Over here R2K aficionado and Cemetery Professor Dr. R. Scott Clark argues that America was never a Christian nation.

https://heidelblog.net/2020/11/the-strange-persistence-of-theocracy-in-america-1/?fbclid=IwAR3A3jsFujwuvozT5YJrwDh_s5ZJGRdsSEVgnpvYKyxWUUys4Wiwtzv3_uE

Now I will interact with this a wee bit but it should be noted that the position of R2K in general is that it is not possible for nations to be Christian. As such, we really are in “Captain Obvious” territory where we find a guy who holds that it is not possible for any nation to be Christian argues that these united States were never a Christian nation. What next Scott — an argument that water is wet?

1.) Clark argues that it is a myth that America was founded as a Christian nation. He also argues that it is a myth that America was founded as a non-Christian nation as is pushed by the ridiculous 1619 Project. So, Scott has argued here that America was founded as neither a Christian nation nor as a non-Christian nation. This may cause the poor person who doesn’t have a Ph.D to pop their eyes and ask, “Wait a minute. How can it be the case that America was founded as neither a Christian nor a non-Christian nation? What’s left?”

But of course such a person hasn’t learned the R2K dialectics where no nation is ever founded on any religion as all nations exist as entities who inhabit the common square that is swayed by no religion but rather all the folks of all the different religions in any set nation are governed by natural law. R2K is the perfect religion for multiculturalism since it requires that the religion of no religion be the national faith of the people as combined with a willingness for the multifaiths in the multicultural national environment to have their gods agree to play second fiddle to the no-god god of R2K. Really, what happens in this arrangement is that the State becomes the god of the nation as it ends up with the authority to autonomously define what Natural law teaches.

Scott mocks theonomists and theocrats on the left and on the right but the fact of the matter is that Scott practices his own kind of theonomy and theocracy. In Scott’s theocracy the God is the State and in Scott’s theonomy is autonomous humanist law. Now, of course Scott will jump up and down insisting that is not the case but the only people he is convincing by that are his fellow R2K travelers. Non-practitioners of R2k understand that all nations are bound by religion and understand that R2K is its own religion.

2.) Next Scott goes after another favorite R2K hate shibboleth next in attacking “fundamentalism.” Scott conveniently decides to give his own unique definition of fundamentalism (a trait practiced by all fundamentalists) and then attacks his sui generis definition of fundamentalism.

Scott’s definition of fundamentalism is anyone who believes the following doctrines; pre-tribulational premillennialism, Dispensationalism, abstinence from alcohol, 6-day-24-hour creation and the myth of Christian America. Now Clark doesn’t tell us if one has to believe all these markers to be a fundamentalist or if it only takes belief in one of these markers to be a fundamentalist. Personally, I excoriate the first three of Scott’s markers while holding to the last two. Maybe, in Scottie’s world that makes me 2/5’s a fundamentalist? On this score Scott’s lack of precision makes it difficult to know who he does and does not have in his cross-hairs. However, were I a poker playing man I’d be pushing all my chips in the middle of the table on the bet that Scott would label me a dreaded “fundamentalist.” (But that’s “ok” because if I’m allowed to make my own definition of fundamentalist like Scott does, you can be sure that I find Scott to be a R2K fundamentalist.)

3.) Along the way Scott takes to the woodshed some poor anonymous OPC pastor who once told Scott that he would not have voted to ordain Machen since Machen held to a day-age view of creation. What Scott doesn’t tell us is that he would not vote to ordain a candidate who holds with deep conviction a 24-7 view of creationism.

4.) Scott suggests that David Barton, the R2K bête noire author who supports the Christian America myth is the only chap that is looked to for guidance on the idea of Christian America. Personally, I really really don’t like David Barton but I still believe in the historical reality of Christian America. I don’t need to read Barton’s hagiography in order to come to that conclusion. I only need to read the original State Constitutions as they almost uniformly were constructed on a Christian basis. I only need to read the sabbath laws that were on the books of most of the original states. Beyond that I can read about the influence of Scripture on the Declaration of Independence by Gary T. Amos. I can read Benjamin F. Morris’ work on the influence of Christianity on America. I can read Presbyterian Minister David W. Hall’s “The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding.” I can read M. Stanton Evan’s work on the subject. I can read the election sermons of the Puritans and the Black Robed Regiment. There are numerous other authors out there besides the crackpot David Barton that one can turn to find the hard evidence that America was founded as a Christian Nation. In the end it is Scott’s R2K presupposition that will not allow him to get past his guiding mythos that it is impossible for a Nation to be Christian.

