There are a number of reasons as to why I could not be bothered to watch the U.S. Women’s team win the World Cup (congratulations to them are in order, for sure) or watch them make a fool of themselves by throwing the American flag to the ground (surprise, surprise, it was Rapinoe, the Trump-hating star of the team, that did it, but another player picked it up, so kudos to her) and get together to start chanting “equal pay”, believing themselves to be the victims of misogyny. Namely, I hardly care about soccer as it is and was more preoccupied with observing NBA free agency. However, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t see just what it was that the Women’s soccer team did after winning their second World Cup in a row: whine and moan that they are being treated “unfairly” and they deserve “equal pay” as the Men’s soccer team.
 
Well, there are a few problems with this entire debacle.
 
First of all, this is strictly a FIFA issue. Even Rapinoe had the sense to only call out FIFA for this “wage gap” between men and women because the players in the U.S. actually make around the same. According to the New York Times: “According to figures provided by U.S. Soccer, since 2008 it has paid 12 players at least $1 million. Six of those players were men, and six were women. And the women hold their own near the top of the pay scale; the best-paid woman made about $1.2 million from 2008 to 2015, while the top man made $1.4 million in the same period. Some women in the top 10 even made more than their male counterparts over those years.”
 
In other words, the talented and good players are paid top dollar, regardless of gender in the United States.
 
For FIFA, things are different, and while the international organization is marred by corruption, it is ridiculous to say that they are deliberately paying women less than men for sexist reasons. Why is it ridiculous? Difference in revenue.
 
FIFA pays its male players around $400 million and pays its female players around $30 million. From those two numbers alone and with no other information or context, you could say that there is, indeed, a wage gap. Men get a bigger piece of the pie than women… right? Actually, men get a smaller share of the revenue pie from FIFA than women do.
 
Here is what Forbes says about this: “As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women’s World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men’s World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players. The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men’s World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women’s World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.”
 
In other words, the men get paid more than the women do because the men’s World Cup generates FAR more money than the women’s World Cup does. If the men generate more money, they earn more money. And as we can see from that quote, the share of the pie that the men get is actually less than the share the women get. Yes, the men are still paid more because they make more, but they are paid 7%-9% compared to the women’s 23%. So if you want “equal pay”, then either you’re going to have to get those women’s numbers up or lower the share the women get of the revenue.
 
Asking to be paid the same $400 million as the men in an organizational division that barely makes 32% of that would be to ask for financial ruin to the women’s World Cup. It’s sort of similar to asking for higher minimum wage. You might be getting paid more per hour, but you’ll see those hours cut heavily, so you end up either making the same (best case) or making less money than before per week (if you even get to keep your job in the first place).
 
What the two issues have most in common is that they both rely on emotion rather than logic. An organization that only makes around $130 mil cannot pay the same amount to its players as an organization that makes BILLIONS.
 
And that’s the second problem with this entire thing: the math makes it impossible for there to be “equal pay”. The women get a bigger share of the pie than men do, but the women’s pie is smaller than the men’s. Whatever share the men get is, as a result, most likely to be more money than what the women get. This is not an issue of misogyny or sexism or patriarchal, straight white men unfairly treating women as lesser than men. It’s a matter of revenue differences that affect people’s income. Again, the men get paid more because the men generate more revenue.
 
Now, I know what some still hysterical liberals might say: “But the women’s team is better than the men’s! They should be paid more as a result, according to your capitalistic logic!” While it’s true that the women’s team has historically been more successful than the men’s, you must realize that this is women competing against women versus men competing against men. This same women’s team that has won two World Cups in a row lost to a team of prepubescent boys a few years ago – kids around 13 and 14 years old. So the U.S. Women’s team can certainly beat other countries’ women’s team, but against the men, I doubt they’d do much better because of simple biology: men are physically superior to women.
 
Even in tennis, there have been five times when a woman played against a man. The woman only won once out of those five.
 
In 1973, 55-year-old Bobby Riggs took on 31-year-old Margaret Court in what is today called The Mother’s Day Massacre. Riggs beat Court 6-2, 6-1. Court was No. 1 in the world among women and had won three major titles. That same year, Riggs also played against Billie Jean King. The woman actually won that one (6-4, 6-3, 6-3).
 
But ever since then, men have won every match against women. In 1993, Jimmy Connors (40) played against Martina Navratilova (35) in what was called the “Battle of the Sexes”. While the first set was close (7-5), Connors dominated the second (6-2). What's more, there were special rules in place to favor Navratilova. Connors was only allowed one serve per point (if he hit the net on his serve, point Navratilova instead of a "fault" so no 2nd serve) and Navratilova was allowed to hit the ball into the doubles alleys where it would normally be an out on singles, but Connors had to play it normally.
 
And the most recent case came in 1998, when the Williams sisters claimed that no man outside the top 200 could beat them. Karsten Braasch, ranked 203 at the time, first destroyed Serena 6-1 and then destroyed Venus 6-2. Following the match, Serena said: “I didn’t know it would be that difficult. I played shots that would have been winners on the women’s circuit and he got to them very easily.” Braasch even taunted the two after the match by saying: “They wouldn’t have had a chance against anyone inside the top 500 because today I played like someone ranked 600th to keep it fun.”
 
While I’m not so sure about Braasch’s comment regarding the way he played (though I do believe he took it a little easy), Serena’s comment shows us what we know to be true: men are physically superior to women. I believe her when she says that the shots she took would’ve been winners against women. I also believe that Braasch easily got to those shots as well.
 
So when it comes to the U.S. Women’s team, if they can’t even beat 13 and 14-year-olds (to be a little fair, it’s possible the women also took it a little easy on the boys, but the boys still beat them), how could they stand a chance against the men?
 
And do you want to know what else leads me to believe the Williams sisters at least should’ve realized before hand that men are physically superior to women? The fact that they had to specifically challenge men outside the top 200. If men and women are the same, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that the top women could compete with the top men? If the best man played against the best woman and the man won, what would be the excuse? “Well, he’s No. 1. Of course he won!” But wouldn’t that also be true of the woman? As it stands, Novak Djokovic is ranked No. 1 among men and the aforementioned Serena Williams is No. 1 among women. If they played, there’s no doubt in my mind Djokovic would obliterate Williams. But the reason for this isn’t because Djokovic is so good but because he’s a guy.
 
So going back to soccer, the U.S. Women’s team isn’t better than the Men’s. The Women’s team is more historically successful, but in terms of a head-to-head matchup, the men have the upper hand.
 
Much like in other aspects of the private sector, there is no such thing as a “gender wage gap”. Men make more money than women because men either will work more or generate more revenue as is the case for the Men’s Soccer team.
 
To claim there is discrimination at play is disingenuous at best and malignant at worst. Do they really expect to be paid around $400 million like the men do in an organization that itself generates only 30% of that? Do they want the Women’s division in FIFA to be financially ruined? Because that’s how you do it.
 
1 Timothy 6:10
“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It is no surprise that I am one who listens to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis. And one thing that has really stuck with me for the past couple of weeks (or however long he has been talking about it) is the fact that not a single Democrat Presidential candidate even bothers to speak about the problems in California, specifically in places like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where the streets are almost literally paved with crap, largely because they cannot blame Republicans for such horrible conditions.
 
