I’ve written extensively about matters pertaining to sex, sexual preference and sexual “identity” wherein one identifies as the opposite gender of what they are (and sometimes take it to such extremes as to identify as neither gender or even identify as an entirely different species). I’ve shared my two cents on the matter as well as what the Bible largely says about it (granted, it does not really talk much about transgenderism as that is a fairly new thing, for some reason).
 
But at the end of the day, whatever my own opinions on the matter are, it is entirely up to people to choose whether they are straight or gay (and yes, it’s a choice. A difficult one, but a choice nonetheless) and choose to identify as whatever they want to identify. I will still speak about how wrong it is, but it is entirely their choice to make. However, I absolutely draw the line at pedophilia.
 
A man wants to sleep with another man? Fine. I disapprove, as does God, but that’s their thing. A man wants to identify as a woman? Fine. I disapprove, as does God, but that’s their thing as long as they don’t use that to cheat at sports and don’t use women’s restrooms, given the high possibility of rape occurring in such an instance. But I will absolutely not tolerate anyone who is a pedophile. It is absolutely abhorrent behavior that causes suffering for children.
 
When two people of the same sex sleep together, they sin, but they both consent and are fully aware of their actions. When a man identifies as a woman, that is his choice, ditto for the opposite. But a child absolutely cannot be considered to be giving consent on sexual matters.
 
Part of the reason I absolutely hate the fact that the Left idolizes child drag queens is the fact that THESE ARE CHILDREN THAT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND WILL LIKELY REGRET EVERYTHING THEY ARE DOING IN THE FUTURE! This sort of thing sticks with them forever and it’s simply not right. If an adult wants to be a drag queen, fine, but leave children out of it.
 
Now, after an unusually long introduction, allow me to give you the reason as to why I am writing about this.
 
Recently, a professor at the University of North Texas presented a lesson to students titled: “Sexual Pleasure and Response in Infants.”
 
If the title alone makes you sick to your stomach, brace yourself, because we’re just getting started.
 
That lesson plan is largely, though not entirely, taken from a textbook titled “Our Sexuality” which contains a section titled “Teaching Ideas”, which is essentially a guide for some teachers to follow as they teach their course.
 
The section suggests that “instructors take students on a ‘field trip’ to observe children possibly engaging in ‘sexual interactions’ during recess hours,” according to The College Fix.
 
The textbook reads: “Take the class to a local elementary school playground, or ask permission for a few of your students to attend various school playgrounds, preschools, or daycare centers during recess to observe behaviors of children. Ask students to note interactions between same-sex and mixed-sex groups. Which group was more frequent? Which behaviors were most frequent? What kind of touching did children engage in? What about teasing behaviors? Were there any overtly sexual interactions? What was the age range of the children being observed? Have students write a report comparing their observations with information in the text.”
 
Okay, I have a few things to say about this.
 
First, whose permission is being asked? The students in the course or the parents of the children potentially being observed? That remains unclear, but I’m willing to bet it’s not the latter.
 
Second, are they really encouraging people to observe kids in playgrounds? People have been mocking that sort of pedophilic behavior for ages (rightly so), but these people think it is 100% acceptable to do so?
 
Third, what do you mean “children possibly engaging in ‘sexual interactions’”? CHILDREN DON’T ENGAGE IN IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS! A sexual interaction is an interaction where there is clear sexual intent behind it. Children have no idea what sex is so they don’t engage in sexual interaction by DEFAULT!
 
What interactions between two preschool boys could be considered same-sex sexual interaction? Playing with one another? Playing tag? Hugging one another occasionally? Hanging an arm around the shoulders of the other? The last time I went to church, I saw a young boy (no older than 8, maybe) with his arm around his buddy. Is that somehow a sexual interaction? Is any physical contact sexual interaction?
 
Of course not! It’s typical childhood behavior! Kids do what kids do! Even when they do “adult” things like kissing, it hardly means a thing at that age! They are just learning those things!
 
Children simply do not engage in sexual interaction unless they are FORCED by someone who knows what sex is.
 
Now, one of the textbook’s editors said that neither she nor another of the editors wrote the part about instructors going on bizarre “field trips” to preschools and the like. I suppose that makes sense seeing as that quote was taken from the book’s 13th edition, so it was likely edited by someone else entirely.
 
The editor notes that the “field trip” “seems rather odd, potentially problematic and fruitless… I’m not aware of any professors having assigned it – but I’d certainly be interested in students’ reactions to the proposal!”
 
Well, hopefully, the consensus reaction to the proposal is that of utter disgust and shock. Seeing as these are college students, who were just kids and minors themselves not that long ago, I would hope that they are fully aware of how creepy and messed up such a proposal is.
 
Granted, all adults should be painfully aware of how messed up such a proposal is, but there are still those who are eerily sexually attracted to young children.
 
And it certainly doesn’t help when an adult bus driver rapes a 14-year-old and the worst punishment he gets is a slap on the wrist as was the case recently in New York, where a judge gave no jail time, only 10 years probation, to a man who ADMITTED to raping a girl. Such a case only leaves these sycophants to think they can get away with it with only a minor punishment.
 
Pedophilia and the act of pedophilia should be a severely punished crime, as usually tends to be. Just possessing or distributing child pornography will send someone to jail for no less than 15 years with the addition of being put into supervised sex offender release programs, according to Justia.com.
 
That’s not to say these people should not be helped. Like with homosexuals and transgenders, these people lack Christ in their hearts. They need both spiritual and mental help. As far as homosexuals go, I think it’s entirely a choice, not that there is something inherently psychologically wrong with them, but that they choose to live in sin.
 
