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.

This is the second time in a week that I write about something like this, but it is always important to make note when it happens.
 
Recently, former tennis player and openly gay activist Martina Navratilova wrote an op-ed for the Sunday Times of London where she voiced her concern regarding transgender women (men who turn female) playing against biological women and having a natural advantage as a result.
 
“To put the argument at its most basic: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organization is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires… It’s insane and it’s cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair.”
 
Seems fairly reasonable, wouldn’t you think? She’s not outright dropping any support for transgenders, but she is voicing her concern regarding physically superior transwomen competing against biological women and having a natural advantage every time out.
 
But instead of being willing to have a conversation with her, who very much is still adamant about supporting LGBT “rights”, the LGBT-friendly sports group Athlete Ally completely dropped her as an ambassador and from the group altogether.
 
Athlete Ally released a statement regarding Navralitova’s piece:
 
“Athlete Ally unequivocally stands on the side of trans athletes and their right to access and compete in sport free from discrimination. Martina Navratilova’s recent comments on trans athletes are transphobic, based on a false understanding of science and data, and perpetuate dangerous myths that lead to the ongoing targeting of trans people through discriminatory laws, hateful stereotypes and disproportionate violence… As an organization dedicated to addressing root causes of homophobia and transphobia in and through sport, we will only affiliate with those committed to the same goal, and not those who further misinformation or discrimination in any way.”
 
Boy, can I have a lot of fun with this one.

First of all, I find it hilarious that they try and call Navralitova “transphobic” for voicing her opinion regarding this issue. It’s a darn cliché at this point. Everyone who disagrees with me in this day and age can only be a Nazi, or a fascist, or a racist, or a homophobe or a transphobe or a veganphobe (just watch, that will be a thing soon enough) or whatever negative accusation one can come up with.
 
Anyone who disagrees with me is literally Hitler and there’s no room for discussion, so such opinion existing must be eliminated and all affiliations with that person must be ended and that person be made to suffer as a consequence of their reasonable actions or thoughts.
 
Second, don’t b.s. me about what science and data says. Grab any 5th grade biology book, look into DNA and chromosomes and you will see what science has to say about gender “stereotypes”. The fact of the matter is, as I stated in my previous article surrounding a similar topic, men are physically superior to women on average.
 
On an individual case, yes, sometimes a woman beats a man in a contest of physicality. Which is why, whenever anyone says “well, if trans people playing against women is cheating, why aren’t they winning all the time?” I will say just that: sometimes, a woman can best a man in a physical event.
 
For example, I myself used to sort of play tennis when I was younger. The very first somewhat legitimate game I ever had (in which I was neither playing against my parents or against my coach) was against a girl that was maybe a couple of years younger than me. I was maybe ten while she was likely no older than 9 herself, around 7 or 8.
 
I lost… badly. That doesn’t mean she was physically superior to me in any way. While I was a young kid, I undoubtedly was still physically stronger than her. However, multiple factors can contribute to such a loss.
 
Primarily, that was my first “real” game against someone while she herself had been playing for longer (at least that’s what my coach told me after I lost and I legit started to cry because I was 10 and just lost to a younger girl, which hurt my pride). The girl was more experienced than me and that helped her out.
 
So there most certainly can be cases of women beating men in a physical competition. But the fact remains that men are physically superior to women on average.
 
Going back to my NBA/WNBA comparison, most halfway decent players in the NBA would likely dominate in the WNBA, while not one WNBA player would likely do that well against NBA players.
 
One of the biggest challenges for college players joining the NBA is getting their bodies “NBA ready”. There’s a major difference between college basketball and NBA basketball that goes beyond the distance of the three-point line. NBA players are older, bigger, stronger and more physically dominant than college players. Look at pictures of a rookie LeBron James, Kevin Durant or Giannis Antetokounmpo compared to today and you will see they did not have NBA ready bodies back then, but most certainly do now.
 
So that’s a problem MEN face. How much more likely would a female athlete be able to compete against NBA players in anything regarding physicality?
 
Whatever “science” and “data” these people are using are anything but scientific. It’s propaganda made to fit their erroneous narrative that totally betrays science while pretending to be science. Like the media claiming to be objective, no one with a brain buys that men are not physically superior to women on average.
 
The third and final thing I want to talk about regarding these idiots’ decision to drop one of their best allies in the world of sports for the heinous crime of disagreeing about something is that I want to highlight the sort of self-destructive behavior that must accompany their self-destructive ideology.
 
It’s no secret that I think the Leftist ideology, socialist ideology, is self-destructive. Not only does it not work anywhere it’s tried, but it fails miserably, creating tons of human suffering, and for the literally idiotic belief from Karl Marx that you can go from 100% government control of pretty much everything to zero need for any government at all and a people fully capable of ruling themselves without a government and laws to protect them as Marx believed the last phase of communist evolution would be.
 
It’s ludicrous and self-destructive. But not only is the ideology self-destructive, so are the people that push for it.
 
Martina Navratilova has been an advocate for LGBT rights for ages, particularly in the age of Reagan and AIDS when people thought the disease was a gay-only disease. In many ways, she was a pioneer for gay people, both within and without the world of sports. And all it takes to eliminate her work for these people is one differing opinion regarding transgenderism and sports.
 
All it took was not being “woke” enough for this group to drop her completely. Anything to the right of Marx, even within lifelong Democrats and Leftist allies, simply cannot be allowed to remain and they cannot allow themselves to associate with such people.
 
Today, being a feminist can cause ire on the Left if you don’t count transwomen as actual women.
 
They eliminate their own in an effort to keep moving farther and farther to the left if their own aren’t “woke” enough.
 
I imagine Martina must feel pretty jaded for the current treatment she’s receiving. I doubt she ever thought the same people she helped throughout her life and career would betray her like this.
 
But this further goes to show the kind of mentality of the Left: agree with us all the time or be made to suffer.
 
No room for independent thought whatsoever. And definitely no room for independent thought that is backed up by reason, logic and outright facts.
 
Here’s hoping Martina Navratilova opens her eyes to the sort of monster that the Left is and opens her eyes to Christ as well that she might believe in Him and be saved.
 
John 8:31-32
“So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’”
 
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 have often said, just about anytime I talk about the fake news media that they, at the end of the day, are a bunch of propagandists for the Democrat Party. The fact that 92% of the media coverage of Donald Trump is negative is a testament to that fact.
 
But it’s one thing for me, a conservative kid who has never worked in the media, to tell you, and it’s an entirely different thing for someone who actually used to work in the media to tell you the same thing.
 
Enter Lara Logan, former CBS journalist, in an interview with retired Navy SEAL Mike Ritland on his show “Mike Drop”.
 
In what she later admits is “professional suicide” for her, she rails against the media not simply for being left-wing biased, but for dropping all pretense of objectivity.
 
“The media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just in the U.S. But in this country, 85% of journalists are registered Democrats – that’s just a fact. No one is registering Democrat when they’re really a Republican. So, the facts are on the side that you just stated: most journalists are Left, or liberal, or Democrat, or whatever word you wanna give it,” said Logan.
 
That statistic, alongside the 92% negative coverage of Trump, further goes to show the bias that exists in the media, that has been there long before Trump even arrived in the political scene. The fake news media has been fake news long before Trump branded them as such.
 
She continues: “How do you know you’re being lied to? How do you know you’re being manipulated? How do you know there’s something not right with the coverage? When they simplify it all and there’s no gray. There’s no gray. It’s all one way. Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it’s probably not – there’s something wrong.”
 
Indeed, there are a lot of things that can be said about the Trump administration, both positive and negative. The media chooses to stick with the negatives (I admit I also tend to stick with the positives, but then again, I’m not 24/7 news coverage so there’s only so much I can talk about and I try to push back against that constant negativity against him when I talk about him at all. I tend to be objective).
 
While the media chooses to stick with hoax stories of Russian election interference, or Stormy Daniels, or campaign finance issues, etc., they ignore the millions of jobs created, the booming economy, the attempts at peace with North Korea, the near complete defeat of ISIS, etc.
 
I’ve often said that the media does not report on reality but attempts to alter it for those who watch or read what they have to say. Glad to see a former CBS journalist (don’t quite know if she herself is a Republican or a conservative, but she definitely is smarter than most people in the media) acknowledging the fact that the media is so left-wing biased that they are basically propagandists.
 
In any case, she continued: “So, for example, all the coverage on Trump all the time is negative… That’s distortion of the way things go in real life, because although the media has historically always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense, or at least the effort, to be objective today.”
 
“We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that.”
 
She also mentioned that it is pretty much impossible to get the Right’s side of the story unless you yourself search Breitbart to find the other side of the story.
 
All in all, I am glad to see Ms. Lara Logan saying all of these things. And I do certainly think this is professional suicide for her. Being a journalist, she just exposed the media for what they are. When someone exposes you for what you truly are, if what you are is a bad thing, chances are you are not going to like that person, and definitely wouldn’t consider hiring them for anything.
 
Truth be told, she has more bravery for this than Dr. Christine Blasey Ford did for lying about Brett Kavanaugh. Ford got something out of her deceit: tons of money and fame. Logan will probably find it hard to land a job anywhere in the mainstream media now.
 
Of course, her chances of landing a gig with a conservative news network went up, but there’s almost no chance of landing a job with CNN or NBC, etc. if she were to look for employment there.
 
But I am glad she had the bravery to say this. It’s 100% true, everything she said.
 
The media are a bunch of political activists. She didn’t want to go as far as to call them propagandists, simply saying that the argument could be made for that, but I have no qualms about calling them out for it: they ARE propagandists.
 
Consider the way they covered Obama. They thought everything that came out of his mouth was gold and everything he did was perfect. They were so enamored with him that they didn’t mind, or notice, when he fooled them regarding the Iran nuclear deal. He could lie to them all day and the media would pass it all off as the inarguable and absolute truth.
 
Regarding Hillary, it was much the same (for the time that she was relevant, at least). They adored everything she did, even when she was blatantly racist (“I don’t feel no ways tired” or Hillary “always” keeping hot sauce in her purse because that apparently will draw in black people).
 
Contrast that with everything they have to say about Trump: that he’s a racist, sexist, bigot, etc. That he’s a national security threat, that he’s unfit for office, that he’s a lunatic, blah blah blah.
 
So Ms. Logan is completely right when it comes to the media coverage of Trump and when it comes to what the mainstream media is. They are propagandists who don’t even care to pretend to be objective, just claiming that they are every now and then.
 
What Ms. Logan did here is important. She is exposing the evil of the Left, at least the Left-wing media. This, at the cost of her own career, is unique.
 
Like I said earlier, I do not know if she herself is a conservative or a Republican at any capacity. However, with this knowledge in her mind, I hope she will continue down the right path towards conservatism (if she’s not already there) and will come to find Christ as well (again, if she’s not already there).
 
Here’s hoping she will be able to find Christ and that we’ll be able to fight back against a news media that is hell-bent on distorting reality and making lies into truths.
 
John 16:13
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​Last week, President Trump signed an omnibus spending bill that will include $1.375 billion for the border wall, and he also declared a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act of 1976 in order to get $8 billion (so far) for border wall funding.
 
And this has caused many people to have some negative reactions. Of course, while the omnibus bill signing might make some Democrats happy (and I will momentarily explain why this was actually bad for them), they see the national emergency declaration as a bad thing and will try to challenge it in the courts (until it reaches the Supreme Court where it will be seen as perfectly constitutional and legal because of the aforementioned Act).
 
On the Right, many see the signing of the omnibus bill as Trump “caving” in some manner and see Trump giving far more to the Democrats than he got. Once again, I will explain in a brief moment why it’s nowhere near as bad as they might think.
 
So let’s get down to it and see just why it is that I am defending this move by Trump, even if it’s not even close to perfect.
 
First things first, I perfectly understand that this bill is pretty bad. Putting aside border wall funding (and it’s not even all that much, but I will explain why it’s better than you might think), the bill includes a lot of things Democrats want, such as weakening ICE and border patrol, making it harder to deport some illegals, and a bevy of other things they really want.
 
By no means is this a fantastic deal – not even close. However, there are a number of points I would like to make. First, this deal makes it so that the Democrats, who previously condescendingly would say that maybe they’d give $1 for the wall, actually give Trump well over a billion dollars more for it.
 
Of course, they will try and say that it’s not border wall funding, just fencing, etc. but I think people, even in the Democrat party, can see that this is the Democrats compromising to Trump more than Trump compromising to the Democrats. The Democrats promised, time and time again, that not one cent would go towards funding Trump’s wall. Even the condescending joke from Pelosi about maybe giving him a dollar was just that: a joke. That is, until recently.
 
Now, the Democrats are giving Trump at least some money for something he wants. How is that going to make the Democrats look in the eyes of their own constituents? They can throw out whatever excuse or misleading explanation they want, but let’s be honest here: they promised no money for a wall. And Trump’s getting a wall.
 
Second, had this deal not come about, many of the things the Democrats wanted in it that they got they would’ve gotten eventually. Trump won’t be in office forever. And there’s no guarantee that the next Republican president will be as conservative as him or as willing to fight the Left as him. The things the Democrats got here they were slowly but surely going to get eventually. The difference between this deal and no deal is that we actually get a little bit of funding for the wall, courtesy of the Democrat Party, and the national emergency declaration.
 
Third, I’ve seen comparisons of this omnibus bill to last year’s atrocious omnibus bill. And truly there is no comparison. Yeah, the Dems get a lot of things they wanted, but so do we this time around. There was nowhere near this kind of money for a wall in the previous omnibus bill, which was subsequently promised by the snake that is Paul Ryan. The only reason Trump signed the previous omnibus bill is because RINOs promised him he’d get his wall. He didn’t. But he does with this one.

Finally, and perhaps the most important point of all: this deal is a budget deal. Meaning that this deal is only good until the end of September. What the Democrats get out of it is temporary. What we get out of it is considerably more permanent.
 
So while the deal is far from perfect, it’s nowhere near as bad as some people might think. We get some money for a wall, ammo against the Left in terms of rhetoric, and something more permanent than what the Left gets.
 
Now, had the deal been signed without a national emergency declaration, I would’ve been considerably less happy about this. The national emergency declaration gives Trump around $8 billion (again, so far) to build more walls. This is considerable progress from where we were last year (even though Republicans owned Congress last year, many NeverTrump rats made sure to betray the country).
 
Switching gears, many on the Right will say that using this power sets a bad precedent for future presidencies, particularly for Democrats.
 
One particularly juicy suggestion of this came from Pelosi of all people (yes, I know I was talking about people on the Right, but you’ll want to hear this one). She said that Trump’s emergency declaration for this opens the door for Democrats to use that power once they have the White House again to declare a national emergency on gun violence.
 
Yeah, no. It would be unconstitutional to do that for that sort of “emergency” because of the 2nd Amendment. However, the constitution makes it so that the President’s very DUTY is protecting the nation, and that’s what this declaration is aimed to do.
 
And as far as people on the Right claiming this sets a bad precedent for Democrats to use this power, let me just say I’d rather a Democrat use this power, a constitutional power, to declare a national emergency on something that may not even really be an emergency than have something like what Obama did with DACA, an act that was enforced unconstitutionally.
 
And that’s far from the only unconstitutional act Obama did. But no one talked about Obama setting a bad precedent for Republican presidents (not that they’d willingly do anything unconstitutional but still).
 
Obama tried his best at ruling the country like a king. No one dared try and stop him. So how is exercising constitutional powers setting a bad precedent for future presidents? If anything, it sets a good precedent, particularly in the way Trump did this. A national emergency wasn’t the first thing he tried. Otherwise, we probably would have more walls at the border. In any case, the national emergency declaration is a sort of last-ditch effort to do this. It’s perfectly constitutional and legal. It’s a power that’s there for this precise reason.
 
And no, it’s not going to get struck down in the courts. Yes, the Democrats will challenge it as best they can, considering it presents a very serious threat to their present and future voting base. But like I said, it’s legal. The matter will be taken up to the Supreme Court, where it will almost certainly be upheld (unless they decide to be stupid traitors).
 
Why would it be upheld? Because the point of this declaration isn’t to fulfill some nonexistent racist dogma that supposedly runs through Trump’s mind. It’s to mitigate ILLEGAL border crossing, gun, drug, human and sex smuggling and trafficking, prevent future American deaths at the hands of people who HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE HERE as best as it can and overall truly make the country safer from what can only be considered a subtle invasion of our homeland.
 
For as much as the Democrats want to close their eyes, cover their ears and shout that there’s no emergency at the border, nothing could be further from the truth. That is what we are faced with and it’s the reason we elected Trump.
 
This declaration is 100% legitimate. And this declaration, as well as the money given to us by a reluctant Democrat Party, will make it so that we can finally make progress in our efforts to secure the border.
 
Regardless of what people will say about this whole ordeal: that the deal was terrible and Trump shouldn’t have signed it because it gives so much more to the Democrats, that the declaration of a national emergency sets a bad precedent (somehow) or that it will be struck down by the courts (challenged? Yes. Struck down? Highly unlikely), this deal (at least the part about border wall funding) and declaration will be a good thing for the country and for Trump in the long term.
 
If people are worried that Trump’s base is going to abandon him, let me remind you of some things. Despite everything that happened, even all the times when some people thought Trump caved in any manner, despite him signing that horrible omnibus deal last year, despite him reopening the government and seemingly getting nothing out of shutting it down in the first place, despite every negative attack against Trump from both sides for the past 2 years, his latest approval rating from Rasmussen is 52%. In many polls, his approval ratings either did not move or went up since the shutdown.
 
And his approval ratings were, on average, improving even after all the attacks and conspiracies waged against him. So even if his approval does take a hit with this, it’s not like he just lost 2020. We are still a little less than two years away from that election. An awful lot of things can happen from here to then.
 
And even if people think he messed up on something, his base is not going to abandon him, at least the ones that know what’s at stake.
 
Just look at the people the Democrats have to offer. Each one of them, likely without reading it, signed on to the laughable Green New Deal. Each one of them is in a battle to show who is the most devout socialist. Who is going to grow the government faster and bigger. Who is going to fundamentally alter America to be something it was never meant to be.
 
Those who truly love this country as it was founded (no, that doesn’t include slavery. We Republicans ended it, remember?) know perfectly well the gift from God that Trump is. I’ve already written an article about how big of a bullet we dodged in 2016 thanks to the Grace and goodness of God. Every day that passes, I become more and more convinced that things would’ve gone horrible awry, to the point of no return, under a President Hillary Clinton.
 
How much worse would things be with a President Kamala Harris or a President Bernie Sanders or a President Joe Biden or a President Cory Booker?
 
We know perfectly well what’s at stake. Those who love this country aren’t about to abandon Trump just because he gave a little too much away for this deal. Because, as I said before, they were going to get that with a future Democrat President anyway. We at least got money for a border wall and a subsequent national emergency declaration to help out in that manner.
 
We knew perfectly well Trump’s presidency wouldn’t be easy and that he’d likely have to make some compromises. But let me tell you, this is considerably more than a President Jeb Bush or President John Kasich would’ve gotten, if they even would’ve been able to beat Hillary in the first place.
 
They would’ve bowed down to the Deep State as if it was their god, and in many ways, it is.
 
It cannot and should not be understated how significant and good it would be to get a wall built along the southern border. That, in itself, does a whole lot for our country.
 
Thank you Lord that you are with us always and gave us a President like Trump.
 
Deuteronomy 20:4
“For the Lord your God is he who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.”
 
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 CBS’s “60 Minutes”, while trying to promote his new book regarding Trump and the FBI (which is 100% likely to have b.s. all over it), former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by President Trump on the eve of his retirement, claimed that “he and other Justice Department officials discussed recruiting Cabinet members to oust President Donald Trump using the 25th Amendment after Trump fired then-FBI director James Comey,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
The New York Times also reports that McCabe makes the claim that “top Justice Department officials were so alarmed by President Trump’s decision in May 2017 to fire James B. Comey, the bureau’s director,” that they contacted various Cabinet members to see how they would respond to the desire to apply the 25th Amendment, an amendment in the U.S. Constitution that allows for the Cabinet to “vote out” the president if he or she is incapacitated or otherwise is incapable of fulfilling his or her duties.
 
In other words, the FBI, at least McCabe, and the DOJ looked to test the water in Trump’s own Cabinet to see if they would be willing to remove the president using the 25th Amendment. Given that this attempt at a very obvious silent coup resulted in nothing the Deep State wanted, it is safe to assume the Cabinet did not wish to remove Trump from office.
 
Of course, that didn’t stop the Deep State from continuing trying to remove the duly-elected President from office just because they don’t like him one bit.
 
McCabe also made the claim that Comey’s firing “prompted Mr. McCabe to order the bureau’s team investigating Russia’s election interference to expand their scope to also investigate whether Mr. Trump had obstructed justice.”
 
Again, it’s clear this amounted to nothing because Trump fired Comey in May of 2017. It’s been nearly two years and there has only been suggestions that it was obstruction of justice from the media, but no concrete case could be made against Trump because the FBI operates under the Executive branch, which Trump is the boss of, so he can fire whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants.
 
This includes terrible FBI directors who are incompetent at best and outright treasonous at worst (and sometimes both, considering they failed to complete their objective of destroying Trump).
 
Now, the man who interviewed McCabe is CBS’s Scott Pelley. Pelley discussed his interview with McCabe on “CBS This Morning” on Thursday.
 
Pelley said: “The most illuminating and surprising thing in the interview to me were these eight days in May when all of these things were happening behind the scenes that the American people really didn’t know about.”
 
To me, it’s very illuminating of the kind of corruption there is in the Deep State, but it comes as no surprise to me. We’ve known that there has been a silent coup against Trump for about two years now. It’s just very illuminating seeing the details of something we knew very well about already.
 
In any case, Pelley continued: “There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment. These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.”
 
Again, none of this comes as any surprise to me. Still, it is always good and fascinating to learn of the procedures that were undertaken to try and remove Trump from office that very clearly failed.
 
And the funny thing is that McCabe also confirmed that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein discussed having agents wearing a wire when speaking with Trump was discussed seriously, not as a joke, which Rosenstein tried to affirm.
 
Now, let me tell you a little something about what it takes to become an American citizen. Trust me, what I will tell you has more to do with this than you might think.
 
While seeking to become a citizen of the United States, people need to take certain oaths as part of becoming a citizen. Apart from taking tests and being able to speak basic English (although that might’ve been removed from the requirements for seriously dumb reasons), you have to swear allegiance to the United States of America.
 
And as part of this oath-swearing, you are required to swear and affirm that you will never attempt to overthrow the American government.
 
Obviously, everyone says that they won’t do that as part of trying to become a citizen, but people that try to overthrow the government very clearly receive some sort of punishment if they do try it. Now there exists in the penal code title 18 of the U.S. penal code § (Section) 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government.
 
There is also title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason. However, I do not really think there is a case against McCabe (or anyone else involved in this silent coup) using these two code sections.
 
The Advocating overthrow of Government section talks about people who violently or forcefully seek to overthrow the government. Talking with Cabinet members to use the 25th Amendment does not even get close to that requirement. As far as Treason goes, that largely talks about levying war against the U.S. or adhering to our enemies, “giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere”.
 
So I do not think there is a case against McCabe using either of these two clauses.
 
However, that does not mean that McCabe and others involved with this silent coup, such as Rod Rosenstein, Comey, etc., should simply get away with it. Of course, I’m not saying we ought to break the law to punish them. That would make us no better than these scums of the earth.
 
However, what I am saying is that it’s become crystal clear just what we are dealing with. The Deep State is a den of snakes. Corrupt people at various levels and areas of the government that routinely poison the well.
 
It is not enough to simply defeat Democrats in elections, we have to completely defeat the Left socially and spiritually. You’ve seen, for the past two years (and just about any time there is a Republican in office) the sort of visceral and vile reactions the Left shows.
 
When Trump beat Hillary, everyone on the Left was crying foul while they themselves were guilty of foul play, being covered up by the Mueller investigation into Trump. Every day, the media suggested Russia either hacked the election, and when that was shown to be an asinine argument, began to insist Trump and Russia colluded to steal the election.
 
When Bush beat Gore, the Left went haywire on the Supreme Court and on Florida, crying foul play. Now, I don’t know if they were themselves guilty of similar foul play back then, but I wouldn’t put it past them to have at least tried something. I’m too young to remember the Bush presidency (I’m also not from here, as I moved to the U.S. when Obama was in office), much less remember the 2000 election, apart from the cries from the Left against Florida and the Supreme Court (and I only learned about all this long after Bush left office), so maybe those who were here for it can remember some shady things, but since I do not have anything even close to evidence, I won’t allude to much. All I’ll say is I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to destroy Bush in a similar manner to Trump.
 
When Lincoln beat Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge and Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in the 1860 presidential election, seven states in the Democrat South decided to secede before Lincoln was even inaugurated.
 
The Left has historically HATED it when a Republican would beat a Democrat in a presidential election, going all the way back to the very first Republican president.
 
Instead of accepting the results of the elections like civilized and rational people, they often throw hissy-fits that last throughout that president’s entire tenure, be it one or two terms.
 
If it’s not outright secession from the Union, it’s attacking the Supreme Court and the State of Florida. If it’s not attacking the highest court in the land or the Sunshine State (Florida’s nickname), it’s insisting that the Republican victor of the election was in cahoots with foreign agents (a crime which the Clinton campaign and the DNC are very obviously guilty of themselves).
 
And now, we see some more details regarding the silent coup the Deep State has been attempting for the past two years. Again, it’s not surprising at all, but very illuminating.
 
And it’s fitting, to be quite honest. The Bible tells us an awful lot about works being made in the darkness coming to light.
 
Verses such as Luke 8:17: “For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light,” and Luke 12:3: “Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops,” are only some verses that come to mind (and a quick Google search).
 
Whatever the enemy, be it Satan or the Deep State, is plotting in the dark will eventually come out into the light. Be it soon after it is plotted or years and years later. Be it immediately or takes a lifetime, these things are made known to us eventually. Not to compare this silent coup to the Holocaust because any comparisons to it tend to cheapen the horrors of it, but the Holocaust was something that was discovered to have happened only after WWII had already ended. All-the-while people were looking at Hitler as this bad guy looking to rule the world, many were made unaware of the true horrors that evil socialist was carrying out in the dark.
 
Again, not to compare what Hitler did to what the Deep State is trying here because there really is no comparison in terms of their horrifying natures, but they both do share in common that they are works by evil people, people completely devoid of Christ in their hearts, working in the darkness against people they hate/hated.
 
And both have come out into the light for the whole world to see. Of course, the extent of the silent coup is not quite yet known so far, but it will be made known eventually, whether it be in a few months, years, decades, or in the afterlife, it will be shown.
 
Certainly no part of it is any secret to God. The Deep State can hide whatever they want from the public for however long they feel is necessary, but nothing they do is a surprise to God. He knows precisely what they are doing and what the intentions of their hearts are.
 
We will see what kind of excuses these people come up with to justify their entrance into the Kingdom of God. I bet none of them have the correct answer.
 
1 Corinthians 4:5
“Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.”
 
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 often say that the Left is self-destructive. That the Left, at its core, is a way for society to self-destruct. You need only look at the Green New Deal to see the cyanide pill the Left wants to force down our throats (and their own, too).
 
I also often say that the ideologies they hold tend to lock horns with itself. For example, the Left supports both LGBT people and Muslims. Islam abhors homosexuality to the point where it is encouraged to eliminate anyone who is even suspected of being gay. The biggest shooting in American history, the Orlando gay night club shooting, really speaks more about Islam’s hatred of homosexuality than it does about gun laws in America (the terrorist shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place).
 
But we’re not even talking about that sort of infighting, though that will only continue in the future anyway.
 
No, today, I’m talking about a lesbian woman being kicked off of an LGBTQ Commission for following the biological and factual reasoning that a transwoman, regardless of what they identify as, is still a male and a transman, regardless of what they say, is still female. Science says as much.
 
Julia Beck is the lesbian woman we’re talking about here. She was kicked off the commission last October after “identifying a transgender rapist as male, his correct biological sex, though he ‘identifies’ as a woman,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
Beck recently was interviewed by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson about this. “I believe in truth”, she told Carson. “I believe that people should have these conversations and say things that matter without fear of punishment.”
 
Well, the unfortunate thing about this is that the Left largely does not want to have these conversations, because conversations about this alludes to people disagreeing with them and opposing them to any extent, and that cannot be allowed to occur.
 
Carlson replied to Beck by saying: “I couldn’t agree with you more, and I’m grateful that you have that attitude. But why do you think it was important to say this, specifically?”
 
Beck answered: “Well, when we get down to it, women and girls all share a biological reality. We are all female. But if any man, if any male person can call himself a woman, or be legally identified as female, then predatory men will do so in order to gain access to women’s single-sex spaces, and this puts every woman and girl at risk.”
 
THANK YOU! This is precisely the argument everyone on the Right was making regarding transgender bathroom laws (which the cowards in North Carolina caved on a long time ago). This sort of permission for biological males to use women’s restrooms just because they can make the claim that they identify as a woman and no one will bat an eye at that puts women and girls inside those restrooms in unnecessary peril.
 
Already, rape and other sexual assault acts are being called out as often as possible (see the entire #MeToo movement), so why would the Left be willing to put more women and girls in danger?
 
Actually, dumb question. These evil s.o.b.’s think the best option to dealing with gun crimes is taking away guns from those who obey the laws, further putting them in danger and in the lines of sight of those who do not care for any laws, much less gun laws.
 
If anything, both their desire to take away guns from law-abiding citizens and desire to allow men to enter women’s restrooms further shows the sort of self-destructive ideology I talked about in the beginning of the article. They claim to want to solve problems, but the only problems that arise come from the “solutions” the Left brings up.
 
But returning to Beck, she actually happens to be of sound and intelligent mind here. She recognizes the unnecessary dangers brought about by men in single-sex and typically female-only areas.
 
Carlson made sure to note in his show that it has always been his “instinct” that the transgender activists’ agenda “is not going to be good for girls in the long run.”
 
Beck replied by saying: “I absolutely agree. In many states, men can legally identify themselves as female and gain access to women’s single-sex spaces, and sports is just one institution where men are taking titles, scholarships, and this is a problem.”
 
Of course. Men are biologically stronger, on average, than women. Of course, there are some individual exceptions, but men tend to be stronger than women.
 
I remember watching Trump’s show “The Apprentice” some time ago and remember that, in the season opener, the very first task Trump gave to the teams, which were men vs. women, was running in one of his golf courses to his private helicopter in a race.
 
While these people were not necessarily athletes, and even though they were all wearing business suits that were definitely not made for running, unsurprisingly, the men won the race.
 
Why? Because men tend to be more physically fit, stronger, faster and athletic than women.
 
Watch an NBA game in comparison with a WNBA game and you’ll clearly see the differences between men and women, even among athletic men and women. Most men in the NBA can dunk, even if it’s not necessarily a flashy dunk, while most women in the WNBA can hardly reach the rim, if even that.
 
Biologically speaking, men tend to be physically superior to women. If anyone has a problem with that, don’t take it up with me, take it up to the One who made it this way. See if you can find some way of calling God a misogynist to His Face.
 
Returning to Beck, she then went on to say that women who even dare to speak out regarding the negatives and outright dangerous repercussions of radical transgender activism are pretty much “silenced”.
 
Carlson then asked if Beck “found it hard to advocate for biological truth and the protections of women and girls when she, an open lesbian, belongs to the LGBT acronym, which notably includes T for transgender,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
She answered: “The letters in the acronym share, um, not much. The L, G, and B, are based on sexuality, sex, biological reality, but the T is based on gender identity, which is not based in biological reality. In fact, I would argue it is opposed to biological reality. The LGB is very different from the T, and I don’t think it is fair to lump us all into the same acronym.”
 
Okay, a few things here. First, I completely agree with her on this. In fact, the B in LGBT stands for BISEXUAL. And bisexual insinuates a maximum of only two genders. Someone that is bisexual is someone who is attracted to both males and females, both men and women. Not transgender men or transgender women. Not Apache helicopter men and M1 Abrams tanks women. Not any of the 666 flavors of artificial gender. Just men and women. The only two options.
 
So the T in LGBT, at the end of the day, is in some ways an affront to the B in LGBT. Or, the other way around. In any case, it naturally creates infighting, much like we see in Beck’s case, though she is a lesbian woman trying to stand up for all women who are legitimately being left in the dust and led to the gallows by a self-righteous Left that further moves the needle towards Satan.
 
Second, her argument about transgenderism being opposed to biological reality is spot on and something we often say as well. No matter what you say, how you identify, you are what God made you to be. If you were born with the XX chromosomes, you are female. A biological female and that cannot be changed as your DNA is what dictates your gender among many other things.
 
If you have the XY chromosomes, you are male. And only a male. Nothing else will ever change that.
 
To make the claim that someone can be a female, even if they are a biological male, is to spit in the face of science (and God, really). It defies logic and facts.
 
And funny enough, this defiance of logic and facts also does what I talked about in the beginning: self-destruct society.
 
Logic and facts are necessary in a civilized society. When logic is ignored and facts are challenged (not in a scientific effort to advance the craft, but in a political effort to distort reality), you don’t make progress in humanity, you do the opposite of that. Regression is the only thing that results in ignoring and distorting reality.
 
Just take a look at the world around us, where you can be punched in the face or berated and verbally attacked for holding a differing opinion from someone else. And it doesn’t even have to relate to politics. Differences in opinion in terms of philosophy, art, even video games can result in such brutish violence.

This lack of self-control of emotions is almost no different from barbarians killing each other off or attacking each other for next to no reason. And this is the direction society is heading towards if the Left gets their way. There is no room for civilized discussion. Everyone needs their own safe spaces and if that cannot be accomplished, emotions flare and human life, which has lost all meaning after decades of abortion advocacy, is brutally ended.
 
And I’m not just talking about being unable to physically get to some sort of “safe space”. I’m talking about being so triggered by the mere existence of a differing opinion that severe action is taken. An extreme and rare scenario, yes, but a possible one nonetheless.
 
Even Julia Beck explains in an article about lesbianism and transgenderism how her views leave people to actively ostracize her, to the point where she explains that “people I trusted told me to die in a fire for naming male people men.”
 
A figure of speech, of course, but when does it stop being mere linguistics and begin being actual threats, or even actual attempts?
 
Granted, most people that wish that upon someone (as evil as they may be) won’t actually do it. But it only takes one madman or woman (notice that there’s only two options here) to actually attempt it.
 
In any case, despite our political and religious differences, Beck and I can at least agree to hold on to what is real, logical and factual. I’m not saying Beck is a conservative because of this (though I imagine many people will call her that, meant as an insult). But I am saying that she at least has common sense.
 
And common sense is a rare trait in Leftist advocacy groups.
 
1 Corinthians 15:33
“Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals.’”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

After two years, 200 interviews and millions of dollars wasted on a witch hunt of an investigation into a fictional theory by salty Leftists who refused to accept the result of the 2016 presidential elections, the Senate Intelligence Committee is set to finally conclude its investigation into the 2016 election, Russian collusion and Donald Trump, having “uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee,” reports NBC News.
 
In an interview with CBS News last week, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) said: “If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.”
 
“We know we’re getting to the bottom of the barrel because there’re not new questions that we’re searching for answers to. What I’m telling you is that I’m going to present, as best we can, the facts to you and to the American people. And you’ll have to draw your own conclusions as to whether you think that, by whatever definition, that’s collusion,” Burr added.
 
Most likely, what they will present as being the facts is that Trump Jr. met with that Russian lawyer in the hopes of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton but wound up with nothing because there was never any intention by the Russian lawyer to give Jr. anything and the fact that Trump “urged” Russia to retrieve Hillary’s 30k+ deleted e-mails during a rally (and the Left still can’t take a joke).
 
NBC reports that Democrats on the committee believe that Trump associates were “willing to accept help from a foreign adversary” during the election, again referencing the Trump Jr. meeting with the Russian lawyer.
 
So being willing to accept help from a foreign adversary is tantamount to a crime or at least seen as a bad thing to do? Good! Then, we really should be slapping some handcuffs on the people who worked on the Clinton campaign and the DNC, right?
 
Back in April of 2018, the House Intel Committee released a report that said pretty much the same thing the Senate is saying: there is no Trump-Russia collusion.
 
While Trump Jr. sought to gain dirt on Hillary with Natalia Veselnitskaya (the Russian lawyer), the Clinton campaign “paid for opposition research on Trump obtained from Russian sources, including a litany of claims by high-ranking current and former Russian government officials. Some of this opposition research was used to produce sixteen memos, which comprise what has become known as the Steele dossier.”
 
That was an excerpt from the House Intel Committee’s report.
 
So, NBC, if it’s simply bad enough that Trump sought opposition research on Hillary from a “foreign adversary” that he should face some sort of consequence, I presume Hillary Clinton and anyone involved with the DNC should also face dire consequences because not only did they try to get research, but actually had some (even if it’s fake) and actually used it as a basis for the Mueller investigation, right?
 
When is Hillary’s court date? Or Donna Brazille’s? Or Debby Wasserman-Schultz’s? Or Barack Obama’s? Or James Comey’s? Or James Clapper’s? Or John Brennan’s? I won’t ask about John McCain because he’s probably already serving his time.
 
Now, one Democrat aide, who chose to remain anonymous, told NBC News regarding this: “We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, ‘Hey Vlad, we’re going to collude.’” Clearly, this anonymous aide was less-than-thrilled about this outcome.
 
Well, considering the Democrats want to look into every business affair Trump’s ever had, and want to look into his tax returns, convinced they will see money somehow wired to or from the Kremlin during the 2016 election, I actually think they were expecting something like that to be somewhere around.
 
I mean, if they’re convinced there’s mountains of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, surely it should be as simple as Donny leaving Vladdy-boy a sticky-note on his desk in Moscow that they are going to collude to steal the election, right? Because Trump’s just that dumb and obvious, right?
 
The reason I say at the beginning of the title that they are telling me something I already knew (fun fact, that was also what I had to say when the House Intel Committee released their report back in April) is because I KNEW FULL WELL THERE WAS NO COLLUSION!
 
You don’t even have to be a lawyer or an investigator to figure this out. You just need to read the atmosphere within the Left and the media – that they want to get Trump if it’s the last thing they do – and understand the nature of how leaks work, particularly considering how the Steele dossier and Comey telling Trump about the dossier was leaked so easily by/to the media (because Comey gave it to them). If any investigation into Trump actually found anything relating to Trump and Russia, they would talk about it. How else do you think we got to learn about Veselnitskaya? Or just about anything else? Whatever can be found about Trump and Russia is sent out into the media as fast as it is learned (which is also why there are so many gaffes, like dates on e-mails being wrong). So if there was any conclusive evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, we would’ve heard about it immediately.
 
But after two years of looking into nothing, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation is finally wrapping up, with Mueller’s investigation also perhaps coming to a close in the near future, at least according to NBC News.
 
Personally, I don’t think Mueller will close it any time soon. The Left has/had high hopes for it and if it finds nothing of substance, Mueller could be getting the Seth Rich treatment. And I’m only half-joking about that.
 
In any case, despite the two-year-long witch hunt into Trump that will not likely fully end any time soon because Democrats are vindictive s.o.b.’s, Trump’s approval rating currently sits at a near all-time high of 52%, according to Rasmussen, with 55% being his all-time high, back just a little after Trump’s inauguration.
 
So even after two years of lies and deceit and hateful rhetoric from the media, his approval rating is only holding strong and growing.
 
If things keep going like this, Democrats will have the fight of their lives in 2020, especially if they continue down the road of the idiotic Green New Deal.
 
Proverbs 28:5
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

With all the articles I’ve written surrounding college students and their beliefs, many of which are Left-leaning, it’s kind of surprising to see that title at all.
 
Not to offend any college students, but given what the Left has been pushing and that most college students would either consider themselves socialists or at least liberal, what I am about to share with you is pretty fantastic, all things considered.
 
And if anything, what I am about to share with you proves at least two points that I often make: 1) it is important to educate and inform people and 2) the Left lives in their own little bubble where they think most people will go with whatever they want.
 
Of course, that second point should come with a little asterisk. Many people do say they like the Green New Deal, as all of these college students will be shown saying, but the first point of informing people lets us know that, once people have correct information, they will change their tune about some things.
 
Without further ado, let’s talk about the most recent Campus Reform video (below), where Cabot Phillips went to the University of Miami to ask what the students thought about AOC’s Green New Deal.
 
Unsurprisingly, all of them had positive things to say about it.
 
One said: “I like that it’s progressive, that it’s gonna push the world forward.” Another said: “Just from knowing who’s endorsing it and some other little things, it sounds great.”
 
One student, fully buying into the crap that we’re slowly killing ourselves with climate change, said: “If we didn’t do that, we’re going to be killing ourselves.”
 
Every student interviewed initially said that they approved of the Green New Deal.
 
And then, Cabot told them what’s actually in it.
 
He begins by saying that the plan includes eliminating all carbon emissions (coal, oil, natural gas) within 10 years.
 
Right off the bat, the first person he told that to said “I don’t agree with that. To be honest with you, I think we need those things to live.” Another realized that, while it might be a worthwhile endeavor (it’s not), she noted that “I do not think it is feasible in ten years… I don’t think that would be something that would be able to be done in such a short amount of time.”
 
So while she does seem to agree with the concept of eliminating those things, she at least recognizes that 10 years is not enough time to actually manage that, which is more than I can say for AOC.
 
Another student took a similar approach, believing 10 years to be too little time to manage doing that, but also looked into it in an economical perspective, recognizing that there’s a huge global market and economy based around these things that would definitely be severely affected by such a task.
 
The next item on the list that Phillips noted was the part where people who are unwilling to work would still be economically compensated, and this is where things made a right-turn… as in, they sounded more conservative.
 
Or, in other words, they sounded like they had common sense and did not want freeloaders.
 
One said: “If you’re not willing to contribute to society, I don’t think the people who are contributing should pay for you.”
 
THANK YOU! What is fair about people who are willing to work paying for those unwilling to work? Furthermore, while this is something they don’t actually cover in the video because it’s only 5 minutes long, but how could society possibly sustain itself if we have a safety net where those UNWILLING to work get money for not working? How would that work and how would that be sustainable?
 
Young people are definitely worried about things being sustainable (while being lied to that things are not currently sustainable), so they ought to worry about economic sustainability just as much as they do about environmental sustainability.
 
In any case, these students really impressed me by their stance on that issue in particular, with comments such as the one made by that guy, or things like: “I feel like it kind of sends a poor message of ‘you can just get away with not doing anything’… it’s kind of stupid.”
 
Again, thank you. It is insanely stupid, not just trying to think of the consequences of this, but also the actual concept behind it all. People should not be getting free stuff for being UNWILLING to do anything. It’s one thing to not actually be able to do anything. A safety net for such people is acceptable and moral, but for those UNWILLING to do anything, that goes against logic and common sense. Not to mention it goes against God. God wants us to work, not sit on our behinds doing nothing all day. People need to work to survive, and it’s actual madness to demand that working people pay for those who are unwilling to lift a finger to contribute to society and/or the economy.
 
The final item on the list of looney tunes plans to “save the planet” in the Green New Deal (and having recently watched Space Jam for the hundredth time, you are more likely to stretch out your arm like Jordan did against the Monstars than you are of paying for all of these things in the GND and have a functioning, let alone thriving, economy) is the plan to replace all air travel with high-speed rails going across the country (which really leaves Hawaii and Alaska in the dust, when you think about it).
 
As with the first item Phillips brought up, many went back to the impossibility of doing that within 10 years. Although, one did say that he doesn’t think air travel “should be eliminated altogether… it can be an option… The more options we have, the better.”
 
Cabot even raised the issue of who would pay for the multi-trillion dollar cost of the entire plan (which easily surpasses $100 trillion, given medicare-for-all on its own is almost half that) to one female student. She herself did not know who would be able to pay or how they would be able to pay for all of this, showing that it’s still a worthwhile question to ask people.
 
Finally, Cabot asked them, after learning of some of the details of the plan, if they changed their perception of the GND at all. They all changed their tune.
 
One said: “Sometimes you need to take extreme measures to save the environment, but I think that’s too extreme.”
 
I would disagree with the notion that we need to take extreme measures to “save” (save it from what?) the environment, but agree with her overall perception that such a plan is too extreme. Given that the U.S. is currently reducing its CO2 emissions and the other countries, most notably the ones in the Paris Climate accord, are actually increasing their CO2 emissions, I would just say the only measures we need to take are the ones the Trump administration’s EPA is currently taking.
 
But in any case, I am glad to see that these college students do have some common sense. And again, I raise the point that it’s uniquely important to give people correct information.
 
Before knowing anything about it, these kids supported the Green New Deal (precisely BECAUSE they didn’t know anything about it). Given who was supporting it, as one student noted, they liked it. They think AOC is cool because she’s young, attractive and a socialist and she truly wants to change things up in Washington, which is something people on both sides seem to want.
 
Of course, we disagree as to how to go about it, but that’s something many people want. The problem comes when people actually come to understand just what is being proposed by the Left. The Green New Deal, as I made sure to talk about in length in my previous article, is bad satire that the Left wants to make reality.
 
But given the response by COLLEGE STUDENTS, upon learning just what is actually in the plan, they came to disapprove or at least hesitate about the plan. The idea of trying to fight climate change might be a noble one to these kids, but at the very least they understand how ludicrous these proposals are, particularly given the timetable to do those things being so short.
 
Again, this is why it is so important to inform people. I’ve said this many times, but I’ll say it again: the only people that want socialism are those who don’t know what it is (ignorant or uninformed), those who are given information as to what it is but don’t think too much about it or can’t understand why it’s bad (stupid people) or those who know what it is and couldn’t care less because they are running for an office in the government (evil people).
 
I find that, for the most part, people are ignorant. And I don’t mean that in an insulting way at all. Being ignorant and being stupid are two different things, as I’ve said in the past. You can’t cure stupid, but you can cure ignorance with knowledge, facts, etc.
 
These kids were ignorant about the Green New Deal. They would be stupid if, after learning these things, they still agreed with it 100%. However, they proved to me and to those of you who are willing to watch the video that they are not stupid. They do not lack common sense. They just lack information, which can be easily fixed.
 
Of course, there is also the issue of being misinformed, but given the clown show that the AOC camp is giving us with their handling of the Green New Deal and what it contains, I don’t think there’s much chance that people will be easily misinformed about this.
 
Of course, the MSM will try, because that is all they ever seek to do, but this one should be fairly easy to counteract.
 
But returning to these kids, I thank God that people still have some sort of common sense. Enough that, when faced with these ridiculous proposals, they show everyone that the Left lives in a bubble of their own, where they think everyone agrees with them all the time and want what they want.
 
This tells me otherwise.
 
Proverbs 2:10
“For wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Last week, socialist nut-job Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, alongside Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), released the outline for what the Green New Deal will try to achieve in the next ten years.
 
And boy, oh boy, does it read worse than the worst essay I’ve ever written for school.
 
Since this was released last week, I imagine many of you know some of the details of the proposed Green New Deal, but allow me to go over some of them just in case you haven’t desired risking IQ points reading through it.
 
The beginning really just talks about how we’re destroying our climate (no evidence to point to, of course) and we need to do make severe changes (note how it’s only because of us that the climate is being destroyed. We’re reducing CO2 emissions, while France, China and other socialist countries increase theirs, but WE’RE the problem).
 
The first objective of the Green New Deal is “to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers…”
 
Okay, a few things. First, it’s pretty much impossible to do that (a recurring theme you will see as I go through this laughable-if-people-weren’t-so-serious-about-it proposition) without nuclear power. And the Green New Deal is adamant about MOVING AWAY from nuclear power, so the chances of managing to do that in the next 50 years, let alone 10, are zero.
 
Second, what exactly does it mean by “fair” and “just”? Definitely not what we think as fair and just. The plan, of course, is to have the government pay for all of this. The government gets paid by We the People. Sure, the rich pay the vast majority of it, but, as I’ve said in multiple articles, the threshold for what is considered rich always gets lowered when you take away rich people’s money. So how is it fair (under the assumption this is even doable) to have upper middle-class, and then middle-class and then lower middle-class and then lower-class people pay for it? (Side note: the country would collapse way before they get to the lower class, but they are still made to suffer the most by massive nation-wide layoffs before they are stuck with the bill).
 
Let’s move on to what immediately follows that idiotic proposal: “to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”
 
Again, a couple of things. First, we’re already managing to do the first part with the Trump economy, which Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is “resisting”. Second, what she proposes would do literally the opposite of that. Third, economic prosperity and security should not be a guarantee. No one is entitled to living well. People have to earn it. When people feel entitled to it, they get bitter and will refuse to work (and we’ll get to that in a moment). The Declaration of Independence grants certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. No one is entitled to happiness, but they are entitled the right to pursue it (which would be taken away by the implementation of this pile of dog-crap).
 
Skipping some other items, we get to some more “guarantees”: “to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come – clean air and water; climate and community resiliency (what does that even mean?); healthy food; access to nature (apparently, people can’t go outside); and a sustainable environment; and to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘frontline and vulnerable communities’)…”
 
Okay, that was a whole lot of stupid to compile into one paragraph and a whole lot of things to cover. Now, I don’t want to make this article too long (the Green New Deal is more than 10 pages long), so I will get to the most important bits (although the whole thing is a compilation of socialist lunacy and a saddening lack of any kind of intelligence).
 
Of course, the Green New Deal just has to include reparations not just for black people, but all people who have been “oppressed” historically. Because you see, the mere fact that there was slavery at all is disqualifying of the entire country. Never mind that every other country in existence, with few exceptions, have also allowed slavery (some still allow for slavery to this very day) and heavily benefited from slavery. No, it’s just the U.S. that’s bad.
 
Let me remind you just who it was that FOUGHT for slavery. America is the only country in the world that actually had to go to war to end slavery. On one side, you had the Republican North, led by Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to abolish slavery. On the other, you had the Democrat South, led by Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, who wanted to keep their “right” to keep slaves.
 
Let me remind you that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a hot-button issue for the Democrat Party, with about half voting for it and the other half voting against it, while the Republican Party was almost entirely unified in their support of the bill.
 
The only people that continually oppress people is the Left. How do we go about abolishing them?
 
In any case, let’s move on. The Green New Deal also proposes “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
 
Again, a few things to talk about. First, there are about 127 million residential buildings in the country. That doesn’t include commercial buildings (good luck trying to literally rebuild all of Manhattan), industrial buildings, hospitals, schools, government buildings, etc. I don’t see this happening in the next 100 years, let alone 10.
 
Second, what do you mean doing this “including through electrification”? Powering them up? Makes sense. But how exactly would that be accomplished? The power grid relies almost entirely on fossil fuels (the GND also proposes upgrading the power grid, of course, just doesn’t mention exactly how). Batteries, even if they could actually power up whole buildings (which they can’t), need to be recharged BY FOSSIL FUELS.
 
The GND also proposes building high-speed rails across the country to make air travel obsolete (and even Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) had issues with that, given it would really screw Hawaii over).
 
It also proposes “guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” That, on top of guaranteeing a free college education, as well as ensuring there are “high-quality union jobs” and guaranteeing everyone “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work”, “build charging stations everywhere” (yes, everywhere), “replace every combustion-engine vehicle”, and try to “get rid of farting cows” (not a joke, that part was included verbatum) and other emitters of pollution is a recipe for economic disaster.
 
Let me ask these nut-jobs a question: if people are guaranteed economic security, even if they refuse to work, then who in the world is going to build those cross-country railroads? Who is going to renovate and rebuild literally every single building in the country to be environmentally friendly? Who is going to build charging stations “everywhere”? Who is going to produce the necessary materials to even try to do all that? And who is going to be qualified to do all of that and willing to do it as well?
 
Who is going to run the electrical plants (that are somehow free of gas emissions) to power up anything?
 
And most importantly, where is the money to do all of this going to come from?
 
When people are GUARANTEED free stuff, such as money, they will largely be unwilling to do work that helps everyone. I’ve made this argument before, but it’s just as relevant as ever: no one is going to do manual labor if they are guaranteed an income and economic security. The only jobs that people will do are things relating to the arts. Only works of passion will be done. But then again, who is going to run the cameras for shows? Who is going to put the make-up on the actors? Who is going to do anything that has nothing to do with a passionate job?
 
If everyone is guaranteed an income, who is going to tear down the buildings to renovate them in the first place? And if the money is only guaranteed after either the buildings are torn down (which in itself would take ages) or when the new buildings are up (which would take far longer) how are the workers going to live? They won’t be getting that guaranteed money everyone else is getting, so why would they bother to do anything?
 
This ENTIRE proposal is lacking in so much common sense, I think I would’ve come up with something better while I was in preschool. Even back then, I understood the concept of money. If something couldn’t be paid for, I understood the concept of doing something else.
 
One of my earliest memories is hearing the news that the Argentine government was confiscating people’s money in their bank accounts, causing millions of Argentines to go below the poverty line overnight (and don’t think that can’t happen here, particularly with what these lunatics are proposing).
 
I remember because my family was also affected by this (thankfully, my parents, or at least my mother, had a good job so we’d be okay, but not many people were so lucky) and it got me to realize some basic truths in life: money is limited.
 
Of course, as I grew up, I understood the concept of printing money (which is probably how these whackos will try and pay for all of this, because it WILL have to be paid somehow and the rich don’t have enough money to pay for it) and the concept of inflation created by doing such a thing.
 
It’s basic economics, basic supply and demand, that should tell these idiots that you can’t just print unlimited money and pay for everything. The more there is of an item, i.e. money, the less valuable it is. So that multi-trillion dollar price-tag for even ONE of these items gets increased exponentially.
 
Now, the reason I say that this is bad satire, is because I could hardly believe anyone would be stupid enough to suggest these things and anyone would be stupid enough to back these things. Kamala Harris supports it, but I don’t think she read it. I might be giving her too much credit, but I don’t think she’s all that dumb.
 
Nancy Pelosi, being that she’s actually politically smart (even if she says dumb partisan things like the GOP tax cuts will cause the apocalypse) actively avoids this Green New Deal. She doesn’t flat-out reject it, but she is not taking it seriously and likely doesn’t want to put this piece that might as well have been written in crayon on the House floor.
 
This entire proposal highlights what the Left wants to do: replace capitalism with socialism. In the name of fighting climate change, of course.
 
I would laugh at this proposal if people weren’t so serious about this. They legitimately think these things can be done. They completely ignore reality – the reality that even trying to implement ONE of these things would destroy us economically and everyone would be living in abject poverty as the rest of the world did before capitalism became a thing. The reality that the U.S. is lowering its CO2 levels while China cares nothing for the climate. And why would they? The communists already have total power. They didn’t need to run on fighting climate change. They were helped by the Soviets to establish a communist state.
 
The good news about this is that it’s become very easy to counter all of these points. The bad news is that people might just be getting dumber and dumber. The fact that this proposal, alongside AOC and Markey, aren’t being laughed out of Washington speaks volumes.
 
Just 5 to 10 years ago, these proposals, as they are written, would’ve caused laughing fits. Of course, the actual proposals are nothing new. The Left has been trying to accomplish these things, such as eliminating combustion engines and air travel for decades now. But the language of it all is very blunt. It spells out exactly what they want, which is something they previously had to hide.
 
The problem then is that this is not being met by mock and ridicule, but applause and cheers. People in California will read this and think it’s a brilliant masterpiece, as if written by the great Karl Marx himself. They won’t stop to think “this is ludicrous and actually impossible to accomplish in the next century, let alone decade”. They see the goals and don’t care about how to accomplish them as long as they just try.
 
This is the culmination of the participation trophy generation. As long as we try, it’s okay. It doesn’t matter if millions are starving to death, are homeless and there is absolutely no hope for anyone to live better lives (and we all know Christianity would be rejected and persecuted), as long as we tried, that’s all that matters.
 
It’s not just sickening and idiotic, it’s actually insanely dangerous. This is the sort of mindset that will set humanity back thousands of years. Nothing good can come of even trying to implement all of this (and that’s all there is: trying. There is no accomplishing any of this because it’s uniquely impossible to do any of this, especially in just a decade).
 
I just hope that God will spare us of this mess and Rapture comes before these people attempt to implement these things.
 
Titus 3:5
“He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

That title is not so much a request for anyone who knows socialism is a failure and is horrible as much as a request for anyone who thinks the opposite: that socialism is great and we should bring it here.
 
I understand full-well that the vast majority of those who will read this and watch the accompanying video (below) from Campus Reform are on the side that knows that socialism is a catastrophe, but it is always important to listen to those who have experience in some matter, as they will have knowledge that many others likely lack.
 
In his State of the Union address, President Trump declared that America would never become a socialist country. However, the very reason he felt the need to make such a declaration is because there are people in Washington now that are openly advocating for socialism in America, and most Democrats view socialism more favorably than capitalism, according to polls.
 
So to gain a better understanding and perspective of what it is like to live in a socialist country, Campus Reform’s Cabot Phillips went to a Venezuelan Freedom rally in D.C. to ask some people who actually have lived in Venezuela some questions.
 
He begins by asking this elderly man and a young-ish looking man (I’m guessing early thirties): “what is your message to those who want socialism here?”
 
One said: “You do not ever want anything close to socialism.” Another person noted: “people are eating from trash cans in the streets, so how has socialism helped?”
 
Another rally attendee, whose family is still in Venezuela, unfortunately, added: “No Venezuelan can like socialism, because we’ve seen it put in place very well.”
 
The aforementioned young-ish looking man said that socialism “is not a game… not the route to go. It is not possible, it is not feasible. Don’t fall for it.”
 
Another female attendee said: “It doesn’t work the way the book says it works because we’re humans and we have imperfections and socialism is too perfect to be true.”
 
Now, I have some things to say about that one. First, I suppose by “the book” she means Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. And I personally have, in the past, at least once before, explained just why Marx’s theory of how communism is supposed to work is very flawed, but for those who might’ve missed it, I will get to that in a moment.
 
Second, I imagine the lady meant to say that it sounds too perfect to be true, because if it were “too perfect”, it would work. The idea that someone can protect you and watch over you, that that entity will take care of things for you, that it can take care of everything and everyone, that all problems are erased for one reason or another does sound heavenly… because that’s the only place where this actually works.
 
Not to say that God is a socialist. Socialism, by nature, puts the government ahead of everything else. The government is not God, so socialism very much goes against God. But God, being the only perfect being in existence, can actually do everything these loony socialists think the government can do.
 
And that’s what we should focus on: the fact that it takes perfection for something like socialism to actually work. Not something CLOSE to perfection, but actual perfection.
 
Just look at Medicare-for-All. That idea alone costs over $40 trillion. We have nowhere near that amount of money, even if you confiscate everything the rich have (which, of course, would lower the threshold for what constitutes as being rich, so the upper-middle class is considered rich, but they definitely don’t live like the rich. As a result, they are left to pay the tab, and when they can’t, the bar gets lower and lower. Just look at… well… Venezuela).
 
And that’s just one thing these socialists want. We can’t pay for it and it would destroy our country by simply TRYING to pay for it. So what is necessary here is to have a nearly, or actually, endless supply of money. There is no such thing on this plain of existence because everything is limited to some amount. God, however, has unlimited resources. Not that Medicare-for-All would even be considered as necessary in heaven, since no one gets hurt, but still. Literally God is the only being in existence that can afford Medicare-for-All.
 
And by the way, this is ignoring the very fact that people are, themselves, imperfect and naturally evil. It’d be difficult to make socialism work even with people who are not naturally evil. What I talked about in the last two paragraphs only talks about the financial stipulations of ONE item of socialism. But that ignores the fact that people are imperfect and naturally evil.
 
Again, let’s take a look at Venezuela. Nicolas Maduro lives in the Miraflores Palace. As the name suggests, it is a literal palace. He lives like literal royalty, is perfectly well-fed, has security, healthcare, and everything he wants or needs.
 
Meanwhile, people are forced to eat their own pets, and when that meal is gone, are forced to eat out of the trashcan or even go to the zoo to eat some animals there. They have no actual healthcare, even though socialism promises that because they don’t have much in terms of medicine, resources, doctors, etc. Not to mention that power outages are also a problem for many hospitals and clinics.
 
If socialism truly were about equality, Maduro would share what he has with as many people as he could. And if people weren’t naturally evil, Maduro wouldn’t be blocking a U.S.-backed humanitarian convoy with food and medicine from entering the country.
 
The only system of government that truly creates any sort of wealth gap between the 1% and everyone else is socialism/communism. Of course, at that point, the 1% are really only people at the very top of the government.
 
For example, Venezuela’s richest woman is Maria Gabriela Chavez, Hugo Chavez’s daughter. Her net worth is $4.2 billion. Nicolas Maduro’s net worth, at least according to Heavy.com, is estimated to be around $2 million. However, this only accounts for his salary, which, due to Venezuelan laws, can only cap out at 12 times of the minimum wage. The minimum wage in Venezuela, according to a recent Reuters article is 18,000 bolivars a month. This was actually a raise of 300% by Maduro earlier last month.
 
If you think that’s not bad, know that 18,000 bolivars is basically $6.70. And let me remind you this is PER MONTH! Not per hour; per month.
 
And by the way, he actually has made more than just $2 million dollars. According to the Miami Herald, Nicolas Maduro, when he was just a candidate, demanded a $50 million bribe from Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht. The company, according to Venezuela’s exiled AG Luisa Ortega, did not agree to that and “only paid him $35 million”.
 
If we’re talking bribes here, it is unlikely the money went to the Venezuelan government. It likely went to Maduro’s pockets. So the reason Heavy.com says his net worth is only $2 million is because that is the estimate given his salary as President of Venezuela. It was hard to gauge how wealthy Chavez was, so I imagine it can be hard to gauge Maduro’s wealth too.
 
In any case, what I’m trying to say is that the only people that actually live like the 1% are those up high in the government and their families.
 
Maduro lives like a king while his people barely make anything and struggle to survive.
 
But even if Maduro weren’t a jerk, the country would still be a dystopia under socialism because that is what it does.
 
Like I said before, I will try my best at explaining Marx’s reasoning behind his idea of communism.
 
Marx theorized, and I’m not even joking, that people in a capitalist country would naturally evolve past capitalism and go towards communism. And then, after there is full-on communism and every problem is magically solved, there will not be any need for a government at all, no need for a state, no need for a nation, because people will be able to self-govern.
 
That is basically the gist of his theory. That communism is the NATURAL evolution to capitalism and that, once there is complete government control of the means of production and everything is great, there is no need for government and it will NATURALLY also evolve to people governing themselves without a state.
 
It is literally ridiculous, every part of it.
 
But what I want to focus on with this, since I could write an entire article based on this alone, is the fact that for this to even be REMOTELY POSSIBLE, people would need to be two things: 1) PERFECT and 2) NATURALLY GOOD.
 
And that’s just talking about the people running things. This is ignoring the fact that you would need an endless source of income in order to afford everything and make everything work. Not to mention the fact that communism requires people being willing to do things out of the kindness of their own hearts, such as working when they don’t need to work or paying what they don’t need to pay (look at Panera Bread’s attempt at running restaurants by telling people they can pay whatever they want for the food until they had to close every restaurant that ran that way).
 
But Marx’s overall theory is heavily flawed, the people are flawed, and the system is heavily flawed. Socialism does not work and there is not one example in the history of the world in which it has worked. However, there are multiple examples in which socialism is shown to be a disaster for the people and the country that attempts it.
 
Communism has killed well over 100 million people. Death and despair follow everywhere there is socialism.
 
Which is why I’m astounded at the stupidity of people like Ocasio-Cortez, who complains about the way people live in New York, where THE GOVERNMENT ENACTS SOCIALIST LAWS AND POLICIES!
 
If AOC were intelligent, she would notice the high cost of living in New York, notice how badly people live there, and look at how things are being run, i.e., socialistically, and deduce that socialism and big government does not work and only hurts people.
 
The people affected by socialism want to leave it. Sometimes, they acknowledge that socialism is horrible, such as the people in the Venezuelan Freedom rally, and sometimes, they fail to recognize that socialism is horrible and vote for people that want to implement it wherever they move.
 
This is the importance of educating and informing people. Socialism is humanity’s worst idea ever. And the people that advocate for it are either uninformed of this fact, are informed but are stupid, or are informed and evil.
 
I pray that Trump is right when he says that America will never be a socialist country. I pray that God spares us from such a horrible fate. But regardless of what may happen, I know it will be part of God’s Plan for us. Even under the worst circumstance, those who are saved will never have to live through the worst of it all.
 
We can all thank God for that.
 
Ephesians 2:8
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”
 
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.