Blog – John Mark Warren

The Narcotic of Cheap Celebrity

Accepting a Grammy Award for Song of the Year, “Wildflower,” songstress Billie Eilish declared, “No one is illegal on stolen land.” British colonists started settling the North American continent and ultimately stole the entire American land mass from its rightful owners: the Indian natives. This is Eilish’s complaint and charge. Even if it were true, human beings have been conquering and occupying lands all over planet earth since the beginning of time. According to Eilish, white, Christian colonists, those privileged religious bastards, are the only group to steal their land … roughly 425 years ago, no less.

Four-and-a-quarter centuries later, perhaps we can consider the matter resolved. Pretty sure the courts would.

A little perspective: post-continental “theft,” America became the most powerful nation on earth, all the inventions and industrialization and incredible progress for humanity. Pre-theft, and after all the centuries of Native American ownership, what did the Indians do with their talents and this great continental resource? Teepees? Peace pipes?

Per Dances With Wolves, Indians were fascinated by simple sugar and a coffee grinder.

So then, the Indians should thank us for showing them how it is done and for giving them a better future than they would have ever otherwise known. Given her professional success and subsequent bank account, and certainly her deluxe accommodations, Eilish should be thankful, too.

From all those who toiled, trailblazed, fought, and died to make her homeland experience so prosperous, luxurious, and salubrious: you’re welcome.

I know, I know. Who cares about Billie Eilish. Agreed. However, her remarks are useful. She lives in a $3-million-dollar mansion in Los Angeles, California. After her Grammy remarks, the Native American Tongva Tribe, members of a Los Angeles Basin crowd of indigenous inhabitants known as the “First Angelenos,” confirmed that Eilish’s $3-million-dollar home does indeed sit on the tribe’s “ancestral land,” long known as Gabrieleno Tongva territory.

Okay. So the right thing to do, if one genuinely feels the land on which they live is stolen, is to return the land to its rightful owners. Hey, you confessed publicly that the land doesn’t belong to you. So then, give it back. Of course, we know Eilish has no intention of returning the land, and never did. How do we know? Well, just pay attention. For all the self-serving wheedling about living on stolen native land, watch the tribe never-ever get their land and territory back.

Watch everything remain exactly as it is.

So obviously, this whole “stolen land” bit from Eilish was a load of meaningless BS. It goes nowhere, affects nothing, changes nothing. So then, why would she say it?

Here is where her remarks are useful …

As with all liberals, Eilish couldn’t care less about Native Americans or their stolen land, either one. She probably doesn’t even know a single Native American, other than Pocahontas, maybe, Senator Elizabeth Warren—and Warren is only between 1/64^th and 1/1,024^th Native American. It is annoying that liberals so easily get away with pretending that they do care. They don’t care about Indians or stolen native land, any more than they care about African Americans, or women, or gay and trans people, or children, or anything or anyone else they claim to care about and champion. They care about the advancement of Liberalism, their religion. If you don’t believe that, then talk to conservative/republican blacks, women, gay and trans people, and children who survive the womb—those obnoxious little overachievers!

Challenge liberal orthodoxy, protections end and all bets are off.

Nevertheless, liberals only champion all these causes because it provides them something they desperately crave, and in fact intensely need. More on that in a second. In this case, Eilish has zero intentions of giving her stolen land back to the natives. And if she isn’t prepared to return her little slice of stolen real estate heaven, then what the hell is she talking about here: “No one is illegal on stolen land?” Every American but her needs to give their slice of real estate heaven back to the victims? Is that what Eilish is saying?

No, it isn’t what she is saying at all. Because she doesn’t care a wit about any of it—about the land, who rightfully owns it, who got cheated, the people who were cheated, the oppressive cheaters, if the land was actually stolen, if it is returned, if it isn’t returned, if justice is served or disserved. Eilish hasn’t thought about any of it for a single, solitary second. Hence, her remarks are thoughtless, careless, empty rhetoric that must be serving another purpose.