But they all need some sort of help. All need Christ. Granted, that also goes for people who are none of those things. It goes for pretty much everyone. But these people very specifically need Him.
 
Christians understand very well how much of a gift children are. Psalm 127:3 says: “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.”
 
Matthew 18:10 says: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.”
 
Isaiah 54:13: “All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children.”
 
John 16:21: “When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.”
 
Children are special and are fragile. It is very easy to mistreat them, abuse them and bring anguish to them. It is easy to take advantage of their naïve and trusting natures. It is easy to take advantage of their yet undeveloped bodies. But all of these things are absolutely abhorrent, and things that the Lord hates.
 
My heart broke when I read and wrote the story about a boy who was essentially forced to dress as a girl for his mother and his father was trying to save his son from such a horrible life. That was just dressing the boy as a girl and having him go by a girl’s name and say he was a girl. It was horrible abuse, but the one silver lining of the entire story is that he was not being forced into anything sexual with anyone.
 
Pedophiles do that and more. They take advantage of the children’s bodies and mind. They utterly corrupt them and scar them for the rest of their lives. The attempt by the Left to normalize this abhorrent behavior is utterly sickening and not something that I will stand for.
 
They want to say there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being gay? Fine. They’re wrong, but fine. They want to say there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being transgender? Fine. They’re wrong, but fine. But the minute they start saying there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being a pedophile is the minute I lose my own damn marbles.
 
For whatever reason, I have always pictured myself having a family. My mother sometimes reminds me of the fact that even when I was fairly little, maybe around 5 or so, I pictured myself having a family. Granted, I was also very childish at the time and named my children “Lightning Thunder” because I’ve always had a fascination with electricity and thought those names sounded cool, but I always pictured myself having kids even when I was a very young kid myself (not that I knew how to MAKE kids, but I always pictured a family of my own).
 
It is for this reason that I believe myself to have a very protective nature. When I used to attend Aikido classes with my father and would take the kids’ classes, I tended to be the oldest in the class and felt it was my responsibility to look after the other kids.
 
I have always felt protective and rather paternal of kids. So perhaps it is for this reason that I am so fired up and passionate about pushing back against the latest disgusting-as-sin attempt at normalizing evil… that or I’m just not a bat-crap insane Leftist lunatic and understand how naturally messed up pedophilia is. Because let’s be honest here: I highly doubt even Democrat VOTERS are fascinated with the idea of normalizing pedophilia. Some are just that insane and evil, but I highly doubt your run-of-the-mill Democrat, even a Millennial, would be okay with this.
 
Mark 10:13-16
“And they were bringing children to Him that He might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, He was indignant and said to them, ‘Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’ And He took them in his arms and blessed them, laying His hands on them.”
 
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.

There exists within socialism a simple cause and effect relationship: socialism causes misery. The Venezuelan people have experienced this misery for a couple of decades now and they are sick of it.
 
According to a Venezuelan polling firm, Meganalisis, 87.9% of surveyors agreed with the statement: “socialism is the worst and most destructive political ideology to lead the government.” Again, as they’ve been living with this form of government for a couple of decades, they certainly know and understand just how terrible socialism is.
 
What’s more, the people also overwhelmingly believe (89.5%) that the federal legislature, the National Assembly, “should authorize foreign military missions in the country,” according to Breitbart, with another 91.2% saying they “did not believe it was possible for Venezuelans to remove Maduro without foreign military intervention.” 88% also said they weren’t trustful of the nation’s armed forces.
 
That last one makes a lot of sense seeing as the military, at least top officials within it, are still on Maduro’s side and recently launched a campaign against the protesters that resulted in the deaths of five people so far, the youngest of which being a 14-year-old protester. And despite the fact that the country’s interim President Guaido has insisted there would be a military uprising to oust Maduro and that he’s getting members of the military on his side, the Venezuelan armed forces appeared to still be on Maduro’s side, if not at least split between the two.
 
Rush Limbaugh remarked on his radio show last week that the Venezuelan armed forces had no reason to oust Maduro, since they are the ones living comfortably and well. In a sense, he insisted that they had no reason to bite the hand that feeds them. And I only half-way agree.
 
Some of the people in the armed forces probably do think this way. That they are living comfortable lives and afford their own families such comfortable lives, so they have no reason to upset the status quo. However, I imagine there are also those who recognize that they won’t be in the military forever and cannot provide for their family with whatever they receive out of being soldiers forever. Some must be thinking long-term, knowing that those who are not in the military don’t have good lives, so in order for their families to have better lives, the socialist dictator must be ousted.
 
It really all depends on the individual soldier’s morals and mindset. If a soldier is against socialism, he will likely look to help oust Maduro. If a soldier does not much care for his country or his people, apart from his family, he has no reason to betray Maduro.
 
And as I’ve said in the past few weeks: you need the military in order for a coup to be successful. If Guaido does not have the military on his side, and it’s clear he does not have at least a solid majority of it, he will fail. Which is why the people do not trust the armed forces, as they’ve killed some protesters recently and hold hundreds of political prisoners, and it’s why 90% of them wish for a foreign military to come in and oust Maduro.
 
That is especially the case considering that roughly 90 percent (87.9) agree with the statement: “Venezuela has been intervened and controlled by Cuba and Russia.” Maduro’s Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza traveled to Moscow last weekend and said the Maduro regime was thinking about asking Russia for more troops to help against the protesters.
 
