If you asked me yesterday what the likelihood was that there was an illegal immigrant out there who supports Trump and believes illegal immigration to be a bad thing, I would’ve said that there was next to no chance at all that there would be any such person out there today. However, on Breitbart News Daily, a SiriusXM radio show, Sergio Eduardo Velasquez appeared telling his story about being a DACA recipient and supporting President Trump.
 
Sergio is a Turning Point USA activist, a student at Cal State Los Angeles, and a former Leftist who supported Bernie Sanders.
 
He said on the radio show: “In 2016, I supported Bernie Sanders. I fell into your typical leftist stereotype. I was self-entitled. I believed that more government was the answer to everything. I chanted racism. I failed to look at myself in the mirror and failed to consider that if there was an issue it might be not that society was the problem, but that I myself was the problem.”
 
He continued: “I think part of being a conservative, part of realizing that essentially conservatism is the way to go, a lot of it was growing up.”
 
The host of Breitbart News Daily, Alex Marlow, proceeded to ask Sergio about his own life, particularly since he is an illegal immigrant: “So let’s talk about you not just becoming right of center but ultimately becoming an activist particularly with your history because you would be someone who’s part of the group who is the dreamers, the DACA recipients. I assume you don’t know another home. But at least one of your parents was not here legally – so this is your home as far as you know, though your status as an immigrant is not a legal status aside from this DACA protection, but still Trump resonates with you, why?”
 
Sergio replied by saying: “Well first of all, I think that part of it is, it goes back to realizing that it’s one of those things where you have to realize you’re the problem. I have no problem with saying I’m an illegal immigrant, the term doesn’t offend me. And the thing is, I can recognize that illegal immigration is not a good thing. I can recognize that legal immigrants have to come first. America is a sovereign country. You don’t barge into someone’s home and tell them, ‘Okay, I’m here to stay, give me free stuff.’ Immigrants in general, we’re guests, I like to tell people that illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, no one’s entitled to everything. Immigrants owe absolutely everything they have to this country, and we need to stop this nonsense of entitlement.”
 
So what we have here is a young man who used to support Bernie Sanders and was by all intents and purposes a full-on socialist, with the idea that more government was the solution to every single problem there exists in this world, but then went on to recognize the fallacy of those ideals and came to recognize that conservatism, capitalism, is the way to go when it comes to solving problems and came to support Donald Trump, and even recognize that illegal immigration is not a good thing. There are plenty of other people who took at least a fairly similar path in life, going from liberal or Leftist to full-blown conservative. However, I would not really expect an illegal immigrant, even a DACA recipient, to undertake such a path.
 
The argument conservatives (especially myself) often make is that the only reason Democrats support open borders is to have a permanent underclass that would vote for them and help them take and keep power permanently. If they believed for one second that open borders policies had the potential to help their political opposition, they would pass legislation to fund and build Trump’s Wall in a heartbeat. And ironically, it looks like at least one illegal immigrant is willing to support the Democrats’ opposition.
 
Now, you might be asking what my own views are about this entire situation, particularly pertaining to the young man’s illegal status in this country. While I certainly agree with what he said (not everything, as I believe Americans ought to come first, not even legal immigrants), there is the awkward reality that he is in this country illegally due to the unconstitutional DACA executive action signed by Obama that protects people like him.
 
Marlow, the host of the radio show, mentioned that at least one of his parents was not here legally, suggesting that he may have been an anchor baby (I tried looking him up on TPUSA and outside of it, but could not find anything about his background, so that is all I have to go on) so one cannot really blame him for his illegal alien status anymore than one can be blamed for the family they are born into, the financial situation they are born into, or the country they are born into (assuming that he is, indeed, an anchor baby).
 
And while I am not about to backtrack on my belief regarding anchor babies and illegal immigration in general just because I found an illegal immigrant I actually like and agree with, I do empathize with the guy. He did not ask to be born into an illegal immigrant status, but the actions and decisions of one (or both) of his parents led him down that path.
 
But regardless of his unfortunate circumstances, I still stand behind the belief that any illegal immigrant is a criminal by definition. That’s not to compare this guy, or even other illegal immigrants, to murderers and rapists (except the illegals who do murder and rape), but that is to say that those who are here who are not legally allowed to be here are, by definition, law-breakers and as such, must face the appropriate punishment. For illegals, regardless of how they got here, that means deportation to their home countries (or the home countries of the parents for those who were born in the U.S.).
 
Because the main thing about this entire debate, this entire issue is, as I’ve said time and time again: the rule of law. We cannot simply twist and bend the rule of law to suit our own wishes and desires. Do I like this guy because he’s a conservative, a Trump supporter and (might be) a Christian? Yes, no doubt. I think he stands up for the right things. But softening my views on the issue of illegal immigration and DACA would only make me look like a hypocrite and make me no different from the Left.
 
I like the guy, but I still stand by the belief that all illegal immigrants should be deported to their home countries. Now, if they then go through the immigration process legally, pay their dues, wait their time, go where they are supposed to go and do what they are supposed to do, then this country welcomes them with open arms. What is expected of them is to obey our laws; if they don’t obey our laws in how they enter the country, why would we expect them to obey any other laws from that point on? What is expected of them is to obey our laws, respect them, and come to assimilate into the American lifestyle, because as Sergio says, immigrants (legal or illegal) owe an awful lot to this country. The least they could do is learn the language and adopt our culture as their own, without even necessarily abandoning their previous one.
 
That’s the way it should be, that’s the just way to do things, the right way to do things. I feel for the guy, and if he were to get deported to whatever country his parent(s) is/are from, I would hope he and his family would go through the right process to return to this country. Matter of fact, I would hope that for any illegal immigrant that is currently here. I don’t dislike them for being immigrants (I’m an immigrant myself, after all), I dislike them for being here illegally. If they go through the process the right way, they would be fine in my book (except the murderers and rapists, of course, but that generally goes for any murderer or rapist).
 
And while I don’t know for certain what the guy thinks or feels about being here illegally, he at least recognizes why illegal immigration is a bad thing. He recognizes why the things Leftists want are all bad things.
 
He used to believe the government was the solution to life’s problems. But the reality is that the government is the CAUSE for many of life’s problems (for example: want to get rid of student loan debt? Get rid of student loans in the first place and watch the stock of college degrees go up and tuitions fall down). We wholeheartedly agree on many things politically, including on illegal immigration. I just hope he recognizes that what is right here (and I think he does recognize this, as he admits he is part of the problem) would be to be deported and go through the immigration process legally to return to the country he was (likely) born in.
 
That’s what I want for any illegal immigrant, to be honest. But I am glad (as well as delightfully surprised) that there is at least one illegal immigrant out there who is NOT part of the Left’s permanent slave underclass.
 
May God bless this young man and guide him.
 
Isaiah 1:17
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

As NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio joins the other 2000 candidates to run for President of the United States on the Democrat ticket, President Donald Trump is enjoying the best poll numbers he has had as POTUS.
 
According to a recent Zogby poll, President Trump is enjoying a job approval rating of 51%, the highest in his tenure as president in this poll. It is also higher than Barack Obama’s was at the same point in his own presidency, which was at 48%.
 
But that’s not the only thing that is great news for The Don. The poll also found, rather interestingly, that 51% of people in the age range of 18-29 approve of the job he is doing as president while 53% in the age range of 25-34 approve of him. In other words, a little over half of MILLENNIALS are approving of the job Trump is doing as President.
 
Zogby largely attributes his rise in numbers to the strong economic news we’ve had as of late with record-breaking stock market numbers, consistently low unemployment where there are virtually more jobs available than there are people to fill them, as well as consistently strong GDP growth.
 
Zogby writes: “President Trump’s job approval rating has seen a post Mueller report boost! We called it a few weeks ago. But that’s not the complete story as to why the president has reached a peak in his job approval rating. Trump is also riding high on positive economic news – a record high stock market, low unemployment, and solid GDP growth at home.”
 
Yes, they also attribute the Mueller report finding no collusion and no obstruction to Trump’s rise in his numbers, though they don’t quite count for everything. I hold the belief that those who completely bought into the idea that Trump colluded with Russia will never change their minds about the guy no matter what happens. Even when their supposed “savior” was supposed to deliver the goods, and failed to do so, they still hold firm to the belief that Trump colluded with Russia despite no evidence having popped up at any point in the two years of this “investigation” and despite Mueller’s findings that there was no collusion and flimsy, but ultimately not-good-enough, evidence that the POTUS obstructed justice (complaining about the unfairness of a so-called “investigation” is not obstruction, FYI).
 
The people who bought the collusion story hook, line and sinker were never going to be convinced that Trump was doing a good job as President. However, the vast majority of people, I believe, are completely exhausted of the entire narrative and are simply happy that there was no foul-play during the elections, at least not enough to actually alter the results (Russia did still meddle a bit, but even Rod Rosenstein said no votes were altered in the election, so the results of the election were not altered either).
 
But while the Mueller report finding no collusion or obstruction certainly helps Trump in the long-run, especially on the campaign trail when Democrats are entirely likely to still peddle the idea that he colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election (and will likely peddle the idea that he will try to do so again for 2020, especially if he wins), what really helps Trump’s approval numbers is the fact that “the new normal” of the Obama administration, 1% GDP growth, was absolute garbage and not a new standard which we would have to get used to.
 
Trump has shown that capitalist policies like low taxes, deregulation, etc. heavily boost the economy and provide millions of new jobs for people who were out of work, either seeking it or giving up on seeking it.
 
The boost in Millennial support is part of that, considering they actually have jobs now, at least many of them do. Rush Limbaugh theorized that the reason Bernie Sanders was so hot back in 2016 but not quite so much now is due to the fact that under Obama, these Millennials were out of work and Bernie was promising them a socialist paradise where they wouldn’t have to worry at all about that because the government would take care of every problem under the sun (seriously, I saw a Bernie Sanders poster on Facebook that said he would solve racism in America).
 
Millennials saw that they were in a poor financial situation, being the first generation likely ever to not be expected to do better than their parents’ generation. But instead of recognizing they were in such a poor state because of 8 years of Leftist, socialist policies from the Obama administration, they were led to believe that capitalism was the culprit, since there are those who are billionaires and were led to believe that under capitalism, there are winners and losers. They were led to believe the billionaires and rich people of America came to that sort of wealth by screwing the little guy and stealing from them. And who can blame them? Obama had been saying the same thing about America in general, about how America stole from other countries to build itself as a super power.
 
All a massive crock, but the Millennials believed it. But now, after only 2 years of a Trump economy that is so good Obama is envious about it and tries to claim it for himself, Millennials are noticing that they have jobs, their paychecks are increasing, they don’t have to pay as much in taxes (depending on where they live, at least) and are overall not quite in the same tight financial situation that they were in under Obama.
 
Now, despite all of that, many are still socialist and still support Bernie. He is, after all, in second place in a race that involves 20 other equally-as-Leftist candidates as him, with the only person ahead of him being the former Vice President to the former President many Millennials were indoctrinated to love (despite the fact he was the one who was constantly screwing them over financially). So while Bernie is not quite as hot as he was in 2016, he is not quite out of it yet either.
 
I don’t know who will be the Democrat nominee (despite what I have written previously, it looks like Joe Biden will be the nominee, but Hillary was in his place in 2007 before she was beaten by Obama, so you never know) but Bernie’s brand of socialism is still attractive enough to get him a decent place in the polls despite how many more Democrats are running.
 
But in any case, there is a majority of Millennials now who come to approve of the job Trump is doing as President, especially when it comes to the economy.
 
Zogby also reported that 58% of men approved of Trump while 48% of women approved of him. And while one will immediately notice the big difference in numbers between the two genders and claim that Trump is unpopular with women because “he’s a pig” or “he’s a misogynist” note that the number of women who approve of him is, while still a minority, pretty high, just not as high as the number of men who approve of him. Nearly half of women approve of Trump. Put that into a headline and watch as the fake news media goes haywire over the news.
 
When it comes to suburban voters, 48% approve of Trump while 60% of rural voters approve. That makes sense considering that rural voters tend to be more conservative and Trump’s economy really helps rural areas.
 
Zogby also added that, “One of the demographics to give Trump a very good job performance rating were self-identified social networkers (59% approve/40% disapprove – people who engage with social media)… The president also made strides with college educated voters (55% approve/45% disapprove), and saw support increase slightly with non-college educated voters (47% approve/50% disapprove).”
 
These numbers are fairly interesting to me. When it comes to the “self-identified social networkers” I don’t exactly know what to make of that. Who are “self-identified social networkers”? Does that mean people who use social media? Or people who have a heavy presence on social media like Ben Shapiro, Laura Ingraham, etc.? I imagine the former, which is still rather impressive, considering that the common belief is that the majority of social media users are at least Left-leaning and utterly Trump-hating (social media companies certainly want people to hate Trump and conservatives/conservatism).
 
And when it comes to the college educated voters vs. non-college educated voters, that one also surprises me. Considering college is the place where education goes to die and indoctrination is heavily engrained in young people’s minds, such strong approval of Trump is surprising.
 
But regardless, as Zogby says, the increase in approval rating is likely due to strong economic numbers. Numbers that you simply do not see under socialistic policies.
 
We must thank God for these great news and continually pray to Him that these numbers stay strong like this, improve, and that He would ordain for Trump to win re-election in 2020.
 
Philippians 4:13
“I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”
 
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.

Remember when Trump first won the election and everyone from the media to Obama to Hillary and everyone in between was crying out that Russia somehow hacked the election? And when that fell through, especially considering it was Obama himself who insisted months prior to the election that it was not possible for a foreign entity to mess with the voting ballots (something the Left likely regrets to this day), they turned towards Russian collusion, starting phony investigation after phony investigation, with liar Congressmen claiming to have evidence but refusing to turn such evidence over.
 
Well, now that the Russian collusion narrative is basically dead (though there are those who still refuse to accept the truth even found in Mueller’s report surrounding that subject), the Left is looking at alternatives to getting Trump out of office. That much is clear considering Rep. Al Green (D-Impeachmentland) said he’s “concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected” and considering Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Californistan) said “we cannot accept a 2nd term for Donald Trump”.
 
They are absolutely desperate to get rid of the guy and have no hope whatsoever of beating him in 2020 (and side note: Democrats didn’t accept his first term either, Nancy).
 
So they have two options: look into possible obstruction (not gonna work) or somehow force Trump to release his tax returns (not sure what that would accomplish. If there was some sort of “payment” from Russia to Trump at some point or another, people in the IRS would’ve flagged it down far sooner than Mueller would have and neither party has done anything of the sort).
 
I have a feeling they will want to explore the first one more intensely, but if they can hit Trump about his taxes, they will. And that’s precisely what the New York Times tried to do recently. Key word here is “try”.
 
The New York Times released a story talking about Trump’s tax returns from the late 80’s and early 90’s, where Donald Trump actually was not doing quite so well financially.
 
“Mr. Trump was propelled to the presidency, in part, by a self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome. He has attributed his first run of reversals and bankruptcies to the recession that took hold in 1990. But 10 years of tax information obtained by The New York Times paints a different, and far bleaker, picture of his deal-making abilities and financial condition,” read the Times.
 
Basically, their aim is to say “Trump is not as successful as he’d like you to believe! He actually lost money for a period of time!” However, there is one crucial point that they fail to make: EVERYONE IN NEW YORK CITY REAL ESTATE WAS LOSING MONEY AT THE TIME!
 
Overall apartment rental prices in the city fell by 15% beginning in 1988. Manhattan homes crashed by roughly 33% between ‘89 and ’96 and the area Trump invested heavily in, a railyard which he hoped to turn into a neighborhood, home prices crashed even worse at 40%. The real estate company Olympia & York, at one point the biggest landlord in the entire city, had to declare bankruptcy. Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan had to fire or stop doing business with real estate bankers in the early 90’s.
 
The New York real estate market was collapsing. Everyone involved in the craft was losing a lot of money. Naturally, so did Trump.
 
And that is something Trump himself admits. Here are a few paragraphs from Donald Trump’s 2007 book titled: “Think Big and Kick Ass”.
 
“My company owed billions and was much too heavily leveraged. I was in debt personally for $900 million. One day I was walking down the street and I said to my then wife Marla, ‘That beggar over there Is worth $900 million more than I am.’ She said, ‘What do you mean?’ I said, ‘Because I’m $900 million in debt, and at least he has money in his pocket.’”
 
“I used to say to myself, ‘Oh, my God, am I in trouble. I am going down.’ That was big league. I was not focused but I never blamed myself, because from the day I graduated from Wharton in 1968, I did well. For twenty-one years I was doing fantastic. I felt like I had the right to take it easy. I really felt that after twenty-one years I had the right not to focus.”
 
“Reality taught me an important lesson: I could not have it both ways. If I wanted to be the greatest, the amazing Donald Trump who makes everything he touches gold, then I needed to focus. I could not have one without the other. I decided that I still wanted to be the old Trump and started focusing like never before. In 1991, the world was collapsing. It was so bad in real estate that if a person walked into a building, just looking around, we considered it to be a sign that the market was changing.”
 
“I have been through a lot. I have had great success. I have also had some really tough times, like when the real estate market collapsed in the early 90s. I owed many billions of dollars, and the banks were after my ass. It was not exactly fun! I had every major bank after me. Everybody in my industry was in big trouble. I had some friends and some enemies in the business who I thought were really tough guys, but most of them could not handle the bad times like they handled the good times. Most of them went out of business. All my friends were going bankrupt. I was very close, but I never went bankrupt. Even though it was not much fun and I never want to go through it again, in some ways it wasn’t so bad. I slept very well, and I managed to keep my faculties. It is not that I trained for it; I didn’t train for it. But that awful experience taught me that I can handle pressure. Most people crawled into a corner, put their fingers in their mouths, and said, ‘Mommy, Mommy, take me home!’”
 
“I learned that I can handle pressure. I did not back down under pressure. I turned it back on the banks and let them accept some of the blame. I figured it was the bank’s problem, not mine. What the hell did I care?”
 
While that may be an awful lot to look into (and I certainly won’t be analyzing everything) the main point I wanted to make here is the fact that Donald Trump knows very well, more than anyone, especially some NYT reporter, how bad things were for him and his business.
 
Everyone around him was going bankrupt and/or losing tons of money. He himself was losing tons of money and ALMOST went bankrupt, as he himself admits. And yet, he did persist, unlike the Times wishes to insist.
 
Look at that quote from the Times once again: “Mr. Trump was propelled to the presidency, in part, by a self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome… But 10 years of tax information obtained by The New York Times paints a different, and far bleaker, picture of his deal-making abilities and financial condition.”
 
It’s not his tax returns that paint a different and bleaker picture than what Trump was boasting about himself, it’s THE TIMES THEMSELVES PAINTING A DIFFERENT PICTURE! Donald Trump, unlike many in his industry, actually did not go bankrupt. He was losing money, yes, as was everyone else. But he persevered, worked harder than everyone else, and he became the city’s prime real estate figure.
 
It’s not a “self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome”, it’s a retelling of actual events and life experiences that he underwent. He had major business success, otherwise HE WOULDN’T BE A BILLIONAIRE! He had setbacks that he triumphantly overcame because HE DIDN’T GO BELLY UP WHEN EVERYONE AROUND HIM WAS!
 
Not that they bother to mention any of the other information in their article. Their sole focus is to attack Trump in any way they can. They willfully ignore that he came out of the 90s a real estate winner, particularly in comparison to many of his friends and competitors in the business.
 
The late 80s and early 90s were tough on Trump, and yet, he never declared bankruptcy himself. How then can one consider him a failure for NOT crumbling alongside the markets? How can he be considered a failure for having a few really bad years but eventually overcoming them?
 
The answer is that you can’t, but the Left will try their hand at anything that can possibly hurt Trump. Just conveniently forget that everyone was doing poorly (quite an understatement) in New York real estate around the same time as Trump was and all of a sudden, it looks like Trump was a really bad business man. Although you also have to conveniently forget that he did become a billionaire again as time went on and his businesses thrived.
 
You have to do an awful lot of misremembering and convenient forgetting of the facts in order to think and say that Donald Trump was not a good business man.
 
While everyone else was going bankrupt around him, God blessed Trump throughout. He did not go without some bad periods and without his struggles, but the Lord was guiding his footsteps the entire way. I hope Trump thanks God as often has he can for what He did for him.
 
Psalm 138:7
“Though I walk in the midst of trouble, you preserve my life; you stretch out your hand against the wrath of my enemies, and your right hand delivers me.”
 
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.

If you know me, you know I am a staunch conservative. Generally speaking, I would like to keep the government away from almost all matters of life. However, given the recent bans of “dangerous” people by social media giants Facebook and Instagram (which is owned by Facebook), I feel it is necessary to take action against tech giants that routinely violate people’s free speech rights.
 
In case you were not made aware, last week, Facebook and Instagram banned people like Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson (who works for Alex Jones’ InfoWars), Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopolous and Louis Farrakhan among others. The reason Facebook gives is the following: “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology.”
 
But there are a multitude of problems with this. First, ONLY ONE OF THESE PEOPLE ENGAGES IN AND PROMOTES HATE! Louis Farrakhan is a disgusting anti-Semite who absolutely deserves scorn. And if he promotes violence against the Jews (which he might, I don’t tend to pay much attention to a disgusting animal such as himself), then he does deserve a ban. However, hate itself is not even properly defined by Facebook. Anything THEY consider hate, they ban. If you post about the fact that transgender people are not actually the gender that they claim to be due to basic biology, you get banned. If you post about how Islam is a death cult, you get banned. If you take a picture with a gun, you could get banned. If you think differently from the Facebook overlords, you get banned.
 
I may think Alex Jones is a bit eccentric and peddles conspiracy theories, but he has every right to do so. Especially considering that Facebook would not dare ban Leftists who peddle conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia collusion. To this day, despite Mueller’s findings, Schiff claims to have evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. He continues to peddle such conspiracy theories, as do other prominent Democrats, but Facebook has absolutely no problem with that.
 
It’s utterly hypocritical that Facebook claims to have launched a campaign against fake news when their own feeds are filled with nothing but fake news. The “fake” news that they target are news and opinions delivered by “wrong-think” sources like InfoWars, Laura Loomer, etc.
 
The second problem I have here is the fact that you are not even allowed to share links from these sources. So it’s not just that the sources are silenced, YOU are silenced if you like them or agree with them. Which further leads more and more people to get sent to Facebook jail.
 
Now, let’s return to the overall point of this article and the crux of the title. I 100% believe Trump and his administration ought to do something about social media censorship and there are a number of reasons for this.
 
First, Trump largely won because of social media. One of the main points I would often make soon after Trump won to explain just how and why he won is the fact that he had social media on his side. Not Facebook and Twitter as companies, they were on Hillary’s side. But he had the advantage of being able to broadcast his own side of the story without relying on cable news networks to hopefully share his message and without relying on scheduled and timed rallies. If he was attacked by someone, he would immediately counter-attack. Trump benefited heavily by social media, so he should realize that censorship of conservatives is not simply a terrible thing on principle, but also a terrible thing for his own campaign and hopes for reelection.
 
Do I think he could get reelected without social media? Yes. But he’d only lose support without it, so he stands to gain far more by standing up and taking action against social media censorship of HIS OWN base and people. Because regardless of what I think of Alex Jones as a political commentator, he is a strong Trump supporter. It’s largely Trump supporters who are being silenced so Trump has no reason not to take a stand on this issue.
 
Second, and this is for those who are either on the fence or believe government should not get involved in this, there would be no civil rights without government interference at the right time and in the right area.
 
One argument that could and likely would often be made back before the civil rights era was that government ought not get involved in the way a business operates in as far as who they choose to serve. That a business has the right to choose whom they serve. Personally, I believe that to be the case most, but not all the time.
 
For example, take the Colorado cake shop case, where a cake shop was targeted relentlessly for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. In this instance, religious freedom was the reason given for refusing service to the gay customers at least for that particular request. It’s not like he refused to bake them a cake because they were gay – he refused to bake them a cake for a gay wedding, which he finds to be morally and religiously wrong.
 
But if he refused to give them any type of service because they were gay, I would have a problem with that, as that would be outright discrimination. Likewise, in the pre-civil rights era, businesses would often times refuse service to African Americans. That was discrimination and it was wrong.
 
So the argument that Facebook ought to be allowed to ban whomever they want from their platforms regardless of the reason falls more in line of businesses as a whole being able to refuse service to anyone for any given reason, even for racist ones.
 
Again, generally speaking, I do not want the government to get involved in things. However, I do not really see another option here.
 
Now, people could still say “just let the free market do its thing”. And generally, I would agree, but big tech is a monopoly: there is no free market here. Where there is no competition, there is no possibility for a free market. Facebook has a toll booth in their enterprise. And while there are other social media platforms like Twitter, Snapchat, etc., they all fall in line with the Left. The Left has a monopoly on social media. And while they do also have a monopoly on regular media like CNN and Fox News, people largely don’t interact with those things as often as they do with social media platforms. People don’t have presumed and advertised free speech rights on CNN and Fox News, but they do on social media. And it’s those rights that are being violated for people who disagree with the Left.
 
And as far as the argument of “setting a bad precedent” goes, I will simply say the same thing I said about Trump’s National Emergency declaration about the border: the Left will do whatever they want with what power they have.
 
If Trump did not declare a National Emergency, the Left would still have taken similar measures to get away with whatever they wanted. How do I know this? DACA WAS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND NO ONE BATTED AN EYE LID!
 
Meanwhile, if Trump wants to get rid of the unconstitutional DACA in the same manner, he is somehow blocked by Leftist activist judges. The Left plays by their own rules. If we don’t do the same, we will lose.
 
Just take a look at how they’ve treated the past two Republican presidents upon simply being elected: they claimed Trump colluded with Russia and claimed the Supreme Court unjustly declared Bush the winner of the 2000 election.
 
Or look at how they treated the first Republican President ever, Abraham Lincoln: they literally SECEDED FROM THE UNION UPON HIS ELECTION VICTORY!
 
The Left believes they can play by their own rules. Rush Limbaugh often points out how the word “hypocrite” does not stick to them. This is the reason why. They play by their own rules. If we don’t start playing by similar rules, if we don’t start fighting fire with fire, we will lose.


Now, that doesn't mean we turn into socialists ourselves. That doesn’t mean we use the government as a political weapon like the Left does for absolutely everything. On the contrary, we ought to do what the Founding Fathers intended for the government: to be a protector of rights and liberty. The Constitution is a set of rules for the government, yes, but it’s the government that usually follows it and protects it. It is the government’s duty to protect the people, not rule their lives, as Ronald Reagan once said. Part of that protection is the protection of our rights and liberty. The military, a government agent, already does that fantastically well against foreign enemies because we understand that that’s what the government ought to do.
 
We can’t go back to the old days when one can simply start a competing business, a better one, and strongly compete against the established giants. Multiple small business laws heavily restrict small businesses and they would likely eventually be bought out by the giants, thus eliminating all competition.
 
The free market option is simply not available when the government makes it so hard for small businesses to grow and thrive. And if no action is taken at all by the government against social media censorship, it will only get worse and worse.
 
Keep in mind that Trump won’t be in the White House forever. Even if he wins reelection, he will then have only 4 years left. After that, there is good chance a Democrat wins the White House, at which point things will be far worse.
 
Either social media censorship is taken care of now, or it never will be. At which point, one might as well kiss the rest of their freedoms goodbye, because if you think this ends with people like Alex Jones, you do not truly know the Left. They want ALL OF US silenced. Any opposing dissent is seen as hate in their eyes. If they can ban Alex Jones, PJW, Laura Loomer, etc., they will move on to others like Sean Hannity, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Rush and every other major conservative voice.

After that, comes complete and total Leftist victory in this world. I fully understand this is the devil's world, and I know full-well that God has the ultimate victory, but I cannot stand to see the Left get away with this sort of injustice. The Founding Fathers were Christians who believed God is the ultimate victor, but they still fought against the tyranny and injustice of King George III. Why would we not do the same?
 
1 John 5:19
“We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”
 
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.

The day before Attorney General William Barr was set to testify before Congress, the Washington Post received a leaked letter written by Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed to AG Barr shortly after Barr’s summary of the Counsel’s investigation was released.
 
Given the WaPo’s headline, “Mueller complained to Barr about memo on key findings,” we can see what the Left was hoping for: Mueller saying that Barr’s findings were inaccurate, wrong and there really was collusion and obstruction. But there are several problems with this.
 
Namely, THE MUELLER REPORT IS AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE! The Mueller report itself found no collusion and not enough to say that Trump definitely obstructed justice. In Mueller’s imagination, Trump did obstruct, but the reasons he gives in the report are all flimsy and nothing that would hold up in court, so he left it up to the AG to determine obstruction. And rightfully so, Barr determined no obstruction. If Mueller could not definitively state and charge Trump with obstruction, what reason would he have for Barr to say that Trump obstructed?
 
A rhetorical question, I believe, as the reason likely was that Mueller did not want the full ire of the Left on him and simply decided to have Barr be the scapegoat – the person whom the Left can attack for not finding obstruction. And it worked perfectly, given what we’ve seen.
 
The second problem with the WaPo’s headline is that the letter itself does not even support the headline. The headline makes it seem, like I said, like Mueller was accusing Barr of lying about something or at least not being entirely truthful about certain things.
 
What Mueller was whining about, actually, was that Barr didn’t capture the “context, nature, and substance of [Mueller’s] work and conclusions.” In other words, Mueller is complaining that Barr wasn’t using the same accusatory and vague tone in his summary letter as Mueller did in his report.
 
What Barr did is simply take note of the Counsel’s ultimate objective findings, which were no collusion and no obstruction. In a phone call Barr made to Mueller the day after he received the letter, Barr asked Mueller if there was something, anything, inaccurate about Barr’s letter, to which Mueller ultimately said that “nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading,” according to a Justice Department spokeswoman telling the Washington Post.
 
Rather, Mueller “expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis.”
 
In other words, Mueller doesn’t think the media was harsh enough on Trump about all of this and should’ve discerned that Trump did obstruct EVEN THOUGH HE HIMSELF DID NOT DARE CHARGE TRUMP OF OBSTRUCTION!
 
But that is how slimy and corrupt Mueller is: he did not dare say that Trump obstructed, even if he did want to assert that he did. Again, in his report, he mentions an awful lot of things that in his mind ought to constitute obstruction, but he knew better than to use them as actual reasons to charge him. Why? Because none of them were actual cases of obstruction.
 
As a reminder, what Mueller counts as obstruction is Trump constantly attacking the investigation as a “witch hunt”, which it was, seeing as he was being investigated despite evidence of a crime and for mere hearsay, as “witches” would often be accused in the old days. Despite the Trump administration fully cooperating with the investigation, turning over any document the Counsel asked for, Trump publicly complaining was obstruction in Mueller’s eyes. But in the eyes of the law, that is nonsense, so he knew better than to try and charge Trump with such flimsy “evidence”.
 
At the end of the day, Mueller is complaining that Barr isn’t doing what Mueller wanted him to do: charge Trump and be on Mueller’s side. Like a little kid complaining to his older brother that he’s not letting him win in a game, Mueller is complaining to Barr that he is not siding with him.
 
Now, personally, I don’t think Mueller ever expected Barr to side with him. Barr, even before becoming AG, had voiced his complaints about the Mueller investigation. I think Mueller’s letter and the leak to the media the day before his Senate hearing (which was an embarrassment to the Democrats, but they likely think it went superb) were simply meant to drive the narrative that Barr is corrupt somehow and lied about Mueller’s findings. It’s nothing more than a smear campaign against a man who is simply doing his job.
 
The fact that the hashtag “#ImpeachBarr” was trending on Twitter and that Schiff and other Democrats called for either his impeachment or resignation is a sign of that theory being true.
 
The Left is simply enamored with that word, aren’t they? They want to impeach Trump and then impeach Pence; they want to impeach Kavanaugh and now, they want to impeach Barr. None of them have done anything even remotely close to what would be grounds for impeachment, and support for impeachment of Trump is very low right now (around 37%, last time I checked).
 
But again, Barr did nothing wrong. To Mueller’s own account, Barr did not say anything in his letter that was inaccurate. Barr simply summarized the bottom-line findings of the Mueller report, which were no collusion and no obstruction. He’s just Mueller’s fall-guy for Mueller not having charged Trump with obstruction.
 
The Left desperately and sickeningly wanted Mueller to find something, anything, they could use to remove Trump from office. Mueller utterly failed at doing that, so he’s doing his best to save his own ass: redirect the Left’s ire towards Barr.
 
Again, Mueller is utterly corrupt. Now, I think I can understand his reasons for doing this. The Left are a bunch of crooks and killers. Mueller probably didn’t want to be Seth Rich’d. He received a little bit of scorn shortly after the release of his report, with celebrities and the media berating him a little bit, and even one reporter harassing him after a church service (here’s hoping Mueller repented of his sins, but that is as likely as the Left successfully impeaching Trump). He received a scintilla, a mere infinitesimally small fraction of the ire and hatred that the Left shows towards Trump and he didn’t like it; likely couldn’t stand it one bit.
 
For two years, he was the Left’s very savior. People were putting Mueller Christmas decorations on their trees and buying Mueller merchandise for crying out loud! He was basically Jesus to these idolaters and wicked people. He probably fully expected his investigation to go on through 2020 and onwards if Trump won reelection. But in came Barr, an actual Attorney General, and put a deadline on Bobby’s head. His time was coming to a close and he found absolutely nothing. He knew the Left was expecting something. They had so hyped his investigation as being the definite end of the Trump administration and he had nothing. He would be destroyed if he delivered such nothingness, so he used what he could to try and hurt Trump politically, seeing as it was impossible to do so legally.
 
He had no collusion, that much he knew. Matter of fact, as more time went on, we found more evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with Russians AND NO ONE WAS EVEN LOOKING FOR THAT! He had no collusion, but he could try and make somewhat of a dubious case for obstruction. He, again, did not have enough to bring up charges against the President, so he knew he was screwed. The Left would’ve seen his report, done a double-take and asked what the hell that was. He was supposed to destroy Trump but he brought them absolutely nothing. All Mueller could do at that point is have the AG be his patsy.
 
Mueller knows perfectly well that saying the investigation was a witch hunt (and everything else Mueller brought up as perhaps being obstruction but definitely cannot be) is not obstruction, but he himself could not say that. He didn’t have the full support of the intelligence community nor any support from the military to stage a coup. So, he decided to play a little bit of defense. He knew he couldn’t get Trump, but he could use the media’s stupidity and blind loyalty to him to his favor. As such, he decided to put Barr in his place as the Left’s target by leaving it up to the AG to decide on obstruction and then writing a letter to him that he knew would eventually and in a timely fashion be leaked to the media to further insinuate malfeasance on the part of Barr.
 
And again, that worked pretty well, as is to be expected of the media. He didn’t have to try too hard to get the media to be against Barr. But again, as much as Mueller and the Left want to smear Barr, the reality of the situation is that Mueller himself did not find collusion and obstruction and Barr was simply summarizing the key findings of the report. It was not Barr’s job to “capture the context” and tone of the report, but to summarize what the report found. Trump is not in the wrong here; Barr is not in the wrong here; the media, the Left, and Robert Mueller are in the wrong, as they always are.
 
What a pathetic bunch of snakes the Left is.
 
Isaiah 54:17
“No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from me, declares the Lord.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

That can perhaps be counted as yet another one of my “no, duh” titles, but it is important to note just why I am talking about this now. After all, Rush Limbaugh has had his show for 30 years and has been the “Big Voice on the Right” for pretty much all of these years, but I do not think I have ever specifically talked about him or things he said.
 
Obviously, there is not much point, as one can listen to his 3-hour-long radio show any day of the week and find what he said himself (unless you work for the MSM and can’t stand to listen to him and have to rely on what other people say he said). However, he sometimes appears on other shows, notably with Sean Hannity, Chris Wallace and other Fox News anchors. Earlier this week, El Rushbo appeared on Fox News’ “The Story with Martha MacCallum” to discuss a number of things ranging from the 2020 presidential election and Democrat candidates to the Mueller report and investigation.
 
Let’s begin with what he said about the Democrats’ chances at beating Trump in 2020: “Here’s the thing: Joe Biden is probably the best chance they’ve got, and he doesn’t have a chance. They’re probably… I mean, Joe Biden and Crazy Bernie and Mayor Pete? I mean, you’ve got three white guys, two of them are brontosauruses from Jurassic Park, and that isn’t gonna sit well with the rest of this party which has gone so far left. You know, Biden’s putting off this announcement. I don’t know how badly he really wants this, and you have to really want this if you’re gonna have any chance of winning it.”
 
I’ve already written an article about how I seriously doubt that the Democrats would nominate Joe Biden for those precise reasons. Of course, I could be wrong, but those reasons are still very important to the Leftist Democrat base. For the last few years, old, white people have been victimized, harassed and attacked simply for being old and white. Jussie Smollett blamed white people for his hoax of an attack, the Catholic Covington kids were attacked for being white and Trump supporters, there are hundreds of instances where a white person was attacked for being white (and/or supporting Trump). So for the Democrats to have a nominee that is old, white and male is not going to jive with many on their base. Whether or not that means they would skip voting on election day, I cannot say, but the fact Joe is an old, white male is going to be a problem for him because his party hates that sort of person now (and I believe secularists would call that “karma”).
 
Rush was then asked if Trump is “vulnerable” to Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, particularly when she promises “free” stuff like college debt forgiveness and other things.
 
Rush said: “’Fauxcahontas’ is not gonna be the nominee. But, you know, these Democrats are all in the process of trying to out-leftist or out-liberal each other, and they’re in a contest of who can give away the most. But with Elizabeth Warren, forgiving college loans – forgiving that debt – and then promising free college and Medicare for All and a Green New Deal? Why is anybody gonna need to go to college? Because nobody’s gonna need a job, because the Democrats are gonna be giving everybody a universal basic income. So why does any of this matter? None of this is real. None of this can happen. This is disinformation. I think it’s an indication of just how little they think of their own voters, that their own voters don’t even want to work. They don’t even want to achieve. They don’t want to pursue excellence. They just want to have their hands out and vote for whoever is gonna give them the most?... What a way to ruin a life. Nobody would raise kids this way.”
 
And he’s completely right (I know, what a shock). Back in the beginning of April, I wrote an article about how college students support socialism unless they are affected by it negatively, such as redistributing the good grades they were getting to give to someone else who was not doing as well. College kids strive (for the most part) to get good grades because they want the best scores and the best chance to earn a degree and hopefully get a good job (even if that’s not exactly the way things work now because just about everyone is getting a degree and the value of a degree is diminished due to its surplus. Supply and demand works in a lot of ways).
 
Most college kids try to work hard to earn good grades and don’t expect to simply be given good grades. In real life, most people work the same way. They work hard at their jobs to hopefully get a promotion or a raise. And what the Democrats think of their own base is that they are all lazy and need the government’s help to even stay alive. It’s disrespectful, even if some of them are this way.
 
There is value in hard work. And even if a lot of parents don’t teach that value to their kids, the kids will come to understand it eventually once they start working themselves. Again, with those college kids, they all understood the value of working hard for their grades: they worked and studied hard and receive good grades for it.
 
That’s the way things work, even in a society where the value of hard work is not necessarily taught anymore by parents. Those who are successful work hard, whether that success means millions and billions of dollars or getting an A on a term paper.
 
But anyway, let’s get back to the Dean of the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Rush was then asked about Hillary Clinton saying Trump should be “indicted” on obstruction of justice concerning the Mueller investigation, he said: “For Hillary – you talk about irony – for Hillary Clinton to be talking about impeaching Donald Trump… Hillary Clinton needs to be investigated, she needs to be indicted, and she needs to be in jail, and many of her co-conspirators in this whole sordid affair, which amounted to nothing more than a silent coup to overturn the election results of 2016.”
 
“Hillary Clinton demanding that Trump – you talk about sour grapes, this is a woman that’s been rejected by the American people twice, rejected by her party in 2008. She had to rig the primaries against Crazy Bernie in 2016 to get the nomination. [Hillary] is the last person who ought to be listened to about what ought to happen to Donald Trump. She hasn’t accomplished anything anywhere near what Donald Trump has accomplished. She is in no position to sit here and say what she saw in the Mueller – well, she can say it, she’s an American. But she doesn’t have any credibility on any of this as far as I am concerned. And I’m not alone here.”
 
And he’s right in many ways. Hillary is in no position to be saying anything here about obstruction, considering her own HUSBAND was impeached for obstruction of justice, which the media tried to bury and say it was about “sex” and Monica Lewinsky. And without even mentioning the fact that SHE IS THE ONE WHO COLLUDED WITH FOREIGN AGENTS TO RIG THE ELECTION IN HER FAVOR!
 
America’s Real Anchorman then continued, talking specifically about the Mueller probe: “there was never any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. The collusion, as I said, was Hillary, the DNC, and the Russians via Steele. But the Russians – when Mueller announced the indictments of the Russian troll farm – actually it was Rosenstein that went out and announced them. And nobody paid any attention to this, but he said at the end of the announcement, ‘Nothing in these indictments suggests a single vote was changed. Nothing suggests the outcome of any election was changed. No American is named in the indictment had anything to do with it.’”
 
“This was not even an investigation of Trump. What it was was an attempt to overthrow the 2016 elections… unelected people came close to actually pulling off what is a coup. And it should never, ever happen again.”
 
Once again, he is right in many things. The only thing I would add is that Mueller was not actually all that close to pulling off a coup. He was at the beginning, or at least was closer, but never actually all that close. What do I mean? Well, not to give anyone any ideas, but generally what is necessary for a coup is unity.
 
What do I mean by that? Well, there has to be unity from the people that want the coup and people outside of that group. Mueller and his special counsel and some people in the intelligence community wanted Trump gone. But not everyone in the intelligence community agreed.
 
Mueller was not above lying on his report. If he wanted to, he could’ve alleged things and charged Trump with b.s. He could’ve lied, but he didn’t. Why? Because he didn’t have the full support of the intelligence community. He wasn’t assured security for lying, which he would’ve needed, as he would’ve had to testify in front of Congress.
 
He was not sure he would be protected, so he did not lie, but still not telling the full truth either.
 
Beyond that, no coup can ever actually happen without the military. And that is where Mueller was doomed almost from the beginning.
 
I mentioned earlier that Mueller was at least closer to pulling off a coup earlier in the investigation than later on. What I meant by that is he could’ve gotten the military on his side (not all that likely, but certainly was possible). But when he destroyed General Flynn, he also destroyed his chances at getting the military on his side. And a coup has to have military force. Sure, the FBI and CIA have guns, but guns don’t beat tanks and planes and helicopters.
 
A silent coup was not going to succeed ever. Every coup that has ever happened in history has been a military one. Lenin had his Red Army to fight against the Czar’s White Army. Multiple Latin American countries have gone through coups where the military was used to usurp the sitting government. Argentina is particularly known for that sort of thing, having a history of successful and failed coups.
 
Rush is right in as far as this was definitely a silent coup, an attempt to overturn the 2016 elections, but that was not going to be successful without the support of the military. And that in itself was going to be insanely difficult even without destroying Flynn. The U.S. has never had an actual military coup. There is no precedent for it and it was unlikely the military would’ve just gotten on Mueller’s side even without destroying Flynn. But him destroying Flynn made it certain that Mueller was not going to be successful in destroying Trump.
 
Granted, can’t really blame the dirty cop here. He was not given a specific crime to investigate, but rather a person. I don’t doubt he fully expected to find SOMETHING that Trump did that can at least be somewhat considered to be illegal. And while he found things that people connected to him were illegal, Trump was pretty squeaky clean.
 
At best, Mueller got allegations of having an affair with a pornstar. Immoral, if true (which I doubt), but not exactly illegal.
 
This was indeed a silent coup against Trump, but one cannot overstate the magnificent failure that it was. At no point did Mueller actually get even close to beating Trump. Matter of fact, as time went on, his chances were diminishing. AG Barr telling him to wrap things up certainly did him no favors.
 
But anyway, it’s interviews like these that showcase how intelligent Rush Limbaugh is (apart from his show, of course). Kudos to Rush for speaking the truth and backing it up with facts.
 
And also thank the Lord that He protects Trump every single day. Let us continue praying to Him for his safety in every aspect conceivable.
 
Isaiah 54:17
“No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from Me, declares the Lord.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

After weeks of the Left crying up a storm about Barr being on Trump’s side and saying that Mueller did not find any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion and not enough evidence to definitively say that Trump obstructed justice (he didn’t), Attorney General William Barr has released the 448-page Special Counsel report on the investigation.
 
Now, I’m certain you can read the title and see my own opinion of the Mueller report. The reason I say it is sketchy is because it is largely written for the Left to try and continue to claim that there was collusion and that the President obstructed justice, even though it is explicitly stated that there was no conspiracy between Trump and Russia and even though it is explicitly stated that Mueller did not find enough that could constitute as criminal behavior regarding obstruction.
 
Let’s begin with what I consider the most important thing of Volume 1 (the report is separated into two volumes: one for Russian collusion and the other one for obstruction).
 
In page 2 of Volume 1, the Special Counsel ultimately determined that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
 
The Counsel did find that Russia did, in fact, try to interfere with the election, but the most significant and notorious effort of doing so came in the form of the hacking of the DNC servers, which the DNC refused to turn over to the FBI for investigation, instead opting to turn it over to a third-party organization.
 
The Counsel also had to clarify that the term “collusion” and even “coordination” do not have any actual definition in federal law. To collude with someone or coordinate with someone is far too broad of a term and can mean anything, not necessarily something criminal or nefarious. The term “conspire”, on the other hand, does have a definition and often carries with it the negative connotation that some nefarious scheme was concocted or executed. So the Counsel largely sought evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia, but ultimately did not find that such a thing occurred.
 
And while that easily can be summarized in less than a page, the Special Counsel still tried to at least make it look like there was some suspicious activity going on, especially when the report gets to the part about George Papadopalous, where it ignores the fact that Papadopalous had spoken with a member of the FBI whom suggested to Papadopalous that the Russians had Clinton’s e-mails, while Papadopalous then went on to try and boast about him having such exclusive information to other people.
 
The Counsel makes it look as though Papadopalous gained that information through means apart from the member of the FBI, suggesting that there was some form of collusion between at least a member of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
 
But despite how bad or negative Mueller may have wanted the report to look for Trump, with all the suggestions it brings up, and despite his efforts to try and keep the narrative alive for the Democrats and the media to use, he still can’t escape the unavoidable fact that Trump did not collude, coordinate or conspire with the Russian government to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton.
 
And the point of a prosecution and investigation is to find conclusive evidence that someone is guilty of a crime. Now, usually, a crime is investigated as opposed to a specific person with the purpose of finding a crime committed by said person, but the Left thinks we live in a banana republic.
 
In any case, the Mueller report, regardless of what is insinuated within it, ultimately finds no evidence of “collusion” between Trump and the Russians.
 
But then we get to Volume 2, the part about obstruction of justice, and that is where Mueller really wants people to suspect that there was obstruction even though he did not find anything.
 
In page 2 of Volume 2, the Mueller report has the following paragraph:
 
“… if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime it also does not exonerate him.”
 
Special Counsel, your job is not to determine someone’s innocence. Your job is not to exonerate the President of any accusations. Your job is to find evidence that would, without a shadow of a doubt, irretrievably conclude that the President of the United States succeeded or even attempted to obstruct justice.
 
You did not find such evidence, which is why you were forced to say “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime.” That overall statement is tantamount to saying: “well, I didn’t find that the subject did something criminal, but I also didn’t find that he didn’t do something criminal.” Do you see the logical fallacy here? The contradiction in that statement? If he didn’t find that Trump committed something illegal, then he can’t say that he didn’t find that he didn’t do something. Not finding that he didn’t do something is equivalent to not finding that he did something. If Mueller found that Trump did something, he would so state without “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime”. There are only two logical options here: either Mueller found something that Trump did that was criminal or he didn’t. He can’t say both are the case at the same time and in the same relationship.

Not to mention you also can't prove a negative. No one can prove that someone DIDN'T do something. There's no way to do that, that's why the system works as "prove guilt".
 
But do you see the intention from Mueller here? He knows very well that the job of any prosecutor is to PROSECUTE not exonerate. Yes, they have to present exculpatory evidence that they might find under the Brady rule, but the objective of a prosecutor is to prove guilt, not innocence. Matter of fact, that’s how our entire judicial system works: you do not have to prove innocence – you have to prove guilt. It’s “innocent until proven guilty” for a reason.
 
And while the court of public opinion (from the Left) might find Trump guilty of obstruction, collusion, and overall being a big, huge meanie to them, in the real judicial system, one must find that someone is guilty of a crime beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
Despite the fact that everyone and their grandmothers (myself included) think that O.J. killed his ex-wife and her friend, he was found not guilty by the court due to insufficient evidence. Say whatever you will about the entire case and the trial, but that is how the judicial system found him: not guilty of the crime.
 
And it is the prosecution’s job to get that guilty verdict. Bob Mueller was the prosecutor in all of this, his job was to find that Trump colluded with Russia and/or obstructed justice in the investigation and found neither.
 
The Google definition of “exonerate” is to “absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.” And if Mueller did not find guilt, even explicitly stating so, the only other option left is to find Trump to have been exonerated under this definition.
 
Now, that doesn’t mean that Mueller has to come out and say “Trump did nothing wrong! Everyone stop trashing him!” but that is basically what he ultimately found: TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG or at least anything criminal.
 
As far as obstruction of justice goes, the things that Mueller looked into are things like how Trump reacted to the WikiLeaks thing, how he reacted to the investigation of General Flynn, how the Campaign reacted to reports about Russian support for Trump, reports from the fake news media about Russian collusion, Trump firing Comey and supposed efforts to remove the Special Counsel.
 
NONE OF WHICH COULD ADEQUATELY CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
 
First, reactions to anything don’t matter at all. With the reports of Trump colluding with Russia, how exactly do you expect Trump to react? Of course he’s going to be angry! HE WAS BEING ACCUSED OF SOMETHING HE DIDN’T DO! It was being alleged that his election victory and subsequent presidency were illegitimate! Frankly, I would’ve been concerned if Trump did not react like ANY NORMAL HUMAN BEING WOULD UNDER SUCH A SITUATION!
 
Second, and perhaps most importantly since this is what people will largely point towards as evidence of obstruction, Trump has the authority, as head of the Executive Branch, to remove the head of the FBI, the CIA, and anything else that is technically within the Executive Branch. Trump firing Mueller would’ve been virtually no different to Trump firing Comey. HAD HE DONE SO, which he did NOT.
 
So while the Mueller report suggests that Trump at least tried to fire Mueller, it was within his authority to have done so, but ultimately DID NOT.
 
But again, Mueller is writing this report for the Democrats and the media to try and keep the narrative alive with a summary of all the b.s. lies they have spread over these past couple of years, even though within the report it very specifically says that the Special Counsel did not find evidence of “collusion” or enough to prove Trump obstructed justice.
 
By all accounts, the Mueller Report should be seen as something that has definitively ended the allegations and speculation, but Mueller wrote it with enough ambiguity for the media to keep the ball rolling and for Democrats to launch their own investigations into this manner, despite the report’s ultimate findings.
 
Not that it’ll matter in the end, as any subsequent investigation and report from the media will be bologna and will ultimately find nothing, just like Mueller did, but this ought to tell you what we are up against: these people are completely irrational and will stop at nothing to get their way.
 
Again, the report ultimately finds no collusion and not enough to conclude obstruction. That alone is enough for me to fight back against the b.s. that will surely come from the Left.
 
Proverbs 28:5
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

I’ve written before in the past that it makes no sense whatsoever for the Left to claim they do the work of the Lord when in actuality, they are doing the work of Satan. That’s as true today as it ever has been. However, since they see no wrong in anything they do, they pretend that their evil is something that God wants them to do, which is horribly blasphemous, if nothing else.
 
But specifically, I wish to talk about something one of the 666 different Democrat Presidential candidates said about Trump and his Christian supporters (aka, most of us) in relation to his own supposed faith. I am, of course, talking about Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
 
Ignoring the fact that he spreads fake news fed to him constantly, such as when the fake news media doctored a video to claim Trump called all illegal immigrants “animals” when he was only referring to the rapist, murderous MS-13 gang, he talked about how Trump, VP Mike Pence and Trump supporters who are Christians are unbelievably hypocritical.
 
Of Trump, he said: “I’m reluctant to comment on another person’s faith, but I would say it is hard to look at this president’s actions and believe that they’re the actions of somebody who believes in God. I just don’t understand how you can be as worshipful of your own self as he is and be prepared to humble yourself before God. I’ve never seen him humble himself before anyone.”
 
Oh yeah, because being the most pro-life and pro-Israel president in American history is definitely not the actions of someone who believes in God. No, someone who is pro-abortion like Mayor Pete here is totally in more accordance to God’s will and heart than someone who sacrifices his own lifestyle of riches and comfort to not earn a cent being a public servant, hated by half the country when he was previously loved by all of it. (Reminder: the most ardent Trump haters like Spike Lee, Kathy Griffin, Snoop Dogg, and others all used to love, or at least really like, Donald Trump).
 
Yes, he may talk himself up an awful lot, but there are a variety of reasons for that, chief among which is the fact that the entirety of the media hates him, would report nothing but terrible things about him (most of which are lies) and there would be next to no one speaking well of him anywhere in the media if he weren’t promoting himself.
 
Also, before I move on to what Pete said about Mike Pence, I should remind you, if you do not already know, that Pete is homosexual and married to a man, which is important to keep in mind when considering what he says of VP Pence:
 
“My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man. And yes, Mr. Vice President, it has moved me closer to God. Speaking only for myself, I can tell you that if me being gay was a choice, it was a choice that was made far, far above my pay grade. And that’s the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand: If you’ve got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”
 
Oh, man, I have an awful lot to say about this, but let’s first see what he said about Trump supporters who are Christians before I delve into that mess:
 
“It’s something that frustrates me because the hypocrisy is unbelievable. Here you have somebody that not only acts in a way that’s not consistent with anything I hear in scripture or church where it is about lifting up the least among us and taking care of strangers, which is another word for immigrants, and making sure that you are focusing your efforts on the poor. Also personally how you’re supposed to conduct yourself.”
 
There is a sweet irony in the fact he calls us hypocritical when there is no greater hypocrite here than Mayor Pete.
 
Let’s begin with what I intended to talk about regarding his words about Mike Pence and the “Mike Pences of the world”.
 
Particularly, I would like to discuss what he said about the fact that he’s gay because God made him that way. If he truly loved God, if he truly worshiped God, he would perfectly understand that HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN!
 
And God does not force anyone to sin. He literally cannot force people to sin. James 1:13 says: “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.”
 
As we’ve established, homosexuality is a sin. To claim that God made Pete gay is the same as accusing God of tempting him to sin. It’s the same as saying: “Why are you punishing me for making me the way I am?”
 
And this argument can be applied to any other sin. A murderer can accuse God of making him that way. A rapist can accuse God of making him that way. An idolater can accuse God of putting a beautiful woman in front of him, too much for him to be able to resist the temptation.
 
All of them are WRONG. God does not tempt anyone into committing sin. So God does not make anyone gay. The very REASON we argue homosexuality is a choice is because ALL SINS ARE A CHOICE!
 
That’s not to say they are easy choices to make like picking what sort of breakfast to have in the morning or what kind of shampoo to get at the store. But we all CHOOSE to sin, at the end of the day. We are sinners – evil – by nature. It’s in our nature to sin. But this comes from the original sin, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit.
 
Before that point, there was no sin in Man. Sin entered Man when he chose to disobey God, wanting to be like Him, knowing good and evil.
 
When we sin, it is not because God caused us to sin. It is actually impossible for God to cause anyone to sin because there is no evil in God. When we sin, it is of our own volition. Why? Because we all act according to our strongest inclination.
 
Like I said, choosing to sin is not an easy choice (at least always). But it is always a choice made by us in accordance to our strongest inclination at the time of the decision. When we are tempted but fight off such temptation, that means that our inclination to obey God was stronger than our inclination to sin.
 
When we are tempted, we are only ever tempted by the devil, not God. So whatever Pete may have to say about Trump, Pence or Christians in general loses all meaning the moment he claims God made him gay. He did not. Pete made Pete gay. He CHOSE to be gay. He CHOSE to sin against God.
 
He cannot honestly attack Trump with a faith argument, when he is so lacking in its understanding. He truly knows nothing of the Creator if he claims God made him gay.
 
Of course, I could also talk about how he is wrong, in so many ways, when he says that “immigrants” is another word for stranger.
 
First, it’s insulting to lump me, a LEGAL immigrant (and now proud citizen of the United States) with illegal immigrants who COMMIT CRIMES to enter the country. The President is completely right and biblically justified in applying the RULE OF LAW on illegals. What does Romans 13:4 say, Mayor Pete, since your homosexual marriage has apparently brought you closer to God? It says: “For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”
 
Those who commit crimes are wrongdoers according to the laws of the land. Illegals break the laws of the United States by simply being here. Trump is perfectly justified in applying justice on those who BREAK THE LAW!
 
Second, in what language is “immigrants” a replacement for “stranger”? Is he talking about how strangers to Israel would essentially be immigrants? Well, allow me to retort:
 
Leviticus 18:26 says: “You must obey all my decrees and regulations. You must not commit any of these detestable sins. This applies to both native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you!”
 
The Bible, does, indeed, say we must help immigrants. But we must punish CRIMINALS, as previously stated, and immigrants must also obey God and the laws of the land in which they reside. As such, immigrants have to ASSIMILATE!
 
But when you see defiant immigrants waving the Mexican, Honduran or another flag entirely as they march to invade the country, demanding “asylum”, we can plainly and clearly see they have no intention to assimilate into the American lifestyle or contribute to the American economy. They want to replace our culture with their own, making America Mexico or Honduras, etc.
 
What obligation do we have to obey them? What obligation do we have to let an invading force into our country? What obligation do we have to take care of them as a country? We already send billions of dollars to Latin American countries. Is it then our fault that these countries take most, if not all, of this money and keep it for themselves? These people clearly do not seek financial opportunity the way other, legal immigrants like my family seek/sought.
 
My family sought financial opportunity in the form of working to achieve the American dream, something red-blooded Americans can sympathize with. But these people do not seek to work towards the American dream. To them, the dream is taking advantage of the fact this country is richer, so the currency is worth more, so they can live a little bit better off of taxpayers’ dime, living off of government programs.
 
And the Left is all too happy to oblige, even making sure they are kept in the country under sanctuary city and state laws.
 
Proverbs 12:11 says: “Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits lacks sense.”
 
Colossians 3:23 says: “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men.”
 
And let’s not forget one of the most important ones regarding work: Genesis 2:15: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.”
 
Since before Man even committed his first sin, God intended for Man to work. God demands that we work, so I can’t imagine He’d be all that pleased with an entire invading force planning to NOT work and live off of government (aka taxpayer) money, in a land that they have no right to enter in such a manner.
 
So everything from homosexuality, to abortion, to illegal immigration, all the things the Left supports stand in direct contrast to the will of the Lord.
 
It is no surprise at all for me to see the Left claim they take God’s side on any issue when in fact, they take Satan’s.
 
Matthew 15:8
“These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.”
 
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.