To that, ask yourself: why would someone step up to a microphone in a room full of people, and in front of an international audience watching via television, and champion something (a) so obviously settled and irrevocable, and (b) that they don’t give a fiddler’s f— about in the first place?

Stolen land?
Giving it all back to the natives?
Kicking 342 million American thieves into the streets and off the continent?

The whole thing is obviously absurd, is never-ever going to happen.

So again, why say it? Why make such an idle statement?

There can be only one reason, and it’s rather evident: Eilish is a gladhander trolling for shallow praise and adulation, for which she has a powerful addiction, too.

Some will say Eilish is ignorant of American history, a product of the modern American education system that doesn’t teach it properly, or at all. Perhaps this is true, but she certainly knows that America has been an established nation for 250 years, and that ceding the entire continent back to Native Americans is never going to happen. Hence, all this is being said and done for shallow praise, adulation, and admiration, which is the reason celebrity liberals like Eilish do anything.

No group of human beings is more insecure and dependent on praise from other human beings than celebrities, specifically celebrity liberals. These people would do anything to get others to like them. Given their prominence and fans, saying celebrities are insecure and praise reliant sounds counterintuitive. But just look at them: the addictions and repeated rehab stints, the psychotherapy, the self-loathing, the self-destruction, the inexplicable suicide attempts and successes. This isn’t a demographic brimming with self-confidence and self-assurance, obviously. Eilish herself confessed to a pornography addiction, which she began watching at 11-years-old. She said the addiction “destroyed her brain,” too.

Oh, sure. Let’s all take property rights guidance from a porn addict with a destroyed brain. Makes total sense. I’m in. Who’s with me? Doesn’t the fact she thinks she is qualified to provide the guidance indicate her brain is truly broken?

The point is these celebrity liberals aren’t what they seem to be, and their lives prove it. Their multiple relationships and marriages don’t last; their families fall apart. Their children become psychotic, develop addictions, too, like porn for example. They require life-long therapy, as well, which seems a waste given they still murder their parents [Rob and Michele Reiner] in the family home anyway. Celebrity liberals are on the wagon, then off the wagon, then on the wagon, again—all the while they are on late night television telling the public how wonderful their lives have become post-treatment, and how desperately they needed it to regain focus and purpose, and all that other public relations bullshit.

BS because, shortly thereafter they are found wasted again in a Belair Hotel bungalow and hospitalized for “acute appendicitis” or a “panic attack,” or some other such public relations nonsense. Because, next, we see them in court in orange jumpsuits or street clothes, answering for illegal narcotics and hookers—not a single surgical scar or Xanax prescription anywhere in sight.

These so-called “celebrity elite,” why, they are more f’ed up than Hogan’s goat. Human disasters, there isn’t anything “elite” about them at all. And the only thing that sustains their senses of self-worth and -confidence is ordinary people applauding them and reminding them how awesome they are, and how valuable they are to society and the world. Given the merry-go-round rehab stints, and the suicide attempts and successes, the booze and drugs certainly aren’t providing the self-worth and self-confidence. It is the opposite of what people think about these celebrated individuals, who are truly insecure and pathetic human beings by and large, but who are propped up as otherwise by an industry that benefits from the appearance and subsequent fraud.

In other words, this “celebrity elite” business is yet another liberal establishment con.

I have a friend; he is a musician in a rock band. Like most “rocker” dudes, he isn’t much to look at. His childhood t-shirts are all stained with pork chop grease at the neck; I think the reader knows why. His parents literally tried everything to get other kids to play with their son, who is no Chris Helmsworth, and dorky. Anyway, I went to one of my friend’s shows in a local club and was amazed at how many young women were pawing at him, and at how many dudes wanted to have a beer and hangout with him after the set. If my friend was just Eric, pre-rocker Eric, and not in a band, girls would throw rocks at his ugly ass and dudes would harass him. Because, well, he is a skinny, dorky looking dude, and because that is exactly what they all did prior—before his rocker status, that is.

Pick up a guitar, however, and it’s obviously a whole new life.

