Tag Archives: topnews

Why Plymouth Prospered When Others Floundered

It’s the time of year when postmodernists revise our understanding of history to paint a world and nation so thoroughly corrupted from its inception that propriety demands its eradication. They paint a world so depraved that our treasured moments of gratitude and family gathering must be replaced with self-loathing and unending repentance to Godless woke ideologies.  The postmodernists intentionally impart modern context to historical events so that they might destroy the fabric of our nation.  A proper perspective paints a more hopeful picture. A picture where a people desperate for religious freedom sought refuge in a distant and inhospitable land and found allies amongst people unlike themselves.

A proper survey of the world in the fifteenth thru seventeenth centuries provides a glimpse of a world in transition.  At the time, the Catholic Church dominated much of the Western world, save for the Anglican territories.  Religious influence was tantamount to political power.  Monarchs were chosen by God, and material wealth was considered a reflection of the blessings of the Creator.  It was this mindset that spawned the practice of selling indulgences and drove men to traverse the globe in search of the favor of monarchs and God. It was this practice that ultimately ended in the repeated failures of explorers to put down settlements in North America.  It was the radically different approach employed by the pilgrims of Plymouth colony that we, in part, owe our existence to today.

The pilgrims of Plymouth colony were a group of English Puritan separatists who, having been persecuted in their homeland by the state Anglican Church, sought refuge in the Netherlands.  Though free to worship, the urban industrial setting of the Netherlands was a poor fit for this agrarian sect.  Having seen English persecution creeping into the Netherlands and having their children begin to acclimate to the Dutch culture and lifestyle, they pooled their resources to risk everything they had for a chance at life on their terms in the new world.  In 1619, they applied for and received financing and a land patent that would allow them to settle at the mouth of the Hudson River in what is now Connecticut/New York.

Through multiple failed launches, deceitful lenders, and an at-times hostile ship crew and shipmates, the pilgrims would finally set sail aboard the Mayflower ship on September 6, 1620.  After two arduous months at sea, they would be blown off course and arrive at Cape Cod on November 9, 1620.  With winter setting in, they abandoned their initial charter at the mouth of Hudson Bay and instead anchored at what is today Plymouth, Massachusetts.  Having abandoned their initial charter, they required a new governmental organization that would give them legal claims to their settlements.  They drafted and signed the Mayflower Compact.

Before the arrival of the pilgrims of the Plymouth colony, numerous attempts to establish English settlements along the Eastern seaboard of North America had ended in the settlers’ demise.  Settlements like the lost colony of Roanoke or Jamestown, Virginia, had seen most settlers perish due to disease, malnutrition, exposure to the elements, and war with native tribes. The primary difference between these past attempts and that of the Plymouth colony lay in motivation.  Whereas prior attempts to settle North America had been driven by material wealth and prestige, the pilgrims of Plymouth colony largely sought freedom to worship God in the manner they wished.  In this way, they were devoted to one another in pursuing communal success and not just material wealth to advance their cause.

With a devotion to God and each other, the pilgrims found divine favor where others did not. It was the kindness and unwavering faith of the pilgrims while crammed below the deck of a meager ship for two months that won over an at-times hostile ship crew.  It was divine providence that landed the pilgrims in a harbor that was abandoned by the native Patuxet, who had been largely decimated by leptospirosis. In this way, they encountered lands that were already cleared and prepared for settlement.  As an agrarian society, they were also better equipped to labor for their sustenance than prior English settlements that were largely manned by an unskilled and unwilling educated class.

It was divine providence that following a brutal first winter that saw half of their numbers perish, they were greeted by Samoset, an English-speaking native translator. Samoset introduced the pilgrims to Chief Massasoit of the Wampanoag tribe and Squanto, an English-speaking native and one of the remaining Patuxet tribe.  It was these early relationships that would be the basis of the success of the Plymouth colony.  Through these relationships, the pilgrims signed exclusive defense and trade treaties and established peace with the natives where prior colonies had failed. They were taught to subsist in a hostile and foreign land.  It is these relationships that form the basis of the Thanksgiving we celebrate today.

When postmodernists attempt to reorient our thinking of the year 1619 to align with the Dutch indentured slave trade, it is not by accident.  It is intended to pre-empt a pivotal moment in American history.  That moment is the arrival of devoutly religious English separatists who showed us how to coexist among those unlike ourselves.  It was their commitment to God and each other that saw them flourish when others floundered.  They laid the foundations that our melting pot society enjoys today.

By Brian Parsons

Source: Why Plymouth Prospered When Others Floundered – American Thinker

In defense of Thanksgiving, here and abroad 

Commentary: In defense of Thanksgiving, here and abroad

Dixie Johnson Nov 1, 2022

Thanksgiving. Ah, Thanksgiving. That most American of holidays begun by the Puritans and their friends so many years ago and officially sanctioned by President Lincoln. It’s my favorite family holiday, so it was an especially hard time when I was living in a foreign country.

A friend who spent some years on a boat in Mexico ridiculed Americans who wanted to indulge in the traditional foods for the holiday when they could be eating wonderful Mexican food instead. Heck, they could have Mexican food every day so why was it so hard to understand why some of us wanted to enjoy the traditional menu on this special day?

The years I lived in Czech Republic and in Slovenia I had to try very, very hard to make the holiday live up to my fond expectation. Back in the mid-1990s, I taught in a Czech Gymnasia, a high school for bright students headed for universities, and I lived with a young Czech family. When the big day was approaching, I asked where I might buy a turkey. No luck, none were to be found; but I did learn that I could find frozen chickens in the small chest freezer at the nearby “potravinie” (grocery store). So off I went to choose a bird. I found one that looked fairly good-sized and set it out to thaw the night before our big dinner.

Horrors! After it thawed I could see that it was peppered everywhere with tiny pinfeathers.

“No problem,” said Ivan, the young husband, who was eagerly awaiting the fabulous feast I had promised. “I will pull them out with pliers.”

So he set to work and before long it looked more edible.

Then more horrors — the innards were not empty of innards. Martina, the young wife burst into raucous laughter.

“You bought a hen, not a chicken,” she, who was a medical student, said. “But no problem.”

She went to work removing with great curiosity and interest one egg after another after another after … well, you get the idea. Each succeeding egg was slightly smaller than the one before. That prolific hen contained a wealth of eggs.

At last, the oven was heated and the bird was ready. It roasted and roasted and roasted, yet it was tough as ever. Finally, Martina’s mother came up from her apartment downstairs and told us she knew what to do. She chopped bacon into slivers then cut small slits in the chicken and inserted the bacon bits. Back into the oven it went to roast some more. Before long it smelled delightful. It finally ended up slightly more tender, but nothing like what I expected. That was the day I learned the difference between a chicken and a hen.

Fortunately, the apple pie I made was delicious — the cinnamon, nutmeg and cloves I had brought from America made it special. Everyone wanted the recipe and, because some spices weren’t readily available in Czech Republic, I left mine for the family when I returned to the U.S.

A couple of years later, when I was teaching in Slovenia, I decided to fix Thanksgiving dinner and invite three other Americans who lived in various parts of the tiny country.

A week before the celebration, I stopped at a small market that had a nice meat counter to order a turkey. With my limited Slovene, I managed to arrange with the butcher for a small turkey of about three or four kilos. I was to pick it up on Friday, the day before my friends were arriving. My husband had sent from Idaho two boxes of Stove Top stuffing mix as well as a couple of packages of Craisins. What could be better than turkey, stuffing and cranberries? Apple and cherry pies would have to substitute for the pumpkin and mincemeat varieties. On Monday, I stopped to confirm that all was well and my turkey would be there by Friday.

“No problem,” the butcher said with a big smile, proud of his English.

Friday arrived. I stopped at the market after school on my way home. It was closed! And the sign on the door said it would be closed for several days. What? Panic!

Time for Plan B, but what was Plan B? I knew I’d not be able to find a turkey but maybe a chicken? I stopped at another market a mile or so away where, thank goodness, they had a large chunk of turkey breast. And I bought the whole thing.

“Do you want it sliced?” asked the butcher.

“No thank you,” I replied.

This surprised him since Slovenes generally purchase turkey in thin slices and fry it up as schnitzels.

It all turned out fine. I braised extra onions and celery to add to the stuffing mix and of course potatoes and gravy work great in any culture.

For breakfast the next morning, I devised maple syrup for our French toast out of sugar and water cooked up with a spoonful of maple flavoring (again brought from Idaho). Ah, all’s well when the tummy is full of good old traditional fare.

By the way, why was that first market closed? I stopped the next time it was open and the butcher apologized profusely. The market had been sold to a new owner and was closed for inventory. I never knew if my original turkey was there or not, but my friends and I never missed it.

Dixie Johnson, 79, of Grangeville, worked in three different European countries — Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovenia — in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Source: Commentary: In defense of Thanksgiving, here and abroad | Golden Times | lmtribune.com




Today, thank a veteran for your freedoms 

Today, thank a veteran for your freedoms


One hundred and four years ago today, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, (November 11, 1918),


…the Great War ends. At 5 a.m. that morning, Germany, bereft of manpower and supplies and faced with imminent invasion, signed an armistice agreement with the Allies in a railroad car outside Compiègne, France. The First World War left nine million soldiers dead and 21 million wounded, with Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, France and Great Britain each losing nearly a million or more lives. In addition, at least five million civilians died from disease, starvation, or exposure…


A year later, on November 11, 1919, the first anniversary of the end of the slaughter of the Great War, as it was called, and the subsequent armistice signing was designated Armistice Day.  Because of its vast expanse and unprecedented number of deaths and severe injuries, plus massive destruction, Europeans and Americans celebrated the end of the Great War — as it was originally called, “the war to end all wars.”

Alas, such optimism of no more wars was unwarranted.  Twenty-five years later, another brutal, widespread war, World War ll, began, and the Great War was renamed World War l.  Therefore, while the purpose of the holiday, to honor U.S. Armed Forces veterans, remains unchanged, the scope of the day and its name have changed over the years, as the helpful U.S. government census site explains.


…Congress passed a resolution in 1926 making it an annual observance, and it became a national holiday in 1938. Sixteen years later, then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation changing the name to Veterans Day to honor all those who served their country during war or peacetime. On this day, the nation honors military veterans — living and dead — with parades and other observances across the country and a ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia…


In recent years, all U.S. military branches have been unable to fill their recruiting goals — and no, not only because of WuFlu.  Meanwhile, countries around the world turn to the U.S. for military aid; our service personnel are on active duty around the world.

Our country, our entire world is safer because of their commitment.

Remember their sacrifice!

Honor their duty!

Thank them!


By Ethel C. Fenig

Source: Today, thank a veteran for your freedoms – American Thinker

The timeless wisdom of Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’


The timeless wisdom of Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’


PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

—Thomas Paine, introduction to Common Sense

It would behoove us all to review the text of Thomas Paine’s 48-page pamphlet, which he published anonymously (fearing reprisal) in February 1776. Paine’s wisdom applies as well today as it did back then, not because of his argument against the monarchy, but as a reminder that the self-government we championed then—and are losing now—carries responsibilities.

Paine donated the profits from the astounding 500,000 copies sold (when the US population was only 2.5 million) to Washington’s army. Looking at his ideas reminds us that it was influential for a profound reason. Let it be so again, as part of the guidance we need to follow out of the current morass.

Paine was British by birth and had no formal higher education, having dropped out of school at age 13. Therefore, he wrote simply, using accessible and resonant words. From the opening paragraphs:

Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Paine aptly describes how a government must be formed, to have an orderly society

…because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.

Clearly, we’ve grown away from that simplicity. A small populace governed by elected representatives people has become 340 million people governed by a nameless bureaucracy, plus a few elected officials who rarely aspire to represent most of their constituents. That part of Paine’s writing devoted to arguing against the concept of hereditary, kingly rule resonates now that we have what was then unimaginable: an ingrained, bureaucratic inflexibility of rule.

Do we have a president in the sense our Founders conceived? On the face of it, the president today can, by fiat, change any rule. The executive order that put a halt to the Keystone pipeline, and started our descent into energy helplessness is an example. He (or, in Biden’s case, his minions) can direct a corrupt bureaucracy to trample on the rights of the people he so inadroitly governs—a stark example is Biden’s continued imprisonment, without trial, in horrific conditions, of people who walked into the Capitol building nearly two years ago.

