At this rate, not only am I four-eyed, cross-eyed, and glassy-eyed, but I’m red-eyed. (That’ll make sense in a moment.) I’ve come to realize what these eyes are seeing is the entrenchment of the new religion. 

To cover the Democratic National Convention on the podcast, I sat staring at an endless stream of X posts questioning Harris and Walz, rejecting the Democrat party, and proclaiming the thoughts of those who are tired of corruption, lying, and misinformation. 

But what stuck out to me the most about the DNC was the entrenchment of a religion adversarial to Christianity. 

This adversarial religion begins with the worship of self, but where it ends could be absolute destruction. 

The New Religion and Abortion 

Right off the bat, the DNC made headlines all around the conservative sphere with talk of inflatable IUDs and an unholy sacrament presented front and center. 

That unholy sacrament of the new religion rolled up as a mobile replacement shrine to what would have been Molech and Cybele in another civilization. The altar on wheels parked out front of the DNC this week to offer free abortions and sterilization. Frankly, I’m surprised they didn’t throw in a family pack like a fried chicken joint and offer child mutilations in honor of Tim Walz.  

But they at least had the sense to offer coupons for hot dogs. Nothing like cheap garbage meat makes the pain of destroying your future child or rendering your tool of procreation useless go away.  

 The New Religion's Beliefs

While you might think that ancient demon worship through murder and mutilation was enough to turn your stomach (much like the hot dog), the messaging from the Democrat party itself shows a deeper entrenched level of a new religion than one ever thought possible. 

Despite the lack of a policy position on Harris’ website, we have been fed small breadcrumbs of what a Harris/Walz ticket might prioritize. 

Most of us missed the first thing that came out because they released it under the radar. Even though most people don’t have the hair prick up on the back of their neck when the words “price controls” come around, those deadly two words should make everybody stop in their tracks. 

Almost no economist worth their salt believes that price controls help an economy.  

In a 1992 survey of economists, only 8.4% supported the idea that wage-price controls are useful when dealing with inflation. Yet, the Democrats floated the idea on the waters to test how the people might respond. After all, they need to solve the inflation they instigated and encouraged. 

Now this alone would not be a sign of the slide into an adversarial new religion underneath our noses. 

However, some of the few policy positions floated by the Democrats involve raising the corporate tax rate as well as instituting an unrealized gains tax. While they quickly associated the tax with the ultra-rich by saying it only involves those with $100 million in assets or more, they conveniently left out how taxes like this would absolutely crush the economy for minimal gain. 

However, the policies weren’t the only thing showing the new religious structures being erected. 

Not only are the policies coming out in support of higher taxes, more strangles on the economy, and expanded programs, but they sacrificed the concept of democracy in front of their very own loyal base. And the base cheered for it. 

The New Religion's New Mouthpieces

Kamala Harris failed to garner ANY support during the 2020 primaries. She stepped out due to being so unpopular, yet somehow secured a vice president position based on her skin color and gender. Once old man Biden proved he was too old and decrepit to do anything political, the elites in charge skipped an open primary. They quickly secured Kamala Harris as their candidate, despite the fact that Biden had won the 2024 primary. This helped them not only squash the thought of the people stupidly choosing their own candidate but made it much easier to slide all the millions of dollars Biden had raised into Kamala’s coffers. 

She is surrounded by the elite of the new religion. And they put one of their biggest proponents in the VP spot behind her. 

Tim Walz as Harris’ vice president pick proves a lot to those concerned that this next administration might be leaning into an established socialist order (and worse). He is the grinning, overly enthusiastic uncle who might sell a car with a bad transmission to an old lady to make a buck. He’d pat her on the back and wave goodbye as the car lurched out of the parking lot. 

The man seems to thrive on revolution, as his own wife admitted to opening the windows to enjoy the smell of burning tires in the morning. She reminisced about the meaning of the tires and the protests they represented. It’s only one step removed from loving the smell of napalm in the morning. 

Walz held off the National Guard and security forces during the BLM riots. He signed laws giving the government approval for the state to take kids out of non-gender-affirming homes. He seems to love expanding social programs.  

Debates rage about his love of China and whether he supports the Communist government or just doesn’t like some of its policies. However, a person does not tend to travel to a nation 30 times and learn the language unless they have some form of acceptance from the government. 

He posited that “One man’s neighborliness is another man’s socialism.” 

With Harris and Walz on the ticket, the new religion’s leaders can rest easy if they win. They have their mouthpieces in place and the ability to control the entire system.  

The New Religion in America 

The new American religion has many aspects to it. It disintegrates the family and assumes government authority over kids. It crushes capitalism through taxes, regulations, and antagonism to the economy. It floods the country with a more righteous group of people who are loyal to the state. It condemns and silences alternative voices. It desires to control every choice, thought, and action. Complete submission and obedience to all of its rules make the common citizen a sudden worshipper. It carries an entire structure of belief systems that are threatened by any attempt at challenging them. It boasts its priests and preachers. It reveres and establishes its sacraments. 

Mind you, the new religion is not just “communism.” It’s an entire restructuring of the Western way of life, which used to boast Christianity as its religion. The new religion is global in its organization and sets itself in opposition to Christianity and Judaism specifically. 

It has answers for every aspect of your life and those solutions were on full display at the DNC. 

Economic problems? More taxes, regulations, and laws against those evil corporations. 

Identity problems? Celebrate and worship how you feel and your desires. 

Family problems? Ensure the government has authority over children. 

Fear for the future? Utopia is right around the corner. We just need to institute a few more things and you’ll be happy in their version of “heaven.” 

Neighbor problems? Just report them to the new religion’s god and they’ll take care of that pesky neighbor for you. Your prayers are answered. 

Have a Satan problem? They’ll try to rid you of his menace. 

To them, Trump is not just evil. He’s not just literally Hitler. He is the incarnate of Satan. He is the force of darkness that must be crushed. 

The priests (the elite) and the preachers (media and journalists) all took every measure possible to let you know that Satan is alive and well in America. He may be missing a bit of his ear now, but rest assured they will do everything they can to put him in prison...or worse.  

And the moment they rid the world of Trump; they will feel safe to fully establish their religion. 

The New Religion Gaslit You

You see, for decades they gaslit you. They told you that you were evil, hateful, close-minded Christians who wanted to enforce your religion through government. You begged and pleaded with them, saying to anybody who would listen that you didn’t want to force your religion on anybody. Instead, you wanted to love and understand them. You wanted peace. 

They wanted you to back off so they could establish their own new religion through the state. Now we have laws in certain states requiring parents to take oaths against their conscience by agreeing that their daughters are now sons, and their sons are now daughters. 

The Puritans would be shaking their heads in shame after they fought for almost 100 years to avoid condemning oaths. 

The progressive movement harassed you when you said you didn’t want certain books available to your kid without your supervision. They determined you were forcing your morals on them. 

They screamed and cried that your position on abortion was tantamount to you controlling their bodies. 

Yet, there is no such thing as an ideological vacuum. Something must take the place of the old belief system. The progressives have successfully brainwashed the masses into believing that they are not a new religion but merely secularism in progress. Now, the Christian hides cowering in their pews with their mouths shut as the progressives continue to solidify their march through the institutions of power. 

We’ve witnessed the force and crackdown happen here in America when an alternative belief system attempts to rise up. We’re watching it happen in Britain. It happened and solidified a while ago in Canada. New Zealand and Australia proved the progressive rot. 

What is The New Religion?

The new religion in America isn’t communism. That’s much too simple and outdated. It’s not just globalism. That’s too shallow of a connection to the rest of the world. 

Instead, the new religion puts its tenets on display without ever really telling the truth. Every idea of the progressive machine gives to the pleasures of the common man, who in turn worships the god of the new religion. While we see: 

Abortion 

Vasectomies 

Crushing state force 

The destruction of personal property 

They desire 

Ending future generations 

Preventing humanity from continuing 

Control over every aspect of your life 

Removal of any power in defending one’s sovereignty 

In a nutshell, the new religion hates humanity and desires to give control to a select few. They want complete control over the common man and yet hate him at the same time. Which sounds strangely like something Satan would do... 

You are not loved by the new god. You are despised. 

You are not created by the new god. You are only destroyed. 

You are not unique to the new god. You are useless dirt. 

Your presence is not enjoyed. It’s loathed. 

No, the new religion is not communism. It’s not just the reanimation of old gods (demons) in new ways. It’s not just economic systems. It’s all of that with the express purpose of creating obedient worship of the state to uplift the world system. It's the ultimate consolidation of all of these aims. But in the end, it's final goal is to sacrifice you for the greater good. 

In Christianity, God sacrificed Himself for you. 

The choice is becoming all too clear. Follow Christ and be hated by a system that already hates you. Or, reject Christ and become a cog in the machine of the system that will hate you anyway. 

Only through Christ can you step out and become separated from the new religion, which is just the old religion as a new attempt by Satan. 

Make your choice. Christ or the new religion. Which will it be? 

It seems as though Donald Trump and Elon Musk draw lightning no matter where they go. Put them into the same space and suddenly the whole world draws near to see the fireworks. And like clockwork, discussions swirl around free speech. 

Monday night, X Spaces hosted a conversation between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. 2.1 million people listened in, while the post itself gathered over 54 million views. While these numbers are impressive, the number one Spaces event remains Musk’s discussion with Ron Desantis a few years ago. 

Of course, technical troubles before the discussion with Trump caused saliva to run down the chins of the establishment media. They took no time at all to report about the “glitches” and “technical difficulties” before the program began. 

Musk claims the attack was a DDOS attack or a distributed denial-of-service attack. This type of cyber-attack is akin to trying to fit so many people through the gate that the system crashes and is of use to no one.  

The drooling, lap-dog media put it upon themselves to march out anonymous sources who claim Musk was lying and that he was lying about the attack. 

The hatred for Musk and for Trump showed itself on full display both before and after the event.

The EU Put Their Hat in the Ring 

Hours before Musk and Trump were scheduled to sit down, the internal market commissioner of the EU, Thierry Breton, threatened Musk and his attempt to put EU citizens at “serious harm”. 

In his strongly worded letter, Breton made it his duty to warn Musk that he must do “due diligence” to oblige by the Digital Services Act of the EU. Breton stated in his letter, “As the individual entity ultimately controlling a platform with over 300 million users worldwide, of which one-third is in the EU, that has been designated as a Very Large Online Platform, you have the legal obligation to ensure X’s compliance with EU law and in particular the DSA in the EU.” 

He continued, “This notably means ensuring, on one hand, the freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism, are effectively protected and, on the other hand, that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events, including live streaming, which, if unaddressed, might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security.” 

One wonders how a person might reasonably protect freedom of expression and information, and yet at the same time censor anything possibly deemed “detrimental” to civic discourse and public security. 

Breton posted the letter on X with a caption reading, “With great audience comes greater responsibility. As there is a risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in the EU in connection with events with major audiences around the world, I sent this letter to @elonmusk.” 

The tyrant-in-training finished his letter with a promise. He wrote, "My services and I will be extremely vigilant to any evidence that points to breaches of the DSA and will not hesitate to make full use of our toolbox, including by adopting interim measures, should it be warranted to protect EU citizens from serious harm," the Commissioner added.  

Meanwhile, reports now indicate that Brussels itself did not approve the letter and seems a little miffed that Breton stepped out the way he did. The Financial Times reports that the European Commission denied that Breton had approval from President Ursula von der Leyen to follow through with the letter. 

The Threat Against Free Speech 

Even though Breton seems to have embarrassed himself slightly in the eyes of Brussels, X continues to be under the microscope of the EU. Strangely, it’s as though a platform whose owner talks frequently about free speech, and rights might be a threat to the authoritarian regime of the EU. 

Add in the riots in the UK and the 1984-style crackdown on how information flows on social media, and X has again found itself in the crosshairs of the censors-on-high. 

If the EU decides that X has not followed the DSA discussed by Breton, they could potentially face fines of up to 6 percent of their worldwide turnover, as reported by the Financial Times. This would make for a nice little bonus in the EU coffers. 

The Power of Independence and Free Speech 

Unfortunately, the EU wasn’t the only entity discussing speech censorship BEFORE the Trump and Musk interview. During the press briefing at the White House on Monday, hours before the interview, the Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson Jr. wondered, "What role does the White House or the president have in sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of intervening in that? Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but, you know, it’s a wider thing, right?" 

Imagine, a reporter questioning a White House Press Secretary on the role of the President in stopping “misinformation” from a conversation between a business owner and a presidential candidate. 

Of course, the fact-checkers were out in droves to claim that Trump lied anywhere from 20 times to 200 times.  

But the gall of the progressive and authoritarian camp is on full display before our very eyes. We now witness preemptive strikes by those who deem speech a danger to society and civility, as they clamor for any means necessary to stop a man they hate. 

Regard for citizen’s rights has been flown out the window under the cover of public safety. And they will continue to do so. 

Why? Fear drives panic. Panic pushes people to look for someone to be in charge. When a person steps up and offers their hand, all they ask in return is the obedience and submitted heart of the person following them. Our expert and political class recognizes that society has hit the point at which they can drive fear to build obedience. 

Look no further than Covid, when people masked up and socially distanced by the billions, all because their government told them to be afraid. Now, the new pandemic is not an air-borne illness, but conversations and posts on social media. The infection and sickness are now racism, hatred, and violence. 

Even though the tiny number of cases is questionable, the authoritarian establishment will continue to double down on this danger. At the end of the day, they care so much because they themselves live in fear. They fear the populace. They fear the loss of power. They shake at the thought of falling into obscurity and seeing their aims and goals fade into the mist. 

Never Back Down on Free Speech 

We’ve watched plenty of moves to squash, restrict, and punish free speech. The common individual must grasp free speech with every fiber of their being. If we do not, we will compromise the deepest parts of us – our beliefs and convictions. Once we give in to the bully forcing us to be silent, we will dramatically shift our inner beliefs to match our actions. We will slowly and surely shrug our shoulders saying, “It didn’t matter that much anyway.”  

If we find ourselves in that position, then we’ve already lost. Now is the vital time in which the American spirit can push against any thought of authoritarian control. As a populace, we can make sure those in positions of power give up their own beliefs and convictions instead. 

We can ensure they are the ones who shrug their shoulders and say, “It didn’t matter that much anyway.” 

While we have stock market crashes, war between Iran and Israel, elections heating up, and Olympic boxing controversies, we may learn a couple of lessons from the chaos unfolding over in England.

What Happened in the UK?

A 17-year-old boy is being accused of stabbing three little girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport.

Axel Rudakubanais currently being charged with murdering three girls while being charged with 10 counts of attempted murder after stabbing others in the class.

Rumors swirled around the event, as people claimed a Muslim immigrant had stabbed the girls in a rampage. Rudakubana’s family is of Rwandan descent, however, it is believed that Rudakubana was not a first-generation migrant. They are also believed to be faithful church-going Christians. Of course, we must be skeptical of any and all information provided.

This event sparked massive protests which included burning vehicles and setting buildings on fire. As a response, roving groups of Muslims counter-protested as coalitions of communists, LGBTQ, and pro-Palestinian protesters also set themselves against pro-UK marches and protests.

Riots in the UK

While the media and government are quick to blame “disinformation” for the uprising in protests, various local sources have expressed what they believe is inspiring their fellow Brits: frustration at a two-tiered system that has seen countless events in which the natives are subjected to arrest and prosecution as immigrants avoid harsh punishments for horrible crimes.

At the same time, the energy and chaos of the boil-over have dangerous consequences. Videos of Muslims attacking white Englishmen, and the opposite have flooded X, along with videos from the riots and protests that have engulfed plenty of cities. Some groups of pro-UK men have torched hotels in which migrants have been housed, and city centers have been torn apart. Muslim patrols are now seeking out white men and beating them in the streets.

Meanwhile, news reports on the scene discuss the danger of “far-right” protesters as Muslim men can be seen in the background carrying machetes and weapons.

During some of these events, police took it upon themselves to politely ask Muslim men to carry their weapons to their Mosque, while 24-hour courts are being opened to try and convict “far-right” protesters.

Contrasts have been made between the reaction of Prime Minister Kier Starmer when the Black Lives Matter riots were happening a few years ago and the current riots of outrage over the death of the three little girls. During the BLM riots, Starmer made certain to voice solidarity with those mostly peaceful protesters. Now, Starmer vows swift and brutal justice against the “rioters” and their violent actions.

The language of the government officials throughout the course of the weekend has been nothing short of unified as they label all of the protesters as violent, far-right thugs and opportunists. When some officials have attempted to link the enraged emotions of the protesters to migration and a seemingly two-tiered system, they have been swiftly censored and deleted from social media. Not just this, but when calls have been made to hear the frustrations of the “native” population, calls are made to remove the license of the news organization and to make platforms responsible for promoting incitement.

Tommy Robinson, a pro-UK native boogeyman of the left, was wrongfully indicted by the media for his supposed role in the riots, even though Robinson was on vacation with his family outside of the country. The news, however, chose to report that Robinson had skipped town to avoid a court proceeding.

Home raids are now being done not just for those who physically participated in the raids but in search of people who are being accused of whipping up sentiments online. This can and has included people who have shared information or posted opinions on the events.

The Danger of Free Speech

In his address, PM Starmer stated regarding the mobility of the protesters, “And we must have a policing response that can do the same. Shared intelligence, wider deployment of facial recognition technology, and preventive action – criminal behaviour orders, to restrict their movements before they can even board a train. In just the same way we do with football hooligans. And let me also say to large social media companies and those who run them, violent disorder clearly whipped up online, that is also a crime. It’s happening on your premises and the law must be upheld everywhere. That is the single most important duty of Government. Service rests on security. And we will take all necessary action to keep our streets safe.”

Various news outlets have taken it upon themselves to write articles asking which horrible people online are behind the riots as they take Elon Musk to task for championing X as a free speech platform. The New York Times has even taken it upon themselves to ask what social media companies will do about riots being fomented online.

Of course, governments and news organizations(are they not an extension of one another?) have cried loudly and often about the dangers of disinformation and misinformation while spilling forth a confusing brew of lies and misdirection. Mind you, they cite each other as credible sources and proper opinions.

In one embarrassing example, Good Morning Britain’s Ed Ball interviewed his wife, MP Yvette Cooper about the riots and the dastardly far-right thugs. Using appeals to emotions and carefully curated content, they uplifted the innocent status of one group and the absolute banality of evil residing in the other group.

The media and government claim that social media must be stopped, yet at the same time peddle their own narratives without a second thought. All while many social media platforms work hand-in-hand with them to curate the “truth.” (For an outstanding source, look up Matt Taibi and his work on the Twitter files.)

They claim that they must be the gatekeepers of truth and that the populace is not trustworthy enough to understand or grasp hold of the truth floating past.

Fear of Free Speech

Entrenched and established powers fear the cognizance of the populace. As a populace becomes more and more frustrated with the agenda of the elites, the powers-that-be escalate their own fear and use it as motivation to then subject the populace to a two-pronged attack.

Scare the populace into submitting by telling them how dangerous they are to be caught with freedoms and enact programs to supposedly alleviate the fear and protect the populace from themselves.

In other words, “I’m scared of you. You’re a risk. Your neighbors are a risk. So, we’ll oppress you and then we can all be safe from you.”

Fear dictates so much in a social group and becomes a powerful tool to entrench agendas once thought to be merely conspiracy theories. Instability provides organizers the opportunity to sell frightened people the illusion of safety and stability. After all, offer a person comfort, safety, and stability in hard times and they will gladly do what you ask or submit to whatever requirements you’ve placed in front of them.

The UK itself has sat under the thumb of a techno-dictatorship for decades. The people of the UK have become largely complacent with cameras on every single inch of their homeland, raids for social media posts, advanced spying tech used on the populace, and draconian lockdown and mandate measures.

Unfortunately, we in the United States do not fare much better.

What Can We Learn from the UK Riots?

We in the United States most likely will not learn much. We are victims of our own success in a way. Those who know about the First Amendment and the protections it affords often believe that our First Amendment will always exist for our safety against tyranny. Little do we understand the efforts the government, media, and private companies make as they look to circumvent a citizen’s free speech.

Lest we forget, the government attempted a program under the Department of Homeland Security titled the Disinformation Governance Board. While officials assured Americans that it only had to do with foreign entities, a furor arose over the presence of people in the government attempting to parse out “disinformation” from “truth” in an official capacity.

We smelled the rat and looked to expel it. But the problem is, that thousands of rats are already crawling inside our walls.

Thankfully, a site such as X provides a powerful resource for ferreting out the truth about events such as the riots. The site may not be decentralized in the truest form, but access to information through millions of people is akin to decentralization. X still struggles with some censorship issues and is not perfect by any means, but the choke-hold algorithms put in place by sites like Facebook and YouTube do far worse damage.

The UK riots were a long time coming. For years, the populace has felt unheard when it comes to vast numbers of migrants. The people still hold frustration and hurt from the absolute debacle of the Rotherham grooming gang controversies and its apparent two-tiered justice system. The citizens’ frustrations have mounted as their major population centers are increasingly filled by migrants. Look no further than the UK’s own reports on the numbers being migrated into the UK.

While media outlets claim the citizens are overblowing the situation, even the IMF has published articles extolling the virtues (and reasons) for massive migration. They cite the falling birthrates of native populations and the economic importance of importing a new workforce.

Debates rage and narratives are constructed on both sides. The power of speech becomes more important as each side recognizes the need to influence people to their side. As the information war heats up, we can easily expect one side to stamp down more and more on freedom of speech, travel thought, and religion.

Those in power do not like that power threatened. Unfortunately, many of those in power only understand the language of power. As our education systems have been handed over to Marxist and progressive minds for the past 120 years, we cannot but expect that those who appreciate and uphold the established structure will defend its very existence.

The system becomes their god. It feeds them, protects them, provides for them, and guides them. After all, it keeps those nasty, brutish invading individualists out and punishes them for the audacious thought of threatening the levers of establishment power.

So do not expect the system to do you any favors. Do not expect the system to give you justice. Giving you justice will only show the system its own immorality and injustice. No man or structure, built up in pride, is willing to become introspective.

While we may hope and pine for the day the elites learn to back off, much like the founders hoped the crown would do before the Declaration of Independence, it will not happen without the populace unified and demanding adherence to the supposed social contract between a government and its people.

If you learn one thing America, it is that the injustice of power oppressing the people cannot rest. If individualists and conservatives must learn the language of power to speak to the entrenched elites, then so be it. It is all they speak. It is all they know. You may not do it willingly or with enthusiasm, but neither were our founders flippantly desirous of the consequences when speaking truth to power. Speak truth to power. Do not let your voices rest. And while of course, we all call for peaceful protest...protest we must.

Recently, several articles published by Robert Downen and Juan Salinas II from The Texas Tribune sought to do damage to a True Texas Project event being held next month. Massey Campos and Mike Sonneveldt, from Self-Evident Ministries, are slated to be keynote speakers at the event, both before and after the breakout sessions.

This event, a 15-year birthday celebration, will host speakers covering several major topics. The themes of the break-out sessions include titles such as "Multiculturalism and the War on White America", "Great Replacement Theory", "The Case for Christian Nationalism", "Is Christian Zionism Biblical?", and more.

Of course, these topics make great fodder for those in the progressive camp. The issues are spicy enough to bait activist journalists and leaders of progressive groups to use all of the usual rhetoric against such lectures. Words like racist, xenophobic, white supremacist, white-identitarians, Christian Nationalists, and so forth become common focal points when trying to build a generalized identity of the event and its speakers. People believe that the labels become powerful artillery in a war of ideas.

And that is precisely the intention of these articles and the subsequent discussion taking place. The true meaning of the topics does not matter. It's all about association. Whether the topics and speakers themselves truly hold the motives they're being accused of doesn't matter...it's all about association.

If an association or tangential link can be used to drag down public perspective, then activists will stop at nothing to play up the connection. In fact, it becomes a primary tool and reeks of a thorough internalizing of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. The more an association with an extremist person or thought can be made, the easier it is to isolate, embarrass, and destroy a group or organization.

An ulterior motive shows itself best in covering up the inconvenient facts or nuances of an issue. While these speakers were certainly called and asked whether they wanted to associate with such an event, we find little evidence of honest work being done to understand the foundational beliefs of the speakers. Conclusions were made and guilty associations were played up.

In fact, even Richard Spencer's name was conveniently used to draw gross connections to Paul Gottfried. Mind you, Gottfried has publicly denounced antisemitism and the white supremacist movement. He is Jewish, attended a Jewish university, and his family escaped Hitler's government and the genocide of the holocaust.

In the mission of the activist posing as an investigator, the inconvenient facts should never get in the way of the emotional goal. In other words, you can't create fear, animosity, division, and suppression unless the emotions of the ignorant and uninformed are stirred into passion and vitriol. Use Spencer's name, attach emotions to Gottfried.

Self-Evident's Position

We will proudly be attending True Texas Project's 15-year birthday celebration. In a recent phone call, we were asked by Mr. Downen whether we wanted to step down from this event and if we had a comment.

Here's our comment: We refuse to step down.

In honor of the supposed thirst for knowledge, we will provide some of our reasons.

1) Why would we do what our opposition wants us to do?

Despite the seemingly caring demeanor, a member of the opposition is not out for your good. Their request of you should always be circumspect, especially if it is not to build a relationship but to offer an option.

Activists do not wish for your success unless you are aligned. They wish to silence, suppress, and destroy their opposition. Placating them provides the fastest way to lose your self-respect and gain a reputation as a fool and a slave to their desires.

When a person who is your opposition comes to you with a suggestion on how to be better, it should be easy to see the sleight of hand. Remember, the voice of Satan seemed to be concerned for Eve, but the machinations were death and destruction for her progeny.

Listen to the voice of your accuser at your peril.

2) We don't need to fully agree with everyone

We're not interested in whether we agree 100% with everything said at any event we go to. In fact, it is expected that no matter where we go, a disagreement in beliefs will occur at some point. It is asinine to assume that positions and beliefs must align perfectly, or else you are in danger of being associated with that thought or idea.

Unfortunately, we live in a culture in which association means reputation. And reputation means everything. While some may concern themselves with every person they could possibly be associated with, we at Self-Evident recognize that at some point, a vindictive enough person can associate you with anybody. Whether it is random comments on an X or Facebook post, something taken out-of-context, or a former leader or associate – the world is rife with "ugly" connections.

Simple-minded people base their judgment of a person on vague associations. The conniving recognizes and uses this to their advantage. It becomes a game of name-dropping with the intended consequence being to damage someone's reputation.

3) We're there to minister

We are a ministry. We will go where we're called to speak the truth. We have been invited to organizations in the past that would rankle the feathers of the common Christian or conservative. We didn't care. We went and spoke Jesus. We gave the truth. We prayed with those people. We ministered where we could.

While we are far from being Jesus, He Himself was a man of no reputation. He was often ridiculed by his accusers for spending time with the tax collectors, prostitutes, and drunkards. His goal was to minister, heal, and convert the unwashed masses. The elite and establishment figures didn't like Him because He spent too much time with the outcasts and "associated" with the wrong people and espoused the wrong thoughts and ideas. But they HATED Him because He converted people into His followers. His presence threatened the supposed authority of the elite and therefore was dangerous.

Most importantly, He did not value His reputation among men but continued to do the will of His Father. This disregard for His worldly reputation not only earned Him eternal honor but led Him to the cross – a place He willingly went. Even when evil, inaccurate, and false accusations were lobbed at Him to seal His fate of execution, He continued with His mission.

We as a ministry will go where we are invited and where we're called. Even if it were an event in which we disagreed with the main premise, we would be inclined to go and give the truth. If we're invited to give our message, then we will. After all, the fields are ripe for harvest with a people who need to hear the message of Christ!

4) We love True Texas Project

We have a long relationship with True Texas Project. We have done tours across Texas, speaking to their groups and forging relationships with their people. We have never seen the aforementioned antisemitism, white supremacy, and extremist hate that supposedly boils over from every crevice of True Texas Project.

We have seen the groups be nothing but kind, generous, and thoughtfully dedicated to getting active and doing something in their locality. We watched as they prayed openly, ministered to each other, and desired a moral and value-driven Texas.

While progressives may wish to trash and belittle the group, their usual tropes become worn-out and dusty. We get it. Conservatives, especially those deplorable ones who love God, guns, and country must all be racist extremists with Hitleresque aspirations. But at some point, the labels lose meaning. And we will not swallow the tripe of a couple of articles slathering on the labels written by antagonistic outsiders when we personally know and love those who lead and serve in True Texas Project.

Conclusion

Some may say that the titles of the breakout sessions are racist, xenophobic, and promote conspiracy theories.

So, we're going to be clear, lest you accuse us of being vague. We agree with plenty of the points being made in these lectures. There may be points we don't agree with, but it does not matter to us. Either way, we will be there to minister and show the light of Christ. We will be there to support a movement we feel is doing great work in Texas. We will show up and give our backing to down-home folks who do not wish to see their country ripped to shreds by those people who have no interest in the history of America but merely wish to wipe the slate clean and build the nation in their own image.

See you in Texas.

You thought the worst of it was over. 

We watched the protests on college campuses and allowed the news of it all to blend in with the noise surrounding our everyday lives. After all, we have a 24/7 news cycle that continually brings things to our attention and then erases that with the next big story. 

However, the college campus protests and colonization (see what I did there?) are not subsiding. Instead, they are growing and spreading as students reach their last days of school before summer break. 

It Gets Worse 

Even though we may hope for a burn-out of this “pro-Palestine” fire, we will be sorely disappointed. Not only will the fire continue to spread and grow in the summer months, but the government is now getting more and more involved. 

This will not end well for the American citizen. 

Antisemitism Monitors 

Within the past few days, Congressman Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) introduced legislation that would bring the federal government into the action. In their proposed legislation, the federal government would have the ability to track incidents of antisemitism through the use of monitors on college campuses. 

Any college that refuses to hire the government-mandated monitor would see their federal funding stripped. The bill also requires the colleges to cover any expenses related to the monitor’s work. If they refuse the Department of Education’s requirements, then federal funding will disappear. 

Representative Torres said the bill was written “in response to the ongoing demonstrations at Columbia University that have created an environment that many Jewish students view as hostile to their well-being and safety.” 

“Campus antisemitism is at an all-time high, and American universities are not capable of handling it when left to their own devices,” Torres said. “Jewish students have told my office that they feel completely abandoned by their university administrators and they view Congress as the only avenue for accountability and safety.” 

However, Torres is no stranger to antisemitism bills. In December of 2023, Torres introduced a bill that would have included antisemitism in the DEI Act of 2023. He helped sponsor a resolution recognizing Israel as America’s democratic ally. Not only that, but Torres also sponsored the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Within that act, antisemitism is defined to include “the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” 

This Isn't the First Time 

House Speaker Mike Johnson energetically came out against the protests and colonization (encampments) on college campuses. He not only condemned antisemitism but also gave credit to the possibility of bringing National Guard troops onto campuses to break up the students. 

Johnson was not done. 

He and other lawmakers met with Columbia University’s president, Minouche Shafik, and shortly after called on her to resign. 

But Johnson still was not done. 

He not only called for the National Guard but also stated the next step during a press conference. Johnson said, “There is a nexus to federal funding. If these campuses cannot get control of this problem, they do not deserve taxpayer dollars. That’s a very serious issue.”  

Bringing it All Together 

On our April 26, 2024 podcast, we discussed the problem with these protests. With names that include things like “People’s Revolution” and “Solidarity”, it’s not hard to recognize the lens through which these students are seeing their role in this mess. 

Some of them probably understand the truth – that a protest will not result in divestment from Israeli companies or the nation of Israel. They most likely get that an encampment on a college campus will not end the war or bring about a ceasefire.  

Then again, that was not the goal of the entire movement. This is revolution. It is agitation. It is passion. The few (who know what they are doing) continue to whip up the useful idiots for their cause of communism/Marxism. The organizers and leaders of these movements know exactly what they are doing. They prey on the college students supporting the cause. 

Most students desire to be a part of something bigger than themselves. They want to make a change. Many of them likely did not know anything about Palestine before the past few months. However, the leaders saw the opportunity. They incited passion, drew in the sold-out believers, and shifted them with subtle moves into a Marxist movement. 

Our Government is not Helping 

Meanwhile, our government never ceases to take advantage of a bad situation to make things worse. We just watched the FISA Section 702 extension get passed, setting up an obliteration of Constitutional protections. Now, they are doubling down on the idea of hate speech by setting up antisemitism monitors. 

The cure will be worse than the sickness. 

While speech and thought control made great gains with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the war against thought has been raging since this nation was founded. 

A Quick History of Government Speech Control 

Even before the founding, colonists ran into trouble for writing disparaging things about King George III. Their houses were ransacked searched, and all of their personal writings taken. Due to their own opinions, they found themselves at the center of a royal investigation. 

During the tenure of John Adams, American citizens were prosecuted and imprisoned for being critical of the American government’s actions and attitudes during a tenuous time in the relationship between America and France. Adams became so despotic that even the sermons of the clergy were not outside the scope of his dragnet. 

Abraham Lincoln made moves to arrest journalists, politicians, and private citizens if their opinions on the Civil War became too inflammatory for the likes of the American government.  

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law, a whole segment of thought and belief became outlawed. While racism is abhorrent, the government saw fit to force people to act against their conscience in governmental, business, and even private affairs.  

Now, we watch the movement-du-jour attach itself to the Civil Rights Act, inspiring each small collective to glue their identity to the “protected classes” of the Civil Rights Act. Whether gay, transsexual, Israeli, Palestinian, physically disabled, or any of the infinite classes of people: a Civil Rights protection designation is priceless. 

The Results 

By attaching the idea of “hate speech” to “discrimination”, a new level of speech control may make its way around the First Amendment and over every way we communicate. 

Adding antisemitism to this idea of “hate speech” clearly shows the government’s hand. Controlling speech by determining whether it is “hate speech/antisemitism” allows the government to further tighten the noose around the neck of the American citizen. 

Do not forget, after 9/11, we put up with threats of criminalizing “islamophobia” and saw movement in that direction. Now, the government is using our tax dollars as a threat against the college campuses to get them to play along with a tried-and-true system of government control: the government monitor/agent. 

This is Not a Defense of Campuses 

Our college campuses have harbored this type of stuff for decades. For too long, no one lifted a finger as protesting students poured out wrath over the idea of whiteness or even masculinity. Being white became not okay, and the faculty and administration supported it. When universities had the chance to stand up to insanity and tell their students to get back in line, they balked. Some say the universities were afraid of their own customers. 

When men were railroaded before kangaroo courts and their lives were spilled before the world, the universities looked the other way. Prosecuting a drunken hook-up became a blood sport for angry feminist administrators and faculty. 

But plenty of us know the truth. They did not want to stop the students or the movement downhill. The student bodies turned progressive, and we are witnesses to the results. Remember, these people in faculty and administration were steeped in progressive, revolutionary, Marxist thinking. They became the next generation of institutional foot soldiers. They were the next disciples of Karl Marx. 

The funny thing about disciples? They believe in the religion they follow. They dedicate their life to it. So, the universities never batted an eye because they were getting the results they were looking for. 

What About These Protests? 

While some college campuses may make some moves to calm down their students, the overarching motive is not to restore the constitutionalist, liberty-minded approach of the Founders. Instead, the problem is in their wallet. High-level donors do not like the imagery of Hamas-scarf-wearing students chanting things like “From the river to the sea” and talking about death to various peoples. The donors are frustrated and threatening to pull their funding. 

We watched this occur with the TikTok divestment bill. What many do not realize is that the TikTok divestment bill was pushed by wealthy donors who saw the algorithms change in favor of Palestine. All of a sudden, TikTok was flooded with pro-Palestine content while pro-Israel content got swept under the rug. Eager to protect those dollars, democrats began going to bat for divestment. All this, despite them fighting Trump about the idea a few years ago. 

The Columbia Act 

This act, the College Oversight and Legal Updates Mandating Bias Investigations and Accountability Act, does nothing but put more power in the hands of the government to police and control the thoughts of their citizens. While public universities are unfortunately funded by us, they do not need a government monitor assigned to them.  

This act reeks of moves the Chinese Communist Party makes in assigning party observers to ensure the party values are always upheld. 

Here in America, the best disinfectant for bad ideas is sunshine. Let the horrible ideas be put forward, and let the American public decide. 

Lately, I've been noticing a lot of firepower from a certain group of pastors/preachers against another group of pastors/preachers.

That firepower is magnified by people on Facebook and Youtube proclaiming from the rooftops the point of view of these pastors, and throwing in their “amen” in the comments.

It's been all over my feeds, shared by friends, discussed by friends in tension-filled conversations, and bandied about by every psuedo-theologian in practice today. I've seen the claims from some that others are practicing occult members, muslims in disguise, spiritists, and downright demonic.

Since I have a platform, I'm going to air out my opinion. My heart is not to go after specific preachers, and I have no intention of starting a coup against anybody. More so, I think this is a perfect ground for us to remember how to think critically, take in everything we hear with a grain of salt, and to always weigh things against Scripture.

No matter the point of view, we're apt to collect a series of out-of-context soundbites in order to shape an entire judgment about a group of people, a church, or a movement. We take in what the preacher of our liking says, we latch onto it, and we go full force into attacking the ones that seem different or weird from us.

You may be begging me to give some specifics, and as loathe as I am to do so, I feel this post needs some specifics in order to give you some context to work with.

I have been noticing an onslaught lately against churches like Bethel and Hillsong, coming from the more traditional, fundamentalist sects of preachers. The Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, and John MacArthur group of theologians. They have come out swinging, with many in their line claiming that the songs the Bethel and Hillsong side sing are heretical, their beliefs are downright occult-ish, and some in their group (I have heard from their ilk, but not themselves) that nobody who supports these churches is in fact saved. 

I'm not here to defend the Bethel and Hillsong direction of churches. Though I haven't seen the amount of vitriol come from them against the other side...

However, a point needs to be made in this mess of divisive Christianity.

We tend to take our job of pointing out unrighteousness very seriously. We flail and argue against theologies we don't agree with, and as a typical conclusion, we decide that anybody who holds that certain theology is most likely either a)demonic and/or b)not even saved. We pat ourselves on the back that we have segregated with scapel-like efficiency the difference between salvation preaching and heretical teaching.

Our chest raises, our shoulders draw back, and we nod in agreement with the teacher of our liking, pointing out the flaws of all those “crazies” or “pharisees” that just don't see it right. And how could they? They're blinded by the demonic. They're actually demons wearing human skin clothes, leading away the masses with their obviously wrong practices.

I guess I sit a little bit in the middle on something like this, and get tired of the mudslinging. And I'll be honest, I rarely see the mud sling from the Bethel and Hillsong (read: charismatic) side towards the Washer and MacAurthur side (read: fundamentalists). Unfortunately, the mud tends to come from a position that rejects the more charismatic elements, and certainly behind that is a reservation about the gifts. The hardline calvinist movement beliefs in apostolic dispensation, meaning a rejection of the gifts for today. If we reject that the gifts exist today, then everything that might align with the gifts is then viewed through the lens of being deception and occult-ish.

No matter where it comes from, this is getting tiring. As I look through articles, blogs, and comments in threads, it becomes apparent that everyone else has it wrong. All of us are right, and yet everyone else is wrong. The attitude of being scripturally, theologically, and spiritually correct 100% of the time gets tiresome. The swinging of major hammers against churches because a pastor at some point, at some time, had a falling out in some way, reeks of attaching the sins of fathers to their sons.

Our obsession with rooting out the heretical teaching becomes an obsession that places our “being right” above our relationship with Christ. When we're more concerned about whether the guy across the street is real or not, our eyes are then off of Christ.

In the parable of the wheat and the tares, Christ points out that the master says to his servants NOT to pull up the tares, because it could take the wheat with it. He tells them to wait until the harvest, and then we'll separate it all out.

There's a major lesson in this. Should we spend our time going after every tare, or doing everything we can to help the wheat grow strong? Should we follow our master's heart about the situation, or decide that we've been giving the mantle of “heresey-smasher?” Did God appoint us to spend a lifetime going after doctrines and practices that we deem wrong? Did He determine that our calling in life was to dispute doctrines needlessly?

Or was our job to preach the gospel, and further the Kingdom of Christ? To become more like Him each day, and to help disciple others? This means we encourage brothers and sisters in Christ to go the right direction, and it doesn't even mean not correcting things where we feel we need to with those we're discipling.

But beware of the disputes and dissensions rising up. If your Facebook posts align more with what everyone else is doing wrong, then I'd ask you to weigh out the fruit being produced in your life. Is it a line to more self-righteousness? Or is there more production of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control? I'll be honest, the more these fruits are produced in me, the more heart I have for the people who may not be getting it perfectly. Do I correct where I need to? Absolutely. But I also recognize that people will be people, and that the power of God will deal with the more heretical lines when He chooses to do so.

Our fruit shows when we go after other groups of Christians time after time. After all, out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. And if our pouring out constantly revolves around the errors of others, then we need to re-evaluate.

My heart is not in defending everything coming out of Bethel, Hillsong, or to believe that everything coming out of MacAurthur, Washer and the like is wrong. I can certainly present my case for what I see wrong in the Bethel's and what is right in the MacAurthurs.

But at the end of the day, my passion is to raise up well-adjusted disciples that are so strong in an intimate relationship with the Lord, that they're not swayed by the doctrines of men. They've built their house on a solid foundation of Christ, and feel called and commissioned to do greater works than He. They love the Lord intensely, they've crucified their flesh in following Him, and they've emptied themselves of themselves to follow the will of the Father. They love their enemies as well as their neighbors. They love the Lord more than anything in this world, with everything they are. They're obedient to His will and guidance, and they recognize the love of God for His creation.

When a person is filled with Christ, they don't have much time to have to worry about the demonic. The demonic is a pitiful annoyance, and the Christian walking in Christ's authority only takes the time to remove the problem, then is back to the master's mission.

At the end of the day, we should be very wary of soundbites and what we're told about what others believe. I've watched people try to take down a church through a “gotcha” Youtube videos. When you actually look at the person's argument, it falls flat on it's face because they didn't do the research. They decided their time was better spent accusing a church and pointing out their own thoughts.

To me, this becomes a sign of the person's fruit. Do they spend more time telling you whose wrong, or what's edifying to the body and Christ?

Remember, a bank teller doesn't study the counterfeit to understand the real. They study the real hundred dollar bills constantly, because the more they study the real, the more they just come to know the counterfeit. And how often do they come across a counterfeit? Not often. And when they do, they report it as a matter of process, and then they're on their way. They don't start a campaign against it, and they recognize that the authorities will handle the counterfeit in their own way. They don't need to change their live to go after every counterfeiter. In fact, the counterfeit is only considered a time-waster, and they treat it accordingly.

I strongly urge you, treat these debates of doctrine as a waste-of-time. Look for yourself into Scripture, and seek the Lord's face on it. Seek the truth in Scripture, but don't stop there. I'm telling you: seek God's face. We got in wrong in the garden because we chose the law and knowledge of good and evil instead of going straight to the face of God. The pharisee's modeled this, so much so that Christ warned them that they were searching the scriptures for HIM! Don't just search the scriptures for the face of God, seek His face directly. The more you do, these arguments and debates become more insignificant in your own walk.

Be full of the fruits of the Spirit, and enjoy the produce.

Producing content continues to be a passion of mine. I enjoy the research, I absolutely love to write, and I'm spiritually motivated. I want to go after all areas of society and culture. I want them for Christ, and if I get to use my skills and talents to help raise up disciples in these areas: then game on.

But sometimes, you wonder whether you're actually making change with everything you're doing. There's a difference between throwing a bunch of paint at the wall, and using a roller to make a pristine new wall color.

With the deluge of content which covers various areas, some are likely to say that we're all over the map. And in all honesty, that's true. We see ourselves as teachers raised up to disciple people in Christ and liberty. We're here to completely change your mindsets, and build up disciples who can go out and replicate. That means that Christ and liberty have to make sense in every situation presented to you as you interact with society.

But after a tasty lunch with a dear mentor, I came away with a bit of a challenge. He challenged me in all of those sore spots that are easy to flair up, because they're vulnerable. Those blind spots that could easily hurt with waves of offense. He meant no harm, but on the contrary, put disinfectant in the wound to clean it up and heal it. He pointed out the gaps in my direction and vision, in order to help us build back better (for all my Biden fans...).

One thing that I think Self-Evident does extremely well is get people passionate, and help them make connections in new ways. We give a fresh voice and wind to concepts that are old, dusty and tired. We're not the library-bookcase-in-the-background-of-the-video type. We're not the parchment paper background type. We're not usually fond of a bunch of American flags and eagles. We're not the clean-cut, wide toothy smile televangelists pushing the 30 second gospel. 

Not that any of these things are bad or wrong, but they're just not us. We love America. We pray for America. We feel called to the mission field that is America. But we're so much more than a Constitutional education ministry. We're more than a “social warrior” ministry. We're more than a “bring the gospel” ministry.

We're here to disciple, and activate people, and bring about a transformational shift in the culture of America. We're here to bring life to the dry bones. But one of the sore spots that got touched was the fact that we sometimes take our own knowledge and depth for granted. There are groups of people who have immense influence on numbers of people, yet they don't know what we know. They don't recognize the ability and freedom they have. 

I realized we need to give a little time to a certain segment, and so I realized I needed to do something to help fix that problem. What I discovered was this:

We need to influence the leaders.

For the Pastors

Walking away from my discussion with my dear mentor brought about a rush of new thoughts and perspectives. One of the areas that may have been sitting in front of our noses for a long time without realizing it, is the population of pastors here in the US. 

The American church has been absolutely beat into submission with various techniques. And please, let me know if any of these sound familiar.

“A 501c3 cannot get politically involved. Any discussion about government goes against the Johnson Amendment.”

“Separation of Church and State. It says it in the Constitution, and churches are not supposed to get involved.”

“Romans 13 requires the church to submit to governing authorities. So guess what: you as a church better do what the government tells you.”

“We need to preach the gospel, not the government. Let the government do what it needs to do, and let the church save souls.”

“We don't want a theocracy. We don't want to legislate God down people's throats, so let's just keep government secular, and church spiritual.”

I could go on and on, but you get the point. And if you're a pastor who has said these things or agreed with these arguments, then please understand that I'm not here to call you out or chastise you. These things are legitimate concerns, and require a full discussion about whether they are true or not.

But if you'll please bear with me, I have one question: Do you feel that your government and society has fared better or worse without the church's direct involvement?

Okay, I lied. One more question. Do you believe that the government is better run, more upright, more principled, and healthier in the hands of the secular, or in the hands of humble, God-fearing christians who mean only to serve well and to honor their fellow man?

What's the fruit of the church having resolved to remove itself from the daily governance of the people decades ago? (Right...a third question. So sue me.)

At some point, the church as a group bought the lie that they were not to have any influence on government, and that the governance of a nation was not to be in any way put in the hands of the faithful. Ideas such as “Separation of church and state” were shouted from the roof tops at any pastors or church members who dared to stick their head outside the church walls. Romans 13 became the battering ram from the pulpits, and the 501c3 became the threat from the government itself.

We as pastors have endured a lot of opinions and thoughts throughout our tenures. Each pastor can recount when he's been chastised or belittled for an outlook or teaching. Each of us can recall those moments of dread when a congregant determines that what we're doing is just plain “wrong.”

Then the voices from outside the church grow, letting us know that our ilk are not welcome in the major pillars of culture. No, instead we must watch as the nation around us teeters and collapses. If anything, we mourn the fact that we seem so powerless in the face of such growing darkness and evil.

If you're anything like me, you're absolutely saddened about the waves of evil that seem to be hitting our culture and society. The tyrannical oppression of the government during COVID left many pastors reeling and questioning what to do. And whether you shut your doors or not—the decision should have been yours...not the governments. 

But what if we picked ourselves back up, dusted ourselves off and began reminding ourselves that the prince of this world has come to lie, steal, kill and destroy. That the prince of this world may have influence and control over segments of the world, but that we are in enemy territory, and are not here to sit and wait for Christ to return. Our mission is one of spiritual warfare. We are called to step onto the battleground of the world, and fight for the souls of those around us. We're called to influence and change the direction of our territory. We are the ones who are in the best position to bless our towns, cities, states and nation with the benefit of being a country wholly devoted to God.

If God can bring Israel back into a blessed relationship with Him, then there is no reason He can't do it here. But He won't do it if we tell Him we don't want Him anywhere near our culture and government. 

The question really boils down to: who would you rather have in charge? For there is no third choice. If you reject God's influence and hand in the affairs of your daily governance, then you have stated that you would rather satan take the lead. If we say that God doesn't belong in the affairs of our nation, then we've said that satan is a better leader of government.

Government rests on the shoulders of Christ, and therefore we can comfortably conclude that there is nothing sinful about wanting Christ to have an influence and be in ours. This doesn't create a theocracy, because we don't need laws to enforce christian leaders who have their ear to the Lord and stand on righteous conviction. We don't need enforcement of religion on non-believers. We don't even need to say the pledge of allegiance to prove our right standing with the Lord.

What we need is a passionate, warrior mindset church body that does not just accept what is told to them by the world itself. We need a driven, ambitious body of Christ that desires more than anything to crush darkness and create a wonderful, peaceful, blessed nation that honors God in their hearts and recognizes His provision in every day.

Our churches have immense power. There are over 30,000 churches in the US today. The media will tell you that faith in Christ is dying, and that the churches are shrinking and closing. They might not be wrong in one respect, but do you notice the world is never going to celebrate the growth the church or spirit-filled believers? They will never give you positive messaging, because they don't want you to have influence. The structures of the world system have no interest in the christian getting involved, so of course they've never told you, “Yeah, you as a pastor can talk about political things and political candidates.” 

They'll never say, “501c3 only says you can't spend more than 20% of your budget on political campaigning.”

They'll never tell you, “Separation of church and state is nowhere in the Constitution. It was taken out of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, assuring them the government would not get involved in the church affairs.”

They won't admit, “The first act of Congress was prayer.”

They won't remind you that, “The First amendment is there to protect the voice of the church, not prevent the christian from speaking.”

They'll never shout out loud, “The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ...But the founders did say it.

And they'll gladly tell you, “Look, you worry about your worship songs and salvations, but leave the city ordinances, legislation, regulations, and controlling people to us.”

Now maybe you don't agree with me, and maybe something in you is riling up with what I'm saying. I just pray that you ask yourself this, “Would you trust the guidance and leadership of your flock to a non-believer? Then why do you trust the guidance and leadership of your town, city, state or nation to a non-believer? What do they have in that arena that christians sorely lack?”

Wouldn't it make more sense that christians get involved in the things that concern them on a day-to-day basis? Wouldn't it make more sense that christians understand the history of our nation, how our government actually works, the philosophies the founders held, and how much influence on events in society the church actually has?

It comes down to a confidence issue in us. I think plenty of us have been brutalized for generations, and now we sit in submissive posture, hoping to just lead quiet and peaceful lives. In a way, it's not a bad thing to lead a quiet and peaceful life. But is it truly a quiet and peaceful life right now? Has our attitude of “keep your head down” brought our nation to more cohesion, humility, strength and righteousness? Or less?

But if we lived with confidence and conviction, our hearts would break at the gradual tightening of the screws that is taking place on ourselves and our congregations.

If we think it's dangerous for our kids to be exposed to drag queens and transgender surgeries, then maybe it's time for us to stand in the gap for those kids.

If we think it's dangerous for our government to spend trillions of dollars they don't have, while taking more and more money to feed an insatiable greed, then maybe it's time for us to stand up and show what fiscal responsibility means.

If we think that the body of Christ should not be forced to shut its doors in a time when people need healing, then maybe it's time for us to stand up and show what it means to have real faith.

Our faith produces fruit, and the fruit of our life can either be bowing to the government dominated by those who want nothing to do with us, or the fruit and legacy we can leave to our children could be one of standing firm in conviction for God's righteousness and the liberty of men.

If you aren't caught up on the whole issue, I would highly suggest you go back to Crowder's first video in which he highlighted sections of a non-binding agreement with the name of the organization offering the agreement blacked out. He gives heavy, passionate criticism of certain sections, and argues that those sections are tantamount to aligning with Big Tech.

The Daily Wire's Jeremy Boreing (co-CEO) took an hour to admit it was theirs, and respond in video form, going through the entire contract and putting forth why they offered what they did. He took the time to explain the thinking behind the whole offer, and noted that they considered it a start in the negotiation process...not a final offer. They gave it expecting Crowder to come back to the table to have a discussion.

From there, Crowder responded and continued to point out that it wasn't about the money for him (despite some insinuation from Boreing that it was about money) but about a penalty written into the agreement, stating that if Crowder were to receive strikes or any bans from the major platforms, his payment from Daily Wire would be docked. Those penalties ranged from 10%-20%, depending on the platform.

Crowder was adamant that the model Daily Wire uses does not have to be the industry standard, and that he can prove that another model can be used, which does not penalize the content creator.

Crowder's point boils down to this: if he took the contract, and people found out, then they would pile on to ensure that he was banned from the major platforms, thus taking a major chunk out of his payment from Daily Wire.

Daily Wire views it as a business proposition, and points out that if they do what Crowder wants, they're taking all of the risk and Crowder has no incentive to remain on the right side of the social media giants. Crowder uses this and some veiled comments to insinuate that Daily Wire is getting too close to Big Tech, and playing their game.

Ben Shapiro has come out on his show today, and while I have not watched it, the titles seem to defend Daily Wire. Tim Pool will have Crowder on his show on Monday to discuss the entire thing.

So why does this matter to you?

I have a couple of reasons. First, I think every content creator in the conservative sphere should be watching this entire process unfold, and should keep a very close eye on what is said. The conservative media sphere is treading on new ground, and fighting a new battle. We need to understand the landscape, and how to cooperate with each other as we break into new territories. Crowder is right: Big Tech is not our friend, and they have created a hostile environment for any conservative content creator. His heart is to protect the next conservative creator who is coming up behind him, and helping shift the mindset of the conservative business model. He doesn't accept that we have to play the Big Tech game, but Daily Wire does...at least until sites like Rumble are truly competing with the big dogs like Youtube. I'm sorry, but there is no “conservative” or “free speech” version of any of the social media giants that can even come close to the market share those popular companies have.

Crowder is passionate about the ethic of the whole thing, and the protection of the conservative creator. I don't for a second believe he is about the money in all of this. Of course the guy wants to get paid. Who doesn't? He needs to feed his family, his employees, and his employee's families. He needs to ensure that the Crowder brand has a future. I totally understand.

But I also can see the point of Daily Wire. They're a business, and as such, they're looking at Crowder as a product. They're asking themselves: can we pay for this product and make profit off of that product, so that we can invest that money into gaining more market share?

Daily Wire is going after the entire entertainment sphere. They're producing shows, kids programming, movies, intellectual specials, political shows, documentaries, heck I think even some comedy shows. They need resources to do so, and Crowder would have been a massive name to leverage and gain more revenue to produce even more content.

To take on the risk of that product suddenly losing it's value is a dangerous proposition for a business. The business mind of a guy like Jeremy Boreing is saying, “Of course increase the reach and value for the product, but how can I minimize my risk and increase my opportunity of reward to further the mission?”

Boreing has 250+ employees and their families to think about. In his video, he estimated the total cost to the Daily Wire would not just be the initial offer to Crowder of $50 million over 4 years, but closer to $100 million after everything is said and done.

That's a ton of money for the Daily Wire to tie into a single talent.

I also wonder: if the contract is that offensive to Crowder, why he sees something so different from what Jordan Peterson sees? I'm sure the contracts were somewhat different, but my guess is Peterson had a similar clause. If anybody is at risk of being canceled, I would argue Peterson is towards the top of that list.

And to the Daily Wire's point: what good is a product that is canceled? They're then tied into a 4 year contract with a broken product? I'm sure there is a work around, but it is an obstacle.

This entire fiasco is frustrating, but in the end extremely useful. I don't agree with Crowder airing the contract and pointing to it and lodging his complaints publicly. Not only this, but he recorded a conversation he and Boreing had, which to me says he had plans to air out his complaints about Daily Wire.

That reeks of ill-intent, and a belief of ill-intent on the side of Daily Wire. He even said that he's only recorded his conversations three times. So one of those times is to record a supposed friend of ten years, because you didn't morally agree with the INITIAL offer they gave you? Look, I'm not on team Daily Wire on this, but I wasn't impressed with how the whole situation came about.

Daily Wire, in all reality, had no choice but to respond publicly and give their defense of the matter. And I have a feeling this battle is only going to get worse. Crowder is not one to give in or back down, and the Daily Wire feels their character has been grossly marred by a supposed friend.

That leads me to a second point: we all should be watching not only for the state of contract negotiations in the conservative media sphere (and it has been oh-so-educational) but we should be reflecting on the chaos of public feuding with people on the same side as us.

I think both sides need to chill out and really have some back room out and outs. They need to shake hands at the end of the day and realize that they are all on the same team. I don't believe it's fair of Crowder to castigate Daily Wire as being a Big Tech lackey, and I think Daily Wire would do well to really become introspective of how they're going to help protect and promote their conservative talent with an eye on what those people can do in the future: whether with or without them.

I don't like that Crowder aired it out in public. He stewed on this thing for several months, and then brought the whole thing out in the open, and obviously was ready for the battle. You don't record friends who you're having a personal heart-to-heart with. If he wanted to use it as a teaching moment, he could have kept it extremely vague, discussing things like, “Look, in the past, we've had some contract negotiations where the contract stipulated that the content creator would assume a portion of risk if being banned by Big Tech. Here's how to watch out for that, and here's how to get around that.”

It wasn't that though. If it was a teaching moment, it was a cheap veil of teaching over something that stuck in his craw that he couldn't seem to remove.

As for Daily Wire, they need to not buy into this. I'm already dreading watching the Ben Shapiro response, because I have a feeling he's just going to pour fuel onto the fire in defense of his own company. I hope that's not the case, but I'm not carrying much optimism.

This brings me to another point of view in the whole situation. I believe you need to watch Tim Pool interview Crowder on Monday. You can go to Timcast IRL to view it, and it is likely going to be extremely enlightening. Pool has been around the media sphere for a long time, has worked for big organizations, and is on really good terms with all parties involved. The best part is: he won't back down when he sees something that he feels is wrong.

I actually feel better that he is going to have Crowder on. I think he'll let Crowder air his heart and how he sees it, and Pool will redirect the thinking where he needs to, without throwing the Daily Wire under the bus.

Pool has built a very successful organization for himself, and has done a lot for the independent media culture. He's not necessarily a conservative, but he has had his own battles with Big Tech, going as far as to really go at a couple of higher-ups from Google and Youtube on the Joe Rogan podcast. He has guts, and somebody with guts and a clear head needs to be a part of this whole thing.

I don't like drama, and to me, this reeks of the old Youtube personal battles that used to overwhelm the site. People would go after each other, doing response video after response video. I'm so grateful the drama died down, but I fear this may spark another round. Crowder is always willing to get into a public drama fight, and I fear that Daily Wire isn't willing to just put out another single video and say, “We will not comment anymore on this topic. We have opened up private channels with Steven Crowder, and we will respect his privacy, even if he doesn't respect ours. Our goal at the end of the day is the furthering of the conservative movement into every sphere. Sometimes, we don't see eye-to-eye, but at the end of the day: we're all on the same team.” If I had to guess, I would say they're almost as willing to be in it for the long haul as well.

So stay out of the drama, and be careful not to get heavy into one side or the other. But learn from this. Grasp every lesson you can about contracts in media, the state of social media, the conservative sphere itself, and how to conduct yourself publicly.

UPDATE: Supposedly, there may be a deal, but the information is confusing at this moment as this goes out.
Zerohedge reports some new concessions made by the McCarthy camp to those holding out. As this story changes and morphs, we'll do our best to keep up.

The changes:

• A one-member “motion to vacate”: The GOP leader appears to have finally acquiesced to a demand to lower the threshold needed to force a vote ousting a speaker to just one member. While McCarthy originally indicated that restoring the one-member “motion to vacate” was a red line, his allies now argue that there’s not a huge practical difference between this and his previous offer of requiring five members to trigger the vote.

• Rules Committee seats for the Freedom Caucus: McCarthy is prepared to give the House Freedom Caucus two seats on the powerful House Rules Committee, which oversees the amendment process for the floor. (Some conservatives are still holding out for four seats on the panel.) There are also talks about giving a third seat to a conservative close to the Freedom Caucus but not in it — someone like Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. Who would pick those members is still under discussion. Typically, it’s the speaker’s prerogative, but conservatives want to choose their own members for these jobs.

• A vote on term limits: This is a key demand of Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who has proposed a constitutional amendment limiting lawmakers to three terms in the House.

• Major changes to the appropriations process: Fears of another trillion-plus-dollar omnibus spending bill have been a major driver of the conservative backlash to McCarthy. The brewing deal includes a promise for standalone votes on each of the 12 annual appropriations bills, which would be considered under what is known as an “open rule,” allowing floor amendments to be offered by any lawmaker.

Here we sit, waiting for the mantel of Speaker of the House to be placed upon the shoulders of the next worthy man or woman.

Who knows, perhaps they'll finally get enough votes to put in Kevin McCarthy as GOP Speaker of the House.

At the moment (as I'm writing this) he's failed to garner enough votes to become Speaker. McCarthy needs 218 votes to seal the deal and become the next white-washed tomb standing before the House of Representatives.

Thankfully, a handful of republicans are sick of the status quo and the act that has gone on for decades in Washington. At first, their votes went instead to a Jim Jordans or a  Byron Donalds. It seems that the votes rejecting McCarthy are beginning to coalesce around Donalds.

Slowly, republicans are starting to slip away and detach themselves from McCarthy. On Wednesday, Victoria Spartz of Indiana voted present instead of following her previous votes for McCarthy.

It sounds as though the backroom deals are not going well either. While McCarthy has shored up some PAC deals, some of the other GOP representatives voice concern over the hostility happening. It seems as though McCarthy might not be keeping his cool when he's not getting what he wants.

I find it all entertaining. You can exclaim, “But there's gridlock in Washington!” And I would cheer and clap at the thought. Washington was not meant to hum and rip down the tracks. It should sputter, grind and clang through the entire process, lucky to get anywhere. Why? Because the more time they argue about enacting a law or a tax, the more time people have to find out whether it's really necessary. We're so convinced that their effectiveness rests in their “productivity” that we've decided that if they don't just all agree, then something is wrong.

I want them fighting. I want them arguing. I want this exact situation. For once, a group of republicans are putting their foot down and saying, “No more. We need a man of principle, not a man of opportunity.”

I don't know much about Byron Donalds, so I can't make that judgment. But I do know that Kevin McCarthy is comfortably established, along with the likes of McConnell. I won't call him a Romney, but I swear I will if I have to...

One of the former major holdups is McCarthy's refusal to agree to some proposals from the Freedom Caucus. They want new procedures that would prevent massive spending bills and laws (cough cough $1.7 trillion omnibus) from getting shoved through without adequate time for review and closed-door meetings. Who knew that a group of people want transparency and proper ventilation of the stink of a massive spending bill that monumentally shifts the nature of America further down the course of destruction?

McCarthy seems to only be agreeing in order to win the Speaker position. His conduct in action is vastly different from what he suddenly is willing to agree to. And we all must question his motives. What's really strange to me, is that Trump is backing McCarthy and saying the republicans should just get it done and seal the deal. It surprises me, but his endorsement repulses me even further from McCarthy. It feels dirty. It feels slimy, like a business deal that sells out a bunch of people but benefits those clamoring for it.

I don't see principle in Trump. He's now come out against pro-lifers, saying they're a reason for mid-term losses, yet he dove over millions of dead babies to claim he was the most pro-life president. Just the fact you blamed pro-lifers for a mediocre showing proves that you're more interested in the win and the opportunity than the principle.

However, there are plenty of moments he showed his opportunist hat. So forgive me if this feels strangely similar. A “you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back,” event.

My main thrust with this article doesn't even have to do with the negatives, but with the positives starting to show. Finally, a group of people are rallying to stand against the status quo and the establishment that has repeatedly sold the American people down the river. Honestly, they have Trump to thank for that. If only he carried their sense of principle.

Give these people credit. Don't give into all of the cries that nothing can get done unless a Speaker is confirmed. It's true, but is that such a bad thing? Couldn't we do without massive spending bills and massive legislation for a little while? If only just to breathe for a moment before the boot returns to press harder on our necks?

Fox News hosts are coming out of the woodwork to support McCarthy and end the stalemate. That should tell you something right there about this sick relationship between the media and the government. Fox News doesn't shill for the Biden administration. They shill for whoever has the power in the GOP.

Dan Crenshaw has come out hot and heavy against the movement, stating that this group has no clue what they're doing and no plan. Maybe they don't. Frankly, I don't care. A finger in the eye hurts. What shakes my head is the fact that Crenshaw is so ready to blast their inability to decide on a single person to nominate, yet he stands staunchly in McCarthy's corner. He comes out guns blazing against this group of “terrorists” and argues he's standing on principle, but my question is: what have those types of “principles” gotten us? Why is it suddenly principle to pass trillions of dollars on every spending bill, when only 8-10 years ago we freaked out about 700-800 billion? Care to tell me it's inflation? Then why inflation? If you're going to take credit for the necessity of writing massive blank checks again and again, then take credit for the damage they do to the American economy.

His vitriol is speaking loudly. 

The Daily Wire reports, “Speaking to reporters, Crenshaw unloaded on the 20 Republicans, saying, 'I’m tired of your stupid platitudes that some consultant told you to say on the campaign trail, alright.'

'Behind closed doors tell us what you actually want, or shut the f**** up,' he said. 'They need to be men and adults and say what they want, instead of playing these little games, that’s what we’re asking.'

'That’s what I’ve asked them. Some of them are my friends. Stop saying platitudes like, ‘Washington is broken. We can’t do the status quo,’” he continued. “They want to pull the pins on the grenades and lock the doors.'”

My question for Crenshaw is this: if you recognize the untenable nature of modern politics, and the true destruction of liberty, then why aren't you suggesting an alternate candidate? Or, are you so adamant about your opposition to what the Freedom Caucus wants that you'll align with McCarthy just to prove a point?

It's the symbolism of the act, and more and more your constituents are eager to watch the whole thing implode with the proverbial “grenade in a closed room.” The Trump movement thrived on draining the swamp. Guess what...that means your own party as well.

But don't worry Crenshaw and Fox News. You'll get your McCarthy, you can shove through your massive spending bills and legislation. You'll pat yourselves on the back about how you slowed down the Democrat agenda for a few months, and you can get paid. Because the GOP is not about actually shaping America into an image of limited-government and true liberty. The GOP is about counteracting the Democrats just long enough to feel like you're doing something good. You've become the true conservative. Conserve what you're given until you're given something new to try to conserve for a little while. The progressives will always win at that game because the nature of a conservative is to merely conserve the status quo.

But I digress.

To me, this is an enjoyable show of solidarity. It's showing courage and honor to stand against something you know isn't right, and not just give into the deal that people fear needs to be done.

Because that's what it boils down to; Fear. People are being driven by fear. If they don't vote for him, the establishment won't support their next run. If they don't vote for him, new legislation can't pass. If they don't vote for him, they'll be shunned by their peers. If they don't vote for him, they may lose their job.

Welcome to the real world of principle. Millions of Americans go through it every day, and plenty of times the pressure comes from this government that acts as though it serves at the pleasure of the people. Not that all of these politicians don't go through stressful times where conscience and comfort come into tension, but I wonder how many of them truly choose conscience over comfort? Compromise becomes dangerously easier each time we choose it, and there is a large group of people in Washington who would step over their own mother just to get a little more of the power and influence.

To me, these people standing are remaining firm to support an idea; a principle, and defend a wall. I can't know all of their motives, but I agree with them shaking up the entire system a little bit.

They also need to know that they're doing the right thing. It can get lonely standing, especially when you're at the front lines of the battle. They deserve to hear from you. And I mean this. They deserve to know that you have their back and that you appreciate what they're doing. They need to know that even if they lose their job, they'll hold onto something vastly more important and useful: their conviction.

I urge you, with all that I am, to write to those standing, and write to those who need to gather up the guts to stand. The people are ready for a change, and they want reform. They want to see the government act the way it was originally intended to: protect my rights and get out of my business. Protect me from foreign invaders, set some trade deals, and only write laws that truly protect my liberty, not remove it under the guise of safety.

To those who are standing currently: we support you with all that we are. We're so unbelievably thankful that you're standing in the face of intense heat and adversity. The courage of a man is tested in the fire. Remember, the dross burns away when the gold is refined. I pray these moments of standing on principle, no matter the odds, are paying you massive dividends in becoming more of who God created you to be. 

People look at the founders as pinnacles of achievement, but we often do not meditate on the sacrifices and difficulties they must have faced day-to-day. They truly pledged everything they owned and found valuable and put up with an onslaught of criticism, death threats, and personal inner struggle. But they stood for what they knew to be right, and their conviction carried them into the annals of history.

I am not saying that you'll be remembered 200 years later for this. I won't even pretend that you'll be remembered a year from now, but you will hold in your hearts an assurance that you got so sick of the crap, that you stood and said, “No more.”

You may think I'm over-dramatizing this. But in the current political landscape, anybody who actually stands on some conviction outside of the general political machine needs to hear some credit. Look at the approval of Desantis. He didn't even make all the right choices in his political career, but you can tell he's trying to defend principle and not just go with the flow. The people recognize it and support it.

People understand that mistakes are made. What they tend to sniff and revolt against is the decisions made for selfish gain, for opportunity, or for downright traitorous means. We love America and don't want it to be run by the rest of the world. We don't want to sell ourselves into debt slavery. We don't want jackbooted authoritarians controlling our speech or attempting to control our minds.

We just want to live freely. And for a moment, this seems as though it is a small kick in the womb. It's a tiny rumbling of energy, that we pray is the earthquake that will shake the foundations of the nation, and turn people back to the original intent of the American experiment.

But at the end of the day, all I know is: I'd rather stand for something than sit for nothing.

I've been witnessing a new movement cropping up in the more charismatic areas of the church that I can't help but pause and wonder about. I don't appreciate the church pointing the finger at others in the church, so I'll attempt to avoid doing it. Instead, I want to give a bit of a warning to those of you who are hearing these voices, and to ask you to discern whether it's a pathway that you feel you really should work down.

I'm sure the movement is much older than I give it credit for, but I've noticed in the past couple years a new resurgence built of off the charismatic, Holy Spirit experience tangent of the faith. This idea impresses the importance of the rhema word, or active, new, living word of God. The rhema is the voice of the Holy Spirit, who gives guidance, counsel, and direction to the believer.

Christ told us He would send the Holy Spirit when He ascends to the Father, and that the Holy Spirit would be our counselor. This means that we walk each and every day with the Holy Spirit, and He is the one who energizes the transformation within us.

What I sense though is a swinging of the pendulum in which the Holy Spirit becomes such a focus of the believer, that they end up diminishing, questioning or stepping away from the power and necessity of Scripture.

Is Scripture Spiritually Necessary?

In Matthew 4, Christ is tempted by Satan three separate times. Christ received his baptism, the Holy Spirit landed on Him in a show of approval by the Father, and Scripture said He was then led, FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, out into the wilderness to be tempted. This means Christ, in direction by the Holy Spirit, placed Himself in a spiritually dangerous position, and Satan himself took the opportunity to come after Christ.

In the three separate temptings, Christ says something that is completely indicative of His foundation on how to know truth from the lie. He says, “It is written.” He says this in response to Satan, who also used Scripture to twist and pervert meaning to attempt to sway the believer. But, the fact remains: Christ used Scripture as the basis to speak truth and repel the wiles of the enemy. 

Not only did Christ use it as his strength and foundation when He had been fasting for 40 days, and tempted by the greatest tempter in existence, but He spoke of the Law (read: the Scriptures laid out during His time) as something that He was fulfilling, not abolishing. He did not come to abolish the law, or circumvent it, or deny it. In fact, there were plenty of times His arguments with the Pharisees revolved around the proper interpretation of Scripture. Not a single time did He command His followers to forsake Scripture, or to be done with it. Mind you, this was after He had been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Remember, He told the woman at the well that there would come a time when people would worship the Lord in Spirit and in truth. Truth is not just rhema word, but logos, and in fact the truth resides within the logos, and is justified through the rhema.

I'd further point out, that a good rule in Scripture is: weigh out the point somebody is making. Does it show up explicitly in Scripture? Here's where we can use this. The argument is that Scripture is no longer needed because we have the Holy Spirit, or that it is now diminished and limited because we have something greater. So we weigh it out. When we look through the letters of the Apostles, such as Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude, do we find an explicit argument that outright diminishes the use of Scripture in favor of listening to the Holy Spirit? Instead, we actually find the study of Scripture encouraged. In Acts 17:11, it states, “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” The phrase “more noble character” is followed by the word “for”, denoting the reason they were of more noble character. This noble character was the result of their examining and eagerness with Scriptures, in order to weigh out what Paul was saying. 

Scripture stood as the balance, the canon of truth that they could trust and use to weigh out what was being taught to them by a Holy Spirit filled believer.

I understand some people's apprehension. They've seen the countless Bible Schools and Churches that have their noses so far in Scripture that they wouldn't know the Holy Spirit when it rocks them off their feet. We watched in Scripture itself when the Pharisees twist and pervert it to use it to their wicked means, resulting in the execution of the Messiah Himself. We have been there when people used Scripture to justify their own sin, and beat sinners and unbelievers over the head. And we all know that person who posts Scripture verse after Scripture verse, yet their life is completely unchanged.

Unfortunately, I've also witnessed people diminish the power of Scripture, stating they are following the Holy Spirit, and all they need is the Holy Spirit, only to start talking of making choices that are clearly stated as sin or destructive within Scripture itself. I've witnessed people follow paths that could have been avoided, all in the name of the Holy Spirit.

We are built of body, soul and spirit. Much like the temple, which has three parts, we are built in three parts as well. Our body is the outer courts, and if we remember, there was plenty of irreligious sin going on in the outer courts. Our soul is the holies, or the inner courts. Again, sin happened there. Idols were placed there at points. Desecration happened. Our soul, or mind, emotions, will and desire are all susceptible to sin and misdirection. But the Holy of Holies, the innermost sanctum of the temple was fully righteous, and so much so that the priest could only enter once a year, after having fully cleansed himself spiritually and physically. If he wasn't found righteous to be in there at that moment, they had a cord tied around his ankle to yank his body out.

Our body is the same way, and we are told by Paul that our flesh is at war with our Spirit. Our flesh (including our soul, which is our will and our decision maker, our holder of our beliefs, thoughts and desires) can be misdirected, and still wars against sin and temptation. The Holy Spirit is pure when He speaks, and He speaks to our spirit. But there is plenty of space for twisting, misinterpretation and misdirection to occur.

Have you ever told somebody plainly and clearly the truth, and it was as though they couldn't hear it? It was as though their ears were closed to you and they continued on with their inner monologue and “truth”? We can do the same thing to the Holy Spirit, and there are times where we don't even realize we're doing it. Hearing Him is like hearing a new language, and takes years of practice, discernment and MISTAKES to learn the language correctly. We can be carried away with enthusiasm, but if we're not discerning, we're in danger of hearing what seems like the right voice.

Don't forget, plenty of religious leaders went into the wilderness and heard from a voice or angel of light. Muhammad listened to the angel. Joseph Smith listened to the angel. Christ did not listen to the voice in the wilderness. He recognized the imitation that Satan attempted. And Satan did it powerfully. He used Scripture, the traits of the son of God, and the promise of power to attempt to sway Christ away from His directive. Satan loves to use slight twists and variations to get people off the correct path.

We take Scripture to weigh out what we're hearing, and determine if we are aligning with God and His heart. The value of Scripture is that it is a record, logos, established word. There is a reason that Christ is referred to as the Word of God. He's not just a physical embodiment of the Word, but the spiritual representation of the Word, as well as the fulfillment and the progress of the Word. He calls Himself the way, the truth and the life. That word “truth” is important because it all rests on whether or not He is true and the truth. If He is, then we have to look back through Scripture and recognize that all of it points to Him. And just as we reflect and point back to Him, we need Scripture to look at how He was pointed to from before He came.

The character of God becomes well-defined in Scripture, and if we do not use the blueprint and the road map in order to help discern His character, we can get off in the weeds real quick. That's exactly why people believe God is all-loving, and so therefore condones and promotes sin. We remove the power and authority of Scripture, then wonder why so many see God in such strange ways. 

If you take the Bible and diminish it's authority and role in your life, you're actually cutting the branch that you're sitting on. Your faith was built upon that foundation, and the idea that you can then remove it from your life is a very dangerous prospect. You're telling yourself that you then have all the authority and direction you need to move forward, and forget how you received it. 

It's like filling up at a gas station and then believing you can drive the car without ever filling up again. You may say the Holy Spirit is the gas, not the gas station, but there are many forms of gas that would ruin your car. You need the proper delivery system to provide you the right gas. You can even take gas with you in cans, but at some point, there is a necessity of going back to the source.

The Bible is a written account of God's character. Why wouldn't we promote the use of that invaluable resource? Why would we tell (especially new!) Christians that it is no longer needed, or that we shouldn't focus on it? I can't tell you how many times revelation has come directly through Scripture, and how much it has changed my life. Frankly, it has also provided the argument against plenty of things I've been told by people who feel that it doesn't have authority. 

For instance, the deconstruction movement tends to begin by questioning the authority of Scripture. I have seen countless people led down a very dangerous path by not giving it the respect it is due. 

The written word is a powerful medium in it's own right. If you want to organize your thoughts, sift through where you really stand on something, and attempt to build and grow an organized flow of ideas, then writing is one of your best tickets. The value of written word extends to the Scripture, and this written word is not the product of a couple of sheep herders high on drugs, but a consistent, in-depth, absolutely coherent collection of writing over 2000 years, 66 books and 40 writers.

I must uphold the value of such a treasure that God blessed us all with. It's one of His biggest proofs of Himself to us. 

I don't write this to attack or diminish the power of the Holy Spirit and the authority of the rhema word of God, but what I am saying can be summed up in this sentence, “It is always good to discern and weigh what you hear in rhema with the logos.”

After talking it through again (20 minutes before the podcast was about to start...) we decided that perhaps we would be careful on how we broached the topic on the podcast. In that episode, we ended up talking about everything else. If you're interested, it's the “Past Two Years....What Have We Learned?”

The original subject matter revolved around the vaccine and some pretty disturbing variables with the side effects. We here at Self-Evident are not interested in fear-porn. We don't like the idea of doom-and-gloom, and do our best to stay away from unsubstantiated claims. Are we perfect? Obviously not, but we do our best to let things play out a little bit before reporting on them, in order to ensure that we're giving you accurate information.

I, with concern and hesitancy, decided to write a blog article about some news reports coming out. I will place links at the bottom, and you can do your own research on the accuracy of these news reports. Personally, I believe they are fairly accurate and well-written. You're more than welcome to find credible and accurate sources that might disagree. But some issues seem to be cropping up lately that have driven me to ask questions, and I finally realized: if I have concerns that are continuing to confirm my opposition to receiving mRNA technology, then I would be remiss to not give you the same information that is driving my own decisions. Ultimately, these decisions are up to you, and must be thoroughly prayed about, researched and carefully made. Never make a decision upon force, coercion or fear. That is a recipe for absolute disaster, and I do believe that many people are suffering or will suffer due to making a decision based in fear or coercion.

The Past Haunts Us

Back when the vaccines had become a topic for extreme debate, especially regarding mandates and wide government propaganda on the necessity of them, I said something that I would continue to repeat: In a couple years, we are going to see a massive increase in deaths and side effects.

Many would have painted me (and probably still do) as a conspiracy theorist and one of those “anti-vaxxers.” My difficulty at the beginning of this whole ordeal was that there are no long-term studies on mRNA messenger Covid “vaccines.” 

At the beginning, there were no tests on pregnant women or children, and the studies themselves had issues rise up with testing and trial standards. In 2007, HHS released a report on FDA oversight. They found the FDA had only inspected 1% of clinical trial sites. In 2020? Their vaccine and biologics branch conducted only 50 inspections.

As reported by the British Medical Journal, one whistle-blower in 2021 notified the FDA to warn about unsound practices that their company, Ventavia, was committing during the Pfizer vaccine trials. That afternoon, she was fired.

She wrote an email on September 25th, notifying the FDA of a trial in which over 1,000 people were enrolled at three sites. The full trial (registered under NCT04368728) enrolled around 44,000 people at 153 sites. She listed many concerns, including:

• People not being monitored after injection by staff
• Lack of timely follow-up on adverse reactions
• Protocol deviations not being reported
• Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
• Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these problems

She received an email from the FDA thanking her for her notice, yet there is no recorded follow-up of her complaints. During the reporting of inspections, 9 sites of the 153 were inspected, and none of them were Ventavia sites. Other works have corroborated the whistle-blower's complaints.

The problems weren't limited to the trials. The vaccines were given an Emergency Use Authorization status, which meant they were allowed to be distributed to the public while trials were ongoing, and therefore were not considered fully approved. Along with this, the pharma companies have been deemed not liable for adverse effects due to the vaccines, despite the mandates that companies passed, and certain sectors of the government passed as well.

You were told you had to receive an experimental technology, with a threat of loss of lively-hood and/or liberties, and if an adverse reaction happened, there was no recourse. On top of that, the experimental technology was still in trial use when mandates began to get pushed. The government was champing at the bit to pass government mandates, and did as soon as there was a full FDA approval. But of course, no conflict of interest. Right?

You were saturated with propaganda telling you it was safe, effective and reliable. You were brow-beaten with the idea that not receiving it was putting others at risk. You were threatened with loss of jobs, loss of friends and family, and loss of connection. The unvaccinated were castigated and labeled as social pariahs. You couldn't see loved ones in the hospital. In fact, you were rejected care due to your vaccination status.

The whole world seemed to see what the unvaccinated couldn't.

But time can only pass so long before truth starts to seep out.

Heart Problems Were Only the Beginning

During the height of vaccine craziness, we began to see heart issues cropping up with healthy young adults—especially men. Europe saw soccer players dropping time and time again from heart conditions and issues, and cases of myocarditis was becoming more pronounced.

A German newspaper, Berliner Zeitung, published a report questioning the issue, asking why an “unusually large number of pro and amateur soccer players have collapsed recently,” and used the headline, “Puzzling heart diseases in football.” Puzzling. But no mention of any link to a certain mass requirement.

One announcer in Europe had his mic cut when he dared to ask the question out loud regarding whether the heart issues had anything to do with the vaccine.

And as of the writing of this article, it has just been published that the CDC's vaccine surveillance system suggests that vaccine linked cases of myocarditis have risen. The numbers show that within a week of getting the two-dose Pfizer vaccine, the rate for 12-15 year old boys who suffered a myocarditis episode is 1 in 6,600, and for the 16-17 year old male age range is 1 in 7,262.

In 2021, Dr. Tracy Hoeg, who is with the Florida Department of Health, released similar numbers. Her study showed 1 in 10,600 for 16-17 year old males, and 1 in 6,200 in 12-15 year old males.

As for an overall control group, the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis ranges from 1 to 10 in 100,000 people a year.

Despite numbers such as these, the CDC has continued to promote and encourage boosters for those 12 and up, and have argued that the boosters are formulated to protect better against Covid-19 variants.

The issue of heart problems is one of science. Myocarditis and pericarditis are both inflammatory diseases of the heart. These can occur after infections or immune disease. While the cause is vague, it is thought that myocarditis could be caused by the body's response to the spike protein being used in the vaccination. The spike protein itself causes an immunological response by the body, which can cause inflammation in the heart.

These spike proteins, which most of us had no clue about, (or still have no clue about) have made quite a name for themselves in the past few years.

MRNA vaccines work like this. The technology takes the mRNA and uses it to instruct cells to create spike proteins that mimic the spike protein of the Covid virus. The body replicates the spike protein, and then the white blood cells train to defeat the spike protein. It's similar to how a regular vaccine works: you take the illness, limp it, inject it, and let the body figure out a fool-proof way to defeat the lamed virus. 

With the mRNA technology, you are not introducing a virus into the body, but a written program to instruct the body's own immune cells to create the spike protein for training. We're told that the mRNA technology decays and disintegrates, and that the body only produces the spike proteins in a localized area for training. This is up for debate, but outside the scope of this piece.

People are growing concerned however. They're wondering if there may come an issue from inserting RNA (a biological coding that is used to replicate DNA) into the body without an assurance of how it might interact with the body over the long-term. And frankly, I don't blame them. But my concern is bigger than the effect that mRNA has on our body. My biggest concern is making the body a spike protein factory.

Clots?

Spike proteins are toxic to the body. The spike protein in Covid is considered a potential inflammagen, and evidence is mounting that the spike protein could be causing blood hypercoagulation. In other words: blood clots. Studies even showed that when the spike protein was added to healthy samples, it resulted in structural changes of fibrin. Fibrin is the big player in blood clotting. It is a protein that is found in blood plasma that collects into threads as a sticky web to start catching platelets, creating a cover over the area that is bleeding. 

It appears as though the spike protein is exacerbating clotting issues, and creating a ruckus in the body. The study used (sources below) pointed to Covid as the cause, though this raises one of my questions: if we're training the body to produce spike proteins with a vaccine and now regular boosters, are we not exacerbating the process of hypercoagulation that Covid started?

And I'm not just asking questions. Recently, the Epoch Times reported of large, rubbery and “fibrous” clots in corpses being embalmed. Embalmers have been pointing to the uptick of the strange, massive clots showing up in bodies at an alarming rate. Before 2020-2021, some embalmers estimated they ran across clots 5 to 10 percent of the time. That same embalmer now estimates he is seeing 50 to 70 percent of the bodies they receive having clots.

For a nation that has a 68% vaccination rate of at least 1 vaccine, that percentage seems eerily correlated. I am not claiming that all of these clots are solely the result of the vaccine. However, Covid obviously changed something in humanity over the past few years.

What does give me pause about the odd “clots” is the fact that they seemed to have shown up mostly after the mass vaccination programs began. Epoch gave a run down from a licensed funeral director in Alabama by the name of Richard Herschman, who noted when the clots began to show up. 

In 2018, he embalmed 410 bodies. In 2019, he embalmed 439. In 2020, the number was up to 572. In 2021, he embalmed 632. What is interesting is that he notes in Q4, November's body count included 9 out of the 19 being clotted, and 19 out of the 40 being clotted in December.

By 2022, he was keeping close track. As per The Epoch Times:

2022 total bodies so far: 364

• 1st Quarter 146 (38 not clotted, 67 heavy clots, 20 confirmed vaccinated)
• 2nd Quarter 90 (11 not clotted, 38 heavy clots, 21 confirmed vaccinated)
• 3rd Quarter 128 (19 not clotted, 51 heavy clots, 15 confirmed vaccinated) 

Another licensed funeral director from Missouri, Anna Foster, states, “I know before the vaccination, my embalming cases did not have the amount of clotting I see now, and very rarely would you find many with fibrin attached; now, it is at least ten times the amount, if not more.”

Embalmers have claimed that blood often no longer simply flows down the table drain, but is congealing and becoming more jelly-like in cases, to the point where they have to aid the blood down the drain in order to clean the table. This would be completely consistent with the research discussed earlier in which spike proteins are linked to hypercoagulation, and building these large, stringy like clots, which seem to have the consistency of pure fibrin.

But They're Taking Care of it, Right?

Drug regulators are now refusing to provide key analyses of a Vaccine safety database. The FDA was asked by the Epoch Times for any and all analyses concerning the Covid vaccines. The analyses use a method that compares adverse events recorded after a Covid vaccine with those from a non-Covid vaccine. 

The FDA even wrote their procedures to do the comparisons “at least biweekly”, in order to note when Covid vaccine adverse events were greater than expected. However, the FDA told the Epoch Times...in a nutshell: to take a hike. They claimed an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act which lets them hold onto some inter- and intra-agency communications. They also pointed to the Code of Federal Regulations, which states, “all communications within the Executive Branch of the Federal government which are in written form or which are subsequently reduced to writing may be withheld from public disclosure except that factual information which is reasonably segregable in accordance with the rule established in § 20.22 is available for public disclosure.”

The CDC itself has been wrapped up in the controversy, refusing to provide results for their own analyses, and at one point providing information considered false when answering questions. At one point, the agency claimed that data mining was “outside of the agency's purview,” and then said they did perform them starting in February 2021.

Later on, the CDC finally acknowledged that wasn't true, instead stating they did not begin performing the procedure until March 2022.

And just in case you forgot, the FDA claimed it would take 55 to 75 years to release the Covid-19 vaccine review documents that they hold. They said they could only release 500 pages each month. A judge in Texas determined the number should be 55,000 a month.

What Now?

I don't discuss any of this to scare you or to give you doom-and-gloom. I haven't even discussed the studies and research that are finding metal and moving organisms in both the blood of the vaccinated and vaccine vials themselves. At this point, I feel as though I'm beating a dead horse. Perhaps I'll cover that stuff in another article, but for now, the question becomes: what are you supposed to do?

If you've been vaccinated, I assure you that the Lord can overcome it. His strength, might and power is more than you could ever imagine, and if you are a child of God, you do not lose your salvation because you got a vaccine. There is no guarantee that this will happen to you, and I do not write any of this in order to scare you. If it spurs you to keep close watch over your body and health, then I must say I'm fine with that outcome. But I do not intend to instill fear in you.

If you're not vaccinated, I list all of these issues to show you that conviction is so important in today's day and age. You will be pressured and coerced into following the narrative that the governments and establishment are pushing forth. The truth is in their fruit. If the efficacy, safety and reliability of the vaccine was so great, they would be shouting it from the rooftops with study after study after study. Instead, we find they've been hiding, redacting and covering up.

We wanted some sanity to the whole process. We wanted them to come out and say, “Look, this is experimental and brand-new technology. Do what is right for you, but we believe this technology could help. We will continue to keep you updated as we give you more information in real-time.”

This would have given the whole situation credibility. Instead, any who were hesitant became evil anti-vaxxers who are killing people. You were shamed into getting it, and if you didn't, your job was threatened. We never heard an acknowledgment that the technology is experimental, and unfortunately, it'll never be revisited.

You have every right to research, test, and be skeptical of what you're being told. Be skeptical of what I'm telling you, and find out for yourself. But, with the mounting evidence, my own personal decision is such: I do not trust the pharma companies, Anthony Fauci, the NIH, the WHO, or the Biden administration. I don't trust a technology that uses genetic coding and instructs my body to begin producing a toxin. I don't trust the presence of spike proteins in my body in an unregulated way, and I certainly don't trust approval of boosters that continue the same process month after month. I don't trust the panic of a pandemic that saw a sub-two-percent death rate, and I don't trust the “experts” who censor, ignore, oppress and crush anybody who raises alternative thought.

Bibliography

• https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/RNA-Ribonucleic-Acid
• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16170679/
• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34281357/
• https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccines-update-ongoing-evaluation-myocarditis-pericarditis
• https://www.theepochtimes.com/cdc-releases-new-data-on-covid-vaccine-linked-heart-inflammation_4723730.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-09-12-3&utm_medium=email&est=TM1gW7vMwsgX%2Fv2yORXuGy06MYbdh8aUUoG5bfbArcyoTLD1jGWfJnaOE30o6Yg%3D
• https://www.theepochtimes.com/data-leak-reveals-disturbing-facts-about-mrna-instability_4725208.html
• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34671772/
• https://www.britannica.com/science/fibrin
• https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states
• https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/where-mrna-vaccines-and-spike-proteins-go
• https://nyulangone.org/news/how-mrna-vaccines-prevent-covid-19
• https://www.theepochtimes.com/embalmers-have-been-finding-numerous-long-fibrous-clots-that-lack-post-mortem-characteristics_4696015.html?utm_source=ai&utm_medium=search
• https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/da-refuses-provide-key-covid-19-vaccine-safety-analyses
• https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/97544

The term “fascist” gets thrown around more than a football on Sunday, and it gets wielded as a weapon any time a conservative does something a lefty-progressive does not like.

Considering what we discussed in last week's column which covered Sam Harris' obsession with Trump, it is not surprising that a term like “fascist” becomes the go-to label to slap onto anybody who disagrees with the current administration. Conservatives at the moment are considered extremely dangerous, and should be treated as such.

Enter Joe Biden, the unifier-in-chief, who came to heal the political divide and step above the divisiveness in America. 

Our unifier-in-chief, speaking not too long ago, said something that dripped with love and compassion for every American. "What we’re seeing now is either the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy," Biden said. "It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the — I’m going to say something, it’s like semi-fascism."

And in case you thought it was Biden's supposed stuttering issue and not his sometimes...incoherent thoughts, we can look to Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to clarify Mr. Biden's meaning.

"So what we're seeing from Republicans and what we have seen from Republicans these past several years is that they are attacking our democracy. They are taking away our freedom. And they are trying to put on the chopping blocks Medicare and Social Security. That's what we are seeing, and it's being done — if you look at the Republican Party, it is being done by this element, this MAGA element of the Republican Party. And that is what we are trying to prevent. That's what you heard from the president today,"

I feel so much better. Don't you?

Labels, Labels, Labels

Political rhetoric is nothing new, and it is beneath us to believe that some how political slander and labeling did not exist for centuries. Conservatives cannot get caught up in the game of “They called us such and such!” Though, as a possible counter-argument, I do believe Hillary Clinton's “Deplorables” comment may have cost her the election. It became quite the slogan for Trump and his supporters.

At this point, you're more than welcome to ask, “So if we shouldn't care about political labels, then why write a whole blog about it?”

I'm glad you asked. My answer to you is: we still need to participate in the language war. We just cannot sit on the step and complain that they're calling us names. Progressives are keen on using language to demean, confuse and destroy their opponents. The common man creates massive assumptions with a single word, and the progressive is always looking for that one label, that one name which creates movement against their enemies.

They've tried it with nationalism. White supremacy. Racist. Sexist. Homophobe. Look no further than Hillary Clinton. She said in a campaign speech, “You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call, 'The basket of deplorables,' right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic... you name it.”

The term “ultra-maga” was actually the result of a 6-month, progressive-funded, focus group research project. It took them 6 months to figure out what label they wanted to lob at conservatives this week.

Trump understands this, and has used similar tactics with varying success. His names for people like “Lyin' Ted Cruz”, “Crooked Hillary”, or my favorite, “Low Energy Jeb,” (Please clap) stick harder than anything the candidate themselves can attempt to achieve. Trump knows that a catchy, derogatory nickname lobbed at his opponents will consume a person's mind and push out any nuance as to who that person is.

Why should we care? Because language matters. But we cannot be surprised when it happens. We also need to care because our fellow Americans deserve to know the nuance behind such a name, and hopefully can be persuaded that the people lobbing the label have less than righteous intentions.

What is a fascist?

Are you a fascist? A semi-fascist? Before I get into a brief description of fascism, I want to explore the label of “semi-fascist.”

After WWII, some scholars created labels to categorize people who did not neatly fit into the fascist or neo-fascist political parties, yet “displayed some characteristics of historical fascist movements and regimes,” as reported by Britannica.com.

These various labels used behaviors and attitudes, and were applied to people who seemed to resemble various fascist leaders. Of course, Donald Trump was described by Britannica.com as “borderline fascist,” due to his “contempt for democratic values and the rule of law, demagoguery, appeals to racism, incitements to mob violence...attacks on the legitimacy of the press and of established institutions of government, and the exploitation of scapegoats.”

The Britannica.com description of Trump's “borderline fascist” record pointed to the Muslim-majority immigration ban (written in the Obama era), separating children from parents (also done during the Obama administration and used to confirm a child was not being trafficked) building a wall, a reinvigorated militia movement, and the claim that he never disavowed neo-nazis or the KKK (which is an outright lie. He disavowed David Duke, the neo-nazis, and white supremacists.)

If you narrow in the lens enough, you can make anyone look like a fascist. The description is wide and all-encompassing, and the history spans across plenty of nations. 

However, a few similarities seem to work their way through different fascist regimes. They tend to include a call to a national identity, an authoritarian approach that pushes into a dictatorship, a firm belief in the group over the individual, and the preparing and training of the people to become unified and strong under the national banner. 

Fascism tends to have an open economy when compared to communism, but often congregates power over the industries through government and committee means. While personal property and wealth are still considered privatized, the ideology or race of the owner could quickly see them lose such privileges.

Fascist parties, when coming to power, tend to outlaw other parties, and work towards a single-party system. They are more than happy to use violence, and in fact tend to encourage violence to crush their enemies. Most often, the biggest enemies are Marxists and communists, and such groups attract the strongest ire of the fascist regimes. Typically, this is because both parties are fighting over the same piece of pie: complete control over the nation-state, economic system and the identity of the people.

The fascist will use the democratic system to his advantage, and many times will become a wolf in sheep's clothing to garner the support of the masses. While some fascist movements outright spurned the common man, most invigorated the common man with dreams of becoming a greater man. Such language swirled around the idea of creating the ideal man or race, and sometimes built on humanism and materialism as it's backbone. Hitler's idea of the superior race found it's pillars in Darwinism, Nietzsche and materialism.

While some fascist movements embraced Christianity and Catholicism, the Nazi party tended to have a disdain for true Christianity, instead linking itself to it in certain cases to win the opinion of the people. The parades, celebrations and events that the Nazi movement revolved around, tended to use more iconography, symbols and rituals from secular, roman, and pagan influences, as opposed to Christianity. The Nazi party also pressured families to ideologically train their children with education that replaced Christian prayer with sun-worship and Teutonic rituals. 

Britannica.com reports, “Martin Bormann, the second most powerful official in the Nazi party after 1941, argued that Nazi and Christian beliefs were 'incompatible,' primarily because the essential elements of Christianity were 'taken over from Judaism.'” Which makes sense. Would the Nazi party really support a religion that had a Jew as its messiah?

Hitler himself, saw warrior paganism as a driving spiritualism, and there are plenty of reports of the occult in his circle.

These defining characteristics are not the only ones that describe the political ideology, but they do enough to clearly define the central aims of the movement.

Question is: Who is using the label?

The concept of a fascist swings so widely that it is in danger of losing definition. In America, the term is thrown at everyone; and the hope of those who lob it at their enemies, is that everyone will immediately picture Hitler, his soldiers goose-stepping, and the American infantrymen standing against the obvious evil fascists.

What many may not realize is the storied past of using the term as a title for an enemy. Unemployed, college-educated, slacker blue-haired kids who pass themselves off as adults are now joining a movement that has loosely titled itself “Antifa.” This is not a recent invention, but the group known as “Antifaschistische Aktion” popped up in Italy and Germany in response to the fascist dictatorships taking hold. The Antifa movement is, at its central core, communist. The battle between the communists and the fascists, especially in Germany during the post Weimar-republic days, was for control of the government and the nation. In Germany, the communists were crushed by the fascists, and the rest is...history. The use of the term in America is a continuation of communist rhetoric.

It becomes the label of anyone who does not come into alignment with the communist movement, and then gets parroted by unsuspecting folks who are just angry with Trump or conservatives in general.

Many who use it, believe that Trump was a dictator who just barely missed taking power over the government. They conflate restricting access to abortion with taking away individual rights (although communists only care about individual rights when they need to) and the restriction of illegal immigration as racism. Communist and progressive elements have decided that all white people are racist, and the racist history of America is a sign of the current conservative movement's attempt to re-establish racism in today's culture.

Semi-Fascism

This title: semi-fascist, was a shot by Biden to begin to strengthen people's assumption that Trump, the MAGA faction, and conservatives in general are all “Literally-Hitler.” But I assure you, the connection is tenuous and may in fact show more of the democrat party's intimate ties with communism/Marxism, than it does the conservative base's fascist leanings.

The vast majority of conservatives, and especially the MAGA base, abhor authoritarianism, battle increased governmental influence on systems and institutions, hate the politicization of law enforcement, do not endorse racism, and would rather see a truly free market established, Christianity as the guiding spiritual foundation of the people, and a individualist spirit regain its place as the people's ethos.

None of these things are close to fascism. They are not semi-fascism. What does look fascist, though, is: a plea to blindly obey experts and create unified government systems in order to enforce the judgment of the experts, the use of emergencies to curtail individual rights in the name of safety, the criminalizing of political opposition, the attempt to create a single-party system, and the demonizing of an entire group of people because they do not align with the values and ideologies of the ruling class.

You, as a conservative, are watching gas-lighting in real time. You're called a fascist, when you want nothing of the sort, but they do. Do you want the family supported and uplifted? Yes. Do you desire to have the spiritual nature of the nation restored? Yes. Do you wish your nation could be healthy and have a unified vision? Yes. But none of this rises to the level of fascism. You are not required to take on that title, and there is no reason to accept it.

The title is filled with history, and it is intended to associate you with that history. If you believe in liberty, individual rights, limited government, free markets, reduced regulation, equality for all men, the precious nature of life, and controlled immigration to protect the health of the system...then you are probably a conservative. 

Be a conservative with pride, and pick apart any argument that attempts to attach “Fascist” to you.

To keep your reading to a minimum, I will provide quotes and do my absolute best to use them in context. I will provide my text of the relevant interview section at the bottom of this blog post, and I will include the full Youtube interview. The relevant clip begins at around 35:30 in the full interview. 

Please note: my quotes are cleaned up for clarity, understanding and context. I did my absolute best to re-write them with Harris' intended meaning in mind.

The Quiet Part Out Loud

On August 17th, a Podcast that has been seen as fairly balanced on social issues and cultural events hosted Sam Harris. The Triggernometry Podcast is hosted by two comedians, Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster, who, “create honest conversations with fascinating people.”

They've hosted others, such as Matt Walsh, Peter Zeihan, Jaron Lanier, and Project Veritas.

The Harris interview was a typical Sam Harris segment, complete with wheels turning deeply as he puts together complex threads of thought. The man is extremely smart, soft-spoken yet direct, and weighs out the things he says carefully. Not too long ago, he did a debate series tour with Jordan Peterson, and both seemed to carry a respect for the other's intellectual heavyweight title.

However, people blew their lids when this particular interview aired on August 17th, and the reason was simple: people felt Harris had finally said the progressive quiet part out loud. Until now, most progressives had slapped away any indication that there was a concerted movement to shut down Trump. As the Trump base and wider conservative circles claimed censorship, conspiracy and agenda on the part of the institutions, progressives continued to retort that the conservatives were full of crap and were just salty about the nation's dislike for such an evil man.

A thread of “speech regulation” worked its way through the discourse, and built on the notion that speech could be violence. Therefore, to save our democracy, we must limit the truly evil and catastrophic voices...such as Trump.

What caught people about Harris was his comparison of dangerous actions taken by the two camps.

“Hunter Biden literally could have had had the corpses of children in his basement,” Harris began, “I would not have cared. It's like, there's nothing. First of all, it's Hunter Biden. It's not Joe Biden. But even if, whatever scope of Joe Biden's corruption is like; if we could just go down that rabbit hole endlessly and understand that he's getting kickbacks from Hunter Biden's deals in Ukraine, or whatever else, or China, it is infinitesimal compared to the corruption we know Trump is involved in. It's like a firefly to the sun. I mean, it doesn't even stack up against Trump university. Trump university as a story, is worse than anything that could be in Hunter Biden's laptop, in my view.”

Take a moment, let your jaw return to normal, and let's continue.

Forgetting the fact that there are accusations of heavy drug use, pedophilia, kickbacks and federal offenses covered up by a government led by his father in Biden's laptop, let's look at Trump's world-ending controversy.

What was Trump University all about? National Review reports in 2016, “Trump University was never a university. When the “school” was established in 2005, the New York State Education Department warned that it was in violation of state law for operating without a NYSED license. Trump ignored the warnings. (The institution is now called, ahem, “Trump Entrepreneur Initiative.”) Cue lawsuits.”

When the article was written, National Review reported that Trump University was in the middle of three lawsuits. Two were class action lawsuits filed In California, and one was filed in New York by the then attorney general Eric Schneiderman.

Schneiderman claimed, “We started looking at Trump University and discovered that it was a classic bait-and-switch scheme. It was a scam starting with the fact it was not a university.”

Former “students” claimed they were scammed out of numbers including $20,000 to $60,000 dollars. The language from the New York suit states, “The free seminars were the first step in a bait and switch to induce prospective students to enroll in increasingly expensive seminars starting with the three-day $1495 seminar and ultimately one of respondents’ advanced seminars such as the “Gold Elite” program costing $35,000. At the “free” 90-minute introductory seminars to which Trump University advertisements and solicitations invited prospective students, Trump University instructors engaged in a methodical, systematic series of misrepresentations designed to convince students to sign up for the Trump University three-day seminar at a cost of $1495.”

Instructors were encouraged to tout Trump's personal involvement in picking mentors and trainers. They were instructed in a confidential playbook to get attendees of the free seminar to purchase Trump University course packages.

Now, the reporting from the National Review leaves out several questions. Did the people receive the educational material? Was the material presented by high level real-estate moguls? 

A year later, Trump settled for $25 million dollars to 6,000 Trump U students. NPR's reporting uses student claims that the instructors were unqualified, information was the type you could find in a general internet search, and that some of the information was illegal in some states.

So that's what Harris considered to be the most destructive action? The sun vs the firefly? Considering Harris even included in his argument the Joe Biden controversy of Ukraine (where Joe Biden said on camera, “I remember going over, others convincing us that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th  time to Kiev, and and I was supposed to announce that there was  another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatskov that they would take action against the state prosecutor, and they didn't. So, they were walking out to press, I said, 'I'm not going, or we're not going to give you the billion dollars.' They said, 'You have no authority, you're not the president.' I said, 'Call him.' I said, 'I'm telling you're, not getting a billion dollars.' I said, 'You're not getting a billion. I'm gonna be leaving here,' I think it was about six hours, I looked, 'If the prosecutors not fired, you're not getting the money.' Oh son of a b****, he got fired and they put in place someone who was solid.”)

He considered the Hunter Biden laptop, alleged to include emails of kickbacks of international dealings to Joe Biden, presumably because of Biden's international political influence in countries such as China, to be insignificant compared to Trump's university.

I've gone in depth for a reason on these issues, because it makes it fairly apparent that Harris is not looking through the sober-minded, clear-eyed objective observations that he thinks he is. He compared a scam university that misrepresented itself, to the Biden's global business and political influencing (considering Harris doesn't even contradict that the withholding of 1 billion was a retaliation to investigations into Burisma, which Hunter happened to have been promoted to the board.)

While the statement about corpses of children in Hunter Biden's house is extremely shocking, it was extreme on purpose. Harris is letting the truth out in more ways than I think he wished to. He's admitting that he sees Trump as more dangerous than anything else on the face of this earth.

He continues, “That doesn't answer the people who say, 'It's still completely unfair to not have looked at the laptop in a  timely way, and to have shut down The New York post's twitter account. That's just a conspiracy left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump.'” He responds to the imaginary complaint by continuing, “Absolutely it was, absolutely. But I think it was warranted, and again it's a coin toss as to whether or not—”

At this point, he's interrupted by one of the interviewers, who states, “Sam, I'm sorry, that particular piece...I'm really sorry, I was the one that said we should move on, but you've just said something i really struggled with that which is...I'm interested in democracy. You're saying you are content with the left-wing conspiracy to prevent somebody being democratically re-elected as president?”

This is the moment that Harris knows he has to navigate a minefield he just laid for himself. He struggles to find his argument's consistent path, and lays out as follows, “It was a conspiracy out in the open. It doesn't matter if it was, it doesn't matter what parts conspiracy, what part's out in the open. I think it's like, if people get together and talk and talk about, 'What should we do about this phenomenon?' You know, it's like if there was an asteroid hurtling toward earth and we got in a room together with all of our friends and had a conversation about what we could do to deflect its course; is that a conspiracy? Some of that conversation would be in public, some of it would be in private. We have a massive problem, we have an existential threat, politically speaking. I consider Trump an existential threat to our democracy right now. He's not going to destroy the world, very likely he destroyed democracy in the process of protecting democracy. But that doesn't destroy...no...”

In fairness, he added, “At no point was I suggesting we should stuff ballots or actually break the machinery of democracy, but all political opinion is already being just completely inundated with misinformation bias, half truths, and outright lies, and or just the amplification of bad or misleading information based on you know the algorithm.”

But the damage was done, and Harris caught himself in a nasty trap.

The Truth Rings Clear

Harris presented himself as the objective arbiter who is only interested in “saving democracy,” and feels as though he recognizes that drastic measures must be taken. He conflates the idea of conspiracy with a hidden conspiracy. The movement with which various government branches, and the major pillars of social media were able to move in concert and cooperation speaks to a “conspiracy” against Donald Trump.

Sam Harris does not have to endorse ballot stuffing in order to subvert the machinery. In his mind, the machinery is of utmost importance, and he defends these institutions. I think I could take the liberty to say that he feels it is vital and necessary to protect these institutions, and considers them invaluable to the health of the nation. He pivots and attacks the vague boogyman of “misinformation and half-truths” as though these are agreed upon by everybody.

The institutions themselves have a vested interest in restricting and limiting anything that might chip away at their establishment. If anybody should be distrusting of the current system, it should be the progressive...but I digress.

I don't know if Mr. Harris would consider himself a progressive, considering his intolerance of the woke movement. However, if we're to say the establishment institutions have used their power for evil in the past, should we not consider them to have the same evil intent today? So why put the judgment of “misinformation” in their hands? It's a conflict of interest.

But Harris aligns himself with the institutions and establishment, and determines that a moral position is to limit a person's influence in suppression and restriction. After all, Trump is literally Hitler, and would you not do everything in your power to stop him? Even if it meant less than “moralistic” means?

Why It Matters Concerning Harris

I think a conversation can be had about what means a person might take to stop an evil, wicked force. We have to assume that those on the left tend to see Trump as truly evil and malevolent, not just a conservative leader.

But I want to re-state something Harris said. “Hunter Biden literally could have had had the corpses of children in his basement, I would not have cared. It's like, there's nothing. First of all, it's Hunter Biden.” 

Such a comment is chilling, and obviously for dramatic effect, but I believe more truth sat at the center of the comment than he cared to admit. In saying it, he was admitting that there are more important things to stop than even a child murderer. Not that he would not want a psychopathic Biden stopped, but it would still be tiny in his concern. His attempt to disconnect Hunter from Joe Biden was the second glaring admission: separate personal connections when they aren't convenient.

We all do it, and we all attempt to draw the lines at what matters and what does not. But Harris seems pretty clear that no matter what dirt comes to light about the Biden's, it can't be as bad as Trump. His awful comparison between the Biden's and Trump University makes it obvious. Further on, he names Hilary Clinton as a better option, and does not consider any of her dirt and conflicts of interest.

This is indicative of a deeper issue that I've noticed creeping up through Harris' rhetoric. In past debates with Peterson, he passionately concluded that the framework and foundation of Judeo-Christian's influence on values are of no use to us anymore, and should be wiped from the cultural slate. He feels we have organized and engineered our values and morals on an evolutionary plane, and therefore now have no need for the role religion played in the hearts and minds of the uncultured, unscientific swine of past ages.

His statements during this Podcast show the “evolution” of morality for Harris. He quickly jettisons things such as liberty, free speech and righteous conduct in favor of a righteous end. The ends justify the means. What if the only recourse to stop Literally-Hitler was to ballot stuff? Would Harris agree to this compromise?

My concern with the atheist mindset is that it sits on the branch, and then takes a saw to the branch. As they attempt to remove the underpinnings of Christianity and Judaism, they must then rely on a morality developed by their own soul. There becomes no standard to weigh every situation against. Every situation becomes it's own defining moment, and when pressed: the atheist has the opportunity to change their morality to fit the desired outcome. Hence, the ends justify the means.

The consuming fire of a fear and hatred for Trump has twisted many people into moral knots, and some have escaped the confines of morality completely. While Harris seems to attempt to retain some semblance of a morality in terms of not outright destroying the “democractic” process, he has made it very apparent that a more forceful social pressure is necessary to keep evil from winning. This sells two very fundamental rights: free speech and liberty. His callousness towards comparing evil situations, ie –Trump U vs dead children seems to show a lack of objective comparisons between two wrongs.

Harris fell a major step in his own philosophy by making such statements. I think people need to realize, he just endorsed moral-relativism, and despite his claims that morality is evolutionary: he provided us ample evidence that just because a thing evolves, does not mean it is evolving to perfection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDqtFS_Pvcs

https://audioboom.com/channels/4991237

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-university-scam/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/31/522199535/judge-approves-25-million-settlement-of-trump-university-lawsuit

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/21/fact-check-joe-biden-leveraged-ukraine-aid-oust-corrupt-prosecutor/5991434002/

https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

The Age of The Show-trial

“But one stream has never dried up in the USSR, and still flows. A stream of criminals untouched by the “beneficent wave summoned to life...” etc. A stream which flowed uninterruptedly through all those decades—whether “Leninist norms were infringed” or strictly observed—and flowed in Khrushchev's day more furiously than ever.

I mean the believers. Those who resisted the new wave of cruel persecution, the wholesale closing of churches. Monks who were slung out of their monasteries. Stubborn sectarians, especially those who refused to perform military service: there's nothing we can do about it, we're really very sorry, but you're directly aiding imperialism; we let you off lightly nowadays—it's five years first time around.

These are in no sense politicals, they are “religionists,” but still they have to be re-educated. Believers must be dismissed from their jobs merely for their faith; Komsomols must be sent along to break the windows of believers; believers must be officially compelled to attend antireligious lectures, church doors must be cut down with blowtorches, domes pulled down with hawsers attached to tractors, gatherings of old women broken up with fire hoses. (Is this what you mean by dialogue, French comrades?)

As the monks of the Pochayev Monastery were told in the Soviet of Workers' Deputies: “If we always observe Soviet laws, we shall have to wait a long time for Communism.”

Only in extreme cases, when educational methods do not help, is recourse to the law necessary.

Here we can dazzle the world with the diamond-pure nobility of our laws today. We no longer try people in closed courts, as under Stalin, we no longer try them in absentia, we try them semi-publicly (that is to say, in the presence of a semi-public).

I hold in my hand a record of the trial of some Baptists at Nikitovka in the Donbas, in January, 1964...” -The Gulag Archipelago

Before we even discuss the matter of show trials described in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, we would be benefited with a little reminder of the attitude and atmosphere that surrounded the Soviet regime and the communist social climate.

Most do not think about the religious persecution that took place in the Soviet Union, and we tend not to grasp the anti-religious sentiments that communism carries with it everywhere it goes. The show-trial is really the final step in the whole process, but it is predicated on the belief that the society doing the condemning is so right, so righteous in their assessment of the individual, that no matter of seeking justice is needed. They already have their judgment in mind before the accused comes to court. It is only a trivial matter of optics.

We've watched a similar “fervor” grow and rise up against those who do not ascribe to progressivism. Identity politics and leftism. The Christians, conservatives and those who stand against the progressive (communist) movement are seen as bumps in the road to be squashed. 

Solzhenitsyn described the social attitude toward the believers, (though the same attitude was present with “politicals” or those who were accused of standing against the communist regime) and discusses at great length the social upheaval that continued in the Soviet Union for 70 years.

But it's important to note the show trials described in the book, and then determine if in fact we may be witnessing our own beginning of show trials and political persecution.

“This is how it's done. On the pretense that their identity must be check, the Baptists who arrived to attend the trial were held in jail for three days (until the trial was over, and to give them a fright). Someone (a free citizen!) who threw flowers to the defendants got ten days. So did a Baptist who kept a record of the trial, and his notes were taken away (but another record survived). A bunch of hand-picked Komsomols were let in before the general public by a side door, so that they could occupy the front rows. While the trial was in progress there were shouts from the spectators: “Pour kerosene over the lot and set fire to them!” The court did nothing to curb this righteous indignation. Typical of its procedures: it admitted the evidence of hostile neighbors and also that of terrorized minors; little girls of nine and eleven were brought before the court (who the hell cares what affect it has on them as long as we get our verdict). Their exercise books with texts from the Scriptures were introduced as exhibits.

One of the defendants, Bazbei, father of nine children, was a miner who had never received any support from the Union committee at his pit because he was a Baptist. But they managed to confuse his daughter Nina, a schoolgirl in the eight grade, and to suborn her with fifty rubles from the union committee and a promise to place her in an institute later on, so that during the investigation she made fantastic statements against her father: he had tried to poison her with a sour fruit drink; when the believers were hiding in the woods for their prayer meetings (because they were persecuted in the settlement) they had had a radio transmitter— “a tall tree with wire wound all around it.” Afterward these lying statements began to prey on Nina's mind, she became mentally ill and was put in the violent ward of an asylum. Nonetheless, she was produced in court in the expectation that she would stick to her evidence. But she repudiated every word of it! “The interrogator dictated what I had to say himself.” It made no difference. The shameless judge ignored her latest statements and regarded only her earlier evidence as valid. (Whenever depositions favorable to the prosecution come unstuck, this is the typical and regular dodge used by the courts: they ignore what is brought out in court and base themselves on faked evidence obtained in the preliminary investigation: “Now, what do you mean by that? It says here in your deposition...You testified during the investigation...What right have you to retract now? That's an offense, too, you know!”

The judge is not at all interested in the substance of the case, in the truth. The Baptists are persecuted because they do not accept preachers sent by an atheist plenipotentiary of the state, but prefer their own. (Under Baptist rules, any brother can preach the Gospel.) There is a directive from the Oblast Party Committee: put them on trial and forcibly take their children from them. And this will be carried out, although with its left hand the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet has just (July 2, 1962) signed the world convention on “the fight against discrimination in the sphere of education.” One of its points is that “parents must be allowed to provide for the religious and moral education of their children in accordance with their own convictions.” But that is precisely what we cannot allow! Anyone who speaks in court on the substance of the case, anyone who tries to clarify the issue, is invariably interrupted, diverted from his train of thought, deliberately confused by the judge, who conducts the debate on this level: “How can you talk about the end of the world when we are committed to the building of Communism?”

“The court trying the Baptist M. I. Brodovsky (at Nikolayev, October 6, 1966)  was not too squeamish to use crudely faked documents; when the defendant protested –“This is dishonest of you!” —they barked back at him: “The law will crush you, smash you, destroy you!”

The Baptist's punishment? From 1961 to June 1964, 197 Baptists were condemned, 15 of them women. Prisoners' dependents, left without means of support: 442, 341 were under school age. The majority got 5 years of exile, but some got 5 in a strict regime camp, with 3-5 years of exile addition. 

The individual stories are saddening and sickening. And the theme is frightening. When the levers of power determine to stem and stamp out a group opposed to their mission, the crushing oppression comes in full force. The people writhe and scream under the weight of the tyranny, yet they seem to have no sense of how to battle or push back.

The question is: are we in the age of the show-trial? Are we now on trial not just for our crimes, but because we do not align with the deeper agenda and motivations of the power structure? Added to that, does the power structure feel it must fulfill its obligations to such an ideology?

Ahmed Arbery Case

While it was the Trump case that got me thinking about the idea of show trials (and discussion about a few other cases that I'll cover quickly), this case sunk in that the truly communist, identity politics ideology is at play all over our nation today. 

Ahmed Arbery was shot and killed on Feb 23, 2020. A leaked cellphone video shows two white men approaching Arbery, a 25 year old black man as he runs down the road. One of the men, can be seen struggling over a shotgun with Arbery before Arbery is shot and dies. It's alleged that robberies had been happening in the area, and the men saw Arbery on a construction site as though he were scoping out tools. They attempted to make a citizen's arrest, but Arbery fled. Arbery then turned and attempted to remove the shotgun from one of the men, a struggle ensued, and Arbery wounded up shot.

People allege Arbery was merely out for a jog, though he was wearing work-boots at the time of the scuffle. One of the men was Coast Guard trained and appeared to have expert knowledge on law enforcement and the use of force.

For their crime, which was concluded to be a hate crime, two of the men received life sentences. The man who filmed received 30+ years. The label of “hate crime” and the exposure of the crime placed upon those men a penalty that is just under execution.

Despite the questionable circumstances of the event, the men have been painted as racist. Our president himself determined that this verdict counteracted the Kyle Rittenhouse case by condemning the three men.

Don't forget, Rittenhouse was a case that concerned a young man, who had expert gun control, who shot 3 attackers in self-defense during a riot. The prosecutor allegedly lied, twisted facts and broke the law in order to get a guilty verdict, and thankfully the judge had none of it. Rittenhouse was found not guilty, but that verdict seemed to have set up the three men in the Arbery case for a guaranteed conviction.

Rittenhouse was absolutely slandered as a white supremacist, that he went there to shoot black people (even though the three people he shot were all white, two of which were convicted sexual abusers) He was accused of being a Proud Boy, and accused of bringing a gun across state lines. He was accused of hunting people and starting all of the issues.

It was all lies, drummed up because the only verdict the establishment wished to have was “guilty.”

Peter Navarro

Former Trump Advisor Peter Navarro was arrested at Reagan National Airport, handcuffed, denied food and water, and denied a request to phone his lawyer. He faced two misdemeanor contempt of Congress charges. Mind you, Eric Holder did the exact same thing when he was Obama's AG, with no punishment whatsoever. Our Congress has determined that ignoring a Congressional subpoena is a dangerous, and horrible affair—if you're part of the wrong political persuasion.

Why was Navarro so evil? He was refusing to answer House Democrats questions surrounding the 2020 election and the Jan 6th riot. 

Eric Holder? He had documents relating to the “Fast and Furious” scandal, and was tied to an estimated death of 150 Mexican civilians.

Judge Amit Mehta said, “It is curious...at a minimum why the government treated Mr. Navarro's arrest in the way it did. It is a federal crime, but it is not a violent crime.” He also said, “It is a surprise to me that self-surrender was not offered.”

Meanwhile, two other Trump White House aides similarly ignored subpoenas, and were not charged.

Ps- it's also been suggested that Navarro was placed in leg irons by the FBI when he was arrested. And of course, it is most likely the first time a senior advisor to the president has been criminally charged for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena.

Weeks after Navarro, the Biden DOJ brought in former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clary outside of his home in boxer shorts as they executed a search warrant as part of an “ongoing fraud investigation.”

Or how about the pre-dawn raid on Roger Stone's home for lying to Congress? And, oh by the way, CNN somehow just happened to be there before it went down.

But no arrests were made during the Obama administration.

Jan 6

The event that started a lot of the craziness was January 6th. Plenty of people still sit in jail, awaiting trial, others have had the book thrown at them, and there has not seemed to be much discretion on what activities the person was participating in.

Others have had their houses raided by the FBI merely because they were present. The whole event gave the Democrats the green light to create a whole new level of Trump Monster: insurrectionists.

Trump

His house was raided by the FBI in order to secure “15 boxes” of classified material. The lies have been swirling around the whole situation, as AG Merrick Garland has attempted to distance himself from the event, and the White House likewise claimed they only knew about it from the media.

Trump has been attacked time after time for various “charges.”

Russiagate –accused of being a Putin puppet. Lasted several years. found to be a complete fabrication

Ukrainegate—Made a phone call to the Ukraine asking to look into a situation, that just so happened to involve Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and a threat Joe Biden bragged about on camera, getting the Ukraine to do what he wanted while dangling 1 Billion dollars over their head.

This lead to Impeachment number 1

Nazigate—He was accused of saying nazi's are good people. But the full video PROVES he said in fact the opposite. 

Jan 6th—He told his supporters to march down and protest peacefully, but that was ignored and swept under the rug, in order to hold a second impeachment and accuse him of insurrection.

These are just a few.

You might think that a few situations don't determine that we are in the era of show-trials. And I don't believe we have hit the true full force of show-trials yet. But, the rumblings are beginning. When political opponents are charged, hauled off in chains, their houses are raided, and the government attempts to use full force against them to crush them, then it's safe to say that America is about to be witness to the public show-trial.

Looking at civilian trials like Arbery, Rittenhouse, Floyd, and others, you see the influence of the society on the ruling. Politicians and activists come out in haste, having condemned the one on trial before it has begun. They claim that justice is destruction, and that the only way to see peace is to see the defendant destroyed.

We watched rioting happen for an entire summer, tearing the nation apart because of the George Floyd incident. We watched Trump officials chased after and handled with brute force for misdemeanors. We've witnessed a former president's house get raided by the FBI for some documents that the FBI, signing judge, and DOJ don't seem to want to clarify as to what's behind it all.

You watched pro-life centers and churches get ransacked, burned and trashed because Roe v. Wade was overturned. People stripped naked in churches in the middle of service to disrupt them because they might believe in something. A Supreme Court Justice was almost assassinated (with others on the would-be assassin's list), and the left saw fit only to lament it didn't quite happen.

The art of the show-trial is to whip the people in a frenzy, create and solidify an enemy to the “people” and to carry out the rage of the establishment as well as the society on those people...no matter whether they're innocent or not. The beauty of the show-trial is that the facts don't matter. The narrative does.

It becomes a show, an act and entertainment. Did you know that the Democrats hired a TV executive to produce the Jan 6 hearings? It was staged as a true crime show, drumming up all the needed points of a show-trial. Did you know that the Republican picks for the committee were all rejected, they were not allowed to cross-examine, and they were not allowed to call their own witnesses?

When a nation's justice system has lost its credibility, and becomes an extension of a political party/movement, you see the court room become a place to air out all of the accusations against the accused, as fact. Any evidence to the contrary is ignored or buried, and the public feels as though they have the right and duty to condemn the person on trial before the verdict is reached. The court system itself passively allows the carnival, and when a nation hits the final show-trial position: they become the ring-leaders.

The enforcement side becomes the goons and jackboots, making sure that the ideology of the establishment is carried out with convincing force. After all, Joe Q. Public will believe, “Well, if they're using that much force, then they must have a reason...right?”

Watch carefully, and you'll recognize the path that the establishment is on. They are setting up every pillar to make anybody who disagrees with the state to be a terrorist. You with your Betsy Ross flag, or Gasden flag are now considered an extremist. Our own DOJ investigated parents who showed up to school board meetings. And now the IRS has hired 87,000 new employees.

Your government is gearing up for the main event, and the show-trial is the way to launder the whole farce. A court ruling will have the credibility of an assumed justice system, but in fact will be the exact means with which they find the ability to destroy their own populace.

Sources and additional reading:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/judge-questions-fbis-aggressive-arrest-former-trump-official-peter-navarro

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/steve-bannon-contempt-trial-begins

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tale-two-trials-how-sussmann-receiving-every-consideration-denied-flynn

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/arbery-trial-judge-delivers-massive-blow-defense-eve-closing-statements

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2022-08-03/today-they-come-alex-jones-tomorrow-all-us

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-judge-sentences-three-men-convicted-racially-motivated-hate-crimes-connection-killing

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/rittenhouse-verdict-medias-social-justice-delusions-versus-actual-justice-backed-facts

https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-breach/idaho-woman-69-gets-jail-time-after-needlessly-distracting-police-on-jan-6/

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/08/1103785079/a-former-tv-news-executive-is-producing-the-jan-6-hearings

I do not know if enough storage is available on Earth to contain all of the records of the massive corruption, bias, civil rights violations, incompetence, and criminal activity of the US FBI.  This post only intends to provide a small buffet for consumption showing sufficient evidence to the reasoned mind that they cannot be trusted.  

Corruption and Political Bias runs strong in this agency.

Just this week the FBI raided President Trump's home in Florida seeking classified documents and publicly suggesting that he might be indicted under the Espionage act of 1917. Trump has asserted that no such classified documents exist because as President he had full authority to declassify them under the Constitution.  Clearly the Dept of Justice and the FBI are acting as henchmen for the Democratic party leaders doing their bidding in a politically partisan manner. 

The FBI has been slow to investigate Hunter Biden as the current President's son and even before his father was elected. They have denied having a certain laptop belonging to Hunter Biden and then asserted that there was nothing worth investigating on this laptop.  They have declined to investigate the activities of Joe Biden while he was Vice President in relationship with the legal system of Ukraine.  He blackmailed the President of Ukraine with US aid to fire a prosecutor looking into his son's business dealings.  

According to Special Counsel John Durham, hired to investigate the FBI's role in the Russian Collusion Hoax, "The FBI knew the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was utter bunk even as it suggested otherwise to Congress, the courts and the public early in 2017."  "A seven-page internal FBI memo dated March 8, 2017, shows that "talking points" prepared for then-FBI Director James Comey for his meeting the next day with the congressional leadership were riddled with half-truths, outright falsehoods, and critical omissions. Both the Senate and the House opened investigations and held hearings based in part on the misrepresentations made in those FBI briefings, one of which was held in the Senate that morning and the other in the House later that afternoon."  

"Quoting from the reports, Comey told congressional leaders that the unidentified informant told the FBI that Manafort "initially 'managed' the relationship between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign, using Carter Page as an intermediary." He also told them that "Page was reported to have had 'secret meetings' in early July 2016 with a named individual in Russia's presidential administration during which they discussed Russia's release of damaging information on Hillary Clinton in exchange for alterations to the GOP platform regarding U.S. policy towards Ukraine."  But previous FBI interviews with Carter Page and other key sources indicated that none of that was true – and the FBI knew it at the time of the congressional briefings.

Now 6 years later no one in the leadership of the FBI has suffered any consequences for their actions.  In fact, while Andrew McCabe was fired by the FBI losing his pension, a Federal Judge ordered the FBI to reinstate his pension.  Comey was fired by President Trump but has not been prosecuted for lying to Congress and to a Federal judge. 

The FBI was spying on Carter Page, a former campaign advisor to President Trump, in hopes of catching him giving national secrets to the Russians.  They had no evidence. They were fishing for dirt on Trump associates to discredit him. 

The FBI doctored an email to submit to a Federal judge to extend a wiretap on Carter Page, a campaign advisor to President Trump.  When this was discovered, another Federal judge stated that he did not believe that the FBI lawyer acted with political bias but rather to save himself some work.  I'm not sure suggesting that a lawyer is lazy, or incompetent is really better than political bias.  In any case, the lawyer confessed to what could have been 6 months in jail but instead received a sentenced to community service.  

The FBI lied to General Michael Flynn when he was nominated as President Trump's National Security Advisor.  They lied in an attempt to get him to lie about his involvement as a consultant to Russia and Ukraine.  It is a heinous miscarriage of justice that it is a felony to lie to the FBI, but it is legal for them to lie to a citizen of the US with impunity.  Nevertheless, the FBI uses this method often with the strategy of getting a suspect to incriminate themselves for lying then negotiate a plea to some other charges.  This is what happened with the FBI and General Flynn.  This prevented him from taking the job that President Trump nominated him to.  This was entirely predicated on the bias of Director James Comey. 

In 2018, Robert Mueller, the special counsel looking into the Russia collusion matter found zero evidence to support the allegations by the FBI.

I could go on about Hillary Clinton's emails and other ways that the FBI protected her obvious criminal behavior and role in paying the source for fake information on Trump, but this could go on too long for this post.  

Origins

Founded in 1908 as the Bureau of Investigation by President Roosevelt.  They were initially commissioned to investigate corporations for abuse of their monopoly power.  Roosevelt used them as tool of his Anti-Trust campaign.  The FBI's roots were always in partisan political power. 

From there the bureau's authority and power extended to prostitution and interstate car theft.  As WWI commenced, they expanded into domestic security.  In 1917-18, President Wilson pressured Congress into passing the Acts authorizing the Committee on Public Information and the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act.  All of these were designed to issue propaganda to the people about the Government's involvement in the war and to punish anyone who spoke out against the war.  Fines and imprisonment were the punishments.  The FBI was the tool of the government to enforce these laws.  

After the war, President Wilson and his FBI continued to focus on dissenters, suspected communists, radicals, and other undesirable elements in society. All were Americans. Wilson's Attorney General, Mitchell Palmer, used the FBI to round up these undesirables. The largest of these raids happened on Jan 2-3, 1920.  Four thousand Americans were caught up in these raids on a single night with the help of his deputy, J. Edgar Hoover.  Beatings and abuse of suspects in custody was common in those days.  There was no Miranda reading advising them of their rights. Many were detained for extended periods without being charged, a violation of the fourth amendment.  Many were starved and tortured including watching their family members beaten in front of them.  This was all done by the FBI.

The first Director of the FBI to hold that title was William J Burns.  Under President Warren Harding's administration occurred the "Teapot Dome Scandal" where Harding's Interior Secretary was accepting kickbacks from oil companies for allowing them to tap into the emergency oil reserves of the US Navy.  Senator Burton Wheeler discovered this and began investigating.  At the request of Harding's Atty General, FBI director Burns was requested to stop the Senate investigation.  He sent agents to find dirt on the Senator.  Failing that he invented corruption charges against Senator Wheeler. This backfired and Burns was fired and replaced by J Edgar Hoover in 1924.

Hoover presided over a vast growth in power and scope of the FBI from 1924 to 1972.  He focused heavily on intelligence gathering, i.e., spying.  Spying on everyone.  All Americans from Presidents to street sweepers and housewives were swept up in his agents' surveillance. Files were compiled of the details.  

Hoover was convinced Martin Luther King, Jr was the “most notorious liar in the country.”  He intended to gather intelligence on King that would force him to step down as leader of the civil rights movement. He used illegal wiretaps on King's phones and had him followed everywhere.  The FBI’s file on King is full of hostility, sexual innuendo, and gossip, with plenty of references to King’s numerous extramarital affairs. 

Hoover used his intelligence gathering on elected officials to blackmail them into cooperating with his agenda, funding and to keep his job.  He informed President Kennedy that he knew about Kennedy's affair with Judith Exner who was also sleeping with Mafia boss Sam Giancana.  Such information certainly helped Hoover keep his job.  President Kennedy had discussed with his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy about firing Hoover. 

This collection of intelligence by Hoover and the FBI was often not used for prosecution of corrupt politicians and gangsters.  It was used to keep them in line with Hoover's agenda which was mostly about keeping his job. He allowed corrupt politicians and members to operate without interference from the FBI to preserve his edge in controlling them.

Hoover died with an estate valued in today's dollars at $2.9 million. He maintained and remodeled his home over his years as director through the use of FBI staff. He ruled over politicians and criminals and staff like a king.  

In 1972 L Patrick Gray replaced Hoover as acting director and was nominated by Nixon to serve as permanent director.  He resigned after admitting that he had destroyed Watergate files to protect Nixon.

In 1987, William Sessions, became director.  He used FBI resources for personal trips and home improvements.  He refused to resign during the 6-month ethics investigation.  Finally, President Clinton has to fire him in 1993.

In 2017, Director James Comey was fired.   

Incompetence

* The FBI made “fundamental” errors in investigating sexual abuse allegations against former USA Gymnastics national team doctor Larry Nassar and did not treat the case with the “utmost seriousness,” the Justice Department's inspector general said Wednesday. More athletes said they were molested before the FBI swung into action.

The long-awaited watchdog report raises troubling questions about how the department and the FBI handled the case and it highlights major missteps at the FBI between the time the allegations were first reported and Nassar’s arrest.

The inspector general’s investigation was spurred by allegations that the FBI failed to promptly address complaints made in 2015 against Nassar. USA Gymnastics had conducted its own internal investigation and then the organization's then-president, Stephen Penny, reported the allegations to the FBI's field office in Indianapolis. But it took months before the bureau opened a formal investigation.

A total of 265 girls and women were ultimately found to have been abused by Nassar.

* The federal government will pay a $127.5 million settlement over the Parkland, Fla. school massacre — after it admitted the FBI didn’t follow up on two tips that could have prevented the massacre.  17 school children were murdered.

* Internally, the department has documented issues with workplace sexual assault and harassment — problems that have also, like the rape cases that come across an FBI agent's desk, been largely ignored. A 2020 investigation conducted by the Associated Press identified at least six sexual misconduct allegations involving senior FBI officials that occurred in the past five years — none of the officials were disciplined. Instead, several were "quietly transferred or retired, keeping their full pensions." Following the report, FBI Director Wray reassured agents that the bureau won't tolerate sexual misconduct in the workplace, "regardless of rank or title."

Conclusion

No one should trust the FBI.  There may be people of integrity in the bureau, but you will never know who they are.  Everyone of them is legally allowed to lie to you about anything.  You will go to prison for lying to them if they don’t successfully intimidate you to confess to something.  They have been a completely politically biased agency for their entire history.  They have been tools of the government and special interests to silence or even destroy you.  They will never suffer negative consequences for their behavior. They effectively operate above and outside the law. 

Sources: 

• Kessler, Ronald.  Hoover's Secret Files

• Garner, Paul.  Yearning to Breathe Free

• https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/06/09/fbi_chief_comey_misled_congresss_gang_of_8_over_russiagate_lisa_page_memo_reveals_836434.html

• https://nypost.com/2022/06/11/the-fbi-knew-russiagate-was-a-lie-but-hid-that-truth/

• https://nypost.com/2018/05/26/carter-page-the-fbi-ruined-my-life/

• https://nypost.com/2020/04/30/fbi-agents-tried-to-get-flynn-to-lie-to-get-him-fired-report/

• https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/07/10582933/larry-nassar-fbi-sexual-assault-claims-ignored-history

Jane's Revenge is a terrorist group, (and I specifically name them as such) who have determined that the overturning of Roe v. Wade is such a threat to America, that the only recourse is to claim “open season” on pro-life groups and crisis pregnancy centers.  Among their threats, they stated, “Your thirty days expired yesterday. We offered an honorable way out. You could have walked away. Now the leash is off. And we will make it as hard as possible for your campaign of oppression to continue.” Warning providers and employees of these organizations, they consider it now “open season” on them. They conclude, “Everyone with the urge to paint, to burn, to cut, to jam: now is the time. Go forth and manifest the things you wish to see.”

They have also stated, "We need the state to feel our full wrath ... We need them to be afraid of us. Whatever form your fury takes, the first step is feeling it. The next step is carrying that anger out into the world and expressing it physically. Consider this your call to action. On the night the final ruling is issued — a specific date we cannot yet predict, but we know is arriving imminently — we are asking for courageous hearts to come out after dark."

I have one more quote that I want to include before I begin my argument. A group named Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights, held a protest outside Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's house. In a tweet on June 19th, they claimed, “We aren’t incubators! Youth procession delivered baby dolls to Amy Coney Barrett. We aren’t protesting to change the minds of women-hating fascists. We’re calling on the pro-choice majority, on YOU, to get in the streets to STOP #SCOTUS from overturning Roe.”

In the past, I've made comments that go somewhat along the lines of, “I don't care if they weep and gnash their teeth. I'm done allowing them control of the conversation and the culture.”

This response should be nothing unique or surprising to us. For too long, satan has had control over the social conversation and direction. When God's people rise up, we should expect backlash. This response from Jane's Revenge and other groups is a stereotypical demonic reaction.

The use of fear, intimidation, violence and igniting the pride of self are tell-tale signs. Let's dissect some of it.

First up, Jane's Revenge claimed they gave “anti-choice” organizations the opportunity to safely shut their doors, and now that the time had passed, those organizations and people involved with them are eligible to be violently acted upon. Such language is meant to intimidate, much like the mob walking into a business and saying, “If you don't pay up, something bad might just happen to you or your family.” The lack of morality in such a threat is indicative of a deeper rooted issue within groups like these.

Your morality shows in how you react to a situation. Those who determine to steal, kill and destroy are working under their father's direction. That father? Satan. And I warn you, even conservatives can work under the steal, kill and destroy objective. Some may argue the founders did such, but their battle was completely defensive, AFTER the British had stolen, killed and destroyed their way through the colonies.

What concerns me most in the reaction of these groups, is how demonic their words themselves are. They don't realize the words or emotions, but if we look carefully, we can see the method behind them.

Notice Jane's Revenge talks to two groups: those they're against, and those they hope to incite against the pro-life movement. For their enemies, the terrorists use intimidating, oppressive language. For their allies, they incite them to violent and wicked action.

First, is the command to build anger and wrath. Anger is a powerful tool to get things done, and in the hands of a wicked man, it can do much. They said, "We need the state to feel our full wrath ... We need them to be afraid of us.” The wrath is the emotion, and whipped up emotional frenzy produces a limitation on judgment and self-control. Without wrath, anger, lust, malice, envy, or even jealousy, a person retains some semblance of control over their judgment and may attempt to hold to some thread of morality. Once such an expressive emotion such as wrath takes place, the next step is easy. “Whatever form your fury takes, the first step is feeling it. The next step is carrying that anger out into the world and expressing it physically.”

In other words, once you feel the wrath, you give into it, you allow it to consume you, then you can begin to act it out upon the world. Karl Marx was filled with wrath, and proclaimed how he wished to walk upon the ruins of this civilization.

At another point, the group urges their allies to “manifest the things which you wish to see.” Such a concept is a clinical definition of witchcraft, sorcery or satanism. To manifest that which you wish to see in a context of violence, destruction and intimidation is presenting the self as the superior being to all others. While Christianity determines that a man should treat his brother as greater than he, the lie of the wicked is “self first.” Christ said, “I did not come to be served, but to serve.” He commented, “the least of you will be the greatest.” Or, “do not lord over each other as the gentiles do.”

Inciting people to do whatever is necessary to get what they want is by definition devoid of character, morals and conviction. “By any means necessary” is a popular refrain from the progressive left, and it truly means that the ends justify the means. We as Christians cannot allow such thinking to pervade our movement, no matter what we wish to see accomplished. As soon as a man compromises his conviction for his cause, he forfeits both. We cannot be righteous and pure and at the same time give up our character to achieve an end, especially when that end is so temporary in the eternal. Each man is tasked with aligning himself with his convictions, and to determine that you can do whatever you wish to get what you want is tantamount to attempting sorcery. Aleister Crowley, founder of thelema, an occult religion, stated, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” Thelema inspired development of such practices as wicca, chaos magick and satanism.

Not only does Jane's Revenge seek to play on the wrath of their “allies” and encourage them to seek their own fulfillment of desire, but the group encourages their allies to move in the night, to do the damage, violence and wickedness under the cover of darkness. Scripture states that On the night the final ruling is issued — a specific date we cannot yet predict, but we know is arriving imminently — we are asking for courageous hearts to come out after dark." 

Isaiah 29:15 says, “Woe to those who deeply hide their plans from the Lord, and whose deeds are done in a dark place, and they say, 'Who sees us?' or 'Who knows us?'”

Why is it so much sin and vice happens in the cover of night? There's so much spiritual significance there that we can take apart another time, but the fact remains: if their deeds were honest, upright, moral and righteous, why act in the darkness?

While Jane's Revenge have made themselves plain, they are not alone. Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights tweeted, “We aren't incubators.” Their intent to is to show that they aren't merely meant to have babies, and such a court ruling would create a new class of “handmaids” (since they're so fond of that imagery.)

We must take a step back to understand the wickedness of such a statement. The argument isn't fought on the ground of whether the woman should be a carrier for the baby. The argument begins at the process of creating the baby. Let's remove the extremely rare exceptions of rape, incest and medical necessity. Let's just work with the voluntary right now. The act of sex is an action. Every action has a consequence. By attempting to remove the consequence of the action, these groups are desiring to remove responsibility. What makes it more grotesque, is that sex creates another being whom we are responsible for. In avoiding consequence and therefore responsibility, the proponents of abortion are instead handing down a death sentence to an innocent being who had no part in the decision-making process. The act of sex was solely the decision of the man and woman. By clamoring for abortion, these people have determined that they can avoid responsibility for their CHOICE, and if they aren't happy about the consequences, they can then thrust a greater consequence on their own child, whom they created. This is satanic in its thinking.

Whereas Christ took upon OUR consequence and paid the penalty, the satanic method is to punish others for your own wrong-doing. We are disgusted (and rightly so) by someone who always avoids responsibility, and won't take ownership of their own choices.

The arguments of these groups is the ultimate portrayal of not taking responsibility. Their consequence-free opportunity is being shut down, and they have begun the weeping and gnashing of teeth. They will scream, throw fits, commit acts of violence and do everything they can to scare people out of their conviction.

This isn't unique to the abortion crowd, but is a thread that runs through all progressive movements. They work from bitterness, wrath, envy, jealousy and rage. I could point out the progressive left's origins in Marx theory, but for now, I'll simply say that the concept of struggle is a main tenant of progressivism. Since Marx saw the whole world from the lens of struggle, movements such as the socialists and communists all work from the position that some people are winning the struggle, while others are losing. They argue from a place of bitterness, that the workers or lower class are losing, and therefore are oppressed. We see it in race politics, gender politics, class politics, and even religious politics. 

The Christian, the conservative, the pro-lifer must stand firm against the fear-mongering, and uphold their convictions. We must not give in to hatred or wrath. We cannot compromise on our truth, yet we must continue to love in ways we see possible. This does not mean we must be doormats, but we must endure and defend ourselves where necessary. 

The problem with wrath is it consumes itself and then it dies. It foments and bubbles up, then eats itself alive. It takes tons of energy to be wrathful, and at the end of it, it implodes on itself like a supernova. The job of a Christian in times such as these is to stay the course and stand in conviction, because the Lord will vindicate and justify. They may destroy our property, but we will rebuild. They may shoot us, but more will take the front line. They may come after us, but if we stand in unity, they will meet an unmovable force. The power of Christ is ultimate authority, and when we stand with that authority, there is nothing the enemy can do.

If we do not stand firm, we will be crushed. Our Founders, every great man, every great people in the world stood firm, strong and tough during events such as what has happened now. Never let the threats of the enemy take you away from faith, hope and conviction in the Lord. Give up hope for yourself, and instead have hope in the Lord. Die to yourself, and know that it is the Lord who wins the victory. We will not win this by backing off or giving in to the violence and weeping and gnashing. We cannot allow fear to dictate, and that's what this all boils down to: the use of fear to tear apart what they don't like. 

I cannot allow it to control me. Neither can you.