This is precisely what happens to these liberal celebrity sorts. Normally, in their pre-fame state, people ignore them; they are members of the vast ignored, neglected, and underappreciated. They star in a film role or write a hit song, or whatever, and suddenly they are the cat’s pajamas, the Belles of the Celebrity Ball—when just yesterday chicks were throwing rocks at them and dudes were giving them wedgies. Getting the attention they have always desired and craved but never had, well, they like that very much. Very much. The praise and adulation not only become a drug, but an addiction. Everyone now fawning over them, they begin to see themselves as experts on every issue, their insights and opinions more astute and valuable than all others. All validated and encouraged, of course, by this new host of faithful human sycophants.

And this, folks, is precisely why these liberal celebrities can stride haughtily to the public microphone with their idle bullshit: “No one is illegal on stolen land.”

[Sycophants cheering]

It’s like a shot of heroine, only better. And so much cheaper.

Of course, then the people not so inspired by these liberal celebrities, they say: “Oh really genius. If we’re all on stolen land, so are you. So why don’t you give your $3-million-dollar mansion back to the Tongva Tribe?” Suddenly, these liberal celebrities look again like that ordinary rock and harassment target that they were pre-fame—which they always were, incidentally, but that the fame and their new drug and addiction have helped them unremember.

I wondered for a long time why celebrities had to become liberals, why the liberal mindset was the predominant mindset among the celebrity class. Then I realized it is because fame makes people arrogant, haughty, self-important assholes, which, not so coincidentally, are the defining characteristics of liberals. So, it all made sense, finally. Birds of a feather preferring to flock together, and all.

These familiar birds say stupid stuff, too, like: “I’m fighting for people who don’t have a voice!” Gee, how noble and selfless of them. Notice how these nameless and faceless “voiceless” never asked for their protection or help, but how these brave celebrity liberals compassionately and self-sacrificially, and don’t forget cheaply and self-servingly, step into the breach anyway. They want everyone to think they are virtuous humanitarians, when in reality they are just chasing a cheap, selfish, affirming fix of praise and adulation: “Nobody is illegal on stolen land.” The remark is the needle entering the nearly destroyed vein among the numerous track marks. The brainless crowd’s roar is the syringe plunger being depressed. Then, eyes rolling back in narcotic bliss …

Ahhh. Feels sooo good.

Celebrity liberals aren’t thinking about the numbskullery of what they are saying, either. These people are dope sick. Bangin’ some straight P&A to stop the withdrawal itching and voices, they are reinforcing their Master of the Universe status, too. What is coming out of their mouths? The public statements they are making? They couldn’t care less. In their arrogance, they think ordinary people are so stupid, so overwhelmed with their celebrity supremacy and greatness, that they can say anything they want. Because that is how it is in the club, after the show—the pawing, the hanging out.

Indeed, it’s all narcotic bliss, until the smart people show up. Those insubordinate bastards.

People used to admire celebrities. They had no problem pedestalizing celebrities, because celebrities used to earn it. Old school celebrities understood their fame, seemed to understand they were just another spoke in the humankind wheel like everyone else. Sure, they had privileges. They had problems, too. Yet they didn’t go around pretending to be people they were not and saying mindless things for cheap praise and adulation. Dean Martin was a drunk. He brought his cocktail and cigarette on stage and was who he was, no apologies or pretense. People respected the authenticity, that Martin was Martin, real, no disguises, no smarter- and better-than-you airs.

Not like today, when a 24-year-old, broken-brained, porn–addicted singer/songwriter with chartreuse hair wants to lecture everyone wrongly on American history and property rights law, and then indicts herself in the process.

The truth is all this celebrity business shouldn’t be a thing in the first place. Every human being is getting up in the morning, taking a big country dump, and putting their pants on one leg at a time. The ideas that some are doing it less odiferously and with more aplomb is utter nonsense. Certainly, no society of people should allow television/media to sell them insecure junkies and loser people as celebrities. Because, well, propping these liberal losers, these P&A bangers, up as society’s very best is an indictment of society itself.

It used to be hard to become a celebrity, requiring some sort of significant accomplishment to be recognized and celebrated. Now everyone with a cellphone and social media page believes they are one. Thus, as a society, we should be ever more careful and discriminating about who we allow to define us.

