Trump pulling us out of the deal, we still manage to meet the expectations and requirements of the Paris deal WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR IT!
 
Another thing I want to point out which is interesting to me is one of the negatives he lists in the first paragraph. “Illegal border-crossers kept coming”.
 
Not only am I surprised that he is using the term “illegal” because those who consider themselves to be “woke” would never use that term, but I am also surprised that he sees that as any sort of problem at all.
 
Given the current rhetoric of many on the Left, the idea of an America with open borders is enticing. And yet, Frank notes that this unlawful act is a negative associated with the Obama administration.
 
You don’t see that very often. And, funny enough, it’s yet another reason I cannot believe the guy is not making a connection between the things Obama was doing and the negative things that came along with those things.
 
Notice how many of the negatives he listed are slowly but surely getting resolved now that Trump is President. Trump, as many on the Left will note, is undoing pretty much everything Obama set out to do and actually managed to do.
 
Trade policy is different now than with Obama. Obama made sure other countries got the better end of the deal while the U.S. paid for it. Trump makes sure the opposite is true: we get the better end of the deal.
 
Illegal border-crossing, while that’s still an ongoing thing and continues to escalate, is something Trump has literally based his entire campaign around. He won on the Wall. Even Chuck Schumer said that people voted for the Wall before he caught himself and rephrased it as “some people” voted for the Wall.
 
Trump won on the issue of addressing and fixing illegal immigration. And while Obama was dubbed the “deporter-in-chief”, he hardly helped secure the border all that much more (even though he used to be in favor of building walls).
 
Wherever there is a wall at the southern border, such as San Diego, there is considerably less illegal border-crossing than wherever there are no walls. Jim Acosta himself showed that, as I mentioned in the beginning, where there is a wall, there is no crisis.
 
It’s funny what happens when you get rid of the cause of some effects. The economic policies Obama enacted killed jobs, while the policies Trump has enacted have created them.
 
This is why I say Frank makes the best case against Leftism. Everything Obama did was Leftist policy. All of it. And what was the result? Jobs gone, people suffering, and America declining. Take away all those Leftist policies and what do you get? Jobs returning, people prospering, and America surging.
 
I have gone as far as to bookmark that article on Chrome to make sure to come back to it and point out that even one of the Left’s own journalists has noted Obama’s supposed accomplishments and the things that came with those accomplishments, even if he does not recognize their cause-and-effect relationship. According to the Logical Law of Causality, every effect must have a cause. Obama's policies were the cause. And indebtedness, joblessness, etc. were the effect. By eliminating Obama's policies (cause), you get the opposite results of more jobs, more prosperity, etc. (effect), which is exactly what President Trump is doing.
 
Thank you, Mr. Frank, for the truly great gift you have bestowed upon us. Here’s hoping that if you’re smart enough to recognize the bad things that came along the things Obama did, you will be smart enough to recognize the cause and effect of Leftist policies.
 
Proverbs 18:15
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In recent time, as entirely expected by those who did not take the threat of this invasion lightly, the migrant caravan, or at least a number of them, have been storming the border to the United States and have been met by opposing forces from Border Patrol agents.
 
The media and the Left will be quick to point out that Border Patrol was using pepper spray and tear gas on the “immigrants” (I won’t call them immigrants. I AM an immigrant; they are invaders). But they will just as quickly ignore the fact that the invaders were unwilling to line up to apply for asylum and started throwing rocks and bottles at border agents, prompting the agents to defend themselves.
 
I don’t give a rat’s behind what anyone says, you cannot credibly say these people are asylum seekers anymore. Never mind the fact that, if they were just seeking asylum from their own countries, they would’ve stopped at other Latin American countries or Mexico and sought asylum there. But if the argument is that they are trying to seek asylum here in the U.S., then why would they storm the border instead of waiting in line to get it done?
 
Not a damn Leftist can possibly tell me now that these people are asylum seekers. If they were not invaders before they got to the border (which they were), they definitely are now.
 
But in any case, due to the appropriate-to-sane-people response from the borders, the Left is livid and absolutely bananas over it. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) tweeted (and later deleted the tweet) a comparison between using tear gas and chemical weapons. Then, he tweeted (and kept) the following: “Anyone uncomfortable with spraying tear gas on children is welcome to join the coalition of the moral and the sane. We can argue about other stuff when we’ve got our country back.”
 
Basically, he’s accusing border patrol, without proof, that they were specifically targeting children and families.
 
Qasim Rashid, a Muslim activist, tweeted a very dumb list of nations that have used gas on civilians that actually ties into the main point of this article.
 
Here’s what he writes: “Updated list of Nations that have used gas on civilians: Italy, Mussolini (1934), Japan, Hirohito (1937-39), Germany, Hitler (1940-45), USA, Nixon (1961-71), Egypt, Nasser (1963-67), Iraq, Hussain (1978-91), Syria, Assad (2012-13), USA, Trump (2018-??). This must stop.”
 