5.) To his credit Scott also disagrees with the notion curried among the left that there was no Christian influence on America. It seems that Scott wants to say on one hand that there were Christians in America’s founding but that the Laws, Institutions and documents were never Christian in an objective sense because if the founding Laws, Institutions and documents were Christian in an objective sense (that is that Christianity was instantiated in America’s Laws, Institutions, and Documents) then the R2K jig is up. So, Scott wants to concede that subjectively there were Christians who influenced our founding without stipulating that in an objective sense America was Christian. However, it is indisputable that America was founded as a Christian nation as a cursory look at the original State Constitutions by themselves would prove.

6.) Scott says his expertise and reading in the 16th and 17th century era moves him to conclude that the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation is “mostly false.” Besides, some guy named Mark Edwards agrees with him therefore it must be so. Again, though, dear reader, please understand that Scott’s reading is all through his R2K prism which invariably dictates that it is impossible for any nation to be Christian.

7.) It is true that these united States experienced a worldview shift as among its cultural gatekeepers with the rise, first of Unitarian Deism and then later with Emersonian Transcendentalism, but even with the rise of these anti-Christ worldviews an argument can be made that rank and file independent minded Americans with their family bibles remained deeply influenced by Biblical Christianity. (Will it disappoint Scott to know that I agree with him in the idea that the 1st great and 2nd great awakening, on the whole, were not beneficial to the Church or nation?)

8.) Scott, by listing notable Christians in America’s founding and by conceding that there was indeed faithful Christians associated with the founding demonstrates that he has a problem making a needed distinction between individuals in a nation being Christian and the nation itself having a Christian founding as evidenced by its Laws, Institutions, and Documents. It’s almost as if Scott is counting noses of all the Christian founders and the Enlightenment founders and then concluding that if there are more Enlightenment founders than Christian founders that proves America was not founded as a Christian nation. However, that is not the alone place to consider when seeking to answer the question; “Was America founded as a Christian nation.” The place to look is the colonial / state laws, the founding documents, charters, and state Constitutions, as well as the Institutions themselves. Doesn’t prayer to open up Court sessions count for anything? What about days called by Magistrates for prayer and fasting? What about placing one’s hand on the Bible to take a oath? These things indicate something about our founding Scott.

9.) At the end of his article Scott takes a swipe at postmillennialists. Of course he took a swipe earlier at theonomists and theocrats. We’ve already established above that Scott himself is a theonomist and a theocrat. It’s ok Scott… all people are. We should now speak to Scott’s swipe at postmillennialism. Keep in mind that Scott is a rabid amillennialist. (All R2K types are.) As a rabid amillennialist it is Scott’s expectation that the nations will not bow the knee to the Lord Christ in time and space. As such any call for any nation to become decidedly and definitively Christian violates Scott’s eschatology. It just can’t happen in an eschatology that anticipates disaster and defeat for the expansion of the Kingdom of God beyond the walls of the Church.

10.) Scott promises a part II where he will turn his tender caresses towards the theonomists and theocrats. When Scott fires that salvo we will be here to give as good as we get.

Dear Pastor,

Sodomites, then, are your enemy, and the enemy of your family, no? In such a situation, what does Christ command?

“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” He presses his case even further: “…love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.”

Then he points out that such behavior will bring us great reward from the “…Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”

I don’t see much wiggle room there, or any exegetical tricks that allows for Orwellian twists of phrase like, “…my hating is an expression of my love for the Lord.”

