The Subterfuge of Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address … Part 1

I have a young friend who was recently challenged about his decided animosity towards Abraham Lincoln, especially in regards to Lincoln’s first Inaugural address. I told him I would analyze Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural in order to see through Lincoln’s sleight of hand and dis-ingenuousness.  I will not be examining the complete address but just what I think are the points where Mr. Lincoln was playing the three card Monte with his dissembling lawyer language.

I am greatly helped here by Edgar Lee Master’s, “Lincoln The Man.” A biography I highly recommend to get a balanced view of Lincoln.

Lincoln’s First Inaugural (here after, L-1st-I)

“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Bret Responds,

1.) There was more than reasonable cause for the South to have cause for apprehension.

a.) First, there was Republican Seward’s own “Irrepressible Conflict” speech. Seward, a favored Republican Presidential hope in his own right was tabbed as Lincoln’s Sec. State. In the aforementioned 1858 speech Seward had offered,

“It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slave-holding nation or entirely a free-labor nation.”

This kind of language would have given Southerners more than reasonable cause to fear a Republican administration.

b.) However, it was not merely Lincoln’s subalterns from whom the South had reasonable cause to fear a Republican administration. Lincoln’s own “House Divided” speech would have given ample evidence that a Republican administration would be a threat to the Southern way of life. In that 1858 speech Lincoln offered,

“If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.
We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.
Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.
In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new –North as well as South.”

This speech belied Mr. Lincoln’s statement that he had no inclination to interfere with the institution of slavery.

2.) Notice an important nuance in the Lincoln speech above. Lincoln says, “I have no intention to interfere with the Institution of Slavery in the states where it exists.” Any bright Southerner hearing this would have easily heard, “I do have intention to interfere with the Institution of Slavery in the new would be states (Kansas) where it does not exist.” Southerners, who revered the Constitution would have known that Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to do that and so had just cause for apprehension in Lincoln’s occupation of the oval office.

Given all the *un-constitutional measures that Lincoln would soon undertake it is easy to see that the Southerners, not believing Lincoln’s specious assurances from his 1st Inaugural, were indeed justified in their mistrust.


1.) On April 15, Lincoln called up the militia from all of the states to put into the field an army of more than 75,000 men. The Constitution puts this power with the Congress: Article I, Section 8, sets forth the powers of Congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections….”

2.) Also on April 15, Lincoln called Congress into session, as required by the Constitution for “extraordinary Occasions,” but delayed the meeting of Congress almost three months and during those three months Lincoln acted unconstitutionally and dictatorially in preparation for war.

3.) On April 21, he ordered the purchase of war materials, five naval vessels, which under the Constitution required congressional appropriations.

4.) Also on April 21 he ordered the navy to blockade all Southern ports. A blockade is an act of war, requiring the resolution of Congress.

5.) On April 27, he suspended the right of habeas corpus. Under the Bill of Rights, a person cannot be charged with a crime except by an indictment from a grand jury, nor can a person be convicted except by a jury of fellow civilians. No military trial of civilians was permitted, or so said the Constitution.

Because of this over 10,000 citizens were arrested and kept in Lincoln prisons without charge and / or trial.

6.) And of course there was the countless violations of the 1st amendment “Freedom of the Press” that the Lincoln Administration would soon transgress. Instance after instance of burning down Newspapers that wrote contrary to his “truth,” or alternately the wrecking of printing presses that refused to print Lincoln propaganda.




I Get By With A Little Help From My Son …

“… Israel assumed that the messianic king would be a political ruler and world conqueror, so that it equated the Kingdom of God with an historical state, a greater and world-wide Rome, as it were. The idea of government was equated with the state. This equation was radically pagan. In pagan antiquity as today, the state was seen as a divine-human order, and as the over-all lord and sovereign. In such a view, all things have their being within the jurisdiction and only with the approval of the sovereign state. Religion, art, family, school, and all things else are departments of the state and cannot be allowed to exist in independence of it. The state thus usurps the over-lordship of God and becomes God on earth. No area of freedom can exist outside the state: freedom becomes a privilege granted by the state and subject to its conditions.

Christianity, by asserting the supreme lordship of Christ over Caesar and all other human institutions, reduced the state to its Biblical dimensions, as a ministry of justice (Rom. 13:1-6).”

R.J. Rushdoony; pg 70, IBL II.

I am writing this out of frustration in seeing many people view Donald Trump as the president that will make America great again. In truth, as per the quote above, we will not be able to reform or make America great again (if it ever was great) through the civil realm. In point of fact, when we look to that area of government to create reform and to restructure areas where they do not belong, we are engaging in not only a pagan thought, but a Talmudic pagan thought. I will call people’s attention to where Jesus told Peter, after he had struck the ear off the high priest’s servant, “those who live by the sword, die by the sword.” If Rushdoony is correct in the above passage, which I believe is obvious, then a proper understanding of this passage would be that those who look to the state, die by the state, as the state’s administrative role has always been the sword. If Peter was faulted for expecting our Lord Jesus Christ to be a political savior (for lack of a better term), how much more are Christians to be faulted for expecting reform to come from someone who believes or would use the civil realm to dominate every other sphere. Therefore, as Christians, we are not allowed, per God’s law and Christ’s command, to advocate, vote, or participate in any function that furthers the state being used or seen as political savior, for that would be burning incense to Caesar.

So what must we do then, as there is no candidate and will be no candidate that is running on a platform of removing civil government intrusion? Should we not participate in the civil government functions at all? Certainly not. I believe we should do as God has commanded and not only obey Him by tithing to a faithful repository of the Church, but tithing to a faithful repository of the civil government. And by this, I do not mean the taxes we pay to the usurpers in the civil government. (The method you used to prevent that thievery is something I will leave up to conscience.) However, we as God’s people are still required to tithe to a faithful civil government. If none is in existence, then we should set the money aside as sacred and holy to the Lord until the time we can form or find one. Yes, I am suggesting to do as God commands and, like Gideon, send all the hosts away so that there are only three hundred men remaining. It is not the horse or the strength of men that win the battle, but it is the strength of God, and He has given us set rules and commands, though they may seem small or insignificant, they are much more powerful than any false vote for a king.  God is the omnipotent ruler, and if we look for reform, we must look to Him and His laws, and first apply them in our lives so that people may say who is this and what God do they serve?

If the Scripture is not enough, we can look to history and see what the early Christians did by setting up their own courts, and their own judgment halls, and abiding by them, so in the end the political savior had to accept their dominance of that sphere or face internal destruction.

In summary, we should not let our emotions become entangled with any political savior who seeks to rescue us through the use of civil government. We should not consider the money stolen from us in taxes to be the tithe that the Lord has commanded us to give to the state. If we engage in either of these practices, we run the danger of facing the Deuteronomic curses. We should set aside money to a faithful civil government so that the Lord’s commands might be obeyed, and His promised blessings received. For God is the omnipotent sovereign, and though the nations conspire against Him and His people, He will laugh at them in scorn and run the threshing wheel over them, causing them to be chaff in the wind. As He has promised, so it will be.

Anthony McAtee

A Nation Legislated Out Of Existence

The fact that we are no longer a “nation” can be accounted by the invasion, since 1965, of alien peoples from alien cultures. What Americans and the West can’t seem to understand is that this non-European immigration invasion, assured by the 1965 Immigration Act with its opening of the borders to the non-European world, is a colonization and a conquering of this territory once called “these united States.” It is the replacement of the previous people and culture in favor of a differing people and culture. The passage of said legislation was a masterful piece of lying from beginning to end. Sen. Teddy Kennedy, one of the chief sponsors of the Bill promised,

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…

Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset… Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…

In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think… The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

Sen. Teddy Kennedy was a lot of things but stupid was not one of them. Kennedy, along with Sen. Philip Hart, Sen. Jacob Javits, Emanuel Cellar and others could not be so blind as to not know that the Hart-Cellar act would fundamentally transform America from a WASP nation to a Propositional Universal nation.

In this 1965 Act America was certain to cease being a nation, if only because the heart and soul of a nation is its people. The 1965 Immigration Act guaranteed the replacement of the nation’s people and so in principle, killed the American Nation that existed in 1965 in favor of a Universal Propositional Nation that exists now. In the words of Bertolt Brecht, what the Government did in 1965 was to dissolve the people and elect another. 

That Universal Propositional Nation is a failure. The Liberal magic dirt theory that posited that non-Christian Europeans would instantly become Christian Americans simply by setting their foot on American soil has demonstrated instead that Somalian cliterectomies, and Arab “Allahu Akbahr barking,” and the third world sex trafficking doesn’t cease just because new arrivals from non Christian European countries have US soil under their feet.


A Christian take on non-Christian views masquerading as Christian views on Kim Davis

The following is a response to this,

That Public Square Thing

1.) I don’t buy the “pluralism” argument as enjoined against Kim Davis. This idea insists that, since we are not a Christian nation, therefore Christians must tolerate and live with pagan practices, such as sodomite marriage, of heathen practitioners. Those who argue for this tolerance for pluralism seem always fail to realize that toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance. Secondly, as it pertains to pluralism what most people don’t seem to recognize is that pluralism always hides a monotheistic non-pluralistic order where the God is the State policing how far the other gods in the pluralistic order can walk in the public square. Since, it is impossible for the God-State to exist without being animated by some belief system that belief system, which always animates every Government in existence, mocks the whole nonsense of “separation of Church and State,” as that phrase is currently used and understood. More on “separation of church and state later.”
2.) Some have argued that because Kim Davis issues marriage licenses to those who, in a manner inconsistent with the Scripture, are marrying again, after being un-biblically divorced, therefore Kim Davis is being inconsistent by refusing to issue marriage licenses to sodomites and lesbians who, like their heterosexual counter-parts, are also marrying un-biblically. This argument seems to posit that since some of God’s standards for marriage have been abandoned therefore all of God’s standards for marriage must be abandoned. This is like arguing that since we let a filthy and unclean dog in the house therefore we are inconsistent if we don’t let that filthy and unclean dog eat from the table or sleep in our bed. What will follow from this type of reasoning? Will we now argue that since County Clerks issue marriage licenses to sodomites they therefore must give marriage licenses to necrophiliacs and to Farmer Clyde and his prize milk cow Bessie?

Do you see why the wise are telling you that Obergefell vs. Hodges is the end of marriage having any stable meaning?

3.) Many ministers and others who are championing ignorant opinions on the Kim Davis case have no understanding regarding our law and the way it works. First, on this score, no law condoning sodomite marriage currently exists. Constitutionally speaking only Congress can make law. Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution states, “All legislative power herein granted is vested in a Congress….” Please understand that ‘All’ means all. Congress has passed no law allowing for sodomite marriage. No law like that exists. SCOTUS, constitutionally speaking, can not legally make law. SCOTUS only interprets law. Can anyone take me to the law or point to the law that says that sodomites can marry? They can’t because no such law exists.

Second, on this score, even if the US Congress had passed a law saying that “sodomites can marry” such a law would be null and void before the ink was put to the page and county clerks would be under no obligation to follow such an illegal legality. The Federal Government is restricted, by the US Constitution (our covenant document) to only the enumerated and delegated powers outlined by the US Constitution. Guess what folks? Granting sodomites the legal right to marry is not one of the Federal Governments “delegated or enumerated powers.” I’ve read the US Constitution. Such a enumerated and delegated power is just not there.
Third, the 9th and 10th amendment make the above paragraph abundantly clear. Law on matters not enumerated or delegated to the Feds are reserved to the States or the people.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, the Feds can certainly interpret this language any way they damn please but all because the Feds say the US Constitution gives them the authority to judicially or legislatively force sodomite marriage down our collective throats doesn’t mean that the US Constitution agrees with the Feds. Repeat after me slowly … “The Feds have zero Constitutional authority that allows them to force upon the States sodomite marriage.”
So, that being said we pause to ask, ‘How can the federal courts enforce a law that Congress, Constitutionally speaking, cannot even make”?
Fourth, on this score,since the Feds can point to no law passed by any legitimate Congress, wherein it is required that the States embrace sodomite marriage, Kim Davis is exactly correct in following the only law that speaks to the matter — Kentucky law. Kentucky law is the only law that currently exists on this subject and Kentucky law does not allow for sodomite marriage. It is everyone else besides Davis who are not following the Law. Let them sit and rot in jail.
4.) Some have argued that Kim Davis should do the “honorable thing and resign.” These folks fail to realize that Kim Davis is acting as a Public person. She does not have the luxury of resigning if she is take her public vows seriously. She, in her public capacity, is protecting her constituents from violating the current law of the land of Kentucky. In point of fact, a resignation would be the dishonorable thing for her to do.
5.) A brief word again on the “separation of Church and State.”
a.) The ability to completely divorce Church and State is a impossibility. All States reflect and are animated by some God or god concept as taught by some church somewhere. As the State has to do with creating and enforcing a societal law order. all states are expressly religious as all law is nothing but religion externalized into the social order.
b.) there is indeed a jurisdictional distinction between Church and State that absolutely must be abided by. The State, jurisdictionally speaking, is the realm of justice. The Church, jurisdictionally speaking, for the Christian, is the realm of grace offered and / or conferred in Word and Sacrament. The distinction exists. However, a jurisdictional distinction is far different than the idea of a “separation” as that is currently invoked.
c.) The phrase “separation of Church and State” is not part of our founding documents. The usage of it arose in a private letter of President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist convention in 1802. Jefferson’s phrase, “separation of Church and State” was not invoked as part of our political landscape until invoked in a SCOTUS “Everson vs. Board of Education” in 1947. The invocation of this unfortunate and misunderstood phrase has been lamented by legal scholars. In 1962, Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, complained that jurisprudence was not “aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,’ a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, likewise found the phrase “separation of church and state” lamentable, In addressing the issue in 1985, Rhenquist noted “unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.”
d.) Until Everson the Establishment clause, which was originally intended to be applied only fully to the Federal Government (i.e. — The Federal Government could not create a religious establishment for all the states) was now fully applied to all the states so that the Federal government would insure that the States also had a wall of separation between church and state. (The famous doctrine of incorporation.)
Separation of church and state is a myth, created by a progressive court for the purpose of setting the influence of Christianity aside in favor of more enlightened views. The Founders never envisioned a State that was separated from religious influence. Their intent was to insure that the Feds didn’t influence the States in the states having established religions.
6.) And even if 1-5 were inaccurate (and they’re not) “Let God be true and every man a liar.”
The point here is that those who tell you that Kim Davis is in violation of the law just don’t know what they are talking about. A second point here is that Christian ministers, who speak of the need for pluralism, are in point of fact saying that Christian ministers must champion polytheism for the public square. Pluralism is just not possible without polytheism. Don’t you think it passing strange that a Christian minister would tell you that God is pleased with Christians insisting that God is pleased by requiring room for false gods in the public square? 

A Cursory Look at Mad Anthony’s, Obergefell vs. Hodges Decision

“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

Kennedy found a Constitutional right that allows persons to define and express their identity? Paging Albert Camus.

The Constitution supports Existentialism? The Constitutional defies the notion that human beings have a set nature? The Constitution as Existentialist Anthropology? Is this written by Anthony Kennedy or by Jean Paul Sartre?

Who could have known?


“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”

A few sentences later,

“And their (sodomite) immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.”

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

1.) First they themselves are defining and expressing their identity. Then, a few sentences later we find out about their “immutable nature.” How does someone both define their identity while at the same time possessing an immutable nature? If they are defining their identity they cannot have an immutable nature. If they have an immutable nature their identity has already been defined for them. Contradict much Mad Anthony?

2.) This can only make sense, it seems, if we construe that Kennedy’s theology is anthropocentric, and his Deity is inter-subjective. Just as the Lord God is both creative and immutable, triggering change in a universe which he both transcends and pervades, so too, for Kennedy, the Almighty Individual sodomite is both creative and unchanging in his unsearchable ways. He announces to the world, “I AM, I said!” And so speaks himself into existence.  Who art thou, o critic, to question what the sovereign sodomite does? Fortunately we have judges like Mad Anthony to clarify these conundrums for us, the uninitiated. (Hat Tip — Habakkuk Mucklewrath on this one.)



Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

Cultural relativism anybody? Social Evolution? Truth as a social construct?


The Court, like many institutions, has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part.

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges Opinion

Pure historicism. Hegel’s “Universal Spirit.” Truth is ever evolving. Criminals in one generation are the leading indicators for and those who anticipate the definition of Saints in the next generation.

Of course, all of this is a reflection of the legal theory of legal positivism.


“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. “

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

1.) Would you mind too terribly Mad Anthony if you could site your epistemological source for this insight?

2.) Why only two persons Mad Anthony? Why not 3 or 4 or a bakers dozen?

3.) And by what requirement two persons? An enlightened view of marriage requires us to allow for two horses and a trans-gendered lesbian woman entering into marriage if that is how she has created her self identity.

4.) Kennedy, by restricting the number entering into marriage, as well as the kind of beasts that can enter into marriage with one person, is obviously struggling with the residual remains of his Christian upbringing.


Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

If Mad Anthony ever tires of writing legal briefs as a member of SCOTUS he has a future in Harlequin Romance novels.

Really, this kind of sentimental tripe in a SCOTUS legal brief?


The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter.

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

Now there exists a fundamental right to marry?

And to think, all those lost years when our forebears thought that boys go with girls in marriage while thinking it only seemed natural and just. Poor besotted fools.


The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

1.) “Rights come not from ancient sources alone” — Clearly a swipe at the Christian Scriptures. So, rights do not come from God alone? Well, what other God is there to give rights if not man?

2.) “Better informed understanding” — those poor poor fools of the past who were not bright enough to have the better informed understanding of this brilliant current generation.

3.) We’re not disparaging you or your beliefs as wrong in the least. We are just saying that you did not have the “better informed understanding” that we have. No disparagement at all here.

4.) So, Christian beliefs as enacted law should not be but the religious beliefs of sodomites should be enacted law?

5.) Is it ever proper to stigmatize or disparage any sexual self identity Mad Anthony? Should we stigmatize Bestiality? Should we disparage Pedophilia? Should we consider Necrophilia taboo? Remember Justice Kennedy you have created a right of self identity in this decision.

In a sane world, Justice Mad Anthony Kennedy would be committed to an insane asylum.


Were the Court to stay its hand to allow slower, case-by-case determination of the required availability of specific public benefits to same-sex couples, it still would deny gays and lesbians many rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage.

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

This is just another way of paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln when he said that, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. Only this time Kennedy is saying that the this government cannot remain half sodomite and half non-sodomite.


Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The
First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to
continue the family structure they have long revered.

Anthony Kennedy
Obergefell vs. Hodges

Tell that to the Photographers, the Bakers, the Florists and others who have been put out of business because they tried to adhere to their religious doctrines. Tell that to those who have refuse to condone sodomite marriage by refusing to do business with sodomites in celebrating their “marriage.” Where is you proper protection now Mad Anthony?


The important thing to keep in mind folks is that with this Obergefell vs. Hodges decision what SCOTUS has done is not primarily to allow sodomite marriage. What it has done is to create a legal category and Constitutional underpinning of the right to “self identity.” Self identity is the umbrella category that has been created that thus allows sodomite marriage to fall under. The possible repercussions of this is the destruction of law. If self identity is all that is required in order to garner recognized rights then no law can be written that could possibly fence in the privileges of “self-identity.” This decision erases the whole idea of “the rule of law,” and places us clearly in the twilight realm of the law of men. What happens when one self identity clashes with another self identity? No stable law can tell us that. Only the whim of men can sort that out and only guessing could be used as a guide to the outcome.

Let’s apply this. Let’s say that a child self identifies as an adult and an adult self identifies as a child. Now lets say that these two people are caught having sex. In this case it is the child who self identifies as the adult who is the pedophile. Outrageous you say?

So was the idea of sodomite marriage 40 years ago.

Statutory rape is a thing of the past. You’re 14 year old daughter is caught fornicating with her 19 year old boyfriend. Missy simply says, “I self identify as 21.”