Among the many fake news stories surrounding the Trump presidency is the insistence by the fake news media that Trump shouldn’t be trying to fight a trade war with China because it only ends up hurting us more than it does them. However, a recent Harvard/Harris poll shows us just about the exact opposite of what the fake news media would want to see.
 
According to the poll, 67% of voters said it was “necessary” for the U.S. to confront China regarding trade, with only 33% saying it is “unnecessary”. This number includes nearly 70% of swing voters, 50% of Democrats, 86% of Republicans and 66% of “moderates” saying it was necessary to confront China on trade.
 
What’s more, 80% of voters said “the trade issues with China must be fixed now rather than put off in order to not rock the boat,” according to Breitbart News. This also includes 82% of voters saying they would rather fix trade issues with China now as opposed to later.
 
80% of Republican voters also support tariffs on Chinese imports, with 51% of swing voters and 53% of rural voters (the voters that would most be getting hurt by this, according to the media) agreeing.
 
This comes even despite the fact that conservative voters are the only ones saying that China is hurting more than the U.S. in this trade war, with the rest saying the U.S. was being hurt more. That is really the only “good” news for the fake news media in insisting that we are being hurt more than China. However, that is far from the truth.
 
While no one escapes a trade war unscathed, China will be more hurt from this trade war than the U.S., especially considering that the U.S. had, for years, been losing millions of manufacturing jobs to China since it joined the World Trade Organization.
 
But there is a very important aspect to the WTO agreement that Trump is very much taking advantage of in order to help Make America Great Again and fight back against China’s unfair trade policies: Section 232.
 
Section 232 reads as follows: “If cheaper imports result in lower employment and a decrease in government revenue, the importing country can impose high tariffs on those products.”
 
Basically, it’s a provision to countries who might be getting shafted by a trade agreement to punish the other country on the products. And the interesting thing about this is that it is helped an awful lot by the fact that we do not have a VAT, or a value added tax.
 
Countries like Canada, China, Germany, Russia, Mexico, and others have different VAT rates for products they import. Basically, if you are a manufacturer and want to export your product to any of these countries, you have to pay a tax. The U.S. does not have such a tax, and so, it becomes exponentially cheaper to get products into the U.S. In doing this, and in the fact that, as stated previously, millions of manufacturing jobs have gone from the U.S. to China, Section 232 can be implemented and that’s what Trump has been doing.
 
Now, that’s not to say that not having a VAT is a good thing for us altogether. The cons outweigh the pros, and having no VAT on imports means that we essentially become the dumpster of the world’s products. It’s also why products seem to be dropping in quality, at least in terms of durability. I had bought a push mower a while back (made in China, because of course it was) and one of the wheels broke off after only a month of use (the overall mower is still usable, as the wheel that broke off was not really necessary, but it’s still a testament to the poor quality of Chinese imports).
 
But as a result of getting so much product, and through the loss in manufacturing jobs, Trump is able (and in the right) to use Section 232 to fight back against China.
 
The fact that China also steals American products and makes bootleg copies of those products also gives Trump good reason to use Section 232.
 
Over the past couple of decades, China has been taking advantage of the U.S. Be it from stealing IPs (intellectual property) and not being held accountable to stealing away manufacturing jobs due to extremely lax environmental and humanitarian laws (which really marks corporations like Apple and Google as huge hypocrites, given their insistence on “fighting” climate change and at the same time working with a government that doesn’t care one wit about the environment), the past few decades have hurt American manufacturers far more than these tariffs ever could.
 
According to the IP Commission Report, China is responsible for almost $600 BILLION in losses to our economy from patent infringement alone. That is an obscene amount of money that could have helped the United States an awful lot. So why isn’t that being talked about in the news as harming farmers and manufacturers? Why are the tariffs being talked about as being the only source of economic pain for these people?
 
And why are we pretending like we are the only ones hurt by these tariffs? The media basically reports this trade war as follows: if China imposes tariffs on us, we are hurt by them; if we impose tariffs on China, we are hurt by them. How in the world does that make any lick of sense? The answer is: it doesn’t.
 
China’s economic growth has slowed the most in 27 years, largely due to the tariffs. Now, it’s not by a huge amount by any means, but it slowed down even more than was actually forecasted. And bear in mind that this is an economy largely built on the Chinese government spending tons of money in tracking their citizens, making deals with Google to spy on them and much other government spending like building ghost towns. Even with the status quo remaining as it is, that is not a sustainable economy and bound to collapse eventually (the situation in the States isn’t much better, as we still spend like there’s no tomorrow and the Left wants to spend trillions of dollars we don’t have on a climate project that will achieve nothing more than the total restructuring of the country into a new Soviet Russia). A big reason the Soviet Union fell was because of the Space Race: they were forced to spend more money than they had and eventually, they had to fold. The U.S. stuck around simply due to our economic system of capitalism, wherein we create wealth rather than steal and destroy it.
 
But returning to China, a trade war only accelerates China’s economic collapse. Take away their ability to steal IPs and you take away a means for them to make money. Return the jobs that went there and you increase their unemployment rates.
 
Of course, the Chinese government largely doesn’t care about its people. If there were a famine that kills a million or so people, they will see it as less people they will have to keep track of rather than as a tragedy.
 
But there is no denying that the tariffs stand to hurt China more than the U.S. considering that we are still (for the most part) a capitalist nation and we create our own wealth as opposed to stealing it and destroying it.
 
Of course, there will be those who disagree and think we are hurt by these tariffs more than China, but a considerable majority still backs Trump regarding trade with China regardless of who they think is hurt more by these tariffs. Eventually, China will blink and ultimately fold. That’s what communist countries do.
 
Proverbs 22:16
“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Multiple times throughout the past couple of years, particularly since Donald Trump became President of the United States, the American Left has insisted that Trump in some way worked with Russia to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton. Specifically, they say, time and time again, that the guy is a “threat to Democracy”. But therein lies an erroneous presupposition: that we are a Democracy at all. However, a Democracy we most definitely are not, given the institutions we have in place and given what the Founders thought about Democracies.
 
First, it is crucial to identify exactly what a Democracy and a Republic are, because both seem to be used interchangeably, which is a detrimental mistake.
 
A Democracy is a system of government in which the entire population or the eligible members of a state, usually elected representatives, rule. In other words, it’s a system where the majority, or the mob, rules. Where the laws are entirely decided by the majority, through a vote, regardless of what may have been there previously.
 
A Republic, however, is a system of government where, yes, people have a vote and they elect representatives, but where the majority does not inherently rule in a nation. The Electoral College is an indication of our status as a Republic.
 
One of the Left’s most recent complaints (of which there are plenty because these are perpetually angry people) has been that the Electoral College is a “scam” and that that’s the only reason Trump won. And while Hillary did win the popular vote, there is a good reason the Electoral College is what is used to decide elections: so that big states with bigger populations don’t choose the president of the entire country.
 
Let’s look at a couple of things. First, the popular vote. Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes as opposed to Donald Trump’s 62,984,828 (granted, many of those Clinton votes were most likely from illegal aliens, so the real number probably isn’t that, but for the sake of the discussion, let’s say they are all legitimate). Rather close, but Clinton is the clear winner here. However, let’s move on to the counties: Donald Trump won 2,622 counties as opposed to Hillary Clinton’s 490. Donald Trump also won 30 states, as opposed to Clinton’s 20. Looking at an electoral map, be it by county or by state, you mostly see red.
 
So while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, far more states and especially counties voted for Donald Trump. The reason for Clinton winning the popular vote is largely attributed to California and New York, states with some of the biggest populations. California alone has nearly 40 million people living in it (obviously, not all are citizens, but still).
 
The Electoral College allows for states with lower populations to have a say as to who they want to be their President. With it gone, despite how many more counties and states Trump won, Clinton would’ve become President, even though the vast majority of the country (again, by counties and states) wanted Trump.
 
In a Democracy, Hillary would’ve won with the simple majority because that’s all a Democracy does: rule by majority. But since we are a Republic, we have systems in place to keep that from happening.
 
Now, you might be asking why it is we are a Republic and not a Democracy. Well, apart from the reasons I just gave, the Founding Fathers absolutely LOATHED Democracies.
 
Thomas Jefferson is attributed for saying: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
 
John Adams said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
 
Benjamin Franklin said: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
 
And Alexander Hamilton said: “We are a Republican government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.”
 
Our Founding Fathers understood the dangers of a democracy: mob rules. If the majority wanted, they could have voted to remain a part of the U.K. following the Revolutionary War (unlikely, but there were those who were anti-federalists and loyalists to the crown in the colonies who were against the rebellion).
 
Likewise, a Democracy can vote on just about anything else with impunity. If the majority wanted to arrest people wearing MAGA hats, they would be able to in a Democracy, but not in a Republic where we have basic Constitutional rights pertaining to things like freedom of speech, etc.
 
So every time I hear an idiotic Democrat insisting that Trump is a “threat to Democracy” or that we are a Democracy at any capacity (might I also mention that our Pledge of Allegiance says “to the Republic for which it stands” not “to the Democracy for which it stands”?), I can’t help but think how ignorant one can be.
 
We are not a Democracy by any means. We use facets of Democracy, such as voting, in our Republic, but we are not ruled by the majority. The Constitution is the backbone of our legal system and the Bible is the foundation upon which Western society is built. A simple majority cannot add onto or eliminate an amendment in the Constitution because we are not a Democracy. In order to ratify a Constitutional amendment, it takes two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and then three-fourths of the states in order to change the Constitution at all. A simple majority does not rule here.
 
This is because we are a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. And thank God for that.
 
Amos 5:24
“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Logic and reason have almost completely left the Democrat Party, but one 2020 candidate hasn’t been so idiotic as to sign off on employing ideas that will 100% destroy the country. That candidate is Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH).
 
While he is one of the extremely few candidates on the debate stage who did not want to go so far Left as to go off a cliff, he once again demonstrated the ability to be reasonable by sounding the alarm on what the Democrat Party’s agenda could potentially bring them: a landslide defeat comparable to 1984.
 
Appearing on last week’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, Rep. Tim Ryan was asked by Rev. Al Sharpton whether the Party was moving too far to the Left.
 
Ryan responded by saying: “I think some of the lead candidates have taken positions that will lose 48 states, and I’m trying to figure out what the two are we’re going to win. I mean, if you’re talking about free healthcare for undocumented workers, and the average person in some of these states that we have to win are busting their rear end to provide health care for their own families and paying a lot of money for it (he didn’t really have a point to end that sentence, but is saying that that’s a bad idea)… I think decriminalizing at the border is a mistake. If you want to come into the country, you’ve got to ring the doorbell and it should be a crime to just walk into the United States. I think the single-payer idea of telling people they can’t have their private health insurance, you’re going to go to all these union people in the industrial Midwest and tell them they’ve negotiated away wages to get really good health care, and you’re going to tell them we’re going to take that health care from you because we’ve got a better idea in Washington, D.C.? I think that’s a mistake.”
 
It’s rare when I find myself agreeing with a Democrat, but he is completely right here. While I haven’t really talked much about it, the idea of providing healthcare for illegals is a massive insult to the American people in more ways than one.
 
First, there are Americans who still need healthcare. How exactly is it going to look for the average American when an illegal immigrant gets healthcare that Americans had been wanting for ages? What’s more, shouldn’t Obamacare have fixed this issue? I thought it was affordable healthcare. And yet, the Democrats are still talking about healthcare as though Obamacare hasn’t been in effect for the past 9 years. So what’s up with that?
 
Second, *I*, a naturalized citizen, get annoyed when illegals get a pass for their criminal acts. How much more will a native-born American citizen be annoyed that illegals get the “free” healthcare that had been promised to the American people?
 
