Political Manifesto for the 21st Century

January 7, 2010 by

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Declaration of Independence, 1776)

We affirm these self-evident truths, and declare that it is time to abolish our form of government, not by armed revolution, but by the election of representatives who will change it.

The Constitution of the United States allows for the people to elect their representatives every two years, and to elect every senator every six, and to elect the president every four. Each state constitution allows the citizens of that state a similar power to choose their government. Through electing representatives that represent our desire to preserve our government solely to protect the individual rights of everyone, we propose the following changes be made.

  1. Limited government. Our governments are limited by the constitutions that form them. We need to enact a common understanding among the people of what those limits are and impose them on our governments. We need also to strengthen the already existing limits, overturning bad interpretations by our courts, legislators, and executives, and impose new and stronger limits on our governments which will forever ensure our individual liberty.
  2. Dramatic cuts to spending. Our governments should spend our money procuring only those goods and services that will protect our rights.
  3. An end to government charity. It is the role of our churches and the individual to supply charity to the poor, not the state. If the individual and churches cannot supply the charity, government could only do worse. Having government provide charity absolved the conscience and duty of the people from their proper role to love their neighbor.
  4. An end to unfunded legislation. Any program that congress enacts must be completely and fully funded at the time of its creation. We will not enslave future generations to programs that we create but do not fully fund. Existing programs that are unfunded should be canceled or modified until they can be funded.
  5. Dramatic cuts to taxation. Our governments should collect far less taxes than the people can bear. The people should be free to pursue whatever economic matter they wish without burden or undue influence due to taxes. Taxes should not be used to punish the rich or to mold society’s behavior. They should only be used to raise the necessary money to meet the spending requirements of a government that protects the rights of the individual. Any surpluses should be immediately refunded to the people in proportion to taxes paid, or used to pay off debts. Taxes should never be raised to meet spending; rather, spending should be cut to meet tax revenue.
  6. An end to government debt. Our people have become more prosperous than any other people in the world. We do not need to borrow money anymore to provide for the needs of government. Paying interest on our government debts is slavery, not freedom. We are not free until we have paid off all of our debts. Any debt that we must incur should be paid off within a very short time frame, so that our debts are not repaid by our children.
  7. An end to bureaucratic regulation. Any kind of regulation must be debated and passed by the legislatures of our governments, and no other way. No public official should be allowed to set policy that governs the life of anyone but their own employees. No court should dictate legislation. No executive should issue orders except to his troops and employees. Anyone exceeding these limits should immediately be removed from office by impeachment because they are a threat to our liberty.
  8. An end to over-litigation. The laws of our country are unjust, in that they are used to punish those who have done no wrong with tort laws and allow the criminal to go free. Let our laws be simple and just so that we no longer have need of lawyers. Do not allow our constitution to be interpreted as giving shelter to the guilty or limiting the freedoms of the individual.

We boldly declare that freedom and liberty are dramatically different than tyranny and slavery. In a free society, government works differently than in an enslaved society. Our governments should be eternally fearful of the will of the people, forever locked in by the limits of the constitution which creates them, and ever subservient to the people, both the individual and as a whole.

We emphatically reject the tenets of communism, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, colonialism, and every other form of government or political idea that sets one person above another, that limits the freedom of the individual for the “greater good”, or attempts to convince any individual that they have no rights or fewer rights than the rights man is endowed with by their Creator.

We boldly declare that in our society, the checks and balances in our government includes the individual, private organizations such as businesses or churches or political groups, and federated governments such as the local, state, and federal governments. By distributing the power to govern among these people, organizations, and governments, no one person or group of people is able to obtain much power over the rest.

We also declare that there is enough in this world, and to spare, if the individual is freed from the constraints of government to seek his own fortune in life. We also declare that the man who has obtained wealth is capable of providing charity to the poor, jobs to those who want them, and also to pursue the critical role of participating in politics to keep government constrained. We encourage all men, everywhere, to embrace their freedom, seek their own fortunes, and once having obtained it, spend their time and resources as they see fit in service to their fellowman, without the entanglement of government.

Advertisements

Marriage is an institution of government (and other things)

April 16, 2018 by

A lot of lies about what marriage is, and what it can be, are spread in popular culture. Let me explain what marriage really is by imagining a world where there is no marriage.

Suppose you lived in a world where marriage didn’t even exist as a concept. Suppose also that in this world, you believed, as our Declaration of Independence says, that governments exist solely to protect individual rights.

You notice a few facts of this world, which are born out of biology:

  • Males and females copulate, impregnating females.
  • Copulation comes with emotional baggage, and jealousy, and all sorts of things.
  • After nine months (in the ideal case), the female delivers a child.
  • There is a profound emotional connection between the natural father, mother and child, such that the mother and father have an intense desire to protect and rear the child.

Going from this alone, you realize that little humans are humans too, and government has a job to protect their rights. How is this to be done, particularly because the children are so incompetent?

In the world of adults, we expect adults to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves, and to advocate for their rights and thus maintain the semblance of freedom. You expect the government to step in when one adult tramples on the rights of another, to set laws and procedures and appoint people to certain positions to ensure that this is minimized.

But what of the children, who cannot think, act, or even voice their concerns?

Perhaps you might be tempted to do the obvious: Let’s appoint a state actor to represent the child, a sort of guardian that can watch the child and advocate on his behalf. This seems reasonable, but you’ll soon find a problem: There are a lot of children, and it takes time to find someone competent to stand in as guardian. But you also notice that this is a big job, more than one person can handle, and so you might be tempted to appoint two or three, but they are ever in short supply, and it is an administrative nightmare, what with courts packed with people filing petitions to gain guardianship or transfer guardianship and whatnot.

But wait — you have an idea. Let’s take advantage of the natural affection that a child has with his natural parents and appoint the parents as the guardians. Now we have a real system in place, in fact, a minimal system. The law reads as follows:

Let every child have claim on their natural parents for protection under the law. Parents who fail in this duty will be held accountable and punished accordingly.

This would go swimmingly, except for one problem: It seems that the humans keep trading sexual partners. Thus, one female may have several children, each with different fathers. And so things get confusing, especially in cases where it’s not clear who the father is. Not to mention, when people fall out of sexual favor, there is a tremendous amount of animosity and bitterness, and it makes the whole business of raising children difficult. Very well, let’s write a new law:

You shall have only one sexual partner your whole life. You may not ever be separated from that sexual partner. Any children born out of that partnership, no matter who the natural father is, has claim on your sexual partner. To prevent this, the males are allowed to exert their privilege by keeping other males away from their female sexual partner.

Almost done. Now we have some disagreements over who the lifetime sexual partner of a female is, particularly when these partnerships are new. Let’s simplify things further with a new law:

You shall declare your sexual partnership before engaging in sexual relations. Your name will be recorded by the government. You will make it public so everyone knows who your sexual partner is.

And that’s how you get marriage, naturally, when all you have is what biology gave us.

You could say that marriage “evolved”.

Now, granted, the above rules are very strict. At various times throughout history, the punishment for sexual relations before or outside of marriage were harsh. You can see why societies would naturally do this: Imagine being forced, as a man, to raise a child who was fathered by someone else.

I want to close on this note: There are religious and societal and familial impacts of marriage beyond the government aspects I describe above.

  • The church is interested in marriage because there is tremendous guilt and emotional pain from having multiple sexual partners. The church knows that a married couple is far happier and productive than an unmarried couple. (Some people say that church created sin; but ask people who live without church whether they still feel guilt or emotional pain — indeed, they see psychiatrists too!)
  • Society is interested in marriage because it brings together different parts of society. IE, Rome and Juliet could’ve been the union of two powerful clans, to the peace of the entire town, had they been married through proper channels. Indeed, how many feuds have been solved with marriage?
  • Families are interested in marriage because it expands upon the power and influence, and wealth, of the family.

In short, marriage is what turns a people built on the ideals of individual rights into a cohesive society of powerful families and a unified government with a singular purpose of protecting its people’s rights.

A Universal Faith

April 12, 2018 by

As I study history and philosophy, I notice that a lot of things I already believe in and practice are found throughout the world, scattered through various times and places.

The 13th Article of Faith reads: “If there is anything … of good report … we seek after these things.” The point being, we don’t claim to have a monopoly on knowledge or morality or religion. Yes, we have some very specific things, things which we received under strict oath to share it with the world, but we were never given everything.

One of those philosophies is stoicism. Before I go to far, let me be clear: Certain aspects of stoicism I find to be repugnant. Particularly, it has no hope built in to it. Granted, it builds a very good world view, things that I have already embraced in my life, but there are parts that I can’t adopt as I don’t see them as good.

But to continue, what I find awesome in stoicism is the idea that you can’t control the world. At best, you can learn to control yourself and your reaction to the world, but you can’t control other people and the elements and so you’d best get used to it.

Another aspect is the practice of morning reflection. In order to maintain control of your mind, you have to sharpen it each day, by pondering on the most important things in life. Don’t skip a day. Keep a journal. You’ll find your mind will sharpen, your senses will heighten, and you’ll find hidden powers unlocked.

Something that most Christians should embrace is the stoick’s attitude towards death and disaster. No matter what is going on, things can get violently worse. Live each moment as if it is your last, because eventually, that will be true. As the Christians would say, “Repent, for the end is nigh.” Nigh indeed, particularly as death is always a breath away.

Anyway, this is just what I’ve found to like in stoicism.

As I’ve read Nietzsche, I’ve found a lot I can liken to my own life. Granted, Nietzsche had a lot of harsh things to say about Christianity, but I find his criticisms of my faith hollow and shallow, since I simply do not identify with much of what Christians claim to believe.

Regardless, the key point is this: There is, I believe, a One True Philosophy that unites all philosophies, or at least, the truth of each philosophy that has truth, into one united whole.

And I believe we should all be looking for that. Part of it is found in religion, my religion, the mormon religion, or Christianity as a whole. Part is found in life. Part is found in stoicism, or Nietzsche, or a thousand other sages and philosophers from all times and places.

Seek it out, find it, treasure it.

Kierkegaard: Knight of Faith

April 12, 2018 by

I haven’t read anything by Kierkegaard yet, but one thing caught my attention when watching various videos about his philosophy.

The idea is simple. If you want to find true faith, you have to find someone willing to kill and die for what he believes in, not merely debate or preach, but to actually draw a sword and stab someone over it, or put himself in the field of battle with only his faith to protect him.

A good example from the scriptures is Abraham. When God called on him to sacrifice Isaac, he didn’t hesitate. He went up to murder his son. (Obviously, the angel stopped him, but only after it became clear that Abraham would follow through.)

Is religion a thought-exercise for you? Or are you willing to bet your entire life over it?

Are you willing to die for your religion?

Are you willing to kill for it?

That is the question.

If you can’t answer “yes” to both questions, then religion is nothing more than a game for you.

You atheists — you who stand on the sideline mocking those who are challenged by their faith, what do you have to offer? If you are so certain that religion is a great disease, come, face us in mortal combat, and show me that you are not just playing word games.

Or be quiet while those of us who have bet our lives on it continue our holy crusade.

One thing that Christians often challenge my faith with: As you know, we latter-day saints believe in living prophets. My Christian friends ask me, “What if the prophet asks you to do something contrary to scriptures?” My polite response is, “That will never happen.” If pressed, I will explain that I’d follow a living prophet over a dead one. To drive this point home, I would ask them, “Suppose you were living in the time of Jesus, and he told you to do something you believed was contrary to the law found in the Bible. Would you do it?”

Trade Wars

April 7, 2018 by

It looks like China is trying to flex its muscles in the trade war with America. It’s not that the trade war is new, it’s just now being recognized for what it is.

Trade Wars are what you do before you start shooting each other. It’s what happens when two countries don’t like each other and the direction they are going but they can’t find a good excuse to blow each other up yet. Trade Wars end up with one country giving up and acquiescing to the other, or open warfare.

The US policy for a very long time now has been to import as much as possible, all the time, with no or little tariffs. The reason was simple: We needed other countries to be strong to combat the Communist threat that the USSR and China and other countries posed. After the collapse of the USSR, and the liberalization of the Chinese economy, and the complete evaporation of the Communist threat in the world, it no longer makes sense to give foreign countries an advantage in trade. In fact, we don’t really care what the rest of the world has anymore, as we have everything we need in our own borders.

True, it can be argued that limiting trade only hurts those who do the limiting, but none of the other countries in the world know how to take advantage of this.  Well, Bermuda, maybe. And Singapore. Is the US going to engage in a trade war with them? There is no reason to — they already respect our trading rights in exchange for our protection.

There’s only two things a country can do in a trade war:

  • Limit exports, which is basically declaring that you lost the trade war and feel mad about it.
  • Limit imports, which forces the other country to move their manufacturing to within your borders.

Trump is choosing to do the latter with tariffs. China can’t do it, since no one wants to move their investments inside China.

This trade war was lost by China the moment Trump decided to fight it.

The only reasonable resolution is going to be the following:

  • China forces North Korea to give up all their nukes.
  • China obeys international law regarding trade secrets.
  • China does pretty much whatever the US asks of it from now on, no questions asked.
  • China allows foreign investment, honest foreign investment, meaning, they go full capitalist.
  • China no longer puts a tariff on anything made in the USA.
  • The USA has no tariffs on Chinese exports either, as long as they keep all of the above.

In short, China will become yet another vassal in the American empire.

With China under control by the US, the number of countries not under America’s thumb will be countable on one hand.

America is what you get when you have a trade republic with actual resources behind it. No country has ever defeated a trade republic without taking its land first.

Deploying Troops to the Border

April 7, 2018 by

President Trump has asked governors to send their national guard to the southern border to secure it. Two governors refused to comply — Montana and Oregon. While President Trump isn’t exercising his authority to call up the National Guard and assume direct command over them (which he is entitled to do under the constitution — any militia, really, can be called up by him in times of war), this is still a stupid move on the part of the two governors.

The border is lawless. In a healthy relationship, both countries would see to it that that border is crime-free and safe for citizens of both countries. If one country fails to secure their side of the border, then the other country has the moral right to secure it for them. They can invade and control the area across the border if it has fallen out of control of the government.

If we did decide to go that route — and we could, indeed, any of the border states could send their troops into Mexico at any time under this justification — then we would secure the area until such a time as the government of Mexico is able to secure it themselves or indefinitely, thus annexing the region. While our troops are down there, they would do whatever it takes to eliminate the threat to America.

Securing our border is a primary role of the federal government. Tracking who is and is not allowed in our country is also exclusively their domain. For most of my life, I’ve lived under a federal government that didn’t care too much about who is able to come and go. Reagan famously agreed to an amnesty. Since then, it has gotten worse. President George W. Bush announced “catch and release”.

Thankfully, President Trump has rescinded that policy, and now we have a “zero-tolerance” policy towards illegal immigration.

Next stop: Retroactively ending anchor babies. If you’re here illegally, or here on a visa, and you have a baby, that baby is not an American citizen. Just because you happen to be on American soil doesn’t make your baby American.

The truth is that America is not, and hasn’t been, pro-immigrant, not for a long time. We may have tolerated immigration, but I can’t find many people who like it.

Immigration is a fundamentally unsound idea. The whole concept of it is an insult to basic moral ethics. If you’re born in a country, you have a duty to secure that country for yourself and your neighbors and your posterity, just for the fact that that is the place where you were born. To betray your citizenship and your loyalty and the fundamental duty you have towards them, and become a member of a different country, how is that different than being a double-agent? Such people are not loyal to anything, and don’t deserve to be recognized as fellow-citizens by anyone.

Leaving your country behind and working in the United States may make economic sense for yourself, but it also betrays your country’s economic future. When we rob the world of all the bright, motivated, capable people, and leave the rest behind, we are injuring the world, and the people who leave their country behind rather than try to fix it are doing the same.

One thing the Alt-Right preaches, and a thing I agree with, is that you are more likely to form bonds of mutual protection with people who are like you, who speak your language, who share your culture, history and heritage, who look like you. The world is a rough place, and leaving your homeland to live in some place foreign just makes it tougher. This bond of mutual protection is the sort of stuff that makes a nation. When no one is loyal to another, you are living in a state of fear and war.

I dream of a world where immigration doesn’t exist anymore, where people stay home, make their own country great again. Yes, we may visit each other, and trade, but for the most part, we’ll spend our lives with people like us that we care about and who we will protect with our lives, rather than stranded in a foreign land and foreign culture.

How to Neuter Marxism

March 26, 2018 by

Roughly defined, for purposes here, Marxism is the idea that you can separate people into groups, the oppressor and the oppressed, and that you can empower the oppressed to overthrow the oppressor and thus usher in peace and prosperity or whatever utopian desire you have. It sounds silly when you condense it down to its essence, but that’s what it is.

The way Marxism works is that it attacks structures of power. These structures of power are built by powerful people, and represent the “oppressors.” Meaning, the reason why the poor are poor is not because they choose to be poor, but because rich people force them to be poor. If this isn’t a defeatist mentality, I don’t know what is. Until you’re ready to take responsibility for your actions, and the outcomes of those actions (good or bad), you’re never going to escape your self-inflicted prison. In short, you’re giving the keys to your cell to people who don’t even know you exist, and then demanding they free you.

Marxism intends to have the oppressed rise up and use violence to throw down the oppressors.  But think of this: If you gave a bunch of guns to a bunch of weakling cowards who can’t succeed in life, what sort of revolution would you end up with? When Marxism was first implemented in Europe, it ended exactly the way it sounds like it would end: With a bunch of desperate failures bleeding out in the streets, uniformed soldiers marching over their corpses trying to keep their dirty blood off of their boots. This was the end of the first few Marxist revolutions. The headlines in the paper would read, “A bunch of criminals tried to break the law and got killed.”

So Marxism cannot succeed by causing the “oppressed” to rise up. It also requires the “oppressors” to weaken themselves. If you are someone who is successful, and by “successful” I mean able to put food in your mouth that you earned with your own labor, then you’ll understand how it works. See, if you had absolute confidence that you deserved your food, your clothing, your shelter, that God gave it to you because of your willingness to work and subject yourself to his commandments, commandments given to a free people so that they can govern themselves successfully, if you had this confidence that comes from sincere and real faith, and someone tried to take it from you, how much shame or sadness would you feel as you slaughtered them? I say you would feel none. Instead, you would feel gratitude to the God who gave you your food and shelter, as well as the God who gave you bullets and the power to defeat your enemies. Search the Old Testament. That’s the pattern of God’s people.

So Marxism, as the enemies of ancient Israel, attacks the powerful and successful with guilt. In Moses’ time, it is rumored that Balaam told the Moabites how to defeat Israel: Send prostitutes. Indeed, this had the intended effect. Now that men in Israel had broken their vows with prostitutes, they were weak and easily defeatable. Moses received word from God how to fix this problem: Slaughter the offenders, purify the nation, and then march on Moab, sparing none.

In today’s culture, Marxists try to shame the rich and successful, tries to entice us to act contrary to our best interests. They send us pornography and other vices, they try to get us to do that which we know is wrong. Feeling shame, they then exploit our weakness with guilt. When the weak and the miserable rise up to take our heritage, we feel bad if we have to defend ourselves, and feel compassion for the people who would slaughter us. This makes us weak and vulnerable.

The remedy is simple: Stop shaming yourself with disgusting acts you know to be wrong. Turn back to God, embrace his commandments, and take confidence that the things you own, the things you call yours, are given to you by God, and God requires you be ready to protect it.

When the Marxist hordes try to take it from you, you won’t feel any guilt or shame, but vigorously defend it from them.

Now, while we don’t feel bad for vigorously defending our rights, we should remember that the same God who commands us to take up arms also commands us to give out alms. The poor are not our responsibility, but we are to make things available so that they can take their future into their own hands. For instance, in ancient Israel, they would leave some of their harvest lying in the field, so that the poor could pick it up themselves. If they can pick up gleanings, then they can work for hire to harvest the crops as well, and if they can do that, then they are strong enough to work their own fields. This sort of charity — offering work instead of hand-outs — is the kind of thing that completely dispels Marxism. Why would a poor person, who depends upon the rich for their paycheck, ever rise up and slaughter the golden goose?

How to Cast out Devils, Demons, Evil Spirits, Satan, Lucifer, Whatever

March 24, 2018 by

Jesus Christ gave us the perfect formula for casting out devils, demons, evil spirits, Satan, whoever or whatever is bad in your life.

First, identify them.

Second, command them to depart in the name of Jesus Christ.

Third, change your life in Christ so they don’t come back.

That is all there is to it.

I have not yet met a demon or devil or evil spirit who did not immediately leave when commanded to do so in the name of Christ.

Some of you may wonder where all the evil spirits are. After all, the New Testament is full of stories of them everywhere. The answer is they are here, but they have disguised themselves, and call themselves by different names. They wish you wouldn’t acknowledge their existence, and whisper lies to us that they are not real, but search your heart: You know they are watching you and laughing at you when you fail to recognize them for who they are.

Don’t believe me? Cast them out and tell me how your life changes for the better. Did you notice how you suddenly felt a thought enter your mind that you shouldn’t try this? That’s an evil spirit. Or maybe you thought that it wouldn’t work if you tried. That’s another evil spirit.

Don’t listen to those spirits. They have not made you happy. They never will.

Pay attention to the voice that says you should give it a try, that you should be a little calmer and kinder and gentler and more reasonable and compassionate and sincere and honest. That voice, and that voice alone, will guide you in the path of happiness.

What’s After Postmodernism?

March 24, 2018 by

I am no philosopher, but my laymen understanding of philosophy’s evolution over the past, say, 2,000 years, is as follows.

  1. The Dark Ages. It’s dark because we don’t know much of what was going on because people didn’t spend a lot of time talking about it. There was God, and there was everyone else, and if you didn’t agree with the prevailing opinion on God, you died.
  2. The Enlightenment. This is when people began to realize that you could disagree about God and not have to kill each other. This is where modern science began. It’s where we’d like to live out our lives.
  3. Postmodernism. This is when people began to question reason altogether, and started to attack each other without any thought of God or morality. This is communism, marxism, and all the evil -isms we are exposed to today.

What’s next? How do we defeat the great evil of postmodernism?

Let me tell you how.

I have seen this conversion play out over the internet countless times.

  1. I hate God, I hate religion, I hate everything. (Postmodernism.)
  2. OK, maybe Christianity is different than all the other religions. But it sucks, just not as much.
  3. OK, maybe Christianity was the foundation of the Enlightenment. I like the Enlightenment, so we need to give some credit to Christianity for giving us that.
  4. OK, it turns out that without Christianity, the Enlightenment can not keep working. Take away Christianity, you get Postmodernism. So maybe we need to keep Christianity around, or at least pay attention to what they’re saying over there.
  5. OK, actually, it turns out that we need Christianity, Enlightenment or no. In fact, I need Christianity. Western civilization cannot survive, I cannot survive, without it.
  6. DEUS VULT.

This last step, the DEUS VULT, is when the Christian picks up a sword and begins attacking evil. Not sparring with it, not negotiating a truce with it, but attempting to destroy it entirely. It is an unwillingness to compromise, to debate, to even acknowledge any validity in contrary thoughts. Not because they’re not good (they’re not), but because they are actually dangerous. This is the philosophy of the Dark Ages, when you didn’t have time to question whether one thing is better than another, you had to face life-and-death decisions, and there was no time for ambiguity.

The important thing to note is how Christians fight. We are not engaged in a physical battle (though we often are called upon to do so, in the immediate defense of our interests — get ready for it!) We are called to a spiritual battle, not to spar with spiritual enemies, nor to compromise, but to destroy them, permanently.

Before the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they first had to defeat evil in their own hearts. Like Joshua of ancient Israel, without God on your side, you cannot win. And like Joshua, they won, against insurmountable odds.

If you’re new to this spiritual battle, it may seem odd to you how it is fought and how it is worn. Those of us who have seen many spiritual battles, in our own hearts and those around us, know that it’s not an impossible fight, in fact, you shouldn’t even worry about it because the victory is already guaranteed, provided you use the tools you have already been given.

Get on your knees. Pray to God and ask forgiveness of your sins through the blood of Christ. Then stand up, and move forward, doing exactly what you know needs to be done in your own life. That may be washing your clothes, or taking a shower. Eventually, God will call on you to help others once you’re starting to get the hang of yourself. Eventually, you may find yourself as a leader of men as Christ was. As you progress, spending time to acknowledge God and pray for forgiveness, you’ll come to know God’s power in your own life, and you’ll begin to fight on the battlefields he calls you on, effectively.

DEUS VULT. “God wills it.” Do what God says, ignore the consequences, because we are not here on earth to worry about the future, but to act in Christ’s name.

I shouldn’t have to repeat to you the LONG list of great men who commanded great and formidable armies who relied wholly on Christ. History is full of them, especially with our European heritage. Study history, you’ll find them in the unlikeliest of places. I won’t reveal them to you, because you’ll see them when you’re ready for it. This is not a list of perfect people, or even very good people (as we modern people think of “good”, which is not correct!) But these were real men, men who bent their knee and bowed their heads and gave their lives over to Christ, and then rose up with faith and faith alone to bear them through the greatest trials life could possibly offer. Go be one of those men, go conquer in the name of Christ, go defeat evil wherever it is found, and win!

What is it you want?

March 24, 2018 by

With the gun issue, I see two groups of people forming.

Group A says “We have our guns, we will keep our guns, and if you try to take them, we will shoot you.”

Group B says, “Give up your guns or those guys over there will shoot you.”

(Of course, there are others who have different, more moderate opinions on this subject, but they don’t matter until they make a realistic threat.)

I have to wonder what is going through Group B’s minds as they try to think this through. If they are so passionate about this issue of guns, why wouldn’t they be willing to shoot gun owners themselves? I think it’s because they know ultimately that their words don’t matter, their threats are hollow, and no one is taking them seriously that they can use their bold language.

Regarding where Group B think they are going to find this group of people willing to put their lives on the line to take guns away from people — this is pure fantasy. Cops and soldiers didn’t sign up to take guns away from peaceful citizens. Indeed, they consider themselves part of this group.

Maybe Group B imagines some foreign invader would take the guns from the gunowners. What would such a foreign invader do once the Americans have been disarmed?

Until Group B wises up and changes their message to “Give up your guns or we will shoot you”, and then acquires the right kind of weaponry to do so, we can ignore their threats and laugh at them for all the silly things they say.

Once they begin the process of acquiring weapons for the purpose of taking away our guns, that’s when we strike first. We shot the British soldiers on the way to seize our weapons. That was the “shot heard around the world” – a preemptive attack to prevent the British from getting our guns.

So Group B is safe as long as Group A considers them harmless and powerless. Once that changes, Group A will strike first. That’s my prediction.

One Million Raped

March 15, 2018 by

I’m seeing reports that one million children in the UK have been raped.

If this is true…