I would be willing to wager that, if you pray with just a bit of persistence and ask God to grant you the ability to love sodomites, that he will grant you that ability, because he is a God of mercy who keeps his promises, and surely if he has commanded you to love your enemies, he will grant you the ability to do that. Not that it won’t be difficult: with God all things may be possible, but that doesn’t mean they are easy. No, usually the process is so difficult that it feels like your heart will break and you will likely just die before it’s over.

Best Regards,

Brad

Pastor Bret responds,

Dear Brad,

Your problem is that you are defining love differently than I do. I define love as acting towards others consistent with what God’s law teaches. God’s law teaches that sodomy requires the death penalty. You are defining love consistent with some kind of sentimental warm fuzzy. We are in different worlds and will not agree. You don’t think I’m being loving. I think my disposition towards the Christ hating sodomite to be the very marrow of love. I also think your love is really hatred. By your standard of “love” no parent should discipline their child because, “well that just wouldn’t be loving.”

I also think your “love” is hatred because you are not considering your hatred towards all those children who will be entrapped into the same lifestyle because sodomy was not criminalized. Your “love” for the sodomite, is hatred for the judicially innocent who will fall into this sin because the practitioners of this sin were released from the taboo that once properly made it “the love that dare not speak its name.” Because of people like you with all your love sodomy is now the love that won’t shut the hell up. By all your love you have let sodomites out of the closet with the effect that Christians have replaced them in the closet. Christianity is now the “love that dare not speaks its name,” as your attempt to chastise me proves.

Of course you have completely ignored the command of Scripture to

“hate that which is evil and to cling to that which is good.”

You also have to deal with the Psalmist who said…

”21 Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.”

Now keep in mind that if this is a Messianic Psalm then this is Christ saying this.

You accuse me of “exegetical tricks,” and of “Orwellian twists.” Allow me to return service if you don’t mind and accuse you of reading the Scripture through your postmodern emotions. Throughout the Scripture we find love being expressed by what people today would call “hatred.”

We see it in Jesus attacking His enemies. You remember those times … “White washed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones,” and “You are of your Father the devil,” and “brood of vipers.” Are you really going to tell me that Jesus was not being loving here?

And what of St. Paul who told his enemies to go castrate themselves?

Yours is an effeminate Christianity. I want nothing to do with it.

I would be willing to wager that, if you pray to the God who is and not the god of your imagination and ask the God who is to open your eyes and give you wisdom and the ability to have a love that hates that which is opposed to that which you properly love, the God of the Bible, who is angular and will never be made smooth, will grant you the ability to understand how a biblical hate serves biblical love.

Praying that the Spirit of Christ will grant you repentance Brad.

Thank you so much for spending the time to write me.

Respectfully yours,

Pastor Bret

In 1960 the Presidential race was nip and tuck between Nixon and Kennedy. Illinois was a key battleground state that year and Mayor Richard Daley Chicago was the 800 pound guerrilla in Illinois. As goes Chicago in 1960 so went Illinois.

The story is now legendary as told by Kennedy adviser Theodore White. In the wee hours of the morning after the election Illinois began to bubble with results. The down state finally turned their totals in with the result that Nixon was 3000 votes up over Kennedy.

Daley swung into action picking up the phone and making some calls to the Lieutenants of the Daley political machine. Some time in the same evening Daley phoned Jack Kennedy and assured him that all was in hand. Before it was all over key Cook County precincts turned over their vote count and once the dust had settled Kennedy won by 8K votes in Illinois and with its 27 Electoral votes Kennedy secured victory.

Mayor Daley had waited before turning in the Cook County totals… waiting until the Illinois downstate votes were turned in … waiting so he knew how many votes he needed in Cook county in order to cancel the downstate Illinois rural vote total.

And this is the exact thing that has happened in 2020 in Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. All these states excepting Georgia are run by Democratic Governors. All of these states excepting Georgia also have Secretary of States who are Democratic Operatives. State Secretary of States are the Executives in the State who are responsible for the election vote counting. More on that anon.

Another thing that we have in common here in 2020 with Mayor Daley and 1960 Cook county and Chicago is the waiting game. In 1960 Daley waited to turn in his vote totals until he knew how many votes he needed to overcome from the Illinois downstate totals. This is exactly what happened election night 2020.

