An Age of Darkness

The way I figure it, there are three kinds of citizens in the United States.  I prefer the word “citizen” here rather than “American” because there is a difference.  The three groups are liberals/socialists/democrats (LSDs), “moderates” and conservatives.  I like calling the first group LSDs because it gives us the commonly used initials for Lysergic acid diethylamide, a mind altering drug that this group behaves as if they’re under the influence of, as what they believe, advocate and advance always leads to bizarre outcomes, failure and destruction.  They continually validate Einstein’s definition of insanity of doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

“Moderates”, so called, are a different breed all together and probably the most aggravating because they generally seem to be the sort of people who are incapable of developing any sort of inner conviction about anything.  We know LSDs are nuts and are so far subsumed into their collective that there’s little hope for them.  On rare occasions will one escape the mental programming and flee the plantation.

Liberals advance FEAR in order to win converts.  Fear of climate, fear of capitalism as it “leaves people behind”, fear of “racism”, fear of an assault on women, fear of conservatives.  This fear leaves its mark on the liberal cult members and the “moderates”.  Fear is what motivates them as opposed to anger which tends to motivate conservatives, anger that liberals are destroying our nation.

Moderates, out of fear, will gravitate to whoever appears to offer a solution to whatever fear has a grip on them at the moment.  The problem with dealing with moderates is that more often than not, they will side with the politician who has the least painful “solution” to the problem, or more correctly, the least painful solution to themselves.  The best motto for a moderate is “out of sight, out of mind”.

It must be realized the moderates do very little if any investigation into issues because they would prefer to just bury the issue.  Moderates are the ones who prefer to dope up on anti-depressants, tune out and pretend that problems really don’t exist, or at least they don’t want to be bothered by them.

Take any issue.  “Everybody” seems to believe that man is destroying the planet.  Thus fear is instilled that we are turning our planet into an inhabitable one like Venus where run-a-way “warming” has created surface temperatures that melt lead, greater than 800 degrees Fahrenheit.  Polar bears are dying, the ice is melting, our coasts will be underwater in the meantime.  Of course, none of this is true, but the poor moderate is bombarded with these fantastical tales constantly and thus come to believe that, indeed, the sky truly is falling.

The moderate view on warming is simple, they really have no skin in the game.  They refuse to understand the true motive of the warmers since that invites conflict and anxiety and they really don’t care where their electrical power comes from as long as their light switch works.  The simplest way to deal with the warming issue is simply to go along with the warmers just to get them to shut up if nothing else.

Moderates have no idea of what our nation will look like once reliable and cheap power sources are taken off line.  Even a superficial investigation into man caused global warming will quickly reveal that it is a hoax perpetrated by western socialists in order to gain control and power over our lives.  Control our energy, control our modern lives.

They will be the first ones screaming when the cities go dark and the denizens start burning them down.  Fortunately, only a small percentage of Americans believe warming is a very serious issue, about 25 percent, with another 25 percent or so who believe that man is contributing to some warming.  As long as it is an issue, moderates will tend to side with the warmers.

On social issues, moderates side with the liberals much for the same reason, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Moderates are easily swayed by pseudo-scientific, pseudo-sociological and pseudo-economic (Keynesian) arguments.  Few conservatives and certainly no moderates truly understand the liberal movement and the attempt at a  coup that has been afoot in this nation.

Morally, spiritually and culturally speaking we can trace our current situation to events of a century ago.  Theological liberalism landed on our shores by the late 1800’s and by the 1930’s, this anti-biblical, liberal theology had captured most of our protestant denominations.  The Great Depression and World War II in many ways dampened it, but during the 1950’s the nation began a rapid drift from its founding ethos, principles and fealty to a biblical God and the age of materialism began.  The American economy was booming in peacetime, jobs were plentiful and the first generation of baby boomers, rather than being subjected to hardship and or discipline that builds character, were pampered and spoiled.

Theological liberalism, does among a number of adverse things, divorces what they believe to be the “real” world from the ethereal world of the spiritual.  Liberalism breaks the true connection that exists between a true God and his creation, man.  By the 1960’s, the “God is dead” movement was in full swing.  The opening paragraph on the movement from Wikipedia sums it up very well,

—“Is God Dead?” was an April 8, 1966, cover story for the news magazine Time. A previous article, from October 1965, had investigated a trend among 1960s theologians to write God out of the field of theology. The 1966 article looked in greater depth at the problems facing modern theologians, in making God relevant to an increasingly secular society. Modern science had eliminated the need for religion to explain the natural world, and God took up less and less space in people’s daily lives. The ideas of various scholars were brought in, including the application of contemporary philosophy to the field of theology, and a more personal, individual approach to religion.—

So, as God was losing “relevance to an increasingly secular society” by the 1960’s, we witnessed the “revolution” of that decade.  The boomers, now of age, and a significant number thoroughly secularized, had lost their way.  Their minds could not tolerate the contradictions of their lives.  Without religion, without Christianity, where were the higher ideals?  Where were the higher standards?  Where were the goals, where was the meaning of life itself?

It was and isn’t necessary to say there is no God (atheism), it was only necessary to say that God does not care about nor is he involved in the affairs of man; God has his domain and mankind has its (deism).  It has as a result the deleterious effect of reducing man to despair, simply because he doesn’t see a God attempting to interact with his creation in a personal way.  Man does not reject this truth in a vacuum, there are consequences to suffer as a result.  Man loses his sense of worth and meaning.  Being told he is nothing special, that he is merely a speck of nothingness in an immense materialistic universe has the effect of convincing him that he is of no value.

Whether he knows it or not, he then engages in his own “individual approach to religion” in an attempt to attain a higher meaning to life by attempting to make something of himself because he can’t stand the nothingness into which his own belief system has cast him.  They proclaim as Lucifer did once upon a time, “I will be like the Most High”.  This has led to all of the various radical ism’s that we are confronted with today.

Homosexuality, radical feminism, transgenderism and all of the sexual deviations and even racism are all cries to be heard, to have the right to be an individual in their culture of despair.  I suspect that many of our deranged “mass killers” (almost all of them, by the way, belonging to the liberal “camp”) perform their final deed of killing as many innocents as possible simply to be seen, to be validated as a real person.  As they pull the trigger they are in effect screaming, “I am my own god, I am here, I exist, I am real, I have meaning”.

In the remarks above describing the God is Dead movement, notice the critical words, “application of contemporary philosophy”.  The “contemporary philosophy”, while always existing throughout human history to some extent, we can trace to the European mainland philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries who institutionalized the belief that God was dead.

That group ranged from atheists who totally rejected the notion of God, to deists who at least allowed that there may have been a creator but was now silent, and further, rejected any supernatural intrusion into the affairs of man.  If man was to improve, then he would have to do it himself.  These teachings provided much of the philosophical undergirding of the French Revolution and wormed its way into Christian theology over the next century, particularly in protestant Germany.  As stated above, this corrupt theology reached America, corrupted the Churches, corrupted much of the American citizenry and began bearing its damaged fruit in the 1960’s.

What was viewed as something new, was simply the end product of something that began nearly three centuries earlier.  Those corrupted by it replaced God with the “individual experience” or as the quote above states, replaced a faith in a biblical God with “a more personal, individual approach to religion”.  Christian orthodoxy was replaced with whatever it took – mysticism, sex, drugs and rock and roll, in order to fill the void left by the rejection of spiritual truth in an endeavor to seek meaning.

The rejection of True Truth, made the minds fertile ground for everything else, which would logically then be things that are not true.  The past things that were held as true, right, good and beneficial were replaced with things that were not true, were wrong and detrimental.  Wrong in all areas, that’s why liberalism never works.  Detrimental in the sense that not only is truth ignored and shoved aside, but evil is embraced and our nation began its rapid descent into moral darkness and choas over the next half century to today and now on course for eventual oblivion.  The great error of America isn’t, as bad as this is, a rejection of God, but rather now it actively is an enemy of God.  It is one thing to be neutral concerning God, and another entirely to work to destroy God and any Christian influence that exists in America.

The DNC knew what is was doing when it took God out of its party platform in 2012.  As you recall He was only put back in after it made the news and democrats were roundly criticized.  It’s not that the democrats were much on honoring God anyway, the platform’s only mention of God in 2008 was “We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

As ABC News reported at the time,

“Moments after convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa gaveled in day two of the Democratic Convention, the hall burst into chaos as Democrats voted to amend their party’s platform to include the word “God” and name Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Villaraigosa called the vote three times. The first two voice votes, which require a two-thirds majority to pass, were tied between “ays” and “nos.” On the third vote it was still hard to tell whether the “ays” were audibly louder than the “nays” in the half-full arena.

When Villaraigosa announced “the ays have it,” loud boos erupted across the arena.“

Other onlookers reported that the Nos overwhelmed the Ays and in no wise did the Ays come close to the 2/3rds required.  God, even as pitiful a reference as it was, was put back in at the insistence of Barry Obama who realized the negative impact this move to totally remove any reference to God had.  While the democrat party is a coalition of disparate groups, most of whom are Godless, they aren’t all like that.  Millions of blacks,  Hispanics and dumbed down whites who are enslaved on the democrat plantation are people of faith.

Getting back on point, this is where we find the moral and spiritual state of America today.  True liberals, the children of the ‘60’s are nothing more than godless heathens – materialist, hedonistic, despisers of the truths of God and bent on the transformation of America in order to control all levers of power.  Moderates are functionally near identical but lack the intensity of liberals on these issues.

Liberals are rigid ideologues who work tirelessly to advance their godless philosophies and Moderates just don’t want to have intrusions by the issues of the day into their lives that make them feel uncomfortable.  Moderates have no sense of discernment, no sense of wisdom to carefully weigh options and draw logical conclusions, therefore they always take the paths of least resistance.

In order to win over moderates, conservatives must approach them from an emotional angle, or at least understand that moderates will evaluate and react emotionally.  You must convince the “soccer moms” that you won’t get little Johnny (and now Janie, thanks to Obama) killed in a war.

You must convince them that you really don’t hate minorities, that you only put America and our minorities first and really don’t see any need to overrun their communities with the dregs of the third world.  Conservatives must realize that moderates are typically incapable of decision making and may vacillate between a radical leftist like Barry Obama and a decent, though flawed Romney up to the very day of election.  They cannot understand the great gulf that exists between the two camps and why it exists.  “Can’t we just all get along”, is their motto, not realizing that the differences between liberals and conservatives are irreconcilable.

