Seven score and seventeen years ago, Abraham Lincoln gave one of the greatest speeches in American history.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
About 3 years and… about 7 months ago I and my wife visited Gettysburg, and the pictures here were taken by me, personally.
The battlefield today is a monument. A remembrance of one of the darkest periods of our nation’s history.
And also one of the brightest moments.
It was a dark period, dark because it came to this. Dark because a large part of the nation wanted to continue an evil.
It was a bright moment, bright because our forefathers were willing to go to extreme lengths to right what was wrong. Bright because an even larger part of our nation wanted to end an evil.
Certain angry militant aspects of this nation today want to destroy all remembrance of that dark time, because it also destroys the remembrance of the light.
They tell us that America has never paid for the sin of slavery.
The battle of Gettysburg was halfway through the war. 7000 people died on that field. 33,000 more were wounded. 10,000 more were missing.
2.5% of the national population died, that’s over 8 million by today’s numbers.
Revisionists try and argue that the war wasn’t fought over slavery. That’s flat out wrong. Just reading the actual statements of the politicians and newspapers leading up to the war (which are on the wall at the Gettysburg battlefield museum) shows the truth.
Denying the truth, that the war was primarily fought for the abolition of slavery, is strategic by these revisionists.
After all, if the war wasn’t fought over slavery, then the people didn’t die over slavery. And if the Union soldiers didn’t die to free the slaves, and the confederates didn’t die trying to keep the slaves, then the atonement for that national sin was never paid.
If that price was never paid, then restitution is still owed.
But that atonement WAS made.
620,000+ people paid the price with their lives. 40%+, never identified. Unknown bodies in a battlefield. Attesting to that sin, and to its price. A receipt stamped PAID. Paid in blood.
Vice President of the CSA, Alexander H. Stephens, said the following: ”Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”
Charleston Mercury (newspaper) March 26, 1861: “for years, the Southern peoples have … endured the unceasing assaults of Northern interests, Northern ambition, and Northern fanaticism placed in direct antagonism to their just rights and vital institutions.”
March 27: “Anti-slavery has been taken in with their mothers’ milk, grown with their growth and strengthened with their strength, until so thoroughly assimilated into their constitutions as to become a part of their political principles, their ethics, and their religious faith.”
April 5: “If we have but the wisdom to keep our Confederation one of pro-slave republics exclusively, and not to mix it of states having different domestic institutions and antagonistic views. No more of ‘the irrepressible conflict,’ and hands off with the North, is clearly our policy.” (That doesn’t look like state’s rights to anyone)
Excerpts and summaries from the various Declarations of secession:
Georgia first two sentences: The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
In total it mentions “slave” or slavery 35 times
Texas, after a very lengthy and bloviated introductory statement listing their history, in which they mention slave or slavery thrice: (seriously, this thing reads like a freshman in college trying to meet the required number of words) The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.
In total it mentioned slave 23 times.
Mississippi, first 2 sentences: In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.
In total they mention slave 7 times. (Their document is 1/3rd as long as Texas’, so it’s mentioned proportionally the same)
South Carolina. They go on a 7000 word recap of the Declaration of Independence, the revolution, the articles of confederation, and the constitution before finally getting to the point: “The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.”
In the remaining 6000 words they mention “slave” 18 times
Virginia was brief, the only grievance mentioned specifically was “to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.”
Arkansas was brief, did not list any specific grievance except the election of Lincoln.
Alabama was also brief, citing 2 issues, the election of Lincoln and solidarity with “slaveholding states” and “in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government”
North Carolina, Louisiana, Florida and Tennessee were brief, and made no mention of any reason, just declared independence.
Furthermore, the Constitution of the confederacy in Article 1, Section 9.4 specifically outlaws any law that that would impair the right to own slaves. Article 4 section 1.3 bans the freeing of slaves. Article 4 section 3.3 requires all new territories be slave-holding territories.
So for all their talk about “states rights” they specifically ELIMINATED the right of states to be non-slave states.
The confederacy often referred to the union “attacking” South Carolina, but the war began on April, 1861, when Confederate General Pierre P.T. Beauregard, under orders from CSA President Jefferson Davis began opening fire on the Union fortification, Fort Sumter. A circular bombardment from several positions surrounding the fort. After the opening volleys, fire was, naturally, returned. The Union abandoned the fort.
Some counter the argument by incompletely quoting Lincoln himself. An oft quoted statement by Lincoln only quotes the opening line: “if I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would to it” and ends there. But his actual statement closed with (emphasis mine) “I intend no modification of my OFT-EXPRESSED personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”
Abraham Lincoln, writing to Alexander H. Stephens, Dec 22, 1860: “You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.”
Another counter argument is that the emancipation proclamation did not apply to the slave holding states in the north, of where there were a small handful. The reality is, Lincoln was a politician, he needed to defeat the enemy in front of him first, and keep his allies. Without defeating the confederacy, he could not free anyone. And without maintaining the loyalty of these “border states”, he risked losing the entire nation into chaos. So yes, a BRIEF compromise was struck with these border states that allowed them to work out their own issues, and before the end of the war, all but 2 of these border states had ended slavery all on their own. BY Passing their own laws, it prevented rebellion against the Union. DC also had slavery ended by it’s own law during the war.
By the time the 13th amendment was ratified, there were 40,000 known slaves in the “border states”. That may sound like a lot, but by comparison, the south had 4 Million. New Jersey had 16. Not 16 thousand, sixteen individuals.
This is not to say, of course, that every single confederate soldier was personally fighting for slavery. This war, like all wars, was about what the leaders of the nations at war decided, and while slavery was the pre-eminent reason for the war, it’s not unreasonable to assume that some of the boots on the ground were simply “defending their home.” But just like National Socialist Germany, the troops, regardless of their personal reasons, were still ultimately fighting to defend evil.
In their never-ceasing efforts to “fundamentally transform America,” Democrats have employed various means to achieve their goals.
In the recent past, when Liberalism still proudly existed among Democrats, ideas were passed through the legislative process as an outcome of the dutifully elected in our Constitutional Republic.
When these ideas turned to take on a more dogmatic form, absent of statistical and factual basis, they readily employed “judicial activism” in an attempt to legislate from the bench the ideas the values they could not pass in the chambers.
Judicial activism has not gone away and it wont any time soon but with hundreds of conservative (read: Originalist-style) federal Judges put in place by the Trump Administration, they’ll find themselves losing more battles than they win.
Where We Are Now
In steps the District Attorney. Whether it is the County or State Government position, the majority of public prosecutors are elected by the general public through a simple majority vote. Only four states appoint their prosecutors.
As they did with Judges, Leftists have activated their ideologically-friendly DA’s to usurp the authority of lawmakers by failing to laws the people (through the legislature) have enacted or by over-indulging and exaggerating the elements of laws to meet their political end.
You’ve seen that a multitude of times in the City of Portland, their so-called “top cop” simply refusing to prosecute crimes and thereby promoting Leftist violence. DA Schmidts policies are directly responsible for the death of Aaron Danielson by an Antifa extremist in August.
While we focus on Portland, an image of Kamala Harris’ America – fast forwarded into the future, similar issues exist elsewhere. Consider San Francisco where burglaries go unpunished and have become so frequent they’re almost ignored. Un-ironically, Inside Edition filmed a burglary in broad daylight while filming a segment on burglaries.