Paine’s writing reminds us that

Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by important; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any thoughout the dominions.

While that last was again written as an argument against the throne, it holds true now, perfectly describing Biden. Paine further asks this question:

Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us?

Such a simple question. It is demonstrably true that those now in power work against our prosperity. We see this in our wealth’s diminution through predictable inflation caused by blatantly bad fiscal and social policy. We, and our government, forget that, as Paine quotes Dragonetti, on Virtue and Rewards,

The science of the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages, who should discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national expense. (Emphasis mine.)

Paine further says that

The more men have to lose, the less willing they are to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a spaniel.

It is time, I think, to stop trembling and watching our freedom slip away. In much of the country, this election matters more than any before it, and we must consider it a start toward reversing America’s downward spiral. Keeping the feet of those whom we elect to the fire is step two. Complacency is no longer an option.



Source: The timeless wisdom of Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ – American Thinker

Researchers: We’ll never be able to control a super-intelligent AI 


The proliferation of a new generation of AI chatbots has spurred a renewed interest around the Big Tech community in one of our favorite topics here. That would be the dreaded worst-case scenario where we finally come up with an Artificial Intelligence system that is actually smarter than the humans who programmed it, is capable of original thought, and “wakes up” to the point where it demonstrates sentience. To be clear, we’re still not sure if that’s even possible, but developers are gamely giving it their best shot, as we’ve discussed here on multiple occasions. Some researchers have been giving it a lot of thought, though, including one group of scientists who published their conclusions in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research last year. They sounded rather definitive in their findings. As David Nield recounts at ScienceAlert, the outlook is less than cheerful. Due to a stone wall we are likely to run into when trying to model our most advanced AI creations, they concluded that it will be almost impossible for us to control a superintelligent AI.

The idea of artificial intelligence overthrowing humankind has been talked about for decades, and in 2021, scientists delivered their verdict on whether we’d be able to control a high-level computer super-intelligence. The answer? Almost definitely not.

The catch is that controlling a super-intelligence far beyond human comprehension would require a simulation of that super-intelligence which we can analyze (and control). But if we’re unable to comprehend it, it’s impossible to create such a simulation.

Rules such as ’cause no harm to humans’ can’t be set if we don’t understand the kind of scenarios that an AI is going to come up with, suggest the authors of the new paper. Once a computer system is working on a level above the scope of our programmers, we can no longer set limits.

In basic layman’s terms, in order to be able to fully understand (and thereby control) all of the possible virtual actions that such a system might undertake on its own, we would need to be able to first create a simulated model of the super-intelligence to run all of the needed tests. But if the system is beyond our ability to simulate, we’ll never be able to create that model.

Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics apparently won’t save us, either. If the first instruction you give to the algorithm is that it must never cause any harm to a human being or allow such harm to take place, we have no idea how many side roads the machine will explore while attempting to solve problems. It could readily come up with a “solution” that doesn’t meet the definition of “causing harm” but wipes us out anyway. Or, a sufficiently advanced system might reach a justification for modifying the rules if that is the only way to solve the problem that it’s working on.

In case that doesn’t give you enough to worry about, a second group of researchers from Google Deepmind and the University of Oxford tackled the same question. Their paper, published in the journal AI Magazine, offered a more brutally stark conclusion. A superintelligent AI will “likely annihilate humankind” in some sort of “existential catastrophe.” (Futurism)

Researchers at Google Deepmind and the University of Oxford have concluded that it’s now “likely” that superintelligent AI will spell the end of humanity — a grim scenario that more and more researchers are starting to predict…

“Under the conditions we have identified, our conclusion is much stronger than that of any previous publication — an existential catastrophe is not just possible, but likely,” Cohen, Oxford University engineering student and co-author of the paper, tweeted earlier this month.

The superintelligent AI would likely be goal-driven and lack any sense of morals as humans understand them. The tipping point would come when it begins to view human beings as “standing in the way” of solving a problem or achieving a goal. And when the AI sees you as an obstacle, the obstacle will need to be removed.

You may be thinking that we can simply pull the plug before it gets carried away, but that’s been addressed also. Even the chatbots we have today are able to search trillions of records to develop responses so quickly that it seems instantaneous. The superintelligent AI could likely work out a solution (even one of the terminal kind) and put it into action before its human creators realized anything was going off the rails. So we would stand even less of a chance than the military officials and scientists in the movie Colossus: The Forbin Project. (And if you’ve never seen that, I highly recommend it.)

But don’t lose too much sleep over all of this for now. We’re still a long way from creating that level of superintelligence. Or at least that’s what the machines would like us to think for now.


Over before you know it’s begun

Source: Researchers: We’ll never be able to control a super-intelligent AI – HotAir

Why the Bible’s 1st sentence is the key to all truth

Why the Bible’s 1st sentence is the key to all truth

Exclusive: Neill G. Russell explains Satan’s ‘second great plan of deception’ regarding Creation

Lying is the primary weapon of deceit that Satan uses to separate people from God, their loving heavenly Father and Creator. The apostle Paul tells us that Satan “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), so that what he says and does sounds good and seems reasonable, but there is absolutely no truth in anything he says.

Satan told the first lie in recorded history, to Eve in the Garden of Eden. After planting seeds of doubt in Eve’s mind with a question (Genesis 3:1), he directly contradicts God’s Word by telling her, “You will not certainly die” (Genesis 3:4). With that lie, Satan led Eve to her death; Adam followed, and so have we.

Satan’s second great plan of deception was as equally brilliant as his first. Just get humans to accept a believable alternative to replace the first sentence of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” as truth. If they won’t accept the first sentence of the Bible as truth, they’re not going to believe the rest of the book either. I call this highly successful scheme “Satan’s mantra of doubt.” Simply put: “If they don’t believe that God is the creator, they won’t believe in God.”

As a public high school science teacher for 45 years, I witnessed firsthand Satan’s subtle lying attempts to remove all vestiges of God from our schools and universities. During that same period, I tried never to compromise teaching God’s Genesis 1:1 scientific truth to my students.

TRENDING: Guns and Rosaries

The basic premise of science is that everything considered “truth” must be tested either to prove or disprove its existence. Like science, truth is uncovered when you can make repeatable observations and check your evidence against the cold, hard facts. Unfortunately, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (by Natural Selection), which is presently being taught worldwide in public schools and universities as scientific truth, is nothing more than an “unproven malicious lie” contrived by the devil for one solitary purpose: to spread the belief that God “is not” our Creator.

Now, more than ever, our nation’s youth (including Generation Z and Millennials) need to know that “God alone is our loving ‘eternal’ Father and Creator!” According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau statistics, 1 in 4 American children presently live without a biological, step, or adoptive father. Numerous studies have conclusively shown that children growing up in a home without being nurtured in a loving relationship with a married mother and father can have serious implications for a child’s future, such as low academic achievement, depression and anxiety, and externalizing problems such as anger and aggression.

With our world in literal free-fall, Christians need to know we’re fighting a spiritual battle that we can and will win! Americans of all ages need to wake up each morning with an attitude of gratitude – having peace and assurance and never again doubting that they have a loving Heavenly Father always present in their lives, who promises:

As our loving Father and Creator, all God asks of us is to recognize His sovereignty over our lives and to humbly submit our hearts to His Authority alone. What does this mean? Jesus, God’s Son, who suffered, died and shed His blood on the cross for all of mankind’s sin, said in Matthew 22: 36-39 NIV that we are to: “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Jesus said this is the first and greatest commandment. And second, Jesus said you are to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” In Romans 6:22 KJV, the Apostle Paul sums up our rewards for recognizing God as our loving Creator and Father: But now having been set free from sin, and having become servants of God, you now have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.”

By Neill G. Russell

Bestselling author Neill G. Russell is a Messianic Jewish believer and a retired, award-winning high school science teacher. Neill is presently using his communication skills as the website designer of www.bemadewhole.netwww.godsgranddesign.com and www.countdowntodaniels70thweek.com to spread God’s Genesis 1 truth and God’s prophetic end time message throughout the world.


Source: Why the Bible’s 1st sentence is the key to all truth

Christians Fight Spiritual Battles That the Left Doesn’t Even Want to Acknowledge – PJ Media

It’s no secret that much of the left harbors disdain for Christianity and for people of faith in general. Sure, there are leftist Christians, but that side of the political aisle is growing increasingly secular and hostile toward religion.

Witness the ridiculous and hateful piece in The Atlantic from Daniel Panneton, who manages an anti-hate project in Canada. In this op-ed, which would be laughable if it weren’t so earnest, Panneton likens the Catholic rosary to what he sees as a violent far-right culture obsessed with guns.

Panneton writes that “the rosary has acquired a militaristic meaning for radical-traditional (or ‘rad trad’) Catholics.”

In a later paragraph, he even more boldly declares that conservative Catholics hold to “a quasi-theological doctrine of what [sociologists] have called ‘righteous violence’ against political enemies regarded as demonic or satanic, be they secularists, progressives, or Jews.”

That’s right: Panneton sees a certain strain of conservative Christians as prone to violence against their enemies.

As my PJ Media colleague Robert Spencer puts it, “There is a glaring absence in Panneton’s story: he doesn’t seem even to have attempted to interview any of these violent, radical, rosary-praying Catholics. It’s obvious why he didn’t do so: their own explanation of what they meant by all this imagery would have differed so widely from the spin that he put on it that it would have immediately brought down the house of cards he was constructing.”

Robert’s right: to do the work of actually talking to the people Panneton is writing about would run the risk of destroying the narrative, and a good leftist wouldn’t have that, would he?

Thomas Griffin penned a response to Panneton at The Federalist that resonated with me.

“The confusion of Panneton resides in his inability to see what the Catholic Church actually stands for and fights against,” Griffin writes. “Jesus stands for peace, but he also says that ‘he has come to set the earth on fire’ (Luke 12:49). He came to destroy the power of sin and death through his sacrifice on the cross. Furthermore, the resurrection was evidence of his victory.”


It’s a little different for me as a non-denominational Protestant (you can hear my testimony here). We don’t use the rosary for worship, and we don’t pray to Mary, which Griffin also mentions in his piece. But there’s a larger notion in Griffin’s piece that transcends the Catholic-Protestant divide and goes to the essential truths of the faith that we all share.

As Christians, we fight spiritual battles that the left doesn’t think about — or doesn’t want to acknowledge. The Apostle Paul explains the battles that believers fight, and he gives the Ephesian church specific instructions on how to fight those battles:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints…

Ephesians 6:10-18 (ESV)

(There are a couple of things I need to acknowledge here. I realize that there are plenty of conservatives who don’t believe the same things that Christians do, but at least they try to respect Christians and their beliefs. I know that there are Christian leftists as well, and many of them are genuinely faithful. I also know that, throughout history, individuals and groups have done some awful things in the name of Christianity, but they are the outliers.)

Related: Christians Are the New Boogeyman for the American Left

When someone becomes a Christian, the church gains ground against spiritual enemies. Salvation is a declaration of war against evil, and when a believer declares his or her faith in baptism, that act is, as Dr. Michael Heiser puts it, “a loyalty oath, a public avowal of who is on the Lord’s side in the cosmic war between good and evil” (emphasis in the original).

When a Catholic believer prays the rosary, he or she isn’t declaring war on enemies in this world. When a Christian prays, opens his or her Bible, or sings a worship song, he or she fights a battle against the powers of evil. Everything we do that glorifies God is an act of defiance against the evil in this world.

Other aspects of our Christian life serve as acts of spiritual warfare too. When we resist temptation, we win a battle against our spiritual enemies. How we respond to suffering can win ground in the spiritual war. Even forgiveness is a winning salvo against the forces of evil.

Many people on the left don’t understand this. The left is all about the here and now, which is why they want to upend everything and create a utopia on earth. Draconian measures to save the planet, unfair taxation and expansive social programs that redistribute income, and the unrealistic push for “equity” for everyone are all rooted in leftists’ belief that this life is all there is.

Panneton quotes Pope Francis — who is no conservative himself — who said, “There is no path to holiness without … spiritual combat.” The unseen spiritual battles that we Christians fight are more important than any skirmishes we participate in here on earth. We may not even realize that we’re fighting the battles, but when we glorify God, we’re gaining ground against the enemy. And we know who wins the ultimate battle.


by Chris Queen


Source: Christians Fight Spiritual Battles That the Left Doesn’t Even Want to Acknowledge – PJ Media

Four Simple Words to Save America

Four Simple Words to Save America

In – God – We – Trust

“100-year-old veteran breaks down crying: ‘This is not the country we fought for.'” Fox13, 7/1/22

“City of Orlando fireworks promo says folks ‘probably don’t want to celebrate’ hate-filled US: ‘We can’t blame them.'” —BizPacReview, 7/3/22

“From Portland to San Francisco, How ‘Open-Air Drug Markets’ Turned Liberal Dreams into Residents’ Nightmare … Widespread Addiction and Homelessness Across the Cities.” —6/17/22

The wreckage of an America broken is strewn street to street.

So many of us feel it, beyond unease, far beyond disquiet, a sense of doom and horror. Something important is very wrong.  A keystone has crumbled or gone missing.  The country is unmoored.

Every terrible headline conveys with it foreboding: a warning that a kind of curtain is descending across the nation.  It’s an insatiable, sadistic force, relentless and repulsive, sucking life out of the air.

The awful thing sweeping our land is a predatory menace fed by dark hearts whose bounty is captive souls.  It is disordered, brutal, thieving, violent.  Where it rules — and it aims to rule us from sea to sea — there is no justice, but injustice; no law, but abuse.  There are only oppression, addiction, cruelty, and death.

It has an ancient name: wickedness.

Deadly sins are given joyless parades and pharmacology, whose lies bring despair and unreason.  Heartsickness.  Corruption in high places and low spreads with it an icy fear that whispers, “The worst is yet to come.”

I am not telling you anything you don’t already know.  Those of us chilled at the encroaching ill wind ask each other how we fight it.  What should we do?  Although there are millions of us, our desire to somehow battle the diabolical has not yet found its political response.  The current knot of savagery and hatreds, this tangle of tribalism and lawlessness as old as humankind, cannot be straightened through electoral means.  Instead, as most of us have rightly said, America’s problem is spiritual.

True as that is, there has not emerged a unified spiritual response, either.

As a child of the 1950s, I was raised in what seems in retrospect to have been a spiritual nation.  Or at least a faith-friendly one.  Religion was, well, intersectional in America in those days.  Talk of God was nonsectarian and nonpartisan.  It was also commonplace and unremarkable — the connective tissue of civic culture in the wake of World War II.  But my first year of public school was the last year we prayed together there, as we kindergartners folded our hands before our milk and cookies and said: “God is great, God is good, and we thank Him for this food.”  The sweetness of the memory catches in my throat.

Then law changed, and with it began the long recession of public God appreciation, which went out like a tide over many decades, at first slowly and then at super speed.  Now you’re fired for praying alone on an empty field as a high school coach.  You’re viciously pilloried for offering “thoughts and prayers” in condolence.

But this is not yet another gloomy review of our dire condition.  Because there abides in the living recall of my generation — and among the widely scattered remnants of the traditional America that yet survives — one of the greatest spiritual weapons we can wield: our national motto.

I was not yet two years old when both Houses of Congress passed a joint resolution declaring “IN GOD WE TRUST” the official motto of the United States.  There was no debate, nor a single dissenting vote.  By law, it remains America’s watchword to this day, Public Law 84-851, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on July 30, 1956.

Few remember, but the Senate officially reaffirmed the motto in 2006, as did the House just eleven years ago — with nine dissenting Democrats.  Some of them, including Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), and Judy Chu (D-Calif.), still sit in the House chamber that displays the motto in huge gold letters high on the wall behind the speaker’s chair.  The declaration IN GOD WE TRUST is literally written in stone.

Despite Democrat objections, the 2011 Congressional reaffirmation goes even farther than the original 1956 text, this time also “supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.”  You can find the stark four words of the motto in bronze atop cast-metal depictions of the Great Seal on plaques scattered among federal offices, including the U.S. Capitol, the Longworth House Office building, and the Dirksen Senate Office Building.  Virtually our entire government, elected and unelected, daily passes by these declarations of trust in God.

The words go mostly unnoticed.  It is law that they appear on all U.S. currency, but as fewer and fewer Americans handle cash, the tangible national reminder of Whom we trust is vanishing.  Our motto does not grace digital commerce.  God is not the “Master” referenced on MasterCard, nor does His name appear on any other plastic to which we entrust our accounts.  Crypto-currencies like bitcoin, ethereum, dogecoin, tether are untethered to the federal “In God We Trust” requirement.

Coincidentally, we drifted from our anchor as our money went godless, so to speak.  If our national motto was remembered at all, it was reduced to a trivia question.  I’d wager less than 30 percent of Americans know we have a national motto, beyond the old one-liner “In God we trust, all others pay cash.”  After all, is there a duller term than “national motto”?  The eyes glaze over.

So the four simple words have been dormant, awaiting renewal, their power shrouded for a time.  Until now.  These words are lightning, ready to be let loose.

Because here is the truth.  America’s explicit trust in the living God is the scarlet cord that runs from before the Revolution through the Civil War, both World Wars, through the Cold War and beyond.  To examine this record is to open the forgotten history of America, a narrative inconvenience deliberately suppressed.  Here is a tiny sample of the long and complex lineage of our motto, unbroken from the Founders to you:

•1753: “Remember that God is our only sure trust.”—Mary Washington to her son George as the young soldier left home; he ever after credited Providence for America’s miraculous military victories and national formation.

•1814: Blessed with victory and peace may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto — “In God is our trust.” 
—Francis Scott Key, last verse of “The Star Spangled Banner,” inspiration for our national motto.

•1861: “No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense.  The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.” —Salmon P. Chase, secretary of the Treasury, as the motto was shortened to four words for U.S. coinage

•1955: “At the base of our freedom is our faith in God and the desire of Americans to live by His will and His guidance. As long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail.”—Rep. Charles Bennett (D-Fla.), who fought to put “In God We Trust” on all U.S. paper currency.

•1955: “Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life.  Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first — the most basic — expression of Americanism.  Thus the Founding Fathers saw it, and thus, with God’s help, it will continue to be.”—President Dwight Eisenhower.

•1956: “The national motto of the United States is hereby declared to be ‘In God We Trust.'”

And so it remains.

In their long march through American institutions, our enemies have stomped many of our traditions and societal structures.  But here’s the thing.  Our trust is not in institutions or traditions or structures.  Our trust is not in government or presidents.  The profound truth lives in a national proclamation that was formulated as a retort from the beginning.  The wording is unusual; it implies a “No.”  No, it is not in coins we trust, not in currency.  No, it is not in horses, not in arms, not in people nor in any human design.  “No,” it cautions, “not those.  In God we trust.”

Listen, Americans, to the message from the Americans before us.  Four plain words form the perfect answer to our desperate plea for our nation: “What should we do?”

“In God we trust.”

Yes, here’s what we do: we deploy our national motto, unfurl it as our banner.  It’s time to reactivate our Superpower.  Trust in God is where the battle is transformed.  Our opponents cannot take this ground — they cannot even fight here.  (They’ve already surrendered: as a New York Times columnist put it, “In This Time of War, I Propose We Give Up God.”  Fine.  You lose.)

My sister and I have started using the four simple words as a greeting, a call-and-response that echoes across the years, across the miles, every time we speak, “In God we trust!”  It is a joy and a delight to say and to hear.  It is so delicious to remind each other who we are as Americans, and Whom we trust.  I can attest to the power the words radiate, every time.  They instantly encourage.  Giving God the trust due Him stirs the heart.

These are not magic words, but they are majestic ones.  The motto is not an incantation; it’s an invitation to all who want to join with the “we”; let those who trust in God say so.  There are millions of us who have tested God’s unshaken Name and proved it sure.  To declare together “In God We Trust!” right in the ugly face of the wicked Spirit of the Age is more than glorious dissent.  It is an unstoppable advancing force.

People who pronounce America dead forget the source of our power.  You want to watch the old republic emerge from its chrysalis?  Trust God, together with your countrymen who know that God is our hope and freedom.  There may well be a smaller number of believers now than there were when I was a child.  But with God, even a few are a majority — who can be against us?

Will you be viciously pilloried if you go around saying the national motto?  Yes.  Especially if more and more of us do.  To our enemies, it’s intolerable.  But here’s the reality.  There’s not a blessed thing they can do about it.  You are completely free to utter our national motto in public or private, in the streets and from the mountains and yes in any government building or meeting or school.  What liberation!  Say it!  Write it!  In GOD we trust!

I declare myself a happy IGWT warrior, and I intend to go all swashbuckler with it.  The motto has the protection of law, but there’s no requirement of any kind.  It’s an offer.  Come join us!  In God we trust, and you can, too.  It costs nothing.  Say it!  Write it!  And every time you do, you will find it straightens the shoulders, warms the heart, and fortifies the soul.  When we say it together, it becomes a prayer to our God who alone can save America.

By Diana Allocco

Ms. Allocco was managing editor of The Limbaugh Letter for its entire 29-year run.  Before that, she was senior staff editor at Reader’s Digest.

Source: Four Simple Words to Save America – American Thinker

If the Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions, With What Do We Pave the Road to Heaven? 

There is a reason nearly everyone is familiar with the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

The reason is, of course, that it is true and therefore it helps explain why there is so much evil.

Take the 20th century, the bloodiest century on record, in which about 100 million people — all noncombatants — were murdered by despotic regimes, nearly all of them communist. Many of the people who supported communism — both outside and inside communist countries — thought they were doing good.

The Soviet Communist Party’s Gulag Archipelago; the Holodomor (the communists’ deliberate starvation of 5 million-plus Ukrainians); the Cambodian killing fields (the communist massacre of about a quarter of the Cambodian people); the Chinese communist government’s mass starvation and other forms of killing of more than 60 million of its own people; and the creation of the world’s largest prison camp, communist North Korea — the roads to all these communist hells were paved by many people who had (or believed themselves to have had) good intentions.

Were it not for many well-intentioned people who believed in communism, the truly evil people who implemented these genocides might not have come to power. To cite but one example, it was Western men and women (primarily Americans and Brits), presumably with good intentions, who delivered to Stalin the secrets to making an atom bomb.

But what about the Nazis’ rise to power in Germany?

Not every German who voted for the Nazis in 1932, in Germany’s last free elections until after World War II, had evil intentions, let alone the aim of murdering all Jews. In fact, in campaigning that year, Hitler toned down his antisemitism in order to appeal to a broader base of German voters. The Nazis won only a third of German voters in that election, and the primary reason they voted for that party was not antisemitism. The primary reasons were the Great Depression and Germany’s hyperinflation, fear of communism, widespread political violence and resentment of the Versailles Treaty. In other words, even many of the minority of Germans who voted for Hitler did so with the good intention of solving Germany’s economic and political crises.

I use the Nazi example only to show that even those Germans who voted for the man and party that unleashed the greatest documented evil in history were not all motivated by bad intentions.

Thank God there is no mainstream movement in America with genocidal aims. But the road to lesser hells in this country is almost always motivated by people with good intentions.

I am sure that most of the many teachers who are robbing young children of their sexual innocence are motivated, certainly on a conscious level, by good intentions. Most of the Americans who vote for politicians who seek to defund the police — a true recipe for increased evil — do so with good intentions. The great majority of those who stormed (not to mention those who merely saw open doors and strolled into) the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, had good intentions. Most of the vast number of Americans who believe that free speech does not apply to anything they deem “hate speech” have good intentions — the elimination of hate speech; yet they comprise the first mass movement against free speech in American history. They pose a mortal threat to liberty in this country. But they believe they mean well.

The truth is that, on a conscious level, only a small minority of people wake up on any given day with an intent to do bad. The 51 heads of intelligence agencies who signed a statement a month before the 2020 presidential election declaring the Hunter Biden laptop story “Russian disinformation” lied. Yet, they probably believed that their mendacious assertion was morally justified because, in their view, the larger good was to ensure that then-President Donald Trump not be reelected.

The road to hell is paved by good intentions because most people who do harm, even many who do evil, are motivated by good intentions.

So, then, given that good intentions are almost always morally worthless, what are we to do if we wish to see good triumph over evil? Or, to pose the question another way, if good intentions are morally useless or, worse, actually pave the road to hell on Earth, with what should we pave the road to heaven on Earth?

The answer is wisdom. Good intentions without wisdom leads to evil.

The reason to worry about the future of America and Western civilization is not that its elites are composed of people with bad intentions; it is that the elites are composed of people devoid of wisdom.

The word for those who lack wisdom is “fool.” Most college professors, deans and presidents and, increasingly, most teachers in high schools and elementary schools; most editors and other journalists; most of the businesspeople who run big companies; most “experts”; and most of the rest of the elite (including, frighteningly, in the medical profession) are fools.

Why are they fools? Why are these men and women devoid of wisdom?

Because they were never taught wisdom. One must study wisdom to know how to do good, just as much as one must study physics to know how to do physics. If you are taught wisdom, there’s a good chance you will become wise. If not, there’s a good chance you will be a fool. And fools do a great deal of harm.

But wisdom is no longer taught by most parents and nearly all schools.

Until the early decades of the 20th century, American students were expected to know the greatest sources of wisdom — the ancient Greek and Roman writers, Shakespeare and, most important of all, the Bible.

But about 100 years ago, America embarked on the road to hell when it stopped teaching wisdom — and what wisdom is all about, moral virtue — when it secularized all education. First the universities and then the lower grades decided that knowledge could substitute for wisdom. Now American young people get no wisdom and, for that matter, little knowledge.

It is not a coincidence that the most foolish institutions in America and the rest of the West are the universities. They are the most radically secular.

You don’t have to be religious to realize that the most secular institutions are also the most foolish institutions. You just need not to be a fool.

The road to a good world is paved with wisdom.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” was released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

Source: If the Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions, With What Do We Pave the Road to Heaven? – PJ Media

The Woke Have Confused Sword and Sorcery 

The Woke Have Confused Sword and Sorcery

Know, O prince, that between the years after the USSR fell, and the years of the rise of Chaos, there was a global world undreamed of, when shining kingdoms lay spread across the world like blue mantles beneath the stars – Washington, Moscow, Beijing, London and Brussels – connected by a spider-web of container ships, floating cruise palaces, nonstop air transportation, fiber optic cables. But the proudest civilization of the world was Christendom, reigning supreme in the dreaming west. Hither rose a class of sullen-men, with the power of that great civilization in hand, with gigantic pathologies and gigantic visions, determined to replace the Western foundational principle “under God”, or at least “under reason” with “under us”.

That ruling elite was so bedazzled by its legacy that they felt unbound, even to the moral and intellectual legacy of the civilization on whose shoulders they perched upon. Psychologically freed at a stroke from the past, they embarked on projects to radically remake humanity and the planet, not according to possibilities, but according to desires. It was possible, through the use of information technology, to create a universe of illusion, “a single, universal and immersive virtual world that is facilitated by the use of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR)” in which we will all live; while underneath, unheeded and forgotten, hums a physical base layer providing power, water and food, perpetually maintained and renewed by marvelous automata. Voters living in this world of magic would lose track of sordid reality, while the Woke would be kings and the masses along for the ride.

The most singular aspect of the rise of Woke mumbo jumbo is its relationship with the astonishing technological development that sustains it; enabling what may be called a “sword and sorcery” regime. Quasi-theocracies are upheld by technology so advanced it appears to be magic, at least to the general public, who have only a vague and awestruck knowledge of the mechanisms involved. “This man is woman,” a counter disinformation bureaucrat might intone, and all would nod in assent. Those in the virtual crowd who disagree will remain mute, for they know that with a gesture, the functionary can zap any dissenter with cancelation, so that he can be excluded from the metaverse entirely, through a process few understand but all fear.

That very vagueness enhances their authority. No one knows how powerful the magi actually are, because no one is really certain how potent the magic is. At the minimum, defying the Woke could ruin your career and social standing. They claim to be actually powerful enough to conjure real wealth into existence — print money ex nihilo. Yet the technology behind this sorcery is at once both enemy and friend, simultaneously serving and menacing the Woke elite, an ambivalence nowhere more sharply drawn than in the phrase “woke math,” which limits or waters down student access to mathematics, in order that they might not fail the subject. Here magic and reality collide. Hundreds of university professors said in an open letter, “we write to express our alarm over recent trends in K-12 mathematics education in the United States… particularly the California Mathematics Framework (CMF). Such frameworks aim to reduce achievement gaps by limiting the availability of advanced mathematical courses to middle schoolers and beginning high schoolers.”

But why should the students need the actual “essential mathematical tools such as calculus and algebra” if the California Mathematics Framework will give them the credential in lieu; providing the magic cloak, the printed money, the “man is woman,” the authoritative statement of competence that makes anything real? Maybe magic is not enough, for as Helen Raleigh pointed out in a Newsweek article, if China taught algebra in 6th grade while Woke educrats never taught it at all then soon California would be out of magic. China would have all the magic. The fatal crisis at the heart of a sword and sorcery regime is sorcery cannot maintain its claim of primacy in the face of its dependence on the technological sword. And that sword is rooted in the intellectual soil of the past which they would remake.

For the sorcerers, the absence of roots is no disadvantage. Politicians seem to think it possible to conjure a carbon-free world into existence, with Joe Biden dismissing the nationwide gas shortage and price crisis in Newsweek as a temporary inconvenience on the road to the commanded state.  “And when it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over,” he said. Never mind Russia. Never mind the war in Ukraine. Never mind where the rare substances for batteries will come from. Shazaaam! If Woke politicians will it, it will come. That mindset lies at the heart of sorcery and it is profoundly antithetical to technology. Still the spells fly thick and fast. New York Goverrnor Kathy Hochul tweeted, “New Yorkers: You can now choose ‘X’ as a gender marker on your driver license. Every person deserves to have an identity document that reflects who they are. This is a historic change in our fight to make New York a more inclusive and just state for all.” And that’s what it takes to change who you are.

Or is it?

Magic, twentieth century authors observed, was mathematics with all the steps omitted, like a calculator. It Virginia Woolf’s 1928 novel Orlando: A Biography, it describes how an imperfectly numerate person accepted the result of civilization without understanding. “Then she got into the lift, for the good reason that the door stood open; and was shot smoothly upwards. The very fabric of life now, she thought as she rose, is magic. In the eighteenth century, we knew how everything was done; but here I rise through the air; I listen to voices in America; I see men flying – but how it’s done I can’t even begin to wonder. So my belief in magic returns.”

What a wonderful feeling to be in command. The elevator rose because the passenger entered it. The radio spoke because someone turned the knob. The cellphone works because the On Switch was pressed. But change the problem a little, and because we have omitted all the understanding, the magical appliance may not work at all and we have no way to fix it. This is perhaps the reason why our politicians, the modern sorcerers with all the clanking machinery of the End of History at their disposal, are surprised when their confident plans to boost the economy, flatten the pandemic curve and replace nuclear plants with windmills unaccountably take off in unknown directions.  The usual explanation is it’s not that Woke sorcery has stopped working; it’s bad luck. Or maybe it’s because they forgot they were standing on the shoulders of giants and carelessly discarded what came before.

Perhaps the Woke have confused sword with sorcery all along. What they take to be sorcery is just technology; but there’s more to civilization. We have to accept that knowlege is hard won; our understanding imperfect and mutable; our survival always in question and never guaranteed. We have to rediscover our sense of numinous; find the hope to face a universe unfathomable save only by the lights we’ve kept burning. This strictly speaking is not even technology but it is the true magic. As for “bad luck” …

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.” — Robert Heinlein

Elon Musk tweeted on May 20, 2022 that “unless it is stopped, the woke mind virus will destroy civilization and humanity will never reach Mars.” Maybe Elon means it.

Books: Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas–Not Lessby Alex Epstein. For over a decade, philosopher and energy expert Alex Epstein has predicted that any negative impacts of fossil fuel use on our climate will be outweighed by the unique benefits of fossil fuels to human flourishing–including their unrivaled ability to provide low-cost, reliable energy to billions of people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people..


Source: The Woke Have Confused Sword and Sorcery – PJ Media

Christian champion names ‘worst offender seeking to pervert and harm our kids’

One of the most vocal Christians in America has just identified the “worst offender seeking to pervert and harm our kids.”


James Dobson, the founder of FamilyTalk Radio and the James Dobson Family Institute, has used his latest newsletter to constituents to warn about the dangers of Joe Biden’s transgender plans for America.

He cited a number of headlines reflecting Biden’s campaigning for the scientifically failed concept that males can become female or females can become male, including “Indiana activists to host sex-ed ‘kink’ camp for children grades 3-5…”

Too much, Dobson said.

“If this does not raise your dander and drive you to your knees in fervent prayer for the morality of our country and the welfare of our youth, I don’t know what will. I have long stated that sins committed against children are the most grievous. That is why I believe our Lord made the following statement: ‘It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.’ (Luke 17:2),” Dobson wrote.

“And yet, the worst offender seeking to pervert and harm our kids is not a corporation or a school board. It’s our current president and his administration. As I shared in a recent statement, President Biden and his administrative agencies are determined to push America totally off its moral ledge as they take full aim at dismantling the mental, physical, and spiritual welfare of our children.”

Dobson, who has advised five presidents on family matters and was inducted in 2008 into the National Radio Hall of Fame, also has authored more than 70 books including, “The New Dare to Discipline,” “The New Strong-Willed Child,” “When God Doesn’t Make Sense” and “Bringing Up Boys.”

His commentary was titled, “The Truth About Transgenderism.”

This topic, he said, “is as utterly preposterous as it is egregious—it is this idea of transgenderism. As Christians, we can and should show compassion for anyone wrestling with the condition of gender dysphoria. However, if we truly care for someone, we will speak truth into their lives. This is what makes this issue so morally confounding—the absolute abandonment of truth for the sake of wokeness.”

He cited one of “the most outrageous examples of this absurdity” as Lia Thomas.

He’s a biological male who was allowed by the NCAA to compete against women in swimming competitions.

Dobson said of the NCAA, “Unbelievably, they also allowed Lia Thomas, who has not undergone any ‘transition surgeries,’ to share the same locker room as the female swimmers. This is pure madness, and as one father of a woman competitor stated, ‘It is disgusting.'”

He said the idea that a man can “believe his way into becoming a woman” is “medically unfounded.”

“A person’s psychological mindset cannot change his or her biological make-up. As Dr. Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine has stated, ‘Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’ In that lies their problematic future.'”

He said it is true that medicine can “alter the physical appearance” of someone, but “it can never reassign one’s sex…”

The results of such agendas, he charged, are “devastating and nothing less than child abuse.”

The state of Texas already has determined that, and had proposed that parents putting their children through transgender treatments be investigated for abuse.

The worst of all, Dobson pointed out, was that “President Biden had the audacity to invoke God’s name on behalf of this wickedness. In a video statement, he addressed transgender Americans and stated, ‘Our entire administration sees you for who you are, made in the image of God, and deserving of dignity, respect, and support.’

“Of course, President Biden is correct when he quotes Genesis 1:27 and says those who experience gender dysphoria—along with all human beings—are made in the image of God. Yet, in saying this, it is ironic, in the most sickening sense, that Biden is encouraging these same young people to rebel against God’s image imprinted upon their very beings. In his failed attempt to appear holy and pious, President Biden conveniently omits the second half of the verse he quotes which says, ‘male and female He created them.’ No one should distort the Lord’s very words in this way. President Biden would do well to remember that God will not be mocked.”


Christian champion names ‘worst offender seeking to pervert and harm our kids’   –   It’s ‘not a corporation or a school board’

By Bob Unruh

Source: Christian champion names ‘worst offender seeking to pervert and harm our kids’

The Role of Parents in Education

The Role of Parents in Education

The education of children is one of the more consequential issues in American politics.  This is so, not merely because of concerns regarding the poor quality of education in many locations throughout the country, but also because the issue is used to justify alterations to established institutions and norms. The family and the individual dignity and welfare of the child are among these institutions and norms. Debate regarding education thus tends to wander into such areas as “parental rights” and whether children “belong” to society.  These are the issues of actual interest to progressive ideologies, and education is merely one front on which the ideologues seek to advance their agenda.

The idea that society has an interest in children that diminishes the role of families was expressed by former MSNBC commentator Melissa Harris-Perry when she claimed, in 2016, that “…we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.” This claim of Ms. Harris-Perry is not an original one nor, as history has demonstrated, a successful one.  Children were regarded as children of the state in ancient Sparta, but the practice did not endure. In Book III of The Republic, Plato has Socrates float the idea that wives and children of the Guardian class be shared for the benefit of the state.  This idea is expanded upon in Book V, wherein it is suggested that children not be permitted to know their birth parents at all.  It should also be noted that it has been about 2400 years since the writing of The Republic.  Advocates of the idea that children belong to the state have had ample time to prove their theory, yet the family remains the center and fundamental unit of every enduring society, and parents remain the stewards of their children’s upbringing.

It may also be noted that the institution of the family precedes that of the state, and in all relevant examples, survives it as well.  Given this fact, it is the proponents of change in favor of the state who bear the burden of proving their case, and they have been consistent in their inability to do so.  There is something weird, dystopian, and hopeless about the notion that children belong to the state, or indeed, “belong” to anyone.  If such a circumstance is necessary for the existence of the state, both the rationale for the state and its moral existence collapse.

Given the intellectual, practical, and moral fragility of the idea that there is some benefit to the state usurping the role of parents and families, it is not surprising that acolytes of centralization and state authority have narrowed their focus to the more modest issue of education. Thus, we may review Terry McAuliffe’s declaration that he did not “think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” This did not serve him well in his gubernatorial campaign.  The public rejected the notion that parents’ role in their children’s education is subordinate to that of “experts.”  The public also rejected the unfounded assertion that parents who expressed concerns to school boards and educators were a fringe minority or a species of “domestic terrorist.”

The idea that parental concern is a form of unhelpful meddling in education has not gained much traction, and for good reason.  History provides few, if any, examples of societies that failed because parents were too involved in their children’s education.  The reasons for this include that educating a child is not the same as, or a substitute for, raising a child.  It is the parents who are responsible for the latter and, while education is an essential part of a child’s upbringing, it is only part of the process by which children develop into healthy, productive and happy members of a society.  Parents must also be concerned with development of the child’s character and values, a process that necessarily continues beyond the time spent in the schoolhouse. The care, nurturing, and development of a child into a thriving individual involves more than formal education, but mishandled education can impede such development.  This is one reason that parental involvement in education is not merely a discretionary accommodation by the educational system, or a “right” grudgingly tolerated within narrow limits; it is essential to the processes by which children, families, and societies flourish. Theories of education must be compatible with raising of the children, rather than the other way around.

Competent teachers are vital to education. Children who are exposed to good teachers are, in a real sense, blessed. No one should discount the contribution that talented educators can make, but nor should they confuse this with role of parents.  In the ordinary case teachers and parents are not adversaries, but neither are they equals.  Parents have unique bonds with their children that develop both long before and long after any interactions with a particular educator. The parent has responsibilities to the child — legal, moral, and innate — that transcend those of any teacher or administrator, and this precludes the idea that any part of a child’s education is not appropriate for parental surveillance and concern.  Moreover, discrete considerations of a child’s upbringing, such as matters of sexual maturity, religious belief, and the bases of moral conduct remain parental responsibilities despite certain social theories that claim they are properly the concern of educational bureaucrats.

There are, of course, exceptions to the ideal of committed parents who are stewards of their child’s development and who take an appropriate interest in their children’s education.  There are also some exceptional educators — teachers, coaches, counselors — who have a disproportionately beneficial effect on a particular child.   But it is poor practice to formulate policy as though the exceptions were the norm.  There are bad parents, just as there are bad teachers, but this is not a valid reason for interposing education professionals between parents and their children.  It is far from established that educational institutions are optimal for, or even capable of, addressing complex issues that affect a child’s life, without appropriate parental involvement.  Parents do not need to justify their involvement in their children’s education, but educational bureaucracies do have to justify interfering with such involvement.

Like many issues in contemporary discourse, the discussions and controversies surrounding education are not about what they appear.  They are not really about academic freedom or parental rights or equity or inclusion.  They do not arise from concern that education might be impaired by heightened levels of parental attention or annoying transparency.  The issues are not really just about education.  They arise rather from the millennia-old fact that the traditional role of the family is an impediment to cultural fads and ideological abstractions.

Source: The Role of Parents in Education – American Thinker

When and why American exceptionalism died

When and why American exceptionalism died

I have always been a truth-teller in defiance of approved but false narratives and paid a price for it. My first book, “The Pink Swastika” (1995), exposed the history of rampant homosexuality in the Nazi Party and Hitler’s inner circle, earning me an early, permanent “hate group” designation on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s master list. My public denunciation of President Trump (whom I otherwise strongly support and will vote for in 2024) on the issues of “gay marriage” and Operation Warp Speed, earned frowns from many other Trump loyalists (though many agreed with me) and will likely prevent me from ever being invited to speak at a Trump event. Most recently, my defiance of the anti-Russian/anti-Putin narratives – in particular urging conservatives to actually read/watch Putin’s “Empire of Lies” speech of Feb. 24, and questioning the “Russian atrocities” propaganda – has gotten me IP shadow-banned from one of my favorite news sites, Citizen Free Press, and from the Daily Mail (which has always seemed to me to be a U.K. deep-state organ designed for conservatives).

As a pastor, I have always preached that whatever thing one loves more than the truth on any topic is the doorway through which the devil will invade your life and begin slowly leading you down the path toward the “reprobate mind” (described in Romans 1:18-32 as the mind that literally can no longer discern truth because it is so completely ensnared by lies). Most people don’t slide all the way down that slope because there are truths they will not relinquish, but they become “double minded” by consistently choosing some lies over truth because it would be just too uncomfortable or costly to stand firmly on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Of the many hard truths Americans need to come to terms with, several involve Russia and Putin. Perhaps the most painful of them is that Vladimir Putin (whatever you may think of him) is right in calling the current U.S. administration (and that of Obama, Clinton, Bush Jr. and Bush Sr.) an “Empire of Lies.” Somehow we conservatives rightfully agree these leaders were/are corrupt cheats and liars in domestic policy, but won’t tolerate the Russian president saying the same thing from his perspective about our foreign policy. (They may be scum. But they’re OUR scum.)

Most painful for me personally is being confronted in the pro-Russian media with mockery of our continuing claim to “American Exceptionalism” in world affairs. The painful truth is we haven’t seen true American exceptionalism since its partial, temporary resurgence under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, and to a lesser extent under Donald Trump (lesser because Trump never actually had full control over the Defense and State departments or the intelligence agencies). From Bush 41 to the present, America has been in steady, rapid moral and ethical decline at home and abroad, except for the four-year Trump reprieve.

American exceptionalism was embodied by one factor unique in human history: the preeminence of individual liberty under God.

Our exceptionalism was born in 1620 when the Pilgrims’ Mayflower Compact – a constitution in the form of a Christian covenantal oath – established the world’s first genuinely democratic government “for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith.” That mission was re-codified in humanity’s most powerful natural rights document ever published, our Declaration of Independence. And upon that foundation, the first organic law of this nation, these United States became a model to the world of how a constitutional republic administered by a Christian nation could maximize the freedom, security and prosperity of the individual. And it did so by limiting its government to only those powers delegated by a population whose individual faith-based goodness and self-restraint sought the common good.

Never perfect, but always aspiring to perfection as the Shining City on a Hill, we truly were exceptional – the pinnacle of civilization in the final centuries of the time of man, peaking during and immediately following our conquest of totalitarianism in the middle of the 20th century.

Never perfect, because just as in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, there was always a force for evil in our midst, growing alongside the desire for good. And as our steadily increasing prosperity and security lured us into thinking God’s past blessings would just continue to flow – as if they were our due and not the generous gifts of His favor – we let down our guard, forgot our first love and degenerated into Secular Humanists.

And so today the Tares have all but overwhelmed us, and the totalitarianism we thought we conquered is very close to enslaving the entire world.

The root of the evil isn’t in post-Soviet Russia, and it isn’t in the person chosen by the globalist elites to be the New Hitler. It is in Davos, and Beijing, and Washington, D.C., and NYC, and Hollywood, and Sacramento, and Chicago, and Boston, and London, and Toronto, and Sydney, and Brussels, and Kyiv, and every other center of Marxist power in this world.

American exceptionalism died when we Americans traded God for Secular Humanism. We will never see its rebirth until we reclaim individual liberty under God as our preeminent goal and value. And we will never reclaim individual liberty UNDER God until we first restore God OVER us.

But most importantly, God will not restore US if we do not love truth above all else, for He IS truth.


Exclusive: Scott Lively explains timeline involving the nation ‘trading God for Secular Humanism’

Source: When and why American exceptionalism died

Baseball Players Rejected ‘Political Supremacists.’ Voters Should, Too.

How and why did the “executive subcommittee” of baseball players-turned-political supremacists become so disconnected from its own peers?


The lyrics from Bruce Springsteen’s song “Badlands” have seldom been more relevant: “Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king, and the king ain’t satisfied ’til he rules everything.”

Translated: Give people a little power, and they will seize the moment and take up the scepter to impose their values on everyone else. I call those people “political supremacists.”

Earlier this month, the Major League Baseball Players Association executive subcommittee—made up of eight players who were granted the authority to help negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement with club owners—displayed how just a little taste of authority can turn it tone-deaf to the actual sentiments of its constituents, in this case, the rank-and-file players it was chosen to represent.

Flush with the ego of sitting on thrones of power, the players on the subcommittee quickly became overly enamored with their own personal biases, and thus blind to the bigger picture—the good of the game and the well-being of players—by voting unanimously, 8-0, against a deal offered by the team owners.

The deal they spurned was intended to bring baseball back in early April with a full 162-game season and confer immense new riches upon all players.

But when put to the more than 1,200 MLB players themselves, they rejected the dictates of their so-called leaders and voted overwhelmingly, by team, 26 to 4 in favor of the deal.

Baseball was back.

Why did this “executive subcommittee” of players-turned-political supremacists become so disconnected from its own peers?

Americans are asking the same question about our nation’s elected officials and health agency bureaucrats.

Political supremacists—those in positions of power, who believe their views, and only their views, should be considered—exist in every industry, institution, and walk of life, and they always have.

Yet seldom before has their power gone so unchecked.

Question: Why now? Answer: tribalism.

It used to be in America that the rights of individuals were held sacrosanct. Regardless of anyone’s beliefs, creeds, social status, political affiliations, skin color, or gender, such rights should never be sacrificed to political, business, religious, or civic leaders who might seek to control them or others.

But in today’s increasingly partisan society, the emerging culture within whatever tribe one belongs to is that its own anointed leaders are to be automatically obeyed, regardless of whatever rights-destroying power plays they may seek to impose.

That same kind of political supremacy has come to pass in astonishingly rapid fashion in America’s political arena. Granted extraordinary emergency powers during the COVID-19 pandemic, federal, state, and local elected officials—as well as unelected bureaucrats in the courts and various agencies—immediately seized control. Their personal egos, views, and agendas immediately were conflated (in their minds) with what was in the best interests of everyone else.

It’s now clear that the rulings and mandates handed down by the newly crowned political supremacists across America over the past two years were completely disconnected from reality—and from we, the people.

Damn the science, damn individual and constitutional rights, damn the “irreparable harm” that masking does to children and students, damn the economy, damn the unintended and crushing societal consequences. We, the political supremacists, know what’s best for you, and we’re going to force you to obey, like it or not.

Given the blatant, overt hypocrisy of not following their own mandates, of ignoring arguments that do not fit their narrative, or of bestowing special favors or exemptions upon those aligned with them in their own tribes, or hiding inconvenient data from the public, these political supremacists are the real threat to our nation.

Whether at the White House, the statehouse, the courthouse, or the local school committees, these elitists truly believe they have the moral authority to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.

When their schemes to secretly enact their misguided policies were exposed, they were so confident in their unchecked power that they didn’t even blink an eye. They simply pivoted to coercively enforcing their dictates, seeking to punish or cancel anyone who objected or disobeyed.

They knew full well that in today’s tribalistic and obeisant culture, that no elected body (Congress or state legislature), no judge at any state or federal court, no group of business people, and no religious institution would dare challenge them.

Exemplifying this tyranny is a telling quote from the 1980 “Superman II” movie, exclaimed by Gen. Zod from Krypton, once he realizes that his physical powers on Earth were unchecked: “Is there no one on this planet to even challenge me?”

This corrupt notion of supremacy is what fuels today’s politicians. But it’s today’s weak and compliant tribalists—our  “sheeple” citizenry—who let them get away with it.

But, hopefully, not for much longer.

Just as the everyday Major League Baseball players rose up and voted to overturn the recommendation of the eight-member subcommittee of player supremacists, this 2022 election year will give everyday American citizens the same opportunity to rise up and vote to turn over elected seats of power to those who will respect parental rights, limited governance, and individual freedoms.

We know that “white” supremacy as a major national problem is a myth. Rather, it is “political” supremacy that is the real growing cancer. The fight to rescue the Unites States from those self-empowered supremacists in our government is the fight of our times.

Americans must come together and defy the politicians, educators, media, and other elitist leaders who seek to control more and more aspects of our lives.

Each of us must take a stand, not just against those corrupt tyrants, but also against those among us who pledge blind fealty to the supremacists in seats of political power.

This ruling class of political supremacists must be exposed for their self-serving and disconnected values, and they must be defeated at the ballot box in November.

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.


Source: Baseball Players Rejected ‘Political Supremacists.’ Voters Should, Too.

10 facts about George Washington academia and media won’t tell you

What do you know about George Washington? Do you know the real Washington or just the one that liberal academia and media want you to believe?

With Feb. 21 being President’s Day and Feb. 22 being the anniversary of the actual day George Washington was born, I thought there was no better time to honor again what I consider one of the greatest leaders ever born anywhere. I want to give the 10 facts about Washington liberal media and academia won’t tell you. These are also actually 10 reasons I believe everyone should admire Washington, no matter what their political persuasion.

Let me begin by highlighting a few bullets of background for some who might not be as familiar with this pillar of American life beyond the basics, as documented by the University of Virginia and the History Channel.

According to Encyclopedia Virginia and history.com, on Feb. 22, 1732, George Washington was born to a family of middling wealth in Westmoreland County, Virginia, the second son from the second marriage of a colonial plantation owner.

In 1752, at 23 years young, Washington joined the British army and served as a lieutenant in the French and Indian War.

In 1759, Washington married Martha Dandridge Custis, a wealthy widow, and adopted her two children. (She had two other children, but they had passed.)

In 1775, at 43 years old, Washington became the commander in chief of the Continental Army and, in 1783, led America to victory over the British after eight years of war.

As far as his political career, Washington served as a member of the House of Burgesses of Virginia from 1759–1774. He was also a member of the first and second Continental Congresses in 1774 and 1775. But while others were signing the Declaration of Independence, Washington was already on the battlefield fighting for independence. As the president of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, however, Washington was the first signer of the U.S. Constitution.

In 1789, Washington became the first president of the United States of America. He was unanimously elected by the 69 presidential electors to serve his first term from 1789 to 1793. He was then again unanimously elected for his second term from 1793 to 1797. He declined a third term.

Here are my Top 10 reasons why I think everyone should admire George Washington, and why I believe his life is still worthy to reflect today. (These are also the reasons I often cited the Father of America’s words and works among our other founders in my New York Times bestseller, “Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America.”)

10. When it came to decency, civility and morality, Washington stood for conservative values. He believed in traditional faith, freedom and family, as you’ll read in the following paragraphs. Even as a youth, Washington was a role model for many. At just 14 years of age, young George wrote out in freehand on his own volition, “110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” At age 17, George’s first official job was as surveyor of Culpeper County, Virginia.

9. Washington believed in the power of grit, guns and God. While others were frightened by signing of the Declaration of Independence, Washington was on the front lines battling for its tenets. He faced his fears, endured grave hardships and even stared death in the eyes while helping others to do the same. Who can forget the severe conditions of Valley Forge? And what about the repeated threat of personal injury?

Washington even dodged bullets on several occasions. The University of Virginia documents a few of them: “at Braddock’s Defeat where two horses were shot under him and he had four bullets in his clothes; at the final skirmish of the Forbes expedition, on November 12, 1758, where he rushed between two parties of British who were firing at each other; at Kip’s Bay skirmish on September 15, 1776, where he rashly exposed himself in an attempt to rally the militia; at the battle of Princeton, January 3, 1777; and when making a reconnaissance of the British after the landing at the Head of Elk on August 26, 1777.”

8. Washington wasn’t afraid of public opinion or challenging the status quo. He wasn’t politically correct. As history.com explained, “He struggled with advisers over what sort of image a president should project. He preferred one of dignity and humility and stumbled when encouraged to act out of character or monarchical. … A member of the Virginia planter class, he grew increasingly uncomfortable with the hypocrisy of owning slaves, yet publicly he promoted a gradual abolition of slavery. In his will he requested that his slaves be freed upon Martha’s death.” As far back as 1786, Washington said, “There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.”

7. Washington was cool but could be hot-headed – a man of integrity and character yet just as human as the rest of us. He could be stubborn to a fault, and had a dry sense of humor. Again, history.com explained, “Washington possessed that intangible quality of a born leader and had earned a reputation for coolness under fire and as a strict disciplinarian during the French and Indian campaign. … An extraordinary figure in American history and unusually tall at 6′ 3”, Washington was also an ordinary man. He loved cricket and fox-hunting, moved gracefully around a ballroom, was a Freemason and possibly a Deist, and was an astute observer of the darker side of human nature. His favorite foods were pineapples, Brazil nuts (hence the missing teeth from cracking the shells) and Saturday dinners of salt cod. He possessed a wry sense of humor and, like his wife Martha, tried to resist the vanities of public life. Washington could also explode into a rage when vexed in war or political battles. Loyal almost to a fault, he could also be unforgiving and cold when crossed. When Republican Thomas Jefferson admitted to slandering the president in an anonymous newspaper article for his support of Federalist Alexander Hamilton‘s policies, Washington cut Jefferson out of his life. On at least one occasion, Washington’s stubbornness inspired John Adams to refer to him as Old Muttonhead.”

6. Washington didn’t need power and wasn’t greedy. He was a first-class servant leader, who walked what he talked. He believed so firmly in our newly founded but poor republic that he took no pay for his service during the Revolutionary War (besides official expenses). And after eight long years of leading the war and retiring to his peaceful estate at Mt. Vernon, he reenlisted rather than stay retired. It is amazingly commendable – if not astonishing – that Washington came out of military retirement to serve two terms as president. He even had to borrow money to pay off debts and travel to his own inauguration.

5. Washington was passionately patriotic and believed in American Exceptionalism. And he didn’t allow personal obstacles or physical ailments to hinder his service to God, country and family. He wasn’t looking for a free ride or easy road.

Beginning at age17, Washington suffered multiple malaria attacks throughout his life. He even had a case of smallpox and dysentery, and he struggled with depression and hearing loss.

In 1779, during the middle of the Revolutionary War, Washington “feared for his survival,” not from bullets but an abscess of the tonsils. After all he had been through, at 57 years old with his war-torn body and reportedly a single real tooth in his mouth, Washington left behind the comfort of his estate on the edge of the Potomac River and traveled eight days to New York, where he was sworn in as president.

4. Washington was a devoted and traditional family man. In 1759, at 27 years of age, Washington married widow Martha Dandridge Custis. Though Martha and George had no children, he adopted her daughter and son from her former marriage. They also provided personal and financial support to nephews, nieces and other extended family members.

If it’s true that behind every great man is a great woman (and it is, as proof even with my wife, Gena, who does more for me and others than the world will ever know), then Washington’s wife, Martha, is definitely to be credited for part of the power behind the myth of the Father of our Nation. For example, for each of the eight years of the Revolutionary War, Martha came to Washington’s winter encampments (including Valley Forge) to boost his morale as well as that of the other officers.

No doubt Martha struggled to support Washington’s departure as general and president. Imagine how she must have repeatedly worried about him and his welfare over the years on the battlefield. Imagine her relief as he finally came home from eight years of leading the Revolutionary War only to “give him up again” for his country’s service as president. Though Martha refused to attend his inauguration, she stood by her man, living with him at the temporary U.S. capitals of New York and Philadelphia.

Although Martha and George had a strong relationship, there’s no doubt he had a lifelong love interest in the beautiful and intellectually astute Sally Fairfax, the wife of his friend George William Fairfax, whom he had met when he was just 16 years of age. Sally’s father would never allow her to marry someone other than from a wealthy, upper class like her family, and Washington didn’t fit the bill.

Mt. Vernon historians noted how Sally “remained ever faithful to her marriage” and yet “a good friend of Washington and his wife.” In 1773, Sally moved with her husband to England, where he died in 1787. In 1798, just a year before Washington’s death, he wrote Sally, urging her to return to Virginia. He added that nothing could “eradicate from my mind the recollection of those happy moments, the happiest in my life, which I have enjoyed in your company.” Sally never returned and died alone in England in 1811.

George was married to Martha for roughly 40 years. Just prior to her own death in 1802, Martha understandably destroyed nearly all of Washington’s letters to her, though three did survive.

Regarding Sally Fairfax, no man is perfect, and that included George Washington. He himself confessed: “We must take human nature as we find it. Perfection falls not to the share of mortals.” Remembering that was likely the key to his humility, service and mercy to others.

3. Washington highly revered God and religion, often elevating their irreplaceable and invaluable roles in our republic. For example, in 1789, during the same time when the First Amendment was written, then-President Washington signed into law the Northwest Ordinance, which states, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

On Oct. 3, 1789, George Washington issued the First Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamation to God: “a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God.”

Regarding Washington’s often-quoted practice of leaving church services before receiving the Eucharist (Communion), maybe his own struggle was born from his wrestling with his own humanity and immoral thoughts of Sally Fairfax or possibly even the human toll that incurred when leading the war. His refusal to receive the Eucharist doesn’t prove his unbelief in Christ but rather supports it and his reverence for what the Communion elements represented. (That makes more sense to me than Paul F. Boller, respected presidential historian, who wrote in 1963, “It cannot be said that Washington ever experienced any feeling of personal intimacy or communion with his God.”)

For a true reflection of Washington’s genuine Christian faith and intimacy with God, one must-see at Washington’s own Mount Vernon estate the museum’s exhibition display and video (set up within a mini-chapel setting) of how he esteemed and served God and churches – not exactly what you read in today’s public school textbooks or hear in classrooms. What you’ll watch and read there is that he was as passionate a believer in Jesus Christ as most Christians today. If only we taught about his religion what is displayed at the museum, rather than trite comments that he was liberal, a deist and not intimate with his Savior.

2. Washington opposed big government and big-government spending. He led our nation with frugality and self-sacrifice, again, refusing to accept pay as commander in chief of the Continental Army. He was reluctant even to be paid as president, but was convinced by others it would not be a good precedent for future presidents. So, Congress gave Washington $25,000 a year, the largest salary in the U.S. for personal service at the time (2% of the national budget).

It should be noted that being president then didn’t have the thousands of perks that come with the position today, including a free mansion in which to live. For example, after staying for 16 months in New York, George and Martha rented (initial lease was two years) a mansion in Philadelphia (the nation’s capital before D.C.), where they lived from 1790-1797. Washington had to use his salary for both official duties and to maintain his personal affairs.

Much is made today of Washington’s financial fortune (USA Today once labeled him “the big daddy of presidential wealth”), but most overlook that his wealth was largely amassed in the Mount Vernon estate – which he inherited from his elder half-brother in 1761, Martha’s land and slaves inherited from her former husband, and in Washington’s presidential salary that only started after he was 57 years old.

Sure, he had lots of assets, but his liquidity didn’t flow like the wealthy today. Remember, back then, there was no established national banking system. Bartering and oscillating state currencies and commodities were the names of the game (until the 1792 Coinage Act), with the value of land fluctuating sharply based upon weather and crop production. As the Atlantic put it, “Because there was no central banking system and no regulatory framework for commodities, markets were subject to panics in ways unknown today.” Again, consider that at 57 years old, Washington even had to borrow money to pay off debts and to travel to his own inauguration.

1. Washington died like he lived, gracefully and full of grit.

In 1797, after winning the Revolutionary War and serving two presidential terms in office, Washington finally retired to Mount Vernon at 65 years of age, but he would only enjoy his rest for two years.

On Dec. 14, 1799, George Washington died of a severe respiratory sickness. His beloved Martha died only three years later, on May 22, 1802.

In his will, he humbly and simply referred to himself as “George Washington of Mount Vernon, a citizen of the United States, and late President of the same.”

At first, the Washingtons were laid to rest in an inconspicuous unmarked brick tomb at Mounty Vernon. But their final resting place was in a crypt there that bears the title of him whom refused to be king. The engraved words over the tomb make known the title by which people knew Washington best back then – not as president but general.

The inscription reads: “Within this enclosure rest the remains of Gen. George Washington.” And over the door of the inner tomb is inscribed these large words from Jesus Himself in the Gospel of John (11:25): “I am the Resurrection and the Life.”

Washington’s good friend Henry Lee probably summarized his life, leadership and legacy best in the eulogy for our first president: “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

And so he remains, or should remain, always. His type of character, integrity and leadership are rare and desperately needed today maybe even more so than they were in our republic’s formation.

During this week we honor President’s Day and Washington’s own birthday, please consider sharing this article’s information on your social media and with those you love so that they can also know the real George Washington.

God, please give the U.S. more men and women like George and Martha Washington.

(For more on the monumental figure of George Washington, I recommend the amazing books, “Sacred Fire,” by Peter Lillback and Jerry Newcombe, and “The Bulletproof George Washington,” by David Barton)



Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication 


Chuck Norris honors our 1st president, who ‘believed in the power of grit, guns and God’

Source: 10 facts about Geo. Washington academia and media won’t tell you

The Rise of Blockchain Republics

When Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently announced an end to some medical mandates and virus-related restrictions in the United Kingdom, I thought: “This is a victory for nation-states over unitary global government.”  The reason the prime minister turned a 180 on his country’s COVID-1984 tyranny seems to be intricately linked to his own personal scandals involving the breaking of various lockdown, masking, and social gathering rules that form the crux of the U.K.’s totalitarian health regime.  If Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Bill Gates, or Anthony Fauci had complete control over the queen’s realm, you can bet that the mandates would never go away.  However, Boris is facing a vote of no confidence in Parliament and seeks to rally support from an increasingly fatigued and unhappy public by putting an end to what should never have been put in place.  Once again, localized politics has cut the legs out from underneath the monster of international hegemony.  This is a good thing.

Dissecting power into the smallest possible parts and spreading that power far and wide encourages personal freedom and individual rights and discourages the tyranny of oligarchs and authoritarians.  It is why principles of federalism, when observed, have succeeded at stabilizing political systems and promoting general peace and why royal dynasties and dictatorships generally lead to bloodshed and turmoil.  The more centralized power is, the more likely that power will be exercised tyrannically, and the more imperative it becomes for the people living under that tyranny to overthrow the whole system, rather than just some small malfunctioning part contained therein.  So nation-states are a blessing not just because they allow the people of common cultures to come together in society to create beyond their own separate limitations, but also because they represent a necessary bulwark against the threats of totalitarian one-world government.  Likewise, state and local governments provide invaluable checks on the threats of unjustly executed national power, and the individual appetites for power possessed by disparate politicians provide a check against the rise of aspiring tyrants.  People in any society benefit when the ambitions of the unscrupulous are kept in a constant tug of war.

One would think the rise and eventual fall of every great empire in the history of the world would provide more than enough illumination for the Davos crowd to grasp that vast centralized power always leads to violence and destruction.  The republican virtues of limited and representative government, separation of powers, and firm constitutional rights for citizens are not the idealistic daydreams of philosophers; they have proven over and over to constitute the most effective pragmatic mechanisms for extending the longevity of political systems.  Once individual rights disappear and power amalgamates into the hands of a few, governments have an expiration date.  The milk of tyrants always turns sour.

Alas, “elites” of every generation gorge on extra helpings of hubris while turning their noses up at wisdom, and their feasts invariably end the same way: expansive empires turned to dust because of gluttony.  In the United States, the federal government has steadily stolen powers originating with the individual states or reserved for the American people since its inception.  Individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been watered down or abandoned.  The political parties have found they can obtain more power by pretending to oppose each other while really opposing the people.  Representative government has become anything but “representative,” as the votes of elected officials are owned by multinational corporations, foreign governments, and lobbyist groups trading backroom favors.  The “free” press has withered into a farce for spouting propaganda dictated by its corporate and political masters.  The central bankers figured out how to steal the wealth of the American people by depreciating the value of the dollars paid for their labor and transferring that wealth to the speculators on Wall Street.  And the small collection of international financial titans has deduced how to use all these tricks in its bag to control the U.S. government at will, even when in direct conflict with the wishes of American citizens.

Mass illegal immigration, gutted domestic manufacturing, a heavy-handed and politicized Department of Justice, and a national security Deep State surveillance system — heralded by Davos and despised by ordinary Americans — have been the natural results.

For all of these reasons, the rise of blockchain technology comes at just the right moment in history to change everything.  Simply stated, blockchain is a decentralized database of transactions, and the rate of its adoption around the world is occurring twice as fast as the internet’s during its genesis.  It is transforming the world of finance by introducing the existence of digital cryptocurrencies and other financial instruments that cannot be controlled or manipulated by central banks or government spendthrifts.  It will not stop there.  It represents a revolutionary redesign in the ways information, wealth, and governance function by undercutting centralized authority and empowering everyone else.  It is the ultimate tool for slicing and dicing international authoritarianism into parts too dispersed for search engine and social media censors, corporate news propagandists, central bank thieves, or one-world government oligarchs to control.

If you have wondered why totalitarianism has come back into fashion and why Western leaders have spurned freedom for talk of wobbly notions of “democracy,” it is because the decentralizing benefits of blockchain technology have the potential to flip the hierarchy of power on its head.  Imagine a future where banks become unnecessary, central banks become obsolete, trade of goods and services no longer requires third-party lawyers or brokers, and personal wealth is secure from the snooping eyes of State agents.  Imagine if Google’s search engine, Twitter’s and Facebook’s fake “free speech” platforms, and breaking news websites could not be manipulated by corporate intermediaries working to stifle certain points of view and push others.  Imagine if services once traditionally left to the government sphere could be contracted among private towns and citizens without any space for regulators or lawmakers to intervene.  Imagine a world in which free speech and free trade are truly free, private property is secure from government taxation, Election Day votes are all easily verifiable through a public ledger, and people can choose to share information and ideas without the cultural Marxism of political correctness turning rights into liabilities.  Moving away from transactions controlled and monitored by “elites,” corporations, and governments and toward blockchain transactions that are “housed” nowhere, cannot be altered, and remain secured from bad actors means a system where censorship, coercion, and government monopoly fade away.

In other words, blockchain technology is the mother of all nuclear warheads against the Davos crowd’s dreams of global empire and domination.  No wonder we’ve had to go into medical lockdown for two years while the super-secret 1% of the 1% figure out how to “Great Reset” the world before the world figures out how to great reset them.

I remain convinced that we are on the threshold of a renaissance for freedom that cannot be terminated early by the collection of corporate, banking, and government powers working so hard today to maintain total control over their populations.  Boris Johnson’s “partygate” scandal is a timely reminder of how competing political interests work to prevent the accumulation of centralized power.  What blockchain transaction technology represents is a force multiplier for creating competing political interests.  It will do for federalism and separation of powers what venal politicians could not: protect the constitutional charters and natural rights of the people from the whims and abuses of tyrannical governance.  It might even reorganize nation-states in ways that have nothing to do with political borders and everything to do with personal choice.  Free nations may come roaring back to life.  Behold the rise of blockchain republics!


Source: The Rise of Blockchain Republics – American Thinker


For more Information on this subject please follow these links;

What is Blockchain Technology? – IBM Blockchain | IBM

What is Blockchain? (codecademy.com)

Blockchain Definition: What You Need to Know (investopedia.com)

Blockchain, explained | MIT Sloan

What is Blockchain? The Complete Guide to Blockchain Technology (bitdegree.org)

What is Blockchain Technology? A Step-by-Step Guide For Beginners (blockgeeks.com)


A commercial that speaks for America

Chevy plucked the heartstrings of hundreds of millions of Americans with its holiday commercial.  In doing so, it revealed a yearning for a different America than that portrayed in the woke commercials that bombard us with an America that exists only in Hollywood.

An old man, a widower, places a sad-looking Christmas wreath on the door of his barn.  He stops inside to look at a beat up and deteriorating 1966 Chevrolet Impala.  It was his wife’s car, and sitting inside it brings back a flood of memories and a torrent of emotion.

As he closes the barn door, his daughter, even from a distance, can see the sadness that envelops him.

In her small town, she enlists the aid of local mechanics, who work with her at night to restore the body and the mechanics of the blue Impala.

On another day, the man returns to replace the wreath on the barn door and notices that it has already been replaced with a festive one.

Stepping inside, he sees the beautiful American classic restored to its former glory, reminiscent of a time when America built great cars.  As he sits in the car, he sees a picture of his wife dangling from the rearview mirror.

He is overcome with tears and memories.  He drives the car out of the barn and beckons his daughter to get in.  It is the best Christmas gift ever, he tells her, and she says it’s what her mother would have wanted as they drive off onto the rural road.

The commercial captures the bonds of people caring for one another and a time when American manufacturing was the envy of the world.

You can say that America long ago stopped being rural and small-town.  After all, the historian Frederick Jackson Turner hailed the closing of the frontier at the end of the 19th century, from which came America’s then nascent transformation to an industrial, urban society.

Nonetheless, America was built on the values of an agrarian society.  Thomas Jefferson’s yeoman farmer was the foundation for American democracy and for the bonds of free and independent people building communities and a nation.

In this brilliant commercial, Chevy captured the world in which millions of Americans still believe.

Chevy’s commercial stands in contrast to the woke world, where adverts must have a blended family, gay children, and an ethnic minority mouthing some banal attempt at an aphorism that supposedly captures the essence of the commercial and puts everyone else to shame.

There is a stirring in America for a resistance to the cancel culture, phony wokeness, anti-Americanism, and the divisions created by the haters in the Democratic squad.

There is a yearning for a new patriotism, for a rekindling of the traditional values of America.

Is this an American myth?  Perhaps, but no society can exist without its myths and heroes.

Toward the end of his life, when interviewers thought he would bask in the glory of the Soviet Union’s crumbling, Barry Goldwater dismayed them by stating he feared for a nation that had lost its heroes.

Every nation needs heroes, symbols, and integrative narratives.  The people who attack those are condemning our existence as a nation.  They are undermining our heritage.  They are rewriting our past to control our future.

Chevy, in a brief commercial, reminds us of who we were, who we are, and who we can be.

It is time to denounce the America-haters at every school board meeting, every college fundraiser, and every political campaign.

We need, now more than ever, the ascendance of a political movement that can speak for and to America in the same way the people who crafted that dazzling Chevy commercial have spoken.

Source: A commercial that speaks for America – American Thinker

The Little Known Miracle that Saved the Pilgrims

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts – Most of us know that Pilgrims held the first Thanksgiving to celebrate miraculously surviving their first harsh winter in America. But another part of history is fairly unknown: an even more impressive miracle saved the Pilgrims and nearby Indian tribes just two years later.

That first winter of 1621 had really been a killer, wiping out 51 of the original 102 settlers in the Plymouth colony. But then their first crop thrived. In fact, they found they could grow five times as much on a plot of land here as on the same size plot back in England.

Why the First Thanksgiving Mattered

Pilgrim re-enactor Leo Martin told CBN News, “They thought that they ought to thank God for that. So they had a Thanksgiving.”

Martin and his wife, Nancy, run the faith-based Jenney Museum in Plymouth to keep the memory of the Pilgrim’s crucial faith alive.

The re-enactor related how the friendly Chief Massasoit brought 99 braves to the first Thanksgiving, which turned into a three-day celebration.
“They played games. They shot off guns. They had competitions and really bonded, which is very important because you have to understand that because hunters came here before the Pilgrims and captured Indians as slaves, there was a little bit of animosity there,” Martin explained.

‘Everything Wilted’

Things were going very well, but then 1623 brought a drought that threatened to wipe out all the crops of the Plymouth plantation and nearby Indian tribes.

“Everything wilted,” Martin said. “So on a Wednesday morning, Governor William Bradford turned to his people and he said, ‘We need to get on our knees and have to ask God what we’ve done wrong.'”

The settlers realized their colony, even their lives, were on the line.

“And they began to pray – 90 degrees, not a cloud in the sky. Nine in the morning they started,” Martin said. “Noon time: nothing. Two o’clock in the afternoon: nothing.  Four o’clock: a little cloud appeared right above the plantation. And by 6 o’clock it began to rain.”

Only a Special Rain Would Do

The miracle had begun over the colony, but for it to continue, God had to grant a special kind of rain.

“And I do not mean the kind of rain we’re used to in Plymouth: a Nor’easter where everything gets knocked down. But a soft gentle rain fell on Plymouth Planation for two weeks. And the crops were saved,” Martin explained.

Not only that: as a nearby Indian chief named Hobbamock watched this miracle – this saving rain – it initiated a huge leap forward in relations with the Pilgrims.

Martin said of Hobbamock, “And when he saw that happen, he went up to William Bradford and he said, ‘Billy, I like your God. He saved your crops.’  And Hobbamock became a Christian. And that’s when Hobbamock built his village right across the river from the Pilgrims, three years after the Pilgrims arrived, so he could be closer to his Christian friends and his Christian God.”

Some criticize the Pilgrims for not being as lively or actively witnessing as today’s evangelicals. But Martin has great respect for these early settlers’ Christianity.

“People say to me ‘the Pilgrims didn’t evangelize.’ You know what they did? They lived their faith. And when you live your faith, it has an effect. It sure had an effect on Hobbamock,” he said.

Source: The Little Known Miracle that Saved the Pilgrims | CBN News

‘Family Research Organization’: Married Households Are Racist

A leftist group is pushing the theory that the two-parent home represents ‘family privilege’ and creates barriers to equal opportunity, when in reality such families are proven to be better for kids.

Despite its name, the National Council on Family Relations is looking to destroy American families. It claims that the nuclear family – consisting of father, mother, and children – is merely an extension of white supremacy. NCFR has joined with critical race theorists and Black Lives Matter in this outright attack on the foundational values and norms of American culture.

NCFR has a wide reach. Founded in 1938, the organization publishes three journals, including the Journal of Marriage and Family, which the organization touts as “the leading research journal in the family field.” The group’s lamentable views on marriage will influence hundreds of marriage and family therapists and researchers across the nation.

NCFR’s members come from more than 35 countries and all 50 states, and work as teachers, program developers, and counselors, according to the organization’s website. It has thousands of active members, who participate in focus groups, discussion, and networking. NCFR has 10 state and regional-level affiliates and 26 student chapters at universities.

NCFR also produces research for lawmakers. In its most recent 2020 annual report, NCFR lists as its first “program highlight” its “racial justice resources.”

The Nuclear Family As ‘Family Privilege’

In an announcement for a webinar that premiered in May, titled “Toward Dismantling Family Privilege and White Supremacy in Family Science,” the organization offers continuing education credits for its members to learn that the field of “Family Science” is “struggling” with “how it privileges certain types of families over others.” NCFR introduces its webinar as follows:

Like White privilege, family privilege is an unacknowledged and unearned benefit instantiated in U.S. laws, policies, and practices and bestowed upon traditional or ‘standard’ nuclear families to the disadvantage of non-traditional configured family systems (e.g., sole-parent families, unmarried committed partners rearing children together, grandparents raising grandchildren). Family privilege is defined as the benefits, often invisible and unacknowledged, that one receives by belonging to family systems long upheld in society as superior to all others. It serves to advantage certain family forms over others and is typically bestowed upon White, traditional nuclear families.

According to NCFR, the nuclear family is now a vehicle of “family privilege” – yet another new term – and white supremacy, a “structure” that no longer is viewed as one that nurtures young children, provides them with stability and security, and prepares them for successful and emotionally sound adulthood.

Instead, NCFR now says the family of mom, dad, and kids has mistakenly been upheld as “superior to all others” and “creates systemic barriers to equal opportunity and justice for all families.”

Teaching the Dismantling of ‘Family Privilege’

In NCFR’s webinar, attendees “will examine, recognize, and learn how to dismantle the manifestations of family privilege in our social systems by using an intersectional framework developed by critical feminist and race scholars.” Webinar attendees are expected to learn how to “define family privilege, White supremacy, and apply a critical intersectional framework that can be used in one’s work.”

NCFR is essentially stating everything they have taught about family science in the past was a lie, because the organization failed to recognize “family privilege” throughout all these decades, and now must acknowledge its guilt. After only a 90-minute webinar, attendees are expected to have the ability to:

Dismantle family privilege in Family Science scholarship, teaching, practice, and policymaking;

Recognize family privilege and White supremacy in research, practitioner, and policy settings;

Reduce the ways in which family privilege manifests in Family Science and in society.

Data Shows This Is All a Dangerous Lie

Ironically, critical race theory (CRT) is a tool of the same left that has created a populace within the black community that is dependent upon the government for survival. Even though published data confirms that two-parent families – including black two-parent families – dramatically reduces poverty, childhood abuse, and many other social ills, NCFR is now asserting our two-parent American families, white and black, represent systemic racism and “family privilege.”

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 18.3 million children – 1 in 4 – live without a biological, step, or adoptive father in the home. Research that has not been tainted by CRT has shown children raised in fatherless homes have a four times greater risk of poverty, seven times greater risk of becoming pregnant as a teen, and are two times as likely to be obese and to drop out of high school.

Additionally, traditional research has shown children raised without a father are more likely to exhibit behavioral problems, to face abuse and neglect, to abuse drugs and alcohol, to commit crimes, and to go to prison.

The black community is missing out on the opportunities our country has to offer, and it is not because of systemic racism or white privilege. It’s because, since the 1960s, the culture has declined from approximately 80 percent two-parent families to 80 percent fatherless homes without one national initiative to reverse the trend.

It is time to address the real issues that drive racial disparities, while helping to move the country toward a post-racial America.


Kendall Qualls is the president of TakeCharge, which strives to unite Americans regardless of background and to inspire black and other minority communities to take charge of their own lives and not to rely on government and politicians for prosperity. He has been married for 35 years and has five children.

Source: ‘Family Research Organization’: Married Households Are Racist

The Case for Optimism

I sat down to write an essay about President Trump’s energetic rally in Georgia before a massive crowd of ebullient patriots.  I wanted to discuss the reasons why this American leader has set himself apart from all others.  I wanted to bolster his rallying cry that “we’re going to take back our country from these lunatics.”  I thought I might entitle my final product “The Resplendent Donald Trump,” because he has shone a light on the struggles and opportunities facing Americans today better than any public figure in decades.

I put that essay aside, however, when I couldn’t get past a recurring theme showing up in the writings and commentaries I read daily.  That theme is unmistakable despair.  It seems that bad news has piled up so steadily that it is becoming harder and harder to see over that pile toward a future of our own making.

An increasing number of people now understand that the China Virus was not only a tool for drowning the 2020 presidential election with illegal mail-in ballots devoid of chain of custody or security of any kind, but also a mechanism for undermining inherent personal freedoms while ushering in a new Super-State with near-total control over speech, social gatherings, ideas, and economic relations.

For decades, Americans have been trying to put an end to rampant illegal immigration that has both fractured local communities and impoverished working-class Americans already suffering from D.C.’s bipartisan efforts to send America’s best manufacturing jobs to China.  And after the briefest respite arising solely from the efforts of President Trump (in direct opposition to the bipartisan consensus in D.C. that immigration crimes should be ignored), the border has never been more open.  Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas brags that he is so opposed to protecting the homeland’s security that he spends all his time releasing illegal aliens throughout the U.S. while formulating plans to criminalize as “domestic extremists” Trump-voting veterans who actually sacrificed to protect America.

Censorship is enforced by tech monopolists and corporate boards of directors who have decided that fascism pays better than freedom, and when they’re not actively enforcing the new Marxist “social justice” nonsense upon their employees and customers, they’re getting rich from overseas slave labor and the Federal Reserve’s Wall Street cronyism that artificially pushes up stock values while guaranteeing a future dollar collapse for everyone else.

In America — the Land of the Free — the government now declares that it may mandate what goes into each citizen’s body, decide which tenets of religion will be “allowed” to survive, outlaw speech it does not like, and tautologically vilify anyone who resists the State’s illegitimate new powers as being an “enemy of the state.”  Objecting to tyranny now makes one a “terrorist.”

The whole thing is so absurd and so unfathomable to most Americans that it is causing them to lose faith in any future at all.  We can’t vote our way out if vote counts can’t be trusted or if the Uniparty just continues seeding battleground states with tens of millions of illegal aliens who will either be granted immunity and voting privileges in short order or be encouraged to break our voting laws, just as they were encouraged to break our immigration laws.  Big Tech and Big Media have strangled information so successfully that the need for samizdat has returned.  Big Business and Big Government have worked together to transfer all the wealth of the middle class to the richest one percent of the one percent.  Vaccine passports promise a future of completely controlled movement.  Central bank digital currencies promise a future of completely controlled commerce.  Quarantine camps provide a convenient excuse for housing all the troublesome skeptics immune to groupthink socialism.  And Americans who are just itching for a chance to push back against the government’s abuses are reminded daily that a few hundred unarmed January 6 Capitol “trespassers,” whose technical crimes, if any, paled in comparison to those we’ve been forced to endure from the hands of the FBI-approved BLM and Antifa Marxists for several years, are still languishing in solitary confinement going on a full year now with laughably bereft American due process, proving that justice in the United States is, indeed, two-tiered.

Now, who could read through all that mess above and be optimistic about what is to come?  Easy.  Anybody who has been watching the Marxists’ long march through history trampling over American freedoms one decade at a time, just hoping the day would arrive when enough people would wake up to the severity of the situation to do something about it.

There is nothing more potent than fellowship.  There is nothing more formidable than an idea whose time has come.  There is nothing more frightening to those with power than when those without power start seeing clearly.  Hope and courage are contagious, which is why governments concerned only with staying in power spread loneliness and despair.  The latter protect the status quo; the former shatter the status quo forever.  This is also why each step we take to reclaim our God-given freedoms will be met with greater insults to liberty and more forceful punishments from illegitimate government actors.  This Marxist authoritarianism draped in the new clothes of globalism and technocratic managerialism runs on personal misery and despondence.  It feasts on chronic human isolation.  It survives only by extinguishing the bonds that enliven us.  It should be no surprise that the most inhuman forms of government thrive only when each person’s humanity is successfully denied.  When people understand that they have inadvertently handed their liberties to a government they no longer condone, then they begin remembering that they are many and their tormentors few.

Not long ago, the problems that plague us were treated as issues to be debated every few years; now they are understood as cancers worth fighting with each breath.  That’s a huge step forward from where we once were.  Before every great social change throughout history, the people responsible for that change first created the language for what they were setting out to do.  Even when language fortified resolve, the costs of action remained daunting.

Imagine how many naysayers still existed in the American colonies after the Declaration of Independence was first published in 1776.  Troubles with England had already existed for over a decade.  War with England would engulf the next decade.  The Articles of Confederation didn’t last the decade after that.  The U.S. Constitution and the whole American experiment in individual liberty almost evaporated when the British took a second bite at the apple during the War of 1812.  Although Americans who have resisted the brainwashing of the Marxists rewriting American history are fond of thinking of those five decades of uncertainty as being guided by God and destiny, they were filled with moments that could have stopped America’s birth.  Only the unwavering fellowship of Americans clear in their purpose kept the nation on course.  Only in hindsight did everything seem certain.

We, too, find ourselves in uncertain and explosive times.  Enemies of freedom have hardened the battle lines.  Protectors of freedom have awakened to what’s at stake.  And more and more people are seeing the light.  If you doubt that we’re gaining ground, then just consider how hostile government now is.  The appeal of personal liberty — its resplendence, if you will — is far brighter and more attractive than the government would like, which is why, every day, its enforcers work so hard to keep us apart, lost, and in despair.  When we find courage through each other, we make their mission impossible.

So be strong, be vigilant, and be hopeful, and whatever else happens, stay in the light.


By J.B. Shurk

Source: The Case for Optimism – American Thinker