Posts

The SIC-ness of the Left

/in , , /by

There are times when you’re talking to someone and, while they may push back initially, once they see your logic and understand that there’s more to the issue then what they originally thought, they change their mind and you’re now both in agreement.

But there are other times when you’re going back and forth with someone and regardless of how obvious the truth may be, they simply refuse to change their mind.

They’re not just “stubborn.” It goes deeper than that. It’s as though they’re invested in something that will not allow them to consider any perspective other than they’re own.

Its as though they’re basing their assessment of the issue on a scale that is calibrated according to a fluctuating standard as opposed to a fixed point of reference. The end result is a conviction that is not at all consistent with reality.

When you’re confronted with this kind of individual, you want to be able to understand the way they think and what is the root cause of the irrational vitriol that often characterizes these kind of situations.

Buckle up!

I Am My Own Absolute

This is a portion of a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR. In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus. At one point, she uses the phrase “minimum viable truth” to describe an approach that sets aside bigger belief systems and instead focuses on what appeals to the majority. It translates to a nonsensical contradiction in that while she says truth needs to be processed as something that’s different for everyone, she then goes on to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” As though what she is saying now transcends the definition of truth she just articulated.

Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us. (Katherine Maher)

In many instances, the person who refuses to change their mind is someone who sees themselves as their own absolute. They see themselves as not only entitled to discern the difference between right and wrong, they live in a manufactured reality where they have the right to dictate the difference between right and wrong.

It breaks down into three main poisons:

Three Poisons

Truth

Katherine Maher, in a speech she made at a Ted conference said that truth is based on many things and for that reason cannot be restricted to a singular viewpoint. In other words, what’s true for you may not be true for me. The problem with that perspective, however, is that if truth is not based on a fixed point of reference, then all knowledge is reduced to a meaningless collection of personal preferences.

People who want to pretend that truth is whatever it is they want to believe ignore the fact that by saying that they have declared themselves to be irrelevant. According to their own logic, they don’t have a point, they have only a preference.

Right

A right is a term that’s been emptied of its original meaning, as far as the way its used in the Declaration of Independence, and instead is used to justify being selfish and immoral.

According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God. They are Divine entitlements that exist independently of the way any human convention may try to alter them. That’s what makes them immutable.

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.

The moment you remove God from the equation, however, while you have eliminated the transcendent nature of the “right” you want to assert, you have also removed the moral standard that you would otherwise be accountable to.

That is the intent of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. Whatever is sacrificed in the context of now being dependent on like minded individuals in order to secure a legal endorsement for one’s behavior, that is a trivial concession when compared to the way in which a person can now be morally accountable to no one other than themselves.

Victim

A self-serving paradigm can’t be championed directly without sounding both absurd and pretentious. But you don’t have to get people to agree with you if you can get them to feel sorry for you. You can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and hateful. This is how a person who sees themselves as their own bottom line can avoid having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.

S.I.C

People who think this way do not process those who disagree with them as intellectual adversaries as much as they see them as existential threats. You are not questioning their logic, you are challenging their authority. This is what shapes the way in which they attempt to defend the way they think and this is how you can tell when you’re talking to someone who sees themselves as their own absolute.

Rules for Radicals

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) (Saul Alinski’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they attack the character of the person who’s speaking. By making them look bad, anything that they say is now assumed to be corrupted and therefore something you don’t need to listen to. They do this in three phases…

Stupid (They’re not qualified)

Phase One is to criticize their intellect. You don’t need to pay attention to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Immoral (They can’t be trusted)

Phase Two: If your opponent’s platform can’t be effectively refuted by accusing them of being “stupid,” the next phase is to accuse them of being immoral. You don’t have to have any basis for your accusation. Your opponent now has to prove their innocence before they can be perceived as credible, and because of the way it’s assumed that a guilty person will insist they’re innocent, apart from something irrefutable, there is now a shadow of suspicion that will linger over anything your adversary would say.

Criminal (They can’t be supported)

The final phase is to indict them. Charge them with a crime and make it difficult for anyone to support or agree with them given their criminal status.

Untouchable

Embedded within each of these accusations is the idea that the person who’s having to contend with these dynamics is being forced to conform either to an inferior intellect or a depraved character. They are sophisticated victims attempting to stand up against uneducated villains. And because you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel or hateful, all a person has to do is claim to be either offended or oppressed and they become untouchable – perpetually excused from having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.

Joseph Goebbels was a National Socialist politician and propagandist. He held several roles in the Nazi Party. He served as Nazi Party chief for Greater Berlin from 1926 until 1945. From 1930 until 1945 he was head of propaganda (Reichspropagandaleiter) for the Nazi Party. In 1933, Adolf Hitler appointed Goebbels Reich Minister for Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, a position he held until 1945. Goebbels was an unconditional follower of Hitler and a radical antisemite. (Holocaust Encyclopedia).

This is a portion of a speech he made to an audience gathered in Nuremberg in 1934 where he talked about the power and the influence of propaganda…

The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. Even today, large parts of world opinion are convinced that the typical characteristics of German propaganda are lying, crudeness, reversing the facts, and the like. One needs only to remember the stories that were spread throughout the world at the beginning of the war about German soldiers chopping off children’s hands and crucifying women to realize that Germany then was a defenseless victim of this campaign of calumny. It neither had nor used any means of defense. (Goebbels at Nuremberg — 1934)

This is how bad ideas and solutions that don’t work get introduced into the marketplace. Not because of their intellectual or practical merit, but because of the way anyone who opposes them is dismissed due to their supposed lack of intelligence or integrity. But they’re not accusations as much as they’re distractions. By keeping the focus on the person speaking rather than on what is being said, topics are replaced with tactics and principles are subordinated to preferences.

What’s truly bizarre is the way people who see themselves as their own bottom line will accuse others of the very thing they themselves are doing. By pointing an accusatory finger in the opposite direction, it’s assumed that the person making the accusation is innocent of the stupidity, immorality, and criminality they would insist is being perpetrated by another. This was a tactic applauded by Joseph Goebbels, the head of Nazi Propaganda during the second World War (see sidebar).

Ask the Right Questions

Overcoming these tactics is not accomplished by reason and debate. All the boundaries otherwise established by truth, logic, and common sense are nonexistent once truth has been redefined as something that is based on a personal preference as opposed to a fixed principle. In addition, if you’ve been labeled in a way that makes everything you say resonate as something either stupid or sinister, you first have to prove you’re credible before you can prove that you’re right. Given the way guilty people are expected to claim that they’re innocent, regardless of how compelling the defense of your character may be, there is nevertheless a shadow of doubt that’s been cast over your platform that you can never completely eliminate.

There is, however, another approach that can prove very effective in revealing the lack of intellectual and practical merit that characterizes a particular perspective.

Simply ask the right questions.

Jesus did this every effectively when the Pharisees tried to trap Him with a topic they thought would incriminate Him.

When you ask a question, in that moment you control the conversation. Your opponent is now obligated to provide an answer that will either resonate as logical or hesitant. That hesitation can do more for proving your point than the argument you would articulate, regardless of how eloquently you might be able to state your case. Instead of providing the necessary space for tactics and distractions to be deployed, you’re now able to clear the field of everything save the reality that your opponent needs to either qualify or dismiss entirely.

You can see several examples of this approach that cover topics such as Racism, Homosexuality, and Voter Fraud by clicking here. Another issue that serves as a great example of the way those who recognize standards that exist independently of the way a person thinks or feels are accused of being “SIC,” is Illegal Immigration.

Those who would label the current administration as a Nazi operation, given its direct approach to the deportation of illegal immigrants, will not sound especially confident if compelled to answer the following questions honestly.

Illegal Immigration
Question Answer
Who said the following: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” Barack Obama in a speech given in 2005 (Obama’s 2005 remarks reflect strong stance on controlling immigration. Barack Obama deported more immigrants than any President in history (abcnews.com)
Who said this: “I think if they committed a crime, deport them immediately! No questions asked…” Hillary Clinton, 2008
Which administration has deported the most illegal immigrants? Obama or Trump? The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other President in the 20th century. According to the Department of Homeland Security, that number was around 3 million. The Trump Administration has deported only 675,000. 2.2 million have self-deported.

For more info on the way the Democrat party has changed their attitude towards illegal immigrants, Nicole Russell from USA Today wrote a great piece which you can access by clicking here.
Is entering the country illegally a crime, or is just a civil infraction? Physical presence in the United States without proper authorization is a civil violation, rather than a criminal offense. This means that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can place a person in removal (deportation) proceedings and can require payment of a fine, but the federal government cannot charge the person with a criminal offense unless they have previously been ordered deported and reentered in violation of that deportation order. (American Immigration Council).

However…

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien)

While it is possible to apply for naturalization, that only can be done if you initially entered the US legally. Should you try to leave the US and re-enter according to Immigration Law, you’re barred from doing so for a period of at least 3 years. If you try to re-enter illegally, that is considered a felony.

But an illegal immigrant engaged in criminal activity is to be immediately deported with no questions asked.
Mockers resent correction, so they avoid the wise. (Prov 15:12)
Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.(Prov 9:8)
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. (Prov 18:12)
Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe. (Prov 28:26)
Fools fold their hands and ruin themselves. (Ecc 4:5)
Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless. (Ecc 7:6)

While you often see “SIC-ness” in the context of Politics, it’s not limited to the disagreements between Conservatives and Liberals. Anytime you encounter someone who sees themselves as their own bottom line, you inevitably encounter the approach where what’s being spoken is being ignored in favor of trying to discredit the person who’s speaking. While that’s not always inappropriate, it is a common tactic used by someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they’ve got something to hide.

In the end, it’s a spiritual darkness, given the way it can be accurately described as a person elevating themselves to the status of a deity. While that’s not something you can completely address from a human standpoint (Eph 6:12), we are nevertheless doing well to be capable of effectively explaining what we believe and why (1 Pet 3:15).

Being able to ask the right questions is a good start. It’s an effective strategy that protects something we can’t live without…

The Truth…

Nazi’s

/in , , /by

The question being asked was, “Is MAGA the New Nazi Party?“

The responses were typical of the way some want to demonize those can’t dispute without sounding selfish and foolish. They approach the world with a strategy that says if I can’t get you to agree with me, I’ll get you to feel sorry for me.

On the surface, it’s frustrating because of the way the obvious truth is ignored in favor of catering to those who insist that because they’re uncomfortable they automatically qualify as a priority. They’re a casual spectator looking for a quick and easy way to be perceived as sophisticated and compassionate.

But there are others who are genuinely toxic. They embrace the idea that however flawed their rationale may be, if they can reduce those who they disagree with to the status of a villain, they are now no longer obligated to explain why their ideas don’t work, they can now simply “resist” those who oppose them.

Left Wing Violence

Even honest liberals have had to admit in recent weeks that left-wing terrorism exceeds rightwing terrorism. On September 23, no less an emblem of American liberalism than The Atlantic magazine admitted that fact in an article, based on a recent study, under the headline, “Left-Wing Terrorism Is On The Rise.”Less honest liberals, including members of Congress, have nevertheless persisted in denying this fact. Democrat congressman Seth Moulton reacted to a leftist’s assassination of the most prominent proponent of civil debate on the American Right by blaming the Right. He claimed that three-quarters of political violence in the United States comes from the Right, while only four percent is committed by the Left. That claim struck me as suspect, so I looked into just a few examples of left-to-right political violence. Consider the Covenant School massacre in Nashville, for instance, in which a transidentifying shooter murdered Christian children at school after leaving a manifesto outlining ideological motivations, such as gender ideology. That incident, according to authorities, lacked an ideological motive. The Black Lives Matter riots—overtly leftist demonstrations that left dozens of people dead and over a billion dollars’ worth of property damage—likewise fail to show up on registers of left-wing political violence.

Even an attack by Antifa operatives that targeted me personally for my conservative political views appeared in official records and data sets as nothing more than “obstructing law enforcement” on the rare occasion it appeared at all. It turns out the Left commits relatively little political violence when one does not count the political violence that the Left commits. (Testimony of Michael Knowles | Senate Subcommittee on Political Violence, October 2025

You can’t help but notice a common thread running through the talking points of the Democrat party. Same sex marriage, abortion, or a desire to transform our country into a socialist society all require a philosophy that perceives the individual as his own absolute.

  • I have the right to redefine marriage
  • I have the right to decide who lives and dies
  • I have the right to give away other people’s money

This is part of the reason why the “separation of church and state” is so often cited as a way to maintain the individual as the gauge by which all things are measured. Despite the context of the First Amendment being a safeguard to restrict government’s influence on Christianity, the Modern Day Democrat has invented a whole new perspective where the Bill of Rights was put in place to accommodate the person who wants to envision himself as his own bottom line and truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.

Of course, that isn’t an accurate interpretation of history, nor does it translate to a sustainable and coherent mindset. But the flaws there are inherent to that approach are not noticed when you’re able to successfully position yourself as a victim and anyone who disagrees with you as a villain.

This is the rationale that drives those who want to refer to President Trump as a tyrant and those who support him as Nazis. What’s really ironic is that those who are the most aggressive in leveling these kinds of accusations against the Republican party are the ones that resemble the Third Reich the most, given their control of the media and the violence they’ve exacted upon their political opponents (see sidebar).

Below is a response I wrote to the aforementioned question: “Is MAGA the New Nazi Party?“ No. MAGA is not the new Nazi party. The only way you can arrive at that conclusion is to not only take President Trump’s comments out of context, but you have to begin from a philosophical disposition that says the individual is his own absolute. In light of a situation that doesn’t exist, you have to believe yourself capable of speaking something into reality and then vilifying anyone with the capacity to reveal the lack of substance that characterizes your platform…

I read the “Donald Trump’s War on Free Speech & the Need for Systemic Resistance” article you cited. I’m assuming that is part of your response to my asking for specific actions done by the Trump administration that qualify him as a Nazi.

The article cites President Trump saying, “We took away the Freedom of Speech” as an example of how Trump is deploying a fascist approach to government.

But did you read the context of his comment? I did. Here’s what the President said: “Only days ago, Nick Sortor was assaulted in Portland by a flag burning mob and we’ve made it one-year penalty for inciting riots. We took the freedom of speech away because that’s been through the courts and the courts said, you have freedom of speech. But what has happened is when they burn a flag, it agitates and irritates crowds. They’ve never seen anything like it, on both sides, and you end up with riots. So we’re going on that basis. We’re looking at it from — not from the freedom of speech, which I always felt strongly about, but never past the courts. This is what they do, is they incite — when you burn an American flag, you incite tremendous violence.”

“Freedom of Speech,” in the context the President was using, was referring to a legal sounding tactic used to justify saying that you have license to say and do whatever you want, and not have to take responsibility for what occurs as a result. In that context, that’s not a “right,” that’s not even an excuse. It’s a tool a coward uses to distract attention away from the true intent and substance of his actions.

It’s interesting that among those who insist that the President is infringing on the right to free speech are those that are very quick to say, “Hate speech isn’t free speech.” Suddenly, censorship is appropriate when a moment ago it was considered unconstitutional.

Fact of the matter is, the things you want to say constitute Fascism on the part of the Republican party should be recognizable to you, given the way the Left has killed, censored, and imprisoned their political opponents, all in the name of resisting the “threat to democracy,” when it fact, it’s a resurrection of accountability.

The law is only as good as the truth and a court is only as good as the law.

I spent nine years in the USMC. Flag burning may be a form of free speech to you, but to anyone who’s ever made a sacrifice for what that flag stands for, it’s a toxic attack on the ones who gave their lives to defend the rights and principles you’re now using to desecrate their graves.

Every expert, every study, every poll, that you would cite to substantiate the idea that Trump is a Nazi, that his supporters are bigots, and that flag burning is a legitimate manifestation of free speech has as its fundamental starting the idea that the individual is his own absolute. Truth is therefore reduced to a personal preference and anyone who would dare dispute what you “believe,” is now a liar and a tyrant.

The law is only as good as the truth and a court is only as good as the law.

There were a number of subject matter experts who were insisting that the Jew was to blame for all of the problems facing Germany in the immediate aftermath of World War I. Thanks to the polls, studies, and conclusions published during that time, Hitler’s agenda was able to gain enough traction where it became a national battlecry.

You’re doing the same thing. In your feeble attempts to associate Trump and anyone who supports him as someone who would’ve endorsed the Holocaust, you’re promoting a paradigm that says a man can compete in female sports, marriage can be redefined, illegal immigrants can enter our country at will, trade deficits can be celebrated, etc., etc. And you’re promoting it using the same tactics the Nazis used to manipulate the populace leading up to World War II.

You are the very thing you claim to despise.

Because That’s What You’ve Been Told

/in , , /by

This was a post originally published in 2021, but the content is still just as relevant today as it was back then.

Enjoy!

For the last four years, you were convinced that regardless of what President Trump accomplished or said, he was a fool and a fiend. Therefore, anything he did was suspect and could be comfortably categorized as either irrelevant or detrimental…

Because that’s what you’ve been told. His election wasn’t credible. He colluded with Russia. We spent two years and 32 million dollars investigating a claim that turned out to be untrue. But in your mind, he’s still guilty and the 2016 election wasn’t legitimate…

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

He should’ve been removed from office. He made a call to the President of the Ukraine and you sat glued to the TV watching a parade of unelected officials insist that Trump was guilty of abusing his authority. The Ukrainian President himself insisted that the call in question was devoid of any such conversation, implied or otherwise. But you still believe that Trump was guilty and the only reason he wasn’t removed from office is because the Senate refused to do their job.

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

COVID-19 has a 98% recovery rate and of those that have passed away as a result of the virus, 94% had, on the average , 2 potentially life-threatening pre-existing conditions. The CDC has said it’s not an airborne disease. Yet, you still wear a mask and support the idea of staying distant, closed and compromised and believe anyone who wants to get the vaccine and move on is reckless, selfish and even cruel.

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

There’s over 1,000 signed affidavits and sworn testimonies testifying to the fact that this past election was fraudulent. The State of Texas has a publicly accessible pdf that details why Dominion’s software is not a secure voting mechanism. President Trump delivered a speech that detailed several instances of suspicious activity. It wasn’t aired on any major network because several courts and attorneys insisted that none of what had been submitted constituted any real evidence. You’ve not read any of the testimonies yourself, you weren’t in any of the swing states to observe what went on, but you nevertheless believe that President Biden’s election was honorable and accurate.

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

President Trump said nothing that could be construed as a call to violence on January 6th. A transcript of his speech is available for public review. Anderson Cooper from CNN interviewed someone posing as a cameraman merely filming what was going on in the Capital. It turns out, however, he’s part of a BLM group and was caught on film agitating the crowd and urging people to “Burn this sh** down!” Yet, any questions pertaining to the true political convictions of those who broke into the Capital and evaluate them on an individual basis as opposed to labeling the entire crowd as insurrectionists is dismissed as pointless. This would be a healthy and logical step to take to find out how multiple peaceful rallies held both in Washington and throughout the US suddenly took a violent turn. But it doesn’t matter. You believe Trump and anyone who supports him is violent, godless, racist and a threat to Democracy…

…because that’s what you’ve been told.

Freedom of Speech is now determined by what party you support. Arguments are won not according to the substance of your content, but on the effectiveness of your methods. American interests and security concerns are prideful restrictions that only people who lack compassion would even consider. Moral Absolutes are cruel and antiquated traditions that need to give way to open dialogue and the right to be happy. And you heartily agree with all of this..

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

With few exceptions, none of us have actually worked with Trump, we’re not on a first name basis with Biden, we’re not experts in viruses and even when we attempt to google things and seek out additional information, we’re still drawn to those sources that possess a philosophical bent that leans in our preferred direction. In other words, we are what we eat and we’re hesitant to listen to anything or anyone that doesn’t agree with our worldview.

When you think of the current political climate, then, it’s not so much about what’s true as much as it’s about who we believe is telling the truth. Is it Anderson Cooper or Jesse Waters? Is it Newsmax or NBC? Are we listening to media committed to informing public opinion or are we listening to resources determined to shape public opinion?

How can we tell?

One thing that can used as a good indicator is to ask the question, “Am I being presented with a commentary on what’s being done or who’s doing it?”

For example, Moral Failings are heinous. But the public reaction to those indiscretions is bound to be different if one instance is presented as a misstep and the other situation is displayed as grounds for dismissal. If the activity is the same, but the reporting is completely different based on the personality involved, you’re not listening to “news” as much as you’re listening to a “campaign.” You’re not hearing topics as much as you’re hearing tactics, regardless of what the headline says. In that moment, you have legitimate cause for concern. Reason being is that among the strategies typically used by sinister elements who are promoting an agenda is to silence their opposition by casting them as villains. By doing so, anything that person champions is now associated with something reprehensible and whatever platform is being proposed as an option now looks far more appealing regardless of how toxic it may be.

Does this sound familiar?

How many times have you seen a person been excoriated for their behavior while their political counterpart isn’t even criticized? How many times has a particular issue been promoted by implying that anyone who doesn’t agree doesn’t just have a different opinion, but they are immoral? Truth is not how certain facts are manipulated, it’s how all the facts are evaluated. And you don’t arrive at the truth without seeking both sides of an issue and dismissing those accounts that are focused more on personality than principle.

We’re at a point where we can no longer allow our convictions to be dictated by media outlets that are focused more on who said something as opposed to what was actually said. We’re all dependent on the headlines to some extent. But we can choose who to listen to. We can seek out second opinions and we can resolve to filter out those voices that are more preoccupied with assaulting someone’s character than objectively examining their content. You’ve got to be like the Bereans that Paul talks about in Acts 17 – people who examined what was being said to find out if it was true and not let the personality speaking be more of a priority than the point they’re making. That’s how you arrive at a legitimate bottom line.

Now, you may not agree with any of this and if you’re determined to trade truth for accuracy and gossip for substance, chances are you’re doing so because you’re convinced that any news or information coming from anything or anyone other than those who share your worldview are bogus.

And why do you feel that way?

Because that’s what you’ve been told.

In God We Trust

/in , /by

“In God We Trust.”

Some people have a real hard time with that.

More often than not, they’re the same people who want to cancel July 4th this year.

Thing is, if you line up the Declaration of Independence, the recent elimination of Iran’s Nuclear capability, and Alligator Alcatraz, the one common thread that you see is the reality of a Standard.

Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activity are to be immediately deported, and our rights are guaranteed by God and not the disposition of a court.

Anything or anyone who promotes the idea of a Standard that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels is not welcome in mind of someone who wants to see themselves as their own bottom line. Religious sounding mottos and historical documents are fine right up until the point where it threatens a person’s resolve to eliminate the reality of Principles in favor of Preferences.

But that’s not the paradigm we’re based on and Freedom doesn’t mean you get to use your “rights” as weapons you use to get your way as much as you value them as gifts God gives you to guard your way.

In God We Trust.

Happy 4th of July!

A Time to Speak

/in , , , /by

I’m seeing several posts coming from well meaning people saying that we need to just love everybody and avoid any kind of confrontation.

Last year, President Trump narrowly missed being assassinated. This after several years of his opponents calling him a Nazi, a fascist, and a threat to democracy.

We need to just pray and not argue…

Where in Scripture does God tell us to be quiet and remain in our prayer closet while everyone else is voting, debating, knocking on doors, and basically pushing back against the narrative that says there is no absolute save the person who stares back at you in the mirror every morning?

This is the time to speak!

Here’s what I see:

First of all, to process Christ’s approach to the cross as our template for the way we confront evil is to forget that Jesus at one point said,

Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns. (Lk 22:53).

Jesus’ willingness to be crucified was not meant to be an example for the way we resist evil and fight back against corruption. He had to go to the cross in order for the Scriptures to be fulfilled and to pay our debt (Matt 26:54). While there may be a time when Christ asks you to sacrifice yourself, simply laying down and doing nothing in the face of being attacked or not standing up for what’s right, believing that you’re an example of piety, is not an accurate interpretation of the whole of God’s Word.

John the Baptist wound up in prison for rightfully confronting the current administration and calling out Herod as being an immoral dirtbag. Jesus said that no human being was greater than John (Matt 11:9-11; Lk 3:19-20).

How many times in the Old Testament did a prophet confront a king or an entire nation and tell them that they were godless and offensive in the sight of God? Was Nathan vague in the way he spoke to David (2 Sam 12:7)? Did Elisha mince words when he told the king of Israel what was going to happen to him and his wife as a result of doing evil in the sight of God (1 Kings 21:21-24)?

Did David give Goliath a brochure? Did Paul try to be extra sensitive when he spoke to King Agrippa (Acts 26:24-29)?

There’s a difference between righteous indignation and the kind of rage that springs from thinking of no one other than yourself. Ephesians 4:26 says to not let your anger provoke you to the point where you do something wrong. That’s obviously something you want to avoid. Simply exchanging insults on social media is not accomplishing anything.

But at one point, David said…

Do I not hate those who hate you, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies. (Ps 139:21)

What David is saying is that he hates the work of sinners, and for good reason. Nothing good comes from those who intentionally try to do the wrong thing. And when you consider the pain and the problems that come from doing the wrong thing, you have every reason to detest that kind of mindset.

But, how do you respond to the “wrong thing?”

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Eph 5:11)

Expose them!

The person who doesn’t want to be “exposed” is not going to want to listen to you, nor do they want others to listen to you. They will be antagonistic and that kind of reaction is difficult to endure, which is why it’s so important to know what you believe and why you believe it so when it’s time to “expose them,” you sound like you have a point.

It also takes courage. For those who cringe at the thought of being criticized, it’s easy and convenient to retreat behind a biblical sounding excuse to not say or do anything.

That’s not discipleship, that’s cowardice.

What would’ve happened had our founding fathers not stood up to King George?

On one hand, they could’ve referred to Christ’s command to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s as well as the biblical admonishment to obey those in authority (Matt 22:21; Rom 13:1).

But rather than base their perspective on a mere portion of Scripture, they looked at God’s Word as a whole and were able to justify separating from England due to the fact that we are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).

They stood up and they spoke out.

Your witness means very little if you smile at the things that send a person to hell and endorse the things that put Christ on the cross.

David didn’t just sing, Paul didn’t just write, and Jesus didn’t just pray.

There’s a time to be silent and there’s a time to speak.

This is the time to speak.

There is No Referee

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 The Liberal disposition towards God is similar to a football player who’s on the field, playing the game, but doesn’t believe in a Referee. There are no penalties, only plays. The idea is to move the ball down the field and enjoy the fulfillment that comes from putting points on the board. That is not only his goal, it is his right and with that sense of entitlement comes the authority to define the standard by which his conduct on the field is measured.

Should someone challenge his approach, because he’s unwilling to acknowledge the Reality of a “higher authority,” he sees it as a situation where he’s being compelled to adjust his perspective according to only the traditions and preferences of those on the other team and he will look at them and demand to know why he has to play by their rules and refer to them as judgmental and fascists.

There is no Referee.

This is why any conversation pertaining to morality or politics or the cultural in general is destined to fall short of anything influential because until he’s willing to acknowledge the Reality of God, he is his own bottom line. And his philosophical apparatus will interpret anything that comes across as critical of his behavior as not only a negative appraisal of his performance, but an attack on his dominion over all that constitutes the difference between right and wrong.

There is no Referee.

The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints.

Oftentimes the debate that happens between Democrats and Republicans ceases to be about policy as much as it becomes an argument about morality. The moment it becomes a moral issue, it is therefore a spiritual topic in light of what God specifies in Scripture. But if there is no Referee, than the only Standard by which moral conduct is defined and measured is whatever best promotes the humanistic agenda lurking behind the behavior being discussed. And what applies to one team may or may not apply to the other and what may be an infraction today may not even resonate as a headline tomorrow.

On the surface, the argument that defends the idea that there is no Referee can sound compelling in the way it suggests that to assert a Biblical position is to violate the separation of church and state and force a person to adopt a particular religious disposition that may or may not coincide with their personal convictions.

But the idea that there is no Referee is a religious disposition in that it establishes man as his own deity. It’s not just a question of what the Liberal doesn’t believe about God as much as it’s what they assert as an acceptable replacement for the Role that God plays in, not only determining the difference between right and wrong, but the origin of the universe, the question of life after death as well as the purpose for one’s existence. The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints. And to strip our nation of it’s Christian foundation by insisting that any reference to a religious framework is to violate the separation of church and state is revealed as a sinister absurdity once it becomes apparent that the atheist’s perspective on the human experience is just as much of a “religion” as much as Christianity and in that regard they are the very thing they claim to despise.

Yet, hypocrisy is only recognized as such when there’s a concrete Truth in place to flag when a person is being hypocritical. But that’s not something that concerns a Liberal because…

…there is no Referee.

How Did This Happen?

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’m writing this believing that some will have a hard time understanding how Trump won the election…

You’re scratching your head, wondering how Trump was able to win the election given his felonies, his lack of morality, and all his obvious flaws.

There are people out there that have likened him to Hitler, his supporters have been branded as Nazi’s. The MAGA movement is racist, ignorant, rebellious, vulgar, cruel, hateful…

So, how did this happen?

To understand the outcome of the election, you have to be able to pass a simple vocabulary test. To prepare, let’s walk through a couple of terms…

Rule of Law – the best way to process this is to imagine a corrupt lawyer. It’s not about what’s right or fair, it’s what can be manipulated into something that has the appearance of “justice.”

Threat to Democracy – it is a “threat,” but not to Democracy in the context of a representative government. Rather, it’s a threat to those who occupy a position of authority who are determined to serve themselves as opposed to serving others.

Division – Liberals can’t “disagree” intelligently because their ideas don’t work. So, they position themselves as victims of an intolerant society and in so doing can insulate themselves from any real evaluation. Reason being is that you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled “cruel and hateful.” This is how they’re able to push their agenda without it having any real practical or logical merit.

With that as their backdrop, any kind of resistance can be labeled as something sinister and even immoral. “Division” is a part of that strategy in that it categorizes anyone who would point out the nonsensical aspects of their platform as being “divisive.”

Felony – this depends on the person being charged. If it’s a Democrat, a felony is the legal term used by those who are engaged in a witch hunt because a Democrat is never guilty as much as they’re just being harassed.

If it’s a Republican, they don’t even have to be guilty, the crime doesn’t have to be specified and the jury doesn’t need to be unanimous. It’s a word that’s been emptied of all its legitimacy in order to use it as a label to undermine the integrity of whoever is speaking so whatever they’re saying is dismissed as flawed because of it coming from a supposedly criminal perspective.

Constitutional – it depends on the context. On one hand, it’s a legal outcome that is in line with a Liberal’s preferences. Otherwise, it’s a flawed ruling based on an antiquated standard authored by a collection of slave owners.

Insurrection – an appropriate response to a questionable decision infiltrated by any one of a number of FBI informants and corrupted law enforcement officials that intentionally instigate and encourage unlawful behavior. The result being a scripted collection of snapshots and sound bites that can be used to characterize the entire effort as criminal.

Truth – irrelevant term used by an individual who wants to infringe on the right of another to think for themselves. It’s the self-absorbed idea that there is an Absolute that can be used as a benchmark to gauge the accuracy and / or the morality of a particular subject.

This is why when you try to point out the fallacies of a Liberal’s argument by citing evidence or common sense, they will simply change the definition of what constitutes evidence or bend the rules of logical thinking because “truth” doesn’t exist as a bottom line that persists independently of a person’s feelings. A Liberal maintains themselves as their own absolute so, at any given moment, they can create an entirely new system of morals and standards to match their preferred assessment of the situation so, while they may be “different” or “damaged” or unfairly dismissed, they’re never wrong.

Now, with those definitions, we can proceed with an answer to your question, as far as how Donald Trump won the election…

Donald Trump’s victory was not the result of a sinister plot or an uneducated group of voters. It was because enough people were able to see through the “vocabulary” of a political philosophy that translates to policies that, more often than not, make a bad situation worse.

Thank You, President Trump

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Much of this is a reprint of an article written by Howie Carr and featured in the Boston Herald. I added some things of my own at the bottom of the list.

Christ said you will know a tree by its fruit. Whether it’s Trump or someone who thinks like him, I look forward to an administration that has this kind of record…

  1. Thank you for the tax cuts for the middle class.
  2. Thank you for destroying genocidal ISIS, which your predecessor called “the junior varsity.”
  3. Thanks for shutting off the endless flow of illegal immigrants at the southern border, and the unending supply of MS-13 gangbangers, among other criminals, as well as the welfare-dependent illiterate indigents who were so destabilizing American society before you became president.
  4. Thank you for calling out the endless hypocrisy of the media — what you so aptly described as “Very Fake News.”
  5. Thank you for promoting economic policies that led to the lowest unemployment rates ever for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and women, among others.
  6. Thank you for doing more to promote peace in the Middle East than all of your predecessors combined.
  7. Thank you for calling out and exposing the feckless RINOs of your own party like Willard Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, et al.
  8. Thanks for finally standing up to Red China and its predatory trade practices.
  9. Thanks for calling out Fox News Channel for its duplicitous descent into terminal wokeness. T
  10. Thank you for Operation Warp Speed, an amazing achievement for which you will never receive the appropriate credit.
  11. Thanks for pardoning all the persecuted victims of the Russian collusion hoax, among them Gen. Michael Flynn and Roger Stone.
  12. Thank you for eliminating Obamacare’s “individual mandate,” which fined individuals for not buying health insurance they didn’t want or couldn’t afford.
  13. Thank you for taking more questions from (almost always hostile) reporters than all of the last three or four presidents combined.
  14. Thanks for getting the U.S. out of such foreign policy disasters as the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Climate Accords and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as well as ending the fiasco for American workers that was NAFTA.
  15. Thanks for such a booming economy that seven million people got off the food-stamp rolls.
  16. Thanks for all those tweets that drove the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) crazy.
  17. Thank you for not turning the IRS into an instrument of persecution against your political foes, the way your predecessor did.
  18. Thanks for not surveilling reporters a la the Obama administration.
  19. Thanks for ending state oppression against people of faith like the Little Sisters of the Poor.
  20. Thank you for trying to defund “sanctuary cities” where illegals run amok.
  21. Thanks for the three new justices on the Supreme Court — think how much worse Hillary’s picks would have been, and maybe someday they’ll grow the spines they so obviously lacked last month in Texas v. Pennsylvania.
  22. Thank you for defanging North Korea and Little Rocket Man.
  23. Thanks for opening up more of our North Atlantic waters for New England commercial fishermen and lobstermen.
  24. Thanks for defending both the First and Second Amendments, and for railing against Section 230, which the billionaire fascists of Silicon Valley are abusing to shut down free speech.
  25. Thank you for appointing U.S. attorneys who actually wanted to put real criminals in prison, without fear or favor.
  26. Thank you for the travel ban, which has largely halted the flow of terrorists like the Tsarnaevs, who had been welcomed into the U.S. and put on welfare by previous administrations, Democrat and Republican alike.
  27. Thanks for the balance in my 401(k).
  28. Thanks for the lowest gasoline prices in decades.
  29. Thanks for the largest number of Americans with gainful employment since the government started keeping records.
  30. Thank you for ordering the elimination of two of the most bloodthirsty terrorists on earth, al-Baghdadi and Gen. Soleimani.
  31. Thank you for being bold enough to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
  32. Thank you for enacting legislation that prevented violations of religious freedom in the context of Heath Care.
  33. Thank you for eliminating support of global abortion funding (known as the Mexico City Policy).

Thank you, Mr President.