Random Thoughts On Our Election 2020 Follies

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.

Trump & the 2020 Vote

I would like to tee this all up this morning with a few preliminary observations that we can all agree upon.

First, we can note, as we have said countless times before that whatever the outcome is for this election cycle this is the Lord’s doing. Isaiah 46:10


9Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
10Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’
11Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it;
I will also do it. .


Now we may not ever know the true outcome of this election cycle what with all the cheating that has already happened and will likely continue to happen, and before this is all over there may be the necessity for some kind of resistance because of that cheating but even if all that is the case that outcome also is the Lord’s doing.

God is omniscient. He knows the beginning from the end.

God is omnipotent. He controls all that happens, from the cheating that occurs to the resistance that may need to arise because of the cheating.

Second, we need to affirm that if the worst happens – and nobody knows that it will – but if the worst happens, we can be oddly comforted by knowing that we as a people deserve it. God will have done us no wrong by giving us what is long overdue by way of punishment to the reprobate and discipline to the Elect.

The visible Church with notable exceptions here and there is Ichabod.

The shepherds of the Church with notable exceptions are faithless whether because they are fellow travelers like Keller Tims, Sean Lucas Michaels, or Don Piper, or whether, like so many others, they are merely, as Lenin put it, useful idiots.

Never has there been a time where it has been more the case where a mist being in the pulpit has translated into a fog being in the pew.

Beyond the condition of the Church we are living in a time where the blood of 60 million babies cries out for justice. We have decided to redefine marriage so as to mean an institution wherein a male and a female are not required. And this is only the very tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

The principle in Scripture on this per Hosea 8:7 is when one sows the wind of disobedience one reaps the whirlwind of God’s remembrance.

“The LORD is slow to anger and great in power; the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. His path is in the whirlwind and storm, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet.

Nahum 1:3

On this basis alone we should pray that God might be pleased to continue to be slow to anger but if He is not slow to anger … if the time has come where the LORD intends to finally punish the guilty by turning us over to the Cultural Marxist demons we can in no way charge God with doing us wrong.

Indeed, we need to understand that it is not as if we are waiting for judgment to come but rather these matters mentioned and many like them are signs that God is already properly visiting us with the whirlwind.

These preliminary points ought to be something that we can universally agree upon.

Now let us turn to the just three of the issues that are before us this election cycle which the Scripture speaks pretty clearly upon.

The first issue is the issue of perversity. Even since the election of 2008 the issue of perversity has been front and center in our election cycles. In that election cycle 12 short years ago candidate Obama was constrained to say publicly what he denied privately,

““I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”


God’s mind in terms of perversity is pretty clear

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

This is articulated again in the book of Romans 1

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.

So, we know the mind of God despite all the twisting that is currently going on.

Now what our the Elephants and Donkeys at the top of their tickets saying on this score?

Well, the top Elephant said this during sodomite pride month in June 2019;



“As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month and recognize the outstanding contribution LGBT people have made to our great Nation, let us also stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

President of the United States Donald J. Trump, June 1, 2019.

“When the Top Elephant appointed me Acting Director of National Intelligence, the fact that I’m gay didn’t even faze Donald Trump,”

Richard Grenell

But the top Donkey seeking to be even more perverse than that said just recently during a townhall,

“The idea that an 8-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decides, ‘You know I decided I want to be transgender. That’s what I think I’d like to be. It would make my life a lot easier.’ There should be zero discrimination.”

The clear implication of this statement is that children should be allowed to decide to “transition” and that without any discrimination against them for doing so.

Now clearly the top Elephant is the lesser of two evils when compared to the top Donkey on the issue of perversity but is that sufficient reason to ignore the problem of the lesser evil of the Top Elephant?

There is another issue that is paramount and that is the issue of counterfeiting. The Heidelberg catechism teaches;

110. Q. What does God forbid in the eighth commandment? A. God forbids not only outright theft and robbery1 but also such wicked schemes and devices as false weights and measures, deceptive merchandising, counterfeit money, and usury;2

Deut 25:13-16; Ps 15:5; Prov 11:1; 12:22; Ezek 45:9-12; Lk 6:35


13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.

“Money today is simply a state issue of paper stamped with a denomination. It is fiat money, it is state created with a state imposed value. Fiat money always has and always will be inflationary money. It has an arbitrary and an artificial value, it is counterfeit money.”

RJR

This is never more true then spending fiat money as stimulus.

We all know that the previous Top Donkey in office added almost as much national debt as every other president and Congress before him—combined.

Christians properly railed at this fiscal irresponsibility and yet,


Since the Top Elephant along with his party took over, the national debt has exploded by more than 7 TRILLION dollars. While the last several trillion was in response to the COVID-19 economic crisis, at least the first three trillion was on the books well before the pandemic.

New Hampshire Union Leader

Overspending and deficits are symptoms of a loss of freedom – especially for younger generations that will be strapped to unbearable debts from excessive promises that they had no benefit from or say in. Voters can’t counter socialism while ignoring rising deficits. Socialists always need other people’s money in order to enact their anti-freedom and anti-choice command and control policies. If you’re serious about stopping socialists … about hating collectivist tyranny you have to cut off the deficit spending supply line.

So, if a Christian affirms question 110 of the HC and is likewise opposed to socialism how can they yoke themselves by their vote to Donkeys or Elephants who keep spending in such a way that guarantees socialist collectivism?



Now there are other issues we could look at if we had the time but allow me to propose that just on the basis of these two issues alone, wherein God so clearly speaks, that I find it hard to understand how we can vote for candidates who support perversity and who, by their spending habits support socialism.

Having said that allow me to introduce why it is that there are good Christians here who will look at this issue differently. There are good Christians here that will say that when we consider this matter across the board clearly there is a lesser of two evils we should support. I agree that clearly there is a lesser of two evils. If it is the case that either the Donkey or the Elephant must win I far prefer the Elephant winning.

Those Christians supporting the Elephant see themselves as standing against the progressive tsunami today, and for them voting is not a sacrament; it is an act of self-defense. They believe it is one of the last mechanisms available to keep the demonic cultural Marxist barbarians at bay while we continue to try and rebuild civilization through our families, our churches, our schools, our businesses and a host of other institutions that make up civil society.

They would agree with Garrett Garet’s little book from 1938, “The Revolution That Was.” Garet wrote in 1938

“We are not holding the line against the revolution still to come, but against the fallout of the revolution that has passed us by.”


These Christian folks would say, “that one is not casting their vote to choose a replacement for Moses or Joshua. Those days are past. We are not looking for the perfect candidate. We are voting to empower an imperfect tool who is one of the last one’s willing to take the fight to the Philistines.

And there is some logic in that but the question but I can’t get past a passage like,

14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what  fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you[c] are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will dwell in them

And walk among them.

I will be their God,

And they shall be My people.”

17 Therefore

“Come out from among them

And be separate, says the Lord.

Do not touch what is unclean,

And I will receive you.”

18 “I will be a Father to you,

And you shall be My sons and daughters,

Says the Lord Almighty.”

What the Spirit is doing here is fairly obvious. In Corinth there developed a wideness in the latitude of the Corinthians in terms of their personal interactions. Some of the Corinthians had determined that it was an indifferent matter whether they contracted the most intimate of relationships with the pagans. Against this broadness St. Paul protests.

The Greek word for “unequally yoked together” is not found again in the NT and was likely coined by St. Paul. We get at the meaning by looking at the cognate noun in Leviticus 19:19 (You shall not let your livestock breed with a diverse kind.) Some also think there is here a reference to Deuteronomy 22:10 (10 “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.)

Clearly the idea of the Apostle here is that there is a unnatural linkage that ought not to be entered into by a Christian as with a someone not fitting to them. Pastors will often go to this passage to teach that Christian young people ought not to enter into marriage with those outside of Christ. There is an unequal yoke there that forbids us from doing so. Likewise, from this passage we would get the idea that Christians ought not to become business partners with those outside of Christ. Their mindset… their ethics … their goals are different because they belong to different Gods.

Now, this passage is a challenge because we dare not make it mean too much thus requiring us to have to almost leave the world, but we also dare not make it mean to little and so remove the impact of this command.