What’s more, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the U.S. potentially sending troops to Venezuela was “catastrophic and unjustified”, suggesting that Russia is “categorically against military intervention. The use of force can only be authorized by the U.N. Security Council, or used in response to aggression by a sovereign state.” Which is a whole lot of caca considering Russia has already sent armed forces into the country, likely illegally.
 
Personally, I’ve gone back and forth on the idea of sending U.S. troops to Venezuela. I see both sides of the argument: this sort of insurrection and foreign meddling has usually led to the country being worse off than before (see Lybia with open slave markets that were not there when Qaddafi was in power), but socialism must be defeated and pushed back at every turn; we have our own problems, particularly at the Southern border, which we must prioritize, plus we should not send our own to die for other people, but at the same time, socialism is a worldwide problem that is also here and causing human suffering, not to mention that not helping Venezuela could likely just create more refugees (actual refugees, though) and have them join more and more caravans as time goes on.
 
I really am not certain, even today, what the best course of action is. I think the right thing to do would be to help the Venezuelans oust Maduro, but that could bring about other problems as well, and we already have enough on our plate having to deal with evil Democrats and Republicans who refuse to allow for a border wall to be built.
 
But in any case, the poll finds that the Venezuelan people are sick and tired of socialism. They overwhelmingly hate Maduro, with less than 5% acknowledging him to be the country’s president, but they are also not great fans of Guaido, who despite the fact that 50% say he’s the legitimate head of the country, those numbers are down and they are not exactly fond of the fact that his party, Popular Will, is a formal member of the Socialist International.
 
Personally, I would also be fairly wary of that fact if it weren’t for the fact that Argentina’s (where I was born) most conservative and best president it ever had, Carlos Menem, ran as a socialist, with socialist policies that he did a complete 180 on, opting instead to reduce the size and scope of the government and denationalizing industries during his administration.
 
If I had to give an explanation as to why Popular Will is part of the Socialist International it is likely because of the election laws set in place in Venezuela. Socialists don’t want non-socialists running for office and would only be okay with another socialist eventually taking their place.
 
Guaido himself has been very vocal about his disdain for socialism and love for capitalism, so I don’t hold it against him that his party is part of the Socialist International.
 
Still, that is yet another example of the people living under socialism being utterly sick and tired of it. They don’t want more socialism and certainly don’t want another socialist to take Maduro’s place. This is the cause and effect relationship of socialism: socialism causes misery. It causes suffering.
 
Margaret Thatcher didn’t say, “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” for nothing. Winston Churchill didn’t say, “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy” and “the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries,” for nothing.
 
They knew perfectly well what socialism was and how awful it was without even having to live under socialist rule. People like Trump also understand how awful socialism is. Reagan and JFK were staunchly against socialism/communism in all of its forms.
 
Venezuelans know perfectly well what socialism is and how awful it is because they unfortunately have to live under it. They have electricity on a good day, little to no water, no food, whatever “free” healthcare they have is from the Dark Ages at best and are attacked, harassed and killed if they speak out against such miseries.
 
Foreign journalists are detained and stripped of their equipment if they dare show Maduro the reality that his administration brings to the Venezuelan people. Such journalists should count their blessings that they are not from Venezuela.
 
In this poll, the Venezuelan people make it perfectly clear: socialism sucks. They send out a message to other people not to try it, thinking that it might work for them. It never does. All it does is bring about oppression and suffering. Not all of it is immediate, of course. Venezuelans at least had electricity a year or so ago. But the more socialism is applied in a country, the worse things get. That’s because socialism is utterly nonsensical and does not conform to reality well.
 
The idea of people being equally blessed is heavenly because that is the only place it actually happens. Government is no substitute for God. A socialist country is no substitute for Heaven.
 
Those who live under socialism understand that socialism is utterly terrible. But those who do not live in it don’t have to find that to be the truth the hard way. Socialism should not be tried anywhere as it works nowhere because you cannot have a thriving country with a system of destruction of wealth.
 
Argentina’s best years were when it wasn’t socialistic for like a decade. America’s best years have been when socialist policies were completely fought back against, which thankfully has been the vast majority of America’s history.
 
And even within America, the worst and most rotten places are where socialist policies are faithfully implemented such as California, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, etc. It’s honestly funny and sad at the same time when AOC talks about how bad things are in poor areas of New York, not recognizing that that’s what happens after decades of Democrat/socialist rule.
 
There is a reason I say that the only two kinds of people who want and advocate for socialism are ignorant people and evil people. You either have no idea what socialism is or know perfectly well and seek to become part of the government that would have all the power in the country.
 
Of course, sometimes I’m tempted to include a third option: stupid people, those who see what’s happening in Venezuela, refuse to accept that socialism did all of that and continue to advocate for it saying “it’ll be different this time”.
 
In any case, I hope and pray that the people of Venezuela will not have to endure socialism for much longer, whether that means a coup or foreign military ousting Maduro. I also hope and pray that people see what is happening in Venezuela and come to understand that that’s what will happen here if we let socialism win.
 
Deuteronomy 31:6
“Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Over the weekend, Hamas terrorists at the Gaza Strip fired around 700 rockets towards Israel, killing four Israelis and wounding dozens others, according to the Jerusalem Post.
 
“Terror groups Hamas and Islamic jihad in Gaza have fired over 700 rockets at Israel since Friday, killing four Israelis and wounding dozens. Defiant Hamas and Islamic Jihad officials said on Sunday that they don’t rule out the possibility that the current round of fighting in the Gaza Strip could lead to an all-out war with Israel,” reported the Jerusalem Post.
 
Reuters reported: “The latest round of violence began [Thursday] when an Islamic Jihad sniper fired at Israeli troops, wounding two soldiers.” This is important to keep in mind and you’ll find out why in a moment.
 
Both Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib responded to this attack, but taking the side of the Islamic terrorists attacking Israel, unsurprisingly.
 
Tlaib tweeted in response to a tweet (which I will share in a moment) the following: “When will the world stop dehumanizing our Palestinian people who just want to be free? Headlines like this & framing it in this way just feeds into the continued lack of responsibility on Israel who unjustly oppress & target Palestinian children and families. #FreePalestine.”
 
Now, I have a number of things to say about this alone, but let’s first see what this headline is and what tweet she is responding to. The headline comes from the New York Times, ironically enough, considering their disgusting Anti-Semitic picture from about a week ago, and it reads: “Gaza Militants Fire 250 Rockets, and Israel Responds With Airstrikes.”
 
Really nothing wrong here, as it states some facts. However, Tlaib and the person she responded to have a problem with this headline and the framing of it, making it seem like it’s the terrorists’ fault… which it is. And yet, they have a problem with this. Why am I not surprised?
 
But that’s just the headline. What tweet was Tlaib responding to? This one: “This is a stunningly irresponsible and misleading headline. Israel shot dozens of unarmed Palestinian protestors in Gaza on Friday and killed 4 Palestinians, including two protesters, in Gaza before any projectiles were launched.”
 
This comes from a Twitter verified account (again, not surprised) that goes by the name of Yousef Munayyer. Obviously, a Muslim and one that sides against Israel (as most tend to do).
 
But that is where that Reuters report becomes important. Israel may have shot “unarmed Palestinian protesters” (doubt they were unarmed and they are not protesters but occupiers of a land that belongs to Israel, but I’ll get to that later), but if they did, it is out of retaliation against a Jihadi sniper shooting and wounding soldiers. Is Israel not allowed to retaliate against attacks? Are they supposed to kowtow to Muslim invaders?
 
In Tlaib’s, Omar’s and Yousef’s minds: yes, Israel should surrender to them.
 
Now, before I get to Omar’s tweet, I would like to dismantle Tlaib’s. First, the headline is a rather accurate one and places the blame on those who are to blame: the radical Islamic terrorists. The NYT won’t admit it themselves, neither would they dare say the words “radical Islamic terrorists”, but they at least have some basic understanding of who the aggressor here is and it’s not Israel (and this will likely be one of very few and far between times when I will actually compliment the New York Times). So the headline she is talking about does not dehumanize anyone, does not represent a sort of “lack of responsibility” on the part of Israel and does nothing except report the truth (again, a rarity for the NYT).
 
And second, notice the actual dual loyalty Tlaib demonstrates to have here. “Our Palestinian people”? Who is “our” in this situation, because it’s definitely not the United States. The U.S. supports Israel, not Muslim invaders. Tlaib is massively hypocritical in accusing Jewish American politicians of having dual loyalties to Israel and then proceeding to call Palestinians “our” people. They are not America’s people. They shouldn’t even be Tlaib’s people, but that is why I say she is the one with dual loyalties here.
 
Now, let’s look into Omar’s tweet:
 
“How many more protesters must be shot, rockets must be fired, and little kids must be killed until the endless cycle of violence ends? The status quo of occupation and humanitarian crisis in Gaza is unsustainable. Only real justice can bring about security and lasting peace.”
 
As some people on Twitter point out, this reads much like Hamas propaganda. She accuses Israel of occupying the Gaza Strip when in reality, it belongs to Israel.
 
Also, what is “real justice” in this scenario? Considering the side she is taking, of attacking Israel and their right to defend themselves against foreign invaders who wish to destroy them completely, I’m assuming “real justice” means the wiping out of Israel off the face of the Earth.
 
Again, she considers Israel to be occupying the Gaza Strip when it’s radical Muslims who are occupying the area. To her, “justice” is simply vengeance.
 
But here’s the thing, and I’m repeating myself: IT BELONGS TO ISRAEL! Muslims in the area are the ones making threats (and sometimes act on said threats) of attacking Jerusalem and completely destroying Israel, forcing them to either submit to Islam or be killed. But the Holy Land does NOT belong to Muslims. God did not promise Mohammed that land. He promised Abraham and his descendants that land.
 
And by descendants, He did not mean Abraham’s illegitimate child Ishmael, whom Muslims consider to be Abraham’s true first-born son and to whom they believe land belongs as his inheritance. According to Muslim exegesis, Sarah asked Abraham to marry Hagar so that they may have a child together, as Sarah was barren. But Abraham never married Hagar and Ishmael was not the son God promised to Abraham. Abraham was impatient with God as he waited decades for the promise to be fulfilled, getting older and older and his hopes diminishing with each passing year. He got impatient, as did Sarah, and they thought God would bring them a son through someone that is not Sarah.
 
They were mistaken, as years later, they would bear Isaac. Despite the fact that Sarah was barren and despite the fact that she was well beyond the age of child-rearing, God delivered to them the son that He promised them.
 
Genesis 21:9-13 shows us exactly what was intended out of both Isaac and Ishmael. After Isaac had been born and circumcised, “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, laughing. So she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.’ And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. But God said to Abraham, ‘Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.’”
 
God considers Isaac to be Abraham’s heir, as we just read from the Scripture. Ishmael still had his place in history and God blessed him with a nation because he was also Abraham’s offspring, but to Isaac belongs the promise of the Lord made to Abraham. To Isaac belongs the inheritance of his father. To the Israelites, who come from the line of Isaac, belongs the Holy Land.
 
