It is no surprise that we learn something new every day. Sometimes we learn a new skill or how to improve upon something. Other times, we learn certain people’s and organization’s political leanings and are either disappointed or pleasantly surprised. The latter is what I felt upon going through the New York Post’s website and finding article after article either slamming Democrats and the Left altogether, or slamming Dems like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio.
 
Forgive my ignorance, but I operated under the assumption that all New York news media sources were Leftist. Sure, I had seen, read and written about other things from the New York Post, such as Bill Clinton’s promise to North Korea to give them $5 Billion and two nuclear reactors in 1994, but I had not really thought much of the NY Post. I certainly did not expect them to be as conservative as they are.
 
Now, let’s talk specifically about the NY Post article crediting Trump for NYC’s booming economy.
 
The article is interestingly titled: “New York City’s booming economy is bad news for the far left”.
 
Michael Goodwin, the writer of the article, informs us that New York City is going through what much of the country is going through: record-low jobless rates. “The news is extremely good for workers, families and businesses – and very bad for the deep blue political class,” writes Goodwin.
 
“There are more than 4 million jobs in the five boroughs, and the unemployment rate stands at a measly 4.2% - both are records, according to the quarterly report from Comptroller Scott Stringer. He found that, from April through June, 13,800 net new jobs were added, with 6,000 of them in high-wage sectors like securities that have average annual salaries of $220,000. Another encouraging sign: Government jobs fell by 1,000.”
 
He documents that Queens’ unemployment rate stands at 3.4% and the Bronx’s stands at 5.3%.
 
Goodwin credits these great numbers to the GOP’s tax cuts, noting that while the nation’s GDP grew by 4.1% in the latest report, New York City’s grew “by a still-respectable 2.7 percent”.
 
Goodwin also makes sure to slam Gov. Cuomo and other Democrats for attacking the tax cuts, and slams the state for filing a lawsuit to overturn the tax cuts.
 
Either way, it’s fascinating to see a New York news source speak in such a way about Trump and the tax cuts, while also attacking Democrats who wish to overturn the bill. It puts a smile on my face to discover a news source from New York that doesn’t parrot the daily dose of garbage other mainstream media sources try to sell to people.
 
Of course, it’s not like it’s a new thing, it’s just I haven’t paid much attention to the NY Post before. With that Bill Clinton deal with the NK’s, I did not find it strange that the New York Post shared that information. I did not think too much about it. But looking back on it, and doing my own research as to what other columnists are writing in the opinion piece (naturally, since the actual news portions should not be biased), I see that the NY Post is surprisingly conservative.
 
But this really makes you think about something. It’s not like the New York Post is a small news source. Its circulation numbers are pretty good (of course, nowhere near as much as the NYT, but still not bad at all). And it’s not just circulation, they also manage to bring in millions of unique visitors in the U.S. to their website.
 
What I’m trying to say is that, considering this is dyed-in-the-wool-blue New York City, I am pleased to see a fairly conservative publication be so popular. Even in the state and city that is probably second in most socialistic ideologies, only behind California, they still manage to rein in a conservative publication and that publication is successful.
 
Regardless, that’s beside the point. While it puts a smile on my face, I want to get back to the main topic of this article.
 
Goodwin notes that the Left in New York might be in trouble because of these great numbers. Given the title of his article, he believes the city’s booming economy is bad news for the Left. What Goodwin says is logical, but the Left is hardly ever logical.
 
You see, I have no doubt that if NYC’s economy is booming, which it seemingly is, the Democrats in New York will definitely take credit for it. I mean, look at the country’s economy altogether. There are idiots in the media who occasionally try to credit the booming economy to OBAMA not Trump.
 
Most recently, it was faux Republican Joe Scarborough from MSNBC who tried to credit Obama for the good economy. So the Left will no doubt try to take credit for NYC’s booming economy.
 
Unfortunately, unlike with Scarborough’s attempt to credit Obama, the Left could actually convince people that the economic climate is because of them.
 
On a national scale, few reporters try to credit Obama with today’s economy because they know perfectly well that people will credit Trump’s policies. It’s Trump’s policies that are boosting the economy. Of course, this is also the case for New York City, but with a Democrat Mayor and a vast majority of registered voters being Democrats, not to mention media darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is from there and the Gubernatorial race is really between Andrew Cuomo and Cynthia Nixon over who can be the bigger socialist, the Left could actually convince more people that New York City is doing great because of Democrat policies, despite the fact that these great numbers are relatively new in a city where Democrats have been the majority party for decades.
 
While Goodwin might believe the Left could be in trouble because of the good economy not being the Left’s to take credit for, the way the media and Democrats can portray things to their Democrat base in a deep-blue state and city will likely triumph over the truth that the Left has made sure such economic success is unfamiliar with their people.
 
Logically speaking, the people of New York (and California, honestly) should be waking up to the garbage that socialism is bringing them. Instead, you see nothing but socialists running for substantial places in power and succeeding.
 
One can only hope that these people manage to wake up and realize that decades of Democrat policies culminate to stagnation at best and destruction at worst. However, I am a realist, not an optimist. I seriously doubt the people of New York will push back against socialism unless they experience it fully. Of course, by that point, socialism is nearly unbeatable.
 
1 Timothy 3:13
“For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

That may seem like a fairly vague statement to make, so allow me to explain it further. In today’s age, people think that white people are the only ones who can be racist. They believe that non-white people are incapable of being racist by definition and that only white people can be racist. The reason behind this, if you can even really call it a reason, is that white people have “all the power”, with them being the majority race in the country. The “power” rests within white people, so anyone without said “power” cannot be racist.
 
But here’s the thing: the Left is the only side of the political spectrum that believes this. The New York Times hired an anti-white racist to their editorial board knowing full well how much she hates white people. And most recently, a writer for NBC News, Chris Mohny, tried to explain to his fellow white people why non-whites can’t be racist.
 
His article is titled: “Are White People Jokes Racist? Let A Fellow White Explain.”
 
He writes: “White people, even though we don’t like to admit it, know that racism isn’t just about who you like or don’t like. Racism has always been and always will be about possessing, maintaining and applying power. Racist jokes told by white people about non-white people superficially mock this or that alleged racial characteristic, just as Jeong’s tweets about white people did. But rhetorically, racist jokes are told to reassure white people about their top spot on the pyramid, and to reinforce that position by degrading nonwhite people who encounter such jokes.”
 
I won’t quote the entire thing because it’s one massive pile of insane turd that all boils down to: if you’re mad that nonwhites are making fun of white people, you’re racist. Which is inherent nonsense.
 
He argues that racist jokes against white people are ok because they are a culmination of centuries of nonwhites struggling in what he calls a pyramid of “institutional racism”, where the white people are at the top, and thus, cannot actually be hurt by jokes or statements such as the ones Jeong made.
 
This is flat out bull that goes against everything Dr. Martin Luther King dreamt of. He dreamt that his children and grandchildren (paraphrasing, of course) would be judged not on the color of their skin but the content of their character. He didn’t dream that one day, his children and grandchildren could make racist jokes and abuse white people just as white people (Democrats, actually) abused them.
 
This guy’s view of racism is devoid of any sort of sense. Racism, according to a simple Google search, means “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.”
 
That doesn’t say “prejudice, discrimination or antagonism directed against someone of color from someone who is white.”
 
If I were to call this writer a “honky” or a “cracker”, how is that any better than calling a black man the N-word or calling a Hispanic “beaner” or “taco taco, burrito burrito”? It’s still calling someone of a specific race a specific-race-related slur.
 
Is it okay if I call the writer either of those two words because I’m a Hispanic and thus cannot be racist? Or can a white person also do that? And in turn, can I call a fellow Hispanic “beaner” because I am Hispanic myself and thus cannot be racist?
 
See how dumb such an argument is? But the cherry on top of this pile of crazy crap is when he says: “calling non-white people racist is the closest most of us will be able to get to using the n-word in public, and some of us do.”
 
You really gotta wonder what goes on in these people’s heads. Let me tell you something right now: calling out actual racism, regardless of who is saying it, is not racist. Twitter briefly suspended Candace Owens, a black conservative activist, for reiterating Jeong’s tweets, replacing the word “white” with the word “black”.
 
So it’s not that nonwhites can’t be racist. No, at the end of the day, it’s that LIBERALS can’t be racist. That is why I’m saying this is all political.
 
Much in the same way Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio are excused for leaving massive carbon footprints because they support environmentalist causes, the Left is allowed to be racist because they claim to be “against racism”.
 
It’s much in the same way that Antifa can use fascist tactics of violence and harassment to shut down the speech of someone else because they claim to be against fascism.
 
In their mind, it’s not that white people are racist. It’s that white people are racist if they do or say things the Left doesn’t like, such as calling out the actual racism of a Leftist member of the media. And it’s not that nonwhite people can’t be racist. It’s that nonwhite people can only be racist when they are not part of the Left.
 
Donald Trump was never considered or called a racist in his 70 years of life before he decided to run for President in the Republican ticket. Candace Owens, until she opens her mouth and speaks her mind, is not considered to be racist because of the color of her skin. But once she does speak and the Left doesn’t like what she’s saying, that’s when she becomes a racist.
 
And I simply love it whenever the seemingly white-dominated Antifa strolls down the streets decrying white power and supremacy while shouting at black and Hispanic-looking police officers. It’s comedy gold.
 
So you see, it’s not really about white people being the only racist ones and nonwhites not being able to be racist particularly if they discriminate against white people. It’s about conservatives being labeled racists whenever we speak our minds. It’s about conservatives being labeled racists whenever we call out the actual racism of a Leftist.
 
The problem with labeling us like this is that the Left’s history is right there for anyone to look at. We know full well that the Democrat Party fought against the emancipation of the slaves. We know full well that Democrats were more supportive of segregation than Republicans were (A vast majority of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 compared to most Democrats being split on it).
 
Historically, the biggest threat to nonwhites in America has been the Democrat Party. And yes, I’m fully aware that the Left comes up with the argument of “there was a switch and now the Republicans are racist and the Democrats aren’t.” The funny thing is that they can’t say when that switch happened or even how it could have happened. I doubt the Republicans one day asked the Democrats to switch platforms for a bit and see where that would take them, and the Democrats were all of a sudden okay with defending black people.
 
It’s an asinine argument based on no facts whatsoever. Because here’s the thing: racism courses through the Democrats’ veins. They see everyone else as inferior and, like the bullies they are, choose to discriminate against anyone for any particular reason.
 
The only reason they are seemingly okay with minorities today is: 1) They would never be elected to power if they still proclaimed the same beliefs as they used to and 2) Because as long as minorities don’t stray away from the Left’s slave plantations of the mind, they can coexist… not in the same neighborhood, of course. The Left builds walls around their own homes to keep undesirables out. But if minorities stay in the plantations and stay away from the Left’s homes and lives, they are okay with us.
 
If you really want to see what racism looks like, look at any Democrat. They say they support minorities, but would never dare disrupt their own lives in any way to support minorities. Why else do you think George Clooney left his England estate after the Syrian Refugee crisis? He said it was too unsafe and left for a manor in L.A. that would be away from the refugees. He supports the “refugees” as long as they stay far away from him and his home.
 
I’m not saying that that’s inherently racist. I’m saying that that’s the mentality of the Left: chaos and calamity is fine as long as it doesn’t affect them.
 
People in the government were exempt from Obamacare, while the rest of us were forced into getting it or facing a hefty fine. As long as their chaotic policy doesn’t affect them, they are okay with subjecting you to it.
 
Thus, they are okay with open borders and Syrian “refugees” coming into the country as long as those "filthy mutts" stay out of their lives and stay in their good graces.
 
At the end of the day, the objective of the Left is to enslave the whole world and place themselves as the kings and queens of the world. Everyone sharing one singular point of view: theirs, and no one who thinks differently is allowed to exist.
 
Thankfully, I know very well that they will never reach that goal. Taking aside how monumentally improbable and likely impossible it is, God would never allow them to have such power and influence over the world. Or at least not for very long.
 
We don’t know what kind of world we’ll see in the moments coming up to the Rapture, but it really doesn’t matter at the end of the day. He will have His justice and not a single man or woman on Earth can deny Him that.
 
But to wrap things up: being racist against white people is still being racist and it’s still disgusting.
 
Proverbs 19:21
“Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I have written about this sort of thing before, but it’s significant to see a member of the MSM (New Republic contributor Adrian Carrasquillo) contributing to this conversation and calling out the Dems for taking Hispanics for granted.
 
In fact, that is almost literally the title of his article: “Democrats Are Taking Latino Voters for Granted.”
 
In the piece, Carrasquillo begins by calling out the fact that in the Florida Senatorial race between Gov. Rick Scott and Sen. Bill Nelson, Rick Scott has taken the time to reach out to Hispanic voters by placing ads played during the World Cup and having a Spanish page on his website, while Nelson has done neither of these things or anything to match them. Carrasquillo writes: “Such decisions reveal a cavalier attitude toward Latino voters that isn’t just a problem for Nelson, whose race is unexpectedly tight, but for the party as a whole.”
 
Carrasquillo believes, interestingly enough, that the President’s actions toward illegal immigrants, a “botched” response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and increased deportations and separation of families at the border “should help Democrats win over Latino voters.”
 
Interestingly enough, here is where Carrasquillo makes some assumptions of his own. Carrasquillo’s point is that the Democrats are simply assuming that Hispanics will turn out to vote for them in elections and that that’s where they could be wrong due to their lack of outreach. However, Carrasquillo makes an assumption of his own: that Hispanic voters are supportive of illegal immigrants, don’t like the President’s efforts to deport the illegals, and don’t like the fact that “families” are separated at the border.
 
That is where Carrasquillo makes wrong assumptions of his own. Those of us who came to the United States legally, at least for the most part, do not appreciate illegals coming in here.
 
Here’s a short list of the things that we don’t like about illegal immigration:

1. Illegals are coming here at a far cheaper cost (smuggling must still be somewhat costly) than those of us who paid far more money and waited our designated time period to be allowed access to the country.                                                                                              
2. Illegals are coming here through unlawful means. While we abide by the law and follow each and every instruction and rule set up for us, illegals are saying “screw that” and coming here anyway.                                                                                                             
3. Despite their illegality, people in the government choose to protect them rather than prosecute them. They broke the law by merely coming here illegally. All of them are criminals at that point, by DEFINITION! And yet, they get preferential treatment over: African-Americans, Army veterans, American homeless people and even immigrants who COME HERE LEGALLY!

 
Again, I’m not asking for preferential treatment just because I came here the right way. I’m asking that you don’t reward those WHO BREAK THE LAW! How difficult is that concept to grasp?!
 
The list could be longer, by mentioning illegals stealing jobs and such, but I’ll end it there.
 
So while Carrasquillo might believe Hispanics support illegal immigrants, the truth is that those of us who came here legally simply do not support illegals. It rightly ticks us off that they are allowed to do this and it rightly ticks us off that Democrats are actively breaking the law by setting up “sanctuary cities and states” in order to protect those who should not be here.
 
Carrasquillo also notes a poll of 1,000 Latino voters that found that “more than 70% were ‘very angry’ about the separation of families at the border and about Trump calling immigrants ‘animals’.”
 
Here’s the thing: the way media portrays things for people often has some impact on polls. For example, the firestorm that happened over separation of families at the border. I personally have said that families should not be separated (though I was not “very angry” about it). However, I now understand why that policy was put in place: there are plenty of illegals who will cross the border with a child that is not their own. There are plenty of illegals who are sex slave smugglers and get children across the border. Without such a policy, it puts more children at risk. Yes, actual families were separated, but it’s not like they were never going to see each other again (though that’s how the media was portraying it).
 
And about the “animal” comments, that also has to do with media portrayal. Anyone who actually listened to Trump, even outside the context of the situation, could understand that he was talking about MS-13 and others who were committing heinous crimes in America. I was not “very angry” at that because I perfectly understood what he meant, just as anyone who is not brainwashed by the Left could.
 
Carrasquillo then brings up other races such as California’s 39th district, where the Democrat candidate is trailing the Republican by 2 points, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won that county, as well as in Texas’ Senate race between Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke, where Cruz is ahead, even with Hispanic voters.
 
Well, in regards to the Texas Senate race, what you have is a Democrat candidate who is of Irish descent and his real name is Robert Francis O’Rourke but is addressed as “Beto” to pander to Hispanics in Texas. Meanwhile, you have Senator Ted Cruz, who is the descendant of a Cuban man who sought political asylum in the U.S. and whose real name is Rafael Edward Cruz. In other words, Cruz is a real Hispanic candidate.
 
The interesting thing about Beto O’Rourke is that Hispanics don’t claim he is appropriating our culture by calling himself “Beto”. You would think some would have a problem with this, but since he’s a Democrat, I guess he gets a pass.
 
Finally, Carrasquillo talks about how the Democrats have the money and resources to spend on Hispanic outreach, but choose against it, and such an action, Carrasquillo believes, will be a detriment to the Democrats come November.
 
Personally, I don’t think not spending money on Hispanic outreach will be a detriment to the Democrats. Spending time calling Trump a racist based on no substantial evidence, inciting violence against Trump staffers and supporters, promising to raise people’s taxes if elected, promising to impeach the duly-elected president on the grounds that he “colluded” with Russia despite zero evidence to it, promising to open our borders so we can be flooded with illegals, drug cartels, gun cartels and unending crime, promising to refund Iran’s nuclear capabilities, promising to basically undo our progress with North Korea, promising to put people back on welfare and implementing regulations that will cost people their jobs, promising to force you to pay for government systems that will bankrupt the country, promising to abolish institutions that protect people from criminals (ICE, prisons, etc.) and promising to impose heavy gun control measures to the point where the 2nd Amendment is essentially null and void is what will be a detriment to the Democrats.
 
Here’s the reality of the situation: the Democrat Party does not stand for Making America Great Again. They stand for hatred. Hatred for Trump and those who support and elected him. Hatred for this country. Hatred for traditional values. Hatred for foundational values. Hatred for everything that is right.
 
What they propose, as much as they want to sugarcoat it, is the impending death of this country, not only as founded, but as it stands.
 
Not a single one of their proposed ideas could actually help anyone. This has been true for some time, but now, it’s even easier to call these things out. Abolishing ICE will weaken our border security and destroy the Border States.
 
Abolishing prison will naturally and logically raise crime. It’s basically the next best thing to legalizing crime that the Left can come up with. You can’t go to jail if jail has been abolished, so what is stopping criminals from destroying people’s lives? They would have even more incentive to be evil, knowing they will not have to pay for it.
 
Medicare-for-all is an enterprise that could bankrupt the country on its own. Combine that with the fact that they want to abolish profits and establish a system of guaranteed income, and you have a society drenched in utter chaos and calamity.
 
The Democrats don’t have anything going for themselves. They can’t promote themselves, so they have to attack their opposition. They have no good ideas, so they attack the ideas of others. The only reason they are even considered a threat to the GOP is that the media is on their side. If the media really were unbiased, the Democrat Party would cease to exist.
 
Had they been unbiased up to now, Obama would not have won a reelection (he still likely would have won the first time, at least). The reason for this is not that Obama faced tough competition in 2012. The reason is that he would have been impeached long before the 2012 election.
 
The ironic thing is that, if they had been unbiased, it’s possible that Trump would not have felt the need to run for office and another Republican candidate would be POTUS right now.
 
Remember, part of the reason Trump ran is because of the fake news media being heavily biased and that Obama was destroying the country. With no Obama in office long enough to damage the country, Trump would not be in office right now.
 
But without the media, the Democrat Party has nothing. Sure, they can brainwash useful pawns to support socialism, but it’s not going to take them very far. Most of the country isn’t socialist. And even if we were, we would quickly drop the system of government to return to capitalism.
 
Which brings me to another topic to discuss at another time: the soul of an American is filled with freedom. We fought to gain our independence from oppression. We can do so once again should the need arise.
 
It’s in our DNA to yearn for freedom. We know that we’d rather die on our feet than live on our knees.
 
But that’s a topic for another time. To wrap things up, it’s interesting to see a member of the MSM calling out the Dems over their lack of outreach for Hispanics. But even if they heed this guy’s advice, there’s no way in Hell I would ever vote for a Democrat.
 
Isaiah 1:17
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

For the most part, I’ve chosen to steer clear off the topic of tariffs and a trade war. However, as I would read story after story relating to a trade war with China, one thing kept coming up in my mind: China would be obliterated by a trade war.
 
Even if the stories I would read would suggest the exact opposite, that the U.S. should not engage in a trade war with the Chi-coms, my instinct would always tell me that China had really no hopes of winning a trade war with us, especially if our economy is booming, which it is.
 
I will return to why exactly I suspected China would lose a trade war momentarily. For now, I wish to share a story with you published on Breitbart News titled: “Tectonic Shift in China: Xi Under Fire as China Realizes it Underestimated U.S. Trade Resolve.”
 
“Chinese President Xi Jinping is facing backlash from within the Communist Party over his hardline stance in the trade dispute with the United States, Reuters reported Thursday,” according to Breitbart.
 
Reuters reported that: “A growing trade war with the United States is causing rifts within China’s Communist Party, with some critics saying that an overly nationalistic Chinese stance may have hardened the U.S. position, according to four sources close to the government.”
 
“President Xi Jinping still has a firm grip on power, but an unusual surge of criticism about economic policy and how the government has handled the trade war has revealed rare cracks in the ruling Communist Party…”
 
“There is a growing feeling within the Chinese government that the outlook for China has ‘become grim’, according to a government policy advisor, following the deterioration in relations between China and the United States over trade. The advisor requested anonymity.”
 
I’m not surprised at all that the advisor requested anonymity. If the Chinese government found out who was saying these things about China and the government, they would imprison that person and possibly even execute them. There is no freedom of speech there. The only things you can say are things favorable to the government.
 
Regardless, let’s continue with the Reuters report: “Those feelings are also shared by other influential voices. ‘Many economists and intellectuals are upset about China’s trade war policies,’ an academic at a Chinese policy think tank told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue. ‘The overarching view is that China’s current stance has been too hard-line and the leadership has clearly misjudged the situation.”
 
The significance of this report cannot be understated. If this is, indeed, the case, then this is massive news! The Chinese communists don’t tend to be split about things like this. They are usually fairly unified. So for these anonymous sources to be saying these things about the Chinese Communist Party, that’s a big deal.
 
