It is not often that I talk about how proud I am of my state of Alabama (usually because either I don’t talk much about it or it decides to elect a Democrat to the Senate for the first time in decades), but I am very proud of my state today.
 
In a landmark decision, the Madison County Probate Court recently became the first state to rule that an aborted baby is a person with the same rights as everyone else.
 
The court took the case of a father whose baby was aborted by his girlfriend against his wishes six weeks into the pregnancy.
 
On February 10th, 2017, the girlfriend of Ryan Magers aborted their baby when she went to the Alabama Women’s Center, where she received an abortion pill.
 
According to Magers, he “just tried to plead with her and plead with her and just talk to her about it and see what I could do, but in the end, there was nothing I could do to change her mind.”
 
On January 25th, 2019, Magers filed a petition with the Madison Probate Court to serve as the personal representative of the baby’s estate (hereby called “Baby Roe”).
 
In February 2019, Magers said: “It was just like my whole world fell apart,” insisting that the reason for filing the suit in the first place is “I’m here for the men who actually want to have their baby. Even though there’s nothing I can do for the situation I was in, there is something I can do for the future situations for other people… I believe every child from conception is a baby and deserves to live.”
 
Regarding the suit, Mager’s lawyer Brent Helms said: “The only thing that estate has is the right to sue and so that is what Ryan is doing, is suing on behalf of Baby Roe’s estate.”
 
Upon the court ruling that the aborted baby is a person, thus leading Magers to be able to legally represent the baby’s estate, Helms said: “We have already had a victory, and it was the first one of its kind, ever… This is the first estate that I’m aware of that has ever been opened for an aborted baby.”
 
Helms also noted that Alabama’s law states that life begins at conception, so this case could also make its way to the state supreme court.
 
Overall, this is pretty good news. Unfortunately, Ryan’s baby is long gone. He or she has already been eliminated by a mother who did not want him or her and by a clinic that insists they are a women’s healthcare center when in reality are nothing but a legal human slaughterhouse.
 
However, this is a landmark decision. The fact that the Alabama law states that life begins at conception and their recent decision that an aborted baby is, indeed, a human being with rights, whose rights have been violated, should not be understated. It’s outright incredible!
 
And it could lead other states to follow suit. In a similar way that the Satanists that call themselves the New York legislature set the precedent for trying to normalize and promote third-trimester abortions, leading other liberal states to look to do the same, other conservative states could look to implement similar pro-life policies and laws as Alabama’s.
 
In this way, we continue the fight for life – the insistence that all babies in the womb are human beings, are alive and deserve the same rights everyone else: a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 
While the evil Left insists that even babies who are already BORN are not human beings if the mother decides that it is not a human, the righteous Right insists that all babies, inside and out of the womb are a gift from God, with life and potential, created in His Holy image.
 
And that’s another thing I want to discuss: the fact that it’s just the mother who gets to decide what to do with the baby. Why is it that way? It takes two to make a baby, so why does only one get to make the decisions for it?
 
In every relationship, or at least the good ones, the two participants make decisions together. They talk things over, they have discussions and come to a resolution. But when it comes to abortion, the father of the baby has zero rights in the subject matter, zero say in what he wants, zero right to state his opinion and have it matter.
 
When it comes to abortion, the primary decision makers are the mother of the baby and the MURDERER of the baby.
 
And what exactly do you think the murderer is going to want to do? It’s his very BUSINESS to eliminate life. He makes MONEY off of doing that. It’s not like he’s going to talk to the mother and say “you know, you could at least TRY to love your baby. I mean, it may not have been planned, but you are growing a human being inside you and being a mother is one of the best and most rewarding things that you can do.” OF COURSE NOT!
 
A murderer is not going to pass up an opportunity to murder someone, particularly if they are not going to be prosecuted for it and can actually make MONEY off of it.
 
And don’t try and tell me abortionists aren’t murderers. Do you know how old I was when the subject of abortion was brought up at all? 8, maybe 9 at most. My father explained to me what it was and I was really surprised that it was legal. Why? BECAUSE EVEN AS AN EIGHT OR NINE YEAR OLD, I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS MURDER!
 
I also knew what murder was and was under the assumption that murder was illegal. On that day, I discovered that there is one legal way to kill someone: in the womb.
 
Even at that young of an age, I knew perfectly well that abortion was murder. It only stands to reason to follow that up by saying that an abortionist, who is legally murdering someone, is a murderer, not really any different from Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer except for the fact that they can legally do it.
 
I am so incredibly proud of my state of Alabama for having recognized an aborted baby as being a person with rights. It’s outright DEMENTED that it takes A LOWER COURT to recognize the FACT that a baby inside the womb is, in fact, a human baby and should be afforded the same rights as anyone else, but this is the society we live in.
 
I feel terrible for Ryan for what his girlfriend did. However, I can consider this a teachable moment as well.
 
What do I mean by that? Well, consider what the situation was: Ryan’s GIRLFRIEND, not wife, aborted their baby.
 
This is precisely why I would advise everyone, not just Ryan, to not have pre-marital or extra-marital sex.
 
We would not have anywhere near as many problems in this world, especially when it comes to abortion, if people understood the importance of strictly marital sex and the sinfulness of pre-marital or extra-marital sex.
 
Had Ryan and his girlfriend been married, they very well might have kept the baby because they would’ve been ecstatic to start their own family (I say "might" because there of course is always the chance that the girl did not want a family at all and still would’ve gone through with it, but for the most part, married women would rather keep their babies, especially if it’s their first).
 
I’m not saying this to castigate or place blame on Ryan at all. I’m saying this to reaffirm the importance of marital sex.
 
Most people don’t see what makes sex special. No doubt, it’s enjoyable, but it’s supposed to be enjoyed by a husband and his wife only. Not a man with his girlfriend, not a man with another man, not a woman with her boyfriend, not a woman and another woman, etc.
 
Sex is supposed to be an enjoyable activity for child-rearing and marriage-consummation. It’s not supposed to leave people with strictly carnal desires for one another. It’s not supposed to be between two (or more) people outside of marriage. It’s certainly not supposed to lead people to regularly sin against God with lustful desires of the flesh.
 
The biggest reason I often say that abortion is linked to bondage of sin, bondage of the flesh, is because it is only ever a result of having been in a sexual relationship, usually outside of marriage.
 
Do you think anywhere near as many babies would be aborted if people understood and respected the importance of marital sex? Abortions are an evil result of an evil act of immorality and one of the seven deadly sins: lust.
 
Take that out of the equation, and so many more people come to realize just why we used to say that life is a miracle. Take that out of the equation and so many more people are happier and feel more fulfilled.
 
If society is to truly progress, we need to reaffirm the major tenets of the Bible, including what it says about marriage and sexual intercourse.
 
And for the few lefties that think that’s being regressive, let me tell you something: take a look around and see what your “progress” has gotten you. Depression rising, violence increasing, shootings on a regular basis especially in areas where guns are heavily restricted to the public, suicide rates on the rise, drug abuse worsening and a people so damn sensitive to anything different that they think Will Smith isn’t BLACK ENOUGH to play Venus and Serena Williams’ father in a biopic.
 
To me, none of that is progress. To me, all of that is the saddening and ever-worsening state of the human soul and psyche. It’s not progress to have a society so divided by race. It’s not progress to have a society where your gender can be left up to the individual to discern.
 
It’s lunacy and it’s human regression. I believe in evolution in as far as I believe a species can progress and regress. Humanity is doing the latter. Life is as meaningless now to many members of mankind as it is to animals, except animals aren’t animalistic enough to eliminate their young before they are even born.
 
Truly, truly, I say to you, the only way for humanity to be saved from this sin is to believe in and follow the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
How many Christians do you think abort their children? Or have pre-marital or extra-marital sex (and I’m talking about real Christians not the fake ones like the Catholic priests that molest young children)?
 
I can tell you: not very many.
 
Acts 4:12
“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

I always find amusing when one environmentalist wacko is attacked by another environmentalist wacko (although Patrick Moore, the man I am talking about here, seems to have strayed from the extremist environmentalism of Greenpeace for some time now, so I should call him an ex-environmentalist wacko).
 
And recently, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore once again shredded Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over her “Green New Deal” and, more specifically, her hypocrisy over using air travel, something she adamantly wants to eliminate according to her proposal.
 
I say he once again shredded AOC because he’s apparently destroyed her multiple times and this is the first time I’m hearing about it.
 
Before I get ahead of myself, let me tell you of the most recent attack from Moore to AOC. Ocasio-Cortez, according to the New York Post, adamantly uses air and car travel, both of which are supposed no-no’s for these wackos.
 
So Ocasio-Cortez, not believing she is a hypocrite because no hypocrite ever believes that’s what they are, mocked the NY Post article by tweeting: “I also fly & use A/C. Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future. The Green New Deal is about putting a LOT of people to work in developing new technologies, building new infrastructure, and getting us to 100% renewable energy.”
 
I myself could destroy her argument, as I have with other hypocrites like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, but Patrick Moore does a pretty good job in my stead: “The ‘world as it is’ has the option of taking the subway rather than a taxi. Option of Amtrak rather than plane, option of opening windows rather than A/C. You’re just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know.”
 
And like I said previously, this is not the first time he’s obliterated her arguments.
 
Back when AOC tweeted about her being in charge and the rest of us “just shouting from the cheap seats”, he really laid into her: “Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.”
 
That is a fantastic argument that I did not bring up in my article calling her out over this tweet (largely because that article focused on her corruption and belief she is everyone’s boss now instead of a public SERVANT, but still).
 
And indeed it is something that should be considered. Ban fossil fuel and the overwhelming majority of the world comes to a screeching halt. All fossil-fueled cars would be banned and all electric and hybrid cars would be made irrelevant because the vast majority of them require fossil fuels to charge them up from power grids.
 
As a result, most people are faced with a challenge in going to work, getting their kids to school (no school buses either), getting groceries, stores receiving groceries in the first place, farming equipment no longer being able to farm as much food, hospitals receiving new supplies, businesses failing to receive new inventory to sell… the entire structure of the modern world would come to a halt and forced to regress by CENTURIES, but with the added challenge of trying to feed nearly 8 billion people.
 
At least back when manual labor and primitive farming tools were more widely used, populations were far smaller. Part of the population booms we’ve had in recent time is due to the ability to afford to have such booms in terms of food production (and you should already know I don’t subscribe to the lunatic Malthusian theory).
 
But as Moore suggests, humanity wouldn’t stand for such a grinding halt in progress. It would try to replace the productivity of fossil fuels with something else, namely trees, causing mass deforestations as a NECESSITY.
 
You can’t ban fossil fuels without first having a good alternative that is JUST AS GOOD AND EFFICIENT as fossil fuels, and nothing comes remotely close right now.
 
But returning to Moore, he also attacked her for comparing climate change to World War II.
 
Responding to another user who also complained about AOC saying the world is going to end if we don’t do the Green New Deal (which sounds to me like the tell-tale signs of a huge scam, like a Nigerian prince promising you millions of dollars if you send them your social security number and other private information), Moore replied: “Isn’t AOC a bit young to talk about WW2? It was Hell & more than 60 million died. It’s her GND that would be worse than WW2. Imagine no fuel for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, harvesters, power-plants, ships, aircraft, etc. Transport of people & goods would grind to a halt.”
 
Moore also attacked the Paris Climate Accord, calling it a “total sham”, wherein countries like China, India and Russia, which comprise 40% of the global population and are some of the most egregious polluters of the climate (which is why I would argue the GND wouldn’t even make a dent in what it supposedly seeks to do, even if we could afford it and there were no economic repercussions at all). The U.S.’s carbon dioxide emissions back in 2017 sat at around 5 billion metric tons. Asia Pacific, which includes China, India, and a few other countries reached north of 16 billion metric tons and is “responsible for nearly 50% of global dioxide emissions,” according to Forbes.
 
China also contributes, by a massive margin, the most ocean pollution, with 8.80 million metric tons of plastic waste per YEAR according to a Statista graph that was generated in 2010 (most recent I could find, so it’s probably a bit different now, but no doubt with China still ahead. They have no qualms with pollution).
 
According to the graph, the second leading ocean polluter is Indonesia at 3.20 million metric tons a year. It also makes sense that the top 5 leading ocean polluters in the world are from the Asia Pacific region, with the Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka, respectively, being the world leaders in this. By comparison, the U.S. isn’t even in the top 10, with just 0.30 million metric tons of ocean pollution (though I’m sure the wackos in California have saved us all by banning plastic straws, the heroes).
 
So the Green New Deal, even if it were actually possible to implement without causing a massive market and economic collapse the likes we’ve never seen before, wouldn’t actually accomplish anywhere close to what it supposedly wants to accomplish. It would hardly help the environment because the U.S. hardly harms it.
 
In any case, it is always good to see someone who used to be blind to reality seeing the light. Patrick Moore, who has a PhD in Ecology, co-founded Greenpeace and eventually walked away from it (even making a video about it for PragerU) knows that whatever climate change is occurring is 1) not caused by us and 2) cannot be fixed by us.
 
It is also always good to see someone the Left would greatly accredit (he does have a PhD in Ecology, after all) utterly destroying them and their arguments using facts and logic, as always tends to happen.
 
Not that they’ll learn a darn little thing from all of this. After all, the point of the climate change movement isn’t to actually “save” the planet (well, maybe not for AOC, who adamantly believes in the crap the Left has been selling for decades). The point is to amass as much power as possible for the Democrats under the guise of “fighting” something.
 
This much is clear in China, who are just as Leftist, if not more Leftist, than the American Left but couldn’t care one wit about climate change or their own CO2 emissions and ocean pollution. They already have the power they want and were not elected with the promise of doing something about climate change (not that the Left does much of that in America anyway, given that CO2 emissions were pretty high in America under Obama).
 
But again, it is always good to see people who were in the dark coming to the light. Regardless of topic, it is always good to see people recognizing the error of their ways and finding out the truth. Of course, I also hope that apart from the ecological truth, Moore has also found the Truth of the Gospel, but this is definitely a good start.
 
Not to mention that knowing the Truth of the Gospel can be key to knowing just how little power man has, especially in comparison to God. We have absolutely no power by comparison, so there is not much we can do to ourselves if God does not permit it.
 
Colossians 1:16
“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It is not that often that I write super obvious titles like that. Almost all of you, if not all, would read that title and mentally say: “no duh!” because that might as well say: “Socialism Is Bad”. It’s just that obvious that cities and states artificially (and I’ll get to why I’m specifically using that word in a moment) raising the minimum wage to any rate ends up hurting the very people such raises are supposed to help.
 
But why exactly am I talking about this? Because recently, New York City has seen “the greatest plunge in restaurant jobs in almost 20 years”, which comes as a result of New York’s Fast Food Wage Board making a “recommendation” to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour back in 2015.
 
A survey from the New York City Alliance, published by the end of 2018, found that “76.50% of full service restaurant respondents reduced employee hours, and 36.30% eliminated jobs in 2018… 75% of limited service restaurant respondents report that they will reduce employee hours, and 53.10% will eliminate jobs in 2019 as a result of mandated wage increases that took effect on December 31, 2018… When the tip wage increased 50% in 2015, and since doubled, annual employment growth dropped from 6.67% to less than 1% as of November 2018.”
 
But wait, there’s more. Back in mid February, economist Mark Perry from the American Enterprise Institute wrote:
 
“December 2018 restaurant jobs were down by almost 3,000 (and by 1.64%) from the previous December, and the 2.5% annual decline in March 2018 was the worst annual decline since the sharp collapse in restaurant jobs following 9/11 in 2001… it usually takes an economic recession to cause year-over-year job losses at NYC’s full-service restaurants, so it’s likely that this is a ‘restaurant recession’ tied to the annual series of minimum wage hikes that brought the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour at the end of last year.”
 
And it’s not just New York City that is getting hurt by these wage hikes. Back in August of 2016, Seattle was in much the same spot when they raised their own minimum wage. The same thing happened to San Francisco, when they raised their minimum wage, leading more and more restaurants to close and workers to subsequently lose their jobs.
 
Altogether, having the government raising the minimum wage is a terrible thing for the people it’s supposed to help.
 
There is no “livable wage” when the effects of artificially raising the minimum wage are that people get reduced work hours, lose their jobs altogether, or entire businesses close down to try and offset costs.
 
Never mind the fact that a minimum wage was never meant to be a “livable” wage. It literally can’t be made into a livable wage, especially by the government!
 
Now, I mentioned earlier that I would explain just what I mean when I talk about artificially raising the minimum wage. I’m really talking strictly in an economics sense.
 
The government forcing a wage increase is an artificial way to have wages increase. And as we can plainly see, it only brings pain to those it affects. Businesses have to reduce employee hours or outright lay people off because they can’t afford to pay their low-skill workers such high wages. If a business hopes to survive, it has to do that sort of thing under such poor economic policies.
 
However, I am not against raising the minimum wage altogether because there is an economically sound way of doing it. It’s what we saw soon after the GOP tax cuts were put into place. Businesses like Walmart, in multiple locations nationwide, were gaining so much money from heavily reducing the corporate tax rates that they decided to raise the minimum wage of their workers to that magic number the Left wants to force on everyone: $15 an hour.
 
This is the economically sound, pro-market, and real way to raise the minimum wage. If a business can afford to pay its employees more, it doesn’t have much reason not to. So the minimum wage worker gets a nifty little raise, the same wage the Left claims to want for people, AND their work hours are not cut, thus letting them make more money than they otherwise would have AND they are most definitely not laid off AND the business they work for can continue growing more and more, allowing its employees to also be paid more and more.
 
If anyone wonders why there is any sort of “pay gap” between the NBA and the WNBA is because the WNBA’s revenue sits at $60 million according to Forbes, while the NBA’s revenue at the end of the 2017/18 season sat at just over $8 BILLION. The NBA shares with its players 50% of their revenue while the WNBA shares only 25% of their revenue because the WNBA makes far less money than the NBA does.
 
What I’m trying to say here is that a business that makes more money is able to pay its employees more money than a business that makes less money. That’s just common sense. It’s logic. The CFO of a huge company like Microsoft, Apple, Intel, etc. will make far more money than the CFO of a smaller business. The same is the case for many of the lower-earning and lower-ranking jobs.
 
So if a business can make more money, it can afford to pay its employees more money as well, and it almost always will do that, lest the employees resign and work for another company that will pay them more money.
 
This is the capitalist and only real good way to raise the minimum wage. The socialist way of raising the minimum wage, in which the government forces companies to pay its low-skill employees more money, is how businesses close and employees are either left with fewer work hours, so they don’t make more money anyway (and that’s the best case scenario) or are outright laid off because the businesses can’t afford to pay such a salary for a job literally anyone can do.
 
The socialist way of raising the minimum wage is what happens in liberal cities like Seattle, New York City, San Francisco and anywhere it’s tried. It’s one of the many reasons socialism doesn’t work. It’s an ideology that requires perfection in order to work.
 
On paper, the idea of raising the minimum wage is not bad. But we don’t live on paper. We live in the real world. And in the real world, real world things like profit margins and offsetting costs have to be factored in. As a result, if a business can’t afford the minimum wage hikes, it simply will reduce its work force, leaving people to not make any more money than they otherwise would at best and completely out of a job at worst.
 
Advocating for having the government raise the minimum wage is completely devoid of information and common sense.
 
Of course, the point of advocating for the government to raise the minimum wage isn’t that people are able to have “liveable” wages, but so that people DON’T HAVE liveable wages and have to rely on the government to pay for things.
 
The point of having the government raise minimum wage is that people DO GET FIRED so they have to rely on the government.
 
When news came out that businesses like Walmart were WILLINGLY raising their minimum wage, Democrats either were completely silent or were outright furious. They don’t actually care about the people and whether or not they have a liveable wage. In fact, they’d rather they would not have a decent wage so that they can fall prey to the government’s crippling social programs.
 
It further goes to show that the Left does not care one little bit about people, particularly those they say they support. They couldn’t care less about anyone other than themselves and their own power, so they advocate for things that will screw the little guy and force him to depend largely or solely on the government.
 
Proverbs 28:1-5
“The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion. When a land transgresses, it has many rulers, but with a man of understanding and knowledge, its stability will long continue. A poor man who oppresses the poor is a beating rain that leaves no food. Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them. Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

It is no secret to anyone at this point that the Democrat Party has effectively become the Party of infanticide. This is something they’ve been for a long time, don’t misunderstand, but I think more and more people are beginning to feel uncomfortable with the Party’s policies regarding abortion.

This has been especially true since the passing of the New York legislation legalizing late-term abortion, with Governor Coonman in Virginia essentially endorsing infanticide, and other states going farther towards accepting the execution of babies born alive after a botched abortion, which is especially noted in Congress, with all but three Democrat Senators voting against a bill that would protect such babies.
 
I’ve often said that the Democrats and the Left in general have let the mask slip off their face ever since Trump became President. Their opposition to Sen. Ben Sasse’s (R-NE) Born-Alive bill is a testament to their fervent opposition for anything Trump would happily support.
 
However, their radical extremism on this issue has seemingly turned off even a good portion of Democrat voters who would previously have identified as pro-choice.
 
But that’s getting a bit ahead of myself. Let’s take a step back and discuss the incredible new Marist poll’s showing from a survey taken in mid-February.
 
The recent poll found that 47% of respondents identified as pro-life and 47% identified as pro-choice. This is the first time in a decade that the poll finds as many people identify as pro-life as they do pro-choice.
 
But the results of this poll are made even more impressive by the simple fact that just a month prior, only 38% identified as pro-life and 55% identified as pro-choice. That’s a difference of 17 whole points in the span of a single month!
 
This, I think, is the biggest thing to look at. Of course, I’ll also be looking at other numbers which are also pretty great, but this number and contrast with the January poll is something that I will focus on for the most part later on.
 
In any case, what is seen as the biggest boost in numbers for pro-life people seems to come, surprisingly, from Democrats and respondents who were under the age of 45.
 
Previously, only 20% of Democrats identified as pro-life, which was still surprisingly high, all things considered. The Democrat Party certainly has no room for pro-life people, so it is surprising to see so many registered Democrats saying they are pro-life. In any case, that number was before the most recent poll. According to the Marist poll, that number has surged 14 points to 34%. Still not as many as one would hope, but a significant gain altogether, let alone in the span of a single month.
 
And as far as young Americans go, with those under the age of 45, back in January, the gap between pro-choice and pro-life was massive, with 65% saying they were pro-choice and 28% identifying as pro-life. Now, only 48% identify as pro-choice and 47% identify as pro-life, a single point deficit.
 
Dividing down party lines, as previously mentioned, 34% of Democrats now identify as pro-life, 46% of Independents identify as pro-life (with 48% being pro-choice) and 67% of Republicans identify as pro-life, which honestly comes as a pretty big surprise to me. Most conservatives tend to be pro-life, so 67% is a worryingly low number, all things considered.
 
The poll also noted that 71% of Americans disapprove of third-trimester abortions, with that number including 60% of Democrats, 72% of Independents and 85% of Republicans. So the Democrat Party’s push for supporting late-term abortions are not popular even among their own supposed constituents.
 
71% also disapprove of abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, or roughly 4 months.
 
Almost all of these numbers, especially in such a short amount of time, is music to my ears.
 
Over the past couple of months, the Democrat Party has deluded themselves into thinking that socialism is widely popular in America and that most people do not think of a baby in the womb, or having recently been born, as a human being. They think the majority of Americans agree with them wholeheartedly that a fetus is really nothing more than a disease or a virus, equating it to a cancerous tumor that must be rid of.
 
They think they do themselves a massive favor by supporting late-term abortion bills, endorsing infanticide (even if they don’t want to call it that) and overall believing that the vast majority of the population agrees with them.
 
We the People do not agree. This much is plainly seen not just in this poll but in other polls taken around the same time as well. Even those who vote for Democrats and have previously identified as pro-choice, or at least not been entirely sure about the whole issue and remained neutral have come to oppose the Democrat Party on this.
 
So much so that in the span of a single month, people have gone from pro-choice to pro-life so much that the numbers are tied for the first time since 2009.
 
And you know the Democrat Party isn’t going to learn a darn thing from this. They are dead-set in believing the lie that just about everyone agrees with them and loves them and hates Trump with a passion. They are dead-set in believing an ultra-radical approach to abortion is a winning ticket for them.
 
America has not yet completely sold its soul to the devil. And America is, I think, beginning to realize that the Democrat Party is the party of Satan.
 
I mean, to outright reject a bill that allows for the protection of BABIES BORN ALIVE after a failed abortion is outright satanic. It’s denying that that baby is a human being. How is that any different from Hitler denying Jews their humanity, or Southern Democrats denying black people their humanity?
 
It becomes painfully obvious just how satanic the Democrat Party and the Left altogether are. They offer babies as a sacrifice to their gods of money and power. I am running out of adjectives to call these people. I know that I tend to throw the word “evil” out there an awful lot to describe the Left, but that’s because that is precisely what they are.
 
No one can make the argument that denying a BABY BORN ALIVE their humanity and right to life is not evil in the least bit. No one can make the argument that a baby inside the womb is not a human and terminating it is not an act of sheer evil akin to murdering anyone already born.
 
The Left can dress things up however they want, using whatever deceitful words they want. Abortion is not healthcare, not for the mother and especially not for the child. To call this a healthcare issue is to equate pregnancy to a disease. Yes, it’s something the Left often does, but that doesn’t make it any less evil.
 
It’s not a woman’s liberation effort because no one is liberated by being slave to sin and to the flesh.
 
You can take a piece of crap, put colorful sprinkles on it, spray it with a nice perfume to make it smell better, wrap a bow on it and call it chocolate ice cream, but at the end of the day, it’s still just a piece of crap. That’s what the abortion issue is.
 
It’s death made to look like a healthcare service that strengthens a woman’s power and serves to free her from a fictitious patriarchy, but at the end of the day, it’s the advocacy of death for the most innocent among us.
 
Abortion is not a healthcare service. It’s not a tool for liberation. It’s not a right. It’s bloody murder.
 
It’s what sycophants like Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer could only dream of doing. It’s what genocidal maniacs like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong would smile about.
 
It’s what the very embodiment of evil, Lucifer, finds delight in every day of the week.
 
It’s what the Democrat Party fights tooth and nail for. And I think people have had enough.
 
Thank you God that there are people out there with enough reason to see what evil the Democrat Party has been advocating for recently.
 
Isaiah 58:8
“Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

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

I can’t really say that I am surprised that a socialist member of our government has a complex that makes her think she is people’s boss because she is in the government, but I do find it dangerous nonetheless that anyone in the government would so readily and quickly come to admit that they think they are the boss of the American people and not the other way around.
 
Both on Twitter and during an event called “Girls Who Code” in New York City, socialist nut Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez showed people her superiority complex.
 
Let’s begin with her tweet, in which she replied to someone about how she is the only one who has actually come up with a proposal to combat climate change (the GND is not a proposal at all, but a socialist wish-list. It talks about what it wants to do but not how to actually do it, because it’s impossible to do those things).
 
Here’s what she tweeted:
 
“Yup. If you don’t like the Green New Deal, then come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we’re in charge – and you’re just shouting from the cheap seats.”
 
And during the “Girls Who Code” event, AOC said, in a very unprofessional and “hip” manner of speaking: “Like, I just introduced the Green New Deal two weeks ago, and it’s creating all of this conversation. Why? Because no one else has even tried. Because no one else has even tried. So people are like, ‘Oh it’s unrealistic. Oh it’s vague. Oh it doesn’t address this little minute thing.’ And I’m like, ‘You try. You do it. Cuz you’re not. Cuz you’re not. So, until you do it, I’m the boss’. How bout that?”
 
Okay, I have an awful lot of things to say about these things.
 
First, like I said, the GND is not a proposal. It’s not a plan of action at all. She’s just throwing a wish-list of what she would want done with no actual way of doing it. If she worked in the private sector and showed this sort of “plan” that is actually impossible to accomplish to her boss, she’d be fired for incompetence.
 
Second, she’s been in office for only two months and she already thinks herself more important than anyone else. She’s already tasted SOME power and she’s drunk off of it.
 
Need I remind her that just three months ago, she herself was “shouting from the cheap seats” about what she wants? This is her first government position after working as a bartender in New York. How insulting is that to people who do not get elected to power? And this is the mentality I’m talking about. The mentality that the American people are worthless scum of the earth and the people in the government are gods in comparison.
 
Third, yeah, we’re saying it’s unrealistic, vague and doesn’t address “this little minute thing” (which, in this case, is the insignificant little matter of how exactly we’re going to pay for all of this without bankrupting the country, obliterating our economy and having the nation and its people descend into destitution. You know, the “minute” details).
 
The Green New Deal, as I thoroughly explained in my article covering it, is flat out impossible in a world that is not perfect. And in a world that is perfect, the Green New Deal is unnecessary. Socialism only works in two places: Hell, where they already have it and Heaven, where they don’t need it.
 
So of course we’re saying those things about the GND. Because THEY’RE TRUE!
 
Finally, as James Woods made known to her on Twitter: We the People are HER bosses, not the other way around.
 
In case you missed it, James Woods replied to her narcissistic tweet by saying: “So, you may have missed this, but the way it works in America is YOU work for US. The last time somebody told Americans to sit down and shut up was 1776. If you ever learn to read, look it up. You are not only an idiot, you’re an arrogant idiot, and there is nothing more dangerous.”
 
And it’s that last part of his tweet that leads me to the overall point of my article: power corrupts people, particularly people like AOC.
 
Like Woods said, she’s not just an idiot, but an arrogant one at that. This much was made known to everyone when she ran on the socialist policies she ran with and even tried to challenge Nancy Pelosi. Regardless of what you may think about socialism (which is not only stupid, but it’s the worst, most evil idea any human has ever come up with), one can’t help but recognize how stupid it is for an incoming DEMOCRAT FRESHMAN to try and challenge Nancy Pelosi in any way. Not to glorify Pelosi too much, but she’s a veteran politician here who knows how to survive D.C. AOC challenging her would be like me challenging George Foreman (in his prime) to a boxing match. It’d be very stupid.
 
So having an arrogant idiot in government is very dangerous. Again, she’s only had this position for two months and she already thinks herself a superior being to the worthless maggots that dare challenge her authority and intellect.
 
Could you imagine if she were POTUS? She’d be far worse than Obama. Obama at least wasn’t an idiot. He knew what to push and what not to push. He knew who to challenge and who not to challenge. And whatever he may have thought of himself, and I fully believe he thought himself king of America with the way he ran the country, he at least had the common sense not to broadcast it to everyone.
 
AOC, on the other hand, thinks herself so glorious and superior that anyone challenging her in any way is a moron or an inferior race of human and is not shy about showing people what she thinks. Two months in Congress and she’s already this corrupt. The good news is she’s not exactly all that popular with some people in the Democrat leadership so she may be out of a job in 2020, particularly after costing New York, and more importantly, the Democrat Party nearly $30 billion from Amazon.
 
Still, whatever may happen with her in the eyes of the Democrat Party, she is proving to everyone that she is an ignorant little child who is boasting about daddy buying her a new toy (getting elected into Congress being the toy in this situation).
 
But like I said in the beginning of the article, I am not surprised that she thinks this way about herself and the American people. I’m just surprised that she’d be so open about this and at how quickly she’s come to think this way.
 
But this is what happens when you’re a socialist. What happens when you replace God with the government. If the government can essentially replace God, then it stands to reason that those within the government think themselves a superior being to the plebeians that are not in the government.
 
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. AOC has nowhere near absolute power and she’s already this corrupt.
 
This is the mark of the devil in her heart. Satan lives well in hers.
 
Too bad for both AOC and Satan that God is the one with absolute power, authority, etc. They both want to replace God and certainly have the mentality that they believe they can, but both fall painfully short of Him.
 
Colossians 1:16
“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It is not often that I even care to write about anything with relations to animals. For the most part, I care more about matters of God, or matters of humans than I do about matters of animals. Usually, the lowest creation I will consider talking about is the actual planet whenever I discuss climate change. But I suppose this article sort of connects to climate change as well in some ways, at least with the fictitious notion that we are killing our planet.
 
Recently, two previously-thought extinct creatures were discovered. On the Galapagos Island of Fernandina, a giant tortoise, which was last seen more than 100 years ago (1906, more specifically) was discovered.
 
This tortoise was found to be a female tortoise, is believed to be more than 100 years old (roughly the life expectancy of a giant tortoise) and other tracks and scents were also found near her, which might belong to other members of her species, indicating she may not be alone.
 
The other creature that was recently found is perhaps the only creature I would be willing to advocate for its extinction. The Wallace’s Giant Bee (the nightmarish creature is seen right below), named after Alfred Russel Wallace, who discovered the species in 1958 and was last seen in 1981 also was found in Indonesia.
 
The Wallace’s Giant Bee, according to CBS News, is around 1.5 inches long and has a 2.5 inch wingspan. Unsurprisingly, LiveScience dubbed this bee a “nightmare bee”.

​The giant tortoise was discovered by an expedition by the Giant Tortoise Restoration Initiative (GTRI) and Satan’s bee (as I shall call it henceforth) was discovered, oddly enough, by a conservation photographer who had been trying to find this bee for 20 years.
 
I don’t know about you, but the only way I’d be willing to spend 20 years looking for a nightmare bee is if my mission were to, upon finding it alive, kill it with fire. Just bring a flamethrower with me and burn the nightmare fuel of a creature along with the nest it was found in, collateral damage be damned.
 
Of course, since it is a bee, it might not necessarily be immediately hostile like wasps are, but still. One look at this thing and I can’t help but want to kill it off.
 
In any case, let’s get down to the reason I am even talking about this at all. As the title suggests, I am adamant in explaining the simple fact that nature always finds a way.
 
Beyond the fact-less narratives of the Left when it comes to climate change, it is simply a ludicrous thought that humanity could cause harm to the climate this much, even when it “tries” to do the opposite (I put that word in quotation marks because it’s clear to me countries still participating in the Paris Climate Accord don’t actually care about the environment if their CO2 emissions are still as bad as they are).
 
Man has the power to do a lot of evil and a lot of damage, but not this much, not without nuclear weapons.
 
In a previous article, I talked about how if you tasked me with destroying the planet without nuclear weapons, I would not be able to. Despite however much gas we may be emitting, the polar ice caps aren’t melting like Al Gore and the other idiots are telling us. You need only think of the time when TWO ships were stranded in the South Pole back in 2014 to see how bogus of an argument that is. Those ships were stranded because the assumption was that there was less ice in the area than there actually was.
 
Not to mention that if you look at an image of the planet in a time lapse, you can see the ice caps GROWING not receding.
 
So whatever damage the Left says we are doing to the planet is simply not true. Which is why I would not be able to destroy the planet without nukes. What is thought to be destroying the planet now is certainly not doing it, so how else would I be able to?
 
But even if you do want to continue with the notion that we are destroying the planet, or at least not doing our best to help it, the fact is that nature still finds a way to survive.
 
Look at Chernobyl as an example. The Chernobyl disaster occurred on April 26th, 1986, with subsequent evacuations happening over the next few days (not immediately because communism).
 
I won’t go into detail about the level of radiation that was released by the accident because it’s a lot of technical words that might confuse some people, but there was a lot of radiation that was released.
 
All that we really need to know about this is that Live Science says that the region surrounding the nuclear power plant won’t be habitable for humans for at least 20,000 years. Which, I honestly find odd because they also say that “thriving populations of wolves, deer, lynx, beaver, eagles, boar, elk, bears and other animals have been documented in the dense woodlands that now surround the silent plant.”
 
Of course, this isn’t to say that people literally can’t go there, since my 8th grade science professor actually went there but literally had to burn the clothes he wore on his trip. Still, I don’t suggest anyone try and live in the area any time soon.
 
In any case, my point is that Chernobyl currently has “thriving populations” of different kinds of animals with minimal signs of radiation effects apart from a few stunted trees. Aside from that, if you look at pictures of Chernobyl, you will find a lot of areas where nature is growing even inside some buildings.
 
So despite the terrible radioactive accident of Chernobyl, nature found a way to survive the radioactive area. Despite our CO2 emissions, nature finds a way to get HEALTHIER. And despite whatever else we may be doing to nature, long-thought-extinct creatures can pop up again.
 
Now, I doubt we’ll ever see a dodo bird again, much as I would love to see one, but nature always finds a way to survive because nature’s God is the one in control. He gets to decide what animal survives, what animal thrives and what animal dies.
 
He gets to decide what happens to the polar ice caps. He gets to decide what happens in the event of nuclear accidents (or even nuclear war).
 
The thought that man can destroy the planet stems from unbelief in God, who controls the planet and the universe. This particularly is among the reasons I seriously doubt Pope Francis’ faith. He supposedly believes in God, who created the universe, but does not believe God is currently in control of the climate of the planet? He believes man can do anything to override whatever God does or wants?
 
What sort of faith is that?
 
God is the one who decides that the giant tortoise is still around. He is the one that decides that Wallace’s Giant Bee is still around (for a reason that currently escapes me, but I won’t question Him).
 
So nature always finds a way solely because God is the one who dictates what happens in nature and the way it works. It is asinine to claim we are killing the planet when A) there’s no actual evidence to support that and B) we don’t have the power to override God’s work.
 
Again, the only way I can see to destroy the planet (and even then, the planet would still be around, but most humans and animals likely wouldn’t be) is through the use of nuclear weapons. And like I said, God still dictates what would happen even if humanity foolishly were to destroy itself.
 
1 Chronicles 29:11
“Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.”
 
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’s no secret at this point that the State of New York has become one of the least child-friendly states in the entire country with their recent legislation that allows for late-term abortions to be legal (among other things).
 
As a response to this, a pro-life group called Focus on the Family has decided to show a 4D ultrasound image (like a 3D ultrasound but with moving images showing the baby three-dimensionally in real-time) of an unborn child in Times Square.
 
Focus on the Family president Jim Daly told LifeSiteNews: “Over 40 years ago, our founder, Dr. James Dobson, recognized that the family was in trouble. Prompted by the Lord, he left a very comfortable position in academia to start Focus on the Family. Our mission then – and now – is to help families thrive in Christ. We do this by providing help and resources for couples to build healthy marriages that reflect God’s design, and for parents to raise spiritually and emotionally healthy kids.”
 
All of that is fantastic. Quite fascinating that Dr. Dobson had the foresight to understand the Left’s war against the family. Of course, 40 years ago was just 1979, so Roe v. Wade had been the law of the land for some years at that point, but it is quite interesting to see someone back then be able to at least somewhat foretell what lied ahead in the road the country was taking.
 
And the message of focusing the family around the image of God, His plan for us and what He commands out of a marriage and family is also fantastic. It is rare to see that sort of message, in large part because the Left owns the news media which is adamant about taking away an unborn, or even newborn child’s very humanity.
 
In any case, Daly continued: “Times Square is known as ‘The Crossroads of the World’ and we’re at a crossroad as a nation regarding life. Do we really want to be part of the Abortion Axis of Evil – like China, North Korea and Vietnam that allows abortion for any reason after 20 weeks? We’re hearing from people all over the country who are disgusted by the blatant disregard for life. Enough is enough!”
 
I really like that name: “Abortion Axis of Evil”. It really encapsulates precisely what these countries are. They are akin to the Axis of World War II with Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and imperialist Japan. But beyond even that, it is absolutely, unequivocally evil. So that name fits the shoe just right.
 
Daly also noted that “most people have never seen a 4-D ultrasound. It’s our hope that after seeing these videos in Times Square, people will have no doubt that every life is made in the image of God. It’s our prayer that ALIVE FROM NEW YORK will be an event used to help change hearts and minds regarding life. We hope you’ll join us!”
 
Before writing this article, I did not know that 4D ultrasounds were even a thing. I knew very well about the standard 2D ultrasound, where there is a flat, 2D image of a baby living inside the womb. I also knew about 3D ultrasounds, where the image is three-dimensional but completely still. However, I did not know about 4D ultrasounds before this (in large part because I am not about to become a parent any time soon).
 
But this 4D ultrasound I think can be a very effective tool both for expecting parents to see their baby and for pro-life advocates who insist that the being growing inside a woman’s womb is a live human virtually no different from a baby that has already been born (as the image above suggests).
 
Daly went on to talk about what Focus on the Family has already managed to achieve, saying that over 15 years, they have saved “an estimated 425,000 babies by placing ultrasound machines in high-abortion areas… When abortion-minded women see an image of their baby on a screen, research suggests that 54% of them will choose not to abort. Just last month at the March for Life, we announced a goal of saving a million lives by 2025. In the aftermath of the egregious NY legislation legalizing late-term abortion and the Virginia governor endorsing infanticide, we’re prayerfully hoping this will call greater attention to the plight of the preborn.”
 
Everything about this is fantastic, though I am concerned with what the pro-abortion crowd will do regarding this. The 4D ultrasound showing is set to take place sometime in May. Given that this is New York, especially New York City, I don’t doubt that pro-abortion people will look to somehow prevent this event from happening, either petitioning Bill de Blasio to not allow this showing of an ultrasound to occur or something else entirely, including even sabotaging the event somehow.
 
Pro-abortion people know very well that an ultrasound shows a baby’s humanity. It shows that what the woman is seeing right then and there is the growing of her very own child, who is very much alive. A 4D ultrasound, basically taking the more realistic images of a 3D ultrasound and combining that with 2D’s ability to show a live-feed of a baby further shows the humanity of an unborn child. It shatters the idea that what is growing inside a uterus is not a baby, a human or alive. It shatters the idea that what is being shown on screen can be equated to a cancerous tumor ready to be removed. It shatters the idea that it’s just a clump of cells randomly thrown together.
 
4D ultrasound shows a real baby, an alive baby, in real time. Anyone who sees an ultrasound, particularly a 4D ultrasound and still denies the viability or humanity of the baby on their screen is either evil or outright demented (or both). I would say moronic but I think even stupid people would recognize a human when they see one. This is not a matter of intelligence, but a matter of morality.
 
To deny that a human baby is alive inside the womb is evil, regardless of what someone might try and argue. It’s virtually no different from denying Jews their humanity during the Holocaust (and I tend to be careful about comparing things with the Holocaust, but with the fact that there have been over 60 million abortions since 1973 in the U.S. ALONE, I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to compare the issue of abortion with a sort of modern-day Holocaust that is actually worse than the original Holocaust).
 
That’s over 60 million lives ended by the evil belief that a human baby inside the womb is not a baby at all.
 
God willing, this showing of a 4D ultrasound will go off without a hitch and will actually get a lot of people in Manhattan thinking about what it is they are even discussing. It’s not an issue of women’s rights or women’s healthcare or women’s liberation from the “patriarchy”.
 
It’s no woman’s (or man’s) right to kill their own child at any stage of his or her life. It’s definitely not healthcare when you’re talking about the literal ending of a life. That’s the antithesis of healthcare. And it’s not women’s liberation from the “patriarchy” because this allows women to have as much sex as possible, leaving them with a feeling of emptiness and allowing themselves to essentially be used by men as much as possible.
 
What part of a woman feeling sad and sorry for herself after her 100th round of sex with some random guy is women’s liberation?
 
Let me tell you: that’s not liberation from anything. It’s the very opposite. It’s bondage to sin.
 
It’s bondage to the flesh. No human ever is liberated by something that ensnares them and puts them in bondage.
 
Hopefully, that idea runs through many people’s minds upon seeing a 4D ultrasound of what can only be described as a living human being.
 
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.