Multiple times throughout the past couple of years, particularly since Donald Trump became President of the United States, the American Left has insisted that Trump in some way worked with Russia to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton. Specifically, they say, time and time again, that the guy is a “threat to Democracy”. But therein lies an erroneous presupposition: that we are a Democracy at all. However, a Democracy we most definitely are not, given the institutions we have in place and given what the Founders thought about Democracies.
 
First, it is crucial to identify exactly what a Democracy and a Republic are, because both seem to be used interchangeably, which is a detrimental mistake.
 
A Democracy is a system of government in which the entire population or the eligible members of a state, usually elected representatives, rule. In other words, it’s a system where the majority, or the mob, rules. Where the laws are entirely decided by the majority, through a vote, regardless of what may have been there previously.
 
A Republic, however, is a system of government where, yes, people have a vote and they elect representatives, but where the majority does not inherently rule in a nation. The Electoral College is an indication of our status as a Republic.
 
One of the Left’s most recent complaints (of which there are plenty because these are perpetually angry people) has been that the Electoral College is a “scam” and that that’s the only reason Trump won. And while Hillary did win the popular vote, there is a good reason the Electoral College is what is used to decide elections: so that big states with bigger populations don’t choose the president of the entire country.
 
Let’s look at a couple of things. First, the popular vote. Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes as opposed to Donald Trump’s 62,984,828 (granted, many of those Clinton votes were most likely from illegal aliens, so the real number probably isn’t that, but for the sake of the discussion, let’s say they are all legitimate). Rather close, but Clinton is the clear winner here. However, let’s move on to the counties: Donald Trump won 2,622 counties as opposed to Hillary Clinton’s 490. Donald Trump also won 30 states, as opposed to Clinton’s 20. Looking at an electoral map, be it by county or by state, you mostly see red.
 
So while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, far more states and especially counties voted for Donald Trump. The reason for Clinton winning the popular vote is largely attributed to California and New York, states with some of the biggest populations. California alone has nearly 40 million people living in it (obviously, not all are citizens, but still).
 
The Electoral College allows for states with lower populations to have a say as to who they want to be their President. With it gone, despite how many more counties and states Trump won, Clinton would’ve become President, even though the vast majority of the country (again, by counties and states) wanted Trump.
 
In a Democracy, Hillary would’ve won with the simple majority because that’s all a Democracy does: rule by majority. But since we are a Republic, we have systems in place to keep that from happening.
 
Now, you might be asking why it is we are a Republic and not a Democracy. Well, apart from the reasons I just gave, the Founding Fathers absolutely LOATHED Democracies.
 
Thomas Jefferson is attributed for saying: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
 
John Adams said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
 
Benjamin Franklin said: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
 
And Alexander Hamilton said: “We are a Republican government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy.”
 
Our Founding Fathers understood the dangers of a democracy: mob rules. If the majority wanted, they could have voted to remain a part of the U.K. following the Revolutionary War (unlikely, but there were those who were anti-federalists and loyalists to the crown in the colonies who were against the rebellion).
 
Likewise, a Democracy can vote on just about anything else with impunity. If the majority wanted to arrest people wearing MAGA hats, they would be able to in a Democracy, but not in a Republic where we have basic Constitutional rights pertaining to things like freedom of speech, etc.
 
So every time I hear an idiotic Democrat insisting that Trump is a “threat to Democracy” or that we are a Democracy at any capacity (might I also mention that our Pledge of Allegiance says “to the Republic for which it stands” not “to the Democracy for which it stands”?), I can’t help but think how ignorant one can be.
 
We are not a Democracy by any means. We use facets of Democracy, such as voting, in our Republic, but we are not ruled by the majority. The Constitution is the backbone of our legal system and the Bible is the foundation upon which Western society is built. A simple majority cannot add onto or eliminate an amendment in the Constitution because we are not a Democracy. In order to ratify a Constitutional amendment, it takes two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and then three-fourths of the states in order to change the Constitution at all. A simple majority does not rule here.
 
This is because we are a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. And thank God for that.
 
Amos 5:24
“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
 
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.

Logic and reason have almost completely left the Democrat Party, but one 2020 candidate hasn’t been so idiotic as to sign off on employing ideas that will 100% destroy the country. That candidate is Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH).
 
While he is one of the extremely few candidates on the debate stage who did not want to go so far Left as to go off a cliff, he once again demonstrated the ability to be reasonable by sounding the alarm on what the Democrat Party’s agenda could potentially bring them: a landslide defeat comparable to 1984.
 
Appearing on last week’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, Rep. Tim Ryan was asked by Rev. Al Sharpton whether the Party was moving too far to the Left.
 
Ryan responded by saying: “I think some of the lead candidates have taken positions that will lose 48 states, and I’m trying to figure out what the two are we’re going to win. I mean, if you’re talking about free healthcare for undocumented workers, and the average person in some of these states that we have to win are busting their rear end to provide health care for their own families and paying a lot of money for it (he didn’t really have a point to end that sentence, but is saying that that’s a bad idea)… I think decriminalizing at the border is a mistake. If you want to come into the country, you’ve got to ring the doorbell and it should be a crime to just walk into the United States. I think the single-payer idea of telling people they can’t have their private health insurance, you’re going to go to all these union people in the industrial Midwest and tell them they’ve negotiated away wages to get really good health care, and you’re going to tell them we’re going to take that health care from you because we’ve got a better idea in Washington, D.C.? I think that’s a mistake.”
 
It’s rare when I find myself agreeing with a Democrat, but he is completely right here. While I haven’t really talked much about it, the idea of providing healthcare for illegals is a massive insult to the American people in more ways than one.
 
First, there are Americans who still need healthcare. How exactly is it going to look for the average American when an illegal immigrant gets healthcare that Americans had been wanting for ages? What’s more, shouldn’t Obamacare have fixed this issue? I thought it was affordable healthcare. And yet, the Democrats are still talking about healthcare as though Obamacare hasn’t been in effect for the past 9 years. So what’s up with that?
 
Second, *I*, a naturalized citizen, get annoyed when illegals get a pass for their criminal acts. How much more will a native-born American citizen be annoyed that illegals get the “free” healthcare that had been promised to the American people?
 
Next comes the decriminalization at the border. Now, I haven’t talked much about this either, but this is honestly one of the signs that tells me these people are desperate to beat Donald Trump. They are throwing everything at the wall, seeing what sticks, and running with it. They can’t beat Donald Trump in the realm of ideas, certainly after two and a half years of a successful presidency that has brought about great results for the American people, so they have to throw out wild ideas that no sane person would agree with just to make some headlines and some noise. Decriminalizing border crossing is incredibly stupid, not to mention dangerous for the country. And while the idea of having open borders (this is a term the Democrats dispute being in favor of, but what else would decriminalizing border crossing mean apart from having open borders?) might be beneficial for the Democrat Party in terms of bringing in as many low-skilled, uneducated people to make up their permanent underclass of voters and workers, effectively a legal slave class, this would completely destroy the country and get the American people to run away from the Democrat Party.
 
It's political suicide to throw out entire voting blocs. There is a good reason why no Republican candidate has ever won by abandoning the Republican base and trying to attract Independents and Democrats. The Democrats are effectively doing the same, getting rid of many white voters in the Midwest United States, in states they NEED to win to beat Trump. And while there may be white voters who will always vote Democrat, white voters who detest the fact they are white (and these are some of the saddest people on Earth), they are a fringe group of people in America. The point is: you don’t win elections by throwing out votes.
 
And as far as single-payer goes, again, Ryan is right. Eliminating private health insurance isn’t something people want. They want options. There is a reason Medicare-for-All isn’t so widely talked about right now. The reason is that Bernie Sanders, in the second debate, gave the game away when he said that he would increase the taxes of middle-income Americans in order to pay for Medicare-for-All. As it turns out, people don’t want to be told they will have to pay higher taxes on something, so they stop supporting that something when that is the case.
 
The same principle applies to people being told that they’d be given LESS OPTIONS as to what healthcare provider they can choose. Single-payer healthcare forces people to work with the government and only the government. When it comes to people’s health, the more options, the better, which is why people like things like Obamacare and Medicare-for-All. On the outset, it looks as though people are given an extra option as to what healthcare provider to sign up with. But with single-payer healthcare, that option goes away. And with Medicare-for-All, people like it until two things are told to them: their taxes would go up and they wouldn’t have the option to sign up for private healthcare options.
 
Tim Ryan is at least reasonable enough to understand that these policies, as utopian as they make them out to be, would 1) be detrimental to the American people and 2) be rejected by the American people.
 
In Tim Ryan’s mind, the Democrats could lose as many as 48 states. I think the max (in an absolute best case scenario, that is. I doubt it will be that much) would really be 47, with the three being California, New York and Hawaii, but I could be wrong. After all, I don’t know how many people expected Ronald Reagan to win 49 states in 1984. Not that I think anything like that will ever happen again, particularly with an influx of illegal immigration and the ruining of education, but I do expect Trump to win and win by a good bit.
 
Of course, it’s far too early to tell, but again, with the way things are going, and with the policies the Left is adopting, I really see no reason for Trump not to be reelected (not that it’s going to be a breeze; no one has ever won expecting a fight to be easy). The fact that there’s at least one Democrat candidate acknowledging that the vast majority of Americans aren’t going to subscribe to the ideology of “sure, make me pay more so that you can give healthcare to illegal alien criminals” is, I think, good news, but there’s a reason Tim Ryan is polling at less than 1%. The rabid Democrat base is insane and thinks all of these crazy things are reasonable, but they are far from the majority of Americans.
 
Tim Ryan, in acknowledging this, will only further hurt his chances at being the Democrat nominee. The Party no longer cares for reason, logic, truth, facts or civility. They are out for bloody revenge and will deceive as many people as they possibly can and will do everything they can including cheat, to try and beat Donald Trump. They don’t want civil discourse. They want blood. Their rhetoric makes this clear enough, let alone the policies they espouse.
 
Ezekiel 18:20
“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General recently released a report regarding former FBI Director James Comey’s behavior in his final days as FBI director and the time following that, detailing various times in which Comey violated, with clear intent, several FBI and other federal policies.
 
In what is rather reminiscent of the Hillary Clinton case regarding leaking and deleting of e-mails back in 2016, the OIG report lays out all the violations Comey committed:
 
“Comey’s actions with respect to the Memos violated Department and FBI policies concerning the retention, handling, and dissemination of FBI records and information, and violated the requirements of Comey’s FBI Employment Agreement,” reads the OIG report.
 
Those memos are the ones Comey wrote in the first three months of Trump’s administration before the President fired him. The memos he had kept after leaving the FBI, which is a violation of DOJ and FBI policy. Upon leaving the FBI, he was required to return all official FBI documents, but Comey’s excuse to the OIG was that he considered those memos to be “personal records”, so he thought he should be able to keep them. The OIG, in their report, found no legal basis for him to believe they were his.
 
The OIG also said that Comey was at fault for failing to “tell anyone from the FBI that he had retained copies of the Memos in his personal safe at home,” despite the fact he had his former chief of staff, associate deputy director and three FBI officials went into his home to “inventory and remove all FBI property.”
 
So he kept FBI property, giving a poor excuse for it, there is no legal basis for him to have done so, and despite all of that, he won’t be prosecuted? What a disgrace, but that's not all of it.
 
What's more, Comey also further broke Bureau policy by sending a copy of a memo regarding General Michael Flynn, wherein the President had asked the then-FBI director to “let this go”, in reference to the criminal prosecution of Flynn regarding lying to the FBI (in what even Comey himself didn’t think he lied, but he was still prosecuted anyway), to a friend of his with instructions to give it to The New York Times.
 
In doing this, the OIG writes: “Comey violated FBI policy and the requirements of his FBI Employment Agreement when he chose this path. By disclosing the contents of Memo 4, through [Daniel] Richman, to The New York Times, Comey made public sensitive investigative information related to an ongoing FBI investigation, information he had properly declined to disclose while still FBI Director during his March 20, 2017 congressional testimony.”
 
Now, the law is rather strange when it comes to what a federal government official can disclose to the media and what one cannot. James Comey, in a tweet, quoted the OIG report when it says they had “found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media,” followed by arrogantly asking people to say “sorry we lied about you” when he’s the one who has been lying for the past two years.
 
But in any case, that is important because leaking classified information is a prosecutable crime and if there is no evidence of doing so, a prosecution cannot happen. However, he violated several other FBI policies and by Comey’s own standard of “intent”, he should be prosecuted over them because there was clear intent.
 
If you remember back in 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey gave a press conference in which he detailed a number of ways in which Hillary Clinton violated multiple federal policies when she was Obama’s Secretary of State, including the use of an illegal and unsecured server as well as using a personal email address to conduct official business and to handle classified information. Despite laying out all of Hillary’s sins (at least the ones regarding gross negligence), Comey, in acting as Attorney General despite not having the authority to do so, said that she would not be prosecuted because there was no “intent” to violate these policies despite the fact that intent is not part of the statute and it’s difficult to inherently prove intent.
 
Hillary Clinton should’ve been prosecuted but was not because of dubious circumstances and the excuse that there was “no intent” (though I disagree, but that doesn’t really matter). For James Comey, there definitely was intent to violate policy and violation of policy should be punished, otherwise there is no reason for the policy to be there in the first place.
 
