All posts by Clayton Williams

The Gender Confused

In Egypt is the ancient temple complex at Karnak.  Second only to the great pyramids and the sphinx, millions of tourists a year visit this massive and imposing compound. describes Karnak as follows –

“On the banks of the Nile, between the ancient cities of Luxor and Thebes, lie the remains of Karnak, one of the most magnificent temple complexes ever constructed. In ancient Egyptian, Karnak means “the most select of places,” and it became a religious center during the period known as the New Kingdom (founded c. 1550 b.c.).

Dedicated to the sun deity Amon-Ra (also Amun-Re) and built around 1500 b.c., Karnak consists of massive pillars, towering columns, avenues of sphinxes, and a remarkable obelisk that stands 97 feet tall and weighs 323 tons. The Great Hypostyle Hall, one of the largest single chambers ever built, covers an area of nearly 54,000 square feet. The entire Cathedral of Notre Dame could fit comfortably within its walls.”

Now located in the Cairo museum but originally located in the temple at Karnak is what is known as the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamen. Stelae were stone tablets that were placed in the temple to commemorate special events.  This stela of Pharaoh Tutankhamen was essentially a declaration that under his leadership the old and true religion of worshipping the true King of the Gods, Amun-Ra, also commonly spelled Amun-Re, was to be restored.

Tutankhamen’s father had introduced the great heresy of worshipping Aten.  Wiki describes this radical religious heresy as –

“During the latter part of the eighteenth dynasty, the pharaoh Akhenaten (also known as Amenhotep IV) disliked the power of the temple of Amun and advanced the worship of the Aten, a deity whose power was manifested in the sun disk, both literally and symbolically. He defaced the symbols of many of the old deities, and based his religious practices upon the deity, the Aten.

“He moved his capital away from Thebes, but this abrupt change was very unpopular with the priests of Amun, who now found themselves without any of their former power. The religion of Egypt was inexorably tied to the leadership of the country, the pharaoh being the leader of both. The pharaoh was the highest priest in the temple of the capital, and the next lower level of religious leaders were important advisers to the pharaoh, many being administrators of the bureaucracy that ran the country.  The introduction of Atenism under Akhenaton constructed a monotheist worship of Aten in direct competition with that of Amun.

The famous “boy-king” Tutankhamen which means “Living Image of Amun” was originally named Tutankhaten, “Living Image of Aten” by his father, but changed it to the name we commonly know when his father dies and he assumed the throne in 1332 b.c. at the age of 9 or 10 and ruled 9 years till his death in 1323 b.c.

Great damage had been done to the old religion by Amenhotep IV, as he essentially attempted to stamp out all traces of it.  In his stela, Tutankhamen (or who actually wrote if for him) said in part –

“The good ruler, performing benefactions for his father (Amun) and all the gods, for he has made what was ruined to endure as a monument for the ages of eternity and he has expelled deceit throughout the Two Lands, and justice was set up so that it might make lying to be an abomination of the land, as in its first time. Now when his majesty appeared as king, the temples of the gods and goddesses from Elephantine down to the marshes of the Delta had gone to pieces (or fallen into neglect).

“Their shrines had become desolate, had become mounds overgrown with weeds. Their sanctuaries (or chapels) were as if they had never been. Their halls were a footpath (or trodden roads). The land was topsy-turvy and the gods turned their backs upon this land.

“If the army was sent to Djahi to extend the frontiers of Egypt, no success of theirs came at all. If one prayed to a god to seek counsel from him, he would never come at all. If one made supplication (or petition) to a goddess similarly, she would never come at all.”

King Solomon wrote in the book of Ecclesiastes 1:9 that “what has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.”  Whether in ancient Egypt or America today, humans make the same mistakes because human nature doesn’t change.

In Egypt one Pharaoh attempted to uproot and destroy the old ways, the traditions, the prevailing religion of his nation that lent stability to the culture and replace it with another.  Decay and destruction was left in the wake.  America today is uprooting and casting away all of the valuable things that made America what it was.  The Egyptian gods were no true gods, America’s God was the real God, the God of gods.  Which will have the greatest fall?

America has indeed become a land of “topsy-turvy” which means in utter confusion or disorder.  Liberals are plunging our nation into this condition.  Their latest assault on order and reason is their insistence that “transgender” persons be given their “rights”.  Liberals insist that the 99.9% give in to the whims of the 0.1%.  After their stunning victory over the institution of marriage and family, now they push their depravity down to the next levels.

Obviously any honest person would quickly conclude that gender confusion is a mental disease.   While the scriptures don’t specifically address the issue, we can confidently conclude that God regards it as depravity along with homosexuality, based simply on the fact that God “created them (Adam and Eve) male and female”.

At the root, gender confusion indicates a pathological self-loathing, the tormented soul merely saying, “I hate myself, I hate what I am”, in essence telling God “I refuse to be what you made me”.   Only in our opulent decadent west can these sick souls have the luxury of even trying to pretend to be something they are not.

Realizing the democrat party is Satan’s party and it works continually to thwart God at every turn helps bring crystal clarity to the issue.   Somehow, I don’t picture Bill and Hillary or Barry and the Mooch sitting around in the evenings at home discussing the plight of the transgenders with any honest concern and empathy.   I imagine howls of laughter at the sick foolishness of these psychos, yet they smile as they get to use the issue to attack Christianity, God, American values and reason.

Fresh on the heels of their smashing sodomite victory last year, the liberals are attempting to strike America while their iron is hot.  Obama has loaded up the lower federal courts with reliable anti-American leftists and the Supreme Court is in a stalemate.  Obama has ordered his Department of “Justice” to advance this madness with all haste, his time is short.  Unless Hillary is elected to carry on his “vision” for America, the nation will undo much of the damage he has already inflicted.  Do you really think Hillary will be charged and tried for her crimes?  Highly unlikely.

However, advancing the cause of the gender confused is a real head scratcher for the vast majority of Americans, including their black and Hispanic plantation hands.  This issue is hard to wrap one’s head around.   These gender “confused” need mental help and most assuredly spiritual help.  The sheer madness of this is staggering.  The democrats act as if these confused people will be traumatized if they must share a facility with their own “kind”.   Yet, what do these males see every time they take a bath or shower, or look in a full length mirror while naked or even take a leak?   Their arguments surpass silly.

In their haste, the liberals haven’t even done the grunt work.  There are no credible scientists, doctors, psychologists or sociologists who have come out with any research indicating that these confused and deluded souls are anything but.  They spend the past several decades building the case for the “normality” and beneficence of the homosexual lifestyle.  Our children have been propagandized to accept that chosen lifestyle as “no big deal”.  Our society awaits the destruction that will be the result of glorifying the deviants.

In 2014 Obama praised the first open homosexual to be drafted by an NFL football team saying, “From the playing field to the corporate boardroom, LGBT Americans prove every day that you should be judged by what you do and not who you are”.   What they do is statistically lead in adverse health statistics of depression, drug and alcohol dependence, suicide and STD’s, including AIDS.  Now that they adopt children, one can only shudder to think of the mental stability of children brought up in such an environment.  What they and their enablers do is shake their fists at God in rebellion and our nation will pay a steep price.

Hopefully this bridge the liberals are attempting to force America to cross will prove to be a bridge too far.  Hopefully, this one issue will easily sweep Trump into the Whitehouse as the only candidate willing to defend traditional Judeo-Christian values that once marked this nation…hopefully.  As liberals continue to grind America into dust, as it destroys the building blocks of our society, it’s time for America to rebel and take a stand against the prevailing liberal culture.

Ancient Egypt enjoyed its time in the sun only to collapse as all great nations and empires have.  Now it is nothing but a hell-hole in the barbaric muslim backwater of the world.  There is no guarantee that America won’t join it, in fact it appears hell-bent to do so.

The Nine Steps in the Life of a Great Nation

Occupying our minds at the moment is who is going to be our next president.   Will we have Madam President, criminal extraordinaire?  Trump, the abrasive business man?  Cruz, Kasich, Ryan or even The Burn?

Will Obama’s transformation (termination) of America continue unabated with another democrat or can a republican get elected who might at least delay the process?   What should have been a republican shoo-in despite the current electoral makeup of our nation for now appears up in the air.   The republican must always face a culture becoming much more liberalized by the year.   The continual flood of import democrat voters as well as the creation of dumbed down new ones as our young people who go through our liberal public education system come of age has now reached critical mass.   That Barry O was elected twice and Hillary is viable is proof enough of that assertion.

If the republicans manage to hold firm and not consent to the nomination of Obama’s liberal appointee to the supreme court, the next president certainly will and likely more beyond that.   If Americans, who are fast asleep, only could grasp the significance of that, then any republican should enjoy a 30 point lead over Hillary or the Burn in the various polls, instead, they show it is basically about even at this point.

A radically left Court will likely do irreparable damage to the nation, the termination may well be finally at hand.   America the Great is fallen!!   Let that run through your minds.   As difficult as it is for us to realize, America’s fall is inevitable.  Whether we are witnessing this currently in this age of Obama and democrat ascendency, or even if we have a temporary reprieve through a brief conservative resurgence, our doom is certain.   America began with the brightest of hopes, but has relatively quickly, progressed through a perceivable cycle that great nations and empires of the past have gone through.

This multi-stage cycle for a nation that perhaps you have heard or read goes like this –

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to selfishness;

From selfishness to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.

The author is believed to be Scottish historian Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813).

We can see America in the above.   Colonial America, pre-revolution, was not only under bondage to the English throne, it was also in bondage spiritually to the English Anglican church as well as somewhat corrupted other Christian sects.   A few years ago I was interested in the First Great Awakening that swept through the colonies in the 1730’s and 40’s and its impact on motivating our Revolution against England.   Naturally liberals deny any such claim in its attempt to stamp out our Christian roots, but the awakening was certainly a major factor.   To my surprise, I learned that the colonists had some very warped views of what we consider to be biblical Christianity.

They did not preach or teach a personal salvation that bible believing Christians (the real kind) hold with.   The colonists were enslaved to a radical form of Calvanism where they simply believed that God would save who he would save and consign who he willed to hell.   Their “religion” was essentially a religion of “works”.   There was no “believer’s” baptism, but merely infant baptism.   While many of the great preachers of the Great Awakening were themselves Calvanists, they rejected the passive nature of “faith” in God and did preach that man must respond to the gospel and take the active step of repenting and asking God for salvation through faith in the work of Christ.

The Anglican Church was the dominant church in the colonies with its Roman Catholic style of church hierarchy.   The “religion” was rigid and demanded loyalty to church and crown.   The spiritual revival that swept at least the east and northeast led to a “revolt” against the organized churches, particularly the Puritans and the Anglicans, and with this new sense of freedom, the thinking of the colonists also turned to political freedom to match their religious freedom.

According to,

“Revivalism in the colonies did not form around a complex theology of religious freedom, but nevertheless the ideas it produced opposed the notion of a single truth or a single church. As preachers visited town after town, sects began to break off larger churches and a multitude of Protestant denominations sprouted.  The older groups that dominated the early colonies – the Puritans and the Anglicans – eventually began a drastic downward trend in popularity.   Although they accounted for about 40% of American congregations as late as 1760, that number eventually dropped to under 2.5% by 1790.

The social effect of multitudes of new denominations was not, however, a fracturing of communities, but a unifying drive which helped to create a “national consciousness”.

The British and their loyalists in America often referred to the revolution as the “Presbyterian rebellion”.   The Great Awakening – Revolution era carried America through the first three stages above, Bondage, Courage and Liberty.

For nearly two centuries following these primal founding events America enjoyed her age of prosperity and abundance.   During the early to mid 19th century America saw great expansion, the construction of large cities as the nation spread westward.  Railroads and canals were built, industrialization began and a vast agricultural empire was built in the south, and yes, southern agriculture was powered by slavery.   Coal began making its impact felt in the country by mid-century and virtually displaced wood by the century’s end.

As the iron and manufacturing industries came into their own, America indeed had its place at the table in the world.   It may be interesting to note that the 4 million black slaves of the south were worth about 750 dollars per head and had a significantly higher relative standard of living than free whites in the north, on the order of 15 percent higher.   It’s impossible, by our modern sensibilities, to in any way approve of slavery, but if we looked at the issue as dispassionately and logically as possible, were American black slaves of the 1850’s worse or better off than their cousins in Africa?

There’s no question that evil “masters” abused their slaves, and slavery represents the exact opposite vision of America’s founding.  However, if given a choice between freedom to live in barbaric lands, to be hunted by muslims (Obama’s ancestors) to be slaves under much worse circumstances, hunted by neighboring tribes to be slaughtered, existing in a state of grinding poverty and hunger or living a somewhat tranquil life with abundant food, clothing and shelter, exposed to civilization and Christianity AND ultimately given your freedom in this new land of opportunity and abundance, which would you choose?

I quote Robert H. Jackson in the first article of this site, “Do we need a Revolution”, where he said –

“whenever we reproach our own imperfections, as we ought often to do, we must not forget that our shortcomings are visible only when measured against our ideals, never when put beside the practical living conditions of the rest of the world. We have by Constitution, by legislation, and by judicial decision translated the Declaration out of the language of abstract philosophy into the idiom of everyday living.   We have validated democratic principles by our success.”

When we consider America’s past, we don’t see perfection, but we see a pursuit of it.   As we consider America’s age of abundance and reflect on the fact that America once imported and enslaved a race of people, we must temper our judgment with the acknowledgment that America disciplined itself, sacrificing 600 thousand American lives in the effort.   It was largely the Christian ethos of America that led to its condemnation and elimination.

As we consider our “imperfections”, our conclusion must not be that what was America must be transformed, as Obama put it, terminated in practice, but rather our imperfections must be judged “when measured against our ideals, never when put beside the practical living conditions of the rest of the world”.   That standard must be applied today, a century ago, in 1860 and 1776.   An honest reflection of America and its past sees a nation that in spasms and spurts lurched ever upward to surpass all other nations on the ladder of rightness and goodness.

To believe that man and society is perfectible in this world by man’s own philosophies, schemes and designs as liberals are convinced of, experience shows they always lead to failure and disappointment.  Malcolm Muggeridge, in his book, “The End of Christendom”, wrote,

“It’s in the nature of man and of all that he constructs to perish, and it must ever be so…the realization [of lasting perfection] is impossible for the simple reason that a fallen creature like man, though capable of conceiving perfection and aspiring after it, is in himself and in his works forever imperfect.  Thus he is fated to exist in the no man’s land between the perfection he can conceive and the imperfection that characterizes his own nature and everything he does.”

Thus as America entered the 1960’s, cracks were already visible in the foundation of the nation and for the past half century our nation’s acceleration into oblivion has steadily increased and is now at “warp” speed.

“Abundance” gave way to “selfishness”.

The Wikipedia article on the subject of the “Me Generation” reads in part –

“The “Me” generation in the United States is a term referring to the baby boomer generation and the self-involved qualities that some people associated with it.  The baby boomers (Americans born during the 1946 to 1964 baby boom) were dubbed the “Me” generation by writer Tom Wolfe during the 1970s; Christopher Lasch was another writer who commented on the rise of a culture of narcissism among the younger generation. The phrase caught on with the general public, at a time when “self-realization” and “self-fulfillment” were becoming cultural aspirations among young people, who considered them far more important than social responsibility.”

“The cultural change in the United States during the 1970s that was experienced by the baby boomers is complex.  The 1960s are remembered as a time of political protests, radical experimentation with new cultural experiences (the Sexual Revolution, happenings, mainstream awareness of Eastern religions). The Civil Rights Movement gave rebellious young people serious goals to work towards.  Cultural experimentation was justified as being directed toward spiritual or intellectual enlightenment.  The 1970s, in contrast, were a time of disillusionment with idealistic politics among the young, particularly after the resignation of Richard Nixon, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the end of the Vietnam War.  Unapologetic hedonism became acceptable among the young, expressed in the Disco music popular at the time…

“Health and exercise fads, New Age spirituality, discos and hot tub parties, self-help programs such as EST (Erhard Seminars Training), and the growth of the self-help book industry became identified with the baby boomers during the 1970s.  The marketing of lifestyle products, eagerly consumed by baby boomers with disposable income during the 1970s, became an inescapable part of the culture.   Revlon’s marketing staff did research into young women’s cultural values during the 1970s, and the research revealed that young women were striving to compete with men in the workplace and to express themselves as independent individuals.  Revlon launched the “lifestyle” perfume Charlie, with marketing aimed at glamorizing the values of the new 1970s woman, and it became the world’s best-selling perfume.

“The introspection of baby boomers and their focus on self-fulfillment has been examined in a serious light in pop culture. Films such as An Unmarried Woman (1978), Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), Ordinary People (1980) and The Big Chill (1983) brought the inner struggles of baby boomers to a wide audience.  The self-absorbed side of 1970s life was given a sharp and sometimes poignant satirization in Manhattan (1979). More acerbic lampooning came in Shampoo (1975) and Private Benjamin (1980).  The Me generation has also been satirized in retrospect, as the generation called “Generation X” reached adulthood, for example, in Parenthood (1989).  Forrest Gump (1994) summed up the decade with Gump’s cross-country jogging quest for meaning during the 1970s, complete with a tracksuit, which was worn as much as a fashion statement as an athletic necessity during the era.

“The satirization of the Me generation’s me-first attitude perhaps reached its peak with the television sitcom Seinfeld, which did not include conscious moral development for its baby boomer characters, rather the opposite.  Nor did it have plots with lessons to teach its audience. It was a “show about nothing”, and its creators held this position deliberately….”

These “baby boomers” represented a new type of generation not seen up to that point. The hardship of the Great Depression of the 30’s followed by the massive undertaking to prosecute WWII led to a post war boom that saw new inventions that radically changed how American’s participate in and see reality and the world.  Two things ran concurrently post war that changed America – an accelerated spiritual decline that allowed liberalism to conquer the press and the education system and a rapid development of technology with its attendant material accumulation.  Television, probably the most important propaganda tool imaginable made its debut.

The parents, remembering privation eased up on their children and did all they could to ensure that their children would never face what they faced.  While they made great efforts to provide for the material needs of their children they forgot the moral and spiritual training and left that to the education system.  Traditional American parents created a void that liberals were eager to fill.

The boomers embraced the sex, drugs and rock and roll philosophies of the time.  The girls bought into women’s liberation movement of the late sixties.  As a result, traditional American values regarding sex which reflected Judeo-Christian ethics gave way to “free love”, which Wiki describes as “a social movement that rejects marriage, which is seen as a form of social and financial bondage.  The Free Love movement’s initial goal was to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery.  It claimed that such issues were the concern of the people involved, and no one else.”

(We see where this has led as one thing leads to another. The revolt against biblical morals created waves of children born out of wedlock, children with only one parent.  This loss of morality led to the advance of the homosexual agenda of the 1990’s and the 2000’s. Now following their recent shocking success at turning society upside down, we’ve now hit the bottom with the rise of the gender confused.  Did you ever think you would see the day when a demented male pervert could legally go into a girl’s bathroom?  Now corporations, state and local governments and other entities are threatening to boycott the three states that passed laws to prevent that. Our nation has clearly descended into madness.)

Now, the Me generation created the next generation, known as Generation X, those born from the early 1960’s through the early 80’s.  Some use these names interchangeably as they actually exhibit many or most of the same characteristics.  Regardless, those born after the war and later have given us our current crop of young people, the “Millennials”, also dubbed the Me, Me, Me Generation by journalist Joel Stein in an article published in Time magazine on May 20, 2013.  While Stein drew a terribly wrong conclusion as he is a 41 year old liberal wacko himself, he did accurately describe the youth of today, these millennials, writing –

“The incidence of narcissistic personality disorder is nearly three times as high for people in their 20s as for the generation that’s now 65 or older, according to the National Institutes of Health; 58% more college students scored higher on a narcissism scale in 2009 than in 1982.  Millennials got so many participation trophies growing up that a recent study showed that 40% believe they should be promoted every two years, regardless of performance.

“They are fame-obsessed: three times as many middle school girls want to grow up to be a personal assistant to a famous person as want to be a Senator, according to a 2007 survey; four times as many would pick the assistant job over CEO of a major corporation.  They’re so convinced of their own greatness that the National Study of Youth and Religion found the guiding morality of 60% of millennials in any situation is that they’ll just be able to feel what’s right.

“Their development is stunted: more people ages 18 to 29 live with their parents than with a spouse, according to the 2012 Clark University Poll of Emerging Adults. And they are lazy.  In 1992, the nonprofit Families and Work Institute reported that 80% of people under 23 wanted to one day have a job with greater responsibility; 10 years later, only 60% did… these aren’t just rich-kid problems: poor millennials have even higher rates of narcissism, materialism and technology addiction in their ghetto-fabulous lives…

“Whereas in the 1950s families displayed a wedding photo, a school photo and maybe a military photo in their homes, the average middle-class American family today walks amid 85 pictures of themselves and their pets.  Millennials have come of age in the era of the quantified self, recording their daily steps on FitBit, their whereabouts every hour of every day on PlaceMe and their genetic data on 23 and Me.  They have less civic engagement and lower political participation than any previous group…

“They got this way partly because, in the 1970s, people wanted to improve kids’ chances of success by instilling self-esteem.  It turns out that self-esteem is great for getting a job or hooking up at a bar but not so great for keeping a job or a relationship.  “It was an honest mistake,” says Roy Baumeister, a psychology professor at Florida State University and the editor of Self-Esteem: The Puzzle of Low Self-Regard.  “The early findings showed that, indeed, kids with high self-esteem did better in school and were less likely to be in various kinds of trouble.  It’s just that we’ve learned later that self-esteem is a result, not a cause.”

“The problem is that when people try to boost self-esteem, they accidentally boost narcissism instead. “Just tell your kids you love them. It’s a better message,” says Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University, who wrote Generation Me and The Narcissism Epidemic.  “When they’re little it seems cute to tell them they’re special or a princess or a rock star or whatever their T-shirt says. When they’re 14 it’s no longer cute.” All that self-esteem leads them to be disappointed when the world refuses to affirm how great they know they are.

“This generation has the highest likelihood of having unmet expectations with respect to their careers and the lowest levels of satisfaction with their careers at the stage that they’re at,” says Sean Lyons, co-editor of Managing the New Workforce: International Perspectives on the Millennial Generation. “It is sort of a crisis of unmet expectations.”

“What millennials are most famous for besides narcissism is its effect: entitlement.  If you want to sell seminars to middle managers, make them about how to deal with young employees who e-mail the CEO directly and beg off projects they find boring.  English teacher David McCullough Jr.’s address last year to Wellesley High School’s graduating class, a 12-minute reality check titled “You Are Not Special,” has nearly 2 million hits on YouTube.  “Climb the mountain so you can see the world, not so the world can see you,” McCullough told the graduates. He says nearly all the response to the video has been positive, especially from millennials themselves; the video has 57 likes for every dislike…

“Millennials are interacting all day but almost entirely through a screen.  You’ve seen them at bars, sitting next to one another and texting.  They might look calm, but they’re deeply anxious about missing out on something better.  Seventy percent of them check their phones every hour, and many experience phantom pocket-vibration syndrome.  “They’re doing a behavior to reduce their anxiety,” says Larry Rosen, a psychology professor at California State University at Dominguez Hills and the author of iDisorder.  That constant search for a hit of dopamine (“Someone liked my status update!”) reduces creativity.

“From 1966, when the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking were first administered, through the mid-1980s, creativity scores in children increased. Then they dropped, falling sharply in 1998. Scores on tests of empathy similarly fell sharply, starting in 2000, likely because of both a lack of face-to-face time and higher degrees of narcissism.  Not only do millennials lack the kind of empathy that allows them to feel concerned for others, but they also have trouble even intellectually understanding others’ points of view…”

The selfishness had given way to complacency. The definition of complacent is – “marked by self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies.” (Merriam-Webster).  The revolution of the 60’s marked this age. To do anything and everything that “felt right” to the individual, a casting aside of all the old cultural norms.  There was a self-satisfaction, it still exists today of course and as the world and especially our nation is crumbling before our very eyes, there is no comprehension whatsoever in at least half our citizens of the “actual dangers” and “deficiencies” of the society they have created.

“Complacency” has now mutated or given way to “apathy”. The definition of Apathy is – “lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern.”

Joel Stein continues –

“Because millennials don’t respect authority, they also don’t resent it. That’s why they’re the first teens who aren’t rebelling. They’re not even sullen. “I grew up watching Peanuts, where you didn’t even see the parents.  They were that ‘Wah-wah’ voice. And MTV was always a parent-free zone,” says MTV president Stephen Friedman, 43, who now includes parents in nearly all the channel’s reality shows. “One of our research studies early on said that a lot of this audience outsources their superego to their parents.  The most simple decision of should I do this or should I do that–our audience will check in with their parents.”

Stein finished his piece by writing –

“So, yes, we have all that data about narcissism and laziness and entitlement. But a generation’s greatness isn’t determined by data; it’s determined by how they react to the challenges that befall them.  And, just as important, by how we react to them. Whether you think millennials are the new greatest generation of optimistic entrepreneurs or a group of 80 million people about to implode in a dwarf star of tears when their expectations are unmet depends largely on how you view change. Me, I choose to believe in the children. God knows they do.”

I would describe our millennial youth as completely brainwashed and dumbed down by the liberal education system, big entertainment and the media.  These current youths were birthed by the generation who themselves were immersed in the modern revolution against American tradition and our Christian culture. While I shouldn’t have to, let me throw in the usual caveat, certainly there are fine, moral and conservative young people, products of fine parenting by those who hold those values. It’s just that they’re grossly out-numbered.

Clearly we see large swaths or our population at the apathy stage. It might not be fair to say that our 80 million youth totally lack interest, enthusiasm, or concern, it’s just that they don’t aim them at the right things.  They have no understanding of the real world, as they’ve been brought up in a fantasy world created by liberalism.

Their interest and enthusiasm may be for who’s going to win on the Bachelor, or when will the next computer game come out, or where is the next rock concert, or what movie is playing at the theatre this week, or concerned that no one has texted them in the past 15 minutes.  They have no knowledge of America’s past, no comprehension of its values. It takes someone rather unusual to peak their interest or enthusiasm for politics.

Why does Hillary not energize the youth?  Besides being an old hag with a black heart, they clearly see she’s not “genuine” or “real”, nothing more than a power crazed opportunist. Obama appealed to them because he was not conventional, because he was not “establishment”, because he was cool and hip, because he pretended to be one of them.  The Burn, while not exactly one of them, he at least to them offers a number of things that appeals to them.

It’s critical to understand that the democrat assault on America consists of demonizing conservatives/republicans.  They must portray us as enemies of the state. If you don’t understand that, then you will never understand what is going on in the country today. Liberals aren’t just misguided souls who love our nation as we do. They hate everything about our country and they hate us. The young people have bought into this.  In their isolated, ego-centric, selfish and complacent lives, they view any source of discord as something painful.  Liberals have convinced them though, that conservatives are the only source of discord.  Hence, conservatives war on minorities, women and the gender confused. Conservatives are racists, patriarchal and anti-science.

Obama now is thinning out our prisons because the black drug dealers are there simply because they’re black. The ruined lives, the murdered lives, left in the wake of the drug scourge, mean nothing to liberals. Since there’s an imbalance in the prisons in terms of racial make-up, then clearly this is a result of racism, not because blacks and hispanics have multiple higher rates of committing violent and drug related crimes.

Young people (and nearly all democrats for that matter) can’t tolerate confrontation unless it is directed against the “real enemy”, the conservative, then of course, it’s OK. Because democrats are apathetic about the real world they exist in, they resent anything that makes them feel threatened or uncomfortable and this deep sentiment has led to an extreme form of rationalization.  These democrats are so programmed as to blame virtually every ill they consider to be the result of either conservative action or intransigence.  Democrats and especially their young people believe they are on the cusp of ushering in their perfect world, their utopia. All that is preventing them is the evil American conservative.

The radical-leftist magazine “In These Times”, has an interesting article on line from December 15, 2014, entitled, “We Can’t All Just Get Along”, written by Susan J. Douglas. Before we consider her propaganda we must note that she is “a professor of communications at the University of Michigan”, she and her ilk are the ones constantly drumming subversive Anti-Americanism into the brains of our children.  This was written just after the Republican electoral victory of 2014, below are some excerpts, as you read them just imagine the young people you know passing through our education mills being constantly exposed to the sentiments expressed –

“I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal “personhood”…

“A brief review of Republican rhetoric and strategies since the 1980s shows an escalation of determined vilification (which has been amplified relentlessly on Fox News since 1996).  From Spiro Agnew’s attack on intellectuals as an “effete corps of impudent snobs”;  to Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech;  to the GOP’s endless campaign
to smear the Clintons over Whitewater, then bludgeon Bill over Monica Lewinsky; to the ceaseless denigration of President Obama (“socialist,” “Muslim”), the Republicans have crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all…

“Why does this work? A series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics.  What are they?  Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity;  a need to avoid uncertainty;  support for authoritarianism;  a heightened sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure.  How do these qualities influence political thinking?

“According to researchers, the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality.  These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance.  The need for certainty, the need to manage fear of social change, lead to black-and-white thinking and an embrace of stereotypes.  Which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you—whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats.  And, especially since the early 1990s, Republican politicians and pundits have been feeding these needs with a single-minded, uncomplicated, good-vs.-evil worldview that vilifies Democrats.

“So now we hate them back.  And for good reason…”

To be fair, she did note in her diatribe that it was OK for us to “hate” her back but it was never OK for us to “use the word ‘hate’ when referring to people of color, or women, or gays and lesbians”.  I suppose the fact that conservatives don’t use that word for them, or even feel that emotion, is beside the point.  Needless to say, I suspect that no conservative would view themselves as described by the above, but sadly, our children swim in these nonsensical characterizations.

Our nation has now certainly reached the “dependence” stage. This is another message of the democrat party and liberalism. Dependence on government.  I don’t have to tell you that nearly half our citizens get some sort of government check.  This statement is in some ways misleading, since retirees who draw social security is counted in this number.  The actual percentage of American “drones”, (a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer- is more like 35 percent and growing year by year as liberal domestic policies continue to bear fruit.

When considering democrat economic policy one must conclude that either democrats are incredibly stupid OR that they know exactly what they’re doing.  We’ve witnessed nothing but a steady march to oblivion by the western nations that have embraced big government economics for the past half century or more. Democrats today constantly berate capitalism, when in truth, we haven’t been much of a capitalistic nation for some time now. Liberalism has created the economic issues that our nation faces today, yet they blame it on the one thing that actually could return our nation to the right path, at least economically, if we would only embrace it.

Please feel free to read a previous post here on this site entitled, “America Becoming a Totalitarian State”.  The article explains why democrat liberalism will inevitably lead to a totalitarian state. Liberal government will be forced (actually its quite eager to) to impose a “norm” on a fractured society.  American’s final stage will be reached, “bondage”.

If we consider the nine steps or phases, bondage, faith, courage, liberty, abundance, selfishness, complacency, apathy, dependence and back to bondage, we could divide these into two groups, faith, courage, liberty and abundance that marked America for nearly two centuries after its inception, and selfishness, complacency, apathy, dependence and bondage which defines our nation of the past half century.

Currently there are no trends that are working in favor of America. Can you name one?  The solution isn’t the application of more and more liberalism, but rather a return to the things that made our nation great, faith in God, courage of convictions, liberty for all, allow men and women to be all they can be as they play or interact on a level playing field and our nation will see abundance again. Rejection of these conservative truths will most certainly lead to the negative results.  Liberals are terminating America and when it’s gone it will never come back.  The demographic transformation will see to that.

When America turns into a third world hell hole, it will be just that. It will be just another nation that forgot God and was “turned into hell”, just another past great but now failed nation littering the junkyard of history.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

It seems to me that “everybody” on “our” side that suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) portrays Trump in the worst possible light on any issue. Sure, Cruz should be our next president and is by far the most perfect conservative candidate in the race. That said, Trump has some very very good positions and some he has long held.

To hear so many talk (or write), on day one of the presidency Trump is going to jump up and down in glee and say “I fooled you rubes!! I fooled you rubes!!” and then nominate Barry Obama to the supreme court to replace Scalia.

If you will be honest and notice, almost at every turn, Trump keeps edging toward the conservative position on virtually every issue.  I think part of this is that he is learning.  Coming from a lifetime of business to politics and ALL of the issues, there is a learning curve.

My last remaining concern was his judicial appointments. For the past few weeks however, when asked, he lifts up Scalia and Thomas as the mold, the type he will pick.  Do you think he’s just going to throw a dart at the list of all federal lower court judges to pick one? Or will he seek counsel, apparently from the likes of Jeff Sessions.

Did you notice the hedge he made in the last debate about social security.  He basically said he would not change anything unless he had to.  He left open the possibility.  Well, when he sees all of the facts, when its certain demise is clearly pointed out to him unless something gives, will he change his mind?  P.S., unless the GOP scraps the filibuster in the senate, we’re just urinating in the wind on this issue anyway.  I do hope we scrap the filibuster or Trump or any other republican won’t get anything done anyway.

It appears that Trump groupies see what they want to see, but also his detractors see what they want to see. Trump has his faults, but he also has one thing in short supply, courage.  And some really big issues, ones that pose an existential threat to this nation, he has led the way, the invasion of the illegals for instance.

