Impeachment is supposed to be a serious path for a country to take and it is supposed to have many effects and implications, including the possibility of a fairly struggling economy, if not at least making the economy take somewhat of a hit. But the Democrats have made such a clown-show of this impeachment process from the start that virtually no one cares, President Trump will in all likelihood be re-elected, and the economy is absolutely roaring right now.
 
According to a survey from Gallup, U.S. economic confidence stands at a 20-year high with an Economic Confidence Index of +40. Gallup explains: “Americans’ buoyant confidence in the economy in Gallup’s latest poll, conducted Jan. 2-15, likely reflects the U.S. unemployment rate’s continued stay at a 50-year low. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average continues to reach record highs – and flirts with reaching the 30,000 marker.”
 
Gallup’s index takes into account two components: Americans’ current economic conditions and economic outlook for the future. “The current conditions component score of +54 is the result of 62% of Americans saying the economy is ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ and 8% describing it as ‘poor’. Meanwhile, the economic outlook component score of +26 is the result of 59% saying the economy is ‘getting better’ and 33% saying it is ‘getting worse.’”
 
No idea who is saying that the economy is getting worse, aside from maybe the fake news media, though they have mostly dropped the “we’re headed towards a recession! Everyone panic!” act. But apart from that strange figure, the rest of these numbers are pretty good. Consumer confidence seems pretty high and for good reason.
 
Gallup also found that the least amount of Americans in the last 19 years, since the Gallup began compiling this information, would name the economy as one of the country’s greatest problems. Only 10% of Americans say that the economy is a problem today.
 
In their conclusion, Gallup writes: “Rarely in the years that Gallup has tracked public ratings of the economy, since the early 1990s, have Americans had higher confidence in the economy than they do now. Nearly six in 10 describe the economy’s current state positively, and a similar percentage say it’s getting better.”
 
They also note how these numbers could help Trump to get reelected, which makes perfect sense and I agree. It is extremely rare, almost unheard of, for an incumbent president to be defeated while also enjoying a great economy. And considering this is the best economy we have had in a long time, combined with the fact that not one person on the Democrat debate stages could beat Trump, I’d say that his chances for reelection are very good (though that is, of course, not a license for complacency. Complacency is a killer for all campaigns and if we want to keep making America great again, we cannot let the bloodthirsty, insane Left get within 10 feet of a government office, wherever we can).
 
The impeachment of Donald Trump is so inconsequential (provided Republicans don’t completely blow it and have some of their more, shall we say, rogue members foolishly commit political seppuku and remove Trump from office) and such a farce that few people seem to care and the economy knows it. Any threat to a popular president presiding over a good economy will make the economy stumble at least a little. But the Democrats have been blowing this impeachment for so long (and continue to do so) that no one honestly believes Trump’s office is in jeopardy of removal. Even the usual suspects among the Republican Party are witnessing the Democrats blowing this and trying to stay away from it as much as they can.
 
I believe impeachment has signed the Democrat Party’s death warrant for this election season, but this strong economy should be the final nail in the coffin if it stays around these numbers (and it is entirely possible that we will see even better numbers, but I will keep from making such predictions as plenty can happen between now and the election).
 
In fact, the only reason they are trying to impeach Trump is because of how likely he is of winning in 2020. Adam Schiff has already practically admitted to that, though coming from the idea that Trump will “try to cheat” in 2020. They are trying to delegitimize the next election because they know they don’t have a prayer of beating Trump, so they have to try to do something here (though will likely prepare to get their butts kicked on this and will try again once Trump is reelected). The economy doing this well is simply another sign that the Democrats will not win this year, on top of all the other reasons.
 
To paraphrase James Carville, it’s the economy and the Democrats’ open incompetence, fella (not going to call you stupid as you very clearly are not).
 
Jeremiah 29:11
“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Earlier this week, President Trump was in Davos, Switzerland, where he was set to give a speech in front of the World Economic Forum. The speech he gave is perhaps one of his best speeches of his administration that not only lambasts the climate cult’s ridiculous fearmongering apocalyptic predictions but also gives a positive message of hope for the future of the country, and any country that follows a similar path, as all good presidents do.
 
Of course, as many speeches go, it is far too long for me to write out the entire transcript of it and make the points that I wish to make, so let us highlight some important parts.
 
The President began his speech by noting how the U.S. is “boldly embracing American energy independence” in order to protect our security and our economy, and not allowing us to become dependent on imported energy from “hostile nations.” He pointed out how “while many European countries struggle with crippling energy costs, the American energy revolution is saving American families $2,500 every year in lowering electric bills and… prices at the pump.”
 
He also pointed out that, with this independence and with allowing for innovation, U.S. companies and researchers are leading the way and “we are on the threshold of virtually unlimited reserves of energy, including from traditional fuels, LNG, clean coal, next-generation nuclear power, and gas hydrate technologies.”
 
This, of course, goes against the climate cult’s narrative that there will be fuel shortages if we continue to depend on fossil fuels and that dependency on such fuels is “not sustainable”. With fracking, we are capable of producing far more energy than before without needing to worry about any sort of “shortage”. Of course, fracking is considered taboo to the climate cult not because it is not a good energy option, but because it IS a good energy option and it helps the fossil fuel industry and helps to continue generating energy without the need of the expensive and ineffective garbage the cult would force upon us.
 
As a result of these strategies, fuel is cheaper across the board and we are far from experiencing any sort of shortages. And at the same time, Trump noted that he is “proud to report the United States has among the cleanest air and drinking water on Earth… and we just came out with a report that, at this moment, it’s the cleanest it’s been in the last 40 years. We’re committed to conserving the majesty of God’s creation and the natural beauty of our world.”
 
This is not good news for the climate cult whatsoever. Their entire shtick is that we are killing the planet and making it dirtier and harder to live in, so we must turn over all of our rights and liberties to the government so that they can “solve” this “issue”. But reality is, as I have said time and time again, not what they make it out to be. Despite our usage of fossil fuels, we have clean water and air, which is far more than anyone could say about communist China. This is because we have the ability to use fossil fuels without compromising the environment around us.
 
But regardless, here is what I think is the best part of the speech:
 
“This is not a time for pessimism; this is a time for optimism. Fear and doubt is not a good thought process because this is a time for tremendous hope and joy and optimism and action. But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune-teller – and I have them and you have them, and we all have them, and they want to see us do badly, but we don’t let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the ‘70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives.”
 
“We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country, or eradicate our liberty. America will always be the proud, strong, and unyielding bastion of freedom. In America, we understand what the pessimists refuse to see: that a growing and vibrant market economy focused on the future lifts the human spirit and excites creativity strong enough to overcome any challenge – any challenge by far.”
 
The President is absolutely right about everything he said here. Despite how eternally pessimistic and angry and outraged the climate cult and the whole of the global Left is, this is a time for optimism, not pessimism. At least in the U.S., we are seeing one of the greatest economies this country has ever seen, with unemployment rates the lowest they’ve been in 50 years across all demographics, the stock markets often hitting new record highs, consumer confidence being at all-time highs, and being the furthest away from a recession as an economy can get. Wages are growing, particularly for lower classes, and people are making more money than before, while also saving more than before thanks to tax cuts.
 
All of the apocalyptic predictions we are hearing lately (the climate puppet recently said we only have 8 years now to fix climate change and Michael Moore also chimed in and said that we only have four years to fix it, probably having said this after eating Taco Bell) are not only scientifically unsound and unwarranted, but they serve the purpose of trying to scare people into giving up their rights. Even the climate puppet, who was also at this economic forum, said “I said I wanted you to panic” and does not feel that that is in any way wrong or dangerous because of the purpose: to drive fear into people’s hearts.
 
Of course, she failed, as have many others, but the point remains that they are fearmongers. It is only fitting, then, that Trump would point out their ridiculous past “prophecies” that have very obviously not come true because they were not going to come true.
 
They predicted starvation, mass overpopulation, acid rain, fuel shortages, increase in strength and frequency of storms and mass extinction. In September of last year, I wrote an article detailing *some* of over 40 different predictions these partisan hacks have made over the years with not a single one of them having come true. They have no credibility whatsoever, nor do they have the science backing them up.
 
Whenever you hear them saying “the ice caps are melting”, you eventually find that there is more ice today than when that prediction was made. Every prediction they have made has not panned out and eventually, people begin to catch on to the b.s., or at least, that’s the desired outcome (indoctrination in our schools does a good job of fooling kids into continuing to believe this nonsense).
 
And we all know why it is that they make these apocalyptic predictions, even though none of them have any sort of chance of coming true. It’s as the President said and as I pointed out earlier: to obtain absolute power to dominate, transform and rule every aspect of our lives. They want to tell us what kind of lightbulb to use, not because it is good for us (many of the bulbs the Obama administration regulated onto us can be poisonous if broken) or for the environment, but because they want to be able to order us around – to have dominion over our lives as though they were God Himself.
 