Else, the world will think we’re all land thieves and self-absorbed liberal space cadets.

Don’t Let Christianity Paralyze You In The Fight Against The World’s Evil

“Beware of those pretentious jerks. They’re evil frauds you can’t trust. Given the chance, they’ll crucify you; trust me on that.”

So, who do you think made these remarks? Who would be so honest and direct? So openly and scathingly critical of other human beings?

Would you believe Jesus? Yes, that Jesus.

But, but, but … Jesus doesn’t speak that way about people!

Wanna bet.

The quote a contemporary translation of Jesus’ own biblical words, he said it, all right. Everything but the quippy artistic liberty taken at the end, which is nonetheless true, too. He was talking about the Jewish religious leaders of the time, specifically the “scribes”—highly educated scholars, lawyers, teachers, and professionals who were responsible for copying, preserving, and interpreting sacred texts, particularly the Torah, and for handling important government and legal documents. Advising Jewish religious leadership, the Pharisees, scribes were the community’s highly esteemed who, along with the Pharisees, held significant authority.

And yet, Jesus laid the wood to the entire evil lot.

Another time, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus began with, “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” And then he went on a scalding and epic 27-verse anti-scribe and -Pharisee tirade. And yes, the text included the exclamation point, each time Jesus repeated the line: “… hypocrites!” So you can rest assured he was speaking boldly and unrepentantly, and wanted the criticisms heard, absorbed, and believed.

Interestingly, the remarks were then put in a book, the Bible, for the whole world to not only read, but, moreover, as an example of behavior for the entire world to adopt, for future Christians to adopt. Given his supernatural perception power and vision, well chronicled, it is certain that Jesus knew the remarks would be widely publicized and read, too. That the entire world would eventually see him laying the wood to these evil scribes and Pharisees, human beings he was supposedly sent to love, incidentally.

Don’t you think? That Jesus knew the entire world would be privy to his remarks, and would realize his truculent and exemplifying behavior toward evil human beings?

Me, too.

Jesus wasn’t kind at all to these people. In front of the whole world, no less, he called them lying “hypocrites” and “vipers,” said they were “ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing” who take advantage of others, specifically widows and the vulnerable. Basically, he called them evil frauds—all while they were presently standing in the room and surrounded by their peers.

Ouch. That stings.

In whatever type of world human beings exist, created or evolutionary or otherwise. These aren’t good people; they are nasty, evil people. And Jesus—yes, that Jesus—made certain everyone knew and understood it, too.

So, now that we know who Jesus really was/is, which should come as no surprise since it is right there in bold biblical print. We are compelled to rethink a common question: “What Would Jesus Do?” Posing the query, what people mean to imply is that Jesus would be patient and loving and kind, “love thy enemy and neighbor” and all that stuff, and that you should practice and exhibit those virtues, too, in your own interactions with other human beings.

Remember the rules of believership, these WWJD’ers are saying.
Remember what it means to be a “Christian,” a believer in God and follower of Jesus Christ.

Remember to behave as God expects, which is exemplified perfectly by his beloved son, Jesus, via his patience and loving kindness, always helping the lost sheep, the spiritually blind, the darkness-dwellers, the wayward and self-opposed, and whatnot. These WWJD’ers only want to put people on the proper behavioral course, to help them exhibit more “Christ-like” behavior. So under friendly if admonishing eyebrows, and in a tone suggesting you already know the appropriate peace- and love-related response. They ask: “So, what would Jesus do?”

Well, here he is publicly laying the wood to these scribes and Pharisees for being liars, hypocrites, and servants of Satan and evil. In direct opposition to all that peace and love stuff, it would appear Jesus is picking a fight. He knows exactly who these people are, and he is putting them on blast in front of the entire world, to which the condemned didn’t take too kindly, obviously.