The sky is not going to fall with a Trump presidency and we will be infinitely better off and perhaps on the road to some recovery.  With Hillary, then 2016 marks the date that America ended. This date will go down in the annals of history along with 476, regarded as the end of the Western Roman Empire, as arguably the two most critical years of the past 2,000.

Not supporting and voting Trump if he even gets the most delegates is not an option. Its nothing but silly fear mongers now to read that we risk losing the house and senate. I actually think Trump will attract so many middle and democrat voters that our numbers may actually increase. Besides, who has the greater blame, Trump or the RINOs who infest Washington for their low popularity?

Our enemies know who to play the propaganda games. Too many are wringing their hands on our side, quick to join in with the radical leftists that Trump is racist.  Making American Great Again is racist? They view this a code for returning America to an all white nation. When did Trump ever say or even hint at such a thing? These radicals are out there for one purpose, to drive the number one play in the democrat play book that all republicans are racist, that the GOP is the party of whites only.  If its not Trump, then they will start on Cruz rallies.  That’s their plan that’s their game, they’ve said as much.

We can know someone by their enemies and since I despise Trump’s anti-American, anti-civilization, anti-conservative enemies then that gives me a little warmer feeling about the man who in all likelihood will by our GOP nominee.


Global Warming – Hoax or Scam?

Hoax – to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous

Scam – a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation

Which would be the better word in describing this political movement of man caused global warming?  It would appear that both words are operative, although hoax seems to capture it a bit better.

The proper term for “global warming” is “anthropogenic global warming” (APGW) or as some warmers have attempted to cover all their bases, anthropogenic climate change (APCC) (aka B.S.).  “Anthropogenic” means “of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature.”  I will use the simple term “global warming” to mean, in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol, that Global Warming exists- temperatures are rising and that this rise in temperature is being cause by mankind’s liberation of Carbon Dioxide.

What at first, back in the 1980’s, seemed just like another laughable liberal scam to scare as many people as possible that few would embrace as true has now become the most important “cause” of the democrat party and western liberals in general.  By the constant torrent of lies and deceptions liberals have, over the past 30 years, managed to manipulate the minds of a great number of citizens living in the west.  The scam or hoax is almost strictly a western phenomenon as non-democratic nations, whose scientists and leaders know better, see no benefit to advancing the hoax other than to the extent it will damage the highly advanced western nations, especially the United States and inducing the western nations to “pony up” and pay them “climate reparations” in the form of billions of our tax dollars.

Last fall, Vladimir Putin stated the global warming movement was a “fraud”.  After having Russian scientists undertake an extensive study, reviewing the data and considering the positions from all sides, they concluded that “we found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited, it became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to ‘fight’ global warming was rather unfounded.”

I’ll admit that a nation very dependent on its abundant fossil fuels for its economy as well as its own energy needs may be very biased but nevertheless, their conclusions shouldn’t be dismissed.  Sure, Russia has a bias against the proposition, but our liberals certainly have more than a bias in favor of it.  Bias one way or another really has nothing to do with facts as derived by the scientific method.

The Chinese unofficially believe it is a plot to constrain developing countries especially itself.   China occasionally plays along because it is the world’s biggest provider of solar panels and other green technology components and as it sees itself as the world’s major competitor of the United States is more than willing to see the U.S. adopt an economy killing green agenda.   However, it has been China who largely has saved the world from western liberals’ attempt to enact United Nation’s agreements to mandate carbon dioxide reductions.

The Chinese call these nefarious endeavors the “carbon plot”.  China appears to have adopted the attitude that “if we give them enough rope they will hang themselves”.  Play along, humor the western liberal fools but all the while keep building up the Chinese economy by what truly works in the real world.  Putting a new coal fired electric power generating plant on line every week, China has no intention of destroying itself by actually participating in the west’s suicide pacts.  The Chinese are not a stupid people and may well have Sun Tsu’s observation in mind when considering the western liberals’ love affair with climate alarmism,

The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

When I use the term “global warming” here, I will mean man-caused global warming.  What the warmists mean is that mankind is dangerously warming the planet and unless stopped now it will be too late.  Of course, “now” changes year by year as we’ve already passed numerous dates when we were already supposed to have nearly destroyed ourselves.

Just over the past 20 years or so we’ve passed their dates of no more snow in the United States and Europe, many island nations were supposed to be underwater creating tens of millions of “climate refugees”, the Arctic icecap was supposed to be gone, polar bears drowned and near extinct, large and powerful hurricanes were to be rocking the U.S. mainland every year, rampant tornadic activity sweeping countless Americans to the land of Oz and many more nearly too numerous to count.  We just did pass Algore’s last deadline and the world continues pretty much as it always has.

The United Nations predicted in 1989 that by the year 2000 nations would be destroyed by rising oceans, crop failures and climate refugees would cause political chaos.  Needless to say, that didn’t occur.  Rather than reconsidering the models and their ability to predict the future, they decided that if at first you don’t succeed in scaring the world into submission, then try and try again.  In 2005 UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) claimed that in just five years, by 2010, tens of millions of climate refugees would again be created by rising oceans and extreme disruptions to weather patterns.  Again, another failed attempt to herd the human population onto the UN plantation.

Our own Pentagon decided to jump on the warming bandwagon in 2003, with their own prophecies relying on the consensus of scientists, determined that within ten years, 2013 that the earth would resemble the setting of the Mad Max movie.  In the year 2000, a British climate scientist at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) proclaimed that snow would become exceeding rare in Great Britain, a “thing of the past”.  Since then Great Britain has been pounded with snow and cold.  Hundreds of its citizens have frozen to death as windmills and government mandated “green” home heating systems fail to work in extreme cold.

There are hundreds of these failed pronouncements of impending doom, but we’ll stop with these few comments and cover their utter failures in subsequent writings.

Since it takes little to convince liberal cult members that the United States is destroying the planet, to them it’s a given, warmers hatched a couple of wild hypotheses to explain the hiatus of rising temperatures.  One entertaining one was that all of the heat that was supposed to cause temperature rise that we weren’t seeing was actually trapped somewhere in a layer of the ocean.  No one could find this fugitive heat, but it just had to be there, they reasoned.  This and some other notions paved the way to get us back to “global warming”.  They had spent nearly three decades drumming into peoples’ heads that the globe was warming and it stuck, people were just laughing at them for trying to renege on their warming, there was just no way to gracefully back out, in for a penny in for a pound.

Climate alarmism is nothing new, but actually quite old and “Science” and the media have an atrocious record when it comes to climate scares.

1895 – The world is freezing, cooling

1902 – Glaciers are disappearing, warming

1912-1924  A new ice age is upon us, cooling

1929 – The earth is warming

1932 – teetering again on an ice age, cooling

1933 -1954  Earth in long term warming trend.  1938 also saw the development of the hypothesis that man is causing it by releasing Carbon Dioxide.

The 1930’s did see multiple heat records set in the age of scientific instrumentation, heat that we haven’t seen since (although warmers claim otherwise).

1954 – Cooling is back

1959-1969 – Warming is back

1970 – 1976 – significant cooling and the first serious discussion of government action to control climate.

1981 – massive global warming according to the warmers

Since 1981, the warmers and their politicians have, by and large, hawked the global warming hoax.  No warming has occurred since about 1998 according to the incredibly reliable satellite temperature measurements.  For a brief time from about 2010 to 2014 the warmers in fear of being totally discredited switched to a more generic term of “climate change” with various adverse weather events such as hurricanes, blizzards, localized heat waves, etc as “proof” that Carbon Dioxide was wrecking the planet’s climate.

The biblical definition of a true prophet is that the prophet must always be right.  By definition, a scientific “fact” must always prove to be true when put to the test.  What do we make of these soothsayers who are always wrong?

How does one, especially a lay person, go about evaluating the two sides of the global warming debate?  When “science”, at least publicly, has been coopted almost in its entirety by a political party and worldwide socialist movement, that should be a red flag.  But just because democrats/liberals have totally embraced the proposition that man, especially the United States, is destroying the planet, in itself is not proof that the science isn’t correct. (Although it is usually a pretty safe bet that anything democrats/liberals support is most assuredly wrong.)

However, just because a number of “scientists”, politicians and the media pronounce that the “science is settled” doesn’t mean it is actually settled, but merely so in their minds especially when we consider the great number of accomplished scientists who totally disagree with the claims of the warmers.  The warmers claim that global warming is settled science, that there is a scientific consensus that GW is true.  However, famed author Michael Crighton (Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain, the television show – ER), a Harvard Medical School graduate, lambasted the warmers consensus screed thusly –

 “…I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period…”

 “… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way…”

“As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is a dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?

“And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science—or non-science—is the handmaiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won’t get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and “skeptics” in quotation marks—suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.”

Liberalism always leads to the loss of liberty and vastly increases government control over our lives.  How could one even argue that point.  Liberals love big government and what is big government?  Big Government is government that grows in power due to laws and regulations that worm their way into every facet of our lives.  What do laws and regulations do?  They constrain our behavior, i.e. infringe on our liberties.  Members of the liberal/progressive movement over the past century have been attracted to Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao and communism, Benito Mussolini, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and now have cozied up to islam.

Yet we see virtually no liberal ever live their own personal life as a communist, we see none living their lives as socialists, we see none living their lives as muslims.  So what’s going on?  What is it about these anti-American, anti-God philosophies that attract liberals to them?  One word – POWER.  Liberals are nothing more than “warped, frustrated” men and women who can’t convince their countrymen that liberalism is good and beneficial, that an enlightened and qualified few should govern the masses.  No liberal respects the U.S. Constitution and American ideals, they work tirelessly to subvert them.

Their only real goal is to attain power, to create a nation where the enlightened govern the proles.  Obama called us little people, typical traditional Americans, “bitter clingers to guns and religion”.  What was he saying?  In effect, those who cling to guns and religion cling to the Constitution and God.  Both are enemies of the liberal, enemies of The State.  Liberals elevate The State above all else, they are secular humanists in every sense of the word.  They are convinced they can create the perfect society.

Liberals are much more interested in the acquisition of power than the actual betterment of mankind.  In fact, liberals see a world that is over populated and consider about 6 billion of the world’s near 8 billion inhabitants as superfluous.  Somehow I doubt that I and likeminded others who value liberty, prosperity and religious values make that shortened list worthy of survival in their liberal world.

Liberals are totalitarians, let’s look at a definition for totalitarianism as we find on Wikipedia-

“Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.  Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.”

We see democrat fingerprints on every single one of these characteristics of a totalitarian.  The democrats recognize no limit to government authority.  Name one.  Perhaps you would name the last three, restriction of speech, mass surveillance and use of terror as things liberals don’t embrace or espouse but you would be wrong, of course.  Liberals are already calling for the prosecution of those who speak out against the global warming scam.   “Inside Climate News” reported just last week that –

“The U.S. Justice Department has forwarded a request from two congressmen seeking a federal probe of ExxonMobil to the FBI’s criminal division.

U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier sought the probe last year to determine whether the oil giant violated federal laws by “failing to disclose truthful information” about climate change…”

Recently at a Senate Judiciary hearing AG Loretta Lynch was asked about investigating “climate deniers”, her response –

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”

We ignore or laugh at these forces of evil inside our country, but we should take them seriously because they are deadly serious about this power play.  Liberals have put a lot of marbles in play to push this scam and topple our nation.  Control its energy use, control just about every aspect of our modern lives.  There is a real cost to be paid for standing for truth and integrity in our nation today.

Try standing up for moral and Christian values in our universities, the breeding ground for the liberal intelligentsia, and see how far you get.  Mass surveillance is somewhat neutral, or may depend on what you exactly mean by that.  Already security cameras are ubiquitous in cites and many homes and actually can and do serve a valuable service considering the lawless society liberalism has already created in America.  The NSA spies on citizens, but considering who we have foolishly allowed inside our country, that perhaps is not an altogether bad thing.  Give liberals time and opportunity and “use of terror” will only intensify and become more widespread.

Terror can come in many forms, it doesn’t have to mean being burned alive in a cage.  It can mean being unjustly prosecuted by a legal system coopted by liberals to instill fear and set examples of what can happen to a hapless citizen on the wrong side of the prevailing zeitgeist.  Ask Scooter Libby, Ted Stevens of Alaska (well, too late, he’s dead), Tom Delay, Rick Perry and the concerned citizens who uncovered the depravity and criminality of Planned Parenthood.  Ask all of the honest scientists who got fired, demoted or unfunded for standing up against the global warming crowd.  Ask all of the decent students in our education system who have morals and values.  Before terror in America becomes physical it will run its course of destroying lives and reputations through injustice, coercion, intimidation, marginalization and reprisals.  Ask the thousands of our nation’s coal miners who are seeing their industry destroyed and their livelihoods taken from them and in the name of “saving the planet” from this imaginary threat.

In order for liberalism to ultimately prevail, it must stamp out independent and logical thought.  The citizen must be conditioned to accept The State as all-powerful and beneficial and any resistance to it criminalized.  Liberalism must stamp out competing ideologies, especially Christianity, and it must stamp out history and historical symbols that remind us of our origins as a nation.  Our universities are already nothing but hot-beds of anti-traditionalism as we’ve been made keenly aware of over the past year.

Liberalism is in the process of a nihilistic deconstruction of America, to grind it to dust.  If it has forced the removal of the confederate flag, removal of confederate related names of schools and other public things, a serious discussion of blasting away the confederate Stone Mountain monument in Georgia, how long will it be for cries to remove the Washington Monument, Mt. Vernon and Montecello as monuments to slave owners?  How long before the constitution itself is deemed appropriate for the fire as nothing more than a document supporting slavery?  When was the last time you heard a democrat mention a founding father with respect?

Do democrats speak of their support for the radical leftist group Black Lives Matter because they really give a damn about blacks or do they support this group and others like them because they are valuable tools in increasing the racial divide in our country?  Democrats don’t know much about science, but they do know about raw political power, how to obtain it and how to wield it.  At home and in control of the democrat party are our “domestic enemies” that our founders warned of and attempted to safeguard against by the constraints imposed on government by the constitution.

If we can hang on long enough and stop electing democrats to office immediately, we may be able to turn the tide.  One critical component of rescuing America from its clutches is to rightly discredit the global warming scam.  For now the earth itself is cooperating by not warming as it “should” according to the warmists and virtually all of their scary predictions of gloom and doom fail to materialize.  However, never take anything for granted because democrats never sleep.  Like termites eating their way through the structural beams of a house, our political and cultural “termites” are busy 24/7 chewing and clawing their way through the traditions and institution of our once great nation, leaving death, destruction and enslavement in their wake.

America Becoming a Totalitarian State

Let’s create a scale as shown below

Total Personal Freedom  ___I___I___I___Total Government Control

The scale above reflects the autonomy of the individual versus some form of government that will inevitably exist in any group of interacting human beings.  An interesting exception to what would normally develop in any group of people is the dynamics that emerge on the television show, “Survivor”.  As you may have noticed over the years, being a “leader” of the team is ultimately a death sentence as eventually a leader will be voted out after the team has been reduced considerably.  A natural leader always emerges due to his or her athletic prowess or intelligence that helps the team win various competitions.

Eventually though, a counter conspiracy develops as part of the group realizes that the leader, the one who has helped them win victories is too popular and must be knocked off in order for at least one of the conspirators to win.  While interesting to observe, it is not real life.  The competition has a scheduled ending with only one victor, whereas in real life, a society does all it can do to survive in perpetuity.  In real life, a valuable leader who is just and under whose leadership the society prospers is valued by the society.  Of course, there are always those with dark ambition who may attempt and succeed in overthrowing even a good leader, but that merely to replace the person, not the office itself.

A family, led by a parent living in an isolated area has a government, the parent is king, the leader of the clan.  A group of say, half a dozen friends, will have a leader or even more than one, the dominant person that the others look to whether they admit it or not.  The reason is simple, while most people really don’t care about being a leader, they understand the need for one and prefer the order that a leader brings to the group.

Read any history book, all of human history is always understood and memorized by milestone occurrences or watershed moments caused by nations and events which are created by actions of the leaders of nations.  The great world powers of antiquity were led by men and their governments.  The Egyptians had their Pharaohs, the Persians and Greeks, their Kings, the Romans, their senate, then their Emperors.  The subsequent medieval and middle ages saw various kingdoms arise in Europe led by kings and nobles that over time became more organized and complex.  However, regardless of the government and rulers, two things provided a basis for a general commonality of European culture, Christianity and the preservation of many Roman institutions themselves.  What we call “The West” can be (or once was) defined as Roman and Christian.  Specifically, America was further fine-tuned as English and Protestant.

Considering our scale of human freedom at the beginning, all humans of all ages can find themselves between the two extremes of total human freedom and total government control.  The ability of governments to intensify control over the actions, and now the very thoughts of their subjects, has greatly increased due largely to tremendous advancements in the psychological sciences and technology, as well as the abandonment of the societal institutions and philosophies that fed and encouraged human freedoms.

What we think of as human freedom, guaranteed or actually safeguarded by government itself, is a very new concept.  The vast majority of humans throughout history lived their lives essentially by the whims of their political leaders.  The power of kings or similar was limited only by their own sense of goodness and morality and fear of possible rebellion and overthrow.  Only in the West did a system of law come into being that guaranteed personal liberty, that constrained those that govern for the benefit of the governed.   Government was constrained by law from trampling on the rights of the governed, these rights given by God.  We hear often, “we’re a nation of laws, not men”.  That was true, but rare, and we cast that aside at our peril.

In our modern times, three major events occurred that defines human relationship with government.  Our American revolution and our subsequent formation of a constitutional republic.  The French revolution that was short lived and did not itself lead directly to a permanent government incorporating the tenets of that revolution, lives on in the hearts of our modern day western liberals. Lastly, the rise of communist and fascist totalitarianism.

The consequences of the French Revolution best epitomizes the “Total Personal Freedom” end of the scale, communism best epitomizes the “Total Government Control” opposite end of the scale, with our American Constitutional Republic epitomizing the perfect location on the scale.  We witness that both ends of the scale are destructive to true personal liberty and to life itself.  While the idea of “total personal freedom” actually brings bondage and destruction may seem totally contradictory we will see that it does exactly that.

The French Revolution was a revolt against traditional authority.  Its primary targets were feudalism, the monarchy, the legal system it provided and the Church which provided the glue that held society together.  While there may have been many legitimate reasons that prompted the revolution, its practical effect led to anarchy as the revolutionists butchered those of the old guard in power, one faction replaced another as they attempted to replace these systems with those that elevated man and his “reasoning” over those higher institutions.  It was a rejection of previously viewed absolute truth to be replaced with what has been called “autonomous” man.  We often hear and use the term secular humanism or Humanism.  The contradictory message was that man was to be free, but only free as he best conformed to the image of the State.

The French Revolutionists adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789.  While in many ways a remarkable document with many influential and positive aspects, there were certain things it advocated that liberals today have almost exclusively latched onto.  “Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good” (Article I).  Liberals run with this philosophy in advancing the notion that all outcomes should be equal (for everybody else, not them).  This sort of nonsense gives rise to such notions of not teaching children that there are winners and losers but rather everyone is a “winner” and everyone gets a trophy, redistribute wealth from those that work and innovate to give to those who won’t, etc.  From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need.  “Income inequality”, “the one percent” they cry.

“The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression” (Article II).  Now some of this is good and there was an original good intent.  However, just as liberals pervert our constitution, there is something in this article that has grabbed the liberals’ attention, the right to Property.  In America, our citizens were not promised property, we have to earn it, to buy it, then our property rights are supposed to be protected.  Liberals, wanting these “positive” rights maintain that property is a right and that government should give property to its citizens, i.e. government housing, Obama phones, EBT cards, in other words it is government that is obligated to provide food, clothing and shelter to the citizens. 

“The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it (Article III).  Its original intent here was to defang or destroy the feudal system of Lords and Serfs, liberals have now embraced and advanced the idea that all power in America must reside in the Federal Government.  Our Republican system would see the individual states as having their own sphere of authority, as contrasted against the 18 enumerated powers as intended by the authors of our constitution that would limit the power of the federal government.  Thus our liberals have worked tirelessly to construct an all-powerful central government to ensure that none of our states can exert authority which does not “emanate expressly from it” (the federal government) and in the process strips all of the power from the people.

The French Revolutionists were what we would call today, Secular Humanists.  Modern day western liberals are Secular Humanists.  The French saw no higher authority than the state itself as does our liberals, whereas our founders considered God himself to be the highest authority.

Wikipedia defines Secular Humanism as

The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy 

We should immediately see the dangers of secularism or Humanism as it clearly rejects the Biblical God and His scriptures as the source of ultimate truth embraced by western civilization throughout its history.  Humanism can trace its roots to ancient Greek philosophers, but generally exploded onto the European scene as the “Enlightenment”.  The Stanford (University) Encyclopedia of Philosophy thus defines the Enlightenment generally as

The Enlightenment is the period in the history of western thought and culture, stretching roughly from the mid-decades of the seventeenth century through the eighteenth century, characterized by dramatic revolutions in science, philosophy, society and politics; these revolutions swept away the medieval world-view and ushered in our modern western world. Enlightenment thought culminates historically in the political upheaval of the French Revolution, in which the traditional hierarchical political and social orders (the French monarchy, the privileges of the French nobility, the political power and authority of the Catholic Church) were violently destroyed and replaced by a political and social order informed by the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality for all, founded, ostensibly, upon principles of human reason. 

The Enlightenment had two wings, the Scottish wing inspired our founding fathers to value the individual over the government and understood the importance of religion while mainland European philosophers advanced the notion of the state over the individual.  Many of the latter were comprised of deists at best and atheists at worst.  The French revolutionists, inspired by Rousseau and similar, sought to destroy organized religion.  It viewed Christianity as the enemy of the state, that the state must set all standards of conduct and behavior that the people must conform to.  Later, Marxism and Fascism would follow the bread crumbs left by these godless philosophies and carry the degradation of humanity and societies to the lower levels we have witnessed over the past century.

Regarding the French revolutionists’ assault on Christianity, from Wikipedia on the subject we read,

During the Reign of Terror, extreme efforts of de-Christianization ensued, including the imprisonment and massacre of priests and destruction of churches and religious images throughout France. An effort was made to replace the Catholic Church altogether, with civic festivals replacing religious ones. The establishment of the Cult of Reason was the final step of radical de-Christianization.  

These events led to a widespread disillusionment with the Revolution and to counter-rebellions across France. Locals often resisted de-Christianization by attacking revolutionary agents and hiding members of the clergy who were being hunted. Eventually, Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety were forced to denounce the campaign, replacing the Cult of Reason with the deist but still non-Christian Cult of the Supreme Being 

The Concordat of 1801 between Napoleon and the Church ended the de-Christianization period and established the rules for a relationship between the Catholic Church and the French State that lasted until it was abrogated by the Third Republic via the separation of church and state on 11 December 1905. The persecution of the Church led to a counter-revolution known as the Revolt in the Vendée.

The great lie of liberalism, socialism and communism is that those that hawk it capture followers by promising them that they are free to do as they wish.  They promise “power to the people” when it truth it drains all power from the people.  They say, in essence, you can do anything you want to do, just leave the governing to us, the enlightened elite, we have your back.  How does Total Personal Freedom or Autonomy actually harm a person and how does it lead to bondage?

There must be some sort of “norm” in any society.  If “the people” do not establish a “norm”, then ultimately government will by force, establish it.  Our culture war has two sides, two America’s occupying the same space.  One side is traditional America, established on Judeo-Christian faith, ethics and principles.  The other side, Liberals, deny our founding principles simply as a tactic, for the benefit of the souls they seek to enlist on their side.  History is history and despite the modern revisions and scrubbing, our Christian roots are undeniable. Their norm is not a norm, but a large collection of “norms”.  Liberalism keeps grinding the population into smaller and smaller groups, each with a “norm” as they shatter the large homogenous structure that was once traditional America by advancing multi-culturalism and relativism.

The larger of these groups are easy to see, the racial minorities, especially the blacks and hispanics.  They can be convinced the deck is stacked against them.  They can be convinced that everything that springs from the dominant traditional culture is steeped in “racism” and “hatred”.  To them, we can add the silly women who have become convinced there is a war on women, homosexuals and other deviants who have been encouraged to claim to be “normal”.  We can add the youth, products of the liberal education system that has for the past half century at least been undermining the traditions of our nation.  We can add the atheists and agnostics who militantly reject Christianity and the “norm” it had formed and maintained in the culture.  Science and virtually all institutions, the media, the arts, big entertainment and of course, the education system, that shape opinion have been swept into this godless group.

Do the elite white liberals live near black or hispanic communities?  Of course not, they live in white suburbs if not gated communities.  Do the blacks and hispanics live harmoniously in common communities?  Of course not, “their” territories are controlled by their gangs who war against one another.  There is only one glue that holds this coalition together and focuses it, its outright hatred for the traditional culture.

There is a reason why where every major city controlled by LSDs (nearly all of them) is filled with violence, failing schools, illiteracy, deteriorated buildings and factories that once housed bustling businesses for the middle class workers, crime, rape, despair and no hope.  Detroit reached “Detroit” status and our other major cities are going as fast as they can to catch up.  The result isn’t freedom, at least not in any beneficial or rational sense, the denizens of these LSD wastelands are little more than programmed zombies marching to the tunes played by their LSD overlords.

Their “freedom” doesn’t allow them to be all they can be, doesn’t facilitate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but forces them to live purposeless lives, making no positive contribution to the larger society, life is dark and brutal and most of their own citizens live in fear as they are preyed upon by their very children.  These groups find their “freedom” through the heavy hand of government as all other institutions that safeguard freedom and advance the culture has been shattered.

Of course there are exceptions, millions of exceptions, but in a nation of hundreds of millions, the LSDs don’t care about the exceptions, they care about the majorities of the groups that make up their coalition.  They care about the 95 percent of blacks who voted for Obama, the 70 percent of hispanics and muslims, the 86 percent of homosexuals, the 56 percent of women and even the 44 percent of girly-men who act as if they’re afraid of their own shadows or perhaps suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

It is impossible for these groups who comprise the current democrat party to ever live in peace, they will never create their utopia.  There is only so much room at the trough.  Democrats gain by instilling hatred of traditional America (whites) and confusion.  Sexual deviants are at least confused (actually depraved), girly men are confused and many women are confused. Girly men and man-hating confused women belong almost exclusively to the democrat party. They appear to be comfortable there because that party helps create their grievances and provides “solutions” through legislation and rogue leftist judges.

It’s all part of the democrat coalition which I list as –

1) Homosexuals (valuable for money, Hollywood influence, destroying Christianity)

2) Muslims (Valuable for destroy Christianity)

3) Women (Valuable for their large numbers of silly man-hating women)

4) Blacks (perfect stoolies for instilling “white guilt” in gullible whites. Also their violent tendencies get to keep gun control on the front burner as well as our tax dollars flowing as bribe money)

5) Asians (Vote 75 percent democrat, don’t know why, but democrats are milking them for votes while they can)

6) Union drones (their thug leaders are part of the world-wide socialist movement)

7) Hispanics (Don’t know why here either, but most vote democrat so democrats pretend like they care about them)

8) girly white men. (deluded and tortured souls, possibly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, afraid of their own shadows)

9)  Environmental wackos (deluded socialists/Marxists intent on destroying capitalism or actual worshippers of Gaia who favor nature and world over humanity itself.)

The democrat party is led by its “intelligentsia” – their politicians and members of their media, entertainment and the education (propaganda) mills, all who view themselves as the enlightened elite.  If conservative patriotic Americans of all stripes and colors ceased to exist, how could this coalition possibly maintain peace and order?  Most normal people are repulsed by the various sexual deviancies, blacks and muslims hate just about everybody else, Hispanics are more interested in protecting their family members who have come here illegally or protecting themselves if they are here illegally from deportation.  Union and non-union never get along because unionized workers get more pay and benefits for less expended effort than their counterparts.

Radicalized women are fighting for their “rights” they actually “won” years ago.  Females now make up 57 percent of all college students and depending on which study you read, women control anywhere from 60 to 75 percent of the nation’s wealth!  Women are responsible for 83 percent of all consumer purchases.  The silly element of women in America, reliable man-hating democrats “defend” themselves in a “war on women” that simply does not exist.  In truth, republicans should fight back with their own “war on men” mantra.

Remove the hatred of America ginned up by democrats and this coalition will fall apart, all seeking their own place at the table and the table is only so big.  Do away with productive America, do away with our reliable energy and manufacturing industries and the high paying jobs they provide and who is going to keep the slop flowing into the democrat hog trough?  Once the wealth of America has been totally commandeered to advance the liberal agenda, will those that “have” really want to keep providing for the “have nots”?

Every study reveals that liberals are stingy with their own wealth while conservatives are much more prone to altruism and charity.  Bill Clinton donates his used underwear for a tax write-off while true conservatives give their time, money and resources to truly help the down trodden.  Liberals want to do it with our money, our tax dollars to prove their “compassion”, conservatives do with their own resources and have desire to steal them from somebody else.

Liberals engage in “divide and conquer”.  Identify differences then start gouging, start fanning the flames of envy and covetousness.  Obama is a master at flame fanning.  Last November in Malaysia he, as he is wont to do, blasted America.  Dave Boyer of the Washington Times reported on November 20th that

“President Obama discussed America’s faults Friday with young Asian leaders, saying the U.S. suffers from “pitfalls” such as income inequality, a political system controlled by the wealthy and political parties divided along racial lines…

“Speaking at a town-hall event in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Mr. Obama said…”I really hope that all of you are fighting against the kinds of attitudes where you organize political parties or you organize interest groups just around ethnic or racial or tribal lines, because when you start doing that, it’s very easy for people to start thinking that whoever is not part of my group is somehow less than me.  And once that mindset comes in, that’s how violence happens.  That’s how discrimination happens.  And Societies that are divided ethnically and racially are almost never successful over the long term.”

Obama should know, he’s an expert at dividing people as he’s set race relations back a generation.  Income inequality is always going to exist in any society, especially in a capitalist society where ability and achievement are rewarded.  The democrat party is organized around ethnic, racial, religious and sexual lines and he and the democrat party have inculcated views in their plantation members that those outside their cult are “somehow less than” them.  Violence does happen as we’ve witnessed over the past year in places like Ferguson, Baltimore and several college campuses.  Of violence in America, virtually none can be blamed on the conservative camp.

The liberal path will always end with total Government control.   Government will drain the nation of its capital resources, will penalize or even criminalize the producers.  Those that have been rewarded for their work and talents will be portrayed as the enemy and as Obama says, “we must punish our enemies”.  As liberals keep draining America of its vast storehouse of wealth it will become more and more desperate.  It will devalue the currency, cause inflation to keep their various groups bought off and satisfied.

Government grows by promising more and more people that it will use the force of law to curtain the freedom of others.  It promises the indolent it will tax those willing to work to give them a handout.  It promises sexual deviants that it will force the greater society to accept their behavior as normal.  It promises minorities and women that it will restrict the opportunities of whites and males to open up positions they are not prepared for.  It promises alien invaders that they will make the nation’s indigenous citizens accept and accommodate them.  It promises certain groups that they will not be prosecuted for crimes while prosecuting their enemies who committed no crimes.

What indications are there that we well down this path?  Our colleges and universities today have a virtual lock down on free speech.  Conservative speech is not tolerated, there is no diversity of opinion, no free exchange of ideas.  This final stage of education (propaganda) is near totally corrupted.  The only way for a rational young person to survive if he or she has traditional American values is to keep their head down, keep quiet and play the game.

Democrats over the past couple of decades use the legal system to punish their ideological enemies as we’ve seen them take out Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and currently an attempt to take former Texas governor Rick Perry.  We’ve witnessed the IRS prevent conservative groups from organizing.  The activities of the partisan hack Lois Learner now going down the old memory hole.  Government certainly isn’t the solution, it isn’t simply the problem, it is now much more than that, it is the enemy of America.

When liberals are finished with this de-construction of America all that will be left will be angry groups who will turn on each other out of desperation.  Their envy and hatred of the prevailing culture will be replaced with envy and hatred of their competing groups, of each other.  All of the old cultural norms will be gone, there will be no guidance or light to show the way back.  Government will be all there is, and the liberal siren song of total personal freedom will be replaced with total government control over every aspect of life.

Was Obama really a “Law Professor”?

“A former constitutional law professor”, so Obama and his sycophants claim.  Obama was not a professor, but a lecturer.  What did he really teach?  While there’s any number of sources to understand Obama’s “teaching” record, the following from Doug Ross’s blog is as good as any –

“Is the President’s resume accurate when it comes to his career and qualifications? I can corroborate that Obama’s “teaching career” at Chicago was, to put it kindly, a sham.

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Consider this:

1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he “fibbed” on his bar application.

2. Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the President and First Lady – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “Obama did NOT ‘hold the title’ of a University of Chicago law school professor”. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

6. “He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.” ( End quote)

As with just about everything else with Obama, he is an empty suit, stewed in hatred of America his entire life.  Its no wonder he governs that way, he is incapable of any other forms of thinking.  He is a creation of his radical upbringing and his exposure to radical academia.  His past has been carefully concealed and recreated to present him as the “one we’ve been waiting for” to a gullible and dumbed down electorate.

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, 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:

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, 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)


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 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.


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?


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.


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”.


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.”


“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.”


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, 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.


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.


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, 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.