Even an article from the South China Morning Post suggests that China should concede defeat to Trump in this trade war. To quote Xu Yimiao, the writer of the article: “Beijing’s strategy of a tit-for-tat retaliation over tariffs has clearly failed. In fact, this strategy escalated the conflict…”
 
But how can this be? I thought China was supposed to kick our butts in a trade war. That’s what the Left and the fake news media were saying, after all.
 
Well, it’s really no surprise that the Left would say that we would lose a trade war with China. The Left sees China as a utopia. As such, they believe China’s centralized economy is superior to a capitalist market economy. Even U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) claimed last month that China held an advantage over the U.S. in a trade war, and engaging further in this trade war would be “stupid”.
 
According to Breitbart, “Views such as Schatz’s were common during the Cold War, when many prominent economists and political scientists argued that the Soviet Union’s totalitarian society could prevail over the U.S. Earlier in the last century, some had made similar arguments based on the perceived strength of Nazi Germany compared to the U.S.”
 
Which brings me to the reason I suspected China would lose a trade war. What do China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany have in common? They would use socialistic policies to run every aspect of the government and people’s lives, including the economy. And what happened to two of those nations? They are no longer around… well, not as they used to be.
 
The reason I suspected China would lose a trade war is because capitalism always defeats communism in economics. Communism would be considered an economic joke if it weren’t so dangerous.
 
You see, there’s a very clear difference between capitalism and communism/socialism. I’ve even said this before in the past: capitalism creates wealth; communism destroys it.
 
Capitalism is the enterprise of building more and more wealth through freedom. Communism is the enterprise of spreading wealth around so much that it’s too thinly spread, and the enterprise of making it incredibly difficult to accumulate any sort of wealth. It’s the enterprise of spending other people’s money until there is no more money to be spent.
 
Under capitalism, wealth belongs to the people. Under communism, the people belong to the government.
 
I have often talked about China and how they are ranked #2 in world GDP (#3 if you count the E.U.). But you really have to think about why they are in that place.
 
Well, it’s most likely a combination of having the world’s biggest population (1.379 billion since 2016), so there’s a lot of people to give money to the government, as well as exploitation of what makes the GDP grow. For example, government spending grows the GDP. Part of the reason Obama’s GDP managed to grow around 2% is because he would spend a lot of money and drive our debt sky-high. But while the GDP was “growing”, the economy was stagnating, with high unemployment levels, more people going into welfare, etc.
 
China is doing much the same thing. They build luxurious ghost cities that no one can afford to move into and use so that the GDP artificially grows to an extent.
 
Now, I won’t claim to know the intricacies of Chines economics. I doubt vast amounts of spending and having the world’s largest population are the sole reasons for that GDP ranking, but they are significant parts of it. (The other part might be that they use relatively capitalistic economic policies to avoid completely crashing the economy and sinking the country).
 
What I’m getting at is that no communist country can withstand any sort of economic war with a capitalistic country, by definition. Engaging in trade wars with the U.S. will only accelerate China’s ultimate demise at the hands of their own communistic system.
 
And this becomes even more true if the U.S. is going through an economic boom, which it is. This, I believe, is part of the reason Trump is imposing and enforcing tariffs on foreign countries. Another part of it is the fact that other countries have been taking advantage of the U.S. because the Establishment believes the U.S. became powerful and wealthy because it somehow stole from other nations and felt that foreign governments taking advantage of us was a form of justice. Trump was having none of that nonsense and decided to embark on making fair trade deals by using the same tactics as the other nations.
 
But this really would not be suggested for Trump to do if the economy weren’t booming. With a booming economy, we can afford to engage in trade wars to make better trade deals in the future.
 
A booming U.S. economy combined with the simple fact of life that communism sucks at trade wars, and you can see why I always believed China would be destroyed in a trade war.
 
And seemingly, people within the Chinese Communist Party are beginning to realize this.
 
Proverbs 22:16
“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

There are plenty of people out there who, upon waking up in the morning, will watch the morning news alongside eating breakfast and drinking their coffee. When the morning news isn’t discussing politics or the weather, they will often times talk about a new scientific study about how product x will kill you one day and product y will kill you the next.
 
One moment, doctors and scientists will say that orange juice is bad and the next, they will say it’s good. They seemingly can’t make up their minds.
 
Similarly, a new research study from England finds that sleeping for more than 8 hours a night can increase your chances of cardiovascular disease and suffering a stroke. That sleeping for 10 hours a night (which I would agree might be a tad too much anyway) has been linked to a 30% higher risk of dying compared to someone who only sleeps 7 hours a night, a 49% increase in risk of dying from cardiovascular disease and a 56% increase in risk of dying from a stroke.
 
HotAir.com talks about this, saying that the researchers “found that folks who reported sleeping more than eight hours a night had a greater cardiovascular and mortality risk than those who leaped out of bed after only seven hours of shuteye. Of course, it’s not that they died more often, but they died sooner than shorter sleepers.”
 
Here’s the thing about medicinal science (and science altogether): even doctors are subject to God’s will.
 
I often watch the show “Frasier” on Hulu. In one episode, Frasier is upset over the fact that a fellow doctor of his age had died of a sudden heart attack and he tries to figure out what may have caused it. He discovers that the doctor actually lived a far healthier lifestyle than he did, exercising, eating right, etc. And yet, that doctor had died instead of Frasier, who did not, supposedly, exercise as regularly and eat as healthily.
 
At one point, he figures that, often times, people who exercise, eat right and do everything the right way die young, while someone who does not exercise, diet, and smokes like a chimney can live to their 80s or 90s.
 
The point I’m getting at is that, regardless of what we do in our lives, it is entirely up to the Lord what the result is.
 
I won’t directly challenge the researchers who came up with those statistics, as I do not have statistics of my own. However, what I do have is logic, common sense, and a relatively fair understanding of the world and the Lord who created it.
 
Everything in this world, including science, is entirely subject to what the Lord dictates will happen.
 
Take climate change for example. We all know there is next to nothing scientific about climate change, and it’s entirely based on Leftist rhetoric that people are worse than dirt and we need to elect people who will “save” the environment. But to make it seem legitimate, they have to call it science.
 
Well, here’s the thing: if the world is warming as they say it is (until it’s winter and they say it’s getting colder because they are coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs), what makes you think it has anything to do with us?
 
And if it’s getting colder, how is it our fault? There have been ice ages in the past. And there have been times when those ice ages ended. According to the Left, we are killing the Earth with our air conditioning units, our fuel-run cars (but somehow electric cars don’t harm the planet), and our capitalist systems and industries. Even if that’s true, that still doesn’t explain why ice ages began and ended long before cars and industry were invented. Long before capitalism was ever applied anywhere.
 
We do not have the power, even as an entire species, to affect the climate to such degree. Do we affect the environment? Of course! But what we do doesn’t affect the world to the degree that the Left claims it does. Because he’s the thing: if we really could destroy the Earth to such an extent, we already would have. If our climate is so delicate, it would not be able to stand Man’s evil nature.
 
But our God created this Earth to last until He decides it should end.
 
The God that created this Earth and this universe also created us and has dominion over us. If He decides that someone who smokes a pack a day will live to see their 90th birthday, who are we to complain? If He decides to take home someone who does what is right at a relatively early age, He has every right to do it.
 
Now, am I saying you should sleep for more than 8 hours just to stick it to these researchers? No. If you want to do it, there’s no one to stop you, of course. But I am saying that, at the end of the day, it is God who decides when your time is up. Not these researchers, not your doctor, not your sleep patterns.
 
We all die eventually. It’s silly to worry ourselves over such things. If the Lord wishes to end things now, He most certainly can. That’s true regardless of how well you diet and exercise.
 
Again, I’m not trying to put down the work of these researchers. I’m not suggesting you go out and do things that could actually put your health and life at risk. But we should always remember that it really doesn’t matter how much you sleep. God is the ruler of the universe and of you.
 
Everything that happens is according to His will. Nothing happens without His approval.
 
Proverbs 16:4
“The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Today’s Hollywood and media culture is chockfull of pandering, virtue-signaling and politically correct b.s. What with the recent trend of remaking every movie into a women’s only film to even having Batwoman, a canonically straight female, be turned into a lesbian superheroine.
 
So, it’s not surprising that unhinged Leftists attack other unhinged Leftists who are not “woke” enough. Gay rights groups GLAAD and 5050by2020, led by Jill Soloway, who created the show “Transparent” about a transgender woman, encouraged Hollywood to better represent the Transgender community in their films, saying that she got “four dozen production companies, talent agencies, film studios, and advocacy groups” to show “support for expanded LGBTQ representation”, according to Variety.
 
This comes relatively after Scarlett Johansson received backlash for being cast as a transgender man despite her being what these nut-jobs describe as “cisgender”, or someone who identifies with the gender they were born as aka a normal and mentally-stable person.
 
Soloway says that “cisgender actors portraying transgender individuals is harmful because of the message it sends to non-trans people who may believe transgender people are merely dressing in costume”, despite the fact that she herself has cast a “cisgender” man to play a transgender woman.
 
Now, while I typically never side with Hollywood on anything given that they themselves are out of their darn minds about everything to the point where at least one of their more prominent figures legitimately did not know there were people who were against abortion (*ahem* Mila Kunis *ahem*) and the fact that they go along with every socialist narrative out there, despite the fact that such policies would ruin the country and would eventually ruin the very people pushing for such policies, I always side with reasoned thought and logic.
 
Do you want to know why there is so little representation of transgender people in Hollywood? Why actors and actresses feel compelled to play transgender people even if they themselves are not transgender? BECAUSE TRANSGENDER PEOPLE COMPRISE ONLY 0.6% OF THE POPULATION!
 
And before any liberals reading this, if there even are any, try to challenge that number, know that that statistic comes from the Left’s version of the Gospel: the New York Times. Of course, this being the New York Times, I myself am fairly skeptical of what they tell me. However, considering the narrative that there are a lot of transgender people out there, seeing such an incredibly low number from a Leftist source who routinely lies and has employed an open bigot, I will trust that number for the time being.
 
This means that current Hollywood representation of transgender people might be on par or might even be over-representing them (can’t say for certain because I have not seen a Hollywood movie, in theaters or otherwise, in years, and simply refuse to watch anything new they release, knowing it will be filled with garbage).
 
But, of course, such a thing cannot be allowed to remain. The Left simply must push for more transgenders to be in movies, even if that creates an over-representation of transgenders. And this is all in the name of “equality”, even if it creates a glaring inequality.
 
The problem, of course, with what Soloway wants is that it is, as of now, relatively impossible. If 0.6% of the population in America is transgender, you will be hard-pressed to find that many transgender people to play a transgender person. Granted, this is Hollywood and it makes sense if many transgenders live in California, the land of insanity. And according to that same New York Times article, there are 1.4 million transgenders in the U.S., so you could, theoretically, find transgender people out there, but that does not necessarily mean they all want to be actors.
 
What I’m getting at is the fact that, if Hollywood really wants to represent transgender people in movies, they’ll have to “settle” with “cisgender” actors playing that role. It’s a bit of a stretch, considering those people would have to do something called “acting”, but I think they would be able to do it.
 
Of course, this all points to the larger problem: they are pretending transgenderism is a perfectly natural thing, at least for humans, and that there is nothing wrong with it. There is.
 
I’ve repeatedly quoted the World Health Organization having diagnosed transgenderism as “gender dysphoria”. Of course, since everything has to fit the Left’s agenda, the W.H.O. had to declassify gender dysphoria as a disorder in order to appease their fascistic overlords who wish to rip apart the fabric of humanity (all-the-while also classifying video game addiction as a mental disorder, which is ridiculous).
 
Hollywood, Soloway, and the entirety of the Left all promote the idea of being transgender and disregarding science itself. They all promote the idea of telling these people that there’s nothing wrong with them, even if the evidence is self-evident.
 
They also promote the idea that believing transgenderism is a disorder is wrong and that people like me, who call out the Left for this and call out the fact that this is, indeed, a mental disorder, should not be allowed to point it out.
 
Like I said in my previous article, they only want their ideas and their thoughts to be shared, not ours and no one who can realistically and honestly claim to be logical and sane.
 
What this all culminates to is a society that has long-abandoned not only the Creator, but even science and logic. A society that is 180 degrees backwards. A society that the Left dominates because it’s just as crazy as they are.
 
One can only pray that people recover their sanity and, thus, repent of this.
 
1 John 1:9
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli. 

In recent time, tech giants in Apple, YouTube and Facebook have all decided that Alex Jones’ InfoWars could no longer express themselves in their platforms. Naturally, this has created backlash and brought to the forefront the larger issue of what the First Amendment should and should not protect (I am aware that InfoWars’ First Amendment rights were technically not violated since the First Amendment protects people from the government, not companies).
 
So, Campus Reform decided to head to Columbia University to ask Millennials if they could even name all five freedoms protected under the First Amendment (speech, religion, press, assembly and petition). This is largely based on a recent Freedom Forum Institute survey that says 40% of people surveyed could not list any of the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment, and 36% could name only one.
 
Campus Reform offered $20 to any person who could successfully name all five First Amendment freedoms (video below). Not a single one of them got the money, unfortunately. Actually, many could hardly come up with a single freedom, while most could come up with 1 or 2 and only a handful could come up with three.
 
One of them even confused the Second Amendment with the First and thought the First Amendment protected people’s right to bear arms. I am both surprised and not so surprised at this. I am surprised because earlier this year, there has been a lot of talk about gun violence and the 2nd Amendment, so you would think just about everyone was aware enough of what the 2nd Amendment guaranteed and not confuse it with another Amendment. On the other hand, I am not so surprised because these are Millennials attending an Ivy League school where knowledge and truth go to die and are replaced with narrative and falsehood.
 
Now, Campus Reform also asked what should and should not be protected by the First Amendment. The answers from these Millennials were the precise ones you would expect: you don’t have the right to offend people and make them feel uncomfortable.
 
Now, before the liberal readers shout: “So you think we should be able to offend people and make them feel uncomfortable?!” This is not such a simple matter that bodes down to a yes or no answer here.
 
In short, here’s what the First Amendment guarantees: your right to speak your mind, your right to express and practice any religion, your right to print anything you want and share it with others, your right to peacefully assemble to express a unified thought and your right to petition for things such as holding rallies, parades, etc. These are all freedoms that shall not be infringed by the government. Meaning that the First Amendment protects us from being prosecuted by the government in any way.
 
However, there are logical limitations to this. For example, you have no right to threaten someone’s life or the life of their family. Doing so logically results in police investigation and possible prosecution. THAT is simply common sense, because a crime is involved. Threatening to kill someone is in and of itself a crime. However, what is not common sense is taking away someone else’s freedom of speech simply because you don’t like what they’re saying or disagree to any amount.
 
On the outset, I think most people would agree, even liberals. The problem arises when people look to do that by saying it’s offensive to express such a thought. The problem arises when you redefine what it means to use offensive language. For example, if I call a black man the N-word, that is understandably offensive. Do I have the right to do it? Yes. IS it right to do it? No. Should I have the right to do it? I certainly believe limiting free speech based entirely on offense is wrong. Does that mean, then, that I would do it? Of course not. I’m not a Democrat, after all.
 
So the overall problem exists with what constitutes offensive language. Me writing these articles, calling out the Left’s hypocrisy, proclaiming my love of Christ, praising the Lord and noting the significant achievements of the Trump administration should not constitute offensive language to any degree, and it does not. However, there are those who disagree.
 
Earlier, I mentioned Alex Jones and InfoWars as a whole. I have watched Alex Jones in the past and I can say that I do not necessarily agree with everything he says and the way he says it. He usually is fairly paranoid about everything and seems to be quite the conspiracy theorist. However, if you’re going to shut down people for being paranoid or throwing out conspiracy theories, then why is the entirety of the Mainstream Media still allowed to operate? Why is Rosie O’Donnell allowed to claim Trump’s rallies are fake and the people there are paid to be there (which is honestly stupid, given the size of the rallies and the fact that if they were paid, that would mean a whole lot of money to pay each of them)?
 
Alex Jones was not shut down for floating conspiracy theories but for saying things that Facebook, Apple and YouTube disagree with. It’s the same reason YouTube has cracked down on pro-gun channels that help people learn how to safely operate guns. They disagree with what Jones was saying and felt compelled to shut him down, but using their vague “terms of service” as an excuse.
 
While the First Amendment does not protect you from companies, it is entirely bogus and ridiculous that he would be shut down for saying things these corporations disagreed with. And before you bring up the NFL and anthem protests, know that these are different occasions. The players have the Constitutional right to kneel to the flag that gives them that right, but the NFL did not implement their new policy to crack down on protests altogether. They just don’t want people kneeling during the anthem on other people’s dime. The players can protest all they want, but they should do it differently and during a different time when they don’t look to be disrespecting the flag and the country. I think if they really did not want to mean disrespect, they would find a different way to protest and say the same things, but without being disrespectful.
 
Regardless, that’s a different matter entirely that I believe has been talked about enough and only comes down to what has been summarized in the prior paragraph.
 
Returning to the overall argument of what constitutes offensive language and what should and should not be limited by the First Amendment, I think it’s pretty clear what it says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
 
Meaning that the government cannot and should not keep people from expressing their beliefs, even if those beliefs are seen as offensive (legitimately or illegitimately offensive) or if they make people uncomfortable.
 
The college Millennials all expressed similar beliefs that the First Amendment should not be able to protect people from offending others or making them feel uncomfortable. Of course, this led Cabot Phillips (the interviewer from Campus Reform) to ask the question: “who gets to determine what is offensive?”
 
That question is really what trips people up, naturally. Who can honestly proclaim to be the sole moral judge in this world? Only God has such a power. Only God can honestly proclaim to be the epitome of morality, given that morality comes from Him.
 
No person here on Earth can honestly make such a proclamation. Of course, the Nazis, fascists, communists and socialists all make and have made that proclamation as often as they breathe, but they cannot make that proclamation honestly. These are the same people who will claim to be feminists while simultaneously abusing women on the sidelines. The same people who claim to be pro-choice so long as that choice is killing your baby. Aside from that, and even including that, you really have no choice. No choice in what religion to practice unless it’s anything other than Christianity and maybe even Judaism. No choice in what political candidate to support and what political ideas to stand by if that candidate and/or ideology is apart from Leftism.
 
The Left cannot be allowed to be the moral arbiter of society. If it comes to that, morality is completely dead.
 
If left up to the Left, every thought that is remotely different from the groupthink would be eliminated. These people envy the Iranian regime, the North Korean dictatorship, the Chinese communists. They envied Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy. They want people to only have access to one voice: theirs. To have access to only the information they provide and nothing else.
 
Our Forefathers knew exactly what tyranny looks and feels like. They knew exactly what the nature of Man is. They knew that they had to set up a system that puts restrictions on the government, not the people.
 
And before you feel any sort of grief over the fact that there was no possible way our Forefathers could have predicted these tyrannical companies doing what they feared government would do, let me put your mind at ease. Capitalism is truly a glorious thing. Not only does it help people prosper, but it naturally protects people.
 
What I mean is that we should not come up with a legislative answer to these tech giants shutting people down. It would be wrong and it would go against everything we believe in. Instead, let’s use the capitalist system we have in place.
 
A company’s first priority is the consumer/customer. If the consumer is unhappy, they leave for a competitor. That’s the nature of business. Now, I fully understand that there is no real competitor to Facebook, YouTube and all these other tech giants… yet. The nature of capitalism, combined with the fact that enough people are pissed off at these tech giants for their censorship, will lead to new companies rising and flourishing that will serve as real competitors. It’s a business inevitability.
 
If you are skeptical, just think about Uber or Lyft. Sure, they are not in the same business, but they are in a business that we thought only the government could control: the ride-sharing business. Just a decade ago, the thought of people using anything other than cabs or buses if they had no access to their own personal vehicles was hard to imagine. Now, you have Uber and Lyft competing with the government regulated cab and bus systems.
 
That’s the nature of capitalism at work. Just because it’s hard to imagine a new company rising and flourishing despite of the tech giants of Facebook and Google does not necessarily mean that they will not rise. Facebook itself was essentially what I described when it first began to be a social media website apart from online dating. It had to compete with MySpace, didn’t it?
 
So capitalism is the answer to these tech giants’ exploits. And yes, that even includes Apple. Yes, it’s nearly impossible to compete with Apple’s products, but it’s far easier to compete with their services, which is the reason they are even being talked about right now. If their podcast service won’t allow for speech they disagree with, someone else will come up with a podcast service that is actually tolerant of other people’s beliefs.
 
Now, this article is getting plenty long already, so I think it’s best to wrap things up here. The larger point I want to make is that the First Amendment should not be regulated apart from the earlier example of threatening someone, regulation which is already in place. The fact that 40% of people could not come up with a single First Amendment right both worries me about the future and allows me to set my sights in our current education system.
 
I mean seriously, this sort of thing should be covered in the 1st grade, for crying out loud! There is no excuse for anyone to not know what the First Amendment guarantees.
 
John 16:33
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

​The tricky thing about deception is that, despite how carefully you construct your rhetoric, there will be times when there are cracks and someone makes a slip of the tongue. California councilman Jesse Dominguez experienced this recently.
 
In a Santa Barbara council meeting two weeks ago, after the city passed the measure to ban all straws, including fully semiautomatic assault straws, Councilman Jesse Dominguez responded to the question of “what’s next?” in the most Communistic way possible: “Unfortunately, common sense is just not common. We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives.”
 
And the Joseph Stalin Award goes to… Jesse Dominguez for his part in expressing what every Leftist in America thinks but won’t dare say out loud just yet.
 
It’s hard to get more communist than that… well, except in passing laws that lead to hundreds of millions of deaths. Since 60 million babies have already been killed because of Roe v. Wade alone, the Left in America is on good pace to keep up with the communists in the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Vietnam.
 
Now, for as far to the Left as California is, to the point where they’ll ban straws but legalize knowingly spreading STDs, they are still smart enough to realize that such comments are horrible, oppressive and wrong. Dominguez apologized for his remark, saying: “A few weeks ago, I made a string of words in a rhetorical fashion about regulation and they were not taken as rhetorical and that’s my fault so I want to apologize.”
 
He’s not sorry for what he said. No, like a typical Leftist, he blames you people for not understanding the “rhetorical” fashion in which he said the words. Despite the fact that, even if those words are rhetorical, they still mean the same exact thing. Something rhetorical is something relating to expressing a rhetoric in order to persuade or impress. A simple Google search will tell you this.
 
So his words mean the exact same thing, even if they are “rhetorical”. His aim is to control every aspect of people’s lives, supposedly because they lack common sense. It’s the rhetoric of every tyrant in the history of Earth.
 
For all the times the MSM wants to compare Trump to Stalin, which is ridiculous in itself, the real comparison exists between this councilman in particular and Stalin. In fact, knowing that Stalin was a COMMUNIST and communism resides on the Left, that comparison between Trump and Stalin is exceedingly ludicrous.
 
But that’s a conversation for another time. Right now, I want to focus on Joseph Stalinguez over here, and the entire Left as a whole.
 
This is precisely who the Left is. They want to control every aspect of your life, and this is not anything new.
 
I can’t help but remember a particular policy that Hillary Clinton’s idol, Margaret Sanger, the African-American community’s biggest threat, wished would be employed. In a March 27, 1934 article titled: “America Needs a Code for Babies”, Sanger said that the government should establish a sort of code “for the better distribution of babies… to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” Under this code, “no woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for fatherhood… No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.”
 
Talk about controlling every aspect of people’s lives. Sanger was calling for the very thing these pro-“choice” people are against: the government in women’s reproductive systems. Under such a code, a woman would not have the legal right to bear a child, despite the fact that that’s a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT! Under such a code, a man is not allowed to be the father of a child without the proper government documentation. A couple who wants a child would need permission from the government to have a child.
 
Even Stalin was not this oppressive, and this all comes from the founder of Planned Parenthood herself. But this perfectly encapsulates what the Left wants to do. Remember, Sanger WAS part of the American Left at the time. She gave speeches (or at least one speech) to the women’s chapter of a New Jersey Ku Klux Klan chapter, worked with two Nazi sympathizers in Clarence Gamble and Lothrop Stoddard in her magazine and other works, and her magazine has a piece written by Ernst Rudin titled “Eugenic Sterilization, an Urgent Need”. Rudin was the chief architect of the Nazi sterilization program and was a mentor to Joseph Mengele, a Nazi physician and research scientist.
 
Sanger also urged that America follow Nazi Germany’s example in the field of eugenics, saying that “in animal industry, the poor stock is not allowed to breed. In gardens, the weeds are kept down,” in a March 3rd, 1938 speech titled: “Human Conservation and Birth Control.”
 
Knowing all of this, tell me, does it sound like the Left of today is any different from the Left of the early-to-mid 20th century? Does it even sound all too different from the very Nazis that they want to compare Trump to?
 
I have said before that socialism is the same today as it was in the past. It does not change. By the same token, neither do communism, fascism and Nazism. They are all derivative of Marxism and all find a comfy home in the Left.
 
Returning to Dominguez, does what he said, regardless of how he meant it, sound all too different from what Sanger wanted? A central power dictating what citizens can and can’t do?
 
There is no other way to describe it apart from sheer tyranny, and these people think America wants what they’re selling? Maybe those who are too ignorant to understand the similarities between the Democrat Party platform and the Nazi platform and those who are successfully deceived into believing socialism is somehow a force for good, but not the majority of America.
 
Those who know the truth know perfectly well that the Left in America is the same as in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Venezuela.
 
It’s the worst idea mankind has ever come up with.
 
Ephesians 5:11
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli. 

Here’s a topic we don’t often discuss. Most of the time, we talk about what a great job Trump is doing as POTUS (50% approval rating by Rasmussen is not bad at all!), or the dangers and stupidity of socialism (still waiting on a math genius on the Left to tell me how they’re going to afford everything they want, or even one of the things they want). But the issue of feminism still lingers. And yes, it’s an issue.
 
What brings me to writing about this topic? The slew of all-female casts for movie reboots. From Ghostbusters to Ocean’s 11, and now, Terminator.
 
Last week, we were informed that a new Terminator movie is being made and set to premier in November of this year. We were informed through the franchise’s Twitter account with a promo shot of three women: Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), Natalia Reyes and Mackenzie Davies. This promo shot has feminists going wild for the movie not because of the stellar cast or crew (though James Cameron producing, Tim Miller directing and Linda Hamilton starring doesn’t hurt), but because the shot, and presumably most, if not all, of the movie features no men.
 
According to Graeme McMilan from The Hollywood Reporter: “There’s another, less obvious, reason to get excited about the movie because of this image. There are no men in the photo.”
 
“There were obviously men in the movies – Sarah’s son, John, is the Macguffin that gets the story going, after all, and there are both sidekicks (Hi, Kyle Reece! Hi, Old-School Terminator in T2!) and male threats – but at the center of it all, unmistakably, is Sarah Connor. She was the engine of resistance and change for the entire narrative and, for both of Cameron’s movies, the only character that really provided any emotional hook for the audience.”
 
“The lesson seems obvious – but it’s one that only appears to have been learned with the release of this new promotional image. When it comes to Terminator, arguably more than any other science-fiction franchise, the future is female, and always has been. The visual that audiences needed to see to have faith in any new installment isn’t the eponymous robot threat, any number of grimacing male action heroes brandishing weapons while sweating, or a callback to earlier promo posters; none of that is what makes the series special. What is, is meeting the women who are going to fight back and save tomorrow.”
 
Now, I have only watched the first two Terminator movies, so I can’t speak for the other ones. What I saw out of the Terminator movies isn’t merely a strong female protagonist who don’t need no man. What I saw is a strong female protagonist who (in T1) needed the help of a male soldier to protect the child she has yet to have and (in T2) being driven to near insanity by the trauma of being hunted down by a machine from the future and doing whatever it takes to protect her son, even befriending the very machine that haunted her nightmares because he’s been reprogrammed to protect her son as well.
 
What these two movies have in common is the fight for the protection of the most important thing in people’s lives: their children.
 
THAT is what made those two movies so good and special. Not the fact that Sarah Connor was strong (she wasn’t for most of T1) or that she only needed herself to do the task at hand (she needed the help of the T-1000 in T2 for the most part). It’s the fact that she would go to the ends of the Earth to protect the most important person in her life, even before that person was yet to be born.
 
If you want to see a film that encapsulates what it means for men and women to be equals, look no further than Terminator 2. Connor is strong because she has to be. She is stronger than a lot of the men in the film, too. But she doesn’t disrespect or belittle the men around her who are strong as well. She respects them.
 
Paul Bois of the Daily Wire wrote about this as well. He writes: “Though tough and certainly no-nonsense in their own right, neither Sarah Connor nor Ellen Ripley (from the Alien franchise, another one of Cameron’s movies) show disrespect to the men around them, or rather, the actual men around them. Effeminate, weak-willed men like Dr. Silverman and Lt. Gorman, they steamroll over. Righteous, heroic men like Kyle Reese and Corporal Hicks, they respect; actually, they depend on them for survival and vice-versa…”
 
What makes women strong is not the objective of being strong in itself. What makes women strong is their superhuman desire to protect their children. Feminists believe women must be strong in order to survive in an occupation or, for the lunatics in the feminist movement, to overthrow “the patriarchy”, and I will return to that concept momentarily.
 
They believe that women should really only care about their careers and not their family or children. That directly contradicts the role the Lord has established for women. Now, I’m not saying women shouldn’t work or shouldn’t be strong at work. I’m saying there should be a clear reason for being strong: the benefit of their children.
 
That is the point Terminator 2, and even Terminator 1, were conveying. You do everything you possibly can to protect your children. They are not just the number one priority, they are the only priority. That’s the point that these feminists are missing.
 
Now, let’s return to that “overthrow the patriarchy” point, because it’s important. It details the precise point of the feminist movement. The main reason for existing. Whenever they say they only want “equality” and for women to be considered equal to men, that’s utter garbage. Why? BECAUSE WOMEN ALREADY ARE EQUAL TO MEN!
 
Men don’t have a single right that women do not, at least in America. Women can vote, just as men. Women can drive, just as men. Women can purchase and brandish a firearm, just as men. Women can work, just as men. There isn’t a single right that men have that women don’t (and don’t even get me started on the absolutely ridiculous notion that guns have more rights than women). The fact that men and women ARE equal is the precise problem to these feminists.
 
You see, they don’t want equality. If they did, they would realize we already have it. No, like the KKK who want white supremacy, the feminist movement wants female supremacy. They want women in charge and take over where they believe men have “failed”. They want women to be above men, not equals to them.
 
And every time a movie like this comes out and the feminist lunatics like McMilan speak in favor of the movie for that particular feature, that truth is exposed. You can’t possibly expect me to be stupid enough that I would believe you if you said “we want equality” while at the same time saying things like “down with the patriarchy!” or “the future is female”. That line of thought is illogical. Which is why it fits perfectly with the Leftist agenda.
 
And it’s also why I always find it ironic whenever they attack conservative women. To feminists, a woman who makes the decision of being a stay-at-home mom is dumb at best and a betrayal of their gender at worst. Despite the fact that feminists supposedly fight for the freedom to choose, they hate it whenever women make the “wrong” decision.
 
Oh, and by the way, that freedom to choose only really extends to abortion. If you choose to remain at home with the kids and teach them, you are berated for that choice. If you choose to be a Christian, you are berated for that choice.
 
Leftists are not pro-choice, they are pro-the-only-choice-to-be-made-is-what-they-want-for-you aka socialism. They don’t want you to have a choice. They want to make the choices for you. And that entire thing brings me to a different argument of how “democratic socialism” is an oxymoron as there is nothing democratic about a system of government that takes people’s things by force and gives them to other people.
 
Regardless, let me reiterate my point: feminism is not about equality - it’s about female supremacy and rule. Statements like “the future is female” only highlight the truth of that fact. This new Terminator movie may be good or may be bad, but the fact that it may likely have an all-female cast is not what will make it good or bad.
 
Ephesians 5:33
“However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

What do you figure is the Left’s worst nightmare? Aside from Trump, that is? I imagine their worst nightmare, or at least one of their worst nightmares, would be a specific demographic of voters leaving their mental slave plantations in droves.
 
Among these demographics are Hispanics, whom the Left believes belong to them in vote and in mind. The Left, in a rather racist way, somehow believes that all Hispanics hate Trump and that all Hispanics want open borders. That we want more of our “hermanos” and “hermanas” (brothers and sisters, if you didn’t know) flooding this country, building more and larger Hispanic-only communities and changing this country fundamentally from an English-speaking, liberty-loving nation to a Spanish-speaking, welfare-delivering nation. Basically, the Left believes that we want to turn America into Mexico or any other Latin-American country.
 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
I will get back to this topic momentarily. Right now, I want to share with you the approval ratings for Trump. According to a recent Harvard/Harris poll, President Trump’s approval rating overall sits at a strong 47%, with the main driver for these great numbers being a fantastic 10% rise in Trump approval among Hispanics.
 
These numbers almost certainly come from the fact that Hispanic unemployment rates are at historic lows and the fact that according to another poll by Economist/YouGov, only 20% of Hispanics support the Obama-era policy of “catch and release”, where instead of detaining people and families crossing the border, they are instructed to report to a hearing at some point in the future, which most people never attend. According to that poll, 64% of Hispanics support the policies we are using now and even the ones we had before under Trump. That is to say that 64% of Hispanics support either detaining the families together or separating the parents from the children.
 
Surely, these are devastating numbers for the Left. The only reason they pressed Trump so hard about the separation of children at the border is to virtue signal and pretend they are friends of Hispanics. They are not.
 
They are only friends to illegal immigrants. To those who will vote for them in elections if they can get away with it or if they can make it legal, which is an unconstitutional proposal.
 
They are only friends to those who are willing to vote for them or rather, who are suckered into voting for them. They pretend to be friends of Hispanics, friends of African Americans, friends of gay people, but the minute any one of them deviates from the slave plantations of Leftist thought, they become the enemy of the Left.
 
Whenever they see a conservative black man or woman, they have no problem calling them the N-word. Whenever they see a conservative Hispanic, they have no problem making racist remarks. Whenever they see a conservative gay person, they have no problem throwing the F-word at them.
 
The reason for this is that they have the mentality that these demographics all belong to the Left. They believe black people must vote Democrat, despite the fact that Democrats have gone to war to keep them slaves. They believe Hispanics must vote Democrat for the simple fact that Democrats want open borders and want to bring in more Hispanics. They believe gay people must vote Democrat because they were the ones who fought against the Christian belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
 
The Left fundamentally believes that all non-white people belong to them. It’s the same old pre-emancipation mentality that they hold. And whenever one of us escapes their plantation, they attack us and call us traitors to the “cause” or traitors to our demographic. They do this to conservative women too.
 
But when you get down to it, just what is that “cause”? Why are we “traitors” to our demographic? Is that “cause” the cause of turning America less white? First of all, good luck with that. According to a 2017 census, 76.6% of the population in America is White, with African Americans constituting 13.4%, Native Americans 1.3%, Asians 5.8% and Hispanics 18.1%. Second of all, what purpose does it serve to make America less white?
 
To the Left, making America less white means making America more Leftist and liberal. Again, the Left believes they own the non-white vote. If they can make most of America non-white, that will somehow translate into making America more Leftist.
 
Everything they do is about race, isn’t it? They’ve demonized white people to the point the New York Times has hired an anti-white racist to their editorial board who wishes to see white people go extinct. The Left simply can’t let go of their racist heritage. It’s in their DNA to hate other people for the slightest deviation in what they consider acceptable.
 
Now, I promised I would return to the topic of the Left believing Hispanics want to turn America into Mexico or another Latin-American country. As I said, nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because then what would be the point of leaving those countries for America? What would be the point of spending a lot of hard-earned money to legally move to the United States (which, considering currency differences, is quite difficult) if the objective is turning the U.S. into the “s**thole” we just came from?
 
My parents and I, for a long time, wanted to come to the United States. Not for the ridiculous purpose of turning it into Argentina (where we’re from) but for the purpose of experiencing life in the land of opportunity. For the purpose of eventually living the American Dream. For the purpose of living in a free land where the Constitution is a set of rules for the government, not the people. Where the government has a basic set of rules of what it can do with and to people. Where it can’t shut down anyone’s free speech, take away anyone’s right to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property.
 
We wanted to live in a country where the government won’t destroy the economy to the point that it defaults and has to confiscate the money of its citizens (which is literally what happened a little before we left Argentina). We wanted to live in a country that is prosperous. In a country where its economic system is built to lead to prosperity.
 
Why would we (Hispanics) want to turn America into the countries we left? So it’s really not that surprising to see Hispanics from, say, Cuba, be so adamantly against socialism and communism. They know what those things are, know how bad they are and know that they escaped from it and do not want to experience it again, despite how much these numb-skulls say it is different from how it used to be.
 
This is why I am not surprised that legal Hispanic Americans are not too fond of illegal immigrants. We do things the right way. We do things legally. They don’t and yet, they still get priority? Not that we want to be prioritized or compensated or anything. But it makes no logical sense to reward the breaking of the law.
 
I am also not surprised that more and more Hispanics are coming to approve of Trump’s job. He has done far more for the Hispanic and black communities than any Democrat ever has. Although, considering the Democrats fought to keep black people as slaves, they didn’t set the bar too high.
 
Romans 8:28
“And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli