Category: Politics

James Madison on Legal Establishment of Christianity … McAtee on Legal Establishment of Religious Liberty

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

— James Madison, 1784

“During 250 years of American Independence religious liberty has been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, the continued dumbing down of America, the ever increasing rise of sexual perversion, the embrace of explicit polytheism, a clergy that is more akin to Franz Boas than to John Calvin, and most recently the growing persecution of Biblical Christians.

— Rev. Bret L. McAtee, 2026

Go tell Madison he had his head up his southern most bodily aperture.

Todd Friel or Samuel Rutherford / Andrew Eliot?

“Tyranny being a work of Satan, is not from God, because sin, either habitual or actual, is not from God: the power that is, must be from God; the magistrate, as magistrate, is good in nature of office, and the intrinsic end of his office, (Rom. xiii. 4) for he is the minister of God for thy good; and, therefore, a power ethical, politic, or moral, to oppress, is not from God, and is not a power, but a licentious deviation of a power; and is no more from God, but from sinful nature and the old serpent, than a license to sin. God in Christ giveth pardons of sin, but the Pope, not God, giveth dispensations to sin.”

Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex, p.34

“For a nation thus abused to arise unanimously and to resist their prince, even to the dethroning of him, is not criminal, but a reasonable way of vindicating their liberties and just rights; it is making use of the means and the only means, which God has put into their power, for mutual and self-defense. And it would be highly criminal in them not to make use of this means. It would be stupid tameness and unaccountable folly for whole nations to suffer one unreasonable, ambitious, and cruel man to wanton and riot in their misery. And in such a case it would, of the two, be more rational to suppose that they who did NOT resist rather than that they who did, would receive to themselves damnation.”

Rev. Andrew Eliot (1718 – 1778)
Congregational Minister – Boston
A discourse concerning Unlimited submission

Or, you can go with this idiot,

I’m sorry, but if you ever say something this dumb and never apologize your credibility is forever lost. Even if you do apologize, I am not listening to you without remembering how wrong you were with this one.

There Is No Loyal Opposition

“Even when Asquith and Balfour were leaders of supposedly diametrically opposed parties, Balfour regularly dined with the Asquiths. He frequently joked that he had champagne dinners at Asquith’s before going on to the House of Commons to verbally attack his host. Ludicrous as this was, it served to highlight the hypocrisy of their public altercations in Parliament, where in matters relating to Secret Elite policy they supped from the same bowl.”

Docherty & MacGregor
Hidden History — pg. 100

Understand that what is being said here is that at the turn of the 20th century it didn’t matter if you voted Liberal Asquith or Conservative Balfour you were going to get the same policy where it mattered most because the International Money Interest were pulling the strings of each.

Thus, it is easy to see that the same remains true today when considering Republican or Democrat. On the issues that matter most and on those issues that people gnash their teeth over one can be sure that those are being controlled by the International Money Interest and it is irrelevant what politicians are seated in what positions.

This ought to be obvious with Trump’s behavior. He campaigned and ran on one set of promises but once he achieved office, he reverted to the same old Liberal / Neo-con playbook. More war. More inflation. Less emphasis on deporting tens of millions of people. Now we have censorship and greater surveillance on the horizon.

I get to say … “I told you so.” I told people that Trump was not any different than those who went before him. This is why voting doesn’t matter unless you think voting for who gets to be the figure-head matters. It is inconsequential in the end who gets elected. They are all run by the money interest. They are all bought and paid for by the Jews. As the quote indicates that has been true for over 100 years now.

Rebutting Darryl Gnostic Hart On His Attempted Rebuttal Of James Baird

“That Baird can call for a government powerful enough to promote the true religion, only five years after government ignored civil liberties to enforce public health, is well night amazing. And yet, the author does not appear bashful in calling upon government to implement the idea of the public good by a minority of the American people.”

Darryl Gnostic Hart 
Ordained Servant Article

1.) Belgic Confession, Article 36 is against Hart and in favor of Baird here;

“Their (Magistrates) office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also to protect the sacred ministry, that the kingdom of Christ may thus be promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshiped by every one, as He commands in His Word.”

Clearly, Baird is within Confessional bounds while Hart is not.

2.) Hart continues to operate under the fallacy that Governments and Magistrates can be neutral as if Governments and Magistrates can avoid using its power to be about the business of promoting some religion as the true religion. To be succinct, Governments and Magistrates never fail to promote some religion that the Governments and Magistrates believe to be the one true religion. Certainly Hart can’t miss how the US Government and it’s magistrates promote the true religion of humanism with its sodomy, Trannieism, abortion, etc.

Hart always, without fail, misses the fact that Governments can not be and never have been neutral. Hart is blind to the fact that Government always promotes the religion it considers to be the true religion. What Hart is upset about is that the Government/Magistrate might champion Biblical Christianity. He’s frightened to death of a return to blue laws, or the forbidding of sex education in Government schools, or that Christ might be allowed back into our current Government education.

3.) Hart, and the other R2K heretics, need to consider the simple truth that

a.) Governments make laws
b.) All laws are derivative of morality
c.) All morality is derivative of religion
d.) Therefore all Governments are powerful enough and by necessity do promote the Magistrate’s vision of the one true religion.

4.) The fact that our government ignored our civil liberties to enforce our public health only proves that we need Christian government since a Christian government would never have embraced the humanist agenda to control its population through a pseudo disease scare. So, Hart’s “proof” that the government reaction to the Scamdemic proves we don’t need Christian government, in point of fact proves just the opposite. That our pagan “government ignored civil liberties to enforce public health,” demonstrates that we need Christian government so that this kind of thing never happens again and it is well nigh amazing that anybody would contend to the contrary — especially someone who claims to be a Christian.

5.) Hart complains about the idea of Christians “calling upon government to implement the idea of the public good by a minority of the American people.”

a.) Keep in mind that if the public good is not crafted by a Christian government it will necessarily mean that the religious adherents of some other religion will be calling upon the government to implement the idea of the public good. Does Hart think that the idea of the public good just leaps out of the head of Zeus? Does the man not realize that the public good is always shaped by the adherents of some religion?

b.) Hart’s implicit insistence that the public good has to be supported by the will of the majority is nothing but Rousseau’s idea of the general will, which is nothing but pure humanism.

c.) Hart, by opposing explicitly Christian government, ends up championing for explicitly non-Christian government. Now, Hart will try to insist that he wants neither Christian nor non-Christian government but that takes us back to the myth of neutrality. No government exists that isn’t a derivative from and a reflection of some kind of religion.

Darryl Gnostic Hart, were we living in a sane world, would be told that he either needs to repent of abandoning the Kingship of Jesus Christ or else be excommunicated, but we no longer live in a sane ecclesiastical world and so Hart (who has said even more egregious non-Christian statements) will continue being printed in pagan publications that call themselves “Christian” such as the OPC’s Ordained Servant.

“One Nation Under God, Indivisible…”

In the pledge of Allegiance the phrase “Under God,” was inserted by Congress in 1954. It should have required people asking; “Which God… Whose God.” How wise was it then, or is it now, to Pledge Allegiance using the phrase “Under God,” when nobody knows which God we are under? All of this reminds me of the President Eisenhower quote from 1953 (the year before the Pledge was changed by Congress);

“In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. Of course, it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men being created equal.”

Given this quote Christian Americans should have never ever said the “Pledge of Allegiance.” Even then Christians should have raised a storm. Pledging Allegiance to a God that straddles that which precludes the possibility of being straddled was a non-Christian pledge.  If Jesus was right that we cannot serve two Masters then how is it that the God that allegiance was being pledged to was a God who was both the Jewish God and the Christian God? The fact that little Jewish boys and girls and little Christian boys and girls were together “pledging allegiance to the flag of one nation under God” should have tripped somebody’s wires, given the fact that the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians have absolutely nothing in common with one another.  In point of fact, they hate one another with each being committed to the total destruction of the other. Yet, to this day, especially in homeschooling communities Christians will insist on “pledging their allegiance to the flag.”

But that isn’t the only problem, though it is the largest problem. Just before invoking God in the pledge there is the phrase, “One nation.” The whole phrase goes; “One nation, under God.” This is just historically ignorant. These united States were never formed as one nation. That was never the intent of the founders. To the contrary, what the founders envisioned was that America would be nation containing nations. There could be no unity of “one nation” without the attendant diversity of “many nations.” The many nations in one nation was communicated chiefly by the vertical checks and balances. The states were sovereign nations who had delegated very specific enumerated powers to the Federal Government. In all other matters, except for those delegated and enumerated powers the States retained their sovereignty as states (nations). So, when we pledge allegiance to “One nation, under God,” we have not only the problem of not being in agreement as to what God we are under (a major consideration to the end of unity if there ever was a major consideration) but we also have the problem of pledging that we are one nation — something that many of the fathers never intended. None of the Father’s envisioned the unitary pagan Nation State that we currently are expected to “pledge allegiance.” Then when you add the phrase “indivisible” the pledge becomes downright knee slapping humorous.  There is nowhere in the US Constitution that states that these united State were ever intended to be indivisible. That whole idea was fobbed on us by the tyrant Lincoln who made the nation “indivisible” at the end of a bayonet.

Americans in the middle of the 20th century were sold a bill of goods regarding these united States. We were even then not “under God,” as the Presidential phrase “Judeo-Christian” revealed. We were even then not one nation as considered in light of our lawful founding document. We were even then not a nation that was indivisible. Yet, the elite used the Pledge to knit together a civic religion that, praise God, is beginning to fall apart given the importation of the third world into America carrying along with them their false gods. It is becoming more and more glaringly obvious that a nation cannot be a nation as it exists under a multitude of different and competing gods. If we can’t rid ourselves of the foreign invasion, then it is my prayer that a secession movement will be successful to the end of eliminating the idolatry of the civic religion that we are all now living under so that perhaps someday we can once again perhaps be one Christian people under God.