A couple of things. First, notice how he doesn’t specify what kind of gas is being used. He just says “gas”. The kind of gas Hitler, Saddam, and Assad used was chemical gas. The kind that kills people. Trump is using tear gas. The kind that doesn’t kill people. So he’s trying really hard here to draw comparisons between Trump and Hitler, or Trump and Assad, or Trump and Saddam, but to do that, he ignores the kind of gas being used by either and just leaves it at that. Talk about fake news.
 
Second, he mentions Nixon from 1961-71. Even that has a number of things to cover, such as the fact that Nixon was not President for 10 years, and he was not President until 1969. From 1961 to 1969 (before Nixon took office), the Presidents were John F. Kennedy (1961 to 1963) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969). So if he wants to say that the U.S. used “gas” against civilians in that time period, it largely falls on two Democrat Presidents.
 
Finally, he creates the illusion that the U.S. did not engage similarly with illegals from 1971 to 2018. And this is what ultimately ties into the main point of the article. Because on November of 2013, now a little over 5 years ago, roughly 100 people tried storming the border near “the San Ysidro port of entry” and they “threw rocks and bottles at U.S. Border Patrol agents, who responded by using pepper spray and other means to force the crowd back into Mexico,” according to The San Diego Union-Tribune.
 
It’s not explicitly stated whether or not the Border Patrol in the 2013 incident used tear gas, but they used other things as well to defend themselves and the border, other things that were obviously non-lethal, otherwise lethal action would’ve made the mainstream news.
 
According to Mary Beth Caston, a Border Patrol spokeswoman, Border Patrol back in the 2013 incident fired pepper balls and other “intermediate use-of-force devices.”
 
Obviously, such actions should be commended, not condemned, and the media definitely made sure not to condemn them back when Obama was President.
 
But this news story details an eerily similar situation in a gap of 5 years, and in similar areas. A large number of illegals storming the border, throwing rocks and bottles (which could lead to serious injury and/or death), being met by non-lethal force from Border Patrol. The only difference is that it’s okay when Obama does it, but it’s not okay when Trump does it.
 
It’s perfectly smart and reasonable to do it when Obama does it, but it’s inhumane and insane when Trump does it. I’m not saying this to attack Obama. The actions his Border Patrol did in 2013 were the right ones. And Obama, on the same day as this invasion, even went to a rally and talked about the need to secure our border (video below).
 
He talked about a measure in the Senate about immigration reform and urged House Republicans (who had the majority at the time) to pass the bill.
 
So it’s perfectly reasonable when Obama says we should secure our borders (and it is, though I know for certain he didn’t really want that), but it’s absolutely insane when Trump wants to secure our borders.
 
If Trump is inhumane and evil for doing this with the invaders, then Obama was just as inhumane and evil for doing something extremely similar.
 
Obviously, the actions that occurred earlier this week and 5 years ago by Border Patrol were the correct ones. You do what you can to protect yourself and do your job. However, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left highlights exactly why I think they’re insane.
 
Again, when Obama does something, it’s good. I’m old enough to remember the Left was pretty much on board with Obama going to war against Syria. The same group of people who supposedly want peace were supporting Obama when there were talks of a possible war with Syria.
 
Need I remind you that Obama, according to ABC News, deported “more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century” that is, he deported more people than all the Presidents of the 20th century (1900-1999) combined. Of course, I suspect things were a bit different back then, but still.
 
Not to mention that, according to ABC News, Bush deported “just over two million during his time in office”. By comparison, Obama had deported 2.5 million from 2009-2015. The article I’m citing here came out on August 29th, 2016, so Obama had yet to leave office at the time. According to an article on the Washington Post, by the end of his presidency, Obama had deported more than 5 million illegals. Pro-immigration groups even dubbed him “Deporter-in-Chief”.
 
And yet, I do not remember the Left attacking Obama as though he was some sort of evil man. I don’t remember them idiotically quoting a poem about the Statue of Liberty to argue that he stop deporting illegals.
 
It was completely fine for him to do it, in their minds, but it’s full-on Armageddon when Trump does it. Although, with all their apocalyptic virtue-signaling, I wonder if there are any people left after the apocalypse brought on by the repeal of Net Neutrality or the apocalypse brought on by the GOP tax cuts, or the apocalypse brought on by Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, or the apocalypse brought on by Trump’s 2016 election victory.
 
Jokes aside, the hypocrisy of the Left is absolutely stunning. Trump gave these people a chance to enter the country legitimately. They chose to invade, just as I knew they would.
 
I won’t take any crap from any Leftist on this. These people are not asylum seekers, otherwise they wouldn’t have thrown away the opportunity to receive asylum. These people are not seeking a better life in the U.S., they are seeking to exploit our economic opportunities without offering to be part of the American way of life, without offering to assimilate, and contributing nothing to the country.
 
The Left is ridiculous in their insistence that these people want asylum. On contraire, they want to invade and their actions show that precise desire.
 
Apart from that, the Left is ridiculous in their insistence that Border Patrol is being inhumane under Trump’s orders. If they are inhumane under Trump, they were inhumane under Obama back in 2013.
 
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

A show of hands, who here actually believes that Obama doesn’t make stuff up? That he tells the truth as often as he speaks and that he never hides the truth or tries to circumvent it? I would seriously hope not a single one of you raised your hands (not that I could tell anyhow), because Obama is the closest thing we’ve seen to a real-life Pinocchio, to the point even Left-wing PolitiFact said Obama was lying when he said those infamous words: “if you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor.”
 
Recently, in a seemingly very feeble attempt at creating any sort of excitement for Democrat voters, the former President held an event in Nevada (which could barely draw flies). During this event, he said: “Unlike some, I actually try to state facts. I believe in facts. I believe in a fact-based reality and a fact-based politics. I don’t believe in just making stuff up.”
 
Really? Does he want me to exhume the skeletons in his closet? Because I will do just that.
 
Back in March of 2017, which seems like an eternity ago at this point, I wrote an article asking the question of whether or not Obama deserved to go to jail. Of course, I ultimately said that he absolutely does (actually, it was literally the first thing I said). But in that article, I briefly went over a couple of things he did that were illegal that should land him in jail.
 
I talked about Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, Operation Choke Point (the attempt at illegally shutting down gun stores) and the ordering of shutting down a business because the factory was non-union.
 
But that barely touches on the scandal that was the Obama Presidency. I mentioned that the site I got the information from, Thetruthdivision.com, listed 78 illegal things that Obama did as POTUS. This was before even knowing he used the FBI and DOJ to try to affect a presidential election.
 
But what we want to focus on here is not necessarily the illegal things he did, but the lies he’s told. Lies like “you like your doctor, you keep your doctor” and such.
 
He lied about Syria having chemical weapons, as we discovered early last year.
 
He lied about enforcing a “red line” against Russia.
 
He lied about not even having any scandals as POTUS (a lie he told earlier this year).
 
He lied about calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. Back in 2013, he said: “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
 
He never used the word “terrorism” to describe the attack. Time and time again, interview after interview, he would try and circumvent calling it a terrorist attack, saying that they were “investigating” the incident.
 
The reason for doing this is so that he could claim he did what Bush couldn’t do and that is to stop terrorism. Calling the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi consulate a terrorist attack would put an end to that ridiculous claim. Of course, only a year or so later, Obama allowed for ISIS to grow to replace al-Qaeda as our biggest enemy in the Middle East, so that in itself put an end to his ridiculous claim, but he had already gotten reelected by that point, so it didn’t matter.
 
He would also constantly lie about unemployment going down, when millions of Americans were out of work.
 
Even PolitiFact and the Washington Post list many of Obama’s lies, with the WaPo listing ten of the biggest lies Obama told as President and with PolitiFact using up 4 webpages to list a number of lies Obama has told.
 
And now, Obama is lying about lying. How rich is that?
 
It’s really no wonder he can hardly draw in any people at an event he is highlighting. If you’ve seen the pictures of Obama’s Nevada rally in contrast with Trump’s MAGA rally in Houston, Texas, you can see the massive difference in enthusiasm.
 
Barack Obama, once considered a rockstar of the Democrat Party, can hardly draw in people at a relatively small venue.
 
Donald Trump, the current President of the United States who has been working for the past 2 years to Make America Great Again and delivering results, manages to fill to the brim an arena where the Houston Rockets, an NBA team, play half the season. The Toyota Center can only seat 19,000 people. It’s reported that “requests for tickets topped 100,000 people”, according to the Daily Wire.
 
And you also see pictures of Trump and Cruz supporters filling the streets of Houston to attend the rally, with many also opting to camp out near the stadium.
 
Why the massive difference? For one, Trump is Making America Great Again, which needed to be made great again largely because of the extensive damage that Obama caused in his 8 years in office.
 
I believe I have said in the past that, had the media reported on Obama the same way they report on Trump, or even if they reported honestly about him, he would be remembered as the worst President this country had ever seen. That while he likely would’ve won in 2008 because people were very dissatisfied with Bush, and by extension, Republicans, he likely would’ve lost the 2012 election.
 
Why? Because not only did his policies ensure to cause lasting damage to the country and its people, but because he lied about everything, with the help of the mainstream media.
 
Let’s not forget one massive lie that Obama told that likely tops the Obamacare lie. Obama lied about the Iran nuclear deal. And he got the media, with the help of John Kerry, to lie about it to the people.
 
It’s this, along with many other instances of lies that cover up the destruction of the country, that helped Trump get elected and will likely help him get reelected in 2020.
 
Obama is a pathological liar, but now, he’s lost much of his power to fool people. The media will still cover for him, of course, but even they have lost all credibility with the American people.
 
No wonder Obama can’t draw in flies with the manure he utters.
 
Proverbs 12:19
“Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.”
 
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. Unlike the lies Obama would constantly tell, and the lies the Left continues to make, when I say that this is free, that means it’s free. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.