Nevertheless, here is the point: just like all that peace and goodwill and “love thy neighbor” stuff, these opposing sentiments from Jesus, this very public introduction to the proverbial wood, are in the Bible, too. So why don’t preachers emphasize these remarks on Sunday morning like they do “loving thy enemy,” and all those other peace- and love-related Christian virtues? Why doesn’t Reverend O’Malley tell people they don’t have to put up with liars and hypocrites and evil people in their lives, communities, and countries? Why doesn’t he tell them that not doing so is in fact virtuous?

I mean, if evil isn’t opposed, if it is allowed to run roughshod and unchecked.
Anybody want to take a crack at the personal and societal outcome?

Anybody?

It’s true; Christians are supposed to be virtuous and different. A “special people zealous for good works,” as the Apostle Paul put it, and Godly/Christ-like examples for humankind and the world. But what are Christians supposed to do? Be sheep to the slaughter for these nasty, fake, evil people who despise them and obstinately seek their demise? Is that what we’re saying?

Christians are supposed to be perpetually agreeable suckers, turning the other cheek and giving away their wardrobe? How many cheeks and extra cloaks are Christians supposed to offer and give away, anyway? Before they get pissed off and break out the proverbial wood themselves?

Slap! Jesus loves you, friend.
Slap! And so do I.
Then: May as well have my underwear, too, friend. [Covering with a fig leaf] God bless.

Remember, after ransacking the temple for it being turned into a marketplace and “den of thieves,” Jesus set to healing people right there in the sanctuary, instead. These very scribes and Pharisees stood by and witnessed all these incredible healing miracles, being performed by the abundantly obvious Son of Almighty God, no less. And how did they react?

They were “sore displeased.”

Sore displeased. People being miraculously freed from their physical chains of blindness and deafness and disease before their very eyes, and these scribes and Pharisees, these societal elite, were not in awe and wonderment, but infuriated. Who feels this way amid a scene so beyond astonishing? Who gets enraged about it? Who could be this blind, inhumane, and soulless?

Evil people, that’s who. No interviews. No examinations into who this beyond extraordinary Nazarene might be. Just, “Crucify him!” Get rid of him!

Gee, wonder if any of the cured felt this way: the blind husband viewing the faces of his wife and family for the first time in his life. The deaf-since-birth woman who can now hear the laughter of her children; her tearful, aged mother who had always wished and prayed for such a miracle. The guy whose cancer is gone, and who now feels incredibly healthy and, along with his family and friends, finally hopeful. Then contrast this blissful scene with these scribes and Pharisees, standing there watching it all—stoic, pissed off, plotting the death of the miracle worker.

What I mean is, these scribes and Pharisees are precisely the evil types who would slap Christians into unconsciousness and skin them of their apparel. They couldn’t give a damn about Christ or Christians, either one—and not because these particular types are Jews, either, but because they are evil: servants of Satan. And to be more “Christ-like,” Christians are supposed to tolerate and indulge people like this? Are supposed to abide their evil BS?

Excuse me but, I don’t remember King David putting up with Goliath’s evil BS [readers might research Nabal’s BS, too]. I don’t remember God chastising or punishing David for it, either: “Now, now, David. I know you don’t understand the concept of ‘Christ-like’ just yet, but that wasn’t very Jewish of you.”

No, I remember David being encouraged and protected by God, and even made king.

A modern era Christian, David would have approached Goliath, taken a brutal slap to the face, smiled pleasantly, offered the other cheek, then taken another slap, then reoffered the other now red and swollen cheek. Then, finally on his hands and knees groggy from endless slapping, but still smiling pleasantly and supposedly Christ-like, he would have offered his cloak, then his shirt, sandals, pants, finally his underwear, and stood there naked and mocked to scorn for being a wuss.

Only, that isn’t what David did, is it …

He jacked Goliath in the forehead with a 100 mile-an-hour rock, instead, and then crudely excised his gigantic evil head. At least, that’s the story in beautiful, bold, and incontrovertible print. Furthermore, as David held Goliath’s expressionless skull in the air victoriously, the tendons dangling and blood dripping and eyes vacant, God was saying: Meet your new king, Israel! My chosen! And for all the Christian skeptics, those milquetoast, dogooder sorts discomforted by all this aggressive, supposedly anti-“Christ-like” talk. This from Moses, and yet another of God’s chosen:

“The Lord is a man of War; the Lord is his name.”

So, learn it. Love it. Live it. And get over it.

Christians need to learn (a) they live in the real world, a place that doesn’t suffer fools and weak people, and (b) that they don’t have to put up with the BS of that world’s evil people. And it’s not me, your humble writer, saying it. It’s Jesus—exemplifying it. In stark contrast to the Sunday morning sermons, he sure didn’t put up with it. Neither did King David and Moses, two of God’s chosen and beloved.

Religiously, people are sold this bill of goods about Christ and Christianity, and it’s not that that Sunday morning perception is inaccurate, necessarily. It’s just, incomplete.

Believe it or not, Christians can be believers who love and pray for their enemies, but who still put a foot in their enemies’ asses. There is King David, God’s chosen, doing it in the Old Testament. He is running all over the middle east swinging the sword, conquering cities, and collecting the heads and foreskins of his enemies, no less—with the Lord Your God right at his side. God never said believers and Christians had to be doormats for the world’s evil people. Sure, peaceful solutions are great. They are a duty, in fact, and every believer I know wants there to be one and seeks them. But what happens when your enemy has no interest in peaceful solutions? When your enemy is determined to flog you mercilessly and hang you on a cross, with utter glee and satisfaction, no less?

What? Christians are supposed to wait for the evil people to get tired of the slapping and consigned clothing? No, wait. I know: Christians are supposed to peacefully and patiently lead their abusers to Jesus. Yes, that’s it! Christians need to inspire a “come to Jesus” moment in evil people determined to destroy them.

Well, Jesus tried this conversion tactic, too. How did it work out for him?

Servants of the Most High God, Christians don’t have to endure any of this evil crapola. They don’t have to ever explain themselves to these abject evil losers, either. There is some explaining that needs to be done, all right. It’s the wicked explaining their evil BS, and accounting for it.

The Apostle Paul: “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”

Translation: there is a limit to the evil BS Christians must endure from the world’s evil people.

These scribes and Pharisees, examples of the world’s evil people, wouldn’t know truth if it brought a dead man back to life and escorted from his four-day tomb. Servants of Satan and evil, there is no fact so unopposable and no evidence so compelling as to persuade them, either. Observing healing miracles and still wanting to murder the person performing them, these people, these scribes and religious leaders, are determined to be evil and resolved to destruction. And to the primary subject of this piece, who do these scribes and Pharisees unmistakably resemble modernly?

Liberals. Godless, evil liberals.

And don’t overlook the undeniable parallel between the old and new: all these people trying to destroy Jesus and ultimately Christianity are society’s professionally esteemed, wealthy, and celebrity elite. All those trying to murder the rule of law, the constitution, democracy, and everything righteously America, to include its president and God, are the nation’s political class by and large, its corporate media, and Hollywood celebrities. Or rather: society’s professionally esteemed, wealthy, and celebrity elite.

Same dynamic. Same evil. Different time.

Every evil known to God and man, every abomination, liberals either orchestrate, perpetuate, or tolerate, which is simple advocacy, incidentally. Liberals lie, cheat, and steal without consciousness or shame. Lecturing people not to do things, then doing those very things themselves, their hypocrisy knows no limits. Liberals are proud of their hypocrisy, in fact, call themselves more nuanced, and consider themselves intellectually superior for it. Liberals are for things, right before they are against them. No matter how much you try to reason with them, liberals reject logic, its sequential truth, and you. Because they hate you and your God and your Christianity, more than reason and truth and justice appeals to them. Liberals are not only the most immoral and dishonorable human beings on planet earth. They are proudly depraved and evil. And again, it isn’t your humble writer saying it.

It’s Jesus. Via his holy scriptures, it is Almighty God, too. All in clear, unambiguous and incontestable print. And again, Christians are supposed to tolerate and indulge these people and their evil BS?

No stranger to evil and its personal and societal repercussions, Russian Gulag-dweller, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, said, “Within the philosophical system [communism] of [Karl] Marx and [Vladimir] Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions.”

In other words, it isn’t just Godlessness that drives evil people like Marx and Lenin, but an actual hatred of God, which naturally includes Christianity and Christians [it’s strange because, how can you despise something you claim doesn’t exist? And why would you despise it? Why? Because your god, Satan, despises it, which means you believe in Satan but not God, as if you can have one without the other]. Whatever ideology, or cause, evil people subscribe to is just cover. They use these causes as a pretext for their rage and raging, which is aimed at God and all his creation, ultimately. Evil people don’t care about any stated “cause.” Consumed with hatred for life itself—for everyone and everything, including themselves—they want to rage, at God, and all who follow him. Thus, evil people are chaos creators and death worshipers.

As writer and podcaster, Keri Smith, finally put it regarding the more contemporary evil of modern Liberalism and liberals, “Leftism, marked by resentment, arrogance, and entitlement, always leads to murderous rage. Marxism has a death toll of upwards of 140 million, but its blood thirst can never be quenched.”

Unquenchable liberal bloodlust. That should set the table for Christians. What Smith is saying is communism and Liberalism serve the same evil, are of the same evil, and how many cheeks and cloaks are Christians going to offer up to satiate “unquenchable liberal bloodlust?”

Evil doesn’t seem this savage in the beginning because it is trying to gain a foothold and to avoid being rejected. Successfully rooted, however, the soulless, evil savagery begins to reveal itself. It manifests as fetuses being dismembered and tossed callously into medical waste dumpsters; as applause for assassins and the murderous death of opposing political activists; as hoping expectant mothers-to-be are ripped from bow to stern during childbirth and never use the restroom normally again; as advocacy for poisoning law enforcement and withholding surgical anesthesia services from people with opposing beliefs; and as storming church services in progress, and accosting and terrifying parishioners.

Dear God! You finally say, stunned by the ruthless, Godless barbarity. What is this inhumanity? Where is it coming from?

It’s evil, from the depths of hell and Satan’s servants: liberals.

Liberals don’t just disagree and leave it at that. They want your blood. They want you to suffer while you bleed out, too. Because, and here is something Christians need to hear and likely never have: liberals want evil to be glorified. Not truth. Not justice and righteousness. Not goodness or peace or love. Not Jesus or Christianity or Christians. And certainly not the Father of it all, Almighty God, the creator of all life. Christians haven’t thought of it this way because they, and human beings in general, don’t view the world as a fundamental duality, good and evil. In the human realm, we say people subscribe to ideologies, that they have been radicalized and brainwashed. We offer all these human, psychiatric explanations for human behavior. When in reality, human beings simply choose to do good or evil, to serve good or evil, to serve God or Satan.

In the end, at Armageddon, there are but two opposing forces. What are they?

Good and evil—squaring off in a final battle.

It is the culmination of a conflict that has been going on from the beginning, since time began. A battle that is going on right now, that will continue tomorrow, and the next day. Christians need to get their heads around that immutable reality and shake off this doormat paralysis, this virtuous “Christ-like” misconception that they need to tolerate and indulge their evil enemies. Christians don’t have to walk around spoiling for a daily fight, as liberals do. For the sake of their nations, communities, families, and lives, however. They need to be eager to get in one. Why?

Well, because that’s What Jesus Would Do.

Religion and The Minnesotan ICE Warrior

How uncomplicated is this unfortunate shooting in Minneapolis? This uncomplicated:

“Out of the car … Out of the car … Get out of the f-ing car!”

Mere steps from the victim’s vehicle, law enforcement gave this command three incredibly clear and audible times. In terms of responsibility and justification, this fact alone prompts the call: ballgame! Ignoring the order, the victim Renee Good is responsible for the circumstances. Attempting to flee the scene and running over a police officer, she justifies law enforcement’s response, too.

Ballgame.

When an officer of the law gives you a command, you follow it. That’s it. No matter the circumstances, it is exactly what I do. It is likely what the reader would do, too, and what we all would advise others to do. Because that is the lawful and subsequently required response. Wherever they are, