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

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

It is rare for a sitting president to not be popular with their own party. One would have to be doing an embarrassingly poor job of leading the country for a president’s party to not like him or her. So it comes as no surprise at all that President Donald Trump is polling so well with Republicans.
 
In a recent Morning Consult poll that surveyed an impressive 53,408 registered voters who said they may vote in Republican primaries or caucuses in their state, 85% of them approved of the job Trump is doing as President, with that number having ticked up two percentage points in the last month.
 
According to the Washington Times: “Another 76 percent of the voters support Mr. Trump’s nomination, and that too has risen two percentage points in the past month.”
 
However, I would not be talking about this unless there was a good reason. It’s painfully obvious that a president’s party will almost certainly approve of the job he or she is doing. Even if their overall approval numbers aren’t great (which is not the case for Trump anyway), the president’s party will always likely support them.
 
This much is obvious, so just why am I talking about this? Because of something specific that the poll found.
 
According to the Washington Times: “The painstaking poll also gauges support for Mr. Trump rather than another GOP candidate – this among 27 different demographics. That support ranges from a low of 62 percent among moderate Republicans to a high of 91 percent among those who are ‘very conservative.’”
 
And THAT is what I want to focus on. Yes, it’s not something that should be unexpected, but it does tell us something very, VERY important about Trump and the way his base sees him: he’s pretty conservative.
 
Again, that’s not exactly breaking news, but it should be a sign for anyone who is still a NeverTrumper and considers themselves to be a conservative that the vast majority of those who consider themselves “very conservative” support Trump almost unanimously.
 
And this makes a whole lot of sense. For the most part, the only things NeverTrump Republicans can attack him for are personality traits and similar things. They will attack him as being a racist, as being a brute, as being an idiot, as being unsophisticated and unqualified for the job, as spending too much time on Twitter trolling or attacking people, etc.
 
In the meantime, they ignore the record-low unemployment rates, the great job creation numbers, the booming economy, the lower taxes, people’s bigger paychecks (unless they live in leftist states, for the most part), the deregulation that’s been in place since day one, the generational conservative judges at different levels of the courts, the pro-life policies, the near total destruction of ISIS, the progress made with North Korea towards denuclearization (which he’s taking the Reagan approach of not taking bad deals just to make a deal), and the progress being made towards building a wall and securing our border (which they continue to try and fight against).
 
Trump has been doing a tremendous job as President of the United States. And we easily could add far more to the list of his accomplishments (even still, all of that was off the top of my head) if the Republican Party elites weren’t trying to sabotage him. Had Paul Ryan not been House Speaker or if he had not been a RINO, Obamacare would be a thing of the past, we’d be way farther in the efforts to build the wall, and the House would likely not be Democrat right now.
 
Trump’s been vastly successful as President despite the 92% negative media coverage, despite the Democrat Party constantly making up bullcrap about him, namely the Russian collusion witch hunt, and despite the Republican establishment being so adamantly against Trump they are basically showing themselves to really be Democrats.
 
If the Republican establishment weren’t such scum, there’s no doubt Trump’s approval rating would be considerably higher still.
 
And yet, despite everything going against him, Trump is still massively popular with the Republican base, particularly with conservatives.
 
85% of those who are “extremely interested in politics” also support Trump, while 81% of those over 65 and 81% of rural Republicans also support him. Unfortunately, there is less support from him coming from Millennials, though it’s still not bad at 62%, while those not really interested in politics support him 64%.
 
78% of Republican men and 75% of Republican women also support the President and want him re-elected. Trump is also most popular in Alabama, Wyoming and West Virginia, while least popular in Vermont, California and Massachusetts.
 
In a different poll, a Des Moines Register poll of 400 Iowa Republican voters, we also see that 82% view Trump favorably.
 
Overall, Trump is, unsurprisingly, polling really well with Republicans, particularly with what constitutes the vast majority of the Republican base: conservatives.
 
And this sort of thing really should also be a warning sign for Republican Congressmen and women to not vote against the MAGA agenda.
 
Of the 12 Republican Senators that voted against Trump’s National Emergency declaration, I really don’t like 11 of them. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is not a bad guy at all in my eyes, but I do think he made a pretty bad mistake here.
 
Supposedly, the reasoning behind voting against Trump’s national emergency is due to some precedent it could set for future Democrat Presidents. That’s entirely bogus, considering Obama was running the country like a freaking king while the Republican Party largely sat around picking their noses. They sure as heck didn’t care about what precedent Obama and the Democrats were setting, ruling the country like a kingdom, but now, when the national emergency declaration is used for a GOOD THING, it’s bad precedent?
 
What a load of crap. And I imagine many fellow conservatives feel the same way. The executive power of the national emergency is there and has been there since 1976. But NOW, when it’s being used in its arguably best and purest form for the best reason imaginable, that of deterring an INVASION, all of a sudden it’s bad precedent.
 
I agree that the National Emergencies Act of 1976 might grant too much power to the executive. The Founding Fathers did not want laws to be passed every single day; they wanted it to be very difficult to pass laws and I agree. But THIS is not the hill to die on to make that argument. THIS is the best possible reason for having this power.
 
Protecting the country is a President’s VERY JOB. And that is exactly what this national emergency declaration seeks to do.
 
While I did not intend to go on so much of a tangent regarding the national emergency declaration, it does still fit into my overall argument: those who call themselves “very conservative” aka the vast majority of the Republican base tremendously supports the President. It makes no sense for any Republican to be against THIS particular national emergency declaration as this is not abuse of power, but optimal and proper use of it.
 
If Republicans were so concerned about precedent, they should’ve voted to build a wall when THEY HAD THE CHANCE! Of course, they didn’t want a wall, which is why we’re here today, but still. Rand Paul wants a wall and wants to secure the border, just not this way. Well, unfortunately, there are no other options left.
 
We conservatives support Trump. Those who do not will find themselves on the wrong side of political history here.
 
Exodus 18:21
“Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.”
 
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.

It is not often that I write articles that respond to something someone on the Daily Wire or other conservative websites write, but I felt it appropriate here. The reason being is that Joseph Curl (whom I should mention is a Never Trumper) says that Biden will run in 2020 and will become the 46th President of the United States.
 
Curl notes that the entire Democrat field currently running is essentially shooting themselves on both feet repeatedly and Biden will likely jump in a little later on when sufficient damage has been made to all of them.
 
He notes that Biden will find himself in an easy race against Trump, being from Pennsylvania himself, so that will likely flip in his favor (Pennsylvania is a state that Trump won in 2016) and will likely win other states that carried Trump in 2016.
 
Curl also notes that Biden is not going to run as part of the far-Left movement, but more as a center-field candidate imploring people to not get too crazy with things. But most importantly to him, he believes Biden will win because “he’s a relatively normal person. He’s calm, thoughtful, even tempered, reasonable – heck, he’s downright folksy.”
 
Essentially, Biden is meant to be the one voice of reason in a sea of craziness from the far-Left and from Trump (again, Curl is a Never Trumper).
 
And Curl also makes the case that Trump, while he’s holding steady in the 50% approval rating in many states, he’s under 40% in states that carry big electoral votes. Quoting Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel: “Not only is [Trump] now underwater in the three states that pushed him to victory in 2016 – he’s now unexpectedly vulnerable in places such as Texas, Florida, and Ohio as well. His popularity rises to 50 percent or higher in states that total a mere 102 electoral votes. Probably of more concern to his campaign: He’s fallen below 40 percent approval in states encompassing a 201-electoral-vote bloc.”
 
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that no poll is actually mentioned here. And polls vary wildly. Rasmussen tends to hold Trump around 50% at least recently, while MSNBC and other polls have him in the low 40’s. FiveThirtyEight has Trump’s approval rating at just 41.8%, RealClearPolitics has him around 43% (worth noting they also take the averages from other polls and take the average of all of them to make into their own polling, so the information can certainly be a little dodgy), Gallup’s most recent poll has him at 43% (mid-February, at least), etc.
 
So many polls, particularly if run by MSM, will hold him lower than I truly think it is or what other, typically-reliable sources will hold him at.
 
But getting back to Curl’s article, and the biggest point I want to make in my own, is the simple fact that there’s no way the Democrat Party is going to let Biden be their nominee, particularly for the very reasons Curl claims he will win in 2020.
 
There’s good reason around 20 Democrats have jumped at the chance to run for President (aside from the fact they’ve convinced themselves Trump is an easy win just like last time). They see socialism as their future. The former DNC Chair, Keith Ellison, named AOC “the future of the party”. They are convinced that they have a prime opportunity to run on socialism and are convinced they will win this way.
 
Joe Biden, as Curl notes, will likely try to run as a moderate candidate. A Democrat, no doubt, but nowhere near as insane as everyone else. And that’s exactly the reason he won’t be the nominee.
 
Taking aside the fact that many on the Democrat base don’t want Joe Biden because he’s “too old” or “too white” or “too male”, he’s nowhere near Leftist enough in their eyes. He’s too moderate. But beyond everything else, he represents a sort of regression in the Democrat Party. They don’t want to go back to pretending to be moderates or reasonable. They’ve fully embraced their masks coming loose and are fully embracing socialism. Some of their biggest stars are socialists. They’re not going to turn their backs on such a future for a candidate who is no longer the future of the party.
 
And it’s not like they feel Biden is owed anything. He was already Vice President and while he’s run in the past, he’s not considered Democrat Party royalty like Hillary was. The Democrat Party turned their backs on her in 2007 by going for Obama. In 2015, they sought to crown her as their nominee, feeling she was owed something (and Hillary herself felt owed). But the Party does not feel like they owe Biden anything. They like him, no doubt, but they are not going to crown him.
 
Far from it, they will likely try to sink him. Again, he is not a socialist in their minds. He’s not a radical. They don’t want a “voice of reason” (and I find it hard to believe Biden would provide that anyway). Again, they feel the opportunity is primed for running with a hardcore Leftist socialist in 2020. It’s for that reason that I think they will lose, but it’s for that reason that they think they will win.
 
Now, let’s look again at what Curl said of Biden. He’s “a relatively normal person… calm, thoughtful, even tempered, reasonable… downright folksy.”
 
Well, let’s look over this with some things even Curl notes about Biden. Biden is notorious for saying some downright stupid and frankly racist things.
 
Let’s not forget he tried to scare black people by saying Republicans were going to put “y’all back in chains”, saying that in a rather “ghetto” or stereotypical “black” accent. Let’s not forget he said of Obama that he’s “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.”
 
Let’s not forget he said: “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent… I’m not joking.”
 
Let’s not forget the MULTIPLE instances of him getting a little too cozy with women and even young girls, earning him the nickname of “Creepy Joe”.
 
And beyond all of that, he is easy to manipulate. Remember when he dared say that Mike Pence was a decent guy and Cynthia Nixon and others basically shamed him into saying that he is a deplorable human being? Remember how easily he succumbed to the backlash, taking away the very mild compliment of saying Pence is a decent guy?
 
Look, in all honesty, I do think Biden is a far better option from every other Democrat. But when you consider the fact that he’ll likely take a socialist as his running mate (Curl certainly thinks he’ll take Beto or Julian Castro), and would most likely be a puppet for the Obamas, there’s no way in Hell I’d consider voting for him.
 
Not that this matters anyway for a number of reasons.
 
First, like I said, he’s not going to be the Democrat Party nominee. Precisely because he’s going to run as the center option, the Democrat Party won’t allow him to become their nominee. They want full-on socialism as fast as possible and will see Biden as a step backwards, not forwards. And if Biden does bite the bullet and start spewing socialist nonsense, the only appeal he had even in Curl’s eyes will be gone. If Trump makes this campaign about defining the Left as socialists like the Nazis and the Soviets, he will steamroll them.
 
Second, we are still a little less than two years away from the election. Nothing Trump says or does now will likely cost him or win him 2020. What will matter the most to people is the wall getting built, which will likely make tremendous progress by the time the general election starts, and how well the economy is doing.
 
He may have lost people like Ann Coulter, whom I’ll give credit as having been one of the first pro-Trump people out there, but she’s no big loss, particularly when you consider the fact she attacked Trump after he held a meeting with Pelosi and Schumer and she tweeted: “Put a fork in Trump, he’s dead” and “At this point, who DOESN’T want Trump impeached.”
 
She tweeted that after Trump softened his position on DACA (not that he has much of a choice with the 9th Circuit basically forcing him to keep the unconstitutional act alive). And like I said in the article where I first mentioned those tweets, she’s not really a supporter of Trump, but someone who’s just trying to get attention and clicks, particularly if she herself was ready to try and impeach Trump over this (and even if it was a joke, it was hardly a good one with little sense attached to it).
 
So losing someone who’s legitimately an air-head is not exactly a big loss for Trump.
 
Look, I’m not saying it’s a guarantee that Trump will win. He himself has to not make mistakes. But considering that the Democrat Party foolishly believes they can take down Trump with a socialist candidate, they will do a lot of work in his favor.
 
I can’t outright guarantee that Biden will 100% not be the nominee, but there is no reason the Democrat Party, with their current beliefs and where they think they should be going, will allow Joe to be their nominee.
 
Who knows, maybe I’ll be wrong, but all reason points to the Democrats not recognizing that Biden really is their best chance at beating Trump. Not that I think he would even if he was the nominee, but it certainly would be more of a battle for Trump than it would be were he to face any other Democrat.
 
John 16:33
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
 
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.

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump visited Alabama to pay his respects and give support for the families and communities devastated by massive tornadoes that killed 23 people. During his visit, some young kids asked the President if he would sign their Bibles.
 
And because he did, the Left is freaking out about it (which can really be a slogan for Trump in 2020: “Because Trump did it, the Left is freaking out”. It could cover literally anything he ever does).
 
Joe Biden’s former chief of staff, Ron Klain, tweeted: “He signed bibles with the same hand he used – as President – to sign hush money checks to an adult film star.”
 
Peter Daou, former adviser to Hillary Clinton wrote: “Donald J. Trump is signing Bibles. The man whose vicious and inhumane border policy violates the fundamental teachings of Jesus is signing Bibles.”
 
Reverend Al Sharpton (and I honestly forgot he was a reverend before this, considering his outright constant anti-Christian behavior) tweeted: “Donald Trump traveled to AL this past Friday to comfort those who had been devastated by a recent tornado that killed 23 people. During the trip, Trump was asked to sign some Bibles… I suggest that he takes some time to READ the Bible…”
 
And others on Twitter shared the same sentiment: “Imagine being a Christian and having Trump of all people sign your bible. NOBODY should be signing the word of God… Is this the end times? Lol,” wrote one Twitter user.
 
“Why did Trump sign Bibles for Christians?! He is not the author of the Bible. Matter of fact, he is what the Bible tells you not to be. Notice how he signed them on the cover. Trump still has never opened one. Trump autographing bibles is like Hannibal Lecter signing cookbooks,” wrote another user who also shared a picture of the Bibles he signed with the caption: “When the man who embodies all 7 deadly sins – lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride – is signing bibles it means that it is time to reevaluate your religion.”
 
I will get to absolutely obliterating all of these people’s arguments in a moment, but first, let me share with you some other tweets from actually sane and not hypocritical people:
 
“Note to all the people ridiculing evangelicals for asking Trump to sign their bibles: Martin Luther King’s family asked President Obama to sign MLK’s bible. And Obama did,” wrote one Matthew Schmitz.
 
A group called Students for Trump tweeted: “Truman signs a Bible: *crickets*. Carter signs a Bible: *crickets*. Clinton signs a Bible: *crickets*. Gore signs a Bible: *crickets*. Trump signs a Bible: *HYSTERIA*.”
 
It’s also worth mentioning that Bush, Reagan and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts have all also signed Bibles.
 
So to the person saying that Trump shouldn’t sign a bible because he’s not the author, what would he say to anyone else who signs Bibles? Or what would he say if someone famous signed something they really had nothing to do with, because that sort of thing happens pretty often?
 
Someone signing something does not symbolize that person therefore having been responsible for that something. If you had given Stan Lee a comic book about Superman and he signed it, that does not mean he is responsible for the creation of Superman.
 
Now, let’s address some of the tweets from the Left regarding this. Ron Klain is trying to point out the supposed hypocrisy of Trump signing a bible with the same hand he used to supposedly sign hush money payments for Stormy Daniels. Yeah, because we all know that once someone commits a sin, they are irredeemable.
 
We all know the story of Moses, who killed an Egyptian guard, was on the lam for 40 years, God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush, told him that he messed up and left him to cry over it.
 
We all know the story of Abraham, who was so impatient for God’s promise to come to pass that he slept with his wife’s servant, bearing a child with her and God decided he messed up and didn’t give him another child, leaving Abraham and his tribe to suffer in their sin.
 
We all know the story of David, who used his kingly power to sleep with one of his most loyal soldiers’ wife, got her pregnant, sent said soldier off to die in battle, was removed from power and made to suffer forevermore in his sin because God would not forgive him even after he acknowledged his sins and repented of them.
 
We all know the story of Saul of Tarsus, who so hated Christians that he would use the power of the Roman Empire to hunt down and kill said Christians until Jesus Himself appeared to him, asking him why he was persecuting Him, made him blind and left him to rot forever as a sinner.
 
Time and time again, story after story, we see a recurring theme: man is sinful. But that’s not the end of the story. God did not abandon Abraham even after he sinned. He did not abandon Moses after he sinned. He did not abandon David after he sinned. He did not abandon Saul after he repeatedly sinned. Their faith in the Lord is what ultimately saved them.
 
The point of the Bible is that, while we are yet sinners and by our own abilities can never hope to be anything other than sinners, we are saved by the Grace of the Lord through our faith in Him. That’s as true in the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament. Saving Grace is what saved those living under the Old Testament and it’s what saves those who live under the New Testament.
 
Regardless of what Trump has done (and the only reports seem to be from Leftist sources, so you know how reliable those are), there’s no doubt that he is, indeed, a sinner. At heart, he’s a sinner because he is as human as you and I. But if he has repented, bowed his head down in reverence of Christ and asked for forgiveness of his sins, he has been forgiven.
 
Now, let’s go over those tweets once more. I already covered Ron Klain and the Twitter user who said he shouldn’t sign bibles because he is not the author, etc.
 
Let’s cover Peter Daou’s tweet about Trump signing bibles in spite of his “vicious and inhumane border policies”. Well, there are a number of things I can say about this.
 
First, what vicious and inhumane border policies? You mean the ones that Obama enacted and the media conveniently ignored until Trump took power and those policies remained? You mean the ones where we separate children from traffickers who seek to use those children to enter the country? You mean the ones where we separate those children from drug mules? From sex traffickers? How exactly is it humane to leave them with those people? If that is your definition of humane, you need some serious help.
 
Second, Obama and Clinton have both signed bibles. Despite the fact that they are both pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro- just about everything the Bible warns against, they both have signed bibles. Why is it not a problem when they do it? They both come far closer to being the anti-Christ than Trump does. And I would be very shocked if either of them, let alone both of them, have repented of their sins.
 
Now, let’s look at what Sharpton said. He suggested that Trump read the Bible. Does Sharpton read the Bible himself? What does Romans 16:17-18 say?
 
“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
 
Read that, then read what Sharpton has said in the past and tell me he’s not an egregious hypocrite.
 
Lastly, we return to the guy who said Trump’s not the author of the Bible, so he shouldn’t be signing it. Remember that he also shared a picture that showed two Bibles Trump signed with the caption: “When the man who embodies all 7 deadly sins… is signing bibles it means that it is time to reevaluate your religion.”
 
For which I would refer you back to what I said earlier about man being sinful by nature and being redeemed by Christ.
 
No, we will not reevaluate our religion because our religion teaches us the Saving Grace of Christ at the cross. Who among us hasn’t occasionally been tempted or even committed one of these deadly sins? I know what I’ve struggled with regarding these sins and I have begged for forgiveness from the only source that can give me that: Jesus.
 
And as far as the 7 deadly sins go, I can realistically count only one or two of those sins that I could think Trump would really do: lust and pride. When it comes to lust, this is assuming that he did actually sleep with Stormy Daniels, which may or may not have actually happened. When it comes to pride, I’d say it’s mostly his boasting about his business ventures, etc. on the campaign trail and elsewhere.
 
But here’s the thing about the 7 deadly sins: they are deadly when they get to the point where they violate the first commandment: thou shall have no other God before me.
 
When your lust is so massive that you prefer to sleep around than worship God, you are effectively worshipping the flesh. When your gluttony is so great that you prefer to eat as much as possible instead of worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping what is supposed to be beneath man in the Creation. When your greed is so great that you seek to make as much money as possible instead of praising God for allowing you to do this and instead of worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping money. When your laziness is so grand that it keeps you from worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping laziness. When your wrath is so overwhelming that it keeps you from worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping violence. When your envy is keeping you from worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping that which you wish to have. When your pride is so massive that it keeps you from worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping yourself.
 
Only worshipping God, and His Son Jesus Christ, is what saves us. Only having God, and His Son Jesus Christ, in our hearts is what saves us. Putting in place things which are not God is what dooms us. It’s precisely for that reason that that was God’s FIRST commandment.
 
If Trump has God, has Christ, in his heart, he has been forgiven of all of his sins. Even if that post was right – that he indeed was the embodiment of all 7 deadly sins (he’s not) – as long as he has repented of his sins and Christ is in his heart, he has been forgiven.
 
But I can tell you many of these people have not been forgiven. Christ does not reside in them.
 
This especially goes for Al Sharpton, who though he says is a Reverend and may actually be a Reverend, is far from a Christian, particularly when taking into consideration what Matthew 15:8 says: “These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.”
 
Sharpton says he’s a Christian but I have not seen anything close to Christian behavior on his part.
 
Overall, I am not at all upset over Trump signing bibles. Particularly considering that he was asked by people, starting with some young kids, to do so. It’s not like he actively sought to put his name on them. What was he supposed to do? Decline a young kid who likes the President and loves Jesus?
 
Personally, I would not have asked him to sign my Bible because I’d rather keep my thoughts on the Lord whenever I see or read my Bible, but that’s just me. I don’t think it’s anywhere near this big of a deal for a CHRISTIAN President to be signing Bibles when he’s asked to. It certainly wasn’t to these people when atheist Presidents or supposedly Christian presidents signed them.
 
Proverbs 6:16-19
“There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In what may be some pretty poor news for Bernie Sanders, a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that only 25% of Americans would approve of a socialist candidate running for President and only 37% would approve of a candidate over the age of 75 (survey size of 900 adults).
 
So given that Bernie is both the first openly socialist Democrat I have seen and he’s 77 right now (will be 79 by the 2020 election), this is not really a good thing for him.
 
Not that I really expect him to be the Democrat nominee, although it’s far too early to tell who it could be.
 
The poll asked respondents 11 characteristics they would find in their ideal presidential candidate.
 
Only 18% of respondents approved of socialism in general (and only 25% would want their candidate to be socialist, which seems pretty odd to me, so we might want to take some things with a grain of salt).
 
50% of respondents also soundly disapproved of socialism altogether. Now, I would personally hope that number would be far higher than that. Ideally, 100% would disapprove of socialism, but that’s not all that realistic (kind of like socialism), but in a sample size so small, I would hope considerably more than 50% would disapprove of socialism.
 
In any case, 50% of respondents also approved of capitalism with only 19% disapproving, sort of mirroring the numbers for socialism.
 
Now, even though I would hope far more people would disapprove of socialism and far more people would approve of capitalism, these are still pretty fantastic numbers, in my opinion. The gap between how many approve of capitalism versus socialism is massive, as it should be, and nowhere near what Democrats would want.
 
Considering that most Democrats are embracing socialism, even if they don’t necessarily call themselves that, these numbers are not a good thing for the Left.
 
Now, again, the sample size is small, but if socialism were as popular as the Left and the news media want to pretend it is, you’d think the gap between those who approve of capitalism versus socialism would be considerably smaller at the very least.
 
Moving on, some of the most popular characteristics of a candidate are being African-American, with 87% saying they would be either “enthusiastic” or “comfortable”. I think this makes a lot of sense, particularly if the option of “comfortable” is available. Most people, as it turns out, aren’t racist. So the color of someone’s skin is not really a factor that is all that important to them when it comes to a favored candidate.
 
At least to me, the biggest and most important qualification for a candidate is their conservatism. If a candidate is truly conservative, that candidate will get my vote. Whether they are an African-American like Ben Carson or a Hispanic like Ted Cruz or a woman like Sarah Palin, I would be elated to vote for them.
 
What’s also interesting is that 86% said they would be happy with a white candidate (as it turns out, most people aren’t so racist that they would write off a person simply for being white). Being female was also up there at 84%.
 
Now, the poll also said that 41% would vote for Trump versus 48% that would vote for the Democratic challenger, whomever it may be. However, that’s actually pretty good news for Trump because pretty much all incumbent presidents face a similar challenge. At this time in his presidency, 38% said they would vote to reelect Bill Clinton. 45% said they would vote to reelect Obama, and 46% said they’d reelect Bush.
 
So Trump is within the numbers necessary to be reelected, given that even Bill Clinton managed it somehow.
 
Of course, I’d wager to say that this goes in large part to the fact that most polls have him sitting at around a 45% approval rating and higher, and the fact that 93% of Republicans approve of Trump also helps him out.
 
Now, despite what the poll had to say about socialist candidates and socialism in general, interestingly enough, 55% of Democratic primary voters say they would prefer a non-moderate candidate.
 
To the Democrat Party, there hardly are any moderates, but those who are non-moderates tend to be of the socialist type, even if they don’t call themselves that.
 
Now, I don’t know how many Democrats there were in the poll, but if the majority of them want a non-moderate candidate, despite how astonishingly few people approve of socialism and would want their candidate to be a socialist, that tells me that there a lot of people who either don’t know what socialism is or simply cannot discern it from other ideologies.
 
Which, again, seems weird to me considering how few people actually approve of socialism. You’d think with how much the Democrat Party and the MSM are promoting it, people would be more receptive to it and would not know what socialism is (and one would have to be ignorant of what socialism is and how it works to advocate for it if they themselves aren’t seeking office).
 
I get that we are a society that carelessly throws words around. For some people, those who would disagree with them cannot be anything other than racists, sexist, homophobe bigots or outright Nazis. For some people, the definition and meaning of life is alien. For some people, the definition of truth has been twisted so much that it can now be considered relative rather than absolute. The same could be said of morality.
 
So I can’t say I am surprised to know that many people simply don’t know what socialism is or would not be able to discern it from other ideologies or policies. The Green New Deal to some people is not a socialist ploy to restructure the entire country in the most extreme way the Left has come up as of yet, but a supposed “plan” for “saving” the planet.
 
It’s this deception that has been present in the Democrat Party for ages now. The growing of the government, at any capacity, is the moving of the pendulum towards the left and towards socialism. It is not necessarily always a bad thing, but too much of it definitely is a terrible thing, particularly if the trend doesn’t seem to slow things down.
 
So this deception ultimately breeds ignorance, to the point where people can hardly recognize socialism and contrast it with other things. As a result, people don’t think socialism is all that bad and it’s simply a new way to try things that they believe are an improvement over the status quo (they are not. Good Lord, they most certainly are not).
 
Now, I definitely understand that the poll only talked about “non-moderate” candidates, and that sort of word use can definitely change some things.
 
It’s one thing to ask Democrats if they want a socialist candidate and another thing entirely if they want a “non-moderate” candidate. A non-moderate, in their minds, does not necessarily have to be a socialist, and certainly not someone who would be happy to call themselves one, but in reality, that’s the only actual option (as well as communist, but the two are basically interchangeable given they both stem from Marxism).
 
If I asked you if you wanted some sodium chloride on your food, what would be your answer if you don’t know what that is? If I then were to ask you if you wanted some salt on your food, would that answer have changed?
 
At the end of the day, they are both the same thing, but put into different words. The same can be applied to this poll. A “non-moderate” Democrat candidate is essentially a socialist candidate, whether or not they call themselves one. This is my reasoning behind that whole “people might not know what socialism is” tangent. And it’s not like it’s inconceivable that people didn’t know what it was.
 
Ironically, I saw a tweet from noted Trump-hater and former sports commentator Jemele Hill that read: “My guess is 100 percent of the people who don’t want a socialist have zero idea what socialism actually means.”
 
She’s got that 180° backwards. Those who want socialism (at least those who want it and aren’t planning to run for office like Jemele here) don’t know what it is. Those who want socialism often ignore or reject the FACT that hundreds of millions of people have died THUS FAR because of it, those who experience it live in abject poverty and have next to no freedoms or even human rights, and often flee those countries given the chance.
 
No one flees a capitalist country to move to a socialist one because 1) no capitalist country keeps their people in by force and 2) no one in a capitalist country WANTS to move to a socialist one.
 
Socialist celebrities have all the opportunity in the world to move to a socialist country. Jim Carrey has the money to move to Venezuela should he wish to do so. Bernie Sanders has the money to move to Venezuela and pal around with his good friend Maduro (for however long he’ll be there). These people have all the opportunity and money in the world to make the move, to a place that is supposed to be far better than America in every way possible because socialism is so great, so why don’t they actually do it?
 
Why don’t they put their money where their mouth is?
 
I remember Conan O’Brien going to Haiti around the time the story about Trump’s supposed “s**thole” debacle. He did that to prove to Trump that Haiti isn’t what Trump was supposedly claiming it was. The only thing is that he was there only one week and was staying in a four star hotel.
 
I can go to California, stay in a nice building for a week and say it’s a great State. I could go to North Korea, stay in Kim Jong-un’s palace and say that everything’s great there (I wouldn’t for even a second dare to go to that hell hole, of course, just stating my point). I can go to Hell itself and as long as there’s a nice place with WiFi in it, I would think it’s not such a bad place after all.
 
My point is that such experiences aren’t equivalent to what the people have to go through on a daily basis. O’Brien stayed there A WEEK in a NICE hotel. I’d like to see him live there for an entire year with the same exact living conditions as the vast majority of the population.
 
I’d like to see Jim Carrey go to Venezuela, live there for a year and live how everyone else in Venezuela lives and ask him if socialism is so great, that is, if he has a stomach full enough to give him the energy to reply.
 
No one goes to a socialist country and thinks it’s the greatest place on earth. There are countless stories of people FLEEING socialism to come to America including Donald Trump’s FIRST WIFE.
 
If people really know what socialism is, they know how truly horrible and inhuman it is. Venezuela went from being the wealthiest nation in Latin America to one of the poorest, with some of the worst living conditions imaginable.
 
As far as the poll goes, I am ecstatic to see so many people rejecting socialism in favor of capitalism. If you were to only watch the fake news media, you’d think socialism was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Good to know so many people are actually not that dumb.
 
Proverbs 18:15
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

Earlier this week, Univision’s anchor Jorge Ramos, who is famous for repeatedly calling Trump a racist (though that’s the rest of the Left as well, but he particularly tries to call him a racist as often as he can), held an interview with Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.
 
However, Jorge Ramos made the mistake of pointing out the horrors of Maduro’s regime, specifically a video of a group of children looking for food inside trash trucks.
 
Due to this, Maduro ended the interview, and had Ramos and his crew detained in the presidential palace for two hours. All of their equipment, including their own cell phones, were confiscated and never returned.
 
And recently, Jorge Ramos recalled in detail what it was like to experience that.
 
“So it is Monday night,” Ramos began explaining in a Facebook video. “We are already in the hotel in Caracas, Venezuela. And what happened is that I conducted an interview with Nicolas Maduro. I asked him if I can call him either a ‘president’ or a ‘dictator’ because, you know, millions of Venezuelans don’t consider him a president.”
 
“Then we discussed the fraud [election] that happened here in May 2018, also the reports of torture and human rights abuses and political prisoners. And at the end, I showed him a video that I personally took last Sunday of three kids behind a trash truck – looking for food. And he just couldn’t stand it. He didn’t want to continue the interview, he wanted to close my iPad – where I showed him the video – and then he said the interview was over.”
 
“It was about 17 minutes of interview. After that, their minister of communications, Jorge Rodriguez, told us that they didn’t authorize the interview. And they confiscated all of our cameras, all our video, all of our cell phones, and we were thrown out of the presidential palace.”
 
“But before I left the palace, they took me into a security room with producer Maria Guzman, and they asked for our cell phones. I didn’t want to give them my cell phone, so they turned off the lights in the room, and a group of agents came in. They took, forcefully, my backpack, my cell phone. They did the same thing with Maria’s. And they forced us to give them our pass codes for the cell phones.”
 
“We didn’t know what was going to happen to us back then, nor what was happening to the rest of the group, who were about seven journalists. And after about two hours of being detained – because we couldn’t leave the palace – two hours of being detained, they allowed us to leave the presidential palace.”
 
“They didn’t give us our equipment, nor our material, and still at this point we do not have a cell phone or the interview. I think we will never have that interview – they don’t want the world to see what we did [see].”
 
Ramos also noted that the incident was “a violation of freedom of expression and a violation of human rights, a violation of all the principles of journalism.”
 
He’s right, but here’s the thing: there’s no such thing as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, or even human rights in a socialist country.
 
The only things you are allowed to express are what the government approves of. If the government doesn’t like what you are saying, and considers you a threat as a result (and can make up any excuse to consider you a threat, as they made up that the interview was not authorized, giving themselves permission to steal Univision’s equipment and their cell phones), they will shut you down in any way they feel is necessary.
 
Truth be told, Ramos is lucky to be from America. I doubt a Venezuelan journalist would’ve gotten off that easy.
 
But in any case, the point I’m trying to convey here is that these people, particularly Ramos, could not hope to even try and call Trump a dictator now (though they most likely still will). For as much as Trump may dislike the fake news media (for good reason), he won’t do anything to restrict their freedoms. He won’t shut them down, won’t violate their constitutional or human rights. Why? BECAUSE HE’S NOT A DICTATOR!
 
But you can plainly see how a dictator truly acts. If he feels the least bit offended, insulted, or simply doesn’t like the direction a conversation is going, every right the person supposedly offending the dictator has goes out the window. They are no longer “authorized” to interview the dictator; they are no longer allowed to record anything; they are not even considered a fellow human being.
 
Again, Ramos got off easy. A Venezuelan journalist would’ve been subjected to whatever punishment Maduro wanted, whether that’s imprisonment or execution. Because that’s just how dictators operate. The only reason Ramos is in America now is because this is his home (much as he might dislike that). Had Maduro punished Ramos with prison or worse, that would’ve created an international incident. And despite what Trump may think of Ramos, as the President of the United States and a decent human being, he wouldn’t have accepted such treatment of an American citizen at the hands of a foreign dictator.
 
Now, I don’t think anyone on the Left will look at this situation and reconsider calling Trump a dictator. They know very well that it’s not true, but the narrative that he’s a dictator has to remain, facts be damned. But at the very least I hope that Ramos and whoever else was involved in this nightmarish situation where they were at the mercy of a socialist dictatorship come to reconsider the definition of a dictator in their own minds.
 
They just experienced what it was like to be subjected to a dictator. They were detained for just two hours and could see the sort of evil Maduro is. He doesn’t care about the starving children, doesn’t acknowledge political prisoners, doesn’t care about human rights abuses and violations. He’s burning humanitarian aid trucks trying to enter his country for crying out loud!
 
The entire world can clearly see what a dictator looks like. And this is what socialism brings about.
 
Do you think Kim Jong Un is any better? Or Raul Castro? Or that Stalin was any better? Or Mao Zedong? Or Adolf Hitler? Or Benito Mussolini? Or Raul’s brother Fidel? What all of these people have in common, apart from the fact that they all are or were dictators, is that they are/were dictators of socialist/communist nations.
 
Matter of fact, they were dictators precisely BECAUSE they led socialist/communist nations. That’s just what those systems of government bring about: centralized government with one person at the helm ruling however they want (and because man is naturally evil, they tend to rule with an iron fist).
 
Not that I think Ramos will make the connection between Maduro being a dictator and socialism being the cause of it, but it’s plain and clear to see for anyone who has eyes.
 
Maduro is a dictator because that’s what socialism brings. There has never been a country in the history of the world that has succeeded because of socialism/communism. But there are plenty of examples of socialism destroying countries.
 
And in the process of that destruction, there is one individual who lives like a king, like the 1%. The one responsible for the death and despair of an entire country lives in riches and fancies himself a great and wise leader.
 
This is what happens every single time socialism is tried anywhere in the world. Trump literally advocates AGAINST socialism as often as he can now, and like I said, he won’t deny the media their 1st Amendment rights, much less their human rights.
 
It’s an insult to call Trump a dictator, while seeing the horrors of socialism in Venezuela and wanting to bring that here. That’s not just stupid, not just tone-deaf, but outright detestable and evil.
 
Mark 7:21-23
“For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
 
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.

​Last week, President Trump signed an omnibus spending bill that will include $1.375 billion for the border wall, and he also declared a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act of 1976 in order to get $8 billion (so far) for border wall funding.
 
And this has caused many people to have some negative reactions. Of course, while the omnibus bill signing might make some Democrats happy (and I will momentarily explain why this was actually bad for them), they see the national emergency declaration as a bad thing and will try to challenge it in the courts (until it reaches the Supreme Court where it will be seen as perfectly constitutional and legal because of the aforementioned Act).
 
On the Right, many see the signing of the omnibus bill as Trump “caving” in some manner and see Trump giving far more to the Democrats than he got. Once again, I will explain in a brief moment why it’s nowhere near as bad as they might think.
 
So let’s get down to it and see just why it is that I am defending this move by Trump, even if it’s not even close to perfect.
 
First things first, I perfectly understand that this bill is pretty bad. Putting aside border wall funding (and it’s not even all that much, but I will explain why it’s better than you might think), the bill includes a lot of things Democrats want, such as weakening ICE and border patrol, making it harder to deport some illegals, and a bevy of other things they really want.
 
By no means is this a fantastic deal – not even close. However, there are a number of points I would like to make. First, this deal makes it so that the Democrats, who previously condescendingly would say that maybe they’d give $1 for the wall, actually give Trump well over a billion dollars more for it.
 
Of course, they will try and say that it’s not border wall funding, just fencing, etc. but I think people, even in the Democrat party, can see that this is the Democrats compromising to Trump more than Trump compromising to the Democrats. The Democrats promised, time and time again, that not one cent would go towards funding Trump’s wall. Even the condescending joke from Pelosi about maybe giving him a dollar was just that: a joke. That is, until recently.
 
Now, the Democrats are giving Trump at least some money for something he wants. How is that going to make the Democrats look in the eyes of their own constituents? They can throw out whatever excuse or misleading explanation they want, but let’s be honest here: they promised no money for a wall. And Trump’s getting a wall.
 
Second, had this deal not come about, many of the things the Democrats wanted in it that they got they would’ve gotten eventually. Trump won’t be in office forever. And there’s no guarantee that the next Republican president will be as conservative as him or as willing to fight the Left as him. The things the Democrats got here they were slowly but surely going to get eventually. The difference between this deal and no deal is that we actually get a little bit of funding for the wall, courtesy of the Democrat Party, and the national emergency declaration.
 
Third, I’ve seen comparisons of this omnibus bill to last year’s atrocious omnibus bill. And truly there is no comparison. Yeah, the Dems get a lot of things they wanted, but so do we this time around. There was nowhere near this kind of money for a wall in the previous omnibus bill, which was subsequently promised by the snake that is Paul Ryan. The only reason Trump signed the previous omnibus bill is because RINOs promised him he’d get his wall. He didn’t. But he does with this one.

Finally, and perhaps the most important point of all: this deal is a budget deal. Meaning that this deal is only good until the end of September. What the Democrats get out of it is temporary. What we get out of it is considerably more permanent.
 
So while the deal is far from perfect, it’s nowhere near as bad as some people might think. We get some money for a wall, ammo against the Left in terms of rhetoric, and something more permanent than what the Left gets.
 
Now, had the deal been signed without a national emergency declaration, I would’ve been considerably less happy about this. The national emergency declaration gives Trump around $8 billion (again, so far) to build more walls. This is considerable progress from where we were last year (even though Republicans owned Congress last year, many NeverTrump rats made sure to betray the country).
 
Switching gears, many on the Right will say that using this power sets a bad precedent for future presidencies, particularly for Democrats.
 
One particularly juicy suggestion of this came from Pelosi of all people (yes, I know I was talking about people on the Right, but you’ll want to hear this one). She said that Trump’s emergency declaration for this opens the door for Democrats to use that power once they have the White House again to declare a national emergency on gun violence.
 
Yeah, no. It would be unconstitutional to do that for that sort of “emergency” because of the 2nd Amendment. However, the constitution makes it so that the President’s very DUTY is protecting the nation, and that’s what this declaration is aimed to do.
 
And as far as people on the Right claiming this sets a bad precedent for Democrats to use this power, let me just say I’d rather a Democrat use this power, a constitutional power, to declare a national emergency on something that may not even really be an emergency than have something like what Obama did with DACA, an act that was enforced unconstitutionally.
 
And that’s far from the only unconstitutional act Obama did. But no one talked about Obama setting a bad precedent for Republican presidents (not that they’d willingly do anything unconstitutional but still).
 
Obama tried his best at ruling the country like a king. No one dared try and stop him. So how is exercising constitutional powers setting a bad precedent for future presidents? If anything, it sets a good precedent, particularly in the way Trump did this. A national emergency wasn’t the first thing he tried. Otherwise, we probably would have more walls at the border. In any case, the national emergency declaration is a sort of last-ditch effort to do this. It’s perfectly constitutional and legal. It’s a power that’s there for this precise reason.
 
And no, it’s not going to get struck down in the courts. Yes, the Democrats will challenge it as best they can, considering it presents a very serious threat to their present and future voting base. But like I said, it’s legal. The matter will be taken up to the Supreme Court, where it will almost certainly be upheld (unless they decide to be stupid traitors).
 
Why would it be upheld? Because the point of this declaration isn’t to fulfill some nonexistent racist dogma that supposedly runs through Trump’s mind. It’s to mitigate ILLEGAL border crossing, gun, drug, human and sex smuggling and trafficking, prevent future American deaths at the hands of people who HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE HERE as best as it can and overall truly make the country safer from what can only be considered a subtle invasion of our homeland.
 
For as much as the Democrats want to close their eyes, cover their ears and shout that there’s no emergency at the border, nothing could be further from the truth. That is what we are faced with and it’s the reason we elected Trump.
 
This declaration is 100% legitimate. And this declaration, as well as the money given to us by a reluctant Democrat Party, will make it so that we can finally make progress in our efforts to secure the border.
 
Regardless of what people will say about this whole ordeal: that the deal was terrible and Trump shouldn’t have signed it because it gives so much more to the Democrats, that the declaration of a national emergency sets a bad precedent (somehow) or that it will be struck down by the courts (challenged? Yes. Struck down? Highly unlikely), this deal (at least the part about border wall funding) and declaration will be a good thing for the country and for Trump in the long term.
 
If people are worried that Trump’s base is going to abandon him, let me remind you of some things. Despite everything that happened, even all the times when some people thought Trump caved in any manner, despite him signing that horrible omnibus deal last year, despite him reopening the government and seemingly getting nothing out of shutting it down in the first place, despite every negative attack against Trump from both sides for the past 2 years, his latest approval rating from Rasmussen is 52%. In many polls, his approval ratings either did not move or went up since the shutdown.
 
And his approval ratings were, on average, improving even after all the attacks and conspiracies waged against him. So even if his approval does take a hit with this, it’s not like he just lost 2020. We are still a little less than two years away from that election. An awful lot of things can happen from here to then.
 
And even if people think he messed up on something, his base is not going to abandon him, at least the ones that know what’s at stake.
 
Just look at the people the Democrats have to offer. Each one of them, likely without reading it, signed on to the laughable Green New Deal. Each one of them is in a battle to show who is the most devout socialist. Who is going to grow the government faster and bigger. Who is going to fundamentally alter America to be something it was never meant to be.
 
Those who truly love this country as it was founded (no, that doesn’t include slavery. We Republicans ended it, remember?) know perfectly well the gift from God that Trump is. I’ve already written an article about how big of a bullet we dodged in 2016 thanks to the Grace and goodness of God. Every day that passes, I become more and more convinced that things would’ve gone horrible awry, to the point of no return, under a President Hillary Clinton.
 
How much worse would things be with a President Kamala Harris or a President Bernie Sanders or a President Joe Biden or a President Cory Booker?
 
We know perfectly well what’s at stake. Those who love this country aren’t about to abandon Trump just because he gave a little too much away for this deal. Because, as I said before, they were going to get that with a future Democrat President anyway. We at least got money for a border wall and a subsequent national emergency declaration to help out in that manner.
 
We knew perfectly well Trump’s presidency wouldn’t be easy and that he’d likely have to make some compromises. But let me tell you, this is considerably more than a President Jeb Bush or President John Kasich would’ve gotten, if they even would’ve been able to beat Hillary in the first place.
 
They would’ve bowed down to the Deep State as if it was their god, and in many ways, it is.
 
It cannot and should not be understated how significant and good it would be to get a wall built along the southern border. That, in itself, does a whole lot for our country.
 
Thank you Lord that you are with us always and gave us a President like Trump.
 
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.”
 
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 CBS’s “60 Minutes”, while trying to promote his new book regarding Trump and the FBI (which is 100% likely to have b.s. all over it), former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by President Trump on the eve of his retirement, claimed that “he and other Justice Department officials discussed recruiting Cabinet members to oust President Donald Trump using the 25th Amendment after Trump fired then-FBI director James Comey,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
The New York Times also reports that McCabe makes the claim that “top Justice Department officials were so alarmed by President Trump’s decision in May 2017 to fire James B. Comey, the bureau’s director,” that they contacted various Cabinet members to see how they would respond to the desire to apply the 25th Amendment, an amendment in the U.S. Constitution that allows for the Cabinet to “vote out” the president if he or she is incapacitated or otherwise is incapable of fulfilling his or her duties.
 
In other words, the FBI, at least McCabe, and the DOJ looked to test the water in Trump’s own Cabinet to see if they would be willing to remove the president using the 25th Amendment. Given that this attempt at a very obvious silent coup resulted in nothing the Deep State wanted, it is safe to assume the Cabinet did not wish to remove Trump from office.
 
Of course, that didn’t stop the Deep State from continuing trying to remove the duly-elected President from office just because they don’t like him one bit.
 
McCabe also made the claim that Comey’s firing “prompted Mr. McCabe to order the bureau’s team investigating Russia’s election interference to expand their scope to also investigate whether Mr. Trump had obstructed justice.”
 
Again, it’s clear this amounted to nothing because Trump fired Comey in May of 2017. It’s been nearly two years and there has only been suggestions that it was obstruction of justice from the media, but no concrete case could be made against Trump because the FBI operates under the Executive branch, which Trump is the boss of, so he can fire whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants.
 
This includes terrible FBI directors who are incompetent at best and outright treasonous at worst (and sometimes both, considering they failed to complete their objective of destroying Trump).
 
Now, the man who interviewed McCabe is CBS’s Scott Pelley. Pelley discussed his interview with McCabe on “CBS This Morning” on Thursday.
 
Pelley said: “The most illuminating and surprising thing in the interview to me were these eight days in May when all of these things were happening behind the scenes that the American people really didn’t know about.”
 
To me, it’s very illuminating of the kind of corruption there is in the Deep State, but it comes as no surprise to me. We’ve known that there has been a silent coup against Trump for about two years now. It’s just very illuminating seeing the details of something we knew very well about already.
 
In any case, Pelley continued: “There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment. These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.”
 
Again, none of this comes as any surprise to me. Still, it is always good and fascinating to learn of the procedures that were undertaken to try and remove Trump from office that very clearly failed.
 
And the funny thing is that McCabe also confirmed that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein discussed having agents wearing a wire when speaking with Trump was discussed seriously, not as a joke, which Rosenstein tried to affirm.
 
Now, let me tell you a little something about what it takes to become an American citizen. Trust me, what I will tell you has more to do with this than you might think.
 
While seeking to become a citizen of the United States, people need to take certain oaths as part of becoming a citizen. Apart from taking tests and being able to speak basic English (although that might’ve been removed from the requirements for seriously dumb reasons), you have to swear allegiance to the United States of America.
 
And as part of this oath-swearing, you are required to swear and affirm that you will never attempt to overthrow the American government.
 
Obviously, everyone says that they won’t do that as part of trying to become a citizen, but people that try to overthrow the government very clearly receive some sort of punishment if they do try it. Now there exists in the penal code title 18 of the U.S. penal code § (Section) 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government.
 
There is also title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason. However, I do not really think there is a case against McCabe (or anyone else involved in this silent coup) using these two code sections.
 
The Advocating overthrow of Government section talks about people who violently or forcefully seek to overthrow the government. Talking with Cabinet members to use the 25th Amendment does not even get close to that requirement. As far as Treason goes, that largely talks about levying war against the U.S. or adhering to our enemies, “giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere”.
 
So I do not think there is a case against McCabe using either of these two clauses.
 
However, that does not mean that McCabe and others involved with this silent coup, such as Rod Rosenstein, Comey, etc., should simply get away with it. Of course, I’m not saying we ought to break the law to punish them. That would make us no better than these scums of the earth.
 
However, what I am saying is that it’s become crystal clear just what we are dealing with. The Deep State is a den of snakes. Corrupt people at various levels and areas of the government that routinely poison the well.
 
It is not enough to simply defeat Democrats in elections, we have to completely defeat the Left socially and spiritually. You’ve seen, for the past two years (and just about any time there is a Republican in office) the sort of visceral and vile reactions the Left shows.
 
When Trump beat Hillary, everyone on the Left was crying foul while they themselves were guilty of foul play, being covered up by the Mueller investigation into Trump. Every day, the media suggested Russia either hacked the election, and when that was shown to be an asinine argument, began to insist Trump and Russia colluded to steal the election.
 
When Bush beat Gore, the Left went haywire on the Supreme Court and on Florida, crying foul play. Now, I don’t know if they were themselves guilty of similar foul play back then, but I wouldn’t put it past them to have at least tried something. I’m too young to remember the Bush presidency (I’m also not from here, as I moved to the U.S. when Obama was in office), much less remember the 2000 election, apart from the cries from the Left against Florida and the Supreme Court (and I only learned about all this long after Bush left office), so maybe those who were here for it can remember some shady things, but since I do not have anything even close to evidence, I won’t allude to much. All I’ll say is I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to destroy Bush in a similar manner to Trump.
 
When Lincoln beat Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge and Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in the 1860 presidential election, seven states in the Democrat South decided to secede before Lincoln was even inaugurated.
 
The Left has historically HATED it when a Republican would beat a Democrat in a presidential election, going all the way back to the very first Republican president.
 
Instead of accepting the results of the elections like civilized and rational people, they often throw hissy-fits that last throughout that president’s entire tenure, be it one or two terms.
 
If it’s not outright secession from the Union, it’s attacking the Supreme Court and the State of Florida. If it’s not attacking the highest court in the land or the Sunshine State (Florida’s nickname), it’s insisting that the Republican victor of the election was in cahoots with foreign agents (a crime which the Clinton campaign and the DNC are very obviously guilty of themselves).
 
And now, we see some more details regarding the silent coup the Deep State has been attempting for the past two years. Again, it’s not surprising at all, but very illuminating.
 
And it’s fitting, to be quite honest. The Bible tells us an awful lot about works being made in the darkness coming to light.
 
Verses such as Luke 8:17: “For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light,” and Luke 12:3: “Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops,” are only some verses that come to mind (and a quick Google search).
 
Whatever the enemy, be it Satan or the Deep State, is plotting in the dark will eventually come out into the light. Be it soon after it is plotted or years and years later. Be it immediately or takes a lifetime, these things are made known to us eventually. Not to compare this silent coup to the Holocaust because any comparisons to it tend to cheapen the horrors of it, but the Holocaust was something that was discovered to have happened only after WWII had already ended. All-the-while people were looking at Hitler as this bad guy looking to rule the world, many were made unaware of the true horrors that evil socialist was carrying out in the dark.
 
Again, not to compare what Hitler did to what the Deep State is trying here because there really is no comparison in terms of their horrifying natures, but they both do share in common that they are works by evil people, people completely devoid of Christ in their hearts, working in the darkness against people they hate/hated.
 
And both have come out into the light for the whole world to see. Of course, the extent of the silent coup is not quite yet known so far, but it will be made known eventually, whether it be in a few months, years, decades, or in the afterlife, it will be shown.
 
Certainly no part of it is any secret to God. The Deep State can hide whatever they want from the public for however long they feel is necessary, but nothing they do is a surprise to God. He knows precisely what they are doing and what the intentions of their hearts are.
 
We will see what kind of excuses these people come up with to justify their entrance into the Kingdom of God. I bet none of them have the correct answer.
 
1 Corinthians 4:5
“Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.