One election night 2020 all of these states were chugging alone with their vote count when they suddenly stopped counting and said they would take up the count later. Philadelphia tweeted at 2130 on election night that they were closing up counting till 0900 the next morning. Presumably they had never heard of the concept of a night shift.

Now, keep in mind that other states that were razor thin close did not need just stop counting votes. Florida didn’t stop counting so that they could go home and get their beauty sleep. Ohio gave us vote totals without having to get their nap time before finishing the count.

However, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, and Pennsylvania quit counting votes.

And why was that?

Well, isn’t it obvious? Like Mayor Daley in 1960 who waited to find out how many votes he needed to overcome the downstate total these Democratic run States in 2020 quit counting votes in the middle of the process in order to create the votes (from the new “mail-in” category) they needed in order to overcome the vote totals they were seeing. Indeed, this pattern as practiced in several states is suggestive that this was pre-planned by the Democrats going into the election. Was the word out from the DNC and the Biden campaign to count votes for awhile and then stop the count and then do a 1960 Mayor Daley and create the mail-in votes needed to give Biden the win.

So, to summarize; It looks like that the Dems had a game plan in their Dem controlled battleground swing states. The idea was to create enough mail in ballots in their urban minority districts to offset the count in the rest of the state. This is why we saw the sudden stoppage of vote counting that was going for Trump in Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan.

There are lines of circumstantial evidence that supports the supposition that these states stuffed the ballot box for Biden.

1.) Republicans kept the Senate

2.) Republicans gained seats in the US House and though unlikely it is still possible that Republicans could flip the House of Representatives.

3.) Republicans gained State legislative assemblies down ballot

This last one means that Republicans took State Senates and State Houses away from Democrat control and gained more of a majority than they already had.

4.) Trump increased the percentage of minority vote significantly.

Now … having done ALL THIS, we are supposed to believe that Trump lost the Presidency?

The next piece of circumstantial evidence for Biden cheating is the percentage of registered voters voting in some of these urban areas. The percentage is off the historic charts. Are we really to believe that 89% of possible voters in these urban areas actually voted, breaking records going back to 1876?

I for one don’t believe it.

The next piece of circumstantial evidence is found in the whistle-blowers coming forth to testify of cheating. These are being chronicled by James O’Keefe of the project Veritas. Here is a link,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KATWF2itINE

Also dead people have been discovered to have voted in Michigan.

Now, add to all this that the Lugenpresse (in this case FOX) and how they are running cover for the cheating. FOX’s announcing Arizona for Biden is criminal. Even its announcement circa 8pm Tuesday night that the US House of Representatives was going to be maintained by the Democrats was worthy of people being fired – especially in light of the fact that the Republicans have picked up so many seats and still have a slim mathematical chance of flipping the House. If there were fines for media lying FOX wouldn’t have enough money to cover the fines.

So, there is a twofold thrust going in the 2020 coup. The first is stopping the vote and creating “mail in” votes to overcome Trump’s lead. The second is the Lugenpresse wing of the Democratic party running cover for all this cheating.

After-thought

As I said earlier, the Democrats had to win no matter what in order for the Global Reset to continue to be pursued. Look for the ChiCom virus scare to exponentially inflated so that people once again are full of fear and so look to the FEDS to be saved. This will be the means by which the Global Reset is pursued.

Sometimes the comments I receive are worthy of being picked apart. I received one of those a couple days ago. This person is complaining about my post “Andrew Sandlin and Cultural Homosexualization.” So, if you need more context to understand this post you might want to go back and read that post.

Bradley wrote,

From here on out I will strive to work on my personal animus toward homosexuals. Let’s see: that means that first I need to find out what all my associates, acquaintances and colleagues do in the bedroom, so I can properly direct my animus (or hatred, if you prefer) to the correct recipient.

Bret responds,

1.) It is interesting that in using the word “Homosexual” you are using the soft word that was coined in order to avoid using the word “sodomite.”

2.) Bradley, clearly you did not read my post to begin your tirade in this way. Our problem is not one of having to go out of our way in identifying sodomites. Have you missed the reality that the sodomites are going out of their way to shove their perversity in your face and the face of our children? Have you missed the “Queer Story Time Phenomenon?” Have you missed the “Sodomite-Pride Parades?” Have you missed the pending legislation in the US House which would criminalize churches for having standards that exclude sodomites as members? This idea that I am advocating that we go on a sodomite hunt to out all those in the closet is just a red-herring on your part in order to shift attention from the point at hand.

3.) Next, you’ll have to take my attitude towards public sodomites who want to change our social order to allow for their wretched lifestyle up with the Apostle Paul who himself talked about how this behavior was worthy of death and who called sodomites out in Romans 1.

4,) You will excuse me for noticing the irony in your willingness to condemn me for my hatred of God’s enemies while at the same time your animus (hatred?) towards me is only thinly veiled. So …. hatred for Gods enemies is wrong but hatred for those who hate God’s enemies is fine? Et tu Bradley?

Bradley wrote,

Meanwhile I guess I will refrain for now from harboring any personal animus toward the serial polygamists among us who abandon their own children in favor of a new sex partner, or those who torture small animals.

Bret responds,

1.) This is a distraction from the point at hand.

2.) You seem to be saying that since I didn’t write a column condemning;

a.) Serial polygamists who abandon their children in favor of a new sex partner,
b.) People who torture small animals

Therefore I am not allowed to write a column condemning sodomites. However, if you scan Iron Ink you can find articles condemning serial polygamy. I can’t say everything in one article Bradley. The article you are complaining about was dealing with Andrew Sandlin and his torpidity concerning sodomy and culture. As Andrew didn’t deal with serial polygamist or puppy torturers I didn’t deal with those issues either. However, you can be sure if Andrew writes anything that seems to favor serial polygamy or puppy torturing I will be all over it.

And just for the record … I think puppy torturers are sick and serial polygamists even more sick. And yes… I hate them.

Bradley wrote,

Is this what Christianity is all about? Keeping a list of all those kinds of people we hate?

Bret responds,

Jeepers Bradley if Scripture tells me to “hate that which is evil but cling to that which is good,” I figure that having some idea of what I hate is necessary even if I don’t go as far as keeping lists. Now mind you, if people need lists to remember what it is they need to hate, I’m all for lists.

But there is another point under the surface here Bradley that I want to bring to the fore. It is simply the case that hatred serves as the auto-immune system to protect that which I love. If I am to love properly, I need to hate that which is evil since evil exists in order to uproot and destroy what I love. As such, what you so glibly and ignorantly label as hate, mature thinkers understand as the proper action of a well functioning love. If I love God’s definition of the trustee family then it is absolutely necessary for me to hate that which would destroy the trustee family and that which would destroy the trustee family is both sodomy and those who would wring their hands and weep over a proper hatred of that which is in contradiction to a proper oriented love. Not that I’m looking at you or anything.

Bradley writes,

The truth is that the unregenerate world is endlessly capable of rationalizing and approving all sorts of terrible behaviors that are destructive to the world and corrosive to Mankind. Trying to keep track of all the groups of people we are supposed (as Christians) to hate will thus be an endless task. We have to remember that these are the kinds of people that Christ came to save. And such were some of us…

Bret responds,

1.) Dude… it is as easy as falling out of bed in the morning to hate that which is contrary to the holiness of God as revealed in His Word. It is not that hard to hate those who are in love with their hatred of Christ as expressed by the,

a.) Serial polygamist who lives in defiance of Christ,
b.) One who delights in torturing animals (Proverbs 12:10)
c.) Sodomites
d.) Pedophiles
e.) Bestiality practitioners
f.) The greedy and selfish

But again … if you need a list don’t let me stand in the way. There is nothing in Scripture forbidding lists.

2.) It is true that “such were some of us,” however, before we repented of our high-handed sinning the proper attitude of love as from the saints, when we were outside of Christ, was to hate us. You seem to fail to realize Bradley that the evangelical purpose of hate is to communicate that the wrath of God (the outward expression of God’s hatred) is upon those who are in a high-handed mode of hating Christ. We as Christians are showing the very marrow of Christian love when we hate those who are in high hatred of God. This kind of hatred that was serving love is what we see when Christ torched the Pharisees, or when Paul went all “flame on” against the Judaizers in Galatians.

Now, of course when a Christ-hater seeking God, because God is seeking them, comes in our path, then the love we demonstrate is going to be of a different quality. It is going to look like how Jesus dealt with the woman at the well in John 4 or how Jesus dealt with the Rich Young Ruler. In those cases Jesus was patient, yet firm. He didn’t let them off the hook of their sin and yet he was compassionate in dealing with their questions. In our culture he may have even bought them coffee and desert while dealing with their questions. He may well have had them over to his home.

However, for high-handed sodomite Christ haters seeking to roll God off His throne the wrath of the Son would now explode on them as it exploded on those kinds of enemies in the 1^st century.

3,) Honestly, as I read between the lines my sense is that you desire to avoid confrontation and you just want to sentimentalize Christ haters into the Kingdom. I’m guessing here but I’d bet that you see evangelism as cheerfully providing donuts for those marching in the sodomite pride parade. In the end you and I have a different definition of both “hate,” and “love.”

Bradley wrote,

When Paul addressed the philosophers on Mars Hill, in a culture where a particularly destructive form of homosexuality was practiced (i.e., pederasty), he didn’t spend any time excoriating them for that immorality.

Bret responds

LOL … are we forgetting Romans 1 Bradley? The same St. Paul on Mars Hill wrote Romans 1 saying,

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who [d]suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is [e]manifest [f]in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and [g]Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like [h]corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their [i]women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the [j]men, leaving the natural use of the [k]woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, [l]sexual immorality, wickedness, [m]covetousness, [n]maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 [o]undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, [p]unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Bradley writes,

Essentially his one big question (in a roundabout way) was, “Whom do you say that Jesus is?” However, in his letters to the churches he made it clear in no uncertain terms that believers themselves are not to practice the immorality of the Greeks.

But the Greeks will do what the Greeks will do, unless and until the regenerative power of the Spirit works in and amongst them.

Bret responds,

1.) LOL … and until the Greeks are regenerated we are to allow them to corrupt our children, expand their perversity, and publish their filth? Are you high?

2.) I say that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and that all the wicked must now kiss the Son lest the Son be angry and they perish in their way.

Bradley wrote,

Hating them for it doesn’t appear to be a fruitful endeavor. It takes a lot of emotional energy that could be better expended elsewhere.

Bret responds,

1.) Hating them keeps me warm at night during these cold Michigan winters. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist co-opting a quote from the film, “Red Dawn.”)

2.) As my hating is an expression of my love of God (as imperfect as that love is) I’ll go on hating. You can go on serving coffee and donuts at the Sodomite Pride parade in order expend your energy and to show your love.

Cheers,

1.) Clearly we are in Banana Republic territory, as seen in the fact that approximately 50% of the Republic voted for a senile old pederast who can’t even differentiate between his wife and his sister. Biden woke up this morning convinced that he had defeated George W. Bush in the Senatorial race in Georgia.

2.) If Tucker Carlson is really the 2nd coming of Edmund Burke then I expect him to be railing against FOX news reporting on his show. But Tucker Carlson ISN’T the 2nd coming of Edmund Burke and so you will hear nothing from him on how his network tried to throw the election w/ their completely buggered Arizona call.

3.) Ohio and Florida are states run by Republicans. There were tight races there. However they managed to complete their votes with giving Trump the victory by tight margins.

However, the Democratic States (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina) where races were also tight stopped counting because they needed to take a nappy and by the time they started counting again they suddenly found more Biden votes.

I’m sure that this was all coincidence.

4.) I’ll try one last time for those Trumptards who are outraged at those who didn’t vote or who voted third party.

As, I tried to tell you types six freaking weeks ago …. This election was NEVER going to be about the vote count. For weeks we were being told that the Dems were going to keep on counting votes until they got the count they wanted. This election was NOT about who voted and so you shouldn’t be angry at those who didn’t vote Trump. This election was about who counted the votes. Those third party voters and those who refused to vote didn’t cost Trump the contest. He was not going to win no matter what.

Have you not been following the trajectory the last four years?

5.) It doesn’t matter what happens now in terms of all the hoopla. One side or the other will be convinced they were cheated. That is the LAST thing this country needed. However it was hard baked into the results going back months.

This is going to go to SCOTUS and SCOTUS will have to decide who won this election via determining which votes do and do not count.

Now consider what I’ve said before…

The cultural Marxist left pushed all their chips in the middle of the table in this election. They lost the Russia-gate and they doubled down. They lost on Ukraine and impeachment and they doubled down. The Cultural Marxist lost on Wuhan in terms of creating in the public’s mind that universal lock downs and mask wearing were necessary and they doubled down. The Left HAS TO STEAL THE PRESIDENCEY because it is the only thing that stands in their way and the global reset.

As far as I’m concerned whatever happens in way of the count Trump won last night the same way Pitchfork Ben Tilden won in 1876 and had then had the election stolen from him.

I do believe the DEMS will be successful in stealing this Presidential election. Trusting that SCOTUS is going to rule against the global reset is a thin reed to rely upon.

6.) We learned last night the relation of the science of polling as it relates to the science of pandemics. Nate Silverman, Frank Luntz, ABC-WaPo, NBC-Wall Street Journal, etc. are to the science of polling what the Wuhan Narrative is to the science of illness. This is the kind of science Biden wants to follow when he loudly said that he wanted “Science over fiction.”

7.) Keep in mind that Al Gore would have won in 2000 if SCOTUS hadn’t said, “quit counting votes.”

The cultural Marxist left is going to find every vote it needs in these tight states. They will find Biden votes in empty warehouses that were misplaced, they will find votes cast under their beds, they will find votes cast in their candy stores.

AND SHAZZAM … they will all be Democrat votes.

8.) Why did I get the election right in terms that it would eventually go to the courts? Because I know history. I know how Kennedy stole Illinois from Nixon in 1960 because of Mayor Daley’s voting dead in Chicago. Because I’ve read about the Pendergast machine in Kansas city. Because I grew up in Michigan where Mayor Coleman of Detroit was forever fudging the records. Philadelphia’s been bad for several election cycles now in terms of cheating.

It’s all there in the history. Now, add the fact that the Left was 5 or 6 weeks ago putting out articles saying that they might lose on Election night but not to panic because the votes had to still be counted. Finally add that Nancy Pelosi expressly said a few days before the election that regardless of what happened on Election Night Joe Biden would win and be inaugurated in January.

This was all in the mix from the time Axios put out that column telling its readers that even if Trump won in a landslide the night of the election not to worry because they were still going to be counting votes.

9.) 72 hours ago this was my post on social media;

If you think a country of 330 million people can have a fair election you need to back off the quaaludes.

10.) This is all obviously the judgment of God. Consistent with Romans 1 since we have not thought God was worthy to be considered in our thinking God has turned us over to our sins. The only thing that can account for this country wide level of deep and indefeasible torpidity is that God has blinded us so that seeing we do not see, and hearing we do not hear, lest we turn and repent.

It is the Lord’s doing. It is good. It is good.

11.) So, now the remnant are in one and only one position. We now more than ever must be known by our cunning resistance. We must work to hollow out the God-State. We must endeavor to give the God-State beast a belly ache. We must throw sand in the gears. We must blow up the infrastructure of our cultural thinking. We must, metaphorically speaking, cut the lines, blow up the bridges, and sabotage the railroad tracks. Obedience to God now requires disobedience to the God-State at every turn.

12.) At this point (and this one is subject to change) my hope is that Trump would burn down Washington and the deep state before leaving office because he was cheated out of his victory. Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said in response to peace efforts he wasn’t favorable to in the run up to the War of Northern Aggression; “The tugs got to come.”

Well, we are now in that position again. The tug has to come and I would rather face all that now then have my grandchildren have to face it.