There is a reason as to why I started mentioning California as an example of what a socialist country looks like. Of course, California is a State, not a country, but considering it is one of the biggest economies in the world, and considering how dominant socialists are in that State, for all intents and purposes, it doubles as a small socialist nation in these discussions.
 
And considering the countless times I’ve written about how awful the State is (which is a huge pity considering how naturally beautiful it is), it’s no secret that California is basically a hellhole in many ways. The homeless crisis that they face is one ugly and major problem in a vast sea of problems for the State, and it’s a problem that can only belong to the Democrats who have raised the cost of living in that State so much that very few people outside of Hollywood, sports stars and the government are capable of living there.
 
This homeless crisis has garnered nationwide attention, even if the MSM is trying their hardest not to cover it and certainly not to draw the logical conclusion that Democrats are responsible for this mess. But even President Donald Trump, in an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, mentioned that the federal government might have to intervene in the city of Los Angeles to take care of the homeless problem ravaging the city.
 
That interview (apart from the actual problem, of course) is likely what prompted one LA activist to create a video (below) asking for the President’s and federal government’s intervention in the city to take care of the homeless problem.
 
LA activist Alexandra Datig said in her video: “… I am calling on the President of the United States to intervene in Los Angeles due to the state of emergency created by its homeless crisis. In the county of Los Angeles, we have more than 59,000 people homeless. We have more than 36,300 people homeless in the city of Los Angeles, and we have more than 16,000 people living in [their] cars. We have more than 3,000 homeless veterans. Veteran homelessness was supposed to be ended by the year 2015 according to our mayor. This has not happened.”
 
“We have had a 75% increase in homelessness in the past six years under the leadership of our mayor, Eric Garcetti. Our leaders, here in this city, have lost heart and cannot deal with the crisis at hand. Our police officers are getting sick; our social workers are getting sick. Our sanitation workers are being treated terribly. Trash problems are everywhere. We are having serious environmental crimes happening, every day, several times a day, where 59,000 people in the county of Los Angeles are dumping raw sewage into our storm drains, entering our waterways.”
 
“These are serious, serious environmental crimes. We have homeless youth; we have had, in the past five years, to 2018, more than 3,600 people die on the streets of Los Angeles. These people, who are living on the street, some of them, are sentenced to death by homelessness. This situation is completely unacceptable and we need a federal intervention immediately. We need FEMA; we need the Red Cross; we need the CDC and the Environmental Protection Agency. We need immediate assistance. This is urgent. Immediate assistance is needed. Now. Today. No delay. Please, President Trump, we are calling on you: Help our city. Our citizens are dying; they will continue to die.”
 
This is not the first time Datig has brought up this problem or called out Eric Garcetti for his incompetence. NBC News reported late last month that Datig was leading a petition calling for Garcetti to be recalled, saying, “We don’t want any more excuses from this mayor. We want him to step down. We want him gone and we want leadership that is going to take care of this city. This city has become a death camp for the homeless.” Datig has also created the website: www.recallthelamayor.com.
 
LA station WRAL also reported: “Figures released earlier this month showed a 16% jump in Los Angeles’ homeless population over the last year, pegging it at 36,000 – the size of a small city. That’s no surprise to anyone who lives or works downtown, where tents crowd sidewalks within sight of City Hall and the stench of urine fills the air.”
 
Suffice it to say, the situation is dire in Los Angeles. But the biggest problem here isn’t simply the homeless crisis. The homeless crisis is a symptom of a larger disease called Socialism.
 
The State income tax in California is the highest in the nation (among the States that have income tax) at around 13%. Of course, it largely depends on how much money you are making, but considering the high cost of living in California (among the top 7, according to USA Today) and considering the State has some of the highest home prices in the nation (I saw plenty of shoddy-looking houses going for nearly $500,000 on Zillow, though there were some others that were nicer and cheaper), no wonder so many people are homeless. The median household income in California is around $11,000 more than the median in the country ($71,805 in California).
 
All these things combined and you have a recipe for a homeless crisis. If people can’t afford to live somewhere and don’t make enough to move out of State, they will be forced to live on the streets, as one can plainly see is the case in LA.
 
Addressing the homeless crisis is important and a good first step, but it’s not like it came out of nowhere. There is a root cause to it that is easy to see given the information I talked about in the previous paragraphs. And I do not think this problem is going to go away without some serious overhaul to both the political system (that continually elects Democrats and only Democrats aka getting rid of illegals that illegally vote for Democrats) and the economic atmosphere of huge tax rates on middle class families and massive home costs for houses that wouldn’t even touch 6 digits in many other states.
 
The Democrats don’t want to bring attention to this issue because they know that it precisely belongs to them and is an example of the kind of damage they could bring on the country. This is what socialism does to not only a State but an entire country. California, unfortunately, is one of the worst States to live in and that solely lies on the Democrats’ shoulders. They turned what used to be one of the best States into one of the worst (seriously, I would’ve loved to live in California in the age of Reagan before he naively signed that amnesty bill that led the way for Democrats to take it).
 
If you want to know what it’s like to live under socialism, look at California, where you can knowingly spread STDs to people but cannot use plastic straws.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
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.

Ahead of the 4th of July, Gallup released a poll indicating that the number of people who said they were proud, or “extremely” proud, to be Americans is considerably lower today than in previous polls, with trends showing this sort of thing for the past couple of years.
 
However, it is important to note just who exactly it is that is dragging these numbers down: people who identify as Democrats aka people who hate Trump and would love to see this country turn into a socialist country (though as I have explained in the past, most people don’t actually know what socialism is).
 
Gallup said that while, overall, 70% of U.S. adults said they were proud to be Americans, only 45% said they were “extremely” proud of their country, a rather low number not seen in quite some time and the second time in only two years that that number was below 50%.
 
According to the poll, only 22% of Democrats said they were “extremely” proud of this country and that “subgroups that typically identify as Democrats – women, liberals and younger adults,” also showed lower levels of pride in their country. That 22% is the lowest in Gallup’s polling history for Democrats, who have historically never been quite so proud of this country, regardless of who was President.
 
Even while Obama was President, the lowest number for Republicans was 68%.
 
But again, the Democrats are really the ones who drive down these numbers, because 76% of Republicans and 41% of Independents were “extremely” proud of this country. And this really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise at all.
 
Matter of fact, this is quite some wonderful news, when you think about it. The Democrats, a party that has spent over a decade openly bashing this country and going on “apology tours” to other countries and who wish for nothing more than to see this country be turned on its head, are very much not proud to be Americans. Why? Because Donald Trump is President and is Making America Great Again, a slogan that literally causes Leftists to go nuts every time they hear it because they want precisely the opposite.
 
While Republicans, Independents, and the few sane Democrats that are extremely proud of this country spend their time in joy over what is happening around them, embittered and hateful Leftists spend their time making bogus claim after bogus claim about many aspects of America, be it “running concentration camps” at the southern border, or “Trump’s military parade was literally never done before”, or “white people’s very existence is a threat to brown people” or “Border Patrol is biased against minorities” (even though 51% of CBP agents are Latino), they have just about everything negative to say about this country, from its founding to today.
 
Just look at Nike’s Betsy Ross flag scandal. One socialist, third-rate former quarterback complained to them about a flag (that literally was on the side of the Union when fighting the Confederates) that was supposedly racist because it was made when there was slavery and Nike folded like a wet piece of paper. People like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers are marred because they lived when slavery was allowed, or owned slaves themselves, and created a nation supposedly with the idea that only “white men” would be free.
 
All a massive load of b.s. Slavery was in place in this country WELL before this country’s founding, and it’s not like no other country had slaves. I don’t see people lambasting Egypt or many other African or Middle Eastern countries despite the fact that they have all allowed slavery to exist (and there are still some countries that allow for slavery to exist). England also had slavery, and they didn’t just enslave Africans, but also enslaved Irish people too, sending them to the New World to be sold to English settlers in the West Indies.
 
But the Left completely abhors America because slavery was a thing that happened when it was founded. Despite the fact that we took care of that problem LESS THAN A CENTURY LATER, the fact that it was even a problem at one point in the first place is cause for scorn towards this country.
 
Despite the fact that most of the racial problems that existed in America were A) largely due to Leftists and B) were resolved eventually, the fact that these problems existed and caused people ire is seen as a justifiable enough reason to hate this country and turn to a system that LITERALLY ENSLAVES ITS OWN POPULATION in socialism.
 
Ignorant fools will complain about how minorities and homosexuals are treated in this country while wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt (in case you are unaware, Che Guevara was a massive racist and homophobe who opened Cuba’s first ACTUAL concentration camp and among many considered to be “counter-revolutionaries” were gay people, who were seen as bourgeois).
 
They will decry the Constitution as being rigged against black people and completely ignore the fact that Frederick Douglass, a former slave himself, said of the Constitution: “The Constitution is a glorious liberty document. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? Or is it in the temple? It is neither,” and “Now, take the Constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”
 
The plain truth is that this country is the greatest nation on Earth. It is not perfect, of course (the fact that abortion and homosexual marriage are legal is a testament to that). No country founded and ruled by men can ever be perfect due to our very nature of imperfection. But I dare any Leftist who hates this country, someone like Colin Kaepernick, to live somewhere like Venezuela or Cuba, and not among the bourgeois like he does today, but among the proletariat, among the masses, where he would be treated like any other person and still say that that is better than America at any capacity.
 
People FLEE other nations to COME INTO THIS COUNTRY for a very good reason. Whether that reason be for economic opportunity (like my family did), for religious or another kind of freedom, or to take advantage of the welfare system in place in this country like so many illegals (and, truth be told, a fair amount of legal immigrants) do, they all come into this country because the one they chose to leave behind was utter garbage.
 
If this country were anywhere near as bad as the Left said it was, no amount of George Soros’ money would convince people to form caravans and march into America like an invading army.
 
If this country were anywhere near as bad as the Left said it was, people would be LEAVING this country in droves rather than coming into it.
 
The truth of the matter is that America is the best country in the history of the planet because it was founded with the greatest economic system (capitalism) under the greatest form of government (a Constitutional Republic) and blessed by the almighty Lord. The Left absolutely abhors all three of these things, so it comes as no surprise that so few Democrats are proud, or extremely proud of this country.
 
If the people who view abortion as liberation, homosexuality as a must-have for any society 24/7 to the point children are forced to learn it and forced to love it, view age as “just a number”, view Christian religious freedom as a violation of another person’s rights but view Muslim religious freedom as perfectly acceptable (even if they actually violate another person’s rights), view guns as sentient killing machines, view gun owners and the NRA as terrorists but view Islamic terrorists as “misunderstood”, view fascist protesters who claim to be against fascism and commit violence on a regular basis as “angels”, view this country as not something to be proud of, then Hallelujah because we are doing something right.
 
These people are the incarnation of what Isaiah was talking about in the 20th verse of the 5th chapter, when he talked about those who substitute evil for good and good for evil.
 
If they were to meet God, they would consider Him the devil. So if these people hate this country that much, then Trump is doing something marvelously right.
 
Still, apart from that, there are some things that are positive in the Gallup poll. Gallup put in a question asking people what they were proud of about American society. 91% said they were proud of scientific advancements in this country, 89% said they were proud of the military, 85% said they were proud of American culture and arts, 75% were proud of the economic achievements, 73% proud of achievements in sports and 72% proud of the country’s diversity in race, ethnic background, and religion.
 
So despite how much the Left hates America, even they have to recognize the areas in which we are doing particularly well, even if they disagree about other aspects.
 
Still, this doesn’t take away the fact that they are not very proud at all of this country, even if just for the fact that it elected Donald Trump, whom they view as the embodiment of Hitler (despite how far he actually is from such a Satanic historical figure).
 
Of course, they are certainly entitled to their own opinion. And they are certainly entitled to be wrong. They may wallow in misery over the “bad” things this country is doing. Meanwhile, I will delight in the great things this country has done and continues to do, thanking the Lord for blessing this country and begging for Him to continue to do so.
 
Psalm 33:12
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!”
 
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.

Within the last few days, I (and likely others as well) have heard of two stories from two different campaigns: Beto O’Rourke campaigning IN MEXICO, despite the obvious fact that not one Mexican citizen is bound (or allowed) to vote either in the Democrat primaries or the 2020 election, and the other story of the Trump campaign trying their hardest to reach the evangelical vote.
 
While Beto O’Rourke is campaigning in Mexico (in what is obviously an attempt at securing illegal immigrant votes States-side), the President is trying to reach those of us who follow the Lord.
 
According to Axios, a Trump campaign advisor told them: “There is a significant evangelical outreach effort. It’s going to be state specific. It’s going to exist in important battleground states and focus on churches and areas where we can have an impact. African American outreach will be a component of that… It’s robust, and it will be well-funded.”
 
Another campaign official told Axios that “this is about finding voters,” and Axios reported that in 2016, Trump got 81% of the evangelical vote. As it stands right now, the Pew Research Center says that 69% of evangelicals think the President is doing a good job.
 
Governing.com also reported that evangelicals have moved closer to Trump since his 2016 victory:
 
“Exit polls showed that 75 percent cast their ballots for Republican candidates. That number includes evangelicals of all ages, but surveys taken shortly before the election showed that 78 percent of white evangelicals ages 18 to 29 identified as Republican. ‘Did we see white evangelicals moving toward the middle of the political spectrum in 2018? Clearly no,’ says Ryan Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University (and a Baptist minister). ‘White evangelicals are more Republican now than they were two years ago.’”
 
Burge also noted that the percentage of evangelicals rose in 45 states from 2000 to 2010, coming largely from a rise in Latino evangelicals in states like Arizona, Florida, Maryland and Ohio.
 
And back in May, White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said that evangelicals and Trump are so close because “there’s a mutual respect. I think they have a good relationship because of the fact that he has delivered on the promises he made during the campaign.”
 
And there’s certainly a lot to that. As far as other Republicans go, the ones that do not keep their promises, like that snake Paul Ryan, seriously tick us off because he was essentially doing the Left’s bidding, which is far from good for the country. We respect Trump because he actually keeps his promises and is legitimately making America great again, despite all the hurdles in his way.
 
Now, I know what rather hypocritical Leftists will say about this: “how can evangelicals support Trump? He likes to grab women by their privates! He has had affairs on his wives and has been married three times! He is far from a man after God’s own heart!” To which I say: while the Access Hollywood tape of him saying what he said was definitely not a nice thing to say, it was locker room talk and he has never actually sexually assaulted or harassed any woman. While he has had affairs with his wives (his second wife was his mistress while he was married to Ivana), while there’s the whole Stormy Daniels thing (which I don’t fully believe anyway), and while those things are certainly sinful and not right, what is important to understand is whether or not Donald Trump has asked for forgiveness for his sins.
 
Which brings me to the last one, about him not being a man after God’s own heart. The biblically-illiterate Left will be quick to judge, but slow to understand, but David, while anointed as a man after God’s own heart by the Lord Himself, eventually sinned greatly by sleeping with one of his most loyal soldier’s wife, Bathsheba, and then plotted to send said soldier off to die in battle to keep his sins buried.
 
The story of King David would be seen as a massive fall from grace if it weren’t for the fact that much of the book of Psalms is about David’s recognition and repentance of his sins, begging for God’s forgiveness and eventually receiving it.
 
And that’s what is important: to be forgiven by the Lord. What Trump did decades ago, or even a few years ago, is irrelevant if he has asked for forgiveness from Jesus Christ.
 
What’s more, what he did in the past is greatly overshadowed by the atrocities the Left advocates for TODAY.
 
I’ll take a former adulterer who cares for this country and loves the Lord over a current advocate for death, lust, obscenity and evil who hates this country and wishes for nothing more than to see it turn into the antithesis of what the founders intended.
 
President Trump has flaws, yes, but that comes naturally as HE IS HUMAN TOO! And while there may be evangelical NeverTrumpers like David French who honestly can’t see past Trump’s former mistakes and judges him on those things as a result (not exactly a very Christian thing to do either), most recognize that if we were to wait for the perfect candidate to show up to run for President, we would literally have to wait for rapture to occur because no one is perfect apart from the Lord.
 
And believe me, Jesus Christ wouldn’t run for President of the United States, as He already is the King of all the Earth and Heaven.
 
The fact that President Trump is trying this hard to get the evangelical vote (which will almost certainly go to him over anyone on the Left who currently advocate for literally demonic things) shows us who he wants to be part of his base.
 
Evangelicals love the Lord, love this country and love Trump in that order. And the reason they (we, really, as I’m also a Christian) love Trump is because he ALSO loves the Lord and this country. Whatever mistake he may have done in the past is forgiven provided he has asked for said forgiveness (and I have no reason to believe he hasn’t).
 
The entire story of the Bible, both the Old and New Testament, is a story of redemption. From the moment Adam and Eve sinned against the Lord, God has provided salvation after salvation for His people – all of them with a similar theme: have faith in the Lord.
 
It was Noah’s faith that saved him from God’s wrath during the flood. It was Abraham’s faith that saved him. It was Lot’s faith that saved his family (minus his wife, who disobeyed God) from the judgment over Sodom. It was Moses’ and the Israelites faith that saved them from Pharaoh. And it is all of our faith in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for our sins, that saves us from God’s judgment. Sola Gratia and Sola Fide. By grace alone, we are saved through faith alone.
 
Even the most spiteful of humans to ever exist can be saved if he or she were to place their faith in the Lord Jesus. Even every single person on the Democrat ticket who currently advocates for Satan’s wish list could be saved if they were to place their faith in Jesus Christ. Granted, that is not likely to happen as it stands, and it is up to the Lord to choose whom He shows mercy, so it is possible none of them will be saved (and no, Buttigieg is not a Christian, he is not saved, no matter how much he tries to say he is a Christian. Outward proclamation of faith does not always equal actual faith).
 
So it really doesn’t matter what Donald Trump did in his past. As long as he has repented of his sins, he has been forgiven by the Lord. As a result, I see no reason not to forgive him myself for those things. So as far as his reelection campaign goes, I, along with many other Christians, will be voting for President Trump.
 
1 John 1:9
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
 
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, the ever-so tolerant city of Portland, Oregon was marred by riots from angsty Antifa terrorists pretending to fight the “far-right” while employing similar tactics used by Nazi Brown Shirts in 1930s Germany.
 
In the riots, a number of people were assaulted by members of the hateful group, including journalist Andy Ngo (who is gay, but that doesn’t matter to the Left if he is a conservative) and other men who all had to go to the ER.
 
Ngo had to be treated for a brain hemorrhage and the other men (who were taking part of a Him Too demonstration, a demonstration to support men who are victims of sexual assault and falsely accused of sexual assault) were also left bleeding.
 
According to Portland Police, Ngo was beaten and milkshake laced with quick-dry cement was thrown at him. The other men were beaten with a crowbar, nun-chucks and other things apart from being outright punched.
 
Meanwhile, not one Democrat candidate has come out to condemn the violence of Antifa (likely because they approve of it) and hardly any MSM source has condemned it, with CNN hardly covering it at all.
 
This is far from the first time Antifa has gotten violent against anyone they perceived to be “Alt-Right” aka anyone they even somewhat disagree with. According to Breitbart News, Antifa has beaten 15 other journalists apart from Ngo in the past. This, of course, doesn’t include the people they generally disagreed with who are not journalists whom they chose to assault (just a few months ago, they beat up an elderly man after dragging him out of his vehicle).
 
And throughout all of it, despite their outright terroristic actions, the media stays quiet at best and outright PRAISES them at worst, with comments like “what they are doing is right” or “they are angels” or “they are just like the soldiers at Normandy” often being said by members of the fake news media.
 
These people are NOT doing what is right, are DEMONS and definitely are like the soldiers at Normandy – the Nazi soldiers, that is.
 
These people are downright terrorists. Now, I know what some disturbed individual might say: “how can you say they are terrorists? They haven’t killed anyone yet!” They were beating people up with weapons, hitting them upside the head and causing severe damage. If they haven’t killed anyone yet, it hasn’t come from lack of trying.
 
Besides, is that really the threshold necessary to designate a group as terrorists? We have to wait until someone loses their life over this before we can say these people are terrorists?
 
Think about what they are doing: gathering in massive groups, destroying property and generally terrorizing the populace, making threats and often coming through on those threats of violence. They may not be terrorists like ISIS, but they are terrorists like the KKK, who terrorized black people after slavery was abolished.
 
It’s also rather ironic to me that Antifa is also predominantly white, like the KKK before them. Antifa is the Left’s new military arm.
 
If there ever is to be another civil war in America, it’ll be because of these masked cowards pretending to fight what they actually are. Their actions, as I have said multiple times, are the same ones taken by actual fascists in the 20th century. These people are as much anti-fascist as Obama was a Republican. That is to say – not at all.
 
Being anti-fascist means being against big government. These people LOVE big government, particularly when it has the power to shut down those who oppose it. The only reason they say they are against fascism is because the education system has, for half a century, indoctrinated people into believing fascism was big government on the Right. Big government is very strictly a Left-wing pursuit. There is no real difference between fascism, socialism and communism. I would use the analogy of them being different sides of the same coin, but coins are only two-sided, so that doesn’t quite work as well, but the point remains: they are all basically the same.
 
One thing that has always puzzled me is how people can claim communism or socialism is in any way different or better than Nazism was. Nazis WERE SOCIALISTS! Not that you would know this from learning in school.
 
But something people would try and say to argue my point about communism, socialism and fascism being the same is that the Soviets fought the Nazis in World War II, so they obviously have to be different. Not true.
 
That conflict wasn’t a conflict of ideology but of interest. The Soviets were largely fine with the Nazis, even helping them get rid of Jews in Soviet territory, and only turned on each other once Hitler made the moronic decision of invading Russia. The two sides believed in the same, government-dominant ideologies but wanted their own countries to dominate the world. That is where the conflict lied.
 
So those who are supportive of big government, particularly to such extents, find themselves with more in common with Stalin and Hitler than they do with anyone else. This very much includes those who are delusional enough to consider their fascist actions to be in any way its antithesis.
 
And considering the way things are going right now, it’s only bound to get worse unless something gets done about this. Do we really have to wait until these people actually kill someone before designating them what we KNOW they are? Or are we just going to wait until an actual civil war begins? Are we going to wait until they’ve pushed people around long enough to actually being some sort of war?
 
These people may have the right to believe what they believe, but they most certainly do NOT have the right to partake in the actions that they are. And it sickens me that the mainstream media will hardly cover it, barely condemn it and sometimes even CHEER them on as they destroy people’s lives. It sickens me, though not necessarily surprises me, that not a single Democrat candidate looked at what happened in Portland (and it often happens in that God-forsaken city that I am definitely glad I left years ago) and not think of what happened as an absolutely reprehensible act.
 
Again, I do not see things getting better with these people. There may be a few people here and there who look at what they are doing, reflect on it, and decide to leave. That’s certainly possible, but this problem will not go away on its own. They are adamant about destroying an enemy that does not really exist. With their enemy so poorly defined as “Alt-Right”, literally anyone can be their enemy. Anyone who disagrees with them becomes their enemy and find that a justifiable enough reason to attack them. This includes even Democrats who disagree with them. And they won’t stop until their enemy is eliminated or they are.
 
This is, among many other reasons, why Antifa must be designated a domestic terrorist group and treated as such. They are not “fine Americans” and “angels” who are “fighting for good”. They are what Hitler and Stalin would’ve loved to see in the United States: fascist revolutionaries who will only escalate things as time goes on.
 
Isaiah 5:20
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Last week, I talked about the first night of the Democrat debates, in which each candidate tried to outdo themselves in how much pandering they could do, starting with Robert Francis O’Rourke avoiding answering a question in both English and Spanish, followed by former Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro including transgender people in the topic of abortion (he since clarified he meant transmen, meaning women who transition into men, which still makes no sense) and with every single candidate trying to out-socialist the other with radical ideas that are poorly thought out and even less explained.
 
The second debate was no different, all things considered, which leads me to believe in the point I make in the title: none of these guys will beat Donald Trump.
 
None of these people offer anything new to the table, just slight alterations and versions of ideas they all talk about but most people don’t want. Things like unrestricted abortion, Medicare-for-All which would take away people’s private health insurance, raising taxes on the middle class, providing free health insurance to illegals (and opening our borders entirely), etc. are all things that should rightly destroy each of their campaigns.
 
Alas, one of these Marxists has to win the nomination, so one of them will be getting rewarded for the insanity they bring to the table.
 
Even President Trump, in his only tweet on the night of the second debate, wrote: “All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare. How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race!”
 
Not only that, but the Trump campaign actually issued a statement following the debates:
 
“The cast of characters may have changed, but the second night’s script was eerily like the first: a two-hour long infomercial for President Donald J. Trump’s re-election campaign. All of the Democrats tripped over each other in a race to see who could stand out as the most leftist candidate, threatening government control of every aspect of people’s lives. We are many months away from seeing who the Democratic nominee will be, but one thing is clear – President Trump will be the hands-down victor after each and every Democrat debate.”
 
Usually, statements like that make me say: “hold up, there is still a year and a half until the election and a lot can happen in that time.” And while that still is technically true, from what we saw in those two nights, even from the current frontrunner Joe Biden, not a single one of these people is ready to beat Donald Trump and don’t seem to have much of a path to do so.
 
What they’re doing will certainly fire up their radical base, but there are plenty of people who used to vote Democrat (and even voted Hillary in 2016) who will likely vote for Trump in 2020 because the Democrat Party has gone so far to the Left and there doesn’t appear to be a single one of them that seems in any way moderate, or at the very least somewhat reasonable.
 
Each of them wants to prioritize illegal immigrants over Americans, as we know from the fact that they raised their hands if their healthcare plans would cover illegals, and as we know from the fact many of them advocate for open borders (even if they don’t necessarily use those exact words). Each of them wants abortion to be completely unrestricted, even when a sizeable majority of DEMOCRATS, let alone everyone else, want some fairly heavy restrictions on abortions. Each of them wants to raise taxes, not only on the upper class, but also on the middle class. Each of them wants to prioritize a boogey man of a threat in man-made climate change.
 
Each of them wishes to turn the United States into the Soviet Union but with open borders.
 
Let’s briefly go over a brief analysis of a few of the candidates:
 

• Joe Biden, the frontrunner, tries to pin the situation at the border, specifically children in “cages”, as a Trump-only problem, despite having been part of the administration that was most notorious for doing that very thing. He also can hardly go a day without speaking some nonsense. He literally said his first act as President would be to “defeat Donald Trump”. The guy’s a moron.

 

• Bernie Sanders appeared seriously ticked off, probably because he’s getting overtaken in some polls by a woman who literally pretended to be Native American for most of her career and even claimed she was Native American after releasing DNA test results that SHOWED SHE WASN’T, and beyond that, he brings nothing new to the table, just repeating many things he said in 2015. The problem here is that the economy was terrible before Trump came along, so his promises seemed good and doable. The economy is far better today for everyone, and they know it.

 

• Elizabeth Warren, again a fake Native American, spews the exact same thing as just about everyone else.

 
Basically, you can copy and paste these descriptions about everyone, with some alterations. Each of them is adamant about using heavily socialistic policies to get their way, be it government take-over of healthcare, confiscating people’s guns and effectively getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, establishing a permanent underclass with open borders and forever changing the American culture from what it once was, etc.
 
The only candidate that was remotely interesting was Buttigieg and that’s because he’s the only one on that stage that at least pretends to be a Christian (he most definitely is not a Christian). He’s the only one that bothers to bring God into the conversation (for some of the worst and most evil reasons) because everyone else on the Democrat field is a Godless heathen who views God as the enemy and government as a suitable replacement.
 
Every single one of the candidates we saw last week is basically a carbon copy of the one next to them, all attempting to pander to target audiences, all promising “free” everything (except when they have to admit that they will raise taxes on the middle class to pay for their “free” healthcare) and all seeking to rule this country more akin to a tyrant than a servant to the people. Not one of them has any sort of appeal for the sane person, and for whatever problems people might see with Donald Trump, he’s at least not crazy like these people.
 
He puts America first, tries his best to uphold the rule of law (something he can’t do on his own), has in two years helped the American economy to rise to new heights, something that is not likely to change any time soon, has obliterated ISIS, is competitive with China (none of the candidates even think China is much of a threat either) and overall is keeping his promise to Make America Great Again wherever he can.
 
Trump will run on his accomplishments. Whoever the Democrat nominee is will run on hating Trump and turning America into a socialist hellhole. That might work for the radical Leftist base, but the overall Democrat base is bound to shrink. Plenty of registered Democrats voted for Trump in 2016 and I suspect plenty more will look at these candidates, or the eventual nominee, and think “yeah, this is too much.”
 
And like I said last week, if it weren’t for the tech giants helping out the Democrats, it’s entirely likely Trump would absolutely obliterate his opponent.
 
Proverbs 28:26
“Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.”
 
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.

Have you ever found yourself in a situation in which you were hit on the head and felt like you might have lost brain cells as a result? Regardless of the way in which you hit your head, chances are, you still have more brain cells than the entire Democrat field and those who watched the Democrat debates after they were over.
 
That’s how embarrassingly stupid the first Democrat debate was, which is what we will mostly be focusing on. Although, I don’t know why I was expecting anything else from them.
 
Let’s begin with Señor Robert Francis O’Rourke when he somehow managed to avoid answering a question relating to taxes in two different languages.
 
Early on in the debate, moderator Savannah Guthrie asked O’Rourke: “Some Democrats want marginal, individual tax rate of 70% of the very highest earners, those making more than $10 million a year. Would you support that, and if not, what would be your top individual rate?”
 
To which Robert responded: “This economy has got to work for everyone, and right now, we know that it isn’t. And it’s gonna take all of us coming together to make sure that it does.” That was what he said in English, which 1) entirely avoided the question and 2) was a complete lie, considering we are in an economic boom and minorities are experiencing record-low unemployment rates that have been steady during Trump’s administration thus far.
 
Then, despite being limited on time, Robert said this in Spanish (and Spanish that wasn’t even entirely grammatically correct): “We need to include every person in the success of this economy. But if we want to do that, we have to include every person in our democracy. Every vote needs representation and every voice needs to be heard.”
 
Again, entirely avoiding the question, but in a uniquely dumb manner that even liberal late night hosts made fun of.
 
Let me remind you that the question asked had to do with taxing the rich extreme rates. What reason does Robert have to reply (without even answering the question at all) in both English and Spanish? It’s quite clear to anyone even half-way paying attention that the guy was simply pandering to the Hispanic vote by basically saying: “Hey, look, I can speak Spanish too!” The only thing that would’ve completed that hysterical moment was if he was holding Uno cards while he was saying that.
 
And while there may be others who disagree with me on this, I find this not only embarrassing for the guy but also kind of insulting. As a Hispanic person, I’m not going to be wooed by someone who happens to know some Spanish (again, he didn’t even speak it perfectly well either). I’m especially not going to be wooed by someone who manages to avoid answering a question in two different languages.
 
Granted, I never had any plans to vote for O’Rourke at any capacity and fully plan on voting for President Trump come the 2020 election, but this was outright asinine.
 
But perhaps not quite as asinine as Julian Castro saying that biological men who transition to (looking) female ought to have the right to an abortion.
 
For some context, NBC News’ Lester Holt had asked the actual Hispanic (and actual lunatic): “Secretary Castro, this one is for you. All of you on stage support a woman’s right to an abortion. You all support some version of a government health care option. Would your plan cover abortion Mr. Secretary?”
 
Castro replied: “Yes, it would. I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman – or let’s not also forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right to choose. And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion.”
 
Another kind of pandering, particularly because he stopped to also include transgender people. And like O’Rourke’s pandering, this one also doesn’t make any sense (although it does make sense in the mind of a lunatic Leftist who is this out of touch with reality).
 
In case Secretary Castro has forgotten his 3rd grade science class, MEN CAN’T GET PREGNANT! It doesn’t matter if a man with gender dysphoria goes through the process of mutilating his body to look like a woman’s, he still cannot biologically get pregnant because he lacks the reproductive equipment to do so. A man may say he is a woman and may even transition into having the body of a woman, but that does not include the transfer of a womb into the new body and the removal of the previous reproductive system.
 
Men can’t get pregnant, and as a result, can also not get an abortion. It literally makes zero sense for Castro to even say this, or for anyone to say this for that matter. And these people think Trump isn’t fit to serve? This guy literally thinks men can get pregnant! Either that or he’s simply trying to pander to out-of-their-minds politically-correct morons in the audience who will say: “Yaaaas! Slay, queen!” entirely unironically. I honestly hope it’s the latter because I would hate for someone that mentally deranged to be within 10 feet of any position of power as grand as the Presidency.
 
Overall, the Democrat debates have proven that the entire field of Democrat candidates is filled with shameless panderers at best and outright deranged people at worst. None of them have proven to mainstream America that they are in any way sane, and that goes beyond the ridiculous (and dangerous) desire to confiscate every gun in America and allow for literally unrestricted abortions. While those two issues demonstrate how out of touch they are with America, it’s the shameless pandering and the open lunacy that tells us what they are all about.
 
Even if I had been a registered Democrat, voted for Hillary in 2016 and despised Trump, I would seriously doubt I would be willing to support any of these people. And I think there are plenty of people out there who think similarly. I mean, O’Rourke is polling at roughly 3%, Castro at less than 1 and everyone else is equally as stupid or deranged.
 
Sure, neither of the two will likely be the Democrat nominee to challenge Trump, but if this is what the Left has to offer, they really do need the tech giants to come in and rig the elections for them because otherwise, Trump would likely win all but one state ala Ronald Reagan.
 
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.

This is not the first time I decide to focus on the sort of damage climate alarmism causes the general public and I, unfortunately, doubt it’ll be the last. But climate alarmism from the Left, what with all their doomsday predictions and “credible” sources backing up their falsities with fake science, leads people to be so concerned over things that are not happening (extreme weather events and other b.s. the Left spews like a faucet) that they end up literally setting themselves on fire to prove some sort of point (and end up dying as a result) or they end up going on things such as birth strikes to protest “inaction” on climate change.
 
Blythe Pepino, a British woman, founded a climate change activism group surrounding the idea of not having biological children out of fear of “droughts, famine, flooding and extreme heat of the world they will have to live in.”
 
Her group, BirthStrike, amassed over 450 other people vowing to also not have children due to climate change, 80% of which are women, according to Pepino. “For me, personally, it’s about me being able to put my time and resources into activism at the moment,” Pepino told CTV’s Your Morning this past Monday.
 
“I’m lucky enough to have a certain amount of power in this world. I’m white and privileged and I don’t have any children. I don’t have any dependents. And really, this next few years is really, really important in terms of trying to put pressure on our governments to make the big changes that we need for our survival.”
 
What we see here is a victim of the Left’s brainwashing at its fullest. She believes her skin color makes her “privileged” (which is really a sort of back-handed insult to people who are not white, when you think about it, as if minorities can’t possibly be privileged in life either). She also believes that climate change is a human-caused phenomenon and something that definitely wasn’t happening before things like ACs, cars, etc., despite the mountains of evidence to the opposite, namely MULTIPLE ICE AGES AND PERIODS OF WARMTH!
 
That’s not to say I don’t think this woman is sincere about what she believes. I fully believe she believes every word she says and that’s the sad part. She believes she is knowledgeable when she is ignorant. It really reminds me of an excerpt from Plato’s Apology, when Socrates was told by the Oracle of Delphi, Pythia, that Socrates was “the wisest man alive”. In the Apology, Plato writes: “For my part, as I went away, I reasoned with regard to myself: ‘I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know.’” This is also known as the Socratic Paradox.
 
But my point here is to say that the woman is like the Oracle Socrates was talking about: she thinks she knows, but truly knows nothing. Bear in mind that this is not meant to insult her but to point out how much damage the Left causes people: they are made to not know any better, as they are taught precisely the wrong things.
 
School children are taught that we are killing our planet and we have a certain amount of years left before we all die, a doomsday clock that is reset every few years to keep the hoax alive. If you remember, Al Gore said back in 2006 that the world would be destroyed by climate change in 10 years, prompting Rush Limbaugh to set up a doomsday clock on his website counting down those 10 years until the clock strikes zero. And, of course, nothing happened when the clock ticked all the way down. And now, we have AOC and the U.N.’s IPCC saying we have 11 or 12 years until the world ends due to climate change, and for whatever reason, people like Pepino totally believe them.
 
And as a result of these b.s. doomsday warnings, people come to such life-altering fear that they take it upon themselves to NOT HAVE CHILDREN AS A RESULT OF THIS! Now, to their credit, Pepino’s group is not so whacko as to demand things like China’s old “one-child” policy in order to curve rising population densities. The BirthStrike site says: “BirthStrike stands in compassionate solidarity with all parents, celebrates their choice and doesn’t seek to judge anyone intending to bear children. BirthStrike disagrees with prioritizing population control over system change in regards to tackling the environmental crisis, disagrees with any enforced population control measures and recognizes the colonial violence of such measures having been proposed in the past and present.”
 
So I do have to give them credit for that, but unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who view enforcement of such policies (which would include horrible things like forced abortion) as a means of “solving” climate change and would totally support enforcing such inhumane policies (despite the numerous studies that suggest population control wouldn’t even do anything to climate change). And considering how dire the Left makes this “environmental crisis” sound, people might believe taking desperate measures will be in any way helpful.
 
But the truth is that there are no extreme weather events that can be attributed to being caused by climate change, and any idea of a city flooding because of melting ice caps (something that isn’t even happening) is someone simply not knowing jack about science. Both are things I have already discussed and shown to be true, backed up by science, facts, logic and other sources. All it takes to not buy into the idea we are killing our planet is doing a little bit of research and using your brain a little bit.
 
In any case, while Pepino and everyone else certainly have the right to not have children for whatever reason, and while it is appreciated that they don’t try and force other people to not have children themselves, it is a sad sight to see these people be so cajoled by the anti-scientific research of the Left that their entire lives are altered so significantly.
 
Of course, God is ultimately in control and He decides people’s fate here. If He ordains that Pepino have children, there really isn’t anything that is going to stop Him. If He has chosen her to be part of the elect and eventually become an open Christian, then there is nothing she can do about it. God is the one in control here and He will decide the way people’s lives will go. All we can do on our part is simply pray that He give her wisdom not only to seek the truth about climate change and the evils of the Left but to also find the Truth of Scripture.
 
Proverbs 19:21
“Many are the plans in the mind of man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.”
 
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.

Late last week, a female British judge “ordered a pregnant woman who reportedly has developmental disabilities and a mood disorder to have an abortion, even though the woman and her mother allegedly strenuously object,” reported The Daily Wire.
 
The Catholic News Agency reported that the pregnant woman in question is 22 weeks pregnant, is described as being “in her twenties”, is Catholic with a mother from Nigeria and “has the mental capacity of a grade school-age child,” according to The Daily Wire. CNA also said: “The woman’s mother, reported to be a former midwife, registered her absolute opposition to the abortion citing the Catholic faith of herself and her daughter.”
 
Justice Nathalie Lieven of the Court of Protection is the one who presided over the ruling and ultimately ordered the abortion, citing: “I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion… I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination.” But wait, there’s more. Not only is she a massive hypocrite for taking away the woman’s choice on this matter (something that would be considered a cardinal sin for the Left if the ruling had ordered a woman to keep a baby she wouldn’t want), but she then goes on to insult the woman’s intelligence by saying: “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll.”
 
So she’s not only a massive hypocrite and murderer but she is also deeply insulting of the woman being ordered to kill her own child. Look, I don’t know the pregnant woman in question on a personal basis (she is unidentified), but if she is adamantly against the order of aborting her own child, I seriously doubt she considered her own baby to be in any way similar to a “nice doll”. I think she understands very well that what she is carrying inside her womb is a baby and that she very much wishes to have said baby and is (or was) heartbroken over the decision from the judge that she had to terminate the baby she wanted to keep.
 
But rejoice, everyone, as the public outcry that resulted from that decision has led the English Court of Appeals to overturn the original judge’s decision.
 
The Catholic News Agency reports that Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Peter Jackson overruled the June 21st decision made by Justice Lieven. The original decision reportedly triggered more than 75,000 people to sign a petition from Right to Life UK asking U.K. Health and Social Care Secretary Matthew Hancock to “intervene in this case, so far as possible, to prevent this gross injustice being inflicted by the State on this family and ensure this woman is not forced to have an abortion.”
 
Bishop John Keenan of the Diocese of Paisley also encouraged people to sign the petition, stating the original ruling “introduces a dangerous new development in the overreach of the power of the state over its citizens.” Another bishop, Bishop John Sherrington of the Archdiocese of Westminster said: “Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, and that of her close family, infringes upon her human rights, not to mention the right of her unborn child to life in a family that has committed to caring for the child. In a free society like ours there is a delicate balance between the rights of the individual and the powers of the state. This is a sad and distressing decision for the whole family whom we keep in our prayers. This case, for which all information is not available, raises serious questions about the meaning of ‘best interests’ when a patient lacks mental capacity and is subject to the court’s decision against her will.”
 
Both bishops are absolutely right. That original decision was a gross overreach by the government, not unlike the Chinese communists, in infringing the rights of a woman. But this is the danger of big government. They get to decide what is in your “best interests” should you reportedly lack the mental capacity to apparently make your own decisions (even though the woman is adamantly explaining she wishes to keep her child). The government gets to decide whether or not your child gets to live if you are deemed not capable, in any way, of taking care of the child, which is seriously moronic. “Well, you see, Karen, you are incapable of making decisions for yourself and would not be able to properly take care of your child, so we’re gonna have to kill it for ya, how does that sound?” That’s the sort of logic trail people like Lieven (not even going to include her title since there was no justice at all in her decision) use when it comes to abortion: better the baby be killed than it perhaps live a poor life even with the chance to live a good one.
 
It’s not only asinine, it’s outright demonic. It’s the sort of thing pagan cultures would do on a regular basis: child sacrifice. And like pagan cultures, these pro-abortion people in the government do it to please false gods: themselves.
 
How is it in the woman’s best interests to force her to eliminate a child she wants to keep? May I also remind you of the fact that the woman, among developmental disabilities, also has a mood disorder? Meaning that there is an even greater chance of sending the woman into a deep depression upon forcing her to eliminate her own child. So how exactly is that decision being made in the woman’s “best interests”?
 