Next comes the decriminalization at the border. Now, I haven’t talked much about this either, but this is honestly one of the signs that tells me these people are desperate to beat Donald Trump. They are throwing everything at the wall, seeing what sticks, and running with it. They can’t beat Donald Trump in the realm of ideas, certainly after two and a half years of a successful presidency that has brought about great results for the American people, so they have to throw out wild ideas that no sane person would agree with just to make some headlines and some noise. Decriminalizing border crossing is incredibly stupid, not to mention dangerous for the country. And while the idea of having open borders (this is a term the Democrats dispute being in favor of, but what else would decriminalizing border crossing mean apart from having open borders?) might be beneficial for the Democrat Party in terms of bringing in as many low-skilled, uneducated people to make up their permanent underclass of voters and workers, effectively a legal slave class, this would completely destroy the country and get the American people to run away from the Democrat Party.
 
It's political suicide to throw out entire voting blocs. There is a good reason why no Republican candidate has ever won by abandoning the Republican base and trying to attract Independents and Democrats. The Democrats are effectively doing the same, getting rid of many white voters in the Midwest United States, in states they NEED to win to beat Trump. And while there may be white voters who will always vote Democrat, white voters who detest the fact they are white (and these are some of the saddest people on Earth), they are a fringe group of people in America. The point is: you don’t win elections by throwing out votes.
 
And as far as single-payer goes, again, Ryan is right. Eliminating private health insurance isn’t something people want. They want options. There is a reason Medicare-for-All isn’t so widely talked about right now. The reason is that Bernie Sanders, in the second debate, gave the game away when he said that he would increase the taxes of middle-income Americans in order to pay for Medicare-for-All. As it turns out, people don’t want to be told they will have to pay higher taxes on something, so they stop supporting that something when that is the case.
 
The same principle applies to people being told that they’d be given LESS OPTIONS as to what healthcare provider they can choose. Single-payer healthcare forces people to work with the government and only the government. When it comes to people’s health, the more options, the better, which is why people like things like Obamacare and Medicare-for-All. On the outset, it looks as though people are given an extra option as to what healthcare provider to sign up with. But with single-payer healthcare, that option goes away. And with Medicare-for-All, people like it until two things are told to them: their taxes would go up and they wouldn’t have the option to sign up for private healthcare options.
 
Tim Ryan is at least reasonable enough to understand that these policies, as utopian as they make them out to be, would 1) be detrimental to the American people and 2) be rejected by the American people.
 
In Tim Ryan’s mind, the Democrats could lose as many as 48 states. I think the max (in an absolute best case scenario, that is. I doubt it will be that much) would really be 47, with the three being California, New York and Hawaii, but I could be wrong. After all, I don’t know how many people expected Ronald Reagan to win 49 states in 1984. Not that I think anything like that will ever happen again, particularly with an influx of illegal immigration and the ruining of education, but I do expect Trump to win and win by a good bit.
 
Of course, it’s far too early to tell, but again, with the way things are going, and with the policies the Left is adopting, I really see no reason for Trump not to be reelected (not that it’s going to be a breeze; no one has ever won expecting a fight to be easy). The fact that there’s at least one Democrat candidate acknowledging that the vast majority of Americans aren’t going to subscribe to the ideology of “sure, make me pay more so that you can give healthcare to illegal alien criminals” is, I think, good news, but there’s a reason Tim Ryan is polling at less than 1%. The rabid Democrat base is insane and thinks all of these crazy things are reasonable, but they are far from the majority of Americans.
 
Tim Ryan, in acknowledging this, will only further hurt his chances at being the Democrat nominee. The Party no longer cares for reason, logic, truth, facts or civility. They are out for bloody revenge and will deceive as many people as they possibly can and will do everything they can including cheat, to try and beat Donald Trump. They don’t want civil discourse. They want blood. Their rhetoric makes this clear enough, let alone the policies they espouse.
 
Ezekiel 18:20
“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

On its own, the media can’t speak a recession into happening. They can say whatever they want, have financial “experts” say that a recession is looming, look at particular metrics that could be warning signs of a recession and predict one will definitely happen sometime soon, but they cannot speak a recession into happening if they don’t convince people.
 
And with recent news surrounding some of the most important metrics, consumer confidence and assessment of current conditions, it appears that the whole recession narrative is nothing more than that: a narrative.
 
From Bloomberg, who tend to write headlines that are negative to hurt Trump, they write: “Americans’ View of the Current Economy Is The Highest in 19 Years.”
 
“U.S. consumer confidence declined in August by less than forecast as Americans’ assessment of current conditions climbed to the highest level in almost 19 years, helped by a job market that remains robust,” writes Bloomberg.
 
While consumer confidence did dip down a little bit from 135.8 (the index used by The Conference Board) to 135.1, it is nowhere near what was forecasted, and what’s more, Americans’ views for the current economic situation is at 177.2, the highest it’s been since November of 2000.
 
“The reading shows hiring and income gains are keeping consumers upbeat and assuaging concerns about the economy’s prospects in light of slowing global growth, volatile financial markets and escalating U.S.-China trade tensions. The level of confidence could allow for sustained household spending that remains a mainstay of the economy. The share of respondents who say jobs are currently plentiful jumped to 51.2%, the highest since September 2000, while the share saying jobs are hard to get declined to the lowest in three months,” according to Bloomberg.
 
This is all important to note because these are some of the most important metrics in predicting a recession. As it stands, unemployment levels are at record-lows, wages are rising, taxes are lower, and there are more jobs than there are people available, which is always a good problem to have. But what matters more than these things is how people are feeling about the current economy.
 
It’s for this reason that the Left and the MSM have embarked on a mission to try and bring about a recession. Again, on their own, they can’t do that. But if people’s confidence drops significantly, that spells trouble for the economy. The media has been trying to get people to worry about the economy and fear a looming recession that wouldn’t come without those sorts of storylines being written. What the media is doing is trying to make a recession a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Trump economy is very good and stable, certainly growing, and that presents a problem for any Democrat candidate.
 
For the most part, people don’t care about what the narrative is about Trump. His approval numbers have been climbing and are pretty steady in large part due to how well the economy is doing. When people feel they are doing well, they care more about that than what Trump said on a particular day about a particular subject or person. If the economy is doing well, people don’t see much reason to change the status quo, so Trump’s prospects for reelection are only improved by a strong and growing economy.
 
This is a problem for the Left, and so, they are trying to scare people into thinking there is going to be a recession when plenty of indicators don’t show it. If they can convince people there will be a recession, there will be one. However, it doesn’t appear to be working so far, if these numbers are any indication.
 
Yes, consumer confidence dropped a bit, but less than was forecasted, so it’s probably a rather normal dip that happens all the time in economies (the line graphs aren’t exactly straight in any direction. You have to look at trends).
 
Bloomberg further writes: “U.S. consumers spent more in July than economists expected, the federal government said on Thursday, as retail sales rose 0.7% vs. the 0.3% estimated. Excluding automobile sales, a more volatile component, retail sales rose 1% - double what economists anticipated. Why it matters: Consumers were largely unfazed by the increasing economic uncertainty in July, defying other indicators that point to a global slowdown or recession. The data also comes as Walmart, one of the world’s biggest retailers, posted strong financials for its most recent quarter.”
 
Yeah, who exactly is saying there is “increasing economic uncertainty”? Look at these people, claiming there is such a thing all-the-while reporting that consumer confidence and perception are PRETTY GOOD RIGHT NOW, with a normal dip for consumer confidence at a time when families end their summer vacations and an economic perception that is the highest it’s been since the beginning of the new millennium.
 
In any case, this is, obviously, pretty good news not only for Trump but also for the economy and the people involved with it. No serious dip in consumer confidence means no likelihood for recession. No recession means people won’t be financially hurt, but it does mean Leftists and elitists like Bill Maher, Bill Kristol, etc. will be hurt because it won’t help them get rid of Trump. I just hope and pray these metrics will continue showing good news and continue improving, not only for the benefit of the President’s chances for reelection but also for the benefit of the American people.
 
To wish for a recession to occur like these Leftists are doing is to hope the American people will be hurt to the point they will point the finger at Trump. It helps no one but the heartless Left and it’s sickening.
 
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

More and more Democrats have signed on to the idea that they should seek to impeach President Donald Trump, with 130 House Democrats currently wishing to impeach and with the fourth-ranking Democrat having recently announced his desire to go down that route. However, Monmouth University recently ran a poll that shows dire news for Democrats who wish to impeach: it would only help Trump in the long run.
 
Recently, Monmouth University ran a survey asking people a number of things. Questions like Trump's job approval among surveyors, Congress’ job approval and other things were asked (and I’ll get to that first one), but most important are questions 4, 6, 8, and 9-13.
 
Here is what question 4 said: “Do you think President Trump should be impeached and compelled to leave the Presidency, or not?” And here are the results: 35% said that Trump should be impeached or compelled to leave office, while 59% said he should not and 6% said they didn’t know. That is a massive, 24-point difference in the sentiment surrounding impeachment.
 
Despite the Left’s best efforts to accuse Trump of being a Russian agent or being unfit to serve or having broken the law at any capacity, FAR MORE PEOPLE say that he shouldn’t be impeached than he should. This goes to show the failure of the media to try and shape reality. They have insisted for over 3 years that Donald Trump was unfit or was in some way a criminal and none of it has stuck.
 
Question 6 says the following: “Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry into President Trump that may or may not lead to impeachment?” This was the result: 41% said it was a good idea for the House Judiciary Committee, which is led by Jerry “Doughboy” Nadler, to conduct inquiry into impeaching Trump. 51%, in turn, said it was a bad idea to do so. A 10-point difference.
 
Now, I didn’t mention question 7 in the “important questions” list, but it is relevant to question 6, so I will briefly cover it. Question 7 is split into two questions: 7A and 7B. 7A asks the people who answer “good idea” to question 6 why it is that they feel the way they do. 17% of those say that it’s because they believe he broke the law, 18% say because the aforementioned Committee needs to follow evidence, 17% say because of bad moral character/personality, 16% say because he has enacted bad policies or is doing a bad job, 10% say because he acts above the law and must be held accountable, 11% say because he is racist or because he is bad for immigration. There are other reasons, but one I would like to point out is that only 3% say because he has “Russia ties”.
 
While many of these reasons are fake news narratives, such as breaking the law, acting above the law, insisting there is evidence of criminal activity, etc., the 3% Russia ties is quite significant in showing how bad of a job the Left did in trying to frame Trump as a Russian asset or having colluded with Russia.
 
For the most part, I imagine that those who say he broke the law will argue that the law he broke was relating to wanting to fire Mueller or complaining about the investigation being a witch hunt, etc., none of which are an actual crime (though Mueller certainly tried to make it look like they were instances of obstruction of justice), otherwise far more people would be signed on to the idea of impeachment, and none of it really has to do with actual Russian collusion. Three years of insisting Trump colluded with Russia has culminated in people really not buying it. Though, that tends to happen when no actual evidence of the deed has been shown.
 
But in any case, while these may be the (really poor) reasons people have stated to impeach Trump, question 7B asks those who think it’s a bad idea for Nadler to begin impeachment inquiry why they think the way they do. 27% say that Trump did nothing wrong, 22% say it would be a waste of time/money, 12% say Trump’s done a good job, 13% say because it would be a witch hunt and entirely partisan, 10% say Congress should work on other things, and 5% say because it would backfire on Democrats.
 
So while there are those who are insane enough to believe the b.s. of the Left (at least some of it), there are far more people who think it would be unwarranted to call for impeachment of the POTUS.
 
But let’s move on to question 8. It’s rather lengthy and basically explains the impeachment process (House votes to pass articles of impeachment and two-thirds of Senate, or 66 votes, in order to remove the President from office) but it basically asks how likely it would be for the Senate to remove Trump if House votes to impeach. 6% said it would be very likely, 14% said somewhat likely, 25% said not too likely and 50% said not at all likely. That’s 20% to 75% in favor of “not likely” that the Senate would vote to impeach.
 
This largely hinges on the actual rules of the Senate and Trump’s favorability as it stands. 66 Senators would have to vote in favor of impeachment. There are 45 Democrats and 2 Independent Senators, those being Bernie Sanders and Angus King, neither of which like Trump, so they’d likely vote to remove from office. One could assume all 45 Dems would vote to remove Trump from office, so that’s 47 votes. This would require 19 Republicans to vote to remove Trump from office. And while people like Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Ben Sasse might vote to remove Trump from office, that’s still not enough votes to do so and with Trump’s good numbers, it’s unlikely they would vote to remove (well, maybe Romney still would because he’s an idiot, but I don’t know about the rest. When Ben Sasse isn’t talking about Trump, I tend to like him because he tends to be conservative, but I don’t really know what he would do).
 
Sure, there are probably others in the Senate who hate Trump as much as the Democrats do, but wouldn’t dare be vocal about it, particularly now. And considering Lindsey Graham seems to be on Trump’s side now, that’s one less likely vote to remove Trump.
 
But that’s if it even reaches the Senate. With the way things are, I don’t think the House would vote to impeach. Again, only 130 Democrats are signing on to it (and probably a couple Republicans and Independents), but Nancy Pelosi doesn’t even want this on the House floor. So impeachment is not likely at all to occur.
 
Now, for the sake of time, I will briefly cover the remaining important questions.
 
Question 9 asked if people thought it’d be a good idea for the House to conduct impeachment proceedings even if the Senate was unlikely to remove Trump from office. Only 37% said it would be a good idea and 56% said it would be a bad idea.
 
Question 10 asks if Trump would be in a stronger or weaker position to win reelection if impeached but not removed from office. 31% said he’d be in a stronger position and only 23% said he’d be in a weaker position. Though 36% said there wouldn’t be a significant impact.
 
Question 11 is similar to question 10, but asks the same of Democrats keeping the House in 2020. 27% said they’d be in a stronger position to retain the House, 34% said they’d be in a weaker position and 31% said there wouldn’t be a significant impact.
 
Question 12 asks people if their elected representative voted to impeach, would that make voters more or less likely to vote for that representative again? 24% said more likely, 26% less likely and 46% no significant impact.
 
Question 13 is similar but asks if the representative voted against impeachment, would people vote for them again? 16% said more likely, 28% said less likely, 51% no impact.
 
Those last two questions particularly put Democrats in purple states in danger because it’s a no-win situation. If they vote to impeach, more people would be less likely to vote. If they vote against impeachment, the same thing happens. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t for them, which is another reason Pelosi doesn’t want this on the House floor. Not only is it unlikely to do anything to hurt Trump, it would likely HELP him in 2020 and it would likely HURT the Democrats in 2020, particularly in the House.
 
Now, another thing that I feel obligated to mention (as I said I would get to) is Trump’s approval rating in the Monmouth University poll. It’s not exactly great numbers for Trump, sitting at only 40% approval rating, but that’s actually par for the course for Trump in this survey. His highest numbers, at least since March of 2017, have been 44 or 43%. 40% is far from the lowest he’s gotten and rather normal for this survey (of which only 25% of registered Republicans participated, 30% Democrats and 45% Independents, so that explains some numbers).
 
I personally think his approval is considerably higher than that, but even taking this number at face value, it’s far higher than the Democrats would want in order to be confident about impeachment proceedings.
 
Pelosi noticed that Clinton’s approval numbers were not bad at all when the GOP sought to impeach and she noticed that move seriously hurt the Republicans moving forward, at least to some extent. She doesn’t want the same thing to happen to the Democrats, not because she cares about the Party, but because that would put her position of power in peril. Pushing to impeach would likely make Trump stronger in 2020 and would likely make any incumbent who voted in favor likely to lose (in districts not in solid blue states, at least).
 
That’s not to say Pelosi doesn’t want to impeach Trump. She does, but she doesn’t want to sacrifice her power in order to *maybe* achieve that (and, of course, it’s not likely at all that the Senate will vote to remove Trump).
 
With more and more Democrats signing on to the idea of impeaching Trump, they may be appeasing the Leftist Hollywood elitists who demand this and maybe even be appeasing some in their base, but as I’ve said before, that base is shrinking. Most people don’t want impeachment and if Democrats go against that, it will only hurt them going forward. Every Democrat who says they should impeach Trump gives ammo to Trump and only to Trump.
 
And that’s why I want them to go for it. I want them to try and impeach because of how catastrophic a failure it would be for them. But we’ll see what happens. We’ll see if Pelosi still has enough political muscle to rein in these lunatic Leftists.
 
Luke 10:19
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One of the main tools of illegal immigrants and traffickers is children. Since 2015, illegals have been able to seek asylum while being accompanied by a child, but a court-ordered rule had made it so that migrants with children had to be released after 20 days of detention – that is, released into the United States, not deported back to their country of origin. As you could imagine, this brought a whole lot of problems.
 
However, the Department of Homeland Security is now issuing a new regulation that eliminates the limit asylum seekers can be detained for, allowing for the full process of asylum seeking to be completed aka, sending the ones who do not qualify for asylum packing as opposed to releasing them into the United States.
 
According to Breitbart: “Officials expect the promise of family detention will sharply reduce the economic incentive for migration from Central America, Africa, and Asia, because it will prevent migrants from getting U.S. jobs to pay their smuggling debts to the cartel-affiliated coyotes. Without the revenue from a job in the United States, migrants know they will likely lose the farms and houses which they typically mortgage to pay the smuggling coyotes upfront.”
 
This also means that there will likely be a considerable drop in numbers of asylum seekers, particularly those who are accompanied by children.
 
According to a Guatemalan coyote named Hugo who recently spoke with the Los Angeles Times: “The child is the treasure. It’s not the adult who takes the child, it’s the other way around: The child takes the adult.”
 
And this is pretty obvious given the number of asylum seekers in recent years. In 2013, before the court order of Catch and Release, only 15,000 people accompanied by a child applied for asylum. So far in 2019, that number is 433,000.
 
So like we have been saying, these people largely use children to go around existing immigration law and enter the country illegally. They enter the country with a child, get detained by BP or ICE, apply for asylum, wait 20 days, get released into the city they stated they planned on living in, get told to show up to court on a particular date to settle the asylum claim, never show up and live amongst the other illegal immigrants who gamed the system in a similar way.
 
But now, thanks to the DHS, that loophole has been terminated (though Left-wing, pro-illegal immigration groups will challenge this regulation for certain) and there is the opportunity to discourage people from trying to enter the country with a child (that in all likelihood isn’t even theirs). This also reduces the chances of a child getting separated from the adult they are with or even dying at the border.
 
A statement from a “senior administration official” says: “Today, the Administration is closing one of the legal loopholes that has allowed human traffickers and smugglers to exploit our vulnerabilities at the southern border. President Trump has made it clear that he’s going to secure America’s border at all cost and this rule plays a vital role in the strategy to restore the integrity to our immigration system and our national security.”
 
Indeed, the way human traffickers have been able to do their business in the southern border is through this loophole. With the huge number of asylum seekers accompanied by children, border agents have had a horrible time trying to enforce our nation’s immigration system and keep illegals out of the country. Releasing these people after 20 days and ASKING THEM to go to a court where they are more than likely to lose their case is something only idiots and people who want this country to fall to ruin want. Few illegals would be stupid enough to go to court following their release into the American city they want to live in.
 
As with criminals in general, illegal immigrants don’t care about American rule of law or immigration law. So why would they be willing to obey the law in regards to going to court to settle the asylum claim, which they are more likely to lose than to win?
 
It’s a stupid system and I’m glad something is being done about it, not thanks to Congress. The Democrats definitely don’t want to close the loophole. They HEAVILY BENEFIT from the loophole. The Republicans aren’t much better because many of them argue that these migrants provide services Americans wouldn’t be willing to do, which is absolute b.s.
 
Now, again, this will most certainly be challenged in courts and likely even be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, but I expect it to rule in favor of the President, or in this case, in favor of the DHS. Being able to close such loopholes is within the power of the Executive, which tends to have a say when it comes to regulation.
 
But as it stands right now, this will definitely help immigration agencies and allow them room to breathe. Just in July, apprehension numbers fell 24%, from nearly 95,000 in June to roughly 72,000 in July, according to the July Southwest Border Migration Report. Still generally higher than in 2018, but this new rule will go a long way towards helping with these apprehension numbers in the future.
 
This marks another Trump campaign promise fulfilled, at least as it stands, to end “Catch-and-Release” that has been plaguing this country for years.
 
Thanks be to God that this is happening now, because I’m certain that if we had had a President Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, things would be far worse than they currently are.
 
Psalm 106:1
“Praise the Lord! Oh give thanks to the Lord, for He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever!”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

While Planned Parenthood still, for some reason, receives much more money from the federal government, it took a massive blow this past week when they chose genocide over continuing Title X services, which serve the needs of low-income Americans.
 
According to The Daily Wire, “The Trump administration had implemented a rule stating that any clinic accepting Title X funds must not refer women to an abortion provider or suggest where to get one.” The New York Times added: “The move could affect more than 1.5 million low-income women who rely on Planned Parenthood for services like birth control, pregnancy tests and screening for sexually transmitted diseases.”
 
The good news for those low-income women, of course, is that hospitals and other clinics that are not PP also provide those types of services and comply with Title X rules and regulations set by this administration.
 
In choosing to stick to mass infanticide, Planned Parenthood will lose $60 million in taxpayer funds. Unfortunately, they make a lot more than that in general, having reported almost $245 million in excess revenue for 2017-18, but this does a couple of things:
 
     1) Planned Parenthood will lose some money, which is always a good thing. 

    2) Some babies will likely be saved as a result. 

   3) It further shows Trump to be one of, if not the most pro-life President we have had in ages. 
 
Fox News reported that “Planned Parenthood’s pullout followed a June order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that lifted a nationwide injunction that had prevented the Trump administration from enforcing the new rule. The court’s three-judge panel, with two judges appointed by President Trump, is still weighing Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit to overturn the rule but has allowed the administration to begin enforcement – a sign that the administration will ultimately win on the merits.”
 
While there is still more work to be done to fully defund Planned Parenthood, this is definitely a step in the right direction to doing that and yet another sign of Trump making and actually keeping the promises he made during the 2015-16 campaign trail.
 
Following the news, Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, told Life News: “It’s a great day for women’s health in America. Planned Parenthood is America’s deadliest nonprofit, and the news that they’re refusing to accept taxpayer funds to target vulnerable women is a good thing for women’s health. Women deserve the chance to live empowered, full lives that are free from the harms that Planned Parenthood poses through abortion and abortion-focused services. Women who need true healthcare will have their needs met by authentic and eager healthcare providers across America.”
 
And that’s another point: Leftists will argue that PP helps with women’s healthcare issues like getting mammograms, checkups, pregnancy tests, etc., and as a result, they argue that PP is necessary and good for women, but hospitals, other clinics and even pharmacies provide the same services. Planned Parenthood will use these things as a cover for suggesting that they are women’s health providers when they are nothing more than a glorified slaughterhouse. Their main objective, as is clear from pulling out of Title X funding, is abortion. They care nothing of women or their healthcare, but to make money off of women’s poor sexual decisions. They take advantage of women, particularly low-income women, who do not feel they are capable of raising a child, and so suggest they get an abortion. That is what Planned Parenthood was doing with their Title X patients and the rule change regarding those kinds of suggestions puts that mission in peril, which is why they chose to forego Title X.
 
This PROVES they don’t care about women’s healthcare AT ALL. They only care about taking advantage of vulnerable women and killing as many babies in the womb as they can, seeing as they can make a huge profit off of their blood.
 
To them, killing children is more important than providing REAL health services to women. Seeing as they reportedly provided over 330,000 abortions in its latest annual report, it’s quite obvious that their main trade is the blood of the innocent. No longer can anyone even try and make the claim that Planned Parenthood is about providing women with healthcare. They made their choice here (no pun intended) in choosing abortion over Title X service of low-income women. If they are not allowed to kill poor people’s children, they leave. They never cared for the millions of women they serviced. Their only target was the life growing inside the pregnant women.
 
I imagine Satan is very proud of these child-killers.
 
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

Following the two shootings that occurred over the weekend, President Donald Trump issued a televised statement from the White House condemning white supremacy, racism and hatred that likely fueled the shootings to take place, something the Left had been demanding Trump do following the tragedies. However, having done so, the Left is ticked off that he did, insists he is insincere and continues to spread the lie that Donald Trump is a racist white supremacist who enables people like the shooters (who both held Leftist beliefs) to commit those kinds of heinous acts.
 
But for a brief period of time, the New York Times actually acted like a news organization and planned to deliver a story surrounding the event in a relatively unbiased manner. Their original headline was: “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.”
 
I will share a few of the statements the President made shortly, but I would have to say that that is an apt summation of what was said. President Trump fully condemned the shooters, as well as the white supremacy ideology that likely fueled at least one of them. However, this unbiased headline was too “far-right” and too unbiased for the ever-so tolerant and not-at-all full of crap Leftists who are still subscribed to the paper.
 
Nate Silver from FiveThirtyEight, a notable far-Left source, tweeted: “Tomorrow’s NYT print edition. Not sure ‘TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM’ is how I would have framed the story.”
 
Him being a Leftist, that doesn’t surprise me. Neither does it surprise me that 2020 Dem hopefuls also announced their frustrations over the truthful headline.
 
Cory Booker tweeted: “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.”
 
Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted: “That’s not what happened.”
 
Allow me to briefly address the two failures. First, let’s start with what Not So Smarticus said, “Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do.”
 
Am I the only one getting 1984 vibes here? Cause to me, it sounds like a politician is shaming the publication for reporting the truth and insists that people’s lives are in danger as a result of it. Because, you see, the truth is dangerous. When people find the truth, they stop believing the lies. The lies that Donald Trump is a racist and a white supremacist. The lies that Donald Trump colluded with Russia. The lies that Republicans have blood on their hands when tragedies like these happen. And to me, it looks like Cory Booker is attempting to channel his inner Joseph Goebbels: “Let me control the media and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs.”
 
He doesn’t want the media to report on the truth because that has consequences dire to his agenda – to the Leftist agenda. Lives are not put into danger because the New York Times’ original headline featured objectivity and truth. Lives are not put into danger because the headline, for once, featured a Trump who offers unity (which he had been for years, but the MSM never reported on it, likely because of crap like this). But in the mind of a Leftist, Trump is Hitler (who was also an extreme Leftist, but no one will care to admit that on the Left) and as a result, to give him any sort of objectivity is the same as allowing him to start a Holocaust.
 
This is why they say ICE detention centers are “concentration camps”. Having lived their lives in the constant toxic bullcrap they spew, they started to believe it. They truly believe that Donald Trump is in any way comparable to Hitler, so to portray him objectively in any way would be the equivalent of giving Hitler a pass, in their minds.
 
This is how utterly corrupt these people are, and the reason I say that there is truly no longer freedom of the press. Constitutionally, and officially, there is freedom of the press as it is detailed in the First Amendment. But when news organizations are hit with so much blowback not only from other “journalists” but also politicians and people threatening to unsubscribe, the organizations under fire for reporting the truth no longer have the right to report freely.
 
So, they changed the headline to: “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.” Because of course the focus has to be on the guns. The two shooters held Left-wing ideologies. That can’t be mentioned whatsoever. The Left is lucky one of them was a white supremacist, because otherwise, they would have to avoid talking about motive, for the most part. They certainly avoid the Dayton shooter, who had very openly-Leftist social media activity before the shooting.
 
Now, let’s discuss what Kirsten Gillibrand thought of the original headline. To repeat, she tweeted: “That’s not what happened.”
 
Oh, isn’t it? I understand Leftists tend to live in their own world, but please at least try to provide evidence to back up your claims. You claim that Trump didn’t call for unity against racism? Well, what’s this then?:
 
“Together, we lock arms to shoulder the grief. We ask God in Heaven to ease the anguish of those who suffer. And we vow to act with urgent resolve… The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online, consumed by racist hate. In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul… In the two decades since Columbine, our nation has watched with rising horror and dread as one mass shooting has followed another, over and over again, decade after decade. We cannot allow ourselves to feel powerless. We can and will stop this evil contagion. In that task, we must honor the sacred memory of those we have lost, by acting as one people. Open wounds cannot heal if we are divided. We must seek real bipartisan solutions – we have to do that, in a bipartisan manner – that will truly make America safer and better for all.”
 
This is only a portion of what the President said recently, followed by similar remarks on social media. Exactly which part of this is him not trying to unite our country against racism? The part where we “lock arms to shoulder the grief”? The part where we “vow to act with urgent resolve”? The part where “our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy”? The part where we must act “as one people”? The part where our “wounds cannot heal if we are divided”? Or the part where “we must seek real bipartisan solutions… in a bipartisan manner… that will truly make America safer and better for all”?
 
Exactly how is the headline: “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” not a factual and accurate summation of what the President said? No, the President didn’t assail against guns because, as I said in my previous article covering these tragedies, that wouldn’t solve anything because guns are not the root cause of shootings. But in what way is the original headline in any way dangerous or fictitious? In the Left’s mind, any story that does not portray Trump as the literal devil is dangerous to their narratives and rhetoric and their opportunity to defeat him at any capacity. That’s the Left’s current goal: defeat Donald Trump at any cost.
 
Evidently, that comes even at the cost of a free press, but we already knew journalism was long dead. This just further proves that to be true.
 
John 8:44
“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Earlier this week, a Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge dismissed a lawsuit brought forth by the DNC against the Trump campaign “for its alleged role in the hacking and dissemination of internal Democratic Party emails during the 2016 presidential race,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
This is MASSIVE news, and terrible for Democrats, that really should be brought to people’s attention (though I think most of it will go to responses to the 2nd round of the Democrat debates, which surprisingly featured a candidate pretending he was a moderate).
 
Anyway, Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York relayed his opinion on the case after dismissing it, completely destroying the very argument the Democratic National Convention was trying to make in many different ways.
 
The DNC’s lawsuit, according to The Daily Wire, was “filed against Donald Trump, his campaign officials and ‘defendants’ – including Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, George Papadopalous, Richard Gates and Roger Stone – WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the Russian Federation, and various Russian individuals.”
 
The DNC alleged in the suit that the Trump campaign had coordinated with Russia and WikiLeaks to release official Democrat Party emails in order to benefit Trump’s campaign.
 
However, as Judge Koeltl points out, there are several problems with this suit.
 
First, you can’t sue a foreign government in a U.S. court. Koeltl writes: “The primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal activity is undoubtedly the Russian Federation. [However] under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act…, the Russian Federation cannot be sued” in American courts. They can be sued in the individual country’s court system - provided the countries actually allow for people to sue the government, which, considering this is freaking Russia we’re talking about, I doubt people can (and trust me I tried looking but nothing turned up)-, but they cannot be sued within the U.S. court system. So Russia has to be taken out of the suit for it to even remotely work. Well, that would be the case if it weren’t for one other thing.
 
Second, WikiLeaks, the ones who actually released the information, have a First Amendment right to do so, as any other media organization would have the First Amendment right to expose something for people’s viewing and learning benefit. “The DNC seeks to hold the second-level participants in this alleged activity (that is, the Trump campaign, defendants and WikiLeaks) liable for dissemination of stolen materials. But… the First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest…”
 
So WikiLeaks, in obtaining and releasing the emails, is protected by the First Amendment as any news network would be in publishing, say, emails from the Trump campaign and trying to push the Russian-collusion narrative and getting the dates wrong, or as they would be in publishing the details of a Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya, where they discussed Russian prisoners and other things, not dirt on Hillary Clinton.
 
What’s more, even if it had been the Trump campaign who had obtained and released those emails, they would’ve been within their right to do so in a similar manner. Koeltl wrote that Trump could’ve done that because the documents released “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election… [and are] entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”
 
“Even if the documents had been provided directly to the Campaign [and] the Campaign defendants… they could have published the documents themselves without liability because they did not participate in the theft and the documents are of public concern. The DNC cannot hold these defendants liable for aiding and abetting publication when they would have been entitled to publish the stolen documents themselves without liability,” Koeltl wrote in sum.
 
I think this is a good call, particularly considering just what is behind the suit in the first place: the Left being ticked off that Trump won the 2016 election and that he joked about Russia having the Democrats’ emails. That particular Trump rally joke is what has led many people to think that Trump had been colluding with Russia, when all it was was a JOKE at the Democrat Party’s expense because one of their high-ranking officials fell for a phishing scam (and it didn’t help that they didn’t want the FBI to look into the case, giving it to a third-party investigator).
 
The ONLY reason this suit was made in the first place is to further drive the narrative that Trump had colluded, in one way or another, to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton. Whether that way was through influencing votes (though Rod Rosenstein himself said that no votes had been altered, not that anyone on the Left will acknowledge that) or by getting dirt on Hillary Clinton (which is what politicians often do anyway, but when Trump does it, it’s apparently criminal) through Veselnitskaya or through WikiLeaks, the Left was adamant about proving that there was some sort of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
 
But along the way, we only found more and more evidence of HILLARY CLINTON colluding with Russia, whether it be through the funding of the phony Steele dossier or through the Uranium One deal (which was apart from the campaign, but still extremely shady and not something people often talk about). And all that, without even TRYING to find Hillary colluding with Russia.
 
This suit, filed early last year, has thankfully been dropped by a judge (though it’s rather surprising it was by a Clinton judge). Of course, both the DNC and Trump have responded to this, with the DNC saying that this decision “raises serious concerns about our protections from foreign election interference and the theft of private property to advance the interests of our enemies.”
 
Yeah, yeah, cry me a river, why don’t you. You know perfectly well that the election was not interfered with and that Trump won the election perfectly legitimately.
 
In any case, President Trump hilariously responded by saying: “Wow! A federal Judge in the Southern District of N.Y. completely dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee against our historic 2016 campaign for President. The Judge said the DNC case was ‘entirely divorced’ from the facts, yet another total & complete vindication & exoneration from the Russian, WikiLeaks and every other form of HOAX perpetrated by the DNC, Radical Democrats and others. This is really big ‘stuff’ especially coming from a highly respected judge who was appointed by President Clinton. The Witch Hunt Ends!”
 
This most certainly is “big ‘stuff’”, considering both the ultimate decision of the case and who it was that made the decision. The Democrats likely went to the SDNY because they felt confident they would be able to get this to go through and successfully sue Trump, though it likely would’ve been decimated in actual court, given not only the inability to sue a foreign government and First Amendment rights, but also due to how little evidence they would’ve been able to bring forth to implicate any liability on Trump, who is their main target. They might’ve been able to at least get WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, but the Trump campaign has not been proven at all to have taken any part in this, but again, the First Amendment would be in the way. The fact that it was dismissed is certainly a good thing, and good news in my eyes, but who it was that dismissed it is also rather important (not to mention surprising).
 
As a Clinton-appointed judge, you would’ve expected him to have let the Democrats get away with whatever they wanted. I certainly think that that’s what the Democrats were expecting as well. But it appears that this judge is at least rather aware of how the laws work, including our First Amendment rights, and is not so corrupt as to ignore them. There is nothing criminal that can be proven that the Russians did (and even if they had, they still can't be sued), there is nothing criminal regarding what WikiLeaks did with the information (and the Trump campaign only benefited from it, not took part in it, so there is even less culpability to be placed on them).
 
Of course, this hardly means much to the Left. They will look for other ways to attack Trump and will have to regroup and re-strategize for now (which I think is part of the reason they are so adamant about calling Trump a racist now, of all times, despite how often they’ve used that card in the past anyway).
 
But regardless of what they might throw at Trump and us in the future, I’m confident it will not work.
 
Isaiah 54:17
“No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. ‘This is the heritage of the Lord’s servants, and their vindication is from Me,’ declares the Lord.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.