The OIG mentions that “by not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees – and the many thousands more former FBI employees – who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.” And while I agree, what really sets a dangerous example for not just FBI, but all federal employees as well, is the lack of punishment for violating such federal policies.
 
It’s far more dangerous for society to let someone who breaks the rules get away with it than for someone to just break the rules. In schools or in the workplace, when someone breaks the rules, they have to be punished and be made an example of. “Don’t do what he did or what happened to him will happen to you” is what people should be learning. Instead, through this inaction, the OIG and all of the DOJ set a far worse standard for federal employees than James Comey did.
 
Comey is one person and not even a well-liked individual. He’s the type of person corrupt politicians would be more than okay with throwing under the bus to save their own skin. But through this inaction, we are under the understanding that no one is judged equally under the law. That there certainly are people who are above the law and such a standard turns this country into an oligarchy far faster than any election could.
 
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, James Clapper, Christopher Steele, James Comey and several other characters have all shown themselves to be above the law. Despite having broken the law to one extent or the other, they are all free men and women who got away with it. The fact that I’m not all that shocked that Comey gets to walk free is an indictment of the Department of Injustice. I don’t even EXPECT the law to be fully applied to these people when they break it.
 
Now, I’m not demanding that Comey be thrown in jail for life and the key to be thrown away. A no-name FBI agent leaked classified information regarding NATIONAL DEFENSE and only got a four-year prison term, so I can’t exactly expect to see the law getting rid of these people for good. But the fact that not a damn thing will happen to James Comey (and I expect nothing to happen to McCabe either) is truly sad. And yes, I know that the OIG and prosecutor John Durham are also looking into FISA warrant abuse by Comey, but I have no expectations for this.
 
Even if there is evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Comey, it’s pretty clear that these people are untouchable.
 
There is truly only one Judge in this world, who is incorruptible and unchangeable. These people might escape Man’s law and judgment, but they can’t escape God’s.
 
Proverbs 24:24-25
“Whoever says to the wicked, ‘You are in the right,’ will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations, but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

On its own, the media can’t speak a recession into happening. They can say whatever they want, have financial “experts” say that a recession is looming, look at particular metrics that could be warning signs of a recession and predict one will definitely happen sometime soon, but they cannot speak a recession into happening if they don’t convince people.
 
And with recent news surrounding some of the most important metrics, consumer confidence and assessment of current conditions, it appears that the whole recession narrative is nothing more than that: a narrative.
 
From Bloomberg, who tend to write headlines that are negative to hurt Trump, they write: “Americans’ View of the Current Economy Is The Highest in 19 Years.”
 
“U.S. consumer confidence declined in August by less than forecast as Americans’ assessment of current conditions climbed to the highest level in almost 19 years, helped by a job market that remains robust,” writes Bloomberg.
 
While consumer confidence did dip down a little bit from 135.8 (the index used by The Conference Board) to 135.1, it is nowhere near what was forecasted, and what’s more, Americans’ views for the current economic situation is at 177.2, the highest it’s been since November of 2000.
 
“The reading shows hiring and income gains are keeping consumers upbeat and assuaging concerns about the economy’s prospects in light of slowing global growth, volatile financial markets and escalating U.S.-China trade tensions. The level of confidence could allow for sustained household spending that remains a mainstay of the economy. The share of respondents who say jobs are currently plentiful jumped to 51.2%, the highest since September 2000, while the share saying jobs are hard to get declined to the lowest in three months,” according to Bloomberg.
 
This is all important to note because these are some of the most important metrics in predicting a recession. As it stands, unemployment levels are at record-lows, wages are rising, taxes are lower, and there are more jobs than there are people available, which is always a good problem to have. But what matters more than these things is how people are feeling about the current economy.
 
It’s for this reason that the Left and the MSM have embarked on a mission to try and bring about a recession. Again, on their own, they can’t do that. But if people’s confidence drops significantly, that spells trouble for the economy. The media has been trying to get people to worry about the economy and fear a looming recession that wouldn’t come without those sorts of storylines being written. What the media is doing is trying to make a recession a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Trump economy is very good and stable, certainly growing, and that presents a problem for any Democrat candidate.
 
For the most part, people don’t care about what the narrative is about Trump. His approval numbers have been climbing and are pretty steady in large part due to how well the economy is doing. When people feel they are doing well, they care more about that than what Trump said on a particular day about a particular subject or person. If the economy is doing well, people don’t see much reason to change the status quo, so Trump’s prospects for reelection are only improved by a strong and growing economy.
 
This is a problem for the Left, and so, they are trying to scare people into thinking there is going to be a recession when plenty of indicators don’t show it. If they can convince people there will be a recession, there will be one. However, it doesn’t appear to be working so far, if these numbers are any indication.
 
Yes, consumer confidence dropped a bit, but less than was forecasted, so it’s probably a rather normal dip that happens all the time in economies (the line graphs aren’t exactly straight in any direction. You have to look at trends).
 
Bloomberg further writes: “U.S. consumers spent more in July than economists expected, the federal government said on Thursday, as retail sales rose 0.7% vs. the 0.3% estimated. Excluding automobile sales, a more volatile component, retail sales rose 1% - double what economists anticipated. Why it matters: Consumers were largely unfazed by the increasing economic uncertainty in July, defying other indicators that point to a global slowdown or recession. The data also comes as Walmart, one of the world’s biggest retailers, posted strong financials for its most recent quarter.”
 
Yeah, who exactly is saying there is “increasing economic uncertainty”? Look at these people, claiming there is such a thing all-the-while reporting that consumer confidence and perception are PRETTY GOOD RIGHT NOW, with a normal dip for consumer confidence at a time when families end their summer vacations and an economic perception that is the highest it’s been since the beginning of the new millennium.
 
In any case, this is, obviously, pretty good news not only for Trump but also for the economy and the people involved with it. No serious dip in consumer confidence means no likelihood for recession. No recession means people won’t be financially hurt, but it does mean Leftists and elitists like Bill Maher, Bill Kristol, etc. will be hurt because it won’t help them get rid of Trump. I just hope and pray these metrics will continue showing good news and continue improving, not only for the benefit of the President’s chances for reelection but also for the benefit of the American people.
 
To wish for a recession to occur like these Leftists are doing is to hope the American people will be hurt to the point they will point the finger at Trump. It helps no one but the heartless Left and it’s sickening.
 
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
 
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.

A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey shows us some rather disturbing news regarding our modern culture’s views regarding various subjects.
 
21 years ago, a “strong majority” of Americans said that principles of hard work, patriotism, commitment to religion and the goal of having children were all very important issues for them. But since then, three of the four have seen a considerable downturn.
 
Interestingly enough, hard work remains a top value, but the other three have all dropped considerably, with the numbers being driven down by younger and younger people.
 
In 1998, 59% said that having children was a top value. That’s down 16 points since then, to 43%, and considering multiple people are beginning to preach about having less children, or not having children at all in order to “save the environment”, I expect that number to continue dropping if that philosophy becomes a bit more mainstream.
 
As far as religion goes, in 1998, 62% said it was very important. Today, that number stands at 50%. Not a terrible number, per se, but a worrying trend, especially considering the implications it brings. This is part of the whole “turning away from God” issue I had been mentioning recently. We can’t ask God to bless America when America is turning its back to God, and as time goes on, the problem seems to only worsen. It is also why I have, time and time again, spoken about the need for another Christian revival.
 
Finally, patriotism also went down from 70% in 1998 to 61% today, a 9-point drop. Not quite as bad as the other two, but still not a good thing, particularly considering the downward trends.
 
And again, the biggest driver of this comes from younger generations. Only 42% of those aged 18-38 said that patriotism was very important. By comparison, almost 80% of those 55 and older said the same.
 
Less than a third of those aged 18-35 said religion was important in contrast to two-thirds of those who are 55 and older.
 
But one can’t really be surprised considering what exactly is being taught in schools. Democrats have had control of the education in this country for the past 50 years. As time has gone on, more and more radical Leftist ideologies began to be not only taught, but encouraged to be embraced by the students. Instead of simply teaching what The Communist Manifesto says and allow for students to critically think and discern whether any of it makes sense (which it doesn’t), it is embraced as Gospel and taught that the values held in that book are truthful and correct.
 
Instead of teaching both the theory of evolution and Creation in the classroom, only evolution is taught and is largely taught as being true and factual, when it isn’t. Now, personally, my 10th grade Biology teacher was fairly chill and mentioned that we didn’t necessarily have to believe the theory of evolution, but when the curriculum doesn’t teach any alternative to it, it leads students to only really believe in what is being taught, especially for students who are not taught other things by their parents.
 
When students no longer have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, that leads them to not feel very much love for their country. It also doesn’t help that schools (and the media, but this begins in schools) demonize the flag as not being “inclusive” enough for everyone else, as though it’s supposed to be. The American flag represents American values. It’s obviously not going to represent Mexico or Guatemala or any other country (of which schools have no problem showing their flags). It also doesn’t help when America is generally taught as having “robbed the poor” in order to become as powerful as it is and is taught as being the “bad guys” in pretty much every affair it finds itself in.
 
And when God, the Bible, prayer and the Cross are all taken away from the classrooms, you find yourself being driven away from Him and focusing on the things of Man and not on the things of God. So is it any wonder we are seeing the numbers we are seeing?
 
Ben Shapiro writes that this is all largely a failure of education. That polls suggesting a rise in socialism, but with almost no one being able to define it apart from what Bernie Sanders says it is (which isn’t socialism at all), is largely a failure of education alongside the fact that there is no “evil empire” like the Soviet Union against which to contrast the virtues of capitalism against the failures of socialism. But there are two major problems with that take.
 
One, it’s not a FAILURE of education when the Left controls the education in this country and students are being led Left-ward. It’s exactly WHAT THEY WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH when they first set out to take over the education system in the early 1960s. It began with eliminating God from the classrooms and everything else followed. An America that hates itself and wishes for an entirely new system of economics and government, even if it can’t define it and even if when explained, they reject it (most people reject Medicare for All when told that it would raise the middle-class’ taxes and eliminate private health insurance), is what the Left wants. Because in that America, THEY get all the power and all the benefits and get to live like kings because they basically are. So this isn’t a failure in the education system. The system has worked exactly how it was supposed to so far, it’s just supposed to bring about all of this.
 
Second, while a bit more difficult to compare, there IS an evil empire out there: China. What’s more, the failures of socialism can be clearly seen in Venezuela and North Korea, which are what we often use to contrast capitalism and socialism. The problem comes in the fact that Venezuela and North Korea were never all that powerful to begin with and people say “that can’t possibly happen to us”, which is a fool’s argument. The way it’s happened in Venezuela and North Korea has happened in LITERALLY EVERY OTHER SOCIALIST COUNTRY EVER. First, take away the guns, then take away the rights and freedoms of some people, then everyone else’s, all-the-while nationalizing everything under the sun from energy production to the press, both of which are things Bernie Sanders is on record for wanting to do.
 
While China, Venezuela and North Korea generally aren’t put in the same spotlight as the Soviet Union, they are all notable socialist states that all show us the failures and dangers of socialism.
 
Capitalism isn’t being attacked because there is no other system out there to contrast it to or because there is no notable “bad guy” out there but because the Left HATES Capitalism and sees it as a threat to their socialist ideals. Owning children’s minds has a MASSIVE effect on the future of a nation. You own children’s minds, you own the future. The Left has known this for a very long time and has worked to own it for quite some time.
 
As it stands, there are really only two ways for this country to heal from the sort of damage currently happening. One, we wrestle away control of the education system from the communist Left. Easier said than done, for certain, but not impossible and something to at least try, in whatever way it might come.
 
And two, as I have said time and time again, including in this very article: we have another Christian revival. I don’t know when the Day of Judgement will occur, when the Rapture will happen, when God will say “enough” and destroy this world and all of its sin, but if that is not to happen for centuries or millennia, I don’t doubt there will eventually be another Christian revival. Whether America is still here or not by the time it happens, I also don’t know, but if there is any place that has the potential to have another one, it is here, particularly considering how many Christian revivals there have been in this country alone.
 
Having been founded with the principles it was, America has great potential to be home of multiple Christian revivals, even in the middle of social decay worldwide. While the evil Left might argue that our “true” founding was in 1619, we all know that our TRUE founding was in 1776, under the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness all being inalienable rights given to us by our Creator.
 
This country’s founding is special and wonderful, much as the Left might try and say it isn’t. And while I would love to say that everything will be alright for this country and the Left will be thrown into the trash-heap of history, I do not know for certain what is to happen. Upon exiting the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked what kind of country we would be after fighting for our liberty against England. Franklin said: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
 
We have kept it thus far and we certainly CAN keep it moving forward, but freedom isn’t free and a Republic cannot be maintained if left on its own, undefended against opposition. This is why I say what I say: we must return to God as a nation in order for Him to bless us once again. We must fight against socialism and what would restrict our freedoms. We must ensure that information and education of truth, first God’s Truth and then the truth regarding socialism, is spread out like a wildfire.
 
Again, these things are easier said than done, particularly in an age when the Left also owns social media, and in a sense, people’s ability to communicate and express themselves. But if we are to keep our Republic as Ben Franklin said, we must do everything in our power to do so. And that power comes, first and foremost, from the Lord. Because if He is for us, who could possibly be against us?
 
Romans 8:31
“What then shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?”
 
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.

Eco-fascists love pointing the finger at anyone and everyone who could be deemed as bearing blame for any harm caused to the environment, and with the Amazon fires damaging the rain forest, they jumped at the story very quickly. But, as with many other stories, they jumped at it WAY too quickly.
 
Celebrities like Madonna, Cristiano Ronaldo and Leonardo DiCaprio, as well as foreign leaders like Emmanuel Macron have all peddled fake news regarding the Amazon fires. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted: “The Amazon rain forest – the lungs which produce 20% of our planet’s oxygen – is on fire.” Ronaldo peddled the same claim, saying it produces 20% of the world’s oxygen and DiCaprio (and Macron) both shared a photo of blazing fires destroying the Amazon… that’s 20 years old. CNN and the NYT also used the same term of “lungs of the world”, but denied that the cause was climate change (not that that matters to the eco-fascists).
 
So what is the truth? First, like the NYT said, this wasn’t caused by climate change. “Natural fires in the Amazon are rare, and the majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent farmland for the next year’s crops and pasture. Much of the land that is burning was not old-growth rain forest, but land that had already been cleared of trees and set for agricultural use.” In other words, farmers are doing this to control pests, weeds and to encourage growth in pastures.
 
Second, the Amazon is not the “lungs” of the world. I came across conflicting information regarding the “20%” figure, with some sources saying it doesn’t produce 20% while others say it does. However, regardless of however much it produces, it also respirates it anyway. According to Amazon forest expert Dan Nepstad, “the Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash.” Basically, it uses as much oxygen as it produces in a closed system, so to claim it’s “the lungs of the world” is a lie. In fact, Nepstad went on to say: “The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen, but so do soy farms and [cattle] pastures.”
 
Third, while the media and foreign politicians are wagging their fingers at Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro (who is a right-winger), they are blatantly ignoring the fact that there is also a wildfire raging in socialist Bolivia. Bolivian President Evo Morales has been very open about telling farmers that “it’s fine to set [fires] to gather charcoal to sell for fuel or clear the land of brush for planting.” The only real reason Bolsonaro is being attacked here is because he is a right-winger president. There have been a lot of fires in the Amazon over the years, yet this is the first time we’re hearing people attacking the Brazilian president for it.
 
Finally, while people are claiming that the Amazon fires are a “record high”, NASA declared that the fires are only “close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years.” There is nothing adamantly special about this year’s Amazon forest fires apart from the fact that Jair Bolsonaro is now President of Brazil and has been attacked by the media for not subscribing to their cult of doom and gloom surrounding climate change.
 
While 2019 has been the most active year for fires in the Amazon since 2010, what the media doesn’t mention is that “about ½ the years BEFORE 2019 are higher, and about ½ are lower,” according to Climate Depot. In other words, the 2019 fire is nothing particularly special throughout the last decade and is mostly a nothingburger being made into something more than what it is by eco-fascists who claim a particularly hot day is a sign of “climate change”.
 
And even then, the “hot days” aren’t particularly special either. According to the U.S. Climate Reference Network, there hasn’t been any warming in the U.S. dating back to 2005. What’s more, 2019 has been, on average, cooler than 2005.
 
The eco-fascist movement requires people to have really short, selective memory. They pretend that particularly hot days in the middle of SUMMER is somehow not right and an inherent threat to our planet and our very own lives. Ignore the data that shows us there’s nothing particularly special about any particular day or any particular record-high, you’re feeling hot, you’re feeling uncomfortable and it’s all capitalism’s fault.
 
The eco-fascist movement requires lazy people to do as little research as possible and just accept what is being told to them from the fake news media and little kids who think they know everything about the climate throwing the biggest temper tantrums since Trump became President. It requires as much disinformation as possible, which is why we see mentally-challenged celebrities like Madonna and DiCaprio showing pictures of an Amazon forest fire FROM 20 YEARS AGO.
 
As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I’m calling these people “eco-fascists”. The reason being that it’s entirely accurate. Calling them “environmentalists” doesn’t sound proper enough. These people are every bit as fascistic as Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, etc. They use the argument of climate change in order to gain more and more power for themselves.
 
It’s why AOC’s former chief of staff noted that the GND wasn’t really about fighting climate change but about changing the entire economy of the United States. In other words, changing the U.S. from a capitalist-based economy to a socialist-based one.
 
The issue of climate change can cover pretty much every single issue. From abortion to religion to gun violence to poverty to immigration, climate change can be infused into every single argument, which is why Democrats say illegals are “environmental refugees”.
 
These people are the very definition of an eco-fascist, and as such, I believe they deserve to be called that way. We all know they love to use the word “fascist” against Trump and anyone who disagrees with them. Let’s see how they like it when the word is used against them.
 
Deuteronomy 28:7
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.”
 
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.

More and more Democrats have signed on to the idea that they should seek to impeach President Donald Trump, with 130 House Democrats currently wishing to impeach and with the fourth-ranking Democrat having recently announced his desire to go down that route. However, Monmouth University recently ran a poll that shows dire news for Democrats who wish to impeach: it would only help Trump in the long run.
 
Recently, Monmouth University ran a survey asking people a number of things. Questions like Trump's job approval among surveyors, Congress’ job approval and other things were asked (and I’ll get to that first one), but most important are questions 4, 6, 8, and 9-13.
 
Here is what question 4 said: “Do you think President Trump should be impeached and compelled to leave the Presidency, or not?” And here are the results: 35% said that Trump should be impeached or compelled to leave office, while 59% said he should not and 6% said they didn’t know. That is a massive, 24-point difference in the sentiment surrounding impeachment.
 
Despite the Left’s best efforts to accuse Trump of being a Russian agent or being unfit to serve or having broken the law at any capacity, FAR MORE PEOPLE say that he shouldn’t be impeached than he should. This goes to show the failure of the media to try and shape reality. They have insisted for over 3 years that Donald Trump was unfit or was in some way a criminal and none of it has stuck.
 
Question 6 says the following: “Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry into President Trump that may or may not lead to impeachment?” This was the result: 41% said it was a good idea for the House Judiciary Committee, which is led by Jerry “Doughboy” Nadler, to conduct inquiry into impeaching Trump. 51%, in turn, said it was a bad idea to do so. A 10-point difference.
 
Now, I didn’t mention question 7 in the “important questions” list, but it is relevant to question 6, so I will briefly cover it. Question 7 is split into two questions: 7A and 7B. 7A asks the people who answer “good idea” to question 6 why it is that they feel the way they do. 17% of those say that it’s because they believe he broke the law, 18% say because the aforementioned Committee needs to follow evidence, 17% say because of bad moral character/personality, 16% say because he has enacted bad policies or is doing a bad job, 10% say because he acts above the law and must be held accountable, 11% say because he is racist or because he is bad for immigration. There are other reasons, but one I would like to point out is that only 3% say because he has “Russia ties”.
 
While many of these reasons are fake news narratives, such as breaking the law, acting above the law, insisting there is evidence of criminal activity, etc., the 3% Russia ties is quite significant in showing how bad of a job the Left did in trying to frame Trump as a Russian asset or having colluded with Russia.
 
For the most part, I imagine that those who say he broke the law will argue that the law he broke was relating to wanting to fire Mueller or complaining about the investigation being a witch hunt, etc., none of which are an actual crime (though Mueller certainly tried to make it look like they were instances of obstruction of justice), otherwise far more people would be signed on to the idea of impeachment, and none of it really has to do with actual Russian collusion. Three years of insisting Trump colluded with Russia has culminated in people really not buying it. Though, that tends to happen when no actual evidence of the deed has been shown.
 
But in any case, while these may be the (really poor) reasons people have stated to impeach Trump, question 7B asks those who think it’s a bad idea for Nadler to begin impeachment inquiry why they think the way they do. 27% say that Trump did nothing wrong, 22% say it would be a waste of time/money, 12% say Trump’s done a good job, 13% say because it would be a witch hunt and entirely partisan, 10% say Congress should work on other things, and 5% say because it would backfire on Democrats.
 
So while there are those who are insane enough to believe the b.s. of the Left (at least some of it), there are far more people who think it would be unwarranted to call for impeachment of the POTUS.
 
But let’s move on to question 8. It’s rather lengthy and basically explains the impeachment process (House votes to pass articles of impeachment and two-thirds of Senate, or 66 votes, in order to remove the President from office) but it basically asks how likely it would be for the Senate to remove Trump if House votes to impeach. 6% said it would be very likely, 14% said somewhat likely, 25% said not too likely and 50% said not at all likely. That’s 20% to 75% in favor of “not likely” that the Senate would vote to impeach.
 
This largely hinges on the actual rules of the Senate and Trump’s favorability as it stands. 66 Senators would have to vote in favor of impeachment. There are 45 Democrats and 2 Independent Senators, those being Bernie Sanders and Angus King, neither of which like Trump, so they’d likely vote to remove from office. One could assume all 45 Dems would vote to remove Trump from office, so that’s 47 votes. This would require 19 Republicans to vote to remove Trump from office. And while people like Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Ben Sasse might vote to remove Trump from office, that’s still not enough votes to do so and with Trump’s good numbers, it’s unlikely they would vote to remove (well, maybe Romney still would because he’s an idiot, but I don’t know about the rest. When Ben Sasse isn’t talking about Trump, I tend to like him because he tends to be conservative, but I don’t really know what he would do).
 
Sure, there are probably others in the Senate who hate Trump as much as the Democrats do, but wouldn’t dare be vocal about it, particularly now. And considering Lindsey Graham seems to be on Trump’s side now, that’s one less likely vote to remove Trump.
 
But that’s if it even reaches the Senate. With the way things are, I don’t think the House would vote to impeach. Again, only 130 Democrats are signing on to it (and probably a couple Republicans and Independents), but Nancy Pelosi doesn’t even want this on the House floor. So impeachment is not likely at all to occur.
 
Now, for the sake of time, I will briefly cover the remaining important questions.
 
Question 9 asked if people thought it’d be a good idea for the House to conduct impeachment proceedings even if the Senate was unlikely to remove Trump from office. Only 37% said it would be a good idea and 56% said it would be a bad idea.
 
Question 10 asks if Trump would be in a stronger or weaker position to win reelection if impeached but not removed from office. 31% said he’d be in a stronger position and only 23% said he’d be in a weaker position. Though 36% said there wouldn’t be a significant impact.
 
Question 11 is similar to question 10, but asks the same of Democrats keeping the House in 2020. 27% said they’d be in a stronger position to retain the House, 34% said they’d be in a weaker position and 31% said there wouldn’t be a significant impact.
 
Question 12 asks people if their elected representative voted to impeach, would that make voters more or less likely to vote for that representative again? 24% said more likely, 26% less likely and 46% no significant impact.
 
Question 13 is similar but asks if the representative voted against impeachment, would people vote for them again? 16% said more likely, 28% said less likely, 51% no impact.
 
Those last two questions particularly put Democrats in purple states in danger because it’s a no-win situation. If they vote to impeach, more people would be less likely to vote. If they vote against impeachment, the same thing happens. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t for them, which is another reason Pelosi doesn’t want this on the House floor. Not only is it unlikely to do anything to hurt Trump, it would likely HELP him in 2020 and it would likely HURT the Democrats in 2020, particularly in the House.
 
Now, another thing that I feel obligated to mention (as I said I would get to) is Trump’s approval rating in the Monmouth University poll. It’s not exactly great numbers for Trump, sitting at only 40% approval rating, but that’s actually par for the course for Trump in this survey. His highest numbers, at least since March of 2017, have been 44 or 43%. 40% is far from the lowest he’s gotten and rather normal for this survey (of which only 25% of registered Republicans participated, 30% Democrats and 45% Independents, so that explains some numbers).
 
I personally think his approval is considerably higher than that, but even taking this number at face value, it’s far higher than the Democrats would want in order to be confident about impeachment proceedings.
 
Pelosi noticed that Clinton’s approval numbers were not bad at all when the GOP sought to impeach and she noticed that move seriously hurt the Republicans moving forward, at least to some extent. She doesn’t want the same thing to happen to the Democrats, not because she cares about the Party, but because that would put her position of power in peril. Pushing to impeach would likely make Trump stronger in 2020 and would likely make any incumbent who voted in favor likely to lose (in districts not in solid blue states, at least).
 
That’s not to say Pelosi doesn’t want to impeach Trump. She does, but she doesn’t want to sacrifice her power in order to *maybe* achieve that (and, of course, it’s not likely at all that the Senate will vote to remove Trump).
 
With more and more Democrats signing on to the idea of impeaching Trump, they may be appeasing the Leftist Hollywood elitists who demand this and maybe even be appeasing some in their base, but as I’ve said before, that base is shrinking. Most people don’t want impeachment and if Democrats go against that, it will only hurt them going forward. Every Democrat who says they should impeach Trump gives ammo to Trump and only to Trump.
 
And that’s why I want them to go for it. I want them to try and impeach because of how catastrophic a failure it would be for them. But we’ll see what happens. We’ll see if Pelosi still has enough political muscle to rein in these lunatic Leftists.
 
Luke 10:19
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It is rare to see college professors be nuanced enough to challenge their own beliefs, understand where they fall short, and rethink certain things with new information given, at least in this day and age. But David Gelernter dared to challenge Darwin’s theory of evolution, at least in the aspect of macro-evolution, in an essay he titled: “Giving Up Darwin.”
 
The essay is rather long and pretty technical, so I will have to skip a decent bit of it, but here are the main points:
 
“Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures (what are considered the first-ever animals in an event called the Cambrian Explosion) must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated… Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors… All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk. But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing… The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting – and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted.”
 
In other words, the sort of Darwinian chain of gradual improvement from one creature to the next isn’t there in terms of macro-evolution. The first-ever animals that popped up half a billion years ago seem to have pretty much come from out of nowhere, with no noticeable predecessor to them being fossilized and discovered. And it’s not like it was a matter of how hard their bodies were. Soft-bodied fossils have been found in the past.
 
But that’s not Darwin’s only problem, nor is it the biggest. Mathematically-speaking, Darwin’s theory surrounding evolution through mutation is virtually impossible. Avoiding getting too technical, it is mathematically-impossible for a mutation of an amino acid (the things inside DNA) to carry on to future generations and make an entirely new species. The mutation would have to be early enough in the genetic sequence to do it, but there hasn’t been a case when a mutation in that stage of the sequence wasn’t fatal to the organism. These mutations are not mutations that make improvements upon a new organism. They are deficiencies and malformities that kill the organism with that mutation before it can mate.
 
Gelernter also writes against the idea that simple chance is what does the trick:
 
“Neo-Darwinism says that nature simply rolls the dice, and if something useful emerges, great. Otherwise, try again. But useful sequences are so gigantically rare that this answer simply won’t work…”
 
While he doesn’t really dive too much into that particular aspect, I think I should.
 
The biggest problem, in my opinion, with the theory of evolution as Darwin describes it and as scientists take it is that they have a simple formula that doesn’t work. That formula is Matter + Chance + Time = Everything.
 
This is really what fuels theories like Darwin’s: that something has to be there in the first place in order for something else to eventually, probably, be there. But one can see the cracks pretty much immediately. It alludes to the illogical idea that something can come from nothing and thus, that everything can come from nothing.
 
Of course, one might ask: “But if matter is already there, isn’t that already something?” Yes, but then where did that initial form of matter come from? It had to have come from somewhere, surely! If it is there now, it had to have been there before in some sort of way. But there are people who will argue in favor of self-creation. Such an example comes from the Big Bang Theory. That theory is a theory based on the idea that something can come from nothing. That the universe created itself. That an explosion, an effect, came from nothing, no cause. It is an argument that there is an effect without a cause, which is entirely illogical. It also doesn’t help that chance doesn’t have any actual power to do anything, as I have explained time and time again, given it is nothing more than a mathematic calculation of the probability of an occurrence, but has no actual say as to what happens.
 
So when it comes to the Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution, reasonable people will point to the idea of intelligent design being a good answer, at least in the abstract. Since something can’t come from nothing, and since we are here and since animals are here in the way they are with no Precambrian ancestry to note, the only logical answer then is the idea that an intelligent, or conscious, presence affected the way things are and the way things were.
 
This presence – this being – has to have had the power to affect these things down to the molecular level and has to have been separate from the actual chain of life. In other words, it had to have been an omnipotent, omniscient, self-existent and omnipresent being – someone who exists outside of this realm of reality and has the power and knowledge to affect things within it – in order for matter, for life and everything in the universe, or at least on this planet, to have gone the way things went.
 
Of course, scientists like Gelernter don’t immediately jump on to Christianity and the Bible. They understand that intelligent design is a serious theory that makes more and more sense as time goes on and as more information is made available, but that does not inherently mean that the God of the Bible is inherently the intelligent designer of this world, at least in their minds. Man’s desire to avoid the things of God is there, even if it is forced to acknowledge through reason His existence.
 
However, it is impossible to divorce the Intelligent Design theory with Scripture, as the Intelligent Designer being described in the theory fits the God of the Bible to a tee. The theory requires an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being to exist. God is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being. Matter of fact, He’s the ONLY omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being in existence. And He's self-existent - He has the power of being within Himself. He's the first cause of everything.
 
Do you want to know what the Big Bang Theory, the theory of evolution and the Bible have in common? They all require the existence of God.
 
The Big Bang Theory, if interpreted by rational people, insists that there is a self-existent being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent to cause the literal explosion and creation of the cosmos. The theory of evolution, going all the way back to the first life form, requires that there have been a self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being for there to be life in the first place. Again, something can’t come from nothing, and that includes life. Life can’t come from out of nowhere, at least in the natural.
 
And Genesis 1:1 states: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The Bible assumes and requires the existence of a self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being that literally creates everything.
 
I find it rather funny that, in Man’s desire to avoid the things of God to the point it wishes to DISPROVE God, all he manages to do is further prove His existence and further drive people to the understanding of His existence. Darwin had to assume, even if unconsciously, that there is a God in order for his theory regarding macro-evolution to make sense. The Big Bang Theory has to assume that there is a God in order for it to even logically work.
 
As more of this world is made known to us, we only find more and more evidence of God’s existence through His creation. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, wrote: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
 
Paul is saying here that God reveals Himself through nature, so Man doesn’t have any excuse not to have been made aware of His existence and His presence. As scientists discover more and more about the world we live in, this is made all the more apparent. God has already proven His own existence. Scientists continue to prove His existence through their discoveries of the creation. Man has no real excuse not to understand and believe that there is a God.
 
I fully give credit to Gelernter in his understanding that Darwin’s theory of evolution, at least regarding macro-evolution, is full of holes and is essentially outdated and impossible. I also give him credit for understanding that the theory of Intelligent Design is sound and serious and shouldn’t be attacked by fellow scientists who seek to find the truth about the universe and who seek further understanding of its truth. But one has to also come to the understanding that you can’t just stop at the theory of Intelligent Design and try to divorce that from the God of Scripture.
 
All signs point towards God as He is described in His very own Word. Still, this is at least a step in the right direction and shows the guy’s ability to reason instead of following the religion of Darwin, which even Gelernter admits is basically a religion itself and anyone who dares challenge it or question it must be silenced or eliminated.
 
John 8:24
“I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One of the main tools of illegal immigrants and traffickers is children. Since 2015, illegals have been able to seek asylum while being accompanied by a child, but a court-ordered rule had made it so that migrants with children had to be released after 20 days of detention – that is, released into the United States, not deported back to their country of origin. As you could imagine, this brought a whole lot of problems.
 
However, the Department of Homeland Security is now issuing a new regulation that eliminates the limit asylum seekers can be detained for, allowing for the full process of asylum seeking to be completed aka, sending the ones who do not qualify for asylum packing as opposed to releasing them into the United States.
 
According to Breitbart: “Officials expect the promise of family detention will sharply reduce the economic incentive for migration from Central America, Africa, and Asia, because it will prevent migrants from getting U.S. jobs to pay their smuggling debts to the cartel-affiliated coyotes. Without the revenue from a job in the United States, migrants know they will likely lose the farms and houses which they typically mortgage to pay the smuggling coyotes upfront.”
 
This also means that there will likely be a considerable drop in numbers of asylum seekers, particularly those who are accompanied by children.
 
According to a Guatemalan coyote named Hugo who recently spoke with the Los Angeles Times: “The child is the treasure. It’s not the adult who takes the child, it’s the other way around: The child takes the adult.”
 
And this is pretty obvious given the number of asylum seekers in recent years. In 2013, before the court order of Catch and Release, only 15,000 people accompanied by a child applied for asylum. So far in 2019, that number is 433,000.
 
So like we have been saying, these people largely use children to go around existing immigration law and enter the country illegally. They enter the country with a child, get detained by BP or ICE, apply for asylum, wait 20 days, get released into the city they stated they planned on living in, get told to show up to court on a particular date to settle the asylum claim, never show up and live amongst the other illegal immigrants who gamed the system in a similar way.
 
But now, thanks to the DHS, that loophole has been terminated (though Left-wing, pro-illegal immigration groups will challenge this regulation for certain) and there is the opportunity to discourage people from trying to enter the country with a child (that in all likelihood isn’t even theirs). This also reduces the chances of a child getting separated from the adult they are with or even dying at the border.
 
A statement from a “senior administration official” says: “Today, the Administration is closing one of the legal loopholes that has allowed human traffickers and smugglers to exploit our vulnerabilities at the southern border. President Trump has made it clear that he’s going to secure America’s border at all cost and this rule plays a vital role in the strategy to restore the integrity to our immigration system and our national security.”
 
Indeed, the way human traffickers have been able to do their business in the southern border is through this loophole. With the huge number of asylum seekers accompanied by children, border agents have had a horrible time trying to enforce our nation’s immigration system and keep illegals out of the country. Releasing these people after 20 days and ASKING THEM to go to a court where they are more than likely to lose their case is something only idiots and people who want this country to fall to ruin want. Few illegals would be stupid enough to go to court following their release into the American city they want to live in.
 
As with criminals in general, illegal immigrants don’t care about American rule of law or immigration law. So why would they be willing to obey the law in regards to going to court to settle the asylum claim, which they are more likely to lose than to win?
 
It’s a stupid system and I’m glad something is being done about it, not thanks to Congress. The Democrats definitely don’t want to close the loophole. They HEAVILY BENEFIT from the loophole. The Republicans aren’t much better because many of them argue that these migrants provide services Americans wouldn’t be willing to do, which is absolute b.s.
 
Now, again, this will most certainly be challenged in courts and likely even be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, but I expect it to rule in favor of the President, or in this case, in favor of the DHS. Being able to close such loopholes is within the power of the Executive, which tends to have a say when it comes to regulation.
 
But as it stands right now, this will definitely help immigration agencies and allow them room to breathe. Just in July, apprehension numbers fell 24%, from nearly 95,000 in June to roughly 72,000 in July, according to the July Southwest Border Migration Report. Still generally higher than in 2018, but this new rule will go a long way towards helping with these apprehension numbers in the future.
 
This marks another Trump campaign promise fulfilled, at least as it stands, to end “Catch-and-Release” that has been plaguing this country for years.
 
Thanks be to God that this is happening now, because I’m certain that if we had had a President Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, things would be far worse than they currently are.
 
Psalm 106:1
“Praise the Lord! Oh give thanks to the Lord, for He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever!”
 
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.

While Planned Parenthood still, for some reason, receives much more money from the federal government, it took a massive blow this past week when they chose genocide over continuing Title X services, which serve the needs of low-income Americans.
 
According to The Daily Wire, “The Trump administration had implemented a rule stating that any clinic accepting Title X funds must not refer women to an abortion provider or suggest where to get one.” The New York Times added: “The move could affect more than 1.5 million low-income women who rely on Planned Parenthood for services like birth control, pregnancy tests and screening for sexually transmitted diseases.”
 
The good news for those low-income women, of course, is that hospitals and other clinics that are not PP also provide those types of services and comply with Title X rules and regulations set by this administration.
 
In choosing to stick to mass infanticide, Planned Parenthood will lose $60 million in taxpayer funds. Unfortunately, they make a lot more than that in general, having reported almost $245 million in excess revenue for 2017-18, but this does a couple of things:
 
     1) Planned Parenthood will lose some money, which is always a good thing. 

    2) Some babies will likely be saved as a result. 

   3) It further shows Trump to be one of, if not the most pro-life President we have had in ages. 
 
Fox News reported that “Planned Parenthood’s pullout followed a June order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that lifted a nationwide injunction that had prevented the Trump administration from enforcing the new rule. The court’s three-judge panel, with two judges appointed by President Trump, is still weighing Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit to overturn the rule but has allowed the administration to begin enforcement – a sign that the administration will ultimately win on the merits.”
 
While there is still more work to be done to fully defund Planned Parenthood, this is definitely a step in the right direction to doing that and yet another sign of Trump making and actually keeping the promises he made during the 2015-16 campaign trail.
 
Following the news, Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, told Life News: “It’s a great day for women’s health in America. Planned Parenthood is America’s deadliest nonprofit, and the news that they’re refusing to accept taxpayer funds to target vulnerable women is a good thing for women’s health. Women deserve the chance to live empowered, full lives that are free from the harms that Planned Parenthood poses through abortion and abortion-focused services. Women who need true healthcare will have their needs met by authentic and eager healthcare providers across America.”
 
And that’s another point: Leftists will argue that PP helps with women’s healthcare issues like getting mammograms, checkups, pregnancy tests, etc., and as a result, they argue that PP is necessary and good for women, but hospitals, other clinics and even pharmacies provide the same services. Planned Parenthood will use these things as a cover for suggesting that they are women’s health providers when they are nothing more than a glorified slaughterhouse. Their main objective, as is clear from pulling out of Title X funding, is abortion. They care nothing of women or their healthcare, but to make money off of women’s poor sexual decisions. They take advantage of women, particularly low-income women, who do not feel they are capable of raising a child, and so suggest they get an abortion. That is what Planned Parenthood was doing with their Title X patients and the rule change regarding those kinds of suggestions puts that mission in peril, which is why they chose to forego Title X.
 
This PROVES they don’t care about women’s healthcare AT ALL. They only care about taking advantage of vulnerable women and killing as many babies in the womb as they can, seeing as they can make a huge profit off of their blood.
 
To them, killing children is more important than providing REAL health services to women. Seeing as they reportedly provided over 330,000 abortions in its latest annual report, it’s quite obvious that their main trade is the blood of the innocent. No longer can anyone even try and make the claim that Planned Parenthood is about providing women with healthcare. They made their choice here (no pun intended) in choosing abortion over Title X service of low-income women. If they are not allowed to kill poor people’s children, they leave. They never cared for the millions of women they serviced. Their only target was the life growing inside the pregnant women.
 
I imagine Satan is very proud of these child-killers.
 
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.