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

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

It’s late June of an election year, so it’s no surprise at all to see multiple Left-wing polls claiming that Trump is toast; that he’s going to lose and lose badly; that he is headed for a crushing defeat; that the walls are closing in and the American people are tired of Donald Trump. It’s the exact same song and dance we heard throughout 2016. Remind me, what was the result of that election?
 
Perhaps the only difference between 2016 and 2020 is that the media has fooled some Trump supporters into believing he is on the path to defeat. However, I highly doubt that’s the case at all for a number of reasons.
 
First of all, we were hearing this same bullcrap from the same people four years ago. Eddie Zipperer has a great thread on Twitter with numerous articles from 2016 that showed Hillary Clinton with 85-99% chance at winning, multiple electoral map results that showed she would win at minimum 300 electoral votes, and just article after article from the fake news media saying that Donald Trump had no chance in hell of becoming President of the United States. Four years later, they’re trying to tell us that the guy whom they said had no chance of winning but still won once again has no chance of winning.
 
Reuters had Clinton’s chances of getting elected at 90%. The Monday before the election, CNN had Clinton’s chances of winning at over 90%. MSNBC had a “scientist” predict that Clinton had a 99% chance of being elected. Stanford University said the same.
 
The Huffington Post predicted that Clinton would win 323 electoral votes, with Princeton predicting the same. Joy Reid predicted Clinton winning 340. Moody’s Analytics predicted Clinton would win 332 electoral votes. FiveThirtyEight had Clinton winning as few as 375 electoral votes and as many as 471.
 
Day in and day out, for months on end until even election day itself, these “journalists” were all of the belief that Hillary Clinton was practically DESTINED to become President of the United States.
 
And what do we see today? Fox News having Biden winning Florida by 9 percentage points, Georgia by 2, North Carolina by 2 and TEXAS by 1. Redfield & Wilton saying Biden is winning in Pennsylvania by 10 points, Michigan by 11, North Carolina by 6, Florida by 4 and Arizona by 4. CNBC saying that Biden is 9 points ahead nationally. Reuters saying that Biden is ahead 10 points nationally. The Economist/YouGov saying Biden is winning by 8 points nationally. NYT/Sienna showing Biden winning 14% nationally. Fox News showing Biden winning 12% nationally. Quinnipiac showing Biden winning 8% nationally, etc., etc.
 
It’s the exact same song and dance and roughly the same numbers we were seeing back in 2016. And you’re telling me that this time it’s somehow different?
 
Let me tell you what is actually different this time around that will affect the election: Trump has a record now.
 
Back in 2016, he ran on policy but could hardly back it up with things from his past because he ran a real estate empire and was a reality tv star. People trusted him with the economy (still do in most polls, and that is always the biggest issue) because of his experience but had to just trust his word for the rest of the job as POTUS and he delivered. He delivered on the economy, that’s for sure. He delivered on being the most pro-life president. He delivered on his stance against illegal immigration (not that he got any help from the GOP) and despite the troubles we face today, I trust that he can still take care of it all (there are hundreds of DOJ investigations into the people tearing down statues, so don’t tell me he isn’t being a law and order president).
 
Like I said towards the beginning of the pandemic: the virus cannot be blamed on Trump, and neither can the actions of other people. The virus itself came from China because they are dirty liars opportunistically setting the world on fire. The lockdown orders came from the governors individually, and not even all the states decided to lock things down. The economy is not doing great right now, but it was for three years under Trump and he will do it again, provided we open back up in full (and we have to at one point or another).
 
As far as the cases go, that has more to do with increased testing than the virus being out of control. And considering the CDC chief said that Chinese coronavirus cases could be ten times higher than confirmed cases, that only means that the mortality rate is a tenth of what it is today: 0.26%, so if the chief is right, the mortality rate should actually be 0.026%, which is considerably lower than the flu.
 
In other words, we have absolutely no reason at all to be shutting things down or keeping things shut down. Once people begin realizing this, the economy will make a great comeback and that will definitely boost Trump’s chances at re-election.
 
While the last few months haven’t exactly been great for Trump (and 2020 has really been a huge mess for basically everyone), I’m not at all convinced that Trump is headed for an electoral defeat, especially considering who his opponent is.
 
Granted, Biden is really helped by the fact that he is being kept hidden in the basement for the most part, but at one point or another, he will have to debate Donald Trump and will actually have to make public appearances more often. That is something he nor the Democrats can allow to happen which is part of the reason they are so adamant about going back to the virus as a main talking point (and because covering wanton destruction of property and violence coming from Leftists won’t exactly help convince voters to vote for Leftist Democrats).
 
Of course, the biggest threat to Donald Trump right now isn’t Joe Biden but voter fraud in the form of mail-in ballots, which the Left is all too happy about implementing for this election considering how absurdly easy it would be for them to cheat through this system. But otherwise, I don’t see how Biden beats Trump (which isn’t to say that he couldn’t and this is no license for people not to vote for Trump).
 
Now, one last thing I want to talk about actually has something to do with what Zipperer said at the end of his Twitter thread regarding all of the fake polls about Clinton. Zipperer said: “These are all the same ‘experts’ now making all the same predictions because their predictions aren’t about being right; their predictions are about gaslighting you out of voting.”
 
And he definitely is right. These polls aren’t meant to be accurate. They are meant to make you feel demoralized, like you are headed for crushing defeat, and that there is no real point in going out to vote because defeat is assured. They are meant to keep you from voting by making you feel there would be no point in spending hours at the polling booth if your guy is just going to lose anyway. The ironic thing about this is that I believe this is a double-edged sword. It might get some people demoralized and believe there is no point in voting for Trump, but it also leaves some Democrats overconfident and believe victory is assured so there is no point in spending those same hours at the polling booth if their guy is going to win anyway.
 
We just have to make sure that our side does not get demoralized by what the fake news media is claiming is the reality at hand, when that’s not at all the case. What reason does any one of us have to believe the same fake news polls from the same fake news sources that have for the past four years tried to insist to us that Trump had no chance at getting nominated, elected, cheated to get elected, was planning on cheating to get re-elected through either Russia, Ukraine or China, and now has no chance at getting re-elected?
 
Why would anyone believe the words of known liars and biased, agenda-driven deceivers?
 
Proverbs 19:9
“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

As we are less than half a year away from the elections, polls that we see today are hardly all that relevant. The things that will have a great effect on the outcome of the election haven’t happened yet and won’t happen until around October (which is why the Democrats always spring up an “October surprise” to try and destroy their opposition, such as the sexual assault allegations thrown at Trump back in 2016).
 
However, as things currently stand, barring any major changes, it appears that the majority of people believe Trump will be re-elected as President of the United States, regardless of whether they actually support him or not.
 
According to a new poll by Zogby of 1,007 likely voters (so not the biggest sample size, but likely voters are more valuable than registered voters and all adults), a majority of 51% give the edge to Donald Trump to win the 2020 election, while 43% say that Biden will win.
 
While most polls have Biden winning, often by double digits (gee, where have I seen this before?), Zogby has the race at a tie of 46% for both candidates. But that is a poll of who surveyors support. This one has people saying who they believe will win regardless of whom they actually support.
 
Jonathan Zogby wrote in his analysis that Trump still has great support from his base and even is winning with middle aged and older voters while also beating Biden among union workers (as I have said in the past, union workers have largely been abandoned by the Democrats in favor of illegal immigrants, so this is not a surprise).
 
Zogby writes: “The subgroups most likely to believe the president would win were his base: Born Again Christians (Trump 68%/Biden 28%), NASCAR fans (Trump 68%/Biden 29%), union voters (Trump 61%/Biden 35%), and voters who recently lost a job (Trump 58%/Biden 34%). Most other demographics agreed Trump would beat Biden in 2020, regardless of their political ideology or support. Here is a breakdown of other important subgroups who thought Trump would beat Biden regardless of their political leanings: both men (Trump 57%/Biden 39%) and women (Trump 47%/Biden 46%) said Trump would win, as did voters living in the East (Trump 49%/Biden 45%), South (Trump 53%/Biden 42%) and Central/Great Lakes (Trump 56%/Biden 38%). The West region (Biden 49%/Trump 42%) disagreed with voters, overall, and felt Biden had the best chance to win in 2020.”
 
Not particularly surprising to see the West region believing Biden would win, considering that is the Left-coast: Commiefornia, Oregon, Washington, etc.
 
But taking the West region aside, this tells us plenty about voter enthusiasm regarding the candidates. Most people believing Trump will win indicates there is more enthusiasm for Trump than there is Biden; definitely more confidence.
 
This is particularly noticeable considering that, according to the Washington Examiner, “the survey was the latest to show that while voters indicate they prefer Biden, they expect Trump to win.”
 
While many of them say they would prefer Biden (remember, they tend to oversample Democrats), the fact that a majority as big as that one still believes Trump will win is a sign of little voter enthusiasm for Biden.
 
The Zogby poll also asked surveyors: “Who do you think is a greater threat to economic recovery in the United States?” with the two options being the two major political parties. Funny enough, 51% said the Democrats were a bigger threat to economic recovery than the Republicans (49%).
 
Despite it being as close as it is, again, you have to remember they tend to oversample Democrats. The only reason we are even talking about an economic recovery is because many Democrat states have opted for adopting draconian measures that kill businesses and jobs (as we have talked about extensively) for the purposes of “fighting” the Chinese coronavirus (and as we know, this shutdown was entirely unnecessary and any perceived benefits from it are unproven, while the disadvantages are concrete and clear for all to see).
 
Now, again, the polls that we see today are not indicative of what is likely to happen come November. The Leftist polls all showed Hillary winning in November the entire time even up to the actual election, so they are not exactly the most reliable of things. But especially in June, they are not likely to be reflective of reality. Keep in mind as well that the fake news media is not interested in reflecting reality but rather, adjusting it to fit their desires. They make it seem like virtually the entire country hates Trump (they’ve been doing this for four years to this point) when that is not at all the case.
 
But it is interesting to note the levels of voter enthusiasm that we see for the candidates. And I am not exactly surprised to see low enthusiasm for Biden, who might have topped his “you ain’t black” comment by saying that “Even Dr. King’s assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd’s death did” in a recent press conference.

Frankly, despite his obviously stupid and ignorant remark, I give him points for at least being coherent for roughly a full sentence. Of course, that was the same press conference where he said: “You know the rapidly rising umm uh in with uh with I don’t know,” and while I give him props for admitting in the end that even HE didn’t know what he was talking about, that is yet another gaffe in an absolute library full of them (and that wasn’t the only gaffe in that conference either).
 
However, as I feel it is often necessary, I should remind people not to feel too comfortable with all of this. Like I have said time and time again, we can’t afford to get complacent and assume this election is in the bag. I also believe Trump will be re-elected but not if we don’t show up to vote. Not that I think you should be reminded of this over and over again – you guys are definitely smart enough to understand why complacency is our biggest enemy and the only thing that can actually beat Trump – but I do think it is important to express the importance of not assuming things will go your way.
 
Hillary expected to win for a variety of reasons (among which were her rigging the election) and that complacency cost her dearly. We cannot afford to fall for the same thing, lest we lose far more than just an election.
 
Deuteronomy 20:4
“For the Lord your God is he who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Among the many stories we had heard over the past few months, economic “experts” believed that, with a shuttered American economy, the unemployment rate would rival or even pass the rate we saw during the Great Depression of 25%, with tens of millions, or perhaps even more, losing their jobs.
 
In some small way, we were going in that direction, but with businesses opening back up in most states (and the riots essentially destroying any argument for keeping the lockdown restrictions, so silver-lining), we are beginning to see once again the sort of great economic news we were witnessing over the last three and a half years.
 
According to the latest job’s report, the unemployment rate fell to 13.3% and the economy added 2.5 million jobs, as businesses began to be allowed to reopen throughout May.
 
Just a month earlier, the economy had shed around 20.5 million jobs, the worst monthly decline on record dating back to 1939. So to see this sudden turnaround (which should not really be all that surprising if we are opening back up) is quite the great and refreshing news to hear.
 
According to Breitbart: “Economists had expected the unemployment rate to rise to nearly 20 percent and the economy to shed an additional 8 million jobs.” And this is perhaps the biggest reason as to why I put quotation marks around the word “expert”; these people really don’t know what they are talking about half the time, at best.
 
They expected the economy, which has been reopening as of late, to shed an additional 8 million jobs, when in reality, that 8 million jobs lost turned out to be 2.5 million jobs CREATED. This was easily the biggest one-month jobs gain in recorded U.S. history since 1939.
 
After hitting a record-high of 14.7%, the unemployment rate has gone back down after a couple of months of increase.
 
Breitbart also explained that “[t]he mandatory closures of many businesses and stay-at-home orders slammed what had been a very healthy labor market hard. The economy added jobs for 113 straight weeks through February, a record streak of growth. The unemployment rate was 3.5 percent in February. And yet job creation was running very hot, with the economy adding an average of 211,000 new jobs each month.”
 
This only further shows the strength that the Trump economy had before the virus hit. For a little over two straight years, we had been adding jobs to our economy, and even despite being at a virtual full-employment, we still kept on adding more jobs every month.
 
The economy was particularly helped by the fact that the federal government was pumping money into it and supplementing aid for businesses to retain jobs. Roughly 150 million taxpayers received stimulus payments, the Treasury’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) “is backing $669 billion of loans to small businesses” so that they can be forgiven if borrowers don’t lay off their employees and the federal government has been “providing an additional $600 on top of state unemployment benefits”, allowing some Americans to be paid even more money.
 
Record data also suggests the labor market to be stabilizing and improving following the record-high of 6.8 million jobless claims back in March, with each following week seeing less and less jobless claims being filed relatively speaking. Last week, the number fell to roughly 1.8 million jobless claims.
 
Over the past few months, over 40 million Americans in total lost their jobs, but ongoing claims remain at around 20 million, indicating that over half the people that lost their jobs in that time span have regained employment.
 
In sum, shutting down our economy was an extremely costly endeavor that was not at all worth it in the end, especially as data suggests that there was “no statistical connection between improved health outcomes and pandemic policies that forced nearly 40 million people into the unemployment lines,” according to The Federalist.
 
In other words, we shut down our economy and left tens of millions unemployed, and destroyed tons of small businesses in the process, for no statistical connection between improved health outcomes and the lockdown orders. The lockdown orders did not contribute anything positive to keeping people from dying of the Chinese coronavirus.
 
In the end, the lockdown did nothing but kill off the jobs we are now trying to get back. If the riots themselves weren’t enough proof that we do not need the lockdown orders to stay in place, this definitely does. They achieved nothing for the sake of keeping people from dying of the virus and only contributed to the worst economic news we had seen in nearly a century.
 
Whoever is still insisting that we continue with the lockdown orders (and even Whitler is easing up on them) is a bad faith actor seeking only to destroy the economy for nothing more than political benefit to hurt Trump’s chances at re-election.
 
Let’s open back up in full. Yes, that even means New York (because God knows the lockdown orders aren’t being applied fairly, so what’s the point?)
 
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.

As I have stated multiple times in the past, what is perhaps my biggest gripe with NeverTrumpers, aside from the fact that they are NeverTrumpers, is the fact that, for years leading up to Donald Trump’s nomination and eventual election, the people that would become NeverTrumpers were supposedly staunch conservatives. They always spoke against the damage Obama was causing to the country, noted that Leftism is generally a horrible thing and that socialism would be the death of our nation.
 
For years, they had been clamoring for a Republican who could beat just about any Democrat and run the country very much in a conservative manner, opting for conservative policies that would bolster the economy, pick the right battles internationally while making sure we both defend ourselves and our allies without going into needless wars, speak of his or her love and reverence for the Lord and the Constitution and not ever cave to the actually insane Leftist mob no matter what.
 
For years, these people were hoping for the second coming of Reagan, so to speak, and yet, when we basically got that in Donald Trump, they abhorred it and even worse, began siding with THE LEFT.
 
And I could relatively understand their doubts before Trump was POTUS. Sure, he would say the right things about conservatism and the country, but he was not proven just quite yet. I still argued back then, as I do now, that it was far better to take a chance on someone we don’t know if they will be conservative than to allow for someone we know will be a SOCIALIST in Hillary Clinton to run the country. We didn’t know what kind of president Trump would have been back then, but just about many knew roughly what kind of president Hillary would have been, which is why I was angry with the notion of being a NeverTrumper. Those people, I felt, were betraying not only the conservative movement but the country itself.
 
But still, I could understand the doubt. What I refused to try and understand, however, because there really was no understanding it, was the ferocity and viciousness these same people had regarding Trump even AFTER he has proven he is the real deal. Again, for years, these people were clamoring for another Ronald Reagan – a conservative who won’t bend the knee – and when one showed up, they rejected him in favor of either Hillary Clinton (practically a cardinal sin, in my opinion) or a candidate who never had any chance of becoming POTUS like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.
 
I could understand the doubts before Trump was POTUS, but I simply could not understand the adamant denial of reality – the reality that Donald Trump is a conservative. Maybe he’s not the typical conservative, and definitely not the typical Republican (which is only a good thing), but he is a conservative nonetheless and his policies show that to be true. And yet, these NeverTrumpers have, for the past four years, insisted that he is a fascist and have begun to clamor instead for the approval of the fake news media which insulted, mocked and hated them just a few years before.
 
They abandoned their conservative principles in favor of appeasing the Left, showing themselves to have never truly been conservatives at all. Conservatives don’t bow to the mob; we don’t bend the knee; we don’t clamor for the approval of the Left. We either stand on our principles or we don’t stand at all, and these NeverTrumpers chose not to stand at all, allowing themselves to fall for the Leftist cult of insanity.
 
However, over some time, whether short or long, some NeverTrumpers have come around to actually being “MaybeTrumpers”, if you will. Meaning that, while they still have issues with Trump’s style (they call it his "character", which is different, but they use that word anyway to make him look worse than he is because he does not have major character flaws), they recognize that they have to take him for what he is if we are to actually be conservative and keep the Left from being in power at all. Trump has proven to be a conservative, and even if people have issues with his style and mannerisms, that shouldn’t stand in the way of at the very least voting for him, particularly knowing the extremely dangerous alternative of communism.
 
So when I read Daniel Pipes’ op-ed on Newsweek, I was rather happy to see this development. In his piece, “A Reluctant but Unhesitating Vote for Donald Trump”, Pipes explains that, ever since Trump ran for office on the Republican ticket, he has had issues with his style and mannerisms.
 
Pipes admits that he “watched in dismay as I helped the Ted Cruz presidential campaign, seeing Republican primary voters select Donald Trump out of a field of 16 viable candidates and make him president-elect. I signed an open letter committing to ‘working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted’ to the presidency and wrote many articles lambasting Trump. I left the Republican Party on his nomination and voted for Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson in the general election. After the election, I hoped for Trump’s impeachment and President Mike Pence.”
 
Suffice to say that he was staunchly a NeverTrumper at the time. He further explains that his reasons for it are the same as most NeverTrumpers’ back in 2016: Trump’s style and policies. Pipes had issues with what he called “unethical business practices” in Trump University (which is just a claim as Trump never had to pay any sort of punishment for such "unethical business practices", other than a settlement under questionable circumstances led by a Left-wing activist Judge after he became President), with his “egotism”, the legal troubles he has had in the past (namely the amount of them), his supposed bigotry and his vulgarity. When it came to policies, Pipes explains, he believed he was even worse, believing Trump to be impulsive and a potential neo-fascist. Trump’s 2004 statement saying he probably identifies “more as Democrat” also worried him, believing that to mean that Trump would basically be going back and forth between Republican and Democrat policies.
 
All things that I am not surprised a NeverTrumper of the time would be worried about. Again, for myself, I scarcely cared about his style because I was more interested in simply beating the Left no matter what.
 
But that’s just his style. What about his policies? The ones that Pipes believed to be either potentially neo-fascist or somewhere in between Democrat and Republican? Well, Pipes has come to the same realization any logical person ought to have after the last four years: Trump is a very good conservative president.
 
“[T]o my unending surprise, [Trump] has governed as a resolute conservative. His policies in the areas of education, taxes, deregulation and the environment have been bolder than Ronald Reagan’s. His judicial appointments are the best of the past century… His unprecedented assault on the administrative state proceeds apace, ignoring predictable howls from the Washington establishment. Even his foreign policy has been conservative: demanding that allies contribute their fair share, confronting China and Iran and singularly supporting Israel. Ironically, as David Harsanyi notes, a potential character flaw actually works to out advantage: ‘Trump’s obstinacy seems to have made him less susceptible to the pressures that traditionally induce GOP presidents to capitulate.’”
 
In other words, Trump’s stubbornness keeps him from caving to the insufferable Leftist mob that tries to rule by fear and pressure. Where other Republican presidents would bend the knee (as RINOs tend to do), Trump doubles, triples and quadruples-down, never apologizing to people who deserve no such grace.
 
While there are things that Pipes disagrees with Trump on policy-wise, such as Trump’s “hostility toward allies” (which they hardly can be considered allies when they make under-the-table deals with the Chinese and the Russians) and his “dangerous meetings with Kim Jong-un” (which I don’t consider to be dangerous really, since anyone sane still knows that North Korea is no friend to the U.S. and no conservative has ever even come close to forgiving the acts against God that he commits on a daily basis, but Trump is trying to weaken the power the Chinese have), he does ultimately “agree with 80 percent of Trump’s actions” which is “a higher percentage than any of his predecessors, going back to Lyndon Johnson.”
 
In sum, while he still finds Trump’s style to be repulsive (again, don’t really care what people think about his style and mannerisms) and while he still finds things to disagree with Trump on policy-wise, Pipes has come to understand that Trump has been solidly conservative for the most part in his presidency and that the alternative, that being Joe Biden, is the same dangerous socialist nonsense the Left has been screaming about for the past few years. Allowing Joe Biden to win would present a clear danger to this country and Trump, despite his perceived style short-comings, is a FAR better alternative to anything the Left props up as their nominee.
 
Pipes concludes that he “will do my small part to help Trump get re-elected by writing, giving and voting.” He also says that he will vote for Trump as “the politician who represents my conservative views” and even urges other reluctant conservatives to do the same.
 
The question is just how many are there? Many former NeverTrumpers had the same issues that Pipes had and came around to supporting, or at least tolerating, Trump because of his conservative policies, which are the same ones they had been wanting a president to enact for years and years before. The vast majority of NeverTrumpers today are faux-conservatives who have decided to abandon the movement in favor of appeasing the Left (not to mention they side with people who actually tried to rig an election and stage a silent coup against the duly-elected president – people who present a clear and present danger to liberty and justice itself).
 
That much was particularly evident when NeverTrumper and *chuckles* 2020 GOP Primary opponent to Donald Trump (I really can’t keep a straight face), Joe Walsh said that he’d “rather have a socialist in the White House than a dictator.” In other words, he supports socialism now, which goes to show he never was truly a conservative, since Trump is FAR from a dictator and SOCIALISM NATURALLY LEADS TO A DICTATORSHIP AS EVIDENCED BY LITERALLY THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD EVEN TO TODAY.
 
I do hope that people who would have once considered themselves to be NeverTrumpers realize the existential threat that the Left poses and that the idea of supporting any one of them should repel them to the core. I hope they come to reconsider their position of not supporting Trump, or at least not voting for the guy, simply due to the peril that socialism brings to this country; the type that the Left is entirely enamored by.
 
True conservatives, at this point, recognize the good things Trump has done policy-wise, even if they can hardly stand the guy on a personal basis. I don’t care if they wouldn’t want to have a beer with the guy, all that matters in the end is who they end up voting for.
 
To paraphrase a certain racist Democrat, if you are on the fence about whether you are for Trump or Biden, then you ain’t conservative.
 
Proverbs 18:15
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli

Make no mistake with regard to the title, the author of the Politico article, John Harris, is still very much in the belief that Trump has been utterly disastrous with his response to the Chinese coronavirus because he is part of the Leftist club that bafflingly believes any Democrat could/would have done a better job (even though Democrats have gone on record signaling they wouldn’t have shut down international travel and shutting of borders even though that is an obvious step towards mitigating the spread of a virus). However, for a brief moment, a Leftist fake news media source is making an attempt at relatively objective reporting, so Harris ought to get some points for it.
 
The article begins by noting that Melinda Gates, someone who everyone knows is no fan of Trump’s, gave the President a “D-“ in terms of his handling of the Chinese coronavirus pandemic. Harris, though he still writes with the assumption that Trump has been disastrous, ponders the possibility that Trump might have done better because one of his colleagues brings up the argument that just about everyone in the media agrees with Gates’ views and as a result, they “risk group-think – becoming hardened in perceptions and impervious to either improvements in his performance or reasonable counter-interpretations of his pandemic record.”
 
While initially, he declined to try and be even remotely objective, he did eventually come around to at least somewhat playing “devil’s advocate” and make some arguments in favor of Trump.
 
At one point, Harris writes: “*The country did mostly shut down and the public health system did not comprehensively fail.” (Bold was from Harris himself).
 
“Everyone has been surprised, not just Trump. I don’t know many people who supposed on March 11 (the night of the president’s error-filled Oval Office address on coronavirus) that by Memorial Day much of the country would still be working from home, or not working at all, and that campuses, baseball stadiums, and much else would be closed. On the positive side, only in the New York area, and only for a brief window, was there anything like the collapse of the health system in Italy, the fear of which is what prompted the shutdown.”
 
John Sexton at Hot Air has also commented on Harris’ piece, noting following his quotation of the paragraph I just shared that “in most places we did bend the curve and avoid overwhelming the medical system. Could we have avoided even more deaths? Probably, but that would have required an earlier shutdown (or more focus on protecting care homes rather than hospitals). And that was never really going to happen for several reasons.”
 
One of those reasons is something that Harris somewhat shares:
 
“*The United States is a lumbering giant”
 
“A sprawling and diverse country with a complex federal system of government is often caught flatfooted, before summoning strength. Before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Army was smaller than Portugal’s. In the case of the pandemic, many of the acute shortages that marked early coverage have been mitigated. Testing on a per capita basis has surged, including in comparison to many hard-hit countries, though it is still far short of what health experts say is needed. The same is true of early shortfalls in protective equipment and ventilators.”
 
In other words, an earlier shut down wasn’t going to happen in part because of our federalist system of government. The federal government is above the local and state governments, but it is not in complete control over them. Trump never had the power to shut down individual states and he still doesn’t (and that’s a good thing). California, under orders of Gov. Newsom, began to shut down on March 19. New York shut down three days later on the 22nd.
 
Due to our system of government, the decision to shut things down didn’t come from Trump, though he agreed to it. The decision was ultimately up to the governors, which is why someone like Governor Whitler can just about indefinitely (and unnecessarily) extend the lock-down of her own state. She is the one who can make the decision to close the state or open it back up (there will be questions about the Constitutionality of arbitrarily shutting down businesses and whether or not a governor can deem a business “essential” or “non-essential” but that’s beside the point).
 
To argue that Trump should have shut things down sooner is an illogical and ignorant Leftist talking point. For one, Trump never had the power to shut states down himself. Two, as a result of one, the governors are the ones who made that decision and the Democrat governors began to shut things down in late March.
 
On March 1st, the death toll stood at 2, and ten days later, it stood at 38. At the time, no one knew how bad it could get and the response reflected caution but not exaggeration. Only once the death toll began to go up by a lot did state governments get more aggressive.
 
As Sexton remarks in his own piece: “the idea that Trump should have shut down the country by mid-February is a progressive fantasy with no basis in reality.”
 
The truth is that, if the Left can say that Trump should’ve acted sooner or that he wasted weeks, then the Democrat governors can be accused of the same because they are the ones who had the authority to shut down their states. Not to mention that we lost weeks not because of anything that Trump did but because of China’s lies and withholding of information.
 
Ryan Saavedra has a great thread of the timeline of actions the Trump administration took with response to the virus (in a thread responding to “comedian” Sarah Silvermann’s attempt at painting Trump as someone who did nothing positive towards fighting the virus).
 
The Trump admin:
 
“01/03: Tried to get CDC into China (numerous attempts made/China never allowed)
01/06: Began issuing travel notices (issued multiple)
01/07: Created issue management system
01/17: Began screening at airports
01/20: Announces work on development of a vaccine
01/21: Activated its emergency operations center to provide ongoing support to the coronavirus response
01/23: Sought a ‘special emergency authorization’ from FDA to allow states to use its newly developed coronavirus test
01/23: CHINA finally quarantines Wuhan, had lied to the world for weeks about what was going on and how contagious the virus was and deadly it was. Dr. Birx even said scientists misjudged the disease because of China’s lies and deception
01/29: Created Coronavirus Task Force
01/31: Bans travel from China/Declares public health emergency/suspends entry from foreigners who pose risk of transmitting coronavirus…”
 
And keep in mind, that was just in JANUARY. Remember what the Democrats were doing in January? TRYING TO REMOVE TRUMP AND FAILING MISERABLY! This is why I say Trump was among the first people in Washington to do anything about the coronavirus. He began to prepare for it even amidst the attempts from the Democrats to remove him.
 
You can read the rest of the thread yourself if you wish, which is quite detailed and offers a lot of good information, but I don’t think there’s enough room for it here alongside the general commentary I wish to share with you all here.
 
My overall point is that, unlike what Harris thinks and what the rest of the fake news media and the Left (but I repeat myself) think, Trump hasn’t done a bad job at all with regard to the coronavirus. Any argument levied against him, such as “he shut things down too late” can easily be countered with not only the fact that he never had any power to shut things down but that the governors, including Democrat ones, were the ones who decided when to shut things down, so if anyone were to bare the blame, it would be the governors.
 
The argument that the N95 mask supply was depleted is more of a knock on Obama because his administration, even while the country was going through the swine flu epidemic, was the one that had depleted the supply of masks and didn’t restock it.
 
The idea that Trump didn’t do a good job with the response to the coronavirus is ridiculous. That’s not to say there were no bumps on the road, but the major screw ups that occurred along the way were not Trump’s doing. Cuomo, not Trump, was the one who sent sick people to retirement and nursing homes, which contribute to a sizeable portion of the total deaths (which is a rather dubious number, considering Washington was counting gun deaths as COVID-19 deaths, among other things).
 
I won’t say Trump was perfect because that is an impossible standard for any person. However, the idea that he has been a disaster or even that he has done a poor job is entirely devoid of facts and is nothing more than “a progressive fantasy with no basis in reality,” as Sexton said.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

We all know perfectly well that the Left benefits when people are suffering. This is generally the case, but particularly so in this day and age when the Left is banking on a large portion of the country to remain locked down due to the Chinese coronavirus fears. They know that they could not possibly hope to beat Trump when the economy is doing well, particularly as well as it was before this entire scenario happened, so Plan A for them, seeing as impeachment and removal did not work, is to destroy the economy as much as they possibly could.
 
Given the option, Democrats would demand Democrat-run states to remain as locked down as possible, implementing as many draconian policies as possible and blaming the inevitable economic collapse under such a circumstance on Trump’s “poor leadership” or something akin to that nonsense. They truly view our economic suffering as the single BEST option for winning an election.
 
Which is why it’s not surprising to see the Democrats in absolute panic over being given perhaps some of the worst news from THEIR OWN SIDE with regard to the possibility of Trump being re-elected.
 
You see, Harvard professor Jason Furman, a top economist for the Obama administration, said last month that the U.S. is on track to witness the “best economic data” in its entire history.
 
Furman, speaking to a group of bipartisan leaders, said: “We are about to see the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country.”
 
Politico reported: “Instead of forecasting a prolonged depression-level economic catastrophe, Furman laid out a detailed case for why the months preceding the November election could offer Trump the chance to brag – truthfully – about the most explosive monthly employment numbers and GDP growth ever. Furman’s counterintuitive pitch has caused some Democrats, especially Obama alumni, around Washington to panic.”
 
The Left panics when there is the chance for the best economic prosperity, or at least raw data, that the country has ever seen. Doesn’t that tell you all you need to know about them? Instead of being happy over the prospect of a great economic recovery from the current situation unlike anything we had ever seen before, they are reportedly running around in sheer panic and worry. How anyone can say that they are the party of “The People” or how they are “compassionate and tolerant” is beyond reason.
 
According to Politico, one former top Obama administration official expressed that this scenario was their “big worry”, and when asked about the level of concern this sort of situation has amongst top Democrats, the Democrat replied: “It’s high – high, high, high, high.”
 
Furman had also explained that, once the economic data from the past few months began to come in, he realized that the data was indicative of an economic recovery mirroring the sort that economics see following major natural disasters or “industry-wide catastrophe[s] like the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.”
 
Furman further explained that consumption and hiring began to tick up “in gross terms, not in net terms,” describing the turnaround as a “partial rebound.” This bounce back “can be very very fast, because people go back to their original job, they get called back from furlough, you put the lights back on in your business. Given how many people were furloughed and how many businesses were closed you can get a big jump out of that. It will look like a V.”
 
Considering many of the economic policies that led to the economic prosperity pre-Chinese coronavirus are still in place, provided the vast majority of the country opens back up, I generally agree with the sentiment that it would bounce back big time. My biggest concern, as I have noted many times in the recent past, is that we might be too slow in reopening and businesses will soon find that they cannot afford to bring back their furloughed workers. Small businesses have definitely taken a massive hit over the last few months (and a piece from The Federalist indicates this shutdown did nothing to combat the virus, so this was an exercise in futility at best) and every day that they are disallowed from opening back up is another day in which they cannot make money and get back on track.
 
Bigger giants in the business world will fare better, I imagine, and will be able to hire back the people they had to furlough but things definitely got messed up. Thankfully, with states opening back up and people having the ability to go back to work basically unimpeded, I do agree with the sentiment that we should be seeing quite a bounce back in the economy over the second half of this fiscal year.
 
And I’m not the only one to agree, as Larry Kudlow, the head of the White House National Economic Council, told Politico that he “totally agree[s].” “Q3 may be the single best GDP quarter since regular data. 2nd half super big growth, transitioning to 4% or more in 2021.”
 
Other Trump officials, such as Kevin Hassett and Peter Navarro, also agreed with Furman.
 
Of course, while people on the Right are ecstatic over the prospect of an economic rebound (Furman further stressed to Politico, when asked about his “new fans” in the Trump administration, that “they get the rebound part, but they don’t get the partial part”, sort of trying to dampen the mood, but it also is fairly contradictory to the idea that the economy would rebound “like a V,” as he explained earlier), people on the Left are outright panicking, as I mentioned before, particularly since Trump has always been ahead of Biden in the polls when it came to handling the economy.
 
One Democrat told Politico: “Trump beats Biden on the economy even right now! This is going to be extremely difficult no matter what. It’s existential that we figure it out.”
 
Another former Obama White House official told Politico: “Even today when we are at over 20 million unemployed (remember, this was back in April), Trump gets high marks on the economy, so I can’t imagine what it looks like when things go in the other direction. I don’t think this is a challenge for the Biden campaign. This is THE challenge for the Biden campaign. If they can’t figure this out, they should all just go home.”
 
Political strategist Arthur Schwartz tweeted the Politico article, adding: “Dems are spooked because the economy is going to rebound quickly. Their strategy for November is to keep the country closed. Their interests are served by hurting as many Americans as possible.”
 
Exactly my thoughts. The Left seemingly can only hope to win elections when the American people are suffering greatly. I can only imagine the glee they felt back in 2007-08 when the financial crisis and Great Recession was hitting this country. I can also only imagine the glee they felt the last few months in seeing the number of unemployed cases rolling in. They probably fully expected the country to automatically blame Trump for the bad news just because “blame Trump” is basically the Left’s default response to anything.
 
China unleashed a deadly virus on the world and lied about it for months (and still continues to lie) and is trying to coerce other countries into not punishing them as they deserve? Nah, it’s Trump’s fault, particularly as he is “blaming” China. Which reminds me: Trump isn’t “blaming” China. To say that he is is to insinuate that China is blameless and without fault. Trump is holding China accountable for their deadly actions which have killed a hundred thousand Americans (and God knows how many Chinese citizens and residents) and hundreds of people around the globe (according to official estimates, of course, which have to take China’s numbers at face value even though China has been lying about their numbers).
 
But in any case, getting off of that slight tangent, I am not even a little bit surprised that the Left would be so perplexed at seeing Trump beating Biden even with the economic news that we are getting. The VAST majority of Americans aren’t going to blame Trump for this simply due to the fact that we KNOW why it’s happening.
 
The news that we are seeing aren’t the result of a fundamental problem in our economic system or in the policies we are espousing. They are the result of a virus that has gotten people so freaked out as to shut down everything (and, again, this was negligible at best when it came to dealing with the virus) and the actions of relatively independent governors deciding to shut down their states to one extent or another.
 
It is only the hardcore, borderline actually insane Leftists that are blaming Trump for this whole fiasco. It’s only the Left-wing political hacks in the fake news media, Washington and around the country that are blaming Trump for any of this.
 
I hope that Furman’s prediction regarding the economy is what really happens. Models are generally always going to be wrong because no one can account for absolutely everything that could occur, but they can sometimes be useful in understanding at least one possible outcome.
 
Provided the country opens back up almost in full (New York might take more time, but even Cuomo himself has begun to talk about reopening), we should be seeing better economic news as time goes on. Here’s hoping that this is what ends up happening.
 
Hebrews 11:1
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

A little more than a week ago, I talked about how people trust Trump over Biden when it comes to both the economy and handling the coronavirus pandemic, according to Reuters, and I mentioned how it was interesting that Reuters, of all polling organizations, was reporting this. However, we have something today that is a little bit more unexpected:
 
President Trump beats Joe Biden in several key battleground states by a decent margin, and this is being reported by CNN, the same people who have run fake news story after fake news story, coupled with fake news poll after fake news poll, regarding Trump, Russia and whatever else they can falsely accuse him of doing. These very same people, who not too long ago I talked about how they went from accusing Trump of colluding with Russia to actually colluding with Russia themselves when it came to reporting the pandemic in the “former” Soviet Union, are now reporting that their boy, Joe Biden, isn’t doing all that well.
 
Now, in their national poll, and what they will likely wish to focus on, they have Joe Biden beating Trump 51 to 46 percent. However, as we all well and truly know, the election is never a national race, but a race for all 50 states, and as I just said, Trump has Joe beat in plenty of the most important ones.
 
As a whole, CNN’s poll of 15 battleground states (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin) shows President Trump beating Joe Biden by seven points, 52 to 45 percent with a margin of error of 3.7 percent.
 
Funny enough, this was also coupled with the fact that earlier in the week, CNN was forced to publish another poll which showed President Trump’s approval rating at its highest in the poll: 45%. Despite all of their hackery and their political attacks that are very obviously biased (and they don’t even try to hide their bias anymore), despite everything they’ve tried throwing at him, he’s only come out of each and every attack stronger than before.
 
It also doesn’t help the Left that Joe Biden has been marred in controversy over the past couple of months given the Tara Reade situation that Democrats and the media are DESPERATELY trying to bury under the rug (I find it hilarious that Schumer is panicking and was also satisfied with just Biden’s denial).
 
Another aspect that might not exactly help the former Vice President is the fact that he was very clearly involved in the witch hunt of Gen. Michael Flynn, given released records that showed he both was in the meeting where Obama and his staff were discussing Flynn and that Joe Biden was among the MANY people who asked for Flynn’s “unmasking” in official documents (which were first reported by CBS News but the Biden camp has forced the news organization to get rid of the story, further showing Biden lied about not bullying the media).
 
But getting back to the polling, RealClearPolitics’ poll of polls, which is a poll taking the averages of various polls, shows Biden’s popularity slipping following the Tara Reade story. Just a couple of months ago, Biden had a 51 to 44 percent lead on Trump, but now, Biden has slipped to 47 percent and Trump sits at 43 percent.
 
Trump’s job approval has also gone up in that particular poll, sitting at 45%.
 
Getting back to the CNN poll itself, it finds that Trump beats Biden with Independents, 50 to 46 percent. Biden has the advantage with women (funny enough) at 55 to 41 percent. Minorities also overwhelmingly support Biden over Trump 69 to 26 percent, but that is actually not particularly awful for Trump, as Republicans tend not to be too favored by minorities and Trump sits at 26% with them in that poll, which is rather high, all things considered. If that number holds, Trump will win plenty of minorities in the election.
 
In any case, Trump beats Biden with men, 50 to 46 percent and with white voters, 55 to 43 percent. Strangely enough, Biden has an advantage over Trump when it comes to older voters, those aged 45 and up, holding a six-point advantage over Trump, which is a bigger advantage than what he has with young voters, which is a three-point lead over Trump.
 
CNN commented on this, saying: “Though other recent polling has shown some signs of concern for Biden among younger voters and strength among older ones, few have pegged the race as this close among younger voters. The results suggest that younger voters in the battleground states are tilted in favor of Trump, a stark change from the last CNN poll in which battleground voters were analyzed in March[.]”
 
Breitbart News chalks this up to being the Bernie effect, with many of those young voters having been Bernie supporters and being disenchanted and outright enraged that Bernie once again got screwed over by the DNC and was kept from being the nominee. But this is not the first time we have heard of Biden, or even Democrats in general, not getting the youth vote to turn out.
 
Just two months ago, I wrote an article about how young people largely don’t tend to vote. In it, I showed a graphic that displayed reported rates of voters by age, showing the youngest demographic – those 18 to 29 years of age – voting at far fewer rates than those who are older than them.
 
However, there is a noticeable difference between people who turn out to vote and people who voice support. Plenty of young people voiced their support for Bernie Sanders, but notably fewer actually turned out to vote for him. Biden doesn’t even have all that much SUPPORT from young voters, which definitely will come to hurt him with that demographic come November (again, if this holds up).
 
Of course, he does have a very strange and nonsensical lead with older voters, and those tend to vote more, but I sincerely doubt that would be anywhere close to near enough to secure an electoral victory.
 
Again, the CNN poll itself shows Trump soundly beating Biden in key battleground states. Joe could very well win the popular vote (maybe), but the electoral college is where the votes are most important and he isn’t doing too well, it seems.
 
What’s more, considering the economic recession that we are about to face because of Leftist governors’ decision to keep their states closed just to hurt Trump (which will undoubtedly come to bite those Leftists in the rear come November, if the previous special election was any sort of indication), people know we will need a president who can quickly and effectively rebuild the economy and Trump has Joe soundly beat on that area as well, with a margin of 54 to 42 percent on Joe.
 
So both Reuters and CNN show that voters trust Trump with the economy more than Joe Biden, and it seems they largely know just who is responsible for the economic downturn that we are about to face: the “Resistance” Democrat Party, particularly the Democrat governors, who are choosing to shoot themselves on the foot just to get a chance to hurt Trump.
 
But as with Reuters, it is extremely interesting that CNN would be the ones to report this. Usually, they have nothing but negative (fake) news to report on Trump, but every once in a while, they are forced to at least relatively face the reality that they abhor: Trump is nowhere near as unpopular and despised as they say that he is.
 
Now, there is still plenty of time before the election, but if these numbers hold, I don’t really see a way Joe beats Trump (and as I have said many times in the past, this confidence should not translate to complacency for us Trump supporters and voters, as that is the only thing that could definitely beat the President).
 
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.

The states of Wisconsin and California recently held special elections despite the current pandemic situation and the stay-at-home orders in place and to the joy of Republicans and conservatives, the Republican candidates enjoyed massive victories in both.
 
Let’s begin with Wisconsin, which Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate and a state senator, won by 15 points to gain the seat of the former representative Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) after he retired and the seat was vacated back in September of last year.
 
According to the Associated Press: “Tom Tiffany, a state senator endorsed by President Donald Trump, easily won a special congressional election Tuesday in a heavily conservative, rural Wisconsin district, cheering Republicans even as Democrats argued the victory revealed vulnerabilities for the president among his base.”
 
Yeah, let me go ahead and say the following:
 
The “vulnerabilities” they are talking about are nonsense. Trump won that district by 20 points in 2016, so it definitely is a conservative district. A Republican’s victory is expected. What Democrats are trying to argue is that Tiffany won that district by “only” 15 points, which is five less points than Trump won it by four years ago.
 
However, the reasons for that “drop” are simple. First, we are comparing a special election that the vast majority of people, at least outside of the district, likely didn’t even know was happening to a record-turnout election in 2016 that virtually everyone and their mother was talking about.
 
General elections ALWAYS have bigger turnouts than midterm and particularly special elections. For Tiffany to still win that district by 15 points in a non-general election is a big deal and does not reveal any vulnerabilities for Trump and his base. The result is fairly relative to what Trump got under better circumstances.
 
Second, we are in the midst of a pandemic. Seemingly, 191,549 people went out to vote in that special election (by comparison, 362,061 people voted in 2016 in that district and 322,787 in 2018, so a noticeable drop). It’s clear that considerably less people voted in this special election because of both the fact it was a special election and not a general or midterm election and the fact that there is a pandemic going on and plenty of people would rather not go out and risk getting sick just to vote in a relatively minor election in comparison to what this November will be.
 
The fact that the Republican had these restrictions to fight against and STILL won in a major way is not indicative of any vulnerabilities for Trump and his base. His base won’t abandon him unless he abandons it and any candidate that supports the MAGA movement is going to get the support of Trump’s base.
 
But now, let’s look at the other race, which is a little bit more interesting: the race in California.
 
Now, I should mention beforehand that it’s not like this was an election to oust Nancy Pelosi or anything of the sort. This election was in a typically red district that happened to have turned blue in 2018 when former Rep. Katie Hill (remember her?) won it in the midterms. This election isn’t necessarily an indication that California is turning against the Democrats or that it will abandon its communist free trial that they are voting for. Katie Hill’s victory in 2018 was a little bit of an outlier for this district since she was the first Democrat to win it since 1992, following a redrawing of the district maps.
 
However, as with the Wisconsin race, it’s not merely about who won it, but just by how much they won it. And Mike Garcia, the Republican candidate in California’s 25th district, won by a sizeable margin. California’s 25th district covers (some of) Los Angeles County and Ventura County.
 
Mike Garcia won Los Angeles County by 11 POINTS, with 107,710 total votes in that county and won Ventura County by 15 points as well. In total Garcia garnered over 80,000 votes and won the district by nearly 13 POINTS, which is a sizeable percentage.
 
This marks the first time a Republican flipped a blue seat to red since 1998, though as I said before, this was a typically red district and Katie Hill was a bit of an outlier, so this is more of a return to normalcy than it is a sign of Democrat doom in the larger state as a whole. However, there is no denying the significance of this victory at any rate. The Democrats thought they were going to take control of all of California and keep it basically forever. They believed any race in the state of California would automatically go to the Democrats.
 
This election proved them wrong and proved that they are nowhere near as invincible as they believe they are. Is this an indication that Trump will win California in November? Almost definitely no. But it is an indication that the Democrats aren’t as popular and liked as they delude themselves to be.
 
Both of these elections, though Republicans tend to win them, marked big losses for Democrats. For one, a formerly blue seat has now been flipped to red, even though it usually was red anyway. That means one less vote for Democrats in the House of Representatives. But the most important takeaway is just by how much these Republicans won. It wasn’t even a contest in either one. If Trump truly had the “vulnerabilities” the Left believes he does, the Republican candidates that he endorsed would not have won by anywhere near the margins that they did.
 
The Wisconsin seat was likely to still go red and the California seat usually was red until last midterm election. But there’s no denying that this is a cold reality check to the Left: they aren’t invincible and 2020 will be no cakewalk for them.
 
The margin of victory for both Republicans is the bigger story, in my opinion. Both are major victories for the GOP and major losses for the Democrats, regardless of whether or not they admit so (and they largely won’t).
 
And let’s not even pretend like the Democrats wouldn’t have pretended this was a victory for them had it been any closer anyway. For crying out loud, they are arguing this exposes Trump “vulnerabilities” when they lost by DOUBLE DIGITS! They are actually delusional fools.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In what Gen Michael Flynn’s attorney, Sydney Powell, called a “travesty of justice”, Judge Emmitt Sullivan tabled a motion by the DOJ to dismiss the case against Flynn. After evidence was released that the FBI set a perjury trap for Flynn, rather than totally toss this case into the garbage, the activist judge invited interested parties to file friend-of-the-court briefs, called amicus briefs, to weigh in on the case.

Who are these friends of the court? No other than 16 dinosaur Watergate prosecutors from the 1970s! Do they have any personal interest in this case? Nope. Their interest is solely the fact that they want to run Trump out of office just like they did Nixon. They’re engulfed in their past glory! But more than anything, they’re the Deep State!

Now, the timing of activist Judge Sullivan couldn’t be more suspicious…

As you probably know, there was a phone call with Obama and his former aides last week in which the former president said “There is no precedent that anybody can find for somebody who was charged with perjury just getting off scot-free”. Now we know that none of this is true. But since it’s Obama saying this, his faithful worshipers wouldn’t dare correct him. But isn’t it strange that Clinton appointed activist Judge Sullivan now decides to delay resolution of the Flynn case after his spiritual leader demands that Flynn be punished?

Let me be clear: there IS no case. The most this activist judge can do is delay, delay, delay such that he may feed the media with the narrative as if there was a case to hurt Donald Trump as we get closer to the November election. But there is no case. You see, Sullivan cannot try a case that the DOJ doesn’t bring to court. And AG Barr cannot bring anything to court because he has no evidence of any wrong-doing on the part of Gen Flynn. Therefore, ultimately Sullivan will have to toss the case as well.

But that doesn’t stop the activist judge to help his activist friends in the Media such that the Democrats may have a better shot in the November election. It’s all political. Sullivan is complicit in generating a phony news cycle to keep the story going to help the Democrats. He’s a Leftist political hack.

But that doesn’t explain why they fear Flynn. I get the fact that Flynn is the ticket to Trump. And they hate Trump. But why this obsession with Flynn?

And it is an obsession indeed: let’s not forget that when he was President, Obama fired Flynn, started an investigation on Flynn and made sure to recommend Trump during the transition not to hire Flynn. Why Flynn? Why this obsession with Flynn?

One could speculate that Flynn knows something about Obama that the former President doesn’t want the public to know. But that’s pure speculation on my part.

Or it could be that Obama simply hates Flynn’s guts for no reason. That would make Obama insane – nobody hates anybody for no reason.

Whatever the case, we know that there has to be a reason for Obama’s obsession with Flynn and his strong desire to ensure Flynn is convicted.

Sure, ultimately a Flynn conviction makes Trump look bad and this alone, in the Deep State’s opinion, would pave the way to them winning the White House. And that’s why Sullivan is being such a good servant doing what his Master, the former President, demands.

But I have to tell you, Obama’s beef with Flynn goes way back to 2014, when Obama fired the General. So whatever feelings the former President has for Flynn today are not new. And the question becomes, why?

We know there is no case against Flynn. We know that all this delay does is feed the Leftists in the Media with the narrative they need to help their friend Joe Biden or whoever ends up getting the Democrat presidential nomination.

Hopefully people will see the truth. Hopefully they will see that if they go after Flynn like this, they can go against anyone and for no reason. We’re already seeing the Left’s true colors during this lockdown, with 77 year-olds or moms being arrested for wanting to reopen their businesses and feed their families. Rights are being violated. What makes anyone think that what’s happening to Flynn won’t happen to the rest of us? If they made up a case against Flynn, what makes us think they won’t do the same against anyone?

The deep state prosecutes innocent people with the help of activist judges like Emmitt Sullivan. Their trials take years to be resolved. They go broke in the process. It’s hard not to conclude that our freedoms are lost.

If we’re to remain a free country, we need to ensure to really drain the swamp. It won’t be easy, but we need to fight.

Ephesians 6:12
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
​
Author: Danielle Cross