Of course, you’re probably already aware of the other type of activist DA that openly targeted law enforcement in a sort of twisted version or revenger against past perceived injustices. Thankfully, in the case of Baltimore’s Mosby, police fought back.
DAs like this that fail to do their job – or openly attack police and politicize their work for their own personal gain – don’t only embolden criminals, they endanger police and the public, they encourage vigilanteism, and the discourage good proactive police investigations. After-all, why spend hours trying if its all for not?
The Heritage Foundation’s Charles Stimson and Zack Smith are covering the issue of “rogue” DA’s in a recent article. They wrote,
By refusing to hold criminals to account, Krasner and his ilk abuse the power of their offices and harm victims and their communities as a result…A straight line can often be drawn from their anti-cop attitudes and their radically dangerous policies to increases in violent crime. And in Krasner’s case, even to the death of a Philadelphia police officer.
While I echo the sentiments regard the dangers of their conduct, we on the Right need to actively engage in countering this assault on our communities. Further, we need to empower the communities themselves (especially the victims of this activism) to force DAs to be responsible for the resulting byproduct of their failures.
While it is easy to point to the ballot box and wait for election day, it is not always easy to delineate the office and person from the product. Afterall, isn’t it a prosecutors job to prosecute?
A Call to Action
“The prosecutor exercises the greatest discretion and power in the system. It is so important,” said Andrea Dew Steele, president of Emerge America, a candidate-training organization for Democratic women. “There’s been a confluence of events in the past couple years and all of the sudden, the progressive community is waking up to this.”
Masked in the undercurrent of verbose language, PAC money promising to promote “social justice”, “criminal justice reform”, and “racial justice equality” against so-called “systemic” issues, powerfully funded ideological groups have thrown millions of dollars at local prosecutor races.
While it’s somewhat obnoxious to pull out the names of dark nefarious sounding figures such as George Soros, the billionaire is in fact lurking in the background of many of these super PACs and social-justice based non-profits that supposedly promote racial justice.
From Philadelphia to San Francisco, everywhere Soros’ has gone, chaos has followed. This isn’t conspiracy theory material, it is the truth. Now his eye is set on the grandest prize, Los Angeles.
Lace Up Your Boots
America’s most populous County, Los Angeles boasts the largest District Attorney’s Office in the USA.
Already a liberal bastion, Los Angeles’ current DA, Jackie Lacey (D) has been a valiant stalwart against the hyper-partisan Progressive onslaught against police.
Despite being a black female Democrat, Soros’ money groups have targeted Lacey as “not progressive enough.” So Soros has pulled out his big gun and ushered George Gascon to the call.
Quite literally. Like a game of Dominoes, Soros called Gascon to quit the San Francisco DA position. Already warmed up for a new radical to take power, Soros’ orders set-up Gascon to challenge Jackie Lacey in Los Angeles. And with a flick of his wallet, Soros’ plan fell in order.
The Architect of Proposition 47 & 57, two landmark laws that flipped California’s crime upside down, Gascon is a former LAPD officer and more importantly, former San Francisco DA.
Together Prop 47/57 promised to better fund education and decrease jail over-crowding but instead they have created chaos on the streets. Re-writing certain crimes and punishment for said crimes, the same person could steal $949 worth of product from the same store 3 days in a row and only receive a ticket (order to appear in court) for his misdemeanor. In other areas, some crimes have been re-defined to be listed official as “non-violent” including date rape. Yes, rape, hostage taking, human trafficking and more!
Lacey is currently struggling to keep up with funding for the race. Where Lacey is backed by countless of Law Enforcement Associations around the state (given the gravity of her office), Gascon is funded by Soros himself, then other billionaires like Reed Hastings (money champion for Critical Race Theory heroes), Patty Quillin and many Hollywood elites.
If you don’t think Soros’ DAs are extreme enough, consider who is currently sitting in office in San Francisco. Chesa Boudin.
Boudin served as a translator for Venezuelan Socialist-Dictator, Hugo Chavez. His parents were Weather Underground terrorists arrested for murder, later adopted by other members including Bill Ayers, and grandfather was a Marxist who was Fidel Castro’s attorney… Red flags? Yeah a few.
The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Officer race between Lacey and Gascon is the most important race you have never heard of among the most importance races you’ve never heard.
While I cannot vouch for all of the policies touted by Democrats, this one of of the rare few times I am going to implore you to vote Democrat – a sane Democrat – in Jackie Lacey. Sadly, this message particular part of the message is strictly for Los Angelenos. If you know any, please share this article to them or at least warn them of the danger that lurks with Gascon at the helm.
On October 22nd, 2020, prominent Christian pastor, John Piper wrote an article titled “Policies, persons and paths to ruin. Pondering the implications of the 2020 election.” (Link below)
He’s wrong. His article is at best, naive, and at worst, a manipulative intentional lie.
If you want a response from someone who knows him personally, check the article also linked at the bottom of this, by Michael Brown, I don’t completely agree with his assessment, mainly related to the fact that I disagree with Piper on more points than Brown does, but Brown does a great assessment. (Note: Brown was against Trump in 2016, but has since changed his views, I felt Trump was the worst out of the Republicans in 2016, and only the viable vote due to being not as bad at Hillary.)
As for my personal view of Piper; I’ve never given him much thought. Aside from a few short quotes I’ve seen shared, I’ve never heard anything he says. His non-essential doctrine is apparently different from the doctrine of the teachers I listen to, and as such, his messages don’t get much play in my circles. I’d previously respected that he was a well considered teacher and had never heard anything condemning or heretical about his teaching previously. Basically, I had no real opinion of him positive or negative prior to this.
As for why Piper is wrong, here we go.
I’m not going to quote every word of his article, only the parts I am specifically responding to, if you feel that I am missing any context from the article, it’s linked below, feel free to add that context.
Near the beginning of the article, Piper states: “Nothing I say here is intended to dictate how anyone else should vote, but rather to point to a perspective that seems to be neglected. Yes, this perspective sways my vote.”
This is the first lie.
This man is one of the most prominent, respected and listened to teachers in American Christendom. By holding such a position, every statement he makes is intended to tell others how they should behave, act, believe and much more. If he doesn’t realize that his words will influence a great number of people, then he is not prepared to be a public speaker and is quite ignorant of reality. This is literally the reason people get so annoyed and/or excited by “celebrity opinions.” People with a megaphone have great influence over people who do not have one, and they KNOW it. I do not believe he is ignorant of this fact, I believe he is being intentionally manipulative by trying to pretend like he’s just one man with an opinion.
If you are a prominent individual with a megaphone, and genuinely don’t want to dictate what people should do, you remain silent. If you feel that others can say things better than you can, or have more knowledge, you can point them in their direction, you can even point people to two opposing positions and say something like “here are two good speakers on both sides of the issue, I’ll let you decide between them yourself.”
On to the next point.
Piper states: “Actually, this is a long-overdue article attempting to explain why I remain baffled that so many Christians consider the sins of unrepentant sexual immorality (porneia), unrepentant boastfulness (alazoneia), unrepentant vulgarity (aischrologia), unrepentant factiousness (dichostasiai), and the like, to be only toxic for our nation, while policies that endorse baby-killing, sex-switching, freedom-limiting, and socialistic overreach are viewed as deadly.”