Albert Barnes, considered a liberal Reformed theologian from the 19th century helps us to see some of what I am getting at here. This is a long quote I’m cutting down for time’s sake. If it were possible you might consider going to Iron Ink to read the whole quote in context;

II. There is a large field of action, thought, and plan which may be said to be common with the Christian and the world; that is, where the Christian is not expected to abandon his own principles, and where there will be, or need be, no compromise of the sternest views of truth, or the most upright, serious, and holy conduct. He may carry his principles with him; may always manifest them if necessary; and may even commend them to others. A few of these may be referred to.

(1) Commercial transactions and professional engagements that are conducted on honest and upright principles, even when those with whom we act are not Christians.

(2) Literary and scientific pursuits, which never, when pursued with a right spirit, interfere with the principles of Christianity, and never are contrary to it.

(3) the love and affection which are due to relatives and friends. Nothing in the Bible assuredly will prohibit a pious son from uniting with one who is not pious in supporting an aged and infirm parent, or a much loved and affectionate sister. The same remark is true also respecting the duty which a wife owes to a husband, a husband to a wife, or a parent to a child, though one of them should not be a Christian. And the same observation is true also of neighbors, who are not to be prohibited from uniting as neighbors in social contact, and in acts of common kindness and charity, though all not Christians.

(4) as citizens. We owe duties to our country, and a Christian need not refuse to act with others in the elective franchise, or in making or administering the laws. Here, however, it is clear that he is not at liberty to violate the laws and the principles of the Bible. He cannot be at liberty to unite with them in political schemes that are contrary to the Law of God, or in elevating to office people whom he cannot vote for with a good conscience as qualified for the station.

(5) in plans of public improvement, in schemes that go to the advancement of the public welfare, when the schemes do not violate the laws of God. But if they involve the necessity of violating the Sabbath, or any of the laws of God, assuredly he cannot consistently participate in them.



Now as to the issue of Yoking, all I can do is point out a older understanding of political Federalism that I’ve mentioned before.

There was a time in American History when people understood when they voted for somebody they were voting for them to be their political head so that when he acted both in his public voting and in his personal life his voting and behavior reflected upon them. Because of this when a man in office acted scandalously the people in his congressional district were shamed by his behavior. They understood when their political head acted they acted. They understood because of their understanding of political federalism that they were yoked to the man they voted for so that his shame was their shame and his political action their political action.


I understand that people view the Elephant as a hope to forestall the darkness that is descending on our cities and over the whole country. I understand the pragmatism that insists on voting Elephants over Donkeys and the Marxists. I get the fear that would stampede people to vote for head Elephant. I share those fears. I would like to vote for him also on one level. However, as long as he courts the sodomite vote and as long as he spends like a Donkey I can not in good conscience join myself, through my vote to Him or recommend to God’s people that they vote for Him.

Some will counter with… But if the top Elephant isn’t elected you’re going to get sodomy anyway plus abortion, Marxism, more Government over-reach, etc.” That likely is true but I cannot find it within me to use that as an excuse to yoke myself, through my vote, to someone who says it is his great honor to be called the “most pro-sodomite President in History.”

My position on this is accounted for by the fact that I am practicing what is called a deontological ethic while many other Christians pulling levers for the top Donkey seem to be practicing what is called a teleological ethic. In deontological ethics behavior is right or wrong as dependent on a clear set of established rules. The title (deontology) arises from the Greek word “deon” which means “duty.” As Christians we find those “rules” laid down in God’s law and are duty bound to abide by them. When I read in Scripture, “Be ye not unequally yoked,” I understand that I am duty bound not to vote for wickedness since a vote is a yoking of my permission for a candidate to pursue the behavior and policy he will pursue. The result of voting is when the candidate I voted for acts, I act. By my vote, his action, as my political covenant representative, is my action.

In teleological ethics on the other hand is a ethic of pragmatism. It holds that duty or moral obligation is to be pursued consistent with the end goal desired. So, in a teleological ethic right or wrong is dependent upon the outcome desired. From a teleological ethic standpoint voting for Trump, as an example, is considered right because the outcome of not voting for Trump would be bad. You can see the difference here vis-a-vis deontological ethics which insists that voting fro Trump is a matter of following a basic standard for behavior that is independent of the good or evil generated by not voting for Trump resulting from following that standard which is not considering the teleos of the action.

So, it is my conviction that many Christians have decided (understandingly given all that is at stake) to follow a teleological ethic in voting for Trump. I understand it. I don’t agree with it. I have decided that this matter of voting is a deontological ethic.

And what of the future going forward? What of beyond 2o20?

Dr Jeffrey Myers, the head of the Biblical Worldview ministry “Summit ministries,” said that evangelical youth are buying into socialism and Marxism without realizing what it’s doing to their faith. “They’re a generation that is fairly low in their risk-taking ability,” he explains, “and when someone says The government will take care of you just like mom and dad took care of you, that’s a pretty compelling message.”

The ministry leader says his research finds that 69% of evangelical youth who attend church don’t believe in absolute truth and think that if your beliefs offend someone, you’re the one who’s wrong.

“Even though they say they believe in God, the worldview they embrace is materialism – only the material world exists. There’s no God, there’s no Jesus, there’s no Holy Spirit, no heaven, no hell. That’s the worldview that Karl Marx embraced,” he laments.

What is wrong with us isn’t going to fixed by voting Trump.

Conclusion;

“Which way do you secure God’s blessings? Obeying Him, even if doing so results in an outcome that you don’t think is best – or – Disobeying God by voting against is clearly made known mind in an attempt to influence the outcome you think best? By voting for Trump, you are putting your faith in man and the state to secure your blessings.

Regardless of who is in office, you will not personally secure God’s blessings through disobedience.”

John MacGregor

Appendix

Touching the charge of being Anabaptist.

First, were I Anabaptist I would have made the argument that participating in voting is evil itself since voting is taking part in worldly activity. I did not make that argument and do not believe that.


Second, I have, in the past, voted for men I did not think were perfect but who did not advance the issues like increase of legal immigration, support for sodomy, and support for socialism via vast deficit spending.

Third, those who hurl the charge of “Anabaptist” are usually the ones who are compromising their conscience by voting for someone who so clearly is operating contrary to God’s revelation.

Dr. Thomas Finger and Dr. Curtis Woods and Back to the Future

“Dr. Thomas Finger, a professor at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary demonstrated how Christians could ‘apply Marxist’s insights’ from ‘Latin America’s Popular theologies.’ Finger stated: ‘Marxism has much to offer: a set of scientific tools for social analysis and projection of strategy.’ Here many Liberation theologians distinguish … between Marxism as scientific analysis, with its own autonomy and objectivity, and as a metaphysical system. Christians may accept the first aspect (as a functional tool) while objecting to the second. Thus, Finger adopted the Marxist critique while objecting to it as an alternative to Christianity. Finger stated, ‘Insofar as capitalism is founded on selfish individualism and monetary motives, Marxist critiques can help flesh out, in economic and social terms, biblical indignation against these things.’ This was a ‘Marxist analysis, understood in the light of scripture and Christian praxis.”

Jon Harris
Social Justice goes to Church; The New Left in Modern Evangelicalism — p. 68

The jaw dropping stupidity of this quote leaves one almost unable to speak, never mind stutter. What Dr. Finger in 1977 was saying here is that we can take the Marxist analysis structure that could not have come into existence apart from the Marxist Worldview it is based upon and yet at the same time reject the Marxist Worldview from which that Marxist analysis structure came from. It’s like saying that one can accept getting pregnant apart from ever having sex. It’s like saying that one can accept a heart transplant without accepting surgery. It’s like saying that one can drink battery acid without being poisoned. Only a Ph.D. could say something this monumentally jejune.

However, it seems this kind of torpidity is not locked in 1977. In 2019 we had this same kind of fatuous reasoning has demonstrated by Dr. Finger brought back to the future by Southern Baptist genius Dr. Curtis Woods in 2019;

“It is our aspiration in this resolution (Resolution #9) simply to say that Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality are simply analytical tools. They are meant to be used as tools, not as a worldview.”

Once again Dr. Woods is involved in Ph.D. dumbassery flights of fancy by trying to extract the tools of analysis from the worldview they were birthed in. These analytical tools could not exist were it not for the worldview that conceived and birthed them. The reality is that just as the analytical usage of Liberation theology can not be abstracted from Marxism so the analytical usage of Critical Race Theory cannot be abstracted from the paleo-Marxist weltanschauung. As analytical tools both liberation theology and critical race theory find their power as derivative of the Marxist world and life view. I would not even concede that these analytics contain insights into reality that are consistent with reality.

Jim Wallis’ Ignorance

“Biblical faith is subversive. The people of the non-industrial world are poor because we are rich. The God of the Bible is clearly and emphatically on the side of the poor, the exploited, and the victimized. The Lordship of Christ over all of human life and affairs… is not only personal but a structural and political fact of reality. The Church of Jesus Christ is at war with the systems of the world, not detente, cease-fire, or peaceful co-existence, but at war.”

Jim Wallis
Agenda for Biblical People

1.) Here is an example of misreading the Bible. God is NOT clearly and emphatically on the side of the poor if the poor have no relationship to Jesus Christ. In that case God hates the poor because the poor are wicked. The same is true, of course, of the rich. If the rich have no relationship to Jesus Christ God hates the wicked rich. Indeed, when the wicked poor are exploited and victimized God is the one who is bringing His judgment against the wicked poor and He doubtless delights in His judgment against them. What the wicked poor must do, just as the wicked rich must do, is repent. It is only by repenting that God will relent His judgments against them.

2.) Wallis actually gets things exactly backwards. If rich nations did not exist the poor nations would be even poorer given that there would be no rich nations to invest in poor nations to develop their natural resources.

3.) Wallis assumes that wealth is static so that if one nation increases in wealth that necessitates that another nation or a combination of nations decrease that much in wealth. Idiotically, Wallis assumes that total wealth cannot be created and so total wealth expanded. Wallis assumes that if I have one hundred dollars in my pocket that another person can not have a dollar in their pocket unless my one hundred dollars is reduced to Ninety nine dollars. Wallis will then insist that the way to make this all fair is redistribution by legislation.

4.) Don’t miss the pronoun “we” above. I would bet the farm that the “we” that Wallis is referring to is “white people.” White people are keeping non-industrialized people (read non-Caucasians) under their economic thumb. This is another version of Liberation theology.

5.) Wallis does not consider at all the impact of worldview and belief systems on a nation’s work ethic, or its impulse to be a producer nation.

I will tell you what God hates… God hates those who demonize the rich simply for being rich and glorify the poor for simply being poor as if there is any automatic virtue that compels divine love from God in the poor.

I, along with God, hate Jim Wallis.

Sen. Markey’s Malarkey

As Judge Barrett described so-called originalism, it means she is supposed to interpret the constitution’s text and understand it to have the meaning it had when the constitution was ratified. but interpreting the constitution in that manner has been used over and over to deny rights to women, to communities of color, and to the LGBTQ individuals, members of our society who had no rights when the constitution was ratified. Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic.

Sen Ed Markey — (D) Massachusetts
From the floor of the Senate speaking to Barrett’s SCOTUS confirmation


Do understand here that Sen. Markey is saying that the US Constitution is itself a racist, sexist, and homophobic document. If the original meaning of the document is racist, sexist, and homophobic, then the document itself is racist, sexist, and homophobic.

Markey has also attacked the whole idea of judicial ruling according to original intent but if Justices are not to rule according to the original intent of the US Constitution and its framers whose intent are the Justices to take into consideration when interpreting the Constitution? Indeed, is it even possible to use the word “interpret” if one does not believe in original intent? Of course it isn’t possible and instead of the word “interpret,” we should use some other words like “pontificate” or “declaim” when referencing what it is that Justices do who do not believe in original intent. When such Justices rule they are merely giving us their personal preference and as a result we have humanism.

If we do not have original intent then all we have is adjudication by the sovereign fiat law word of the fallen Justices. They are not interpreting anything but making it up as they go. The basis for their deliberations and decisions is not anything transcendent or stable but the basis for their rulings is completely relative to the zeitgeist and their own godlike authority. Instead of an outside word as found in the US Constitution they and their fiat word is the law of the land. When this happens we are not being ruled by law but by men and if we are going to be ruled by men and not law I prefer being my own god as opposed to some Ivy League trained moron ruling as my god.

This mindset in the quote is the stuff of anarchy and then tyranny.

It is exactly where we are at in post-modern America.