Even the ones who do not believe in any sort of god believe in the power that God has and want it for themselves. This is the aim of the climate cult, but hopefully, reason will win out in the end and these people will be reformed, leaving behind the disastrous and destructive ideologies of the cult in favor of the Light of God.
 
Regardless of whether or not that will happen (I do believe some people within the climate cult can be saved), returning to Trump, as I said, this is perhaps one of his best speeches as president. Of course, he spoke far more than what I wrote about, but the rest of the speech basically was about recognizing the successes of the past as a result of people’s hopes and their ability to make progress without being impeded by a pesky government.
 
The message he wanted to give to the people of Davos was one of hope for the future. That so long as the human mind is free and entrepreneurs are not impeded in their desire to enrich themselves and improve people’s lives in however small or large manner, there will be hope for the future. Sure, there is far more hope to be found in the Lord than in Man, but as he was speaking in front of an economic forum, it makes sense that this sort of hope is what he would want to drive.
 
And he’s not wrong to do this either, as a free market economy is far more capable of granting people hope than a communist economy where few things are private.
 
Romans 15:13
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli. 

We all know that the Left lives in a perpetual state of anger, outrage and offense, where they look for any and all reasons to be angry at something or someone and feel like some sort of tragic victim who is due some sort of justice. But recently, Leftists have been outraged at something particularly odd: the fact that an openly conservative Hollywood star shows that he is openly conservative.
 
You see, recently, President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended the College Football National Championship game between LSU and Clemson University, where he received great cheers and standing ovations from the crowd, with the crowd also chanting “USA” upon seeing him.
 
However, that is not what the Left will choose to cover (can’t show that Trump is popular, because that would go against the narrative that the vast majority of this country hates and detests him). Also in attendance of this game was Hollywood star Vince Vaughn, who got the opportunity to have a conversation with the President of the United States and First Lady during the game and even shake the president's hand as shown above.
 
A camera recorded this occasion and sports “journalist” Timothy Burke tweeted out the video with the caption: “I’m very sorry to have to share this video with you. All of it, every part of it,” as though he was mourning the fact that a Hollywood celebrity who is not shy about his conservative beliefs was holding a civil conversation with Trump.
 
Of course, I do actually know why he and other Leftists were outraged. Hollywood is supposed to be THEIRS. At every awards show, in every movie, Leftist ideology must be not only shared but shoved down our throats and any contradicting ideology must be pushed down and obliterated. Hosts who make jokes at the expense of the woke celebrities must be lambasted (such as Ricky Gervais) and celebrities who dissent from the Leftist ideology in any way must be blacklisted and publicly shamed.
 
The “journalist” appeared to be mourning because he essentially was. Vince Vaughn is a beloved actor in Hollywood, having appeared or starred in many great comedies like Anchorman, Dodgeball, Wedding Crashers, and other movies. He is still working as an actor and producer in various films to this day, so his open conservatism hasn’t derailed his career like it has for other actors.
 
Vince Vaughn is still popular and beloved, so it apparently hurts the snowflake Left when they see him amicably and civilly speaking with the POTUS. You see, in their mind, even if you are a conservative, you should hate Trump. Even if you are a conservative, right-winger, you should still be on the side of the Left, at least when it comes to Trump, and given the opportunity, you should be seen yelling and screaming like a madman at Trump or cursing him out, or at least, actively avoiding him and/or trying to embarrass him. No one is allowed to like Trump, no one is allowed to have a dissenting opinion. Everyone is supposed to hold the same views as the Left, or they should be cancelled.
 
Of course, Burke got blasted for his inability to believe that someone, particularly someone like Vince Vaughn, would actually have the gall to be civil in the presence of Trump:
 
“You’ve successfully proven that Vince Vaughn is a Republican, that thing he has taken no effort to hide,” wrote Alex Griswold. He followed that up by saying: “DM me dude, I have a GIANT scoop about Jon Voight,” who is also another prominent conservative in Hollywood.
 
Marc Thiessen tweeted: “OMG the humanity! This is terrible! We must all hate Vince Vaughn! You would have done great under Stalin.”
 
Carpe Donktum, a known conservative meme-maker whose memes often get retweeted by conservatives and sometimes even by the President, tweeted: “Man, I just can’t believe how bold some of these Hollywood people are becoming, first Ricky, and now Vince. If this keeps up people might realize that they live in a free country, and it’s ok to have different opinions than the ones shouted at you on TV.”
 
If you remember, I recently wrote an article showing us just how few liberals there actually are in this country, with that number being just below 25%. In Hollywood, one would assume that at least 90% of the people there are liberal, so it can be rather rare to see a conservative Hollywood celebrity or star, but they do exist. And in the Left’s mind, that is horrible. As I said in the article about the number of liberals in the country, they are few in number so they have to be loud to pretend to be the mainstream opinion.
 
Virtually every Hollywood movie and every TV show produced today must bear a hyper-liberal message. A new Star Trek is being made? It should tackle Trump and Brexit (even though it’s literally set hundreds of years in the future, but I guess Trump is still going to be president in the 2360s and Britain will still be trying to leave the European Union) and point out how both of those things are not only bad, but are dangerous and violent for literally everyone. Trump is president and he continues winning electorally? Let’s make a movie about hunting and killing conservatives. More people tend to be okay with homosexuality as time goes on? Good, let’s overrepresent gay people as much as possible in films and tv, even though they are about 5% of the population, if that, and have “gay rights” organizations yell at us for not representing gay people enough anyway.
 
Movies that present a different ideology, or even just don’t shove the Leftist ideology down people’s throats, are labeled as “problematic”, “controversial” or “irresponsible”, such as the movie “1917”, which is about WWI but it doesn’t feature transgender military generals ordering a sufficiently marginalized, foreign, strong and independent woman of color to singlehandedly beat the Nazis (I know Nazis are from WWII, but the enemy would be treated as Nazis, as we generally are) all while flying the rainbow flag and denouncing white privilege and the United States and a president who wouldn’t be born for roughly another 30 years, so it’s labeled as “irresponsibly nationalistic”.
 
Any semblance of dissent must be culled, in the Left’s mind, and this has been the modus operandi for ages. The Chinese do it to this day. The Iranians do it. The Russians do it and did it often when they were the Soviet Union. In any dictatorship, where there is dissenting opinion, there are mysterious disappearances and killings. The American Left wishes they could be the dictators of the U.S., as dictators rule harshly in other countries. (Project Veritas recently released a video showing Bernie Sanders campaign staffers wishing to send Trump supporters to “reeducation camps” to “de-Nazify” us, so these people are no different from the commies in the USSR).
 
For Vince Vaugh to not only be conservative but also to be civil in the face of Trump, it is to be treated as a tragedy. Which is a little odd because, again, he is openly conservative. Back in 2013, he gave an interview where he said: “I think that… as you get older, you just get less trust in the government running anything. And that you start to realize when you really go back and look at the Constitution and the principles of liberty, the real purpose of government is to protect the individual’s right to sort of think and pursue what they have interest in. And that when you start drawing the lines, saying, as a society, we think this is inappropriate, we’re going to pass laws to protect them from themselves and/or take things away to protect themselves or move money from here to there, that you realize that you wake up with corruption and… you’ll wake up with a lot of problems that didn’t exist prior.”
 
It really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that Vince Vaughn is a conservative, but again, the tragedy, I suppose, is that he didn’t yell at Trump like a decent human being would… or something dumb like that.
 
Thankfully, considering so many people already know that Vaughn is a conservative, and considering he still gets work in Lefty Hollywood, to the dismay of this particular sports “journalist”, I doubt he will be cancelled over this. Someone might get angry with him and lambast him or bash him on the internet, but he will be fine. But this does, sadly, go to show just how valueless basic civility is nowadays when being seen holding a conversation with someone the Left hates is considered some sort of devastating tragedy and when the expectation by the Left is that the President would be verbally assaulted.
 
Proverbs 6:12-15
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Back in late October, the Trump administration greenlit an operation to kill the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, which resulted in a raid on his compound and the terrorist to blow himself up (alongside three of his children) to avoid being killed or arrested by U.S. forces. Following this raid, the Left went into a fit because we killed the leader of ISIS, proving even more that they are adamantly against the United States.
 
In early January of 2020, following an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, which was orchestrated by Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general who once visited the Obama White House and has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans, the United States used an MQ-9 Reaper drone to fire missiles at a convoy of terrorists leaving Baghdad International Airport. This strike not only killed dozens of terrorists, but it has been confirmed now by State Department officials that one of the deaths was the aforementioned general Soleimani.
 
Retired Lt. Col. James Carafano said: “The reported deaths of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani and the Iraqi commander of the militia that killed an American last week was a bold and decisive military action made possible by excellent intelligence and the courage of America’s service members. His death is a huge loss for Iran’s regime and its Iraqi proxies, and a major operational and psychological victory for the United States.”
 
Phillip Smyth, an expert on Iran-controlled Shia militias and the Middle East at the Washington Institute said: “This is a major blow. I would argue that this is probably the most major decapitation strike the United States has ever carried out… This is a man who controlled a transnational foreign legion that was controlling governments in numerous different countries… He had a hell of a lot of power and a hell of a lot of control. You have to be a strong leader in order to get these people to work with you, know how and when to play them off one another, and also know which Iranians do I need within the IRGC-QF (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a designated terrorist organization), which Lebanese do I need which, Iraqis do I need… that’s not something you can just pick up at a local five and dime. It takes decades of experience.”
 
Other military experts agreed that the killing of Soleimani was more significant than bin Laden or al-Baghdadi.
 
The Pentagon said in a statement: “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the nation. This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”
 
The Pentagon also said that Soleimani had orchestrated numerous attacks on U.S.-led coalition bases in Iraq over the last few months, including an attack on December 27th, which killed an American contractor and wounded U.S. servicemembers as well as Iraqi personnel.
 
Carafano also said: “The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps… led by Suleimani, was responsible for the deaths of more than 600 Americans in Iraq between 2003-2011, and countless more injured. He was a chief architect behind Iran’s continuing reign of terror in the region. This strike against one of the world’s most odious terrorists is no different than the mission which took out Osama bin Laden – it is, in fact, even more justifiable since he was in a foreign country directing terrorist attacks against Americans.”
 
Suffice to say that Soleimani was an evil piece of crap and no one but the bad guys would miss him. Enter the American Left, the fake news media and even a Hollywood elite being adamantly against this operation to kill a top enemy of the United States.
 
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) complained on Twitter: “Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question. The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?”
 
A couple of things to say about this. First, I don’t remember Democrats complaining when Obama didn’t notify them that we would be killing bin Laden. That’s because the Commander-in-Chief does not need to notify Congress that he is going to kill a terrorist. These idiots also complained that Trump didn’t notify them that he was killing Baghdadi. The reason being that he didn’t want the secret of the operation being spread, potentially saving Baghdadi and putting American servicemembers’ lives in danger. Granted, we used a drone instead of armed forces this time around, but we know just how partisan these people are. They would’ve blabbed about targeting Soleimani in an effort to save his life and keep Trump from scoring any political victory.
 
How do I know these people are partisan hacks? Aside from EVERYTHING they’ve done over the past few years, look at how these people are reacting to these news. Instead of being elated that an objectively EVIL guy is dead, they all let their Trump Derangement Syndrome take over and are DEFENDING Iran.
 
Just three days ago, and moving on to the second point I wanted to make, Sen. Chris Murphy also tweeted the following regarding the attack on our embassy: “The attack on our embassy in Baghdad is horrifying but predictable. Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East. No one fears us, no one listens to us. America has been reduced to huddling in safe rooms, hoping the bad guys will go away. What a disgrace.”
 
Three days ago, Murphy was complaining that we weren’t doing anything and claimed that America was “impotent” in the Middle East because of Trump (totally ignoring the fact that Benghazi was attacked under Obama’s watch and he did nothing to help there). Fast-forward three days and now he’s complaining about taking action against THE GUY WHO ORCHESTRATED THE ATTACK ON THE EMBASSY?!
 
Not that I find this the least bit surprising. They will attack Trump regardless of what he does. He doesn’t do something against terrorists who attacked our embassy? “Trump is weak”. He does something against terrorists who attacked our embassy? “Trump just started World War III”. It’s all a load of b.s. and no one in their right mind would take these people seriously for even a second.
 
But moving on to the other anti-American traitors, we find none other than the Washington Post, the official terrorist mourning organization, reporting: “Breaking news: Airstrike at Baghdad airport kills Iran’s most revered military leader, Qasem Soleimani, Iraqi state television reports.”
 
Don’t know if this quite beats “austere religious scholar” but it’s an embarrassment that it can come so close. Soleimani, as previously explained, was not Iran’s most “revered military leader”. He was a terrorist piece of garbage responsible for the deaths of hundreds of servicemembers and possibly thousands of Americans. And the only ones that “revered” the demon were people within the terrorist regime.
 
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shared a video on Twitter of Iraqis “dancing on the street for freedom; thankful that General Soleimani is no more.” And why would they be happy at Soleimani’s death? Because he was also the guy responsible for the deaths and kidnappings of protesters that had been troubling the terrorist regime for years in the neighboring country (reportedly, he caused the deaths of upwards of 500 people and injured another 20,000 protesters). We killed the guy who helped oppress the people of IRAQ and the people of Iraq are thankful.
 
Of course, this doesn’t stop the Left from further trying to paint Trump as a “warmonger” who just ignited the third World War and are cowering at what Iran might do in retaliation (because they were clearly oh, so peaceful before we killed Soleimani).
 
Despite the very clear evidence that Soleimani was a terrorist and that this was an attack in response to him ORCHESTRATING an attack on OUR embassy, the Left says that this is an act of war. By no means. This is an act of self-defense as a result of that attack on our embassy. It is an act of retribution for the THOUSANDS of American, not to mention Iranian and Iraqi lives, that he helped to take. It is an act of strength to show the terrorist regime that Obama is not president anymore and they can’t get away with whatever they want anymore.
 
This will not lead to World War III. I doubt this will even lead to full-blown war against Iran. Richard Engel said that “Iranians will consider US killing Soleimani an act of war. A proxy war could erupt. Likely in Iraq, but also a danger in Lebanon and Israel. This is a big escalation.” To which I say: Soleimani was already orchestrating numerous proxy wars in the region anyway. I don’t care if they consider this an act of war or an act of crapping on their sandwich; they will say whatever they want to justify further actions (and the media will be delighted by such actions). At most, this would cause a proxy war, but nothing more severe than that. If Iran actually had the means to fight us in a war, there’d be nothing stopping them from doing so. Unlike ISIS or al-Qaeda terrorists, Iran can’t go into hiding.
 
Now, Leftists could say: “See? This will only make things worse. This will cause the Iranians to attack us.” They were already attacking us and they have been FOR DECADES. It’s not like Trump attacked the Iranians unprovoked. They have been pulling crap against us, plotting and funding terrorist acts against us for decades at this point, pretty much since the Mullahs took over in 1979. Killing Soleimani will help deter future terrorist acts simply due to how many he was responsible for and was in the process of planning.
 
But what is perhaps the worst part of the Left’s clear betrayal of this country was something that actress Rose McGowan tweeted:
 
“Dear Iran, the USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us.” She also tweeted a gif of what appears to be an Iranian flag, but edited to have a sun emoji and a lion emoji in the middle part, for some reason.
 
But regardless of that strange gif, it is pretty clear how spineless the Left is. Thankfully, McGowan does not represent the U.S. and the VAST MAJORITY of Americans are happy that a terrorist is dead. One Twitter user, who claims to be Iranian, replied to her: “I’m Iranian by birth. Iranians are happy. Do you realize that this guy was [a] psychopath? Part of a group that tortured, raped, sodomized its own citizens? Do you have any f***ing clue or do you just want attention? Soleimani makes Harvey Weinstein look like a saint. Let that sink!”
 
I would assume McGowan wants as much attention as Jane Fonda did by siding with the Vietcongs. Back then, it was Hanoi Jane. Today, we have Tehran McGowan, it seems. These idiot Leftists have zero clue what they are talking about and most likely have never even heard of Soleimani before recently, otherwise, they really wouldn’t be calling Trump’s administration the “terrorist regime” here.
 
The Left does not support the United States. They hate it when we succeed. They hate it when we win at any capacity. They think we should be groveling on the ground, begging for other countries’ “forgiveness” for our “past sins” and “transgressions”. If you need any more proof that the Left hates this country, look at what they are doing right this moment.
 
John 3:20
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

All things considered, almost all of the stories I write about showcase the Left’s twisted logic and ideals, whether it be relating to climate change or transgenderism or socialism, etc., we really are in no short supply of such stories. But I would like to point out two particular recent stories that really put into perspective just how twisted the Left’s logic and ideals are and how truly evil they are.
 
Let’s begin with MSNBC’s Joy Reid hoping that the raid on the Baghdad embassy would have turned like Benghazi.
 
For a bit of context, if you haven’t been playing very close attention to the situation, Hezbollah supporters attempted to raid the U.S. embassy in Baghdad because of an attack that successfully eliminated dozens of terrorists from Kataeb Hezbollah (and the fake news media, always siding against the U.S., opted to call them “protesters” and “mourners” instead of terrorist-sympathizers and supporters).
 
What Joy Reid did was reply to a tweet from a bot account that noted the fact that Trump had tweeted on Tuesday: “Read the Transcripts!” in relation to the transcripts of the July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky (though not sure why this was tweeted, since the impeachment story died pretty much as soon as the House voted to impeach Trump). Reid’s reply read as follows: “As Trump’s Benghazi unfolds in Iraq…”
 
Keep in mind that the embassy in Baghdad had diplomats and servicemembers trapped in there for hours and they were threatened with actual violence, as the “protesters” outside were chanting the usual “death to America” chants, as well as “down, down USA” and “death to Israel” chants. They could’ve caused some serious damage and actually might’ve killed some people, but Trump, unlike Obama, actually sent reinforcements to help and drive away the mob.
 
It’s worth mentioning the massive backlash that Reid received from a number of different people.
 
Donald Trump Jr. tweeted: “’Trump’s Benghazi’ was handled with decisive action, like an actual leader would respond. The response (since they actually bothered to respond, unlike Obama/Crooked [Hillary]) was really the anti-Benghazi response! You’re welcome.”
 
Former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright (who is a Democrat, to be fair, though you wouldn’t know it from this) tweeted: “’Trump’s Benghazi’ is now ending with no dead Ambassador, no dead service members, and the enemy withdrawing. A disappointing conclusion for Joy Reid and The Resistance, no doubt, but a great day for America.”
 
Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted: “What’s wrong with you? Is partisan hatred really that deep? We root for American soldiers, not against them.”
 
Yes, her partisan hatred is that deep that she would gladly trade away the lives of multiple service members and diplomats in exchange for the opportunity to attack Trump on what would’ve been his Benghazi if he weren’t an actual leader and an actual president, unlike the last one.
 
Trump actually sent help because he doesn’t hate this country and those who serve it, unlike Obama, who left four Americans for dead in Benghazi. But Leftists like Joy Reid were really hoping this would turn out like Benghazi, if not far worse with considerably more bloodshed, all for the opportunity to politicize the ever-living crap out of it and use it as a weapon against Trump’s reelection.
 
To the Left, if a Republican is in the White House, particularly one that they really hate and isn’t willing to kiss the ground they walk on, it’s worth it to sacrifice the lives of our OWN SOLDIERS and diplomats if that’s what it takes to score a political victory. The deaths of everyone inside that embassy would’ve been worth it if the fake news media got to talk about it at length all throughout 2020 to try and get Trump out of the White House.
 
This is only one of the many examples of the Left’s twisted logic and ideals. But let us now move on to the next one.
 
This one is less of a story and more of an opinion piece as a result of a particular story. If you remember, I recently wrote an article about “Why People Have The Right To Defend Themselves” and in that article, I talked about a recent shooting in a Texas church that was thwarted thanks in part to a firearms instructor who shot the shooter and prevented more blood from being shed that Sunday morning.
 
Something I failed to mention in that story is the fact that, while the hero, Jack Wilson, was the one to stop the shooter, at least SIX other churchgoers were seen on video having pulled out their own guns and looking for the shooter, showing the restraint to not shoot randomly and risking causing more damage. So, at the very least, there were SEVEN people with guns in that church (not counting the shooter, who was a convicted criminal with no legal right to own guns and yet, still had one) and an opinion writer for USA Today thought it was “terrifying” that there would be any churchgoers aside from a firearms instructor who were carrying guns inside the church.
 
Yeah, the op-ed writer said it was “terrifying” that Christians were able to DEFEND THEMSELVES inside a church.
 
Elvia Diaz, the op-ed writer, wrote: “Texas has one of the nation’s least restrictive gun laws, including allowing armed security at houses of worship and allowing parishioners to bring their weapons to church. Gun advocates didn’t waste any time after the recent church incident to promote the idea of arming oneself.”
 
She writes that like the idea of arming oneself is bad, but that’s probably what she actually thinks. She thinks it’s bad that people are able to defend themselves, which is what I said in the beginning of that aforementioned article regarding people having the right to defend themselves: “People have the right to defend themselves. This much is factual and you would think there’d be no one who would disagree, but the Left, in all their inglorious stupidity (or evil), disagrees with this notion…”. That is literally the first two sentences of that article and Diaz is THE example of the kind of person I talked about there.
 
She doesn’t think people have the right to defend themselves and finds it “terrifying” that they do. Regardless, she continued: “The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. And that isn’t going anywhere. But that constitutional amendment doesn’t spell out the types of firearms Americans should bear, nor does it give Americans the right to sell them to anyone to carry anywhere.”
 
Two points to make here. First of all, the argument of “the Founding Fathers never pictured assault weapons when writing the Second Amendment” is extremely stupid. Of course they didn’t picture it. THEY HADN’T BEEN INVENTED YET. But at the same time, they never specified that the people could only have a particular firearm BECAUSE THAT WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
 
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again because it bears repeating: the Second Amendment wasn’t created for people to go hunting. It wasn’t created for people to protect their homes (though that’s a side benefit). It was created for people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. “Spelling out the types of firearms Americans should bear” would go against the Founding Fathers’ intentions. They wanted an American populace to be able to defend itself against a tyrannical government should the need arise. Back then, just about everyone had muskets, pistols and horses, whether they be soldiers or farmers (and the soldiers back then, at least a good number of them, were farmers). The Founding Fathers wanted people to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and if they could’ve envisioned the creation of “assault” weapons like the ones we have today, they would’ve allowed for people to have them.
 
Secondly, it does give Americans the right to sell them to anyone to carry anywhere. Existing laws in the books are what prohibit such a thing, for the most part, and even then, not entirely. Americans (with the legal ability to sell guns) have the right to sell them to just about anyone (who passes background checks and the like) to carry anywhere they are allowed to (not in gun-free zones, but that sure as hell doesn’t stop bad guys from doing it, which is why gun-free zones are idiotic and dangerous).


But regardless of these arguments, Diaz actually inadvertently makes a case AGAINST GUN CONTROL in her op-ed: “Sunday’s shooting isn’t just about Jack Wilson’s heroism. It’s about how [the shooter] got a hold of a weapon in the first place, given his criminal record.”
 
She accidentally recognizes that gun laws in place aren’t going to keep CRIMINALS WHO, BY DEFINITION, DON’T OBEY THE LAW from obtaining guns and using them at their pleasure. Again, the shooter was a criminal BEFORE the shooting, and didn’t have a right to own a weapon, and yet, because he is a CRIMINAL, he had one anyway and intended to use it against churchgoers and cause as much damage and pain as possible. No gun law that exists today or could be conceived would’ve prevented the shooting in that church. But a good guy with a gun, and if need be, several other parishioners willing to defend themselves and their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, kept that shooting from being one of the worst ones in recent time.
 
The Left vehemently denies the power of the good guy with a gun EVEN WHEN TALKING ABOUT A STORY WHERE SUCH A GUY IS PRESENT.
 
Suffice to say that USA Today received major backlash for this piece.
 
Evan Todd, a survivor of the Columbine shooting, tweeted: “I stared down the barrel of a gun at Columbine, where 13 people were murdered and almost 30 wounded. I wished then and now that we had a Jack Wilson that fateful day. The world would be a better place if there were more men and women like Jack Wilson…”
 
Michael Malice tweeted: “Freedom is terrifying, insists the enemy of the people… This is the entire point of concealed carry, that murderers et al don’t know who around them is packing.”
 
Congressional candidate Lisa Sutton tweeted: “What’s terrifying is your attempt to downplay a heroic act by law abiding Americans, who were focused on stopping an evil person from inflicting harm upon others.”
 
Diaz found it “terrifying” that there were people in that church who were not firearms instructors and had access to guns. She writes that, while much is known about Wilson, nothing is known about the other parishioners who were seen wielding weapons. Why does it matter whether anything is known about them? THEY DIDN’T FIRE A SHOT AND THEY WEREN’T THE CRIMINAL! Jack Wilson stopped the shooter, so it makes sense to find out about him. The shooter was the evil s.o.b. that intended to kill many people that day, so it makes sense to find out about him. But why would it be important or necessary to find out about the others who were only ready to fight if they had to?
 
Again, they showed restraint and didn’t fire a single shot, not wanting to cause harm to anyone. That tells me that they have undergone at least some training with their firearms to be comfortable wielding them while also being extremely cautious. This is what JUST ABOUT EVERY LEGAL GUN OWNER DOES! The Left tries to paint legal gun owners as people who are just as sick and depraved as those who would shoot up schools, churches, etc. when reality is the exact opposite. Want to know what a legal gun owner looks like? Look at the people of the church in White Settlement. One of them acted and fired upon the shooter once he confirmed who it was. The other six were ready to join the fight if necessary but kept themselves from causing unnecessary harm to anyone. THAT is a gun owner, not the crazy demons that the Left makes us out to be.
 
But again, this piece is another example of the Left’s twisted logic and ideals. The writer of this op-ed found it “terrifying” that LEGAL GUN OWNERS COULD DEFEND THEMSELVES IN A PLACE OF WORSHIP. She even tried to blame this shooting on Gov. Abbott and the law that allows for people to carry in a place of worship when it’s because of that law (and the Grace of God, of course) that the shooting didn’t turn out much worse.
 
Evil will always look to do evil; you can’t legislate it into non-existence. But you can allow for good people to do something about it and not constrain them. That’s what that law aimed to do and what that law successfully accomplished. But to the Left, that’s not a good thing in the least.
 
Diaz says gun advocates quickly jumped on that story to advocate in favor of gun ownership. And that’s true because THIS IS A PERFECT STORY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO ARM THEMSELVES. As Diaz noted, the criminal had access to a gun, despite gun laws prohibiting him from doing so. This PROVES that criminals (since some people apparently need proof of this) don’t care for the law in the least and will do what they want. The best counter to such criminals is a good guy (or multiple guys) with a gun.
 
Think about the way shootings are prevented or stopped. When you hear of a potential shooting having taken place but was ultimately prevented, you hear of police or someone with a gun keeping the shooter from killing as many people as they could. The law is just a piece of paper that is utterly meaningless without those to enforce it. No law has ever prevented a shooting. PEOPLE have prevented shootings. More specifically, ARMED people have prevented shootings. And when they aren’t prevented, they are thwarted by such people.
 
This, in the mind of the Left, is not a good thing because it robs them of the ability to advocate for gun control, which only exacerbates the problem of shootings. These people are sick and twisted.
 
Isaiah 5:20
“Woe to those who call good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It is always unfortunate to see when supposedly Christian organizations, be it Chick-fil-A or “Christianity Today” switch allegiances in support of Satan, but that is basically what occurred recently when the editor-in-chief attacked Trump’s morals and character and demanded that Trump be removed from office because of what LYING LEFTISTS have alleged about him.
 
Mark Galli writes: “The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”
 
Do you want to know what else is profoundly immoral? Lying to people and bearing false witness.
 
Trump did NOT attempt to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to “harass” and “discredit” one of his political opponents. He asked Zelensky about an investigation Ukraine previously had of Hunter Biden and the company he worked for, Burisma, because the guy was making $50k a month in a job he did not qualify for and even ADMITS wouldn’t have gotten without his dad being Vice President of the United States. He asked about an investigation into Burisma that ended because Joe Biden bragged about WITHHOLDING AID TO UKRAINE IF THEY DIDN’T FIRE THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING HUNTER.
 
He asked about the very real possibility of THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION abusing power to protect the former VP’s son. He asked about Crowdstrike and their involvement with Ukraine officials in an effort to further investigate foreign involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
 
To say that he attempted to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit an opponent is not only a massive lie, but defends the false witnesses during the impeachment hearing. HOW IS THAT MORAL?!
 
The answer is that it isn’t and this guy should know better, but he doesn’t.
 
Further, he asserts that Trump “has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals,” as though that speaks poorly of him. Do you want to know who has been convicted of crimes (or will be on trial for it)? Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign advisor for a few months before being fired, likely because Trump found out about his ties to Ukraine and his illegal business dealings; Michael Flynn, who was arrested and charged with lying to the FBI, even though Comey admitted he didn’t think he lied and simply did not remember things correctly, and even though the FBI held an interrogation of him under false pretenses where he didn’t have a lawyer because he didn’t think what he was going to say would be used against him in a court of law; Roger Stone, who was arrested and charged with procedural crimes (same as Flynn, though with more charges) and Michael Cohen, who violated campaign finance laws himself and lied about it.
 
NONE OF THESE DAMAGE TRUMP’S CHARACTER. They were all largely arrested, persecuted and subsequently prosecuted (some, not all) because of a rabid Left wanting to hurt anyone who was close to Trump. People close to Trump being sent to jail doesn’t make Trump a bad guy, otherwise we would have to claim that JESUS was a bad guy because John the Baptist, the Apostle Peter, and virtually every Christian who professed the faith were arrested and imprisoned.
 
Just because you or someone close to you is sent to prison, that doesn’t make you a bad or immoral guy. Plenty of innocent or good people have been sent to prison. Would this guy argue that everyone the Soviet Union imprisoned or executed was a bad person? How about Communist China imprisoning and executing people? They want to imprison the Hong Kong protesters who are fighting for freedom and liberty. Does that mean the protesters are immoral people?
 
Rome imprisoned and crucified our LORD AND SAVIOR. Clearly, the argument of “hiring and firing people who are convicted criminals” means absolutely nothing, particularly considering just WHO was persecuting them.

Not that I expect Galli to agree with me on this point anyway. Mark Galli is the same man who adored and lionized in the biography that he wrote of Karl Barth, a neo-orthodox theologian who excused Stalin's crimes against humanity due to the "intention" behind Marxism:

"[I]t is pertinent not to discriminate in our view of contemporary Communism between its totalitarian atrocities as such and the positive intention behind them," Barth once wrote. "And if one tries to do that, one cannot say of Communism what one was forced to say of Nazism ten years ago (this was written in 1949) - that what it means and intends is pure unreason, the product of madness and crime. It would be quite absurd to mention in the same breath the philosophy of Marxism and the 'ideology' of the Third Reich, to mention a man of the stature of Joseph Stalin in the same breath as such charlatans as Hitler, Goerin, Hess, Goebbels, Himmler, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Streicher, etc. What has been tackled in Soviet Russia - albeit with very dirty and bloody hands and in a way that rightly shocks us - is, after all, a constructive idea, the solution of a problem which is a serious and burning problem for us as well, and which we with our clean hands have not yet tackled anything like energetically enough: the social problem."

Basically, Barth excuses the atrocities that even he recognizes because it was for a "good cause". Hitler also thought he had a "good cause" and I will RIGHTLY talk about that monster in the same breath as Stalin. To see that Galli wrote Barth's biography and thinks highly of him (Barth also denied that the Bible was the Word of God and that the witness account of Jesus' resurrection was accurate, so the guy was not even a CHRISTIAN) makes plenty of sense, considering Galli is, in all likelihood, not a Christian either.
 
Galli then writes: “[Trump] himself has admitted to immoral actions in businesses and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud.”
 
Fellow Christians, it is with a heavy heart that I tell you that if you ever did anything immoral in your past, you cannot be saved whatsoever. Trump admitted to immoral actions in businesses and relationships with women. Clearly, there is no hope for Trump or any of us.
 
Trump does not remain “proud” of his past, otherwise, Melania wouldn’t still be married to him. There’s no doubt in my mind that he apologized to her and, more importantly, to God for his previous sins.
 
Thank the Lord that Galli is not God, otherwise, no one would be saved because there’d be nothing we could do. He chooses to judge Trump on something I’m certain GOD no longer does.
 
“His Twitter feed alone – with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders – is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused,” Galli wrote.
 
Hey, guys, apparently, it’s an impeachable offense if the President says stuff on Twitter that you don’t like.
 
Look, I don’t care if you like or dislike what Trump does on Twitter. But Trump does not “mischaracterize”, “lie” or “slander”. He points out the truth about people, he tells his side of the story (because the fake news media will lie about him constantly) and he will fight back against those who actually do slander him. And precisely because it is his way to tell his side of the story (basically his only way), virtually anyone who wanted to actually fight back against the Left and against the fake news media would do, say, and tweet the same exact things.
 
Laying down and accepting the libelous criticism you receive is not the Christian thing to do. Giving up to Satan is not the Christian thing to do.
 
Would Jesus do what Trump is doing? No, but if He were to run for POTUS, He’d be slandered and lied about EVEN MORE than Trump is. THE PHARISEES LIED ABOUT AND SLANDERED HIM IN HIS OWN TIME TO THE POINT WHERE THEY HAD HIM CRUCIFIED!
 
I’m not saying Trump is perfect, but those who whine about his Twitter antics miss the bigger picture and can, at best, be described as peacetime conservatives (if they are conservatives in the first place).
 
Galli then goes on to say how the impeachment hearings “made it clear” that Trump abused his power for personal gain and betrayed his oath of office. Allow me to return to the point about a false witness, because that is exactly what this guy and the “witnesses” during the hearings were doing.
 
The “witnesses” were not witnesses to anything. They did not witness Trump “abusing his power”. They were Leftist, elitist college professors who hated Trump. They were people who, at best, could only provide THIRD-HAND KNOWLEDGE about Trump and what he was doing. The hearings PROVED NOTHING which is precisely why impeachment became LESS popular AFTER the hearings.
 
Galli then ends by daring to say that Christians who support Trump should reevaluate their support:
 
“To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?”
 
A couple of points here. First, a “blackened moral record” means nothing if Trump is repentant of it.
 
King David had an affair with a married woman and then tried to cover up his immorality by sending the husband of said woman off to die at the frontlines of battle. Samson succumbed to temptation and slept with a woman who betrayed him and robbed him of the strength God had given him (temporarily). Saul of Tarsus hunted down and executed those who professed Jesus as the Messiah. Abraham got impatient with God and slept with his wife’s servant in order to have a child that was not promised to him. Solomon fell to idolatry. Peter denied Christ three times. Moses killed an Egyptian guard and fled justice for decades. Need I go on?
 
Look throughout the history of humanity and you will not find a single person who was free of sin, except literally Jesus Christ. EVERYONE has a blackened moral record, including me, including you, and including Galli. Romans 3:9-12 says the following: “What then? Are we Jews any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.’”
 
President Donald J. Trump is a sinner. But guess what? SO IS EVERYONE ELSE! But that doesn’t matter if God has already forgiven us of our sins, through repentance. Only two people further condemn after repentance: Man and Satan. So it’s no wonder that Galli would continue to condemn Trump, despite his own iniquities.
 
If Christians “reverse course” on their support for Trump and await someone who does not have a history of sin, they will wait UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD. Only God is moral, only God is good, only God is without sin.
 
The second and final point I wish to make about Galli’s conclusion is that I find it interesting that Galli recognizes the evil that is abortion and yet, does not recognize that if Trump is brought down and defeated, that very evil will be unleashed and run amok worse than we have ever seen.
 
There isn’t a single person on the Democrat field that is against this evil of abortion. They all advocate and DEMAND abortion be easily-accessible, even in the third trimester and up until birth. Murder is the Democrat Party’s biggest agenda item and Donald Trump has been THE MOST PRO-LIFE PRESIDENT in recent history.
 
The Democrat Party is the party of Satan. With Trump out of the picture, they get to do whatever they want, pretty much. As much as I like Mike Pence and think he would make an excellent POTUS, he’s nowhere near as popular as Trump is. If Trump is removed from office, Pence likely would not be elected in 2020 and one of the Satan-worshippers would be.
 
This is what so-called anti-Trump “conservatives” and “Christians” fail to understand: get rid of Trump and the country belongs to Satan in the blink of an eye. This doesn’t just mean that abortion will be more rampant, but Christianity itself will be more heavily targeted and persecuted. For crying out loud, a man in Iowa was sentenced to 16 YEARS in prison for setting a pride flag THAT WAS HANGING ON A CHURCH on fire.
 
People might try and downplay the numerous conservative judges being placed by Trump, but it’s those conservative judges that can help Make America Great Again and keep injustice like that from occurring, because not only was that a clear violation of the 8th amendment, but also, the sentence was ADDED ONTO because it was considered hate speech by the Leftist judge, a clear violation of the FIRST amendment.
 
THAT is a far bigger threat to the constitution, the country and CHRISTIANS, than Trump asking for a foreign country to CONTINUE THE PREVIOUSLY HALTED INVESTIGATION THAT WAS HALTED BECAUSE OF AN ACTUAL QUID PRO QUO BY BIDEN.
 
Charging Trump with immorality when LITERALLY EVERY CANDIDATE ON THE LEFT WANTS TO BRING ABORTION-ON-DEMAND AND PERSECUTE ANY AND ALL DISSENTERS is not only incredibly stupid, but not exactly a Christian thing to do if Trump has repented of his sins, as I believe he has.

But again, I doubt Galli actually is a Christian, considering he holds the socialist and unbelieving Karl Barth in such a high regard. Mark Galli has no moral authority to say anything about anyone, let alone Trump or any Christian who supports him.
 
Romans 3:10
“As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one.’”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

As I’ve said many times when discussing the prospect of impeachment, particularly since the process began back in October, the Democrats were stuck between a rock and a hard place (entirely because of their own actions and impatience) when it came to any potential vote on impeachment. Either they voted in favor of impeachment to please their base, despite the fact that the topic does not poll well and by the time the vote took place, most polls (even reliably Leftist ones) showed that people opposed impeachment more than supported it, or they voted against it and risked seriously ticking off their own base.
 
Either route would almost certainly lose them the House come next election, something even Nancy Pelosi was acutely aware of (and we’ll return to this shortly). Now, they’ve chosen what I personally had suggested: vote to impeach to appease your base. It will screw them over anyway, but at least their blood-thirsty base won’t come after them (or at least, the ones that voted in favor of impeachment, as two Democrats voted against the first article and three voted against the second article, with Tulsi Gabbard voting “Present” for both).
 
But with the impeachment pretty much over (either Pelosi sends impeachment to Senate, where Trump will be acquitted or she doesn’t send it to the Senate and absolutely nothing happens and Trump is still the president either way), some Democrat strategists warn that Trump absolutely could still win in 2020 despite being impeached.
 
“Yes, he can win,” said Democrat strategist Chris Kofinis. “And presuming otherwise is a recipe for repeating the mistakes of 2016. This isn’t a national election. He is going to lose the popular vote by 2 to 3 million votes, but the battlegrounds are still competitive and he won the Electoral College.”
 
More specifically, Kofinis said the POTUS could be reelected “because if you look at past elections, no incumbent president has lost an election with a growing economy and peacetime conditions.”
 
Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics also said that the 2020 election was “Trump’s to lose.”
 
“Trump wins if the economy and his approval ratings are about the same a year from now as today, and turnout is typical. But if the economy stumbles, his popularity flags or Democrat turnout is big, the Democrats win,” Zandi told Bloomberg News.
 
Now, I will make a few points here.
 
First, I will repeat a point I made some time ago when Pelosi said that “it doesn’t matter” if the Democrats lose the House in 2020. If impeachment were as popular as they try and make us, particularly Trump supporters, believe, then why would the Democrats lose risking the House?
 
Furthermore, if impeachment truly was the “winner” that the Democrats think it is and celebrate like it is (Merry Impeachmas, everyone!), then why would Trump be capable of winning in 2020? Not only that, they are saying 2020 is Trump’s to LOSE. Doesn’t impeachment usually mean a pretty bad thing for a president? Doesn’t it usually mean that a vast majority, or even a simple majority, of people want to get rid of the POTUS? So then why would Trump stand to win in 2020 despite being impeached?
 
This brings me to my second point and something that the Democrats don’t even want to consider: Trump won’t win despite impeachment. He will win BECAUSE of impeachment.
 
Granted, a strong economy and peacetime conditions will take Trump far and will likely be the biggest reasons for Trump to win reelection in 2020, as I have said multiple times in the past. However, impeaching a popular president will only HELP said president.
 
Usually, impeachment is a stain on a president and his presidency. It’s not typically a good thing for a president to be impeached. But this is not the case for Trump. It’s not a stain, but a badge of honor, for a number of reasons.
 
First of all, this was entirely a partisan impeachment. Only three presidents were ever impeached, and two of them were on a partisan basis. The other president to be impeached on a partisan basis was Andrew Johnson, whose impeachment we’ve already explained was a disaster and an example of what not to do with impeachment, largely because it was so partisan (although 17 members of the House chose not to vote, so we don’t know what way they would’ve gone).
 
Second of all, consider who is trying to get rid of Trump: the Deep State, the Washington Establishment. They’ve been trying to get rid of Trump since well BEFORE he even got elected. Let’s not forget the “insurance policy” the FBI was looking to get and the collusion the Clinton campaign did with foreign agents (British Oppo. Researcher Christopher Steele, Ukrainians, Russians, etc.) and with the Obama DOJ to try to steal the election away from Trump. Now, the same Washington Establishment has voted in favor of impeachment strictly along party lines.
 
Trump didn’t get impeached by elected representatives. He got impeached by partisan hacks in the Washington Establishment who have wanted this to happen since Trump got elected. He got impeached by partisan hacks who kept Trump and Republicans from being able to call in their own witnesses and demonstrate any semblance of fairness in the hearings. And now, those same partisan hacks demand Senate Republicans keep Trump from being able to defend himself, all in the name of “a fair trial” (by the way, a fair trial is fair for the defendant, not the accuser).
 
The Washington Establishment impeached Trump. That’s not a stain; it’s a badge of honor for Trump.
 
And now that the Democrats have voted against the American people, they will reap what they have sown. Again, if impeaching Trump had been as popular as they led themselves to believe and attempted to convince others (a CNN poll showed that DEMOCRAT support for impeachment fell from 90% to 77%, showing just how much this sham has backfired on the Democrats), they wouldn’t risk losing the House in 2020; they wouldn’t risk Trump getting reelected and actually being the FAVORITE to win the election.
 
Multiple elected Democrats and media people celebrated Trump’s impeachment after the House vote (and some were even close to celebrating as the first article got passed, until Pelosi hilariously reminded them “we’re supposed to act somber, not happy” about impeaching Trump), believing themselves to have done some sort of justice for the country or that Trump will be gone soon.
 
They live in their own world where they believe the vast majority of people agree with them and those who do not are so few in number as to be largely irrelevant. They don’t realize the landmine they stepped onto the minute Pelosi suggested they might begin an inquiry into impeachment.
 
That opened the can of worms that the Democrats will have to deal with next year because impeachment really was their only option, not because Trump actually committed any crimes or impeachable offenses, but because they either impeached him and appeased their base at the expense of ticking off everyone else and losing 2020, or they didn’t impeach him, ticked off their own base, and still lose in 2020.
 
They banked on finding something actually impeachable or criminal out of Trump’s July 25th phone call with Zelensky, or at least, find something along those lines with anything regarding Ukraine, just like they banked on finding something criminally wrong or impeachable with the Mueller probe. When that inevitably failed, they knew they still had no option but to trudge along and impeach, essentially being asked what kind of flavor of poison they would want to drink.
 
Now, I’m not saying Trump is guaranteed to win in 2020. The last thing I would want is for people to feel so sure about it as to be complacent and not go out to vote for Trump. That would be the only way for Trump to actually lose (assuming things basically stay the same for the next 11 months). One of the reasons for Hillary to have lost was that she herself was fairly complacent and assumed she would win. As history has shown, such arrogance can lead to terrible defeat.
 
While I spent the day of impeachment like it was any other Wednesday, we should keep in mind that the Democrats would’ve actually gotten away with this junk if they had had a majority in the Senate, certainly enough to convince NeverTrump Republicans in the Senate to vote for removal.
 
This impeachment was neutered because we all knew it wasn’t going to go anywhere solely due to the lack of votes in the Senate. But given the chance, the Democrats will take the Senate and get rid of Trump, so when the next election comes around, remember that the Left hates you so much that they would get rid of anyone they don’t like and FORCE you to live with it.
 
Recently, Trump tweeted the following picture:

​And he’s definitely right. The Democrats didn’t impeach Trump because he did anything impeachable or criminal. They impeached him because they HATE the fact that YOU rejected them in 2016. The entire Mueller probe was a result of them refusing to believe that you would be so stupid (in their minds) as to reject them. “Don’t you know they are the best hope for America and that they only want peace and love and prosperity and equality? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET THAT, YOU STUPID, INBRED NAZI HILLBILLY!?”
 
That’s basically what the Left is: they pretend to be tolerant but absolutely HATE YOU if you don’t submit to them. You refused to submit to them in 2016, so they saw fit to punish you as a result.
 
Come 2020, they will receive the biggest loss they have seen since 1984, provided, again, that you guys still go out and vote for Trump because they cannot be allowed to hold an entire nation hostage out of vengeance for the results of an election they didn’t like.
 
Proverbs 6:12-15
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
​

Hours after President Donald J. Trump assumed office, the Washington Post ran a story titled “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun,” signifying the insane Left’s desire to get rid of Trump as soon as possible for any given reason.
 
And earlier this week, after two and a half years of Trump-Russia collusion hoax, sex with a porn star garbage, false allegations of campaign finance violations, accusations of obstruction of justice by the mere thought of removing Mueller, accusations of obstruction of justice by firing Comey and accusations of bribery and quid pro quo with Ukraine in what is considered (by the Left) an effort to “dig up dirt” on Biden, the Democrats have announced articles of impeachment against President Trump.
 
What are the articles of impeachment? “Abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”… Really? After everything; after all the fake news stories accusing Trump of X or Y or Z; after all the “concerning” accusations of collusion with a foreign government to steal an election; after all the “concern” surrounding the possibility of Trump firing Mueller (which he was legally able to do); after all the “concern” surrounding Trump’s desire to “dig up dirt” on Biden, “offering” a quid pro quo and maybe even “bribing” Ukraine in order to supposedly steal another election, this is all they have?
 
I suppose I can understand why they wouldn’t go with bribery, considering it would lead to Biden being implicated and maybe even be called by the Republican Senate to testify as part of the removal process and getting rid of that charge would save Biden’s behind, at least for now, but still, what two flimsy and terrible articles of impeachment.
 
For two and a half years, we were told that “Mueller had the goods” and that Trump would face “justice” for “stealing the election away from Hillary”. We were told that Trump colluded with Russia for two and a half years. We were told that Trump was a scumbag for doing a porn star. We were told that he committed campaign finance crimes by paying off said porn star. We were told that there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. We were told that Trump bribed Ukraine.
 
Three years of nothing but accusations left and right about some crime that Trump committed or something major that should “concern every citizen of the United States of America” and all the Democrats have are “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”?
 
First of all, even Leftist professor Johnathan Turley argued that the charge of “abuse of power” could apply to every president. “Almost every American president has, on more than one occasion, passed the bounds of his power, in the sense that his administration has done something that it is not lawfully entitled to do,” Turley said during one of the impeachment hearings.
 
Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) even gave a few examples of conduct by former presidents and asked if they were impeachable under the charge of “abuse of power”:
 
Buck: “So let me go with a few examples and see if you agree with me. Lyndon Johnson directed the Central Intelligence Agency to place a spy in Barry Goldwater’s campaign. That spy got advance copies of speeches and other strategy. Delivered that to the Johnson campaign. Would that be… impeachable conduct, according to the other panelists?”
 
Turley: “Well, it sweeps pretty broadly, so I assume so.”
 
I would also assume so, considering Nixon was threatened with impeachment for doing something rather similar.
 
Buck then continued with a few other examples: “Okay. Well, I’m going to go with a few other presidents, we’ll see where we go. Congressman [Ted] Deutsch [D-FL] informed us that FDR put country first. Now, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he was president, directed the IRS to conduct audits of his political enemies – namely Huey Long, William Randolph Hearst, Hamilton Fish, Father Coughlin. Would that be an abuse of power for political benefit according to the other panelists? Would that be impeachable conduct?”
 
Turley said that yes, it would be.
 
“How about when President Kennedy directed his brother, [Attorney General] Robert Kennedy to deport one of his mistresses as an East German spy? Would that qualify as impeachable conduct?,” asked Buck.
 
Turley also agreed that it would be.
 
Turley also agreed that it would fall under the terms of an impeachable offense when Buck pointed out that Kennedy ordered the FBI to wiretap Congressional staffers who opposed him politically (what’s with Democrats always spying on their opposition?).
 
Buck then pointed out that Obama appointed people to the National Labor Relations Board outside of Congress and was challenged by the Supreme Court and lost in a 9-0 vote, and asked if that was abuse of power. Turley also agreed that that would fall under the broad definition of the term.
 
Buck also pointed out how Obama ordered his national security adviser and Secretary of State to lie to the American people about whether the U.S. Ambassador to Libya was murdered because of a YouTube video (that never existed) or because of terrorism. Turley also eventually said that it would be.
 
Buck went on to name a few other presidents, including Lincoln and Washington, and named things that, under the broad definition of “abuse of power”, would’ve gotten them impeached.
 
Turley ultimately said the following: “It’s not that abuse of power can never be an impeachable offense. You just have to prove it. And you [the Democrats] haven’t.”
 
Generally, the charge of “abuse of power” would have to be among a long list of other impeachable offenses because it’s so hard to prove and define. For any impeachment process, if that charge is the main one, or even one of TWO charges, there is not much hope for impeachment.
 
President Andrew Johnson was impeached on the grounds of “abuse of power” in 1868, was acquitted by the Senate by one vote (there were only 54 Senators at the time and the vote was 35-19, with 36 having been needed to remove Johnson). The impeachment of Andrew Johnson, though it did come awfully close to actually removing the guy, is widely considered a cautionary tale and an example of what Congress should not do.
 
The Democrats even cite that precedent as a positive and hold that “illegitimate motives”, even if no actual crime has been committed, are cause for impeachment:
 
“Rather than directly target President Johnson’s faithless execution of the laws, and his illegitimate motives in wielding power, the House resorted to charges based on the Tenure of Office Act. But in reality, ‘the shaky claims prosecuted by [the House] obscured a far more compelling basis for removal: that Johnson’s virulent use of executive power to sabotage Reconstruction posed a mortal threat to the nation – and to civil and political rights – as reconstituted after the Civil War… [T]he country was in the throes of a second founding. Yet Johnson abused the powers of his office and violated the Constitution to preserve institutions and practices that had nearly killed the Union. He could not be allowed to salt the earth as the Republic made itself anew.’ Viewed from that perspective, the case for impeaching President Johnson rested on his use of power with illegitimate motives.’”
 
Rather interesting that the Democrats would cite a failed attempt at removing a president in their own attempt at removing the current president. They argue that the House was right in impeaching Johnson on the grounds of “illegitimate motives” and “abuse of power”. And yet, while the House did impeach him (should be noted that the House was controlled by the Republicans, though Johnson was a Democrat who was Lincoln’s VP until his assassination), the Senate did not remove him (though it was close).
 
The attempt to remove Johnson failed, and yet, the Democrats are going to try and do the same thing, only with perhaps even flimsier reasoning and even less likelihood of success.
 
At least the Republicans had proved that Johnson abused his power as executive. The Democrats have not proven a damn thing in relation to Trump’s “abuse of power”. It’s far too broad of a definition for it to be a viable ground for impeachment, at least on its virtual lonesome. The charge of “obstruction of Congress”, I mean, I don’t even know where to begin with that one. What “obstruction of Congress”? Are the Democrats impeaching Trump for the tweets he sent out during the hearings? Or is it because he refused (with legal means) to participate in this impeachment hoax? Actually, it’s worse than that. The Democrats are accusing Trump of “withholding evidence” of his abuse of power… so, if Trump withheld evidence of his abuse of power, what evidence do the Democrats have that he abused his power?
 
Oh, yeah, all their evidence is hearsay from third or fourth-hand sources.
 
But all things considered, holding impeachment hearings on dubious grounds and for political reasons (which Schiff even admits to, saying that this is about the next election), thus keeping either the House or the Senate from being able to legislate is obstruction of Congress, wouldn’t you think?
 
And what about Schiff’s abuse of power in acquiring and releasing phone records from multiple people, including members of the media, who are public citizens? When will his impeachment come? Or how about Biden’s abuse of power in threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a prosecutor investigating his son’s company? He doesn’t hold political power anymore (and hopefully never will again), but why isn’t he held accountable?
 
Suffice to say that the grounds of impeachment from the Democrats is actually far weaker than I was expecting. I knew they had nothing to impeach Trump for, but they’re charging him with far fewer things than I expected. Granted, what I expected was charging Trump on the grounds of “being mean” or “being racist” or something else that is equally stupid, but still, only two charges from the people that accuse Trump of being literally Hitler? That’s kind of surprising to me.
 
Regardless, the outcome will not be a surprise to any of you. Democrats will vote to impeach, nowhere near 67 Senators will vote to remove Trump (even if the usual suspects, i.e. Romney, Collins and Murkowsky vote to remove) and Trump will go on to win in a landslide in 2020, keep or grow numbers in the Senate, retake the House and continue to watch as poll after poll attempts to sound the alarm that Trump, not the Democrats, is the one winning on this issue.
 
Romans 8:28
“And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

For a few months, I have mostly mentioned impeachment in passing, mostly as part of an overall point in an article that slightly relates to it. But after a few months, and in particular, two weeks of the House Democrats rigging impeachment rules in their favor, denying due process for the President, and denying Republicans the chance to interview their own witnesses, we find that support for impeachment has either been ticking down as time went on or not really moved at all – neither of which are good for Democrats who need to gain ground in order for this to not be a total failure.
 
None of the witnesses the Democrats interviewed actually witnessed anything and could, at best, offer second or third-hand knowledge of the situation. Trump releasing the transcript of the July 25th phone call with Zelensky essentially ruined the Democrats’ efforts because now, they can’t say that something happened when it didn’t and hope that a vast majority of people believe them. With the transcript, we have the ability to read what was said during the call and find that no quid pro quo actually took place, or that, even if you wanted to stretch things a little, that it’s not exactly an impeachable offense to ask for a foreign government to investigate someone who happens to be a political opponent when they possibly and likely committed crimes in that country.
 
After all this time, we find several polls that have bad news for Democrats and one that attempts to keep Democrats energized about impeachment but ultimately is mostly fake news.
 
First, let’s look at the Huffington Post/YouGov poll. This poll shows that only 42% of all adults believe that Trump is guilty of withholding aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens.
 
For the fact that we had roughly two months of non-stop anti-Trump propaganda (specifically talking about Ukraine and quid pro quo; the anti-Trump propaganda has been around for years at this point) and two weeks of hearings that supposedly were Trump’s “worst” weeks and the testimonies of the “witnesses” were “damning” and very “damaging”, 42% is hysterically pathetic.
 
It gets worse, too. 57% believe Trump is either innocent or are unsure about whether or not he is, which is devastating for Democrats trying to prove guilt and being reinforced by fake news sites that they are doing a good job. Granted, 26% of that 57% are unsure, but again, the Democrats are tasked with building a case to at least convince people that Trump is guilty, even if they cannot prove that, and are failing miserably at it.
 
Even worse than that, even among the 42% of those who say Trump withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens, only 40% of them said that that is an impeachable offense. So out of the relatively few people who believe Trump is guilty, even FEWER people believe it’s an impeachable offense to do what he did, with the rest believing Trump’s actions were either “appropriate” (16%), “inappropriate but not impeachable” (26%), or are altogether unsure (18%).
 
So even out of the few people that the Democrats have convinced Trump did what they allege he did, the vast majority of these people do not necessarily agree with the idea that Trump’s actions are impeachable. That is hilarious.
 
Let’s move on now to a Politico poll. Prior to the hearings, support for impeachment stood at 50%. It now stands at 48%. Still higher than I honestly think they generally are, but considering it’s a DROP FOLLOWING THE SUPPOSEDLY DEVASTATING HEARINGS, that tells you an awful lot about how badly the Democrats messed up here. When support for impeachment of Trump drops AFTER Democrat-led hearings occur, that’s a clear-cut sign that the hearings were a massive flop. They were meant to convince people that Trump should be impeached and try and prove something nefarious occurred between Trump and Ukraine, but they had the opposite effect: less support.
 
Even worse for the Democrats in this poll is the support from Independents. Prior to the hearings, 37% of Independents opposed the inquiry. Now, that number stands at 39%. 44% of Independents now support impeachment, down from 47% before the hearings.
 
Again, considering the purpose of the hearings, this is devastating for Democrats hoping to build a case against Trump. Proving that Trump broke the law isn’t the point of impeachment. Yes, the basic premise is that impeachment should occur when high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred, but actually proving they happened isn’t necessary for an impeachment and removal. What’s necessary is partisan politics and the ability to convince the public, at least a sizeable majority, that the President is guilty, even if he or she isn’t, and they should be impeached and removed from office.
 
Impeachment is a political tool to get rid of the opposition, not a legal proceeding. And at this, the Democrats are failing abhorrently.
 
Even the one poll that attempts to keep Democrats from being discouraged (from CNN, if you can believe it) doesn’t exactly help them once you read a bit into it.
 
CNN reports that support for impeachment sits at 50%, with 43% disagreeing. On the outset, this is good for Democrats, but again, once you read into it, that changes. You see, these numbers are exactly the same as they were before the hearings. They didn’t improve following the hearings, they just remained the same.
 
And this is the only poll that says that they didn’t move, either. Considering the fake news hole that CNN is, you can bet that they oversampled Democrats to the point where the figures remained unchanged.
 
But regardless of what the case may be, not one of these polls is really a positive for the Democrats. Again, they have to build a case in favor of impeachment and have to convince people to side with them. They are either not improving in doing that at best (in one poll) or flat out shooting themselves on the foot (in multiple polls).
 
This, coupled with the fact that Trump’s overall approval is ticking up even in some of these polls, and the fact that both Rasmussen and Emerson report that 34%+ of African Americans support Trump, and you have a recipe for disaster for Democrats moving forward.
 
They are left with two terrible options: impeach a popular president with little support, sending it to Republicans in the Senate who will 100% vote to acquit and actually give the President due process (and most likely expose the dealings of the Bidens, thus hurting Joe in the long run as a Democrat candidate), or not impeach Trump and risk their base’s wrath and their donors clamping up their wallets, potentially losing the House in the process due to lack of support from their own base, let alone those outside of it.
 
Granted, I fully expect this to lead the Democrats to lose everything come 2020 no matter what choice they make (particularly if Biden is the nominee, which I doubt), but Pelosi has to choose the better of two terrible options.
 
I think the Democrats will ultimately vote to impeach the President, if only to save themselves from the ire of their base (which they should know very well, considering one hardcore Leftist Democrat has had to recant her statement that she opposed impeachment). Of course, the issue would then be sent to the Republican-controlled Senate, where they will give Trump due process and even likely choose to investigate the Bidens and expose their corruption (which isn’t all that hard to do) and eventually vote to acquit the President.
 
This impeachment sham will likely be remembered as the biggest political misstep in the history of this nation. And while I understand why the Democrats chose to pull the trigger on impeachment so quickly once the Ukraine story was out, it’s still a terrible misstep. The Democrats bet that Mueller would deliver the goods and that failed after two and a half years. Now, a year away from the 2020 election, the Democrats want to avoid Trump getting another four years as POTUS, and considering the weakness of their presidential field, they opted to rush into impeachment as soon as the story broke out.
 
The problem came when Trump released the transcript of the phone call, showing his innocence and stripping the Democrats of their ability to lie about what was in it (granted, they still tried to do it, but it obviously flopped). Of course, ultimately, Trump still did nothing wrong, but again, public opinion is what matters.
 
The release of the transcript threw a wrench into the Democrats’ impeachment hopes and now, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Democrats now have to pick their poison in whether or not to impeach Trump, knowing that neither will be good for them moving forward.
 
Romans 16:20
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.