This is the second major bit of dishonesty, it also happens to be the next section of his article, and the first major “point” he attempts to make. There are actually several issues within this section to unpack. This is the first time he uses a word indicating confusion, in this case he claims to be “baffled”, more on that later.
1st; the most simple unpacking is that he sets up a straw-man view of Trump. (note: nowhere in the article does he mention Trump by name, and he only says “president” in any variation once, in the opening statement, referring to “presidential election.”) You may not be familiar with the term “straw-man” as it relates to arguments and rhetoric, but you have definitely experienced it if you are on the interwebs, or just a human who has ever interacted with another human for more than 5 minutes. It’s the practice of misrepresenting the views, actions or positions of your opponent in order to easily tear them down. So instead of attacking the very valid point that was made, you end up attacking this shadow, fake version of the point that you made up in your own mind, a man made of straw.
For example, Person A: “I think the NBA is entertaining, but I just love the pure passion of the NCAA tournament, it’s just amazing!”
Person B: “Why do you hate the NBA? They’re literally the best basketball players in the world!”
in that example, person A never said what person B claimed, refuting what person A said requires a lot more thought, time and effort than just pretending he said what person B said he said, and so person B goes with the lazy choice. We’ve all done it, we’ve all had it done to us. The only one of these 4 charges against Trump that could stick is the one about boastfulness, which is probably why Piper never really expands on the other 3, and why he uses the SAT word to describe the 4th one. Piper lacks sufficient personal knowledge of Trump to know of his state of repentance or not on the issues. Regarding the accusation of dichostasiai specifically, Trump isn’t the one saying that he won’t meet with people who disagree with him. That is coming from the left. Need I remind everyone about the way the rapper “Ice Cube” or comedian Steve Harvey were treated for reaching across the aisle?
2nd; he not only set up the straw-man of what Trump is, he simultaneously set up a second straw-man of what the Christians that support him think. In the 4 years since Trump won the presidency, I have never heard any Christian make the argument he set forth here.
3rd; an additional point about the sin he calls factiousness, the most common usage of that in biblical teaching is regarding not causing division within the church, which is precisely what Piper himself is engaging in here with his dissenting opinion.
in the next paragraph, Piper says: “The reason I put those Greek words in parentheses is to give a graphic reminder that these are sins mentioned in the New Testament. To be more specific, they are sins that destroy people. They are not just deadly. They are deadly forever. They lead to eternal destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:9)”
To this statement, I posit that Piper is lying by omission. He says here that he put the Greek words for the sinful actions of his straw-man to remind us that these are sins in the New Testament. Ok, fine, but why not put the Greek words for the sins of the left? Again, for someone so knowledgeable about scripture, I find this omission to be blatant and obvious. Note also, he chose to word the sins he attributes to Trump, in common sin language, while the sins of the left, except for abortion, are using language that doesn’t make it easy to cross-check his writing and seemingly soft-balls their severity. You have to know the Bible quite well to recognize these terms by the sins they are more commonly known as, another bit of manipulative writing. The further evidence of this intent to manipulate is that he has no prior history of being soft on these sins, he does not have a liberal theology, but appears to soften his language specifically to make this one point.
Going back to the list of “sins” of the left that he lists, this time I will place the common English term for the sin along with the Greek or Hebrew words if applicable, labeled as either G for Greek or H for Hebrew along with a number for how many times each word appears in scripture, if the sin is described by a whole sentence, instead of a single word, then the scripture references are given. In some cases I’m referencing the same words and passages as Piper, because that’s how egregious his omission was.
English sin: Murder
G: phoneuo 12
H: ratsach 47
English sin: sexual immorality
G: porneia 26
Verses describe this sin: Gen 5:2, Mat 19:4-6, Deu 22:5, Rom 1:18-32, 1 Cor 6:9-11
English sin: Bondage, slavery, captivity
G: douleia 5, and variants of this word, and 16 other Greek words for this term.
H: Kabash 15, Abad, Abadan, Abduth, Qasheh, Gaal, Michyah, Zaaq, Ebed, Akish, and 10 more Hebrew words for this term.
socialistic overreach (these are just the most obvious sins of socialism, an astute observer will notice these are 5 of the 10 commandments, at minimum)
English sin: Covetousness
G: epithymeo 16
H: chamad 21
Idolatry/Idol; having other gods than God.
G: eidololatria 4
H: cemel 5
G: phoneuo 12
H: ratsach 47
G: klepto 13
H: ganab 39
G: pseudos 9, pseudomartyreo 6
H: sheqer 113, kazab 16
So again, I would ask, why did you not list these? And are you REALLY baffled as to why Christians view these sins as worse than the perceived sins of Trump? Really?
Additionally, all this presumes that the left is not ALSO guilty of the first set of sins that he determines Trump to be guilty of. I would argue they’re guilty of BOTH sets. Sexual immorality? One of the main bases of the left is that. Vulgarity? Are we really claiming the left isn’t vulgar? Really? Pride? They literally have a month dedicated to pride. Factiousness? Aka, causing division, covered that above.
Next he says: “They destroy persons (Acts 12:20–23). And through persons, they destroy nations (Jeremiah 48:29–31, 42).”
So I read acts 12:20-23. Wow. This is why, when a “pastor” cites a bible verse they say is related to the thing they’re saying, you should be like the Bereans and see if the things that he is saying is true. The passage he cites here is the death of Herod. Herod didn’t just die because he was proud, he died because he was worshipped as a god. Last I checked, Trump absolutely does not get worshipped as a god by his Christian followers, and he himself points to Christ. In recent rally, he said someone told him he was the most famous person in the world. Herod would have accepted that praise. Trump said “no I’m not.” when pressed for who is more famous, he said “Jesus Christ”. After a deafening cheer, he added “and it’s not even close.”
Does that sound even remotely like the cited passage of the Bible which states the crowd shouted: “The voice of a god, and not of a man!”? Does it?
But then he goes and cites Jeremiah 48, but only a couple of verses. Again, why? This is the prophesy of the fall of Moab, the whole chapter, a large chapter, 47 verses, is about the various sins of Moab. But even verse 42, the last verse Piper cites, talks about Moab exalting itself against God, much the same as the Herod verse. Again, how can this be what is happening when we’re specifically campaigning FOR the freedom to tell people about God, while the other side is removing God from their oaths, their placard, their websites, and everything else that they can scrub? It’s like he’s just throwing bible verses onto his statement and hoping you don’t read them, or don’t read them in context. A great bible teacher I listen to a lot, Don Stewart (his site linked below) says something like “when you take the TEXT out of the conTEXT, all you’re left with is a CON.”
Furthermore, the premise that the sins of a leader, translates to the sins of the people is precisely backwards from biblical context. Throughout the Bible, the sins of the people gather up in great number until they become “normalized” and then they end up with leaders like the people. For reference, the entirety of Jeremiah 48, the book of Judges, and for a direct reference to this, 1 Sam 8. This chapter is literally God warning people through Samuel about what kind of leader they will have, because they didn’t want Israel to be different, they wanted to be like the nations around them. Sound familiar?
