Archive for the ‘Society’ Category

A Treatise on Anti-Semitism

January 8, 2017

What is Anti-Semitism and who are Semites?

First it is necessary to define exactly what “anti-Semitism” is. The definition from Wikipedia is thus:

“Antisemitism (also spelled anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an anti-semite. Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism.”

Please note that prejudice can go both ways. It is possible to show “benevolent prejudice” by expressing excessive approval, favor or esteem to a person or persons.

The next logical issue is to determine whom “Semites” are. According to the Mirriam-Webster’s Dictionary Online, they are…

A member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.

According to Easton’s Bible Dictionary Online:

The words “Semites,” “Semitic,” do not occur in the Bible, but are derived from the name of Noah’s oldest son, Shem. Formerly the designation was limited to those who are mentioned in Genesis 10; 11 as Shem’s descendants, most of whom can be traced historically and geographically; but more recently the title has been expanded to apply to others who are not specified in the Bible as Semites, and indeed are plainly called Hamitic, e.g. the Babylonians (Genesis 10:10) and the Phoenicians and Canaanites (Genesis 10:15-19). The grounds for the inclusion of these Biblical Hamites among the Semites are chiefly linguistic, although political, commercial and religious affinities are also considered.

The sons of Shem are given as Elam, Assbur, Arpachshad, Lud and Aram (Genesis 10:22). All except the third have been readily identified, Elam as the historic nation in the highlands east of the Tigris, between Media and Persia; Asshur as the Assyrians; Lud as the Lydians of Asia Minor; and Aram as the Syrians both East and West of the Euphrates. The greatest uncertainty is in the identification of Arpachshad, the most prolific ancestor of the Semites, especially of those of Biblical and more recent importance. From him descended the Hebrews and the Arab tribes, probably also some East African colonies (Genesis 10:24-30; 11:12-26).

Anti-Semitism is technically a form of racism, yet its common usage today is very narrow indeed. It specifically references the descendants of Abraham, but only those starting with Jacob, who was given the name Israel (Genesis 32:28). It is applied today in defense of those referenced as “Jews”, which are the descendants of a yet smaller lineage descended from Abraham: Judah, the son of Jacob (Israel). Many of those opposed to “anti-Semitism” point to the following promise of God to Abraham in support of their defense of this doctrine.

Genesis 12:1  “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: (2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: (3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” KJV

In context this “curse” or “blessing” relates to all of Abraham’s children through Abraham himself, including the “multitude of nations” promised to descend from him. Note that the tribe of Judah didn’t even exist at the time this promise was given.

Genesis 17:2 “And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. (3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, (4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.” KJV

Again, since the promise was to Abraham one must suppose that the promise is to ALL Abraham’s descendants, including the “many nations” God promised. Making the promise to reflect only upon one nation, Israel, and more specifically upon only one tribe of that nation, namely Judah, is a clear misrepresentation of the intent of the text.

Who are the Children of Abraham to whom the blessing/curse apply?

Biblically, there are only 3 classes of people on earth.

1 Corinthians 10:32 “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:” KJV

According to the Scriptures, there are two types of “children of Abraham”: the 12 tribes of Israel, and the “children of promise” which are identified as the Church.

Galatians 3:6 “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. (8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. (9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” KJV

Romans 9:6 “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” KJV

Galatians 4:28 “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” KJV

Do the Scriptures clearly tell us which “children of Abraham” receive the promises given by God to him? Yes.

Galatians 3:16 “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise…

(26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus

(29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” KJV

Should the Jews be more highly regarded than anyone else?

Romans 3:9 “What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;” KJV

The Word puts both Jews and Gentiles in the same debased, sinful, God-rejecting status.

If the Jews are not the children of promise, what does the Bible say about them as concerns the Church?

The Bible states that the Kingdom of Heaven would be taken from Israel and given to the Church.

Luke 13:27  But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. (28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. (29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. (30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.” KJV

Mat 21:43 “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation (ETHNOS, foreign nation) bringing forth the fruits thereof.” KJV

Matthew 8:11 “And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. (12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” KJV

The kingdom was taken from Israel, and was given to the Church. Is this just an interpretation or does the Word unequivocally teach this? Paul clearly teaches this as fact:

Galatians 4:22 “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. (23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. (24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. (26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. (28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. (29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” KJV

What can this mean except that Israel as it is today are represented by the descendants of the bondwoman, and they will not inherit the kingdom with the children of the freewoman (typified by those in Christ).

The Bible states clearly that they were un-grafted from the Root (Christ).

Romans 11:11 “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

(19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. (20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith…

(32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.” KJV

The Bible says that the Jews are blind.

2 Corinthians 3:13 “And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: (14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. (15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. (16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.” KJV

Romans 11:7 “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (8) (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear😉 unto this day. (9) And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompence unto them: (10) Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always.” KJV

The doctrines of their leaders was called “leaven” by Christ Himself.

Matthew 16:11 “How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? (12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” KJV

Does this mean that it’s “over” for the Jews? No.

Romans 11:1 “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. (2 God hath not cast away [all – my addition] his people which he foreknew…

(5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

(25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (26  And so all Israel shall be saved:” KJV

What is the “all Israel” that will be saved? Well, the passage is clear that it will include both saved Gentiles and saved Jews. THAT is the “all Israel” that the world is waiting for. This will only happen when Christ returns and His people who rejected Him see Him once again. It is the job of the believing Gentiles to show mercy to them that they may also receive mercy. The patient is not greater than the doctor, just as the servant is not greater than his master. Once the Jews receive a saving belief in their Christ, then they will become brethren in the Lord. Until then, they are unrepentant sinners like everyone else.

What does the Word admonish Christians concerning the Jews?

Titus 1:14 “Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. (15) Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. (16) They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” KJV

Galatians 1:6 “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” KJV

Galatians 5:11 “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. (12) I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” [Clearly referring to Judaizers, as mentioning ‘Circumcision’.] KJV

Titus 1:10 “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: (11) Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.” KJV

Galatians 6:12 “As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. (13) For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh…” KJV

Romans 11:28 “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” KJV

Philippians 3:2 “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” KJV

1 Thessalonians 2:14 “…for ye have also suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: (15) Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.” KJV

The Jew’s religion is not God’s religion.

Galatians 1:13 “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: (14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” KJV

Matthew 15:3 “But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. (5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; (6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. (7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, (8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. (9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” KJV

1 Peter 1:18 “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;”

The religion of the Jews is called “Rabbinicalism” or “Talmudism”, which basically means that they worship or honor the words of past and present Rabbi’s and traditions as much as or more than Scripture itself. Christ had nothing good to say about Jewish traditions. Quite the contrary. These “traditions” are codified in volumes known as the Talmud. The complete Talmud contains 63 books in 524 chapters. Some of these traditions are simply infantile ramblings and “nit-picking” by various Rabbi’s, others are downright wicked. Perhaps some excerpts will be enlightening. The below are taken from the book “The Talmud Unmasked” by I.B. Pranaitis.

The Talmud repeatedly speaks ill of the Savior of the World:

Many passages in the Talmudic books treat of the birth, life, death and teachings of Jesus Christ. He is not always referred to by the same name, however, but is diversely called “That Man,” “A Certain One,” “The Carpenter’s Son,” “The One Who Was Hanged,” etc.

The Talmud is held to be above Scripture itself:

In the book Mizbeach,[1] cap. V, we find the following opinion:

“There is nothing superior to the Holy Talmud.”

[1] cf. Joan. Buxtorf, Recensio operis Talmud, p. 225.

The Talmud is anti-Christ.

Since the word Jeschua means “Savior,” the name Jesus rarely occurs in Jewish books.[1] It is almost always abbreviated to Jeschu, which is maliciously taken as if it were composed of the initial letters of the three words Immach SCHemo Vezikro“May his name and memory be blotted out.”[2]

[1] ex. gr. in Maiene ieschua, fol. 66b

[2] cf. I. Buxtorf in Abbrev. Jeschu: “The Jews among themselves do not say Jeschu, but Isschu, so nearly corresponding to the words of this curse. When talking to a certain Jew about this some years ago he told me that it not only meant this, but also Jeschu Scheker (liar) Utoebah (and abomination). Who would not be deeply horrified at this? This Jew lived at Frankfort and at Hanover and had travelled all over the world. When he saw how this horrified me, his faith in Judaism began to weaken, for he was not adverse to the Christian faith and had often discussed it with me and Dr. Amando Polano. I also discovered here and there two other secret words from the Jewish Cabala which have to do with this name. It is well known that the Israelites are often warned in their sacred writings to shun the worship of Elohe Nekharstrange gods or god. What does Elohe Nekhar really mean? By the numbering method of the Gammatria these letters equal 316, which taken together make the word Jeschu. This is found at the end of the book Abhkath Rokhel. They therefore teach that to dishonor God by the worship of Elohe Nekhar is the same as to dishonor him by the worship of Jeschu. Behold the malice of the serpent! Antonius also found a marginal note in a book about the Jewish faith and religion. In a Jewish prayer book there is a certain prayer beginning with Alenu… Formerly the wording contained certain things which were afterwards deleted for fear of the Christians, but the space remains vacant to warn children and adults that something is omitted there. The deleted words were hammischtachavim lehebhel varik umitpallelim lelo ioschia “Those who bow down exhibit vanity and foolishness and adore him who cannot save.” This is generally said about idols, but is secretly meant for Jesus whose name is here signified by the letters…”


In the Tract Sanhedrin (103a) the words of Psalm XCI, 10: ‘No plague shall come near thy dwelling,’ are explained as follows:

“That thou mayest never have a son or a disciple who will salt his food so much that he destroys his taste in public, like Jesus the Nazarene.”

To salt one’s food too much or to destroy one’s taste, is proverbially said of one who corrupts his morals or dishonors himself, or who falls into heresy and idolatry and openly preaches it to others.

In the same book Sanhedrin (107b) we read:

“Mar said: Jesus seduced, corrupted and destroyed Israel.”


In Kerithuth (6b p. 78) it says:

“The teaching of the Rabbis is: He who pours oil over a Goi, and over dead bodies is freed from punishment. This is true for an animal because it is not a man.[1] But how can it be said that by pouring oil over a Goi one is freed from punishment, since a Goi is also a man? But this is not true, for it is written: Ye are my flock, the flock of my pasture are men (Ezechiel, XXXIV, 31). You are thus called men, but the Goim are not called men.”


In Zohar (I, 28b) we read:

“Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc. (Genes. III, 1.) ‘More subtle’ that is towards evil; ‘than all beasts’ that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve.”


In Sanhedrin (59a) it says:

“Rabbi Jochanan says: A Goi who pries into the Law is guilty to death.”

[1] The same holds for the dead body of any man.


Rabbi Maimonides, in Hilkhoth Teschubhah (III,8) gives the list of those who are considered as denying the Law:

“There are three classes of people who deny the Law of the Torah: (1) Those who say that the Torah was not given by God, at least one verse or one word of it, and who say that it was all the work of Moses; (2) Those who reject the explanation of the Torah, namely, the Oral Law of the Mischnah, and do not recognize the authority of the Doctors of the Law, like the followers of Tsadok (Sadducees) and Baithos; (3) Those who say that God changed the Law for another New Law, and that the Torah no longer has any value, although they do not deny that it was given by God, as the Christians and the Turks believe. All of these deny the Law of the Torah.”


In Abhodah Zarah (26b, Tosephoth) it says:

“Even the best of the Goim should be killed”


In Hilkhoth Akum (X, 1) it says:

“Do not eat with idolaters, nor permit them to worship their idols; for it is written: Make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them (Deuter. ch. 7, 2). Either turn away from their idols or kill them.”

Ibidem (X,7):

“In places where Jews are strong, no idolater must be allowed to remain…”

But some will say, “Surely that is not what the peace-loving Talmud teaches…”

Towards the end of the 16th century and at the beginning of the 17th, when many famous men undertook diligently to study the Talmud, the Jews, fearing for themselves, began to expunge parts of the Talmud which were openly inimical to Christians. Thus the Talmud which was published at Basle in 1578 has been mutilated in many places.

The modern nation of Israel – Is it of God?

The Jews, indeed the world, will tell you that the nation in the Middle East is the fulfillment of prophesy. But is it? Let’s see what God prophesied about the return of Israel and see if it matches.

Jeremiah 32:37—“Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: {32:38} And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: {32:39} And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:” KJV

Do they dwell safely? No. Do they have one heart for God? No, they are predominantly a socialist nation.

Ezekiel 36:22—“Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not [this] for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy names sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. {36:23} And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I [am] the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. {36:24} For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. {36:25} Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. {36:26} A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. {36:27} And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them.]” KJV

Has the nation of Israel been cleansed? Has God been sanctified in the eyes of the nations? No. Are any of the spiritual promises in this passage apparent in today’s Israel? No.

Isaiah 51:11—“Therefore the redeemed of the LORD shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy [shall be] upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; [and] sorrow and mourning shall flee away.” KJV

Has this happened? No. Ok then, to what do we have to thank for the founding of the modern nation of Israel? Was it a move by God, or a rebellion by man? The following quotes are taken from “The Role of Zionism in the Holocaust” by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann. The source can be found here:

From its’ inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well-being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis.

We have been forsworn by G-d “not to enter the Holy Land as a body before the predestined time”, “not to rebel against the nations”, to be loyal citizens, not to do anything against the will of any nation or its honour, not to seek vengeance, discord, restitution or compensation; “not to leave exile ahead of time.” On the contrary; we have to be humble and accept the yoke of exile. (Talmud Tractate Ksubos p. 111a).

To violate the oaths is not only a sin, it is a heresy because it is against the fundamentals of our Belief. Only through complete repentance will the Almighty alone, without any human effort or intervention, redeem us from exile. This will be after G-d will send the prophet Elijah and Moshiach who will induce all Jews to complete repentance. At that time there will be universal peace.

This charismatic individual, the Rebbe of Satmar, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, did not mince any words. Straight to the point he called Zionism “the work of Satan”, “a sacrilege” and “a blasphemy”. He forbade any participation with anything even remotely associated with Zionism and said that Zionism was bound to call the wrath of G-d upon His people.

How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousand-fold cry: “Traitor,” “Enemy of the Jewish People.”



Conservatism; and What is Liberalism, Really?

November 26, 2016


I have been hard on the liberals for their viewpoint, behavior and especially their outlook on ‘conservatives’. The question that posed itself to me is: do ‘liberals’ even know what ‘conservatives’ really believe, or the consequences of what they believe, or do they only know what their teachers, school administration and government curriculum have painted for them?

I have come to believe that liberals honestly do not even know what conservatism is, and are largely, like the animals that psychologists have worked with, programmed to respond to certain key words spoken by school teachers and media personalities. Like teaching a dog to avoid or engage certain behaviors by speaking a word like “no”, liberals are taught in the government schools to react certain ways to certain terms. Terms like “conservative”, “bigot”, “compound” and “cult” are common words with meanings which have largely been redefined by media and school officials to mean something else.

When Christians go to church or have a gathering, at a retreat or campground, it is often reported as a “compound.” What is a compound really? The internet dictionary states it is something that is “composed of two or more parts, elements, or ingredients”. It just means a place that is composed of more than one building. Oh, this sounds dangerously threatening, doesn’t it? It gets even worse if the participants are labelled as “cult members”. Such “code words” are programmed into students in today’s government schools, and the media takes “liberal” advantage (pun intended) of these terms to denigrate those the government disagrees with (i.e. conservatives).

While we’re on the subject of the schools, do you realize that Adolf Hitler was a national socialist (the liberal of his day) and one of his first acts was to revamp the educational system to produce socialists? Called “Hitler’s Youth”, they were taught to rat out their parents if they heard any non-party talk or anti-Hitler comments. The socialist fruit hasn’t fallen too far from the socialist tree. When a distraction or opposition was needed, the youth were called out to “protest”; hurt people and break things. Sound familiar? So, we could say with some truth that liberals are not so much “progressive” as “regressive”; going back to policies and practices that history shows are failures.

“Socialism” is nothing more than a regression to a tribal social structure, where the strong take the lion’s share of the resources, and the rest “share” the remainder. It is the elite’s vs the peasants, a form of feudalism. This is not some incredible, fantastic new utopian idea, it’s the same tired old doctrine of the tyrant.

Before we get too far, also realize that many call themselves “conservatives” but do not really hold to conservative values. These are often called “Neo-cons” or RHINO’s (Republicans In Name Only). Just because someone is labelled as conservative (or labels themselves such) doesn’t necessarily mean that they are. I dare say that most republican politicians are actually not very conservative.

So, what is Conservatism?

Conservatism is just as much a way of life and belief system as it is a political outlook. The definition of “conservative” might be a good starting point.

The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary states:

CONSERVATIVE, adjective Preservative; having power to preserve in a safe or entire state, or from loss, waste or injury.

The modern Webster’s Dictionary states:

a :  disposition in politics to preserve what is established b :  a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically :  such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs

In essence, a conservative believes that traditional values, those encapsulated by this nation’s founding fathers and our founding documents, form a near-perfect concept which would secure the freedom and prosperity for everyone… if they were followed. This is in opposition to those, called “progressives” or “liberals” who believe they alone know what is best for our society, and attempt to push their ‘novel’ concepts on society and force changes that may or may not be all that truly ‘progressive’, but which may rather be viewed as retrogressive.

Below I will enunciate some of the ‘Conservative values’ and the liberal alternative opinion.

* Personal Responsibility – A true conservative believes in taking responsibility for themselves and those in their household who fall under their responsibility. This includes maintaining their property and meeting their financial responsibilities and obligations. The taking care of their own household and making all decisions for it. You would know a true conservative as a person who provides for their own, respects their property and that of others, holds rights to be sacred, and basically ‘picks up after themselves’ as a normal or innate aspect of their character, not something they do just for show. This would of necessity require a small government with very limited powers and limited regulation. Some would call this simply being mature or responsible, but nevertheless it is an aspect of the conservative lifestyle and mindset.

The liberal mindset is that government is more intelligent,  compassionate, more able to handle each person’s affairs, even better than they can themselves, thus more regulation is seen as better. I think in terms of welfare and the abuse that system is infamous for. It used to be (and maybe still is) that in certain state and national parks, the park rangers set up signs “don’t feed the bears”, the stated reason is that once animals learn to get their food from humans, they tend to lose the instinct to get food naturally. The same goes for people who live off the government tit. They lose the ability (work history, work ethic) and desire to fend for themselves and instead become, essentially, slaves to the system. For an outlook like liberalism that views slavery as a social evil, it is odd the hypocrisy they follow when it comes to entitlements like welfare, illegal immigration, and the like. When people are provided for, they no longer have to provide for themselves, and they become servants to those that provide for them, at the ballot box and elsewhere.

* Biblical/Lawful Foundation – A true conservative views the Christian religion, founded upon a conservative, historical and faithful interpretation of the Bible as the Word of God, as the key to personal and civic peace and prosperity, and a system of laws founded upon those Biblical principles. As the United States Supreme Court itself has said:

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

The Scriptural examples by which our laws were originally fashioned were fair and equal. A murderer, for example, was to be executed. No exceptions by rank or status or ethnicity were allowed. One who stole was to replace what he/she stole and then pay a penalty on top of it as a punishment. Families were protected by stringent laws against adultery, and the fact that the government was largely kept out of the home. Crime was punished commensurate with the severity of the crime, and punishment was enacted swiftly.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 – “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”

Murder used to be a capital offense, because it was one of the most morally repugnant of crimes. This also happened to protect society from the ravages of men who, as rabid animals, were dangerous to the safety of others.

Genesis 9:5 – “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. 6)  Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

As a system of law is of necessity based upon the dominant religion of a nation, so too this nation was founded upon Biblical precepts and it could not have survived the trials it has endured, and remained free as long as it has, without that foundation. I mean, think about it: what is wrong with the moral commands in the Scriptures? Are they really so repressive, or are they actually the glue that holds a society together? Is abstaining from lusting after your neighbor’s wife strengthening to society, or weakening to it? What is there in Scriptural morals that is so repugnant to society that we must make a new, more “enlightened” legal system?

I believe that the liberal’s repugnance to law based on the morals from the Scriptures relates more to their spirit of rebellion to God and any lawful authority. As soon as God is mentioned, liberals begin to almost foam at the mouth and inevitably spout “separation of Church and State”, as if that really has any meaning. It was a poorly extrapolated statement that doesn’t mean what it says. The government was meant to maintain a Christian standard, and only a Christian-based system can survive. Humanist-based systems inevitably explode and are the spectacle of violence and inequality around the world.

“We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.” –U.S. Supreme Court–Zorach vs. Clauson, 1952.

What it boils down to is a liberal tolerance for crime to the point that criminals are a protected segment of society and have more rights than the people they victimize. A murderer, rather than suffer public contempt and execution are coddled in prison for life (sometimes), their expenses imposed on the backs of those who are already struggling to support themselves without having to pay for the housing, healthcare and dental care of a bunch of scum and gang members who are a blight on our society. Is this the “compassion” the liberals tote? Compassion for whom? Certainly not for the victims of crime, nor for the public at large. The simple fact is that some people should not be tolerated, some behaviors should not be accepted, and self-esteem be damned, some people legitimately should not be allowed to continue an existence on God’s earth.


* Liberty not ‘Freedom,’ AKA Moral Foundation – A true conservative recognizes that a people cannot coexist in any peaceable and lasting way unless they have the liberty to do so, not the “freedom.” Freedom implies no moral restraint, whereas liberty has the connotation of freedom within ethical constraints. We have the liberty to live as we will, provided we live in a moral and peaceable fashion. We do not have the ‘freedom’ to do whatever we want, for our very laws are founded upon the moral strictures of the Bible.

Once we begin to change the laws, to make perverse behaviors acceptable, the very foundations of our government and legal systems become corrupt. If a politician’s wife cannot trust him to be faithful to his marriage vows, why should his constituents trust him to honor his oath of office? Words and behaviors have repercussions, and conservatives desire only the highest of both as a bulwark to safeguard our government and personal lives.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to want to legalize if not grant special privileges to every aberrant behavior they can conceive. Gay marriage, openly gay behavior, the lust-inspiring and wicked “performances” of many singers and actors/actresses and content on public television erodes our society, it doesn’t “progress” or advance it. A liberal will rake a conservative over the coals, figuratively, for being a womanizer, all the while condoning a liberal singer who flagrantly flaunts and touches her body inappropriately in plain view of a public audience. It’s the singer who is inspiring lust in everyone around her, tempting them to do what they know is perverse, but it is the conservative, who is accused of some behavior or other, that is the evil one. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Our government was not designed to allow or function with uncontrolled wickedness. The wicked man cannot be self-controlled or self-governed, but must be governed with an iron fist.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31)

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” — Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Maybe this is why liberals keep calling this a “democracy,” perhaps they instinctively realize that their behavior is incompatible with a republic… or maybe I give them too much credit…

* General Political Considerations – The modern Webster’s dictionary pretty much has it right as far as what a true conservative emphasizes in the realm of politics. In a system where everyone lives by “conservative” standards, working to support themselves, following a law-abiding lifestyle, and living in a Constitutionally operative government, taxes would not need to be high, and welfare would be largely non-existent. We wouldn’t need many jails (there are always a few who just can’t follow rules), and if everyone exercised a little common sense, we wouldn’t need a lot of government regulation. These things are possible on a large-scale, but it requires the majority of the people to follow suit.

On the subject of “bigotry” and racism, one must realize that there are bigots and racists in every ethnicity and nationality. Some are borne of personal experience, some from a national or cultural source. American conservatives, in general, believe in taking their opinions of individuals based on that person’s behavior and attitudes. Obviously, there are exceptions, but conservatives in general hold no person to be less than any other just based on their genetics. So, this constant media and educational bias of calling anyone with a conservative bent “racist” is fear-mongering and slander at best, but sometimes a conservative’s record is of such quality that there is nothing else a liberal can do to sully that person’s reputation than to resort to innuendo and slander.

The Liberal Alternative

Do these points sound “archaic”? Intolerant? Does every behavior and idea necessarily have a right to be ‘tolerated’? Aren’t there ideas that are poisonous to a society? Those who enforce their concept of morality on the public, would they accept a modern Aztec practice of ritual heart removal? Why not? Is homosexuality any less moral than ritual murder, especially if the victim is willing to go under the knife? Or assisted suicide? Or the euthanasia of the elderly? Or bestiality, or incest? Or are all of these really sins and crimes? A true conservative would believe so.

Opposed to conservatism, what are the ‘liberal values’? Freedom from religion, freedom from morality, take from the rich and give to the poor (rather than build the poor up and make them self-sufficient), radical environmentalism, which devolves into a pseudo-religion for some of the more fanatical liberals. Liberalism is basically the ideology which opposes traditional values and standards, seeking to go from a place of peace and equality to a man-made, historically disproven kind of equality and fairness: the theoretical humanist utopia. Government over all, without any constraints from any God. Tribalism. Strong vs the weak. The doctrine of the wolf vs the lamb. A degeneration of society rather than its advancement.

What about the environment? What is the conservative position on that? Well, the modern ‘climate change’ ideology came largely from Karl Marx and company.

“The dialectical nature of climate change is a striking confirmation of the philosophy of dialectical materialism developed by the founders of scientific socialism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.”

The dialectical process is, in a nutshell, to create a problem for the express purpose of offering a solution to that problem, of course one that benefits Marxism, which are the ones who use this process. Incidentally, liberals and the government use it all the time…

So, create a problem (climate change) and then give the world a cause for this problem (human beings), then propose a (Marxist) solution to solve the problem – population control and taxing the right of everyone to live (the very air everyone needs to breathe). Environmentalism is not a conservative issue, since it’s largely a made-upon dialectical issue, not a real-life issue. If everyone lived a conservative lifestyle, lived responsibly, individuals and businesses, then “climate change”, if it were real, would be recognized as a product of a natural cycle (which it is), not a man-made problem.

Unfortunately, the end result of liberalism (which is Marxist socialism) is a Communist Dictatorship, which eliminates, as much as possible, any personal freedom (hence, everyone has equal freedom – none), financial incentive (fiscal freedom – total equality), and right to life. Liberals: under a system you would consider “fair” and “equal”, you would find all deformed/retarded children/adults would be euthanized. All babies considered by the state to be unnecessary would be aborted. The elderly and disabled, who under such a system would not be able to produce anything, would be euthanized. The government would tell you how to live and whether you would get the opportunity to live. This is the end result of extreme Marxism, and it is what liberalism is trying to create within our nation. It happened in Hitler Germany under a Socialist regime, and it can and will happen here if these Socialists (“Liberals”) are not stopped.

According to, the number of deaths from Marxism to date are as follows:

People’s Republic of China Body Count: 73,237,000

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Body Count: 58,627,000

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Body Count: 3,163,000

Cambodia Body Count: 2,627,000

Democratic Republic of Afghanistan Body Count: 1,750,000

Vietnam Body Count: 1,670,000

People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Body Count: 1,343,610

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Body Count: 1,072,000

To my knowledge, this does not include the number of infanticides and abortions by these nations.

Is this really preferable to a “conservative” system of fair laws and personal morals and responsibility? I think not.


ADDENDUM 11/28/16

Remember the hoopla about “Rush is Right”? Well, I was right, about the truth behind liberalism and its Marxist roots. Upon the death of the infamous Fidel Castro’s death, what was the reaction in the liberal world?


See, one of the most wicked men of our generation, responsible for his tight-fisted control of his country and abuse of his “peasants” is lauded by liberals as a great man. Are they really that stupid? No, but they share his Marxist opinions and that makes them bad for America. Anyone who would look up to a Castro, or a Hitler for that matter, who was also a Socialist, needs to be “re-educated”. In my opinion, they are too foolish to know what is good for themselves or this country. Yes, they need to be governed, for they do not have what it takes to be self-governed. That is the fault of the socialist government schools, also called “public schools”. Unless this is fixed, its very possible that a new civil war could be the result. Marxism and the Christian Republic our founders left us are not compatible. One must succeed and one must fail.


Welfare, Entitlements and the End of a Nation

July 30, 2016

Warning: this post is in the form of a rant. It’s pointed and not P.C. I’m tired of the entitlement baloney and it’s time for a change.

Welfare has been defined in recent sociological circles as:

Social welfare or public charity: organized provision of educational, cultural, medical, and financial assistance to the needy. Modern social welfare measures may include any of the following: the care of destitute adults; the treatment of the mentally ill; the rehabilitation of criminals; the care of destitute, neglected, and delinquent children; the care and relief of the sick or handicapped; the care and relief of needy families; and supervisory, educational, and constructive activity, especially for the young.

The question is: what are the objective criteria that defines someone who is “needy”? Apparently it includes anyone right off the bus from another country, to judge by the number of Mexican welfare recipients who cannot even speak English. If you were to go to the Costco where I live, you couldn’t help but notice. Apparently they also have enough to pay for the annual membership. Doesn’t sound like they’re hurting too much. What kills me is when they pull out a big wad of cash to pay for their groceries. Wish I had that kind of money. The load in their shopping carts always dwarfs mine. I thought you had to be a citizen to receive a citizen’s benefits? Guess not. Is the government deliberately trying to start a war of the “have’s vs the have nots”? Isn’t the “class war” the media talks about all caused by government entitlements? Maybe we should move to Mexico and sign up for their welfare programs.

I recall a letter to the editor of our local newspaper a few years ago. A lady described someone in line in front of her in a grocery store, buying high-priced items she could not afford, and using food stamps to help purchase it. Then, after leaving the store the poor welfare recipients drove off in a late model Lincoln Navigator-style SUV. How can someone “needy” afford something that those with reasonably good paying jobs cannot necessarily afford? Doesn’t that sound like welfare fraud? I hope it is, and it isn’t just a case of the state knowingly giving someone welfare that really doesn’t need it.

The recent promotion In Washington State to make the state minimum wage a “living wage” has largely passed. Some places in the state, especially the greater Seattle area, can see minimum wages approaching $15/hour. Is there any further need for “welfare”? Is this not a sufficient wage to get people off their backsides and going to work? Remember, a minimum wage is historically a starting wage, usually for a teenager in their first few jobs. I worked them, until I gained enough experience and education to get something better. Apparently the leeches in our society expect to be handed something they didn’t earn. What a surprise.

When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian Republic over a thousand years ago.  He said:

                “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.  From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasure, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.  The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years.”

It’s my understanding that the percentage of the people of the United States who are receiving some kind of government assistance is currently around 49%. What will happen when 51% are sucking off the nipples of the other 49%? That’s in essence what welfare is, government sanctioned and controlled promotion of laziness at the expense of the productive. It’s why communism has never worked.

While I recognize that this country didn’t start out as a Democracy, it has certainly moved in that direction. It’s hard to recognize very many attributes of a Republic in our nation today. This “prophesy” neatly describes what is happening to us right now. Whenever a democracy has failed, it has always been very violent and bloody. The lazy don’t give up the good life without throwing a tantrum. And often, “racism” or the perception of it, is part and parcel of the entitlement and “victim” mentality. The black population (for example)blames the “white man keeping them down” yet they don’t work to promote themselves. They sit back, watch cable tv, chat on their government-provided cell phones while eating government-provided food and beer (and maybe a little marijuana from that side job nobody knows about). Meanwhile those evil white men like myself are forcing themselves to get up early in the morning, work all day, and come home tired and disconnected because they’ve been away all day. I’m certainly not saying it’s just a black problem, parasites exist in every color and ethnicity, though it’s certainly much more prominent in some than in others.

Don’t forget those “minority only” scholarships that white people cannot and never will be able to apply for, yet to try to start a white-only scholarship would be shot down in court as “racist.” Racism goes both ways, and racism isn’t the only ‘race’ that can be racist.

It’s fair to say that the vast majority of the parasites draining the public coffers are liberal, meaning they respect “nature” and believe that everything in “nature” is right and the way everything should be. Show me an animal that doesn’t work to feed itself, either hunt or make traps to capture food? There is not one natural creature that can survive without working to provide for itself. These people are against nature. The Bible itself says, “…this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” 2 Thess. 3:10 I think that’s a good standard. If you want a hand-out, wash these dishes, or mop this floor or… do something to earn it.

What about these kids we now see, getting “free lunches” through one school program or another. Here’s a clue, people: nobody in the United States is going hungry unless they choose to. This is way too kind of a nation for that to be allowed. They may not have what they want, or as much, but nobody is starving. It’s another liberal “the sky is falling” entreaty to get attention and sympathy for another public coffer-sucking minority group of some sort. There is a place for the down-and-out in every city in this country. Problem is, the vagrants don’t want to live there because then they would be required to clean up their lives (drugs, criminal behavior, etc.) and actually do some kind of work, be productive. When I see pictures of these kids getting their meals that are well-dressed and not obviously too thin. It’s an example of “parent parasites” sucking off the government to feed their kids, knowing it’s their responsibility to provide for their own families but not caring.

SPEAKING of criminal behavior, do you realize how many people in the jails are welfare recipients? I’m amazed every day when I view the pictures of the inmates who have come in. Many young men and women, 18-30, have a welfare debit card in their property. They are able-bodied (obviously, they are healthy enough to commit crimes) and also obviously have the time to hold down a job. Why are they still receiving benefits if they are in and out of jail? I think welfare should be strictly time-limited and dependent upon good behavior, and once someone is convicted of a crime, they lose any right to any public assistance for a significant period of time. I think that’s fair, though, if you’ve read from the beginning about the increasing minimum wage, I think that other than the few truly disabled among us, welfare has seen its day and it’s time to remove the burden on the producing part of the population and make the lazy earn their own way.

This situation is not sustainable. Either the welfare crowd will get too large and too greedy and will demand too much, of course producing a backlash by the working population, or the public coffers will simply implode and national bankruptcy and fiscal instability will occur and the violence from those who expect what the government will no longer be able to provide will explode. Welfare is un-American and needs to end before it ends us.

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson

Duck Dynasty and Societal Truth

December 24, 2013


From left, Phil Robertson, Jase Robertson, Si Robertson and Willie Robertson from “Duck Dynasty.”(Photo: Zach Dilgard, A&E, via AP)

During a recent GQ interview, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame made some “controversial” statements. This is my analysis and personal opinion statement to the world at large.

 “When asked about his definition of sin, the reality star said, “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there — bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.””

Biblically speaking, this is a correct statement. Since when can someone be lynched for speaking facts? It may not be facts everyone agrees with, but does represent an opinion based upon substantive fact.

Let’s define terms. Liberals are very quick to throw out the negatively-connoted terms “prejudice” and “bigot”. Just what do these really mean, and are they applicable in a strictly accurate sense in this case?

Prejudice – The word prejudice refers to prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics. In this case, it refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership. Prejudice can also refer to unfounded beliefs and may include “any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence.”, “Prejudice”

Ok, someone who is prejudiced has prejudged someone with their own preconceived ideas, without facts, and holds to these ideas with unusual tenacity. I believe that’s about the gist of it. Ok, in this case we have someone with opinions founded upon the Bible, which is a well-recognized, authoritative historical document (at the very least). This document also had a great deal to do with the establishment of English and American law. Someone founding their opinion on homosexuality based on clear Biblical statements does not fit the definition of being prejudicial.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person’s opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics., “Bigotry”

This strikes me as a definition that has been contaminated by modern conceptions.

BIG’OT, noun

1. A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual. The word is sometimes used in an enlarged sense, for a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, or system of belief; as a bigot to the Mohammedan religion; a bigot to a form of government. Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 Edition, “Bigot”

In this case, it strikes me that the term “bigot” was not necessarily originally intended to be a denigrating term, as liberals themselves are bigoted in favor of their own pseudo-religious opinions. If being a bigot means being religious, then so be it. But, those who attack others because of their honest religious convictions are also bigots by that very definition!

Considering we are supposed to have a 1st amendment protection to our words and opinions, I’d say Mr. Robertson’s is an open and shut case. Unfortunately, that is in a ‘free country’, a country where the rule of law is respected. The first and foremost law of our land is encapsulated in the Constitution, which is denigrated, dismissed, belittled by the very people we are discussing here. They are called Liberals or Left-Wingers. I call them Communists and Fascists, because in the end, that is what they represent.

Who are these “liberals”? We all know many of them. The various “minority” groups including but not limited to the Black Caucus, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, the ACLU… What is their ‘agenda’? Freedom… from any limitations, and freedom from any criticism, no matter how justified. But I personally believe, at least as far as the gay rights movement goes, there is a deeper, more sordid agenda. Follow me here… So, if homosexuality is ok, then gay marriage shouldn’t be an issue, right (this step is today’s big controversy)? Oh, wait, then we have all these “sister wives” in polygamous marriages out there that are suffering persecution, and that just isn’t right either, after all, their relationship(s) is/are their own choice, right? What, your neighbor wants to marry and have relations with his favorite hunting hound, well, ok, why not? In the end, what it really comes down to is eliminating all boundaries of decency and allowing anyone to do anything (except stand for moral absolutes). One extreme faction of our society is trying to force itself on the rest of society, with the might of the willing accomplices in the liberal media behind them.

The end result is what we are already seeing. Girls in high schools being bussed to clinics to have abortions without parental notice. Contraceptives being given to underage (under legal age) children. But to really liberate these kids what they need to do, and the main thrust of all these preparations, is to give all children an education (and experience) in the different sexual “options” so that they can determine what is ‘best’ for themselves (parents, well, sorry, but your child’s sexuality is none of your business). What are the inmates at the public fool – uh, school systems taught? What is taught in sex education? It’s very hush, hush. Stories occasionally get leaked of kindergarteners being taught that having “two daddies” or “two mommies” is normal, and sowing their immature minds with seeds which may in the future help convince children with mental or social issues that they really are gay. This, I believe, is the real goal behind the gay movement. They want access to the children. It started with gay boy-scout leaders, and that was foiled. Now they are marrying. Soon, they will want to ‘liberate’ the children from their ‘archaic, repressive’ traditional foundations. Sin, like power, ever has a desire to increase.

Also note that Mr. Robertson didn’t say those words, previously quoted above, on his show, no, but on his own time at the behest of GQ magazine. Was it a setup? Certainly anyone with an IQ of 10 could figure out Mr. Robertson’s opinions are, in this day and age, “controversial”, and GQ isn’t exactly a puritan organization. What are the chances that he would say someone to get the liberal media all hot and bothered? Obviously the chances were 100% as evidenced by the firestorm we see on the internet news today.

My problem is that Duck Dynasty is one of the very few programs on any channel that is truly family-friendly, shows healthy traditional family relationships and is down-right harmlessly entertaining. Maybe this is why their ratings are truly astonishing… at least to liberal media outlets. (–how-did-duck-dynasty-become-such-a-hit-this-year-210120788.html)

In my personal opinion, what one does behind closed doors isn’t an issue. But when persons go public and demand, not ask, not request – no; demand not just ‘tolerance’ but ACCEPTANCE of their immoral actions, I think that any sincerely felt vitriol against those persons is justified. Destruction of the society is an issue. Gays have essentially asked Christians for the one thing they absolutely cannot have, and they know it. So instead of an in-your-face frontal assault, networks like A&E perform societal modification by airing multiple programs portraying gays as sophisticated, reasonable, “the kid next door” type of people. Sorry, many homosexuals do not act or look like that, are not the suave professionals that our society is being re-engineered to stereotype them as being. Anyone see that Barnes & Noble Christmas commercial with the blonde gay guy? Notice that all he is shopping for are his male relatives (and friend). He acts like an overly-emotional, immature child. He even runs off the screen with a textbook gay limp-wristed running style. This is not masculine, this is not “normal”. “Normal” is acting your gender and your age. There’s something not right about “gay-normal” behavior.

One of government’s primary duties is to guard the “public morals.” This excerpt is taken from

The primary duty of a municipal corporation is the protection of health, safety, and morals of its population.  In order to exercise the entrusted duty, municipal corporations use police power.

A municipality passes ordinances to implement its duties.  General welfare of the public must be the ultimate aim of a municipal ordinance.  An ordinance passed by a municipal corporation should not conflict with a state law.  Generally, a municipality passes two types of ordinances: ordinance under the power of local self-government and ordinance under police power.  An ordinance created under the power of local self-government relates solely to the government and administration of the internal affairs of the municipality.  A police-power ordinances aims:

  • public health;
  • safety; or
  • morals[i].

[i] Mendenhall v. City of Akron, 117 Ohio St. 3d 33, 37 (Ohio 2008).

Protection of Public Health, Safety, and Morals

In allowing municipal ordinances to reflect changes of morality that do not stand traditional/historical muster, our government officials on all levels have failed to meet their required duties. To allow an activity which historically has always been considered shameful and wicked, in fact to promote such an activity, could be considered treason against the morals of the public at large. Our laws were founded upon the English Common Law, as our people were under the English crown before the Revolution. I find the classic “Commentaries on the Laws of England” by William Blackstone very enlightening:

IV. What has been here observed, especially with regard to the manner of proof, which ought to be more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out: for, if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.

I will not act so disagreeable a part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in its very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named…” Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 2nd Edition, 1888, p. 954

It was such a repugnant subject at the time that it was called the “unnamed sin”. So, in 100 years we go from the “unnamed sin” to something that is pervasive throughout society, and something Christians are expected (by a small minority and the political machinery they’ve co-opted) to not just “tolerate” but “accept.” Sorry, acceptance is asking too much, from both sides. Liberal gays will no more “accept” Christianity than Christians can “accept” gay behavior.

Then, down the media pike comes the firebomb that Mr. Robertson also made “racist” statements. He simply stated that he, in his own personal experience, saw no acts of “bigotry” against blacks when he was younger. Ooooo, that’s damning, isn’t it? We have a minority who have made a career out of playing the victim, and they are so touchy about it that any harmless, innocuous word that could possibly be construed in a negative way toward their pre-conceived notions of history causes a violent reaction. Get a clue. Black men in Africa sold black men into slavery to white men. Slavery has been illegal in this country for 150 years. No-one alive today even has grandparents that were alive in those days. It is over, pull up your bootstraps, get a job and get a life. If someone dresses like a hooligan, talks like an ignorant, then yes, they might have trouble getting a job. Plenty of white people also have troubles getting jobs because they too haven’t understood the concept of being “professional.” It isn’t “whitey’s” fault if someone can’t get a job. Time to grow up America. If you ‘African-Americans’ love Africa so much, by all means go back. Then “Whitey” won’t be able to bother you.

Certain minorities and minority leaders need a healthy dose of maturity. But I can at least understand the leadership of these groups holding onto their “prejudices” (yes, minorities can be prejudiced and ‘bigoted’ just like any other human being). The leadership have nice cushy jobs and big bankrolls for just sitting around, watching the news stories and jumping on anyone expressing the least bit of sacrilege toward their firmly held (irrationally held) beliefs. And as long as there are enough prejudiced people willing to pay these “leaders” to do this, they will continue to do so.

I find it interesting that there is a black Miss America pageant, a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (in our area), legislative voting districts in Washington have recently been reconfigured “to give Hispanic voters a fair shake,” in reality, to intentionally design it so that their candidates cannot lose seeing as how they now make up the majority of the voting population in those districts. So much for fairness in politics… And, it is another prime example of the fact that the only class in this nation which it is ok to slander, defame and despise is the white Christian male, the very creature that built this fine entity called the United States of America. If there were a call for a White Miss America, the country would go into a fit of apoplexy, but every other ethnic group may have their own without a problem. That’s called ‘racism’ people.

I guess reverse discrimination is acceptable to these people’s thinking. It’s blatant hypocrisy in my mind. Frankly, it shows me how pathetic these people are, who claim to have been repressed, abused, denied “rights” they believe they should have had… and when we (as a nation) bend over backwards to give them all they think they want (deservedly or not), are they thankful? No, they get louder and go on wanting more and persecuting the very people who are giving them what they want. Where will it end?

Mr. Robertson, if you ever read this, stick to your guns (as the saying goes). Liberals love to throw the term “compromise” around. As a last thought, and since that is the tack the Robertson family seems to be taking with A&E, let’s look at that word:

COMPROMISE, noun [Latin – To give bond to stand to an award, to promise. See Promise.]

1. A mutual promise or contract of two parties in controversy, to refer their differences to the decision of arbitrators.

2. An amicable agreement between parties in controversy, to settle their differences by mutual concessions.

3. Mutual agreement; adjustment.

Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 Edition, “Compromise”

It means to give and take to come to an agreement. However it also means to give up your standing as in “to compromise your beliefs”. Unfortunately, when “compromise” is brought up by liberals it leads to the conservative giving up or “compromising” the high ground to settle for an agreement which only benefits the liberal in the long run.  Beware of compromise, it’s a two-edged sword!

2 Corinthians 6:14 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15) And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16) And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?”