Our third and remaining group are the conservatives.  How do you go about defining modern American conservatism?

Wikipedia gives an opening definition that just about sums it up, at least for me anyway.

Historically, the central themes in American conservatism have included respect for American traditions, support of republicanism and the rule of law, Judeo-Christian values, anti-Communism, advocacy of American exceptionalism and a defense of Western civilization from perceived threats posed by moral relativism, multiculturalism, and postmodern ridicule of traditional culture. Liberty is a core value, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market, and opposition to high taxes and government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur.

The wiki article goes on to quote William F. Buckley who at one time was just about the only conservative voice in America on a national stage.  In the first issue of his magazine, “National Review” in 1955 he defined his conservative movement as-

Among our convictions:

It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.

So, to list these traits of American conservatism we find –

1)  Respect, modellings one’s life after American traditions.

2)  Support for our constitutional government as created and intended by our founders.

3)  The rule of law, every citizen should be treated equally under it and that all law should have the consent of the governed.

4)  Judeo-Christian values.  Our nation was founded by Christians for Christians and it was these values that compelled our revolt against England.

5)  Anti-communistic.  Communism was the great enemy of our nation for many decades.  America fought a long hard cold war and some hot wars to stop its encroachment upon the world against nation enemies such as the Soviet Union, China and North Korea as well as our domestic enemies the liberals who have much more in common with commies than traditional Americans.

6)  Conservatives are proud of our country and see no need to “transform” it.  By nearly any standard, America is exceptional, not as Obama would proclaim just as any other nation considers itself exception, but truly exceptional and unique.

7)  Conservatives are opposed to forces attempting to destroy what America is and represents.  Conservatives, therefore, oppose moral relativism, multiculturalism, and postmodern ridicule of traditional culture.

8)  Conservatives do defend the free market, entrepreneurism against government intrusion and growth beyond constitutional boundaries.

The plight of Christianity today in America reminds me of a Star Trek episode, “Who mourns for Adonais”.  On a routine expedition to a planet called Pollux IV, they encounter a very powerful being who had visited earth with others of his kind thousands of years in the past and were worshipped by the Greeks as their gods.  Only Apollo remained as the others had long departed this plane of existence.

Upon encountering this group of earthlings, Apollo believed he could force them to stay on the planet, populate it.  Apollo promised to meet their needs and be a benevolent god.  All Apollo demanded was their worship, but humanity had outgrown its need for a god.  Kirk and his landing party weakened Apollo to the point that he suffered defeat at their hands and decided to join the other gods who had been long departed.

“I would have cherished you.  Cared for you.  I would have loved you as a father loves his children.  Did I ask so much?”  Apollo

“We’ve outgrown you, you’ve asked for something we can no longer give.” Kirk

Apollo then addresses his kind,

“you were right, there is no room for gods”, then asks them to “take him” into the plane they now inhabited and he slowly disappears.

McCoy “I wish we hadn’t had to do this”.

Kirk “So do I, they gave us so much, the Greek civilization, much of our culture and civilization came from a worship of these beings.  In a way, they began the golden age.  Would it have hurt us, I wonder, just to have gathered a few laurel leaves?”

My point is that even the non-Christian, who shudders to see America crashing and burning in every direction, should recognize the importance of Christianity to our once great culture and be willing to “gather a few laurel leaves”.  Now that culture is shattered.  The democrats have worked tirelessly to destroy it.  It, more than anything else is their target, because they know they gain power by fracturing what was once a monolithic nation that honored god and forging the various groups they’ve convinced are disenfranchised into a voting block motivated by hatred, envy and class warfare.

Western Europe, America and the rest of the Christianized west have lost much by forsaking Christianity.  Even for the sake of argument, if we allow that God doesn’t exist our nation and our culture sacrifices what made it what it was.  When John Adams observed that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”, what exactly did he mean by that?  He meant, our founders meant, that the newly formed central government of the fledgling United States of America was never intended to micromanage the lives of its citizens.

The 18 enumerated powers we find in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution severely limited the new central government.  Those powers mainly provided for the new government to conduct international affairs, regulate certain activities between the states to ensure a level playing field between them and as touching the individual citizen, citizenship and bankruptcy laws.

The founders, or certainly the anti-federalists who appeared to have their way with the constitution and the additional Bill of Rights, had no intent of ever allowing the new government to overly meddle in the lives of its citizens.  The constitution was intended to allow the freest citizenry on earth.  However, radical individual “liberty” to do anything one may choose to do leads to anarchy.  Therefore, as the culture was Christian at the time of the conception of the new nation and it was unthinkable that it would never be so, the founders intended then that the civilian institutions would compel the citizenry to conform to uniform societal standards based on  Christian teachings found in the Bible.

As the nation has drifted from its moorings over the past century, first the people forgot what freedom was and then became ever so willing to turn more and more control over their lives to the government.  As conformity to religious ideals faded to be replaced by decadence and vice, the government has been eager to step in and fill the void.  America traded constructive freedom for the balls and chains of government.

What did Obama truly mean when he said he was about to “transform” America?  Let’s define “transform”.  From the Merriam-Webster dictionary we find this rather chilling definition –

-to change in composition or structure

-to change the outward form or appearance of

-to change in character or condition

Now, I will concede that America is in dire need of repair.  Returning to our Christian and constitutional roots would cure, almost overnight most of our problems or at least get us back on the road to recovery.  However, I think all would agree that that was not what Obama had in mind when he spoke of his upcoming transformational agenda.  Obama has roundly criticized biblical Christianity and our constitution.  He believes the constitution is seriously flawed.  He decried the fact that the constitution was a document that limited government, as he put it,

“But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

Liberals, certainly including Obama and Hillary, would have been much more at home participating in the French Revolution than the American one.  Liberals believe the government should guarantee property, a “living wage”, and the necessities of life in total contradiction to the American experiment of merely providing an equal playing field to allow one’s own talents and gifts to take one as far as one can go.  They believe in as much government as possible, a “nanny” state, cradle to grave care, along the lines portrayed by  the Obama campaign’s fictional characters depicting the typical American drones known as “Julia” and “pajama boy” cared for by the beneficent government under the careful guidance of liberals.

Obama’s opposition to biblical Christianity is so well known and documented, there’s no need to go into great detail here, just do a search on the subject and read away, you will remember many of Obama’s episodes and the objections from true Christians over his outbursts.  To list just a few of his beliefs you will find, we note the following –

-He doesn’t believe the bible is inspired.

-He believes man evolved from lower life forms and rejects the biblical account of creation.

-Obviously he is the most powerful advocate for sex deviants and the confused.

-He attended a Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years.  BLT is nothing but Marxism disguised in the trappings of religion.  Feel free to read up on that movement.

-He doesn’t know if there really is an afterlife.

-He believes that man is “saved” based on how he treats his fellow man.

-He believes that all religions are valid and simply worship god in their own ways but will all end up in heaven (apparently if one actually exists at all).

-Obama never criticizes “Islam” and always defends it against Christianity which he never misses an opportunity to criticize.

There’s much more to learn about Obama’s religious beliefs but rest assured, when using terms familiar to us such as “bible”, “God”, “Jesus Christ”, “baptized”, etc he means something entirely different from any sense an orthodox Christian understands them, i.e. God hates white people, Jesus was black and any god not “down for the struggle” is no God, according to Jeremiah Wright and Black Liberation Theology.

Understand that Obama and his merry band of LSD associates do have every intention of changing the “composition” and “outward form” of America by importing as many third world socialist democrat voters as possible.  He is changing the “structure” of America by creating an imperial presidency presiding over a nanny state and the worst, he is changing the “character” of America from a prosperous and free society to a European style totalitarian bureaucracy or technocracy, from a nation with at least nominal moral standards based on Judeo-Christianity by advancing atheism, depravity and hedonism.

I’ll close with a chilling assessment of Barry Obama, who does well represent the democrat party, by Deborah C. Tyler who authored an article for the website Americanthinker.com, entitled, “Why People Can’t Face the Truth About Obama”, December 28, 2015.  I would encourage you to read the entire article.

“…The antecedents of Barack Obama’s hatred of America are now well understood. Obama was groomed from the womb to abhor this white majority, predominantly Christian, free enterprise Republic.  From his expatriate, capitalism-hating mother, from his alcoholic Communist father and his perv Communist mentor, detesting America was in his mother’s milk and the blood in his veins…

America is Barack Obama’s prey. He is tearing America apart and feeding the pieces of her life to his foreign and domestic fellow travelers.  He is not transforming the nation but terminating it.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/why_people_cant_face_the_truth_about_obama_.html#ixzz3yUutP6it

The Democrats Advance by Hate

The root of the liberal belief system appears to be nurtured by hate and rationalization. Once a person is convinced to hate something or someone, there is the real tendency to believe everything bad about that thing or person and rationalize away anything good about it or him and further rationalize away the deleterious results of liberal polices and its belief system.

We see this played out continually in politics and how democrat voters react. We know the collapse of 2008 can be traced directly to democrat policy, we know that the Bush administration made several attempts to rein in the banks but couldn’t get past the democrat/Rino firewall. We know that Obama wasted a trillion dollars worth of goodies in TARP that he inherited from Bush. Yet, we still hear all the time that its “Bush’s fault”. Bush has been a great scapegoat for Obama and a convenient base for rationalization by the dolt democrats/liberals.

While we intellectually grasp and bemoan the state of our education system, I think we underestimate its effects. It churns out continually, graduates who are programmed to hate conservatism, hate traditional America and embrace liberalism and the democrat party. Allowing such a system to shape the minds of our young is arguably the greatest systemic problem we have. Or perhaps more correctly, it is the most open and visible result of the spiritual collapse of the nation. Liberal theology came first and paved the way for political and social liberalism. They all go hand in hand.

A child from an ungrounded godless home, bombarded for 12 to 20 years in an education system that continually inculcates the thoughts that America is an unfair, greedy and racist nation, that there is no real standard of morality, rather the individual can do what is right in his own eyes and have the right to do it will always have a default position to rationalize away reality, embrace the liberal solution and reject truth, conservatives and conservatism.

Add to this, the media, Hollywood, television, nearly all newsprint and just social peer pressure and there we have it, the perfect liberalized drones, incapable of rational thought, incapable of logically evaluating the world around him. All that’s necessary to keep these proles on the plantation is to offer views that at least sound half way plausible and attack, attack and attack conservatives and truth. Democrats are very good at this, there is no difference really than what they do and cult programming. That’s why the democrat party is a cult, a large one, but one just the same.

What is the Proper Response to the Homosexual Agenda

A recent ABC poll about religious beliefs found that 83 percent of Americans identify with Christianity.  The next largest was 13 percent who claim no religious preference or are atheists, the remaining four percent are Jews, and other adherents of various world religions.  An interesting follow up question would be, “what is Christianity”?  What founding documents would we use in order to define Christianity?

Most manufactured things have a manual.  If you buy a new appliance, a manual comes with it that explains how it works, how to troubleshoot when problems arise, how to perform maintenance, how to order repair parts, etc.  Of what benefit would a manual be for a refrigerator to understand the workings of a toaster?  Or a manual for a half-ton, Chevrolet 4×4 truck to understand the workings of a Honda dirt bike?  Or a manual for an Armalite AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to understand a Mossberg 12 gauge pump shot gun?  Obviously, the manual must be exactly for the thing it attempts to explain or describe.

When we consider the world’s religions, the muslims have their Koran, the Jews have their Torah -the first five books of the “Old Testament”, the Nevi’im -the OT books of the prophets, and the Ketuvim -the remaining OT writings.  Additionally, the Jews have the Talmud which basically reflects the beliefs and practices of the Pharisees we encounter in the New Testament, especially after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.  Christians have what we call the Bible, made up of the Old and New Testament.  The Roman Catholics have a few more books that have been removed as uninspired by most protestant denominations.  The additional books in contention are mainly historical in nature and don’t add or subtract from what we would consider doctrinal orthodoxy.

What is the value of the Bible?  I maintain it is the “manual” for Christianity.  I maintain that true Christianity cannot be divorced from the manual and that the manual is authoritative.  Why must the Bible, the scriptures, be held as authoritative?  The answer is simple, because it claims to be.  If we allow that any part of it is untrue, then we depart from a solid base to one of shifting sands.  We leave what can be understood as absolute truth, to relative “truth” based on what any given individual says is truth.  We totally lose any basis for defining God and understanding God’s message, if one exists at all, to mankind.

Considering what the Scriptures themselves say about themselves leaves one with only two options.  It is true and of supernatural origins, or they were created in the minds of men and have no special standing other than the moral value, if any, one may place on them.  The first option forces us to accept it as it claims and the second allows to us reject part or all of it and view it no differently than we would any other writings from antiquity, or any other time for that matter.

Our first option provides the basis to define and know God, the second allows us to fashion a God of our own imagination.  Another factor the latter view would inject is that the various human authors of the scriptures were liars or delusional as they claimed their message originated from God.  Not exactly a great beginning if the second choice is followed.  Following delusional men engaged in a grandiose scheme to proclaim God has given them a message leaves virtually everything they write as untrustworthy.

So, where do the scriptures claim to be of supernatural origin, claim to be from the mind of God himself?  It is recognized that Moses wrote the first five books of our Bible.  He begins Leviticus by writing,

“And the LORD called unto Moses and spoke to him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,”

Moses began the book of Numbers by saying,

“And the LORD spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the tabernacle of the congregation…saying”,

The book of Joshua begins thusly,

“Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass that the LORD spoke unto Joshua, the son of Nun, Moses’ minister, saying,”

Isaiah begins by stating he has a “vision” (from God) and in the second verse states, “Hear, O heavens and give ear O earth, for the LORD has spoken…”

The first two verses of Jeremiah says, “The words of Jeremiah…to whom the word of the LORD came in the days of Josiah…”

Ezekiel in the first three verses says, “…I saw visions of God…the word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest…”

Hosea, “The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea…”

Joel, “The word of the LORD that came to Joel…”

Obadiah, “The vision of Obadiah.  Thus saith the LORD God concerning Edom;”

Ok, I assume you get my point, over and over again the human writers claimed their words came from God.  Many in the New Testament, including Jesus himself quoted and referred to the Old Testament writings as true and authoritative.

Probably the most definitive passage we find in the New Testament that speaks to the supernatural origin of Old Testament scriptures, as the New Testament was in the making, we find in 2nd Timothy, 3:16 which states that,

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (teachings), for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness”.

There’s a word in the verse in our English translation that loses much of its meaning from the original in Greek.  The word “inspiration” in our English translates the Greek in which it was given which states “God breathed”.  The verse should properly read, “every scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”.  What is the claim made regarding the origins of the scriptures?  That they emanate from God himself.

The Apostle Paul, who humanly authored most of the books of the New Testament, described this process of receiving divine truth from God in I Corinthians, chapter 2.  Beginning at verse 9, Paul writes,

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.  Now God has revealed these things to us by the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God…Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who comes from God, so that we may understand what has been freely given to us by God.  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  But the unbeliever does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated spiritually.”

Verse 9 here is often misapplied, quoted as if the verse speaks of various blessings in store for his people, but the context demands that it is about Paul’s explanation of the origin of the scriptures, including his own writings.  The eye cannot see, nor the ear hear, nor can the heart of man fabricate the God-breathed scriptures.  Paul makes it clear that his words and the scriptures as a whole are given by the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity.

Other than a brief Bible lesson on the inerrancy of the scriptures and their supernatural origin, what is my point here?  How can one claim to be Christian, or identify with Christianity, yet deny the very scriptures of its origin?  True Christianity and a conviction that the word of God is what it claims to be must go hand in hand.

Of course Christians don’t believe the Bible is authoritative simply because it says it is.  The bible has stood the test of time, the true Christian understands that the Bible is truly God’s word and that it is without error, as it was originally written.

I fear that due to the fact that we can find bibles everywhere in America, we treat it as common.  How often do you read it?  Yet, if the Bible is indeed of supernatural origin, then we have a message originally given in 8,674 Hebrew words (this would also include some Aramaic words) and 5,624 Greek words.  Our King James bible has 12,143 English words in translation.  God, the creator of all the universe chose to give us a little over 12 thousand words as our manual for life and for preparation for the next phase of our lives, eternity.  If 83 percent of Americans identify with Christianity, then why do so many ignore the clear teachings of its manual?

One of the most amazing stories I have ever heard of the value and preciousness that the true Christian holds of the scriptures was told by the great Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias.  I had heard this account on one of his broadcasts years ago, and it can be found on the web even today.  His account of a Vietnamese Christian whose faith wavered briefly but God intervened is as follows-

“Throughout history, the Old and New Testaments have shown themselves to be reliable and true; they rise up to outlive their pallbearers, if you will. The following story probably stirs my own confidence in the power of God’s Word and His sovereignty more than any other. Let me share part of it with you today.

I was ministering in Vietnam in 1971, and one of my interpreters was Hien Pham, an energetic young Christian. He had worked as a translator with the American forces, and was of immense help both to them and to missionaries such as myself. Hien and I traveled the length of the country and became very close friends before I returned home. We did not know if our paths would ever cross again. Seventeen years later, I received a telephone call. “Brother Ravi?” the man asked. Immediately, I recognized Hien’s voice, and he soon told me his story.

Shortly after Vietnam fell, Hien was imprisoned on accusations of helping the Americans. His jailers tried to indoctrinate him against democratic ideals and the Christian faith. He was forced to read only communist propaganda in French or Vietnamese, and the daily deluge of Marx and Engels began to take its toll. “Maybe,” he thought, “I have been lied to. Maybe God does not exist. Maybe the West has deceived me.” So Hien determined that when he awakened the next day, he would not pray anymore or think of his faith.

The next morning, he was assigned the dreaded chore of cleaning the prison latrines. As he cleaned out a tin can overflowing with toilet paper, his eye caught what seemed to be English printed on one piece of paper. He hurriedly grabbed it, washed it, and after his roommates had retired that night, he retrieved the paper and read the words, “Romans, Chapter 8.”

Trembling, he began to read, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. … For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:28,38,39). Hien wept. He knew his Bible, and he knew that there was not a more relevant passage for one on the verge of surrender. He cried out to God, asking forgiveness. This was to have been the first day that he would not pray; evidently God had other plans.

As it were, there was an official in the camp who was using a Bible as toilet paper. So Hien asked the commander if he could clean the latrines regularly. Each day he picked up a portion of Scripture, cleaned it off, and added it to his collection of nightly reading.

Then the day came when, through an equally providential set of circumstances, Hien was released from prison. He promptly began to make plans to leave the country and to construct a boat for the escape of him and 53 others. All was going according to plan until days before their departure. Four Vietcong knocked on Hien’s door and said they had heard of his escape. He denied it and they left.

Hien felt relieved, but at the same time disappointed with himself. He made a promise to God—fervently hoping that God would not take him up on it—that if the Vietcong returned, he would tell them the truth. He was thoroughly shaken when only a few hours before they were to set sail, the four men returned. When questioned again, he confessed the truth. To Hien’s astonishment, the men leaned forward and, in hushed tones, asked if they could go with him!

In an utterly incredible escape plan, all 58 of them found themselves on the high seas, suddenly engulfed by a violent storm. Hien cried out to God, “Did you bring us here to die?” But then he said to me, “Brother Ravi, if it were not for the sailing ability of those four Vietcong, we would not have made it.” They arrived safely in Thailand, and years later Hien arrived on American soil where today he is a businessman.” (end  quote)

The Bible means everything to the true Christian and it should mean something to the 83 percent of Americans who claim to be so.   It is not the purpose of this article to offer all of the proof that can be mustered to prove that God’s word is… God’s word.  Ultimately, to the skeptic, we must merely say, that the believer sees the truths of God because he does believe and the unbeliever cannot see because he does not believe.  Jesus actually taught us this principle when he told “doubting” Thomas, “you see me and believe, more blessed are those who do not see me, yet believe”.

Was our nation founded upon Judeo-Christian principles?  Liberals now claim it was not, but their revision of history is more for children and not adults who know better.  It wasn’t too far in the past that American’s true history was taught in our schools.  Our “enlightened” supreme court oligarchs decided it was bad for children to be exposed to the evils of Christianity back in 1962.  Of course many school systems rebelled and even today one sticks its head up on occasion to be whacked off as fast as an atheist or degenerate can get the school’s rebellion before a judge.  For 355 years, from 1607 to 1962 our children studied and read the Bible freely in schools.

Any curious person can read the voluminous writings of our founders to understand what made them “tick”.  In particular, what premium did the founders place on Chistianity and the holy scriptures?  Lifting a few quotes of great Americans who have gone before from usa.church, we read –

“The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.”  (And I would say, the Old Testament also) Samuel Adams

“The United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States … a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.” And “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” – United States Congress 1782

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” John Adams

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty – as well as privilege and interest – of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers…The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.” – John Jay

“He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion (Christianity), and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.” – John Witherspoon

“Education is useless without the Bible. The Bible was America’s basic text book in all fields. God’s Word, contained in the Bible, has furnished all necessary rules to direct our conduct.” – Noah Webster

“And this be our motto, ‘In God is our trust’” – USA National Anthem, Third Verse

Moving on down through the years, other great leaders of America proclaimed their fealty to and appreciation of Christianity and the scriptures.

“[The Bible] is the rock on which our Republic rests.”– Andrew Jackson

“In regards to this great Book [the Bible], I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it.” – Abraham Lincoln

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a Christian nation” – United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892

“I believe that the next half century will determine if we will advance the cause of Christian civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism.” – Theodore Roosevelt, President

“The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.” – Calvin Coolidge

“[The United States is] founded on the principles of Christianity” – Franklin D. Roosevelt, President

“The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.” – Harry S. Truman

“Of the many influences that have shaped the United States into a distinctive nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.” – Ronald Reagan

As we consider the social and moral issues of the day, how should 83 percent of Americans evaluate them?  There was a time not too long past when American law comported with biblical teachings and standards.  After 355 years of being so, the benefit was obvious to our nation.  America has now cast God aside to embrace relativism and we have entered an age when “men do what is right in their own eyes” and insist on their “right” to do so.  For most of the history of America, our nation had a Christian ethos, it defined our culture and obviously served us very well as America lead the world in freedom, opportunity and advancement in nearly all beneficial areas.

The latest assault on American values and the family as well as our standing with God has been the advancement of the homosexual agenda.  Just because five lawyers, our supreme court oligarchs have now mysteriously found a “right” to depravity, that this depravity is good and wholesome, that its perfectly acceptable to advance and foist this “right” upon the rest of the nation, must we acquiesce to the court’s diktat?

There are two ways we should evaluate this scourge upon society.  First and fore-most there is the Judeo-Christian view to be considered, what does God think?  What to the scriptures teach?  Secondly, we should evaluate this assault on society from a medical, both physical and psychological, perspective.  Just how damaging are the contents of this new Pandora’s box that has been opened?

If you believe that God exists and that his Word, what we call the “bible” is really a supernatural message from God, then it should be of the utmost importance to know exactly what God has to say about the subject.

The specific prohibition on the practice of homosexuality is found in the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament and in Romans in the New Testament.  To fully understand the depth of depravity that homosexuality represents, we really need to start with a passage from Genesis, chapter 15.  God had called Abraham (Abram at this time) to a new land, Canaan, and was telling Abram what the future held for his descendants.  God had promised him the land, what would be called Israel and more, that he had called him to and told him that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars he could see in the sky.  Then God told Abram,

“Know this for certain:  your offspring will be strangers in a land (Egypt) that does not belong to them, they will be enslaved and oppressed for 400 years.  However, I will judge the nation they serve and afterwards they will go out with many possessions.  But you will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a ripe old age.  In the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

Who were these Amorites?  The Amorites were the primary inhabitants of Canaan (Israel) at that time.  While there were other groups or “nations” named later, God appeared to be using the name Amorites all inclusively.  God was informing Abram that his descendants would spend four centuries in Egypt, as slaves, but would eventually return to this land.  God though, was also foretelling the doom of the current occupants of the land he was giving Abram.

At the moment of this conversation, God told Abram that the Amorites and the others were a sinful people, yet their sins had “not yet reached its full measure”.  God was implying that four hundred years later, their sin would reach full measure.  Full measure for what?  Full measure that this group of people would be fit for destruction.  That God’s mercy he had and would continue to extend to these people for four centuries would come to an end.

It is sad to reflect on the possibility that an entire people, a nation, can be so steeped in sin and rebellion against God that God pronounces and affects its complete destruction.  One might quibble over the actual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, were they destroyed for rampant homosexuality as is commonly thought and strongly implied by the scriptures or for other gross sins, so that they, like the Amorites had expended the measure of mercy that God had been willing to extend toward them?

With the Amorites and the others infesting Canaan who God names later, there is absolutely no doubt, because God tells Moses, what the sins were that God considered and determined the end of their existence.  God’s reason that time had run out, that the measure of sin was “full” nearly 430 years after the conversation with Abram.

We find these sins recorded in Leviticus, chapter 18 –

“Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her.  And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God, I am the LORD.  You shall not lie with a man as with a woman.  It is an abomination.  Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it.  Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it.  It is perversion.  Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these, the nations (The Amorites and others)  are defiled, which I am casting out before you.  For the land is defiled, therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.”

There are five specific sins listed here that God had had enough of.  The sins that filled the measure of their iniquities were adultery, child sacrifice to Molech (a false God), profaning (making common) the name of your God (Yahweh), homosexuality and bestiality.  Witchcraft and sorcery are also listed elsewhere as being common in the land.

For these sins God was Just in destroying these people and at the same time allowing his people, the Jews, who had fled Egypt, to occupy the land that God had given to their father Abraham.  God was using the Jews as the instrument of his judgment upon these depraved peoples, just as he used the Assyrians 800 years later to conquer a rebellious Israel (the northern ten tribes) and a century after that, Babylon, who God used to conquer a rebellious and sinful Judah (the southern two tribes including its capital, Jerusalem).

As Joshua led the children of Israel into this promised land, God ordered them to utterly destroy the inhabitants, men, women and children, all who resisted them.  God didn’t order the Jews to chase them if they fled, just as long as they did flee.

Since liberals go ballistic when Israel defends itself today against the aggressive, barbarian and murderous muslim foes who surround it, it’s no wonder they’re always quick to point out what they perceive in their self-induced ignorance as some equivalency between these muslim savages today and ancient Israel acting under God’s direction.  What they fail to consider is the truth of God’s Mercy.

Mercy means, “withholding judgment that is due” or “compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one’s power.”  Mercy exists between two parties, one party is all powerful and the other party has no power whatsoever.  Mercy flows only one way, from the all- powerful to the powerless.  A criminal before a judge can receive mercy.  The judge can, totally at his discretion, give a lighter sentence than what is deserved by the criminal.

Every human being who has ever lived drew the next breath simply due to the mercy of God.  God had warned Adam that the day he sinned, he would surely die.  When Adam sinned, he then existed day by day solely due to the mercy of God, there were no guarantees.  Yet Adam, who was created as an eternal being, both spiritually and physically, now had an appointment with death.  From the elements of the earth his physical body was created, and those elements would ultimately return to the earth.

This relationship of mercy between God and man is operative today with every human being, especially the unsaved.  Its critical to understand that the natural man has no “rights” with God, no leverage with God.  The only relationship between a perfect, holy and righteous God and fallen man is that man exists strictly due to the mercy, patience, tolerance and forbearance of God.  The just judgment against mankind, God- the righteous judge, had already rendered – guilty;  the sentence – death, both physical and spiritual.

Fortunately, there was a remedy for man’s undone condition.  God taught and showed Adam that man could escape his dark destiny of separation from God in eternal torment.  God showed Adam that a sacrifice could be offered on his behalf, the innocent would pay the price for the guilty.  God himself slew an innocent animal to clothe Adam and Eve after their first sin to hide their nakedness.

Adam’s first son’s Cain and Able understood the need for an offering, Able the correct one, an innocent animal – a blood sacrifice, Cain in rebellion offered the fruits of his own labors, vegetables of his field.  We see that Noah knew to sacrifice animals, Abraham knew also.  God gave The Law to Moses which gave thorough details about the various offerings and animal sacrifices.  All that would be “right” with God knew and did sacrifice animals to shed their blood to cover their sins.

Of course these animal sacrifices were a “type” of or represented the ultimate blood sacrifice that would be made, that is by God, the Son, as he shed his blood on the cross.  In the book of Romans, God tells us that he viewed the old testament believers as “saved” on credit, that God exercised patience and allowed the blood of animals to cover sins, to “hide” sins from his gaze until the day came when Jesus, the ultimate lamb, gave his blood, not to cover, but to wash away all sins of those of all time who believed.

The Old Testament believers had an understanding of this.  Jesus said that Abraham could see his day and was glad.  Job, said that he knew he would see his redeemer in his flesh, thus confirming the ancient’s belief and understanding that first, there would be a redeemer and that there would be a bodily resurrection.

God gave the “law” to Moses for two purposes.  First and fore-most to define sin, which means simply “missing the mark”, an archery term.  Any thought, any action or any inaction that missed the bull’s eye, that is, Godly perfection, misses the mark and is sin.  We think of the ten commandments which God wrote on tablets of stone as the law.  While these “tablets of stone” are often used synonymously for “the law”, the “law of Moses” also incorporated hundreds of other laws and ordinances that regulated the social and religious life of Israel found in the books of Exodus and Leviticus.

The second purpose was to prove once sin was defined that all men are sinners.  Paul calls the law the “schoolmaster” or teacher that would clearly demonstrate or prove that all men are sinners.  No person can honestly say that they have kept  the law, obeyed continually the ten commandments.  The law proves guilt.

The prohibition against homosexuality already noted above in Leviticus, chapter 18 is repeated in chapter 20, verse 13 saying,

“If a man also lie with mankind as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:  they shall surely be put to death, their blood shall be upon them.”

While some liberals, who feign religiosity, rationalize and say that the old testament laws and prohibitions aren’t operative any longer, that Christ fulfilled the law and that it now has no value, claim that a loving God accepts their homosexual lifestyles.  Paul, in the book of Romans completely blows that nonsense out of the water when he pens the words,

“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.  Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the created more than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen.  Because of this, God gave them up to vile affections.  Their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving unto themselves that recompense of their error which was fit.  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do things which are morally wrong…who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death…”  Can it be any clearer?  To believe otherwise is to subvert the clear teachings of the Christian “manual”.

The word antichrist is found only five times in the scriptures, 4 times in 1 John and once in 2 John.  We never get from these five uses of the word much of an understanding or definition for The Anti-Christ who many Christians believe will shortly arrive on the scene to plunge the world into a seven year tribulation period as human history as we’ve known it comes to a close.  This “Anti-Christ” however is known by many other names and titles we encounter in the prophetic scriptures – the man of sin, the son of perdition, the lawless one, the beast, the prince that shall come, etc.

John speaks however of the spirit of antichrist as existing in his time and would be in existence until the Anti-Christ would come,

“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world.”— 1 John 4:2–3  

Of interest and relevancy to our discussion is the actual meaning of the Greek word or prefix translated “anti”.  Anti as we use the word means “opposed to” or “against”.  The Greek meaning is a bit more nuanced meaning “instead of”, “in place of” or a “substitution for”.  When the real man, the antichrist does come, he won’t come resembling his father Satan but will appear as a wonder worker, a knight in shining armor, bringing peace to a war ravaged world…for a little while until his true nature is revealed.

He will come to power proclaiming “he is the one we’ve been waiting for” and stirring the fawning crowds to scream, “yes we can!”.  He may even promise to stop the oceans from rising.  He will have all of the answers for the world’s problems.  Most of the world will accept him as the messiah, as the Christ, but just as Jesus described the Pharisees, he will be like a white sepulcher, beautiful on the outside, but on the inside, only the stench of destruction and death.

Likewise, so many of the “83 percent” of Americans who claim Christianity as their religion, subvert the scriptures, their “manual”, and “instead of” standing on what the scriptures very clearly teach concerning homosexuality, they pervert it.   “In place of” the truth, they “substitute” a lie.  Rather than standing firm on what has been called “true truth”, they embrace a “christianity” of their own creation which in reality, is nothing but anti-Christianity.

Now let’s turn our attention to the second aspect of our opposition to homosexuality, the medical reasons.  Another article on this site lists some startling facts released by the Canadian health care system early last year.  Their studies resulted in findings that homosexuals were multiple times more likely to commit suicide, to be drug and alcohol addicted, to suffer from depression and to suffer from HIV and other STD infections than heterosexuals.

I commented on those findings that if the FDA was to evaluate a drug or foodstuff that caused all of those serious problems the product would be banned.  Yet our nation has now decided, or at least five of our oligarchs decided for us, to foist this depravity upon us as good, wholesome, protected and even advanced with the force of law.

Our own CDC has statistics and conclusions, current as of September of 2015, about homosexuals that seem to be in keeping with the Canadian report –

-However, compared to other men, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men are additionally affected by:

  • Higher rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs);
  • Tobacco and drug use;
  • Depression

-There are many reasons why gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men may have higher rates of HIV and STDs. Some of them are:

  • Prevalence of HIV among sexual partners of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men is 40 times that of sexual partners of heterosexual men;
  • Receptive anal sex is 18 times more risky for HIV acquisition than receptive vaginal sex;
  • Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men on average have a greater number of lifetime sexual partners.

-In fact, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men make up more than half of the people living with HIV in the United States and experience two thirds of all new HIV infections each year. Further, young gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men 13-24 had over 72% of the estimated new HIV infections in 2010. In 2012, 75% of reported syphilis cases were among gay and bisexual men.  (End quotes from CDC)

So, once again, is this lifestyle something to glorify?  I don’t think so, what rational person would.  The supreme court oligarchs struck down sodomy laws on the books of 14 states in 2003 in the Lawrence vs Texas case and of course, last year opened the flood gate and basically dictated that sodomites were essentially a protected minority class entitled to all the benefits of society at large.

Americans, by and large, are pretty much live and let live sorts of people.  Historically, homosexuals haven’t been drug out of their homes by police and burned at the stake.  About the only known government actions against homosexuals are very few.  In 1970, the state of Connecticut refused to grant a driver’s license.  In 1986, the supreme court heard the Bowers v. Hardwick case where a homosexual had been arrested for engaging in homosexual sex in his home.  The Court ruled against him.  Then things began to change when the court legalized sodomy nationally with the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003.

The final nail was put in the coffin of the biblical moral standard that had held sway over our nation for centuries and was put to rest last year when the Court ruled in the Obergefell v. Hodges case that homosexuals could marry, that states must recognize these marriages performed in other states and jurisdictions.  They ruled that failure to do so, violated the 14th Amendment, an amendment intended to give citizenship rights and equal protections under the law to former slaves who had just been freed.  My, my, what liberal judges can do with words.

The issue here isn’t that we had a law on the books that was almost totally ignored.  The issue and point is that at least we as a nation had standards that rested on God’s standards.  A don’t ask, don’t tell policy served our nation very well.  Our nation still stood on truth, at least on paper, rather than moving in direct opposition to God.  The value of the sodomy laws was that they defined homosexuality for what it was, an evil to be shunned.  They at least, provided a basis for attempting to cure the problem, whether through religious or applying possible mental health therapies.  Now, the gate is open nationwide to implement the 2012 California style ban on any therapeutic attempts to rescue minors from the scourge of this mental and spiritual affliction.

The homosexual community, numbering a few million, make up a valuable component of the democrat party coalition.  Their value to democrats are two-fold.  Many homosexuals are very wealthy, very influential in Hollywood, are big contributors to the democrat party and about 86 percent of them vote democrat.  A very reliable member of team democrat.  Their second purpose is their usefulness in destroying the Judeo-Christian roots of the nation.  We already see their assault on businesses who refuse, due to religious reasons, to participate in their marriage ceremonies.  Only America is left in all the west where speaking out against the sin of homosexuality is legal, in all others it is considered “hate” speech and is a prosecutable offense.

In conclusion, I would ask the 83 percent of Americans who claim to identify with Christianity as their preferred religion a question.  Do you want to stand with a Biblical God, the true God, whose views on homosexuality are crystal clear or do you want to be a part of an anti-God coalition that shakes its collective fist at God in rebellion?  The Apostle Paul exhorted his fellow followers of Christ to “Proclaim the message; persist in it whether convenient or not.”  Certainly in our post-Christian culture, it is not “convenient” to take a biblical stand for truth, yet God calls upon his followers to do exactly that.   You can treat God’s word as “toilet paper”, as quaint and irrelevant in today’s “modern” age or you can embrace it for what it is,  the only supernatural written instructions for living this life and preparing for the next, doing so will allow you to be on the right side of history and eternity.

Only an Armed People can be the real Bulwark of Popular Liberty

The title of this piece is a quote from a famous person, bet you can’t guess who said it.  Vladimir Lenin, ruthless first leader of the Soviet Union who disarmed the people because he understood what arms in the hands of a nation’s citizens meant.

“Obama Defends Forthcoming Gun Restrictions as Constitutional”

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gearing up for a certain confrontation with Congress, President Barack Obama defended his plans to tighten the nation’s gun-control restrictions on his own, insisting Monday that the steps he’ll announce fall within his legal authority and uphold the constitutional right to own a gun

“This is not going to solve every violent crime in this country,” Obama said, tempering expectations for gun control advocates calling for far-reaching executive action. “It’s not going to prevent every mass shooting; it’s not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal. It will potentially save lives and spare families the pain of these extraordinary losses.”…

Mindful of inevitable challenges, the White House carefully crafted the steps to bolster their prospects of surviving in court, and Obama said he was acting “well within my legal authority.”

“I’m also confident that the recommendations that are being made by our team here are ones that are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment and people’s lawful right to bear arms,” Obama said…

Democrat Hillary Clinton, who has already proposed closing the gun show loophole, cheered Obama’s plans, and her chief primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, called it the “right thing to do.”  But on the GOP side, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Obama a “petulant child” peddling illegal executive actions, while Donald Trump said he saw no need for changes.   (End Quote)

From the Chicago Tribune, “Obama says he’ll act on his own in coming days to strengthen gun safety”, 01/04/2015-

Aides to Obama say he’s acting precisely because Congress will not.

“We’re not going to be able to pass a law or take an executive action that would prevent every single incident of gun violence,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. “But if there’s something that we can do that would prevent even one, why wouldn’t we?”  (end quote)

OBAMA ISSUES UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS

To address Obama’s use of Executive Orders to usurp the role of the legislative branch and create law, you do realize that these “executive orders” that affect anyone other than federal employees are way outside the constitution don’t you?  Executive orders should be just that, the Executive, or the boss, of the executive branch (99 percent of all federal employees) gives his employees “orders”.   Up until Clinton, there were few if any contentious EO’s.  Clinton opened the floodgate with unconstitutional orders because they could, no one stopped them, and as one Clinton staffer said, “it was cool” to be king.

The real lesson Obama is teaching the republicans is “see what you get when you refuse to impeach me, stop me if you can!!!”  The lesson America should be learning is to quit electing democrats.

The second Amendment states, “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

The United States Supreme Court has only heard a handful of cases involving the 2nd Amendment rights.

In the 1875 case, United States v. Cruikshank, the court stated that “the second amendment means no more than that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”   In other words, the Amendment limited Federal powers but not states.  (This was well before the Supreme Court took it upon itself to attack state sovereignty and the tenth Amendment.)

In 1886, in Presser v. Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled that a state itself could limit or prohibit the formation of a militia.   However, the court did confirm that absolute right of an individual saying, “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States,” and “states cannot … prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.”

The oft cited 1939 case, United States v. Miller, involved two men who had been indicted for transporting a shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches long in violation of the federal 1934 National Firearms Act.   The court sided with the Federal Government in the case, the defendants didn’t even show up for the hearing so the Court only heard one side of the argument.  The court concluded that –

“The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” 

The 2nd Amendment as a whole and what it meant was not directly addressed by the Court until the recent 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case.  The court stated concerning the 1939 Miller case, “Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment”. 

This landmark 2008 Heller case was the first time the Supreme Court has ever addressed the right of the individual to keep arms for self-defense.  The court concluded that it did, that handguns were included and that a D.C. requirement that guns must be unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked was unconstitutional.   This was a 5-4 decision.

The 2010 case, McDonald v. Chicago, applied the above to states.  Once again by a 5-4 decision.   The frightening thing to any liberty loving American is that this right, originally intended to never be infringed upon by the federal government hangs by one vote, one judge.   Purely from a constitutional point of view, the court should have ruled in the state’s (or in this case, the city’s as long as it was not afoul of Illinois state law) favor.   However, after decades of endless liberal trashing of the constitution, I don’t mind a bit of conservative activism.   Whether the Supreme Court could even address state laws is an argument long past…for now.  Conservative activism is a drop of water compared to an ocean of liberal activism.

WHEN DID WE GET THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Let us consider the development of the 2nd Amendment.  James Madison originally propose 12 Amendments, ten of which in some form were ultimately approved by congress and ratified by the states.  Madison’s original wording for the 2nd Amendment was –

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” 

The House of Representatives approved the Amendment on August 24, 1789 worded as –

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” 

The Senate approved the Amendment worded as we see it in its ratified form thusly on September 9th

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

The Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791.

What does “infringe” mean?  Infringe is a very precise word.   Do you think our founders just pulled it out of thin air without any thought?  Or, did they mean exactly what was written?

Infringe –  to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Encroach – to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

The U.S. Constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789 and the first Ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights) were added and effective in December, 1791.  As you no doubt know, the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation which had proven wholly inadequate to the task at hand, at forming a central government with litte power and influence.   What did the Articles of Confederation have to say about armaments?

WHY DID WE GET THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states in part, following a prohibition on a state maintaining a standing army (land forces) in time of peace except to man forts necessary for the defense of the state-

“…but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress), states as applicable to sea and land forces and the militias-

“Congress may raise and support armies for a period of no longer than two years.”

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;” 

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” 

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Now we see in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution a distinction between “land forces”, which clearly means a standing army, and state militias.

When we consider then the 2nd Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”   Why would this Amendment be added, considering the great debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that raged at the time, to prohibit the new federal government from infringing on the right for a state to have and arm militias when Article 1, Section 8 already practically required them?

Not only would the militias clearly exist and always be prepared to “suppress insurrections and repel invasion”, but the federal government was actually required to pay for them!   Congress was empowered to only form a standing army for a period of only two years, therefore, the federal government, the newly formed, United States would rely on state militias for general defense of the nation.   It would be a silly argument, one of many nonsensical theories advanced by liberals, that the 2nd Amendment was added solely to protect the states’ right of forming militias.

To “provide for” as we read in the Section 8 paragraph above, meant, “If you provide for someone, you support them financially and make sure that they have the things that they need”.   It does not say it is a power of congress to decide which state, if any, should have a militia, but rather congress would support them financially and ensure they have the things they need when they do!

Why would it be important for the federal government to ensure that the various state militias were “organized”, “armed” “disciplined” and “trained”?  The answer is simple, homogeneity and guarantee that militias were actually available.   In the event it was necessary for the militias to be called to active duty in time of war, everyone would be humming the same tune (or reading from the same page, or whatever idiom you prefer to use).   A militia unit from South Carolina should have the same organization, similar weapons, discipline and training as one from Vermont.

The militias were to be available on a moment’s notice.  How could the federal government “call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” if none existed?   Not only were militias assumed, they were, for all practical purposes mandated.

Which gets us to the point of the 2nd Amendment.  Clearly that right to “keep and bear arms” was protected so that “the people” would be armed and prepared for service in a militia.   The actual “right” was -no infringement on the people keeping and bearing arms.  Forming a militia was merely an effect or one result from an armed citizenry.   There was no need to specify a “right” to form militias as militias were already provided for in Article I.

THE SUPREME COURT’S CURRENT POSITION ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT

In the 2008 D.C. vs Heller case heard by the Supreme Court.  The court framed the issue to be settled as –

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

From Wikipedia, below are the conclusions drawn by the five member majority –

The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.   The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.  The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.  The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.  Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.  Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

________________________________End Quote

Naturally, the four flaming liberals on the court disagreed.

Two years later, in the McDonald vs. Chicago case, the Supreme Court applied the above to the states, through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, reiterating that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense”.

ADDITIONAL HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT

This right was not particularly recognized in the Articles of Confederation which a simple reading only required that the state have a “public store” of armaments and Article I of the constitution only required that the militias be armed, which could have simply meant that arms be stored and available in case the need arose for militia action, identical to the minimal meaning of the Articles of Confederation.   We could reason also as an advantageous thing since the arms were to be the weapons of use by a government force, that these arms be state of the art, or at least the best available.

There is not a single word that can be found to suggest a single politician in America advocated the disarming of American citizens at the time of the writing and ratification of our constitution.   To even mention such a thing would have been a very quick way of receiving a good dose of tar and feathers, as well as end any political career.   Our founders absolutely abhorred the actions of some European nations that had disarmed its citizenry.

Why was the Bill of Rights added to the constitution?   James Madison, despite the fact that he was the one who ultimately introduced the Bill of Rights to congress, was a Federalist and was against the addition of the amendments and in his convention notes of September 12, 1787 when the addition of the Bill of Rights was discussed, wrote-

“Mr. SHERMAN, was for securing the rights of the people where requisite. The State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in force are sufficient…”  Roger Sherman, Federalist, Delegate from Connecticut, felt the Constitution was good as written.

Madison did note just the opposite views of George Mason –

“Col: MASON perceived the difficulty mentioned by Mr. Gorham. The jury cases can not be specified. A general principle laid down on this and some other points would be sufficient. He wished the plan had been prefaced with a Bill of Rights, & would second a Motion if made for the purpose. It would give great quiet to the people; and with the aid of the State declarations, a bill might be prepared in a few hours.”

And

“Col: MASON. The Laws of the U. S. are to be paramount to State Bills of Rights.  On the question for a Come (to move forward favorably) to prepare a Bill of Rights”

Obviously, Anti-Federalist George Mason did not believe the constitution was adequate without additional protections.  Mason believed the Bill of Rights could “be prepared in a few hours” largely by copying protections afforded by various “state declarations”.  Mason also believed that the Constitution would be “paramount (superior to all others) to State Bills of Rights”.

James Wilson, Delegate from Pennsylvania and a strong Federalist believed that the powers of the Federal government were so well defined in the constitution as written that no amendments were necessary.  He believed that the listing of various rights held by the people should be contained in state constitutions.  As he put it, “everything that is not reserved (by the states) is given” to the new government.

George Mason, one of the leading Anti-Federalists wrote –

There is no declaration of rights; and, the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several states, the declarations of rights in the separate states are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law, which stands here upon no other foundation than its having been adopted by the respective acts forming the constitutions of the several states…

Under their own construction of the general clause at the end of the enumerated powers, the Congress may grant monopolies in trade and commerce, constitute new crimes, inflict unusual and severe punishments, and extend their power as far as they shall think proper; so that the state legislatures have no security for the powers now presumed to remain to them, or the people for their rights. There is no declaration of any kind for preserving the liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil cases, nor against the danger of standing armies in time of peace…

This government will commence in a moderate aristocracy: it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.”

Sadly, even with the addition of the Amendments, our government has become what Mason feared, “a corrupt oppressive aristocracy”.

The Preamble of the Bill of Rights stated its purpose –

“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”    The amendments do NOT grant rights, but rather safeguard the existing inherent rights of free men, rights the founders viewed as given by God.

Enough states refused to ratify the constitution as originally written without an agreement that when congress first met under the constitution it would develop a Bill of Rights.   The Anti-Federalists feared a central government that would trample on the rights of the people, Thomas Jefferson being among them, saying, “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”

THE COLONIES’ VIEW OF ARMED CITIZENS

In ratifying the original Constitution on June 21, 1788, New Hampshire offered its recommendations for Amendments which included – Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.”

Virginia on June 6, 1788 – “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State…”

New York on September 17, 1788 – “That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;”

(the Supreme Court in the Heller case mentioned these three states’ recommendations)

————————————————————

Despite modern day liberal attempts to rewrite history, gun ownership was the norm in colonial America.   Not only were guns indispensable as the colonists dealt with Indians and hunting game was a major source of food, the British government saved a lot of money by allowing the colonists to be armed, they didn’t have to garrison as many regular army troops in the colonies.  The armed colonists would, by and large, provide their own defense.  Nearly every colony listed gun ownership as a right and most actually insisted on it, as these armed citizens comprised the militias.

According to the website saf.org, an interesting article by Clayton Cramer entitled, Colonial Firearm Regulation reveals the following which contains numerous quotes from colonial documents –

Connecticut – “That all persons that are above the age of sixteen years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readines, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clark of the band.”  They were fined if they showed up for militia training without a firearm.

Virginia – every freeman was to arm himself with musket, powder and lead.  If he was unable to afford one for himself, one would be provided.

New York – Every male 16 to 60 were to be armed or fined.

Maryland- All freemen 16-50 were required to be armed.  In 1775 the Colony threatened a fine of five shillings if a man showed up for militia training without his musket.

Massachusetts – all able bodied men were required to be armed and even those excempt from militia duty were required to maintain a gun in the home.  Additionally it was required that boys at age ten were be trained in firearms.

New Hampshire – All males sixteen to sixty were to be armed or pay a six shilling fine.

New Jersey – All males 16 to 60 with exemptions were to be armed and show up twice per year to “appear in the field”.

Delaware – “All freeholder and taxable persons” were to be armed, although only those 17 to 50 had to belong to the militia.

Rhode Island – No specific requirement to be armed, but no person could go two miles outside of town with packing a gun.

South Carolina- No specific requirement but men were required to bring their guns to church!

North Carolina – All free men and servants were required to be in the militia and show up armed when called or be fined.

Georgia – All males 16 to 60 were required to keep a gun, powder, lead, etc and show up with them when militia training was called.

Only Pennsylvania had no such gun requirements due to Quaker pacifism.

IS IT TIME TO UPDATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

As it stands at the moment, our supreme court oligarchs have affirmed the right of the individual to own firearms with some restrictions permitted.   This right given to us by our Creator hangs by a 5-4 vote of the court.   This is one of the most important reasons to never allow a liberal to infest the Whitehouse, they appoint federal judges and these, our oligarchs, control our lives and liberties.   Liberals always empower government and conservatives empowers the individual.

I think now would be the perfect time to update the 2nd Amendment.  Currently some 60 percent of Americans believe that no new gun regulations should be imposed on the people.  Members of all races understand the grave danger than liberal social policies have put us in.   The large dysfunctional segment of the black community, lawless hordes of hispanics, muslim immigrants and deranged white liberals all contribute to the angst of the population.  I call these that prey on society democrat foot soldiers as they serve their master’s purpose of destabilizing society “requiring government action” to deal with the problems.

The last time congress made an attempt to impose further regulations was in 2013 by Senators Joe Manchin (D)-WV and Pat Toomey (R) – PA.  Actually, although I would never admit it (oops, I am doing just that), the bill really wasn’t all that bad.  In fact, it was actually a pretty good bill.   I think we all know the truth of “gun running” into cities and states where they’re prohibited or sold illegally.  In normal America, individuals advertise their guns for sale in newspapers, local “trader” publications and internet local forums.   The druggies and other criminals have their local stoolies respond to the ads and buy up a quantity of guns.   The criminals bring drugs into normal America from whatever large city democrat hell-hole they venture out of and return with a trunk load of guns with no paper trail.

The Manchin-Toomey bill was designed to tighten up private gun sales, allowing only gifts or sales between family members and close associates.   It could have curtailed the current flow of guns into the democrat strongholds.   The bill crashed and burned in the senate.  It never made it past the threat of a filibuster and after several attempts to get some traction on it, only this past fall the senators gave up.   A majority of Americans do not believe that additional gun regulation will keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals, 56 and 58 percent, respectively.   The greatest reason Americans do not favor additional gun restrictions is that most simply do not trust government and many Americans apparently understand what the word infringe means and even if their proposed bill was to the good, it was still, nevertheless, an infringement on our rights of gun ownership and therefore, truly unconstitutional.

So, rather than infringing on gun rights because it may be desirable to do so, why not revise the 2nd Amendment to prevent government, especially including the courts, from trampling on the rights of sound citizens and at the same time address some of the supposed concerns of liberals.  I say, “supposed” because there’s no doubt that the liberal “intelligentsia” want America disarmed.  I would propose the following as a replacement for the current 2nd Amendment.

1)  Gun ownership is a right endowed by the Creator, not given by the state.  (conservative)

2)  Citizens and legal immigrants have these gun rights. (conservative)

3)  Fully automatic firearms firing a projectile equal to or less than a .308 caliber, defined as a firearm capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger or actuator, may be owned.  A permit SHALL be issued to any qualified person for a one- time reasonable fee, good for any number of these weapons.  The ATF may inspect these firearms following a minimum 7 day notification to the owner.  (conservative, although this bans larger caliber weapons)

4)  No government, Federal, State or local, may impose additional taxes or any sort of monetary requirement on the purchase of weapons or ammunition above the rate of a state and or local general sales tax.  No additional tax or any other monetary requirement may be imposed for the possession of weapons or ammunition. (conservative)

5)  The ATF shall maintain a database or gun registry of ownership, exempt from FOIA requests and data shared only on a need-to-know basis. (liberal)

6)  There shall be no restrictions on ammunition as to quantity and type.  (neutral to conservative, allows all ammunition types)

7) “Gun dealer” shall be defined as a person or corporation who engages in a commercial enterprise of selling guns.  A gun dealer will go through a process to obtain an ATF license. (neutral)

8)  Any gun that is stolen or lost must be reported to the local county or parish sheriff’s department within 24 hours upon discovery that a gun is stolen.   Failure to report stolen firearms when the owner knew or should have known is a federal crime.   Failure to report also makes the owner responsible for any post-theft or loss damages caused by the use of the gun.   It is the responsibility of the owner to register guns in his or her possession prior to the effective date of this Amendment in order to be protected by this clause. (both)

9)  No firearm manufacturer, gun dealer or seller shall be held liable either civilly or criminally for misuse of a firearm it manufactured, rebuilt or sold. (conservative)

10)  No ammunition manufacturer or seller shall be held liable either civilly or criminally for misuse or criminal use of any ammunition it manufactured. (conservative)

11)  No individual or group shall be held civilly or criminally liable for accidental death, injury or damage resulting from the use of a firearm for self-defense or defense of others that is reasonable*. (conservative)

12)  A background check must be made by the FBI before any firearm is sold, traded or given away.   Exchanges of firearms between individuals or other entities must have a background check made on the person or entity receiving the firearm.   The gun may be taken to a firearms dealer for a fee to do the paper work and perform the background check up to a maximum of twenty five dollars per firearm. (liberal)

13)  No limitations of magazine or “clip” capacities. (conservative)

14)  The provisions of this Amendment would be immune or exempt from any declaration of a State of Emergency or  Martial Law. (conservative)

These are my ideas for the new Amendment.   I realize my fellow gun enthusiasts will immediately attack me for the gun registry and the requirement for a background check for all gun sales or transfers.   However, realize this is an amendment to the constitution.  Lawyers using language that would make it as “liberal-proof” as possible to prevent twisting of the meanings would be deployed.   If we reach a point that the government “infringes” on these rights defined above, then we have much bigger fish to fry, like a total collapse of the government in progress or the government going totally rogue.

Most liberals, would get exactly what they claim they want.   The pipeline of guns to inner city democrat foot soldiers would eventually dry up, other than the truck loads brought in from Mexico along with drug shipments, but that can be dealt with by sealing the border.

There are an estimated 100 million gun owners in America possessing somewhere around 300 million firearms and billions of rounds of ammunition.   There are about 1 million law enforcement officers total, federal, state and local.  Since roughly a third of Americans (that admit it) actually own firearms, then that means there is only around one law enforcement officer of any type per 100 gun owners.

Obama and his merry band of America hating democrats have done a masterful job of totally alienating virtually all levels of law enforcement.   Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that even most federal law enforcement agents are America loving conservatives.   My point is that there could not be a lawful basis for inspecting (except for the exception of fully automatic weapons) or confiscating guns owned in accordance with this 2nd Amendment and any law enforcement officer attempting to do so would be in direct violation of his oath.  Few would have any actual incentive for doing so and all would have absolutely no basis in law for doing so.

There would need to be some sort of addition my recommendations to address “mental stability” in order to pass the background check and to attempt to qualify what constitutes “reasonable” use of firearms in self-defense of self and others.  Since the current thugs infesting the Whitehouse consider Christians who believe in the bible, conservatives, libertarians, nationalists and gun owners, as already having one foot in the “terrorist” camp, then obviously some thought and safeguards would have to go into the background check in order to prevent liberals from deliberately declaring rational and sane people too mentally incompetent to own firearms.

LIBERALS MOST DEFINITELY WANT A NATION OF SHEEP

If Hillary gets elected next fall, assuming she’s the democrat nominee and not up on federal charges as she should be (Loretta Lynch under Obama’s orders likely won’t attempt to convene a federal grand jury and present charges), she may replace one or more of the “conservative” judges on the supreme court; Ginsberg, a liberal almost certainly to go and Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are in the 80’s.  One more flaming liberal on the court replacing one of the three conservatives or Roberts or Kennedy will end our second amendment as we know it.   Why not roll the dice and “fix” it while the nation will well support it?  Public sentiment changes quickly, remember it was just 15 years ago that sodomy was a crime in all fifty states, now recent polling suggests that nearly half our people are now on board with their queer neighbor drilling a hairy —hole and foisting this depravity upon a nation as good and wholesome.

The democrats only need four things to happen and ALL of our gun rights could be stripped away.  1)  The supreme court tipped in their favor, almost certain to happen if a democrat is elected this fall.  2)  A democrat president, 3)  A democrat senate (willing to finally scrap the filibuster, simply a matter of time) and 4)  a democrat House.  At the rate we’re going with the continual ongoing process of dumbing down young Americans and the importation of millions of democrat voters, that alignment is almost a certainty to occur within the next decade or two.   By having our rights so well defined and enshrined in the constitution as shown above, our rights could be protected for many more decades as it would take that long for the liberals to conquer enough republican (red) states to do away with the amendment.

Both Hillary and Obama have stated multiple times that they approve of the Australian style of gun confiscation, the disarmament of the people and most lap-dog democrats will easily fall in line.

“Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. 

Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country that would put up with this.”  Obama, 2014.

In defense of the D.C. gun ban, Obama stated, “just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right”!!! Can he be any clearer as to his intentions than that??????

“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.”  Hillary discussing the Australian gun buy back and confiscation program that disarmed the nation, last fall, 2015.

A 2013 Obama Department of Justice memo stated that –

“A gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation.” 

Obama as state senator voted twice against a bill decriminalizing the use of a handgun in self-defense in the event of a home invasion.  (In Chicago, since it was illegal to have a handgun and its use was also criminal, the bill ultimately passed over the Veto of the Governor, although it was still illegal to have on in possession in that city.) Obama is on record in favor of outlawing all handguns and semi-automatic weapons. 

What did the Australian gun ban actually accomplish?  From the website freerepublic.com, posted on January 3, 2013 we read –

“It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. 

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in: 

Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate 

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban. 

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate. 

From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

 In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent” 

And the democrats want to imitate this in America!!??

The plain truth is that liberal judges will do exactly what they WANT to do.  Liberals create “rights” or strip out real ones at their leisure.  Liberals find or deny rights in the constitution after examining their crystal balls, such as murdering babies in the womb, banning God from schools and the public square, healthcare or legalizing depravity by foisting the homosexual agenda on a nation that is repulsed by it.   To liberals it doesn’t matter what the constitution says or means.  It doesn’t matter what the founders intended or what the historical context was when the laws were written.  Parsing words is their specialty.

Liberals believe the constitution to be a “living document”, meaning that the laws and liberties it guarantees vary depending on what is “good for society” at any given time, in their opinion.   The Supreme Court is far too often merely an instrument to dictate liberal preferred policy instead of dispassionately determining the constitutionality of a law or government action, based on original intent.

Our guns are safe from government restriction up to confiscation based solely on the tolerance of 5 non-elected, de facto unaccountable lawyers immersed in legal theories, on “Judges” who want to shape America to conform to their own philosophical vision, who relish the favorable praises heaped upon them by a liberal media, who believe that they are a significant part of a ruling elite that must force the nation down a liberal path to attain perfection.

The Low Information Voter

The Low Information Voter

A typical assessment of rank and file democrat voters.  I make a distinction here between the liberal “intelligentsia” who really do know what they’re doing and the common democrat who is clueless as to the true agenda of the party they are loyal to.  LIV traits appear to NOT be a function of education level or even raw intelligence, as LIVs are common among the very highly educated to the very uneducated among us, as well as penetrate all racial and religious boundaries.  An individual’s mental attitudes appears to be the main factor.  Two of these that create LIVs are as follows:

-Mental laziness of not investigating the pressing political and social issues and evaluating all sides of the debates on them.  There are a number of sources where information of all sorts can be gathered.  Television, talk radio, newspapers and other various print publications, the internet especially and the education system would be the five major sources.

-Blind loyalty to the democrat party.  The democrats are very good at inculcating brand loyalty.  They do this primarily by fear, probably the most powerful of the emotions.  This mental manipulation creates most of the LIVs, somewhere around 75 percent of them alone.  After fear is properly instilled and maintained, the LIV will tune out any other input.  The Party creates the unfounded or even real fear due to their policies, then convinces the poor LIV that only they have the answer.

Environmentalism is a potent weapon in the liberal arsenal to keep LIVs on the plantation.  Liberals hate America, they hate capitalism as a system because they can’t control it and decrying the impact on the environment by industry has proven to be a great horse for them to ride over the past few decades.  There is probably no better explanation of the radical environmental movement and its strangle hold on political leftism than one offered by Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder.  Turning away from the radicalism, though still an environmentalist, Moore has written:

“A lot of environmentalists are stuck in the 1970s and continue to promote a strain of leftish romanticism about idyllic rural village life powered by windmills and solar panels. They idealize poverty, seeing it as a noble way of life, and oppose all large developments.”

“The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall . . . added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas.

To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology. I remember visiting our Toronto office in 1985 and being surprised at how many of the new recruits were sporting army fatigues and red berets in support of the Sandinistas.”

“Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance. 

Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments. 

These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. “ 

I would refine Moore’s closing comment, that the warmist/liberal agenda is one of the greatest threats to our liberty and prosperity we face today.  As Moore also correctly observed, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the “peace movement” really didn’t have anything to do.  As America enjoyed the “peace dividend” under Clinton, as well as eight years of his democrat administration (peace-niks hardly ever take on democrats for some “odd” reason), there were simply no American military exercises (other than bombing the wrong side in Bosnia) or nuclear weapons systems for the peace-niks to attempt to undermine, as America was always its prime target.  What LIVs don’t know is that the “peace movement” which came into being during the Vietnam war was hugely financed by the Soviet Union in order to undermine the United States military.

Stanislav Lunev, was a GRU (Soviet foreign military intelligence) officer and the highest ranking GRU officer to ever defect to the United States.  In 1992 he defected to the United States, then served as a consultant to the FBI and the CIA and is now in the Witness Protection Program.  He describes in his book, “Through the Eyes of the Enemy”, GRU and KGB efforts and success at instigating and financing the peace movement that strongly and adversely affected American war efforts in Vietnam and American efforts against the Soviet Union itself.

“While the GRU instructors would not state it directly, they strongly implied that the GRU was responsible for the Vietnamese success. The GRU had a massive presence in both North and South Vietnam; their operatives worked under cover of the North Vietnamese Special Services. Our instructors also told us about how the GRU influenced the American public. The GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad. Funding was provided via undercover operatives or front organizations. These would fund another group that in turn would fund student organizations. The GRU also helped Vietnam fund its propaganda campaign as a whole.

What will be a great surprise to the American people is that the GRU and KGB had a larger budget for antiwar propaganda in the United States that it did for economic and military support of the Vietnamese. The antiwar propaganda cost the GRU more than $1 billion, but as history shows, it was a hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost. The antiwar sentiment created an incredible momentum that greatly weakened the U.S. military.” 

KGB General Oleg Kalugin has testified of his overseeing the operations to create “all sorts of congresses, peace congresses, youth congresses, festivals, womens movements, trade union movements and campaigns against U.S. Missiles in Europe, campaigns against neutron weapons and much more”. 

The “peace movement” is a generic name for liberals’ actions against the United States as it stood as the beacon of hope and light against godless communist Soviet Union aggression.  The Soviets viewed American liberals as “useful idiots”.  Many liberals would deny that their goal was to destroy the United States and favor the USSR in the cold war that existed for nearly half a century.  These liberals would simply maintain they wanted a world at peace, but primarily blamed the United States for the tension in the world.  Liberals almost always turned a blind eye to the abuses of Soviet Russia and its stated goal of conquest because liberals favored socialism or even communism over capitalism.

The Soviets saw things much differently.  They viewed the millions of liberalized young people that sprang up in America as fertile ground for recruitment into organizations that served to weaken American resolve.  The liberals of the 60’s now completely dominate the democrat party and control nearly all organs that shape opinion in America.

The communists succeeded beyond their wildest expectations as America is at, if not beyond, the tipping point predicted nearly 60 years ago by Nikita Khrushchev,

You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Well, as it turned out the United States outlived communist Russia, and it was not solely the actions of Soviet infiltration and money that has brought us to the dark point we see today in America, but it was significant and meshed well with the other forces at work in our nation.  It would be accurate to say that the United States was assaulted by a “perfect storm”.  The religious and moral rot had already set in several decades in advance of the Soviets, which actually made the ground fertile for the seeds the Soviets ended up planting.

A nation that was in the process of rejecting God and its founding principles, a nation where progressives were attempting to lead the nation in new and radical directions had millions of citizens ready to “fall like overripe fruit” for just about any cause or “ism”, as long as it was opposed to the current structure of America and there has been no ideology so diametrically opposed to America than communism.  Today, perhaps, we could add islam to that short list which partially explains the democrat love affair with that war cult.

What America fought against nearly half a century has now coopted our largest political party.  It has elected twice a president who in his younger years was a Marxist.  Obama was clearly a Marxist, when did he ever change his mind?

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”  B.H. Obama

It’s the “cool” thing today for liberals to be not so undercover commie sympathizers, in fact they’re often very brazen about it.  How many wear Che Guevara t-shirts or hang his poster.  Che was nothing but a racist, cold blooded murdering thug who would have fit right in as commandant of a Nazi concentration camp.  A flag with Che’s face on it was photographed hanging in an Obama campaign office in Houston, TX in 2008.  Castro himself is a darling of the left, including some U.S. Congressmen.

Obama’s former White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn stated that Mao Zedong, mass murderer of 50 to 80 million of his countrymen, was one of her “favorite political philosophers”.  A little round picture of Mao was hung on Obama’s first Christmas tree in the Whitehouse.  Of course, when pressed, Obama claimed he didn’t know about it and even if we assume that’s true, what must the atmosphere of the Obama White House be like that underlings would feel quite comfortable in hanging the Mao decoration?  Jay Carney, Obama’s former White House Press Secretary has his kitchen decorated with Soviet Union propaganda posters.

Love for communism abounds in our modern liberal intelligentsia class and it doesn’t appear to be the “good” things that communism promised in theory but rather the power that the ruling elite accumulated and the means of that accumulation that interests them.  The global warming scam has proven to be their ticket to this accumulation of power. 

Western liberals have embraced this new environmental radicalism not to improve the environment, but to “cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism”.  Since 1992 with the election of Slick Willie with his side-kick Algore especially, the democrat party as a whole has almost single-mindedly pushed the global warming agenda.  This environmental religion was tailor made for their purposes.  The liberal education mills would indoctrinate the nation’s youth with the fantasy of mankind catastrophically warming the planet, the media would print or discuss the warming “scare of the day” as nearly every conceivable weather event would be portrayed as caused by the warming.

More tornados-less tornados, more hurricanes-less hurricanes, more-snow, less snow, more rain-less rain, melting ice, rising sea levels, etc, you name it, the warmists have a tall tale in their repertoire to cover every base.  With most of the science community, at least at the universities, corrupted by tax dollars to support research, in competition to see who can create the scariest scenarios of adverse climate caused by man of course, in order to grab headlines, acclaim and more of our money.  Their prophecies often contradict and there are as many “computer programs” to predict climate change as there are universities.  All of this, because there MAY have been some very slight warming for about 15 years, sandwiched in between the cooling of the ‘70’s and static global temps since the late ‘90’s.

The liberal solution to the “dangers” of “climate change” always increases government control over our lives.  All the warming movement is, is just that, a political movement and behaves much like a religion or a cult.  All of the disaffected hippies, socialists, communists and power crazed lunatics of the 1960’s and their ideological children have glommed onto the scam to advance their anti-American and anti-West agendas.

Poor LIVs just simply don’t know that

–  The “97 Percent consensus” is nothing but a fabrication.  That lie was concocted by warming cult member John Cook, researcher at the Global Change Institute, who after evaluating 12,000 peer reviewed science papers dealing with climate change published over a 20 year period from 1991 to 2011, claimed a conclusion that 97 percent of these scientists agreed that man was responsible for heating the planet.  The real truth was that only 65 papers “explicitly endorsed” the Kyoto proposition that “climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”  Instead of 97 percent, the real percentage is actually only 0.54 Percent!!!  The LIV only hears the 97 percent from democrat mouthpieces and never bother to learn the truth.

-A recent peer-reviewed paper reveals that only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers agree with the man-made global warming crisis proposition.  They join the 50 percent of meteorologists.

-There is a revolt within the community of physicists.  If there was any group of scientists I would tend to trust it would be the physicists, as “physics” underlays any scientific endeavor.  Sadly, however, the APS, the American Physical Society, like most science organizations, has been coopted by the warmers.  Noted physicist Hal Lewis had this to say about the climate scam and its effect on science and the APS,

“I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff (climategate) without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.  

In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.” 

In his letter of resignation from the APS, Dr. Lewis went on to say,

“The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’etre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs…

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare… So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.” 

Dr. Lewis has also written-

“I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.  

So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it’s easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don’t bother you—you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.

So it isn’t simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative game.” 

Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, of MIT calls the global warming “crisis” a religion saying, “Global Warming has become a religion.  A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”

In 2009, 67 prominent German scientists and 189 interested experts submitted a letter to Angela Merkel asking her to reconsider her beliefs in the man-made global warming scam and turn from her present course that was endangering German survival as a prosperous industrialized nation writing in part –

“…Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.  

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. 

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility… 

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately, in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.” 

The above is just a tiny fraction of all the news and information you’ll never hear from the sources used by LIVs, that’s why they’re LIVs.

Yet liberals, intent on keeping their sheep in the fold use the warming religion to advance their agenda.“I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing,” Obama said. “And that’s why, today, I’m announcing a new national climate action plan, and I’m here to enlist your generation’s help in keeping the United States of America a leader – a global leader – in the fight against climate change.”  Obama, 2013.

“This is not just a problem for countries on the coast or for certain regions of the world. Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune.  So I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.” Obama, May, 2015.

“When it comes to climate change that hour is almost upon us…In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity.”  Obama, December, 2015 at the global warming confab in Paris, France.

The data is unforgiving…No matter what the deniers try to assert. Sea levels are rising. Ice caps are melting. Storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc…The threat is real but so is the opportunity,” Hillary, 2014.

Global warming is “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world.”  Clinton, 2015.

Whether by the warming scam, income inequality (the abnormal and dangerous inequality caused primarily by them), moral issues or any of the other many liberal caused problems, our domestic enemies never sleep.  While productive patriotic Americans go about their busy lives working, rearing children and minding their own business, liberals work 24/7 to undermine our nation.

If liberals could, they would just get all of this “nonsense of democratic voting” over with and with a putsch, assume dictatorial control over our lives.  But they know they can’t get away with that, so they just keep chipping away by dumbing down and frightening the indigenous and importing more and more voters.  Keeping their Low Information Voters on the plantation and having their education mills and media create even more is critical to their success of undermining and conquering our nation.