Next Piper quote: “My point so far is simply to raise the stakes of what is outwardly modeled in leadership, so that Christians are given pause.”
Not going to spend much time here, just want to highlight this because it directly contradicts his earlier statement about not wanting to tell people what to do. Here he states that he DOES want you to “give pause”.
Next Piper quote: “The last five years bear vivid witness to this infection at almost every level of society.”
Trump has only been president for 3.75 years. Yes it was 5 year ago when he came down the escalator and announced his candidacy, but he wasn’t taken seriously by anyone for at least 6 months after that. The fact is, the moral decay in our nation has been ongoing for a LOT longer than the last few years of Trump’s presidency, it has accelerated multiple times, during the 60’s, the 90’s and the period from 2008-2016.
Next: “There is a character connection between rulers and subjects. When the Bible describes a king by saying, “He sinned and made Israel to sin” (1 Kings 14:16), it does not mean he twisted their arm. It means his influence shaped the people. That’s the calling of a leader. Take the lead in giving shape to the character of your people.”
First of all, under the constitution, we are not subjects, and politicians are not rulers. Every time I see someone speak like this, I know they’re ignorant of the American political structure. The elected officials of the United States of America are servants of the people. WE THE PEOPLE are the rulers of this nation.
Now that that is out of the way. Piper AGAIN twists scriptural context to fit his point. For the full context you need to read starting in 1 Kings 12 through chapter 14. This is talking about the split between the 2 southern tribes of Israel and the 10 northern tribes, and the first king of the northern tribes, Jeroboam.
Jeroboam did more than “influence” and “shape” the people. As a King in a total monarchy, he had direct control over every aspect of their lives. “He sinned and made Israel to sin”, great quote, what was the sin? After all, David sinned with Bathsheba, but that didn’t make Israel to sin, Solomon sinned many times, but that didn’t make Israel to sin. What did Jeroboam do that was so bad, that God smote him? He forced people to worship false idols. The exact same sin as Herod, the exact same sin as Moab, the exact same sin as socialism, the exact same sin of the left.
Again, I ask, who wants you to have religious liberty? Who wants to force you to only worship in state-approved ways?
Next Piper quote: “Therefore, Christians communicate a falsehood to unbelievers (who are also baffled!) when we act as if policies and laws that protect life and freedom are more precious than being a certain kind of person.”
More admission of confusion, again, more on that near the end.
Honestly, this just makes no sense. We want to save lives and bring freedom, and this somehow makes us bad people? “Being a certain kind of person” means what exactly? If you are accusing me of fighting for life, and liberty. Guilty as charged.
You shall not murder. Exodus 20:13
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.”
It also sounds a bit like he is advocating a term called “work’s righteousness” which is a commonly held unbiblical teaching.
Next quote: “The justifications for ranking the destructive effects of persons below the destructive effects of policies ring hollow.”
It was the policies of Herod, Moab’s kings and Jeroboam that lead to the destruction of their people. Policies kill people. Why don’t you check on the state of the church in the USSR? Yeah, it was a great tragedy how many people died, but even greater was how many died without Christ because of the enforced policy against Christianity. Listen to Jack Hibbs talk about preaching in Moscow after the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. About how an old woman grabbed him and wept openly on his chest because they were forbidden from sharing the gospel since she was a little girl. Read the stories of Brother Andrew smuggling Bibles into the Soviet Union (see reference below), and then come back here and try to tell me that policy doesn’t matter.
Policies have allowed YouTube to ban videos, including, briefly, one of John piper’s own videos. (Iink below)
What happens when policy says that it’s illegal to declare that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life? If you think that’s crazy, that could easily be construed as “hate speech” to anyone who is not a Christian.
I’m skipping a few paragraphs here cause I’m saving that response for the end.
Next Piper says: “Where does the wickedness of defending child-killing come from? It comes from hearts of self-absorbed arrogance and boasting (James 4:1–2). It comes from hearts that are insubordinate to God.”
Very odd choice of Bible reference, again. He’s talking about abortion, this passage is mostly talking about wars and fights and the murder that arises from those wars and fights. A much better reference would be 2 Tim 3:1-9. I can only surmise why he didn’t choose this passage as reference, but my guess is because 2 Tim 3 lays out the policies and activities of the left perfectly, while James 4, in this context, leaves things ambiguous as to the reasoning.
He chooses to highlight the next quote in larger text: “It is baffling to assume that pro-abortion policies kill more people than a culture-saturating, pro-self pride.”
62,000,000 is a pretty high score to try and beat. That’s how many abortions since Roe v Wade. 98 worldwide while I was typing this paragraph.
Next he says: “Imagine that religious freedom is gone. What remains for Christians is fines, prison, exile, and martyrdom.”
Yes, imagine this. Or better yet, go where it has happened, and ask, did one man’s sin cause this, or did a national policy lead to this? Was freedom of worship allowed in late 30’s Germany? Cuba? The USSR, North Korea, China, Iran, and many others?
He then goes on to basically insinuate that anyone who disagrees with him isn’t a real Christian. But remember, “Nothing I say here is intended to dictate how anyone else should vote,” but apparently you’re not really a Christian if you disagree.
Which leads to my final point.
6 times in this article he said he was confused in some way, either baffled, baffling, or bewildered. He sums it up in the following section:
“I find it bewildering that Christians can be so sure that greater damage will be done by bad judges, bad laws, and bad policies than is being done by the culture-infecting spread of the gangrene of sinful self-exaltation, and boasting, and strife-stirring (eristikos).
How do they know this? Seriously! Where do they get the sure knowledge that judges, laws, and policies are less destructive than boastful factiousness in high places?”
Putting aside the straw-man, that was covered earlier. “Where do they get the sure knowledge”, “I find it bewildering that Christians can be so sure”.
It reminds me of when Nicodemus came to Jesus, and Jesus asked “are you the teacher of Israel and do not know these things?”
Additionally: “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”
I Corinthians 14:33
This all boils down to one simple fact. If you’re confused on this matter, then you’re not hearing from God. You’re hearing from yourself, or from the other team.
Piper speaks a lot about pride, he even stepped down several years ago to deal with pride in his life (link below). It appears from his willful twisting of scripture to try and prove his own stance, that he is being prideful yet again.
He also goes to great lengths to make it clear that, if he doesn’t understand the issue, it must be an issue that nobody can be sure of. Either that, or he is using the term “baffle” and similar terms to manipulate the reader. After all, he’s the great and wise John Piper, and if it baffles him, how on Earth could a simple lay-person like yourself even come close to the knowledge?
But then he has the temerity to ask where we get our assurance of being correct, really? If a non-believer was asking this question, I would understand, they know nothing of the Holy Spirit. Either he’s not hearing from God and speaking in ignorance, or he’s being intentionally deceitful. The latter would be far worse than the former. I’ll finish this under the presumption it’s the former.
I’ve long taught a message to various groups about the importance of “staying in your lane.” Quite frankly, John Piper got out of his lane. As a result of that lane deviation, he has crashed into the sins of tearing the scripture completely out of context and then eventually questioning the salvation of fellow believers who disagree with his point of view.
I teach the Bible, and I listen to bible teachers, and each of them has a great gift that they are excellent in, and some areas where they lack. My favorite teacher, Jack Hibbs, for example, is excellent at being able to see the winds of politics as they relate to the scripture. However, by his own admission, he is not a great evangelist, as he often says, people come to the Lord during his preaching despite his teaching, not because of it. Similarly, his good friend, Greg Laurie, could read the genealogy in numbers and get a stadium full of people weeping and ready to repent of their sins and come to Christ, but is lacking when it comes to politics. Greg stays in his lane, and Jack stays in his. When Jack needs to evangelize, he doesn’t try to come up with his own technique, or work on his own reasoning, he talks to Greg and gets advise from the man who is a leader in that lane. Likewise, when Greg needs to talk politics, he calls up Jack. Each man is staying in their lane, using the gifting that God has called them to have, and following the lead of the others when they need to speak outside their gifting.
This is what we ALL must do. If you are confused, baffled, bewildered by the assuredness with which others are speaking on an issue, don’t speak, listen. Let those who are receiving clear direction from the Holy Spirit speak on the matter, and stay silent, and like I said near the beginning of this, point others to them. This goes beyond politics, this goes to every aspect of spiritual gifting and life.
I am a pilot, my wife is a nurse. If I break my leg, I’m not going to ask her why she is doing whatever it is she is doing, I’m going to scream out in pain and let her work. Likewise, if I break my plane, and need to make an emergency landing, she’s not going to question why I’m pulling the levers i’m pulling or pushing the buttons I’m pushing, she’s going to pray for a safe landing and let me do my thing. My pride, if I try and stop her from doing whatever it is she would do to my leg to stabilize it immediately, would lead me to a leg that never is right again, her pride could lead to a crash, if she tries to interfere with my operating emergency procedures.
God is not the author of confusion, stop reading the enemy’s book.
Yes, there a plenty of Red-Pilled Californians still left in this beautiful (but politically terrible) state. For those who are unsure and those who need rein for cement, here is a quick Voting Guide for Classic-Liberal / Libertarian / Conservative or Fed-Up Liberal voters. Leftists need not apply…
With less than 2 Weeks to go in the election season, in spite of early voting and mass mail-in ballots, the majority of votes will take place next week.
US STATE REPRESENTATIVES
California holds 53 Congressional House Seats. Given that large number, I will not go into each District and provide a detailed account on who to vote for – instead I recommend you consider the Party platform and how it applies to you.
Of the 53 CA-Representatives in Congress, only 7 are Republicans. California has a significant amount of Red counties despite its heavily Blue lean. Currently, there are 232 Democrat US Reps in the house versus 197 Republican Reps (total of 435). Picking up a few in California will go a long way to winning the House.
US Senators seats are not up for election in California. If Biden-Harris take the White House, Senator Kamala Harris’ seat will be filled in by the Governor.
CA STATE SENATE & ASSEMBLY
20 of the 40 CA State Senate seats are up for re-election. California’s legislative chambers are a Democrat Super-Majority that allows Democrat legislators to impose new laws at will. This is extremely unhealthy. My instructions are similar to the instructions above – Vote Red. Return some sense of debate and bi-partisanship to the CA Legislature. https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Senate_elections,_2020
California has a love-hate relationship with Propositions. In many ways, Propositions are simply ways politicians cast off items they fear making decisions on. In other ways, it is a way for Californians to have their voices heard in a State that has an unhealthy bias in the legislature (and everywhere else).
There are 12 Propositions on the 2020 Ballot ( https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_propositions ) Propositions typically mean more laws but occasionally they also mean throwing off excessive laws. If your tendency is to vote no, that is fine but pay attention two a few certain votes in particular. Here is my Voting Recommendation:
•PROP 16: Repeal Prop 209 Which prohibits the state from discriminating on the basis of sex, origin, ethnicity, etc. (NO). This bill is asking for a license to use sex, orientation, color, origin, ethnicity, as a reasoning for hiring & educating. In other-words, CA will no longer be an “equal opportunity employer.” Your mere skin color could be the deciding factor on if you get into Stanford Law in the name of “woke” social justice. This is the opposite of MLK’s Dream. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)
Trump / Pence – The chances that CA turns red are little to none, making it just a little more unlikely than it was for Trump to beat Clinton in 2016. As frustrating as the man can be, I vote for policies not personality.
I refuse to stand beside a part, platform, and candidate that seeks to murder babies up until the moment of birth – at the whims of a “mother’s” desire. I will not stand beside a party that promotes socialism, critical race theory, restricts religious freedoms, restricts freedom of speech, restricts gun rights, dismisses the Constitution.
Trump is an imperfect vessel but so am I. My vote for him doesn’t approve of his past infidelity or his future wrongs. It instead is a vote for the policies that stand for American principals and those that do not force a conflict with my Jude-Christian value (whereas the Left forces Christians to give up key beliefs in their faith or otherwise play a game of cognitive dissonance).
In 2016, I voted for Evan McMullin in protest of what I saw as a moderate-Democrat running as a Republican. For someone who considers themself a “Constitutional Conservative Independent” as I do – though I am registered Republican for sake of primaries – I have been so happy to be extremely wrong about the candidate I saw as the 16th of 16 Republican candidates to take on HRC. My candidate then (Ted Cruz) would have been steamrolled with today’s Left but even he now has learned to dish away the former overly polite character to one with a set of gonads to stand up to the Left.
My vote for Trump/Pence is a vote to Keep America from losing itself.
Of late, Democrats have had an incredible Ability to distort the meaning and understanding of what Rights are.
From a philosophical standpoint to a legal disposition, Democrats have notoriously abused the idea of ”Rights” for political gain.
Consider the often quoted Bernie Sander quip of ”Healthcare is a fundamental human right.” The quip is a multifaceted distortion in that his meaning of ”Healthcare” is more correctly labeled – ”government funded health insurance.”
While you may have a right to care for yourself and your health, you do not posses a Right to health insurance. You do not have a right to someone’s skills as a clinician producing goods and services but you are more than welcome to purchase these things with risks and factors weighed.
Unlike Conservatives, Democrats believe Rights are both evolutionarily progressive and granted.
Whereas a Conservative understands that Rights are God-given (or from Nature / Natural) and must be guaranteed (read – protected) by Government; Democrats dictate that Right are given to the people by Government – making them items that can be added (as government expands) and stripped away (as government desires). This effectively makes government “God-like” for the Left. In the same vain, this deification of Government is why the Left pushes so hard to force their own version of Morality upon the populace
This understanding of differences helps us understand the above extended dialogue between Senator Rubin and Amy Barrett.
Lets start by ignoring Rubin’s preface.
Sorry, lets not ignore it. Rubin, in so may words, called Barrett an ignorant pawn of Trump’s devices. He was underhanded and rude and even made a pitched attack at the President by stating Barrett’s appointment was an, “Orange cloud” over the proceedings.
These quips dictate Rubin’s arrogant attitude moving forward and thankfully leads him into an overconfident exchange with Barrett that exposed himself as completely “in over his head.”
As Senator Rubin dictated Barrett’s owns words to her, take notice of how he willfully misconstrued Barrett’s argument as a preference of Rights rather than a distinction of Rights.
Rubin intentionally mis-frames Barrett’s ruling in an effort to suggest she has a bias in favor of certain Rights we consider to be sacred in the US. The Right to Bear Arms and the Right to Vote.
Rubin doesn’t just pull this ruling out if a random hat. The anecdote was a strategic move to suggest Trump’s nominee was as “anti-Democratic” as he is, suggesting Trump and his hopeful associate Supreme Court Justice would be willing to suppress, dismiss, and toss out certain Rights while favoring others. Media understood the headline pitch made by Rubin and was quick to pick up, suggesting Barrett wanted Felons to have guns but not vote.
Much in the same way the media has falsely framed the GOPs apprehension about mass mail-in voting, Rubin’s framing of this ruling (juxtaposed to Barrett’s understanding of Voting Rights) was malicious and inaccurate. Most importantly, it was based in ignorance.
As the exchange continued, Barrett responded by educating Senator Rubin with tactful wisdom.
Barrett cleverly cuts through the political theater and completely nailed the gaping fallacy (a de facto Straw-Man) in Rubin’s argument.
Barrett clarifies her understanding of the most important aspect of the case – the precedent – not the bias Rubin openly displayed in his description of the plaintiff.
Barrett isolated the issue of Gun Rights as those classified under “Individual Rights” and Voting as classified under “Civic Duty Rights.”
In her clarifying response, Barrett dictated the importance of both Rights but notes how there is Constitutional (State and Federal) precedent for limitations on Civic Duty Rights like Voting but there are no equal precedents for limitations on Individual Rights.
In the case being heard, Barrett ruled that the plaintiff should have the ability to practice his 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms in spite of his Felony record – ruling in his favor specifically because his Felony (Fraud crimes) was not violent in nature and the plaintiff had already served his sentence.
Rubin repeatedly returned Barrett’s response, alleging that she effectively declared the Right of Vote as lesser or secondary Right compared to the Right to Bear Arms. In response, Barrett stuck to her guns (pun intended) and repeatedly educated Rubin on the focus of the case surrounding precedent and the conflict of opinions between Individual and Civic Rights.
If Barrett would have allowed herself to follow Rubin down a rabbit hole regarding the priorities of Rights, Democrats and media (sorry I know that is redundant) would have had a field day. But I am not Amy Barrett and I have no issue prioritizing these Rights.
The Right to Vote is neither Natural nor fundamental. This is not to say it isn’t important, rather, it’s not critical to the Liberties of an individual to live and prosper peacefully. What do I mean? Well, consider this thought exercise – What 5 Rights would you value most if the government was say, an Authoritarian-Monarchy? For me: Religion, Speech, Privacy, Property and Arms. With these, I would have Liberty in spite of the Authoritarianism and in return, the ability to beat back the Authoritarians in due times
Try living and prospering peacefully with the Right to Vote, Right to Health Care, Right to Housing, Right to Healthy Food, and the Right to Protest. All of these were Rights in the USSR (to some degree) and that didn’t turn out to well.
The Right to Vote is absolutely essential and critical to our Western
Republican-Democratic system and ideology. That given, the Right to Vote, still, is secondary to the Rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights which are intentionally inline with true basic Fundamental Human Rights. The Right to Vote is dependent on the type and authority of Government. For us, it is an engrained necessity but doesn’t make it Universal nor fundamental.
Be wary of those who run campaigns and declare their promises to be “Fundamental Human Rights.” If you lack them now and still live in freedom and prosperity, it’s was never fundamental but rather a luxury disguised and pitched as a need.
As the title suggests, this is the ultimate top 10 movie list of all time. It is scientifically proven that this list is objective truth, similar to the scientific proof that a boy can be a girl and a girl be a boy. A lot of careful thought and mathematical calculations were put into the creation of this list.
*Be advised that the thoughts and opinions presented on this movie list is that of the writer alone and does not represent the opinions of PROOF Blog as a whole. *
10. Inception (2010)
Christopher Nolan. Does anything else need to be said? Nolan has a habit of creating beautiful and thought-provoking films that keep your eyes glued to the screen. This particular film blew my mind when teenager Joshua first watched it. The concept of controlling dreams and dreams within dreams within dreams was wild to me. Leanardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, and Cillian Murphy are only a few of the stellar cast in this film. If you haven’t seen it yet, what the heck are you waiting for?
9. Jurassic Park (1993)
Dinosaurs. Lots and lots of dinosaurs.
This Steven Speilberg film centered around a dinosaur island park that experiences some, uh, issues. The visual effects, story, and moral arguments about life makes this film one of the most universally loved films of all time. The movie score is also fantastic.
8. Schindler’s List (1993)
Another Steven Spielberg film makes this objective and scientifically proven top 10 list. This film centers around Oskar Schindler, a German businessman/industrialist during 1940’s Nazi Germany. Although initially motivated by profit, Schindler gradually becomes more and more concerned for his Jewish workforce’s well-being. This film stars Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, and Ben Kingsley, who all put in stellar acting performances in this masterclass of a movie.
7. 1917 (2019)
This WWI film changed the game when director Sam Mendes and cinematographer Roger Deakins decided to film this movie looking like a single continuous take. The style puts you in the trenches with two soldiers trying to get a message to the commander of a battalion several miles away, calling off a planned attack that would surely get the entire company killed. The acting from the two relatively unknown actors was superb, and the soundtrack was excellent. Go check this film out if you haven’t already.
6. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
do dodo do, do dodo, do do dodoooo do do do do do.
This film, another from Spielberg, was every guy’s dream. What’s not to love about exploring rough lands, fighting Nazi’s, searching for ancient secrets, and getting the beautiful girl? This film’s charm led to 3 other Indiana Jones films, although all but 1 (Indiana Joens and the Last Crusade) could not measure up to the original movie in the series. There’s not much more I can say about it besides it’s incredible.
5. Forrest Gump (1994)
” Life is like a box of chocolates…you never know what you’re gonna get.”
Truer words have never been spoken, Mr. Gump. This film centers around a mentally disabled man named Forrest and his life story. Although disabled, Forrest was able to join the army, become a ping pong champion, start his own business, become a multimillionaire, run across America, and invest in an up and coming fruit company named Apple. What’s your excuse?
4. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
All three films in the series are phenomenal. However, the first film is the best. The story has orcs, magic, elves, sword fighting, and scary zombie guys. Don’t be discouraged, ladies; it also has some sweet gold jewelry! The movie’s score alone makes it an instant top 10, while the stellar cast and visuals bring the viewer into the land of Middle Earth.
3. The Prestige (2006)
Did you think I was only going to add one Christopher Nolan film to this? HA! Nolan’s best work, the Prestige centers around two competing magicians as they try to one-up the other. There is obviously a lot more to the story, but I’m not trying to get into spoilers, just in case you haven’t watched it. The storytelling and acting is the top echelon of film making. The film actually gets better and better the more you watch it, as you notice something new every time. I can’t stress this enough, if you haven’t seen this film, GO WATCH IT.
2. Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Well, another Spielberg film. This time, it’s his best one. Saving Private Ryan is the undisputed king of war films. The visual effects, cast, acting, story, and emotions of this film are second to none. The film is about a band of soldiers in WWII whose mission is to locate and bring back Private Ryan. It really is that simple, but not so simple at the same time. Tom Hanks’ portrayal of the leader is the best of his career, and that says a heck of a lot. This film is a masterpiece on every level. It’s the reason people go to the cinema.
1. Gladiator (2000)
“My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.”
Alright folks, there it is. The OBJECTIVELY best movie of all time. Gladiator has it all: Swords, blood, acting, score, lions, barbarians on fire. It has it all. The film centers around a former Roman General turned slave and his quest for vengeance against the new Roman Emperor. Who would think an Aussie actor like Russell Crowe would become the greatest Roman Character of all time? We also can’t forget about Joaquin Phoenix and his performance as Commodus, the antagonist that makes everyone’s blood boil. Aside from the acting, visuals and story, this film boasts the best movie score of all time. Hans Zimmer is known for dozens of top tier movie scores, but this is his best. “The Battle” and “Now We Are Free” are pieces of music one can listen to for the rest of their lives.
Now that you’ve gone through the top 10 best films of all time, what do you think? I’d also like to remind you that there isn’t any dispute about this list’s validity. The science is settled, and you’re a bigot if you disagree.
Throughout the Presidential election season, both Facebook and Twitter have issued strong statements condemning the spread of “fake news” on their platforms. Because of this concern, both social media companies undertook steps they thought would prevent the spread of fake news, as well as weed out the spreaders themselves. They issued “fact-checkers” that would verify political information, news, and events. We have had personal experiences with these fact-checkers, as our Facebook page has been subject to fact-checking and flagged for spreading “misinformation.” The two most notable incidents were posts regarding the positive effects of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 treatment, as well as a post detailing the timeline of events of the night Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people in self-defense. None of what was posted was opinion based, as both Facebook posts sourced scientific data and video evidence. However, this did not stop these posts from being deleted by Facebook, and our Facebook page placed in a sort of “timeout.”
This was always the fear conservatives had of Facebook and Twitter implementing these fact checks. We saw it as a way social media companies could remove content they didn’t like or that didn’t push a particular narrative they were going for. We saw this as a potential threat to the spread of vital information regarding the election. After all, we knew there is a heavy left-lean in both companies. It doesn’t take much imagination to think social media companies may favor the Biden campaign. Would Facebook and Twitter censor news that would be detrimental to the Biden campaign?
We got our answer today.
This morning, the New York Post dropped a bombshell story that claimed Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice-President and current Democrat Presidential nominee Joe Biden, leveraged his relationship with his father for personal profit. Furthermore, the story alleges that Hunter Biden introduced a Ukrainian businessman to his father, who was then the Vice-President of the United States.
This bombshell story sourced emails from Hunter Biden, obtained by a computer technician who received the device to fix over a year ago.
Joe Biden has claimed over and over again that he never had any dealings with his son’s business partners and associates during his time as VP.
Joe Biden has also claimed that his son never did anything unethical and illegal, even though Hunter somehow managed to become an advisor on the Board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, without having any related experience.
It’s difficult to emphasize enough how this is a bombshell story.
We have a Presidential nominee who may have been involved in his shady son’s dealings.
Within a few hours, Andy Stone from Facebook communications tweeted out that Facebook reduced the story’s distribution on its platform until their fact-checking team could fact-check it.
As of Wednesday evening, Twitter hasn’t released a statement regarding the news story but has still implemented warnings about the article and outright refusing users to tweet the article.
Both Facebook and Twitter have actively protected the Biden campaign by reducing the spread of this important story. Facebook claimed that it is because of the standard fact-checking procedure, but where were these procedures when President Trump’s tax returns leaked a few weeks ago? Where were these procedures when the Steele dossier was released? Where were these procedures when news outlets claimed a videotape of Russian prostitutes peeing on the President? Where were these procedures when virtually every Democrat politician and mainstream media outlet pushed a narrative that President Trump never condemned white supremacy? Where. Were. These. Procedures.
Social media companies like Facebook and Twitter are actively trying to help the Democrats win this election. This isn’t even remotely in dispute now.
What Facebook and Twitter did today is significantly more akin to election interference than anything done by Russia or any other foreign actors.
If this story was about President Donald Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr., what would have been the reaction from Facebook and Twitter?
If history is any indicator, they would have allowed the story’s mass publication and spread without a second thought.
This is REAL election tampering and it’s happening in front of our very own eyes.
A moment that will live in the mainstream’s sound bite loop for years – or until Biden takes November 3rd.
“Stand back and Stand By.”
Article after article has run this very moment as the perfect “gotcha” moment against Trump.
So, what happened here? Lets watch below:
If we analyze the situation objectively (which no MSM group will do) we will see that Trump’s response was not an intentionally act to give “marching orders” as the media claims it to be. In fact, it was damn near similar to the prescribed statement fed to him by Wallace.
But the prescribed statement was a trap from the start.
The debate’s “moderator,” Chris Wallace, asked Trump if he was willing to condemn white supremacist and malitia groups. Wallace also asked Trump if he would tell such groups to “stand down.”
Before he even finished the question, Trump responded “Sure.” In fact, Trump has condemned such groups on many occasions.
Unfortunately for Trump, lies like the one’s perpetuated by Biden in tonight’s debate (for example the suggestion that Trump was speaking to White Supremacists when he stated there were “Very fine people” in Charlottesville) have a louder voice than on bias news channels than the Truth.
Trump is notably perturbed by the loaded questioned asked to him – as it assumes Trump has the power to tell said groups to “stand down” – Trump then moved to ask Wallace to get specific about who he wants him to condemn. The Proud Boys are hap-hazardously thrown out as an option.
Then, in an ineloquent and fumbled delivery, Trump attempts to mimic Wallace’s “stand down” verbiage. Instead of saying “stand down” Trump responds by saying “stand back and stand by” and moves right into questioning any calls to call out Antifa by the Left. Something Biden and Democrat congress members have been unwilling to do.
Mind you – what if he said “stand down?” Would the Left not then assume he has control and power to order said groups around? But I digress.
Trump then moves the ball into the other court by stating that the violence is a Left wing problem. While Right wing extremism (especially White Supremacy) an issue – it has been BLM / Antifa that have caused BILLIONS in Burning, Looting, and Murders over this entire summer. How is it not an accurate (if not hyperbolic) statement to say that currently political extremism is a Left wing problem?
The focus on Trump’s fumbled delivery, in my opinion, does the most to cover up Biden’s dog whistle to Antifa when he said “Antifa is an idea not an organization.” That statement is a word-by-word cut and paste statement from Antifa’s dogma. The statement is a defacto condoning of their violence and terror they spread.
Antifa is very much an organization. It is an organization designed behind the “Starfish and spider” model of decentralization that has a core set of beliefs and ideals but is purposely decentralized so that they can operate independently from the national head separately. BLM and Anonymous are the same model. The Soviets also perfected this organizational model with their communist cells around the world.
Antifa is definitely a group. Antifa is a terror organization that pushes for marxist authoritarian violence. Antifa is more fascist than 99% of those they claim to oppose.
The Democrat candidate just gave them a dog whistle of support and approval. Of course he did, they’re the Democrat-Left’s militant arm; the woke version of the Democrat’s old guard, the KKK.
Did Trump stick his foot in his mouth? You bet. Did he give white supremacist groups marching orders? No – but I’ll doubt anyone who isn’t already vehemently opposed to him would agree. But its safe to say Trump delivered a crate of ammo to the gunless Left.
Only moments ago, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The nomination isn’t much of a surprise, as Barrett was linked with the nomination back in 2018 before Brett Kavanaugh was eventually nominated. The media seemed to also be tipped off of the nomination pick earlier in the week, so by the time the President officially announced it, it was more of a formality.
I will not try to hide the fact that I am a big supporter of this nomination from the President. Barrett is a strong supporter of the Constitution, and a defender of the lives of babies in the womb.
What’s so great about this pick is that I don’t see very many options as to how the Democrats can attack her. So far, the angle of attack I’ve seen by the Democrats is that it is an election year, meaning the “new” President should fill the vacant pick.
Will they go for personal attacks like they did with Kavanaugh? Likely.
Will they make a production out of this nomination? Very Likely.
Will they maybe tone down their rhetoric and doomsday propaganda? Very Unlikely.
But, what could they possibly attack her with?
If they attack her because of her Catholocism, that would surely alienate the Catholics in the party.
Barrett is a successful woman, so the “white male” angle is unavailable to the Democrats. We know they won’t attack her based on her sex, purely because of the optics of doing so.
The only real avenue of attack the Democrats have is her pro-life stance. If we thought the nomination of Kavanaugh had a large part to do with Roe v Wade, we’ve seen nothing yet.
However, this isn’t even really a successful line of attack. The Democrats needed something else to attack Kavanaugh with besides Roe v Wade. That is why they created the false narratives that Kavanaugh was a serial rapist.
Would Roe v Wade be enough for the Democrats to attack Barrett over?
If we assume the Democrats are going to attack Barrett over Roe v Wade, the logical counter-argument is her Catholic beliefs and faith. If the Democrats keep pushing, persuasive secular arguments, like when is a baby a baby, can be made. Are the Democrats really willing to go all-in and attack a woman on prime-time television because of her faith? Or, are the Democrats really willing to give Barrett such a massive stage for both the religious and secular argument against abortion?
They either go all-in and attack her over her Catholic faith and look like anti-religious zealots, alienating any shred of religious persons in the Democrat Party, or they roll-over and allow this nomination without much fight, alienating the extreme leftists in the party.
This is really a no-win scenario for the Democrats.
Either way, we know the next few weeks are going to be edge of your seat type of entertaining.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg – a Titan of the Left – has passed away. In her wake, a massive vacancy is left on the bench of the United States Supreme Court.
She was no friend of originalism and conservatism but condolences, respect, honor, and public displays of mourning (ie. A lowered Flag) are due to honor her title and position in our government.
For the believer, like myself, condolences and prayer are expected, not celebration. We don’t take joy the death of enemies or those we vehemently disagree with.
When the powers are shaken, mice and men stir to fill the void. In the powers of the United States, the branches are supposed to balanced – whether they currently are (or even should be) is a matter of opinionated disagreement.
This year has shown us the utter character of the foundation of ideologies behind some of those powers.
Conservatism has shown itself to be stoic, steadfast, deeply rooted yet in philosophy and wisdom yet nuanced and bent toward the moral absolutes and pursuit of righteousness. It’s rigid traditionalism has found itself to be an outright enemy of the ever “progressing” views of the opposition.
Classical Liberalism on the other-hand is a refined gentleman, wise, educated, proper and tolerant. Sadly, it’s characteristic’s are all but dead on the Left.
Liberalism, bent toward utopic visions, is still staunch in its moral standing that it’s opposition should have the equal right to both practice and belief as itself. For this repugnant violation, it has become endangered among the party that onced championed it.
In the void left behind by Liberalism, Leftism has sprung up, rapidly consuming and devolving the minds of those touched by its tentacles. Disruptive, destructive, devoid of an anchor, arched toward materialism and its post-modern understanding; a plague that has devoured and dismantled everything it touches: the university, the arts, the sciences, and even sports.
A proliferation of this pandemic has exacerbated the eagerness of emissaries to engorge themselves on power.
In pursuit of this very thing, in 2013, a short-sighted grab of power by then majority Democratic Senator Harry Reid, “the Nuclear option” was dealt. As a result, a simple majority, 51 votes (rather than 60), has now become the deciding number needed to approve Federal Judges – with the exception of the supreme court.
In politics, an unprecedented power grab is always met in kind. With patience, that response came at the right hour in 2017. In a dramatic, perhaps necessary move to end debate on then Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch, former (and current )Senate Republican Majority leader McConnell extended the simple majority to Supreme Court appointees.
A rule change and power matching move that now looms ever-large upon the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Sowing and reaping is a basic lesson taught by wise theologians and the simple farmers. It is an ironic testimony against the Democratic party for their illiteracy of that very elementary task, as they figuratively and literally despise both noble professions.
For the past 80 years, a Precedent has stood for legislators to avoid appointee a new Supreme Court Justice in an election year.
Precedents are upheld by gentlemen. I am a fan of both precedent and gentlemanliness. Leftism is devoid of the very characteristic and liberalism as we know it is dead among the Left.
This year more than ever, Leftists have shown us how far they are willing to go to destroy our history, attack the foundations, and assault the institutions to instill their corrupt vision of society.
Leftism does not tolerate opposition, it attacks our very principles, and seeks to destroy our most hallowed Rights – from our means of defense to the very words we utter. They’ve employed totalitarianism in business, athletics, social media, policy, procedure and thought. To suggest that they do not aim to go further if they can is to be absolutely naive.
They employ the powers of states, legislatures, judges, influencers in music, television, media and law. They have already shown they are able and willing to seduce more people by expanding their horizons to seats of faith, and science.
All this and still they summon the nerve to cry out for precedent and decorum when they themselves broke the natural check and balance placed within the Senate by using the so called “nuclear option.” The boldness to call out for fairness as they employ legions of marxist rioters demanding radical change.
The Right, from conservative to Republican-moderates (and other liberty bent folk in between) have played the part of the silent majority and etiquette oriented gatekeepers for far too long. We’ve fought in the ring with propriety and rules while our opposition has used eye gouging, groin kicks and their incisors.
Now they ask us to follow a set of rules that do not exist for propriety and fairness sake? How bold. Mitch and friends will be called hypocrites for holding tight to Precedent in the past. That is fine. Wear the title, if it means fending off the radicalism that may be headed to the bench if they have their way.
In 2016, though I often stand on the importance of Precedent, I never made an argument for it. I simply understood that the Senate – especially the majority in opposition to the Executive – has no responsibility or obligation to approve whomever the President wishes to appoint.
While some may hang on the emotional argument of Ruth’s “last wishes,” they should also know that the same person shirked established precedent and urged the Senate to replace her former colleague Antonin Scalia, saying
“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,” she said when asked if the Senate had an obligation to vote on Judge Garland. “That’s their job,” she said.
Senator Ted Cruz has eloquently explained the importance of filling the vacancy by explaining the necessity of the Supreme Court in adjudicating what looks to be a contest election. An election where Democrat leaders have already called for Biden to refuse abdication. But when have the Left ever listened to reasoned and sound argument?
We’re at a doorway, an impasse, with Leftism and right now the best way to hold the lone against the loss of liberty is through the high court. If Republicans have a spine, they’ll do the job we elected them to do. So with 2 months to go, ram it through Mitch! “Breacher up!”