The answer, of course, is it’s not. It’s acting in the government’s best interests, as they are the ones who also get paid for the abortion occurring in the first place at one of the government-owned abortion facilities. It’s also acting in the government’s best interests by setting a precedent for this sort of thing. If the government wishes to eliminate your child for whatever reason and you say no, well there’s really nothing you can do because the government would’ve had this decision as a basis for future decisions. Granted, I highly doubt this is the first time the U.K. government has forced a woman to eliminate her child, but this could’ve still set a very dangerous precedent moving forward.
 
Of course, the government, if unchecked, will do whatever it wants regardless of precedent, but it is good that this issue was so widely talked about to the point higher judges in the U.K. legal system had to intervene.
 
But this is merely a preview for where the Left wishes to take us next. The only reason being “pro-choice” is so popular is because people like having a choice as to what to do. But as we can see from this example, there are plenty of people on the Left who are not “pro-choice” at all if the choice being made is not the “right one” in their minds. You don’t get to choose what school to send your kids to, you don’t get to choose what politician you want to win elections (*ahem* Google *ahem* the Obama administration *ahem*), you don’t get to choose to follow your religious beliefs if it is perceived that they are discriminatory to someone else, and as was the case for this pregnant woman, she did not have the choice to keep her child apparently because she’s too stupid, in the mind of the government, to keep her child and live a good and happy life.
 
These people aren’t about choice but dominance. There is a very good reason I said they view themselves as gods in the comparison with pagan cultures who would perform child sacrifices. They see themselves as gods in control of everything and everyone, or at least they believe they ought to be given said control. I’ve said this before, but it’s plenty relevant right now: for people who claim not to believe in God, they sure try hard to be like one.
 
But thanks be to God that He reigns supreme and the forces of evil could not take the life of an unborn child this time. Thank the Lord that He caused this story to be so widely spread and found so horrid that higher Justices in the U.K. legal system were moved to intervene in this matter. I just hope this serves as a wake-up call for the people of the U.K.: their government has gotten too big for their own good if they can force abortions on women who don’t want them.
 
1 Corinthians 15:57
“But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Back in late 2018, a story came out about a Portland State University professor and his two colleagues (above) writing “hoax” research papers, about 20 of them, sending them to be peer-reviewed, edited and published, and successfully published 7 of those hoax papers.
 
The hoax papers discussed insane topics such as rape culture in dog parks, fat bodybuilding, and toxic masculinity in “breastaurants” like Hooters, as well as others, and were ultimately reviewed and published by esteemed academic journals despite a distinct lack of facts to support the arguments being made.
 
The three professors, Peter Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay referred to their little hoax project as an analysis of “grievance studies”, suspecting that some fields in academia have focused more on “ideologically-motivated scholarship” rather than the pursuit of scientific fact or truth.
 
In an essay in which the trio announced this project, they wrote: “Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem.”
 
The three professors received worldwide support for their work to expose the problems of academic research. Campus Reform sent Mark McLellan, PSU’s vice president for research and graduate studies, a public records request for his e-mails that had to do with what Boghossian did. Campus Reform gathered thousands of e-mails from all over the world addressed to McLellan in support of Boghossian.
 
One notable e-mail came from Alan Sokal, a physicist teaching at New York University who had actually done something similar to Boghossian back in 1996 with an article titled: “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” To the normal person, what Sokal wrote might seem confusing but might be taken as the truth, given it’s an academic paper. But to any scientist or mathematician that knows his stuff, they’d be able to tell that what is in the paper is utter garbage. Sokal himself said: “Throughout the article, I employ scientific and mathematical concepts in ways that few scientists or mathematicians could possibly take seriously… In sum, I intentionally wrote the article so that any competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently, the editors of Social Text felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.”
 
But despite the honestly good work the three professors did, at the very least Professor Boghossian is likely to be punished, as he was placed under investigation and was found guilty of research misconduct by the Internal Review Board. Boghossian was accused, and later found guilty of, fabricating data and studying human subjects, specifically the journal editors, without their consent. While technically that is what he did, the guilty verdict is ridiculous. The fabrication of data served entirely to prove a point, a point that was further proven not only by the actual publishing of this data, but by the response from the IRB and PSU, that academic journals hold the responsibility of sticking faithfully to data and to the facts, despite of the topic being discussed, but many do not actually do that.
 
The fact that Boghossian will be punished for EXPOSING the fact that academic journals don’t do their due diligence in verifying the claims being made in the articles shows us just how truly rotten the system is. If the article says something supposedly “woke”, such as perpetuating a “rape culture” in DOGS VISITING DOG PARKS IN PORTLAND, then whatever is used to “prove” the thesis is irrelevant. Much in the same way as a paper that claims illegal immigrants commit less crimes than American citizens, if the thesis is “woke” and SJW-friendly, then facts be damned. This is the point professors were trying to prove, that ideologically-motivated papers, even if entirely fictitious, will be approved and spread as “truth”, goes entirely against what scientists, real scientists, are trying to do: find and discuss what is actually TRUE.
 
For example, let’s take a look at an article from Breitbart about a high school kid in Scotland being suspended for saying that there are only two genders. Despite the fact that science is behind the kid, the 17-year-old was suspended for saying something that is not “inclusive” aka something that is not part of the “right-think” of the British school system. The teacher and the entire school board do a disservice to society not only by banning a dissenting thought, but also perpetuating the idea that there are more than two genders when the truth and facts completely disagree with that.
 
Whether someone says they are a different gender from what they are is entirely up to them. If a man wants to claim he is a woman, fine. But let’s not distort what science says about genders. Let’s not throw away the fact that our chromosomes dictate what gender we are. For the thousandth time, an XY set of chromosomes makes someone a male and an XX set of chromosomes makes someone a female. There is no third option, there is no destroying this fact. To challenge this proven scientific concept is to challenge reality and truth itself, all in the vein effort to be more “inclusive”. No one benefits from destroying science.
 
The three professors wanted to stick to the idea that science is the pursuit of truth about different things in our universe (which is why I so often say that science and faith are not mutually exclusive but often work together, as we study the creation) and challenged the unscientific views some, if not most people within academic journals hold with regard to what is truth.
 
In essence, those in academic journals take a Pontius Pilate sort of stance of: “what is truth?” They believe truth is subjective when it is, in fact, objective and as such, see actual science as an enemy while pretending to be in favor of “science” that “shows” them to be right about things like climate change (of course, they are entirely wrong there too) and the theory of evolution (which they dropped the “theory” part and pass it off as fact, an entirely unscientific thing to do).
 
While the professors ought to be commended for their work to IMPROVE the academic journals’ research and publishing standards to not pass off what is essentially SJW-feeding crap as truth, they are more likely to be punished for it than anything else.
 
The reason for which is likely not simply the ones being given to us: that they gave false data, conducted research on people who did not consent to it (which is the point of a project to expose something like this). The reason is likely so that academic research papers can continue to be useful for Leftists who use it as “arguments” against people who actually have science and reason behind them. It’s no secret that academia belongs to the Left. As such, they get to control what kind of “information” is published in academia, to certain extents. Rogue professors that expose the heavily-biased nature of at least some people within the academic journals are counterintuitive to the purpose of academic journals. So those professors must be punished for exposing the truth in an effort to keep these things in the dark in the future.
 
Luke 8:17
“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”
 
And 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.