It is Ishmael’s offspring, the radical Muslims in Hamas, etc. who wish to see Israel destroyed and see themselves occupying the Holy Land. But it does not belong to them.
 
Do you see why I call the Muslims in Gaza “occupiers”? Because that is what they are. That is not to say they are not allowed to live there, but the land does not belong to them, which is what they claim. The land belongs squarely to Israel.
 
You can try and argue with me all day long about the issue, but ultimately, it is not me with whom you are arguing, but with the very word and promise of the Lord.
 
And between Omar, Tlaib and other Muslims who claim the land to be theirs and the Lord God Almighty, I’m not a big fan of the Muslims’ chances.
 
Genesis 12:7
“Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, ‘To your offspring I will give this land.’ So he built there an altar to the Lord, who appeared to him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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.

Recently, Alabama State House voted overwhelmingly (74-3) in favor of a bill that would outright ban all abortions in the state (unless it is necessary for the health of the mother) in an effort to have the issue reach the Supreme Court so that they might look over the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion and possibly overturn it.
 
However, in a move that is shocking but not really surprising, Alabama State Rep. John Rogers (D-Birmingham) made the following comments regarding babies and abortion: “Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later.”
 
He continued by saying: “Some parents can’t handle a child with problems. It could be retarded. It might have no arms and no legs.”
 
Again, shocking comments to make, but not really surprising, at least to me. The Left is the party of Satan, after all.
 
Notice how Rogers does not even pretend like the children are not actually children. He is fully aware and accepting of the fact that we are talking about the death of children here, and is totally okay with killing them if they are “unwanted” or “retarded”. That these children do not deserve life if the mother does not wish for them to have life.
 
What else are we to call this apart from full-blown infanticide? And what’s the limit? Using this sort of logic, and fully understanding that we are talking about children, aren’t parents then justified to kill their children if they bring them problems regardless of the age?
 
If a teenager is doing drugs and the parents find that problematic, are the parents justified in killing their child? Because that’s what this logic brings about. He understands that we are talking about kids, which is honestly more than I can say about much of the rest of the Left. But that honestly sort of makes things worse.
 
We conservatives insist that babies in the womb are children, a fact that the Left often denies. Here, we have a Leftist who accepts the fact that these children are, in fact, children, and he’s STILL okay with killing them.
 
And his arguments, again, lead to the notion that it is okay to off someone who is problematic to you. If your child is being a pain in the rear end – is being problematic –  you apparently have every right to kill them. If you did not want your child, even if you acknowledge that it’s a human being, you have the right to kill them.
 
Rep. Rogers accepts that we are talking about children, so his comments show him to be truly despicable and vile. Either the Left keeps getting worse or they’ve always been this despicable, only now the mask is coming off more and more.
 
And he’s yet another example of the Left using an African-American in their favor. Abortion is the number one killer of black people, with PP clinics being present mostly in minority neighborhoods. Rogers is ideologically a descendant of the black minister who helped notorious racist Margaret Sanger to sell the idea of abortion to the black community as some sort of good, likely not understanding that abortion was created to exterminate black people, whom Sanger considered to be like “weeds”.
 
Of course, that’s not to say that Rogers is not speaking his own mind or he’s not doing this of his own accord. He is. And that’s what’s sad about it. He’s been brainwashed into believing abortion – killing children – is a force for good.
 
Those words heavily represent the modern-day Left. They are quickly dropping all pretense of decency. If you remember, a few months ago, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (who is still Governor, by the way), also made shocking but unsurprising remarks:
 
“This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of the mother, with the consent of physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable. So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.”
 
Like Rogers, Northam accepts the fact that we are talking about children. Children whom the mother apparently does not want and children who have absolutely no rights if the mother wishes them not to.
 
Trump recently held a rally where he mentioned that Democrats want to execute babies. He also said something to that extent in his 2019 SOTU address. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats and the media called him a liar. But when comments like Northam and Rogers’ are made by these Democrats, we get to see their true colors. They DO want to execute babies. They WANT to have the ability to end life on a mere whim in a mere second. Why? Because they want POWER. That constitutes the power over life and death, a power that God has, a power that Man has wanted ever since Cain killed Abel.
 
And as far as Rogers’ comments go, the media made somewhat of an effort in defending him. When Rogers made those comments, people on social media were livid. Said people usually are conservative. So what do fake news sites like The Hill do? They say “Conservatives pounce on Alabama state Dem’s abortion comments” as though what he said was perfectly reasonable and we are the lunatics who jump at every word we disagree with.
 
What he said was EVIL. What he said shows us that the Left is evil. Not that I needed this to know that, but it’s a good refresher for what we are up against: pure vile.
 
Saying that some children are unwanted and would eventually be killed anyway is outrageous and moronic. What exactly does he mean by those words? Because electric chair is a death-penalty punishment for people, with only 30 states having the death penalty. And the death penalty is usually a punishment reserved for murderers and the like. So what, he expects unwanted children to grow up to be killers? That’s awfully pessimistic and very wrong.
 
I can imagine a woman not wanting a child, having one anyway and not loving that child. That happens plenty of times, unfortunately. But what leap of logic must you take to say that it is okay to then go ahead and kill that child? How is the child the one at fault here? Why must the child be punished?
 
You see, it’s not simply the idea of abortion that we conservatives wish to fight against and defeat. That’s only part of the battle. The idea that people should go ahead and have all the sex they want without repercussions is something we also often fight against, even if we do not always bring it up when we discuss the issue of abortion.
 
If a woman does not want a child, SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE SEX! Part of the abortion argument is that it’s “women’s liberation”. I’ve made this point before, but it is always a good one: liberation from what? From responsibilities for your actions; from that little voice in your head that tells you maybe you shouldn’t have sex; from feeling any guilt over committing sin and being used and tossed into the garbage over and over again.
 
That is not liberation, but bondage to the flesh and to sin. The fact is that we wouldn’t have anywhere close to an abortion problem if people weren’t so enslaved to sexual sin. Of course, that’s a pretty difficult battle to fight, but a necessary one.
 
Joe Biden and other hypocritical Democrats say that 2020 will be about “restoring the soul of the country”. How is abortion good for the soul? How is rampant sexual sin good for the soul? Both are a poison to the soul. And the only being in existence who can properly restore the soul of anyone is Jesus Christ. We need a Christian revival in America to truly restore our country’s soul.
 
Because being willing to kill children for any half-assed excuse and being willing to execute them outside the womb, despite knowing that these are human beings themselves is not how you restore a soul, but utterly decimate and rot it.
 
The Left does not have a soul that they can restore. Individual people within the Left might come to Christ and be redeemed, but the overall Left is doomed to the depths of Hell because the ideas and policies they propose are uniquely and exclusively anti-Christian. And the anti-Christ has only one place to go.
 
James 4:7
“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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.

Looking over some articles to draw inspiration from, I came across an article on the Daily Caller talking about what is currently happening in Venezuela and the fact that the Venezuelan government, under former dictator Hugo Chavez, banned private gun ownership less than a decade ago.
 
Perhaps the biggest reason I say this now is because Venezuela might face a military coup d’état in the near future, as Interim President Juan Guaido has called for a military uprising, dubbed Operacion Libertad, against the Maduro regime.
 
Ever since Maduro’s bogus “re-election”, where Maduro imprisoned opponents and overall made it harder for people to run against him and garnering more votes than were cast, the Venezuelan people have seen protest after protest, often turning into rioting with people throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at armed forces that shut these protesters down.
 
In June of 2012, the Chavez regime banned all private gun ownership, only allowing for the military, police and security contractors to purchase weapons from a state-owned gun manufacturer. The reason given for this sort of law? “Improve security and cut crime” according to a BBC story reporting on the new law.
 
Under the guise of curbing the country’s crime rates, the government banned guns. Does that sound familiar?
 
And anyone who is found to be disobeying this law faces 20 years in prison.
 
Of course, that gun ban did nothing to lower crime rates. Quite the opposite, as crime rates only soared since the gun ban went into effect.
 
Luis Farias, a Venezuelan citizen, told Fox News: “Now the criminal mother is unleashed. Trying to ban guns didn’t take guns off the streets. Nobody cares about the law; the criminals don’t care about the law.”
 
Javier Vanegas, a Venezuelan teacher forced into exile to Ecuador, told Fox News: “Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight. The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population… Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.”
 
But therein lies, the problem, Javier. When you leave your hopes upon the government’s shoulders to do something, or in this case, to not do something like becoming tyrannical, you know you’re in a terrible position.
 
Given the opportunity, given the chance, a government will always become tyrannical. Why? Well, the answer is similar to that of many questions: Man is evil by NATURE.
 
People want power. Once they have such power, they crave for more of it and will not give it up easily. The gun ban was advertised as being an effort to bring down crime. What an absolute joke. In reality, it was an effort to keep people from being able to rise up against the socialist government. And it worked like a charm.
 
Javier himself notes that guns would’ve helped the people to remain free or at least fight back. That was the point of the gun ban: to keep people from being able to fight back. Now, the people are left starving, thirsty, without electricity, gas and many, MANY other things and can hardly do a thing about it.
 
They have to rely on Guaido succeeding and not turning into a dictator himself. They have to rely on the military taking their side in order to be free. Both are massive “ifs”.
 
I don’t know much about Guaido. He certainly says the right things, but everyone does. After all, Chavez advertised the gun ban as being an effort against crimes and the like. He said the right things, didn’t he? There was no way he could’ve come out and said: “yeah, we’re going to take your guns so you can’t fight back against us in the event we become too tyrannical, which you honestly should see coming considering this gun ban is even being talked about.”
 
Latin America’s history is marred by civil wars and coups. And at the end of the day, each “new” government wound up being the same old tyrannical one the previous one was, but with a few changes here and there. Only time will tell whether or not Guaido is really anti-socialist or if he’s just trying to get power for himself. Certainly, the temptation would be there.
 
I mean, George Washington had the option of becoming King of the United States instead of becoming President of the United States. Thankfully, he was a Christian and was humble enough and wise enough to understand that there was no way this new country would survive if after fighting off a tyrannical king, they placed in his stead a different one. But the option was there at one time. Again, I don’t know much about Guaido, but I am not willing to bet that he’s a George Washington. He might be or he might not be, but Latin Americans have seen this song and dance before.
 
The Venezuelan people have no other option than to hope and pray that Guaido is who he says he is; that he is not going to be simply replacing the socialist Maduro regime with his own, changing just about nothing and enjoying basically unopposed power.
 
Again, he says the right things. He advertises himself as a free-market capitalist, if his “Venezuela To Come” plan is anything to go by. So there is at least SOME hope he might do the right thing. But again, time will tell.
 
As it is now, Guaido has called for a military uprising against Maduro. For that he needs military support, which he might have at least to some extent. In a recent article where I at least somewhat briefly discussed the Mueller report, I mentioned that what is necessary for a successful coup is the military backing you up. If Guaido has such support from the military, Maduro’s days are almost certainly numbered.
 
So that’s an “if” question already taken care of, if there is enough support in the military for Guaido. But until it is proven otherwise, Guaido might not actually be any different from Maduro or any other socialist. He can say all the right things, but his actions as leader of Venezuela will show us his true colors.
 
Of course, I hope he will do the right things. But it is not a great situation to be in to have to rely on a military coup and a politician who knows how to say the right things (something they are often trained to do) to grant people their freedom. If Guaido succeeds in ousting Maduro, one of the tell-tale signs for his administration being capitalistic or socialistic will be whether or not he lifts the gun ban.
 
And as far as the United States goes, as the title says, the current state of Venezuela is what you get if we lose our guns. If we lose the 2nd Amendment, the rest will soon follow.
 
We have guns to protect ourselves, whether that means from a criminal or from a tyrannical government.
 
Isaiah 41:10
“Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”
 
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.

This past Sabbath, while Jews around the world were celebrating Passover, the Jewish holiday celebrating God freeing His Chosen People from the bonds of slavery in Egypt, an antisemitic, white supremacist (and I mean an actual white supremacist, not people who simply disagree with the Left) opened fire in a Poway synagogue, killing one and wounding three others.
 
And while this is a tragedy, as any loss of life is a tragedy, we can see the power of the Lord at work to defeat someone who is working for Satan through the actions of two brave men.
 
According to reports, a U.S. Border Patrol agent named Jonathan Morales and a former combat veteran who served in the Navy and the Army, named Oscar Stewart, kept the shooter (whose name I will omit as to not give him recognition for his heinous crime) from making that a much bloodier day than it already was.
 
The shooter reportedly went into the synagogue, shot at the Rabbi, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, blowing off two of his fingers, shot at an elderly woman who was trying to protect the Rabbi, killing her in the process, shot at an 8-year-old girl and her uncle, both of whom were injured, but have thus far survived.
 
In the midst of this, Stewart, the combat veteran, made the decision to run towards the gunman, knowing that the shooter’s AR-style rifle would not be effective within five feet.
 
He recalled: “I heard gunshots. And everybody got up and started trying to get out of the back door, so I – for whatever reason – I didn’t do that. I ran the other way. I ran towards the gun shots. When I came around the corner into the lobby area, I saw the individual with a gun, and he fired two rounds. I knew I had to be within five feet of this guy so his rifle couldn’t get to me. So I ran immediately towards him, and I yelled as loud as I could. And he was scared. I scared the hell out of him. And I yelled at him and I must have yelled very loud, and he looked at me, and I must have had a really mean look on my face or something, because he immediately dropped his weapon and turned and ran. And then I gave chase.”
 
There were reports that the gun had jammed before the shooter ran to his car, but Stewart noted that it was unlikely. “Full automatic weapons will jam. Semi-automatic weapons do not jam.” Stewart figured that the gunman’s magazine simply ran out of ammo, so he dropped the gun and ran to his car.
 
Stewart then reportedly ran towards the gunman’s car, started pounding on it before he saw the gunman reach for another rifle. However, Border Patrol agent Morales came running and “yelled for Stewart to get down because Morales had a gun.” According to reports, Morales shot at the car multiple times in the hopes of disabling it, but the shooter drove away. The two brave men then called the police to report the guy’s license plate, but the shooter turned himself in soon after, interestingly enough.
 
The entire situation, however, demonstrates the power of God over Satan. The shooter intended to cause great harm and damage to Jews. According to posts he made on 8-chan, a reportedly “far-right” message board site, the guy hates Jews and Israel, blaming them for supposedly “sealing the doom” of the “European race”, spoken much like Adolf Hitler, whom the shooter mentions as being his inspiration, alongside the Tree of Life Synagogue shooter and the Christchurch, New Zealand mosque shooter.
 
The shooter also reportedly blames the Jews for “persecution of Christians” for their role in the deaths of Jesus, as well as prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah… all of whom were Jewish, so I’m not so sure about that.
 
According to the Jerusalem Post, the shooter claimed he was carrying out the attack in order to be a “good Christian”, saying “My God understands why I did what I did.”
 
Suffice it to say, he was not being a good Christian. God certainly understands why he did what he did, seeing as He’s omniscient, but that does not mean He sees it as a good or righteous thing. Far from it. If the shooter were really a “good Christian”, he would understand NOT TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE among many, many other things.
 
Plenty of people use God in terrible, sinful ways. One argument the Left often makes regarding religion is that it was used to justify slavery. But it was also used to justify ending it. Slavery is not a Christian thing. It’s not what God wants. And before you point out the multiple times in the Bible where the word is used and it’s not taken as a bad thing, please understand that there’s a difference between indentured servitude and paying off a debt through labor.
 
It is nothing new to see Satan use the scripture to perform evil deeds. Satan used scripture to tempt Jesus, after all. So it’s not exactly new for someone who claims to be a Christian to use scripture to try to justify committing an evil act. However, it is important to note that such a thing is inherently anti-Christian. Just as any “Christian” trying to justify abortion, any “Christian” trying to justify the killing and persecution of Jews is not a real Christian.
 
The shooter blamed the Jews for what they did to Jesus, but what happened to Jesus was NECESSARY FOR OUR ATONEMENT! We are evil by nature and nothing we can do on our own accord justifies us or makes us righteous. What we need is a perfect being to be our substitute, to be punished in our stead and make us justified in the Eyes of the Lord. Jesus is that perfect substitute. What happened to Him is heart-wrenching and gruesome, but the ultimate blessing for those whom He calls.
 
To blame Jews, particularly today’s Jews for what the Pharisees and Romans did to Jesus is like blaming white people today for what white Democrats did in the past regarding slavery and segregation. Christians have no better ally in the world than the Jews and vice versa.
 
The power of God is clearly seen in the fact that the shooter likely ran out of ammo and was scared off by brave men, one of whom had a gun with him. Satan led the supposed “Christian” to commit this detestable crime against God’s Chosen People, but God kept the shooter from doing more damage than he could have.
 
Satan already knows he is finished, that he will not win. At this point, he just doesn’t want to be lonely by the time he burns in the lake of fire and sulfur, so he entraps people like this shooter. He loves nothing more than to bring people away from God, away from Christ. But his defeat was made concrete from the very beginning.
 
2 Thessalonians 3:3
“But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against 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.

This is something anyone with a functioning brain can figure out, but it is always good to have a study backing up such thoughts. Common sense and logic dictate that the Green New Deal, even if it worked as advertised, would do nothing to combat climate change considering it would only apply to the U.S. and there are other countries that pollute even more than we do.
 
But a study from the American Enterprise Institute looked into this sort of thing and found the same results: the GND, even if it worked exactly as advertised, doing everything it did financially effectively, would do next to nothing to combat climate change.
 
The study, written by Benjamin Zycher, begins by saying that the GND’s central goal is to implement policies that would “reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero, or to ‘net zero’, by 2050 in some formulations,” and that the way it would go about it is by “reducing sharply the economic value of some substantial part of the US resource base and the energy-producing and energy-consuming capital stock,” which the proposal claims would “increase the size of the economy in real terms, increase employment, improve environmental quality, and improve distributional equity.”
 
To Zycher, that is a “’broken windows’ argument: The destruction of resources increases aggregate wealth. It is not to be taken seriously.”
 
Zycher then notes that “the future temperature impacts of the zero-emissions objective would be barely distinguishable from zero: 0.173° by 2100, under the maximum Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change parameter… Under the assumption consistent with the findings reported in the recent peer-reviewed literature, the effect would be 0.083° by 2100, a policy impact not measurable against normal variation in temperatures.”
 
In other words, the impact of the GND on climate change would be pretty much unnoticeable even in 80 years. And considering we only have 12 years to live, according to the brilliant AOC, I’d say that’s not a good thing.
 
But Zycher does not simply end there. He also recognizes what the GND’s TRUE purpose is. It is not about fighting climate change, despite what the people supporting it will claim. It’s such a ridiculous and not-at-all well-thought-out proposal that one glance is all anyone needs to tell this wouldn’t work.
 
Replacing every single building in the country? Eliminating cow farts? Those two things alone are pretty darn impossible to pull off, let alone all the other junk in it.
 
No, its true purpose is to fundamentally change the United States into the definition of a socialist country: a country where the government owns the means of production. As Zycher puts it, the GND’s “real goal is wealth redistribution to favored political interests under the GND social-policy agenda and a dramatic increase in government control of resource allocation more generally.”
 
It is policy meant to give all the power to those in government while utterly decimating everyone else. Especially considering the GND’s electricity mandate, which would cost tax payers around $490.5 billion a year, and that’s a CONSERVATIVE estimate, or $3,845 per household. According to Zycher, this “impact would vary considerably across the states if the GND were financed through electricity rates rather than the federal budget. Under such a ratepayer finance assumption, the lowest household cost of $222 per year would be observed in Vermont. The highest would be observed in Wyoming: $17,103 per household per year.”
 
And just like that, Wyoming would lose pretty much all of its population. And considering they only have about 577,000 people in that entire state (I was honestly stunned at that number. There are more people in the city of Portland, Oregon than in all of Wyoming?), I’d say that state is particularly screwed by the GND.
 
But do you want to know what the cherry on top of all of that is? Not only would people be utterly financially screwed with an added tax to pay for this GND on top of everything else they need to pay, but this mandate alone would actually HARM the environment more than it would help it.
 
“Because of the need for conventional backup generation to avoid blackouts in a ‘100 percent renewable system’ and because those backup units would have to be cycled up and down depending on wind and sunlight conditions, one ironic effect would be GHG emissions from natural gas-fired backup generation 22 percent higher than those resulting in 2017 from all natural gas-fired power generation. And those backup emissions would be over 35 percent of the emissions from all power generation in 2017.”
 
In other words, because wind and solar are so unreliable when it comes to the energy they produce, the backup generators would actually heavily increase greenhouse emissions (you know, that naughty word?). It would actually be WORSE for the environment to switch to wind and/or solar, not to mention they also do not produce anywhere near the same amount of energy that fossil fuel does, so blackouts would be frequent almost regardless of conditions (depending on where you live).
 
So the GND literally cannot even TRY to work as advertised, that is, it cannot do anything favorable to fight climate change, as the electricity mandate alone would work against that goal, even if we could actually somehow afford it, which we definitely cannot.
 
The GND should be considered a complete and total joke, top to bottom, but there are some really stupid people out there who think this is a good idea. Well, once their homes stop having working electricity (and God knows the U.S. can’t literally replace all of its buildings even within a century), their supermarkets are emptied because the farming equipment we currently have would be outlawed so food production would severely decline, and you overall have massive famines and riots, then maybe people will stop thinking the GND is so great.
 
Seriously, the GND is national suicide. It would almost immediately destroy the country in every aspect. And all to perhaps help decrease global temperatures by virtually zero in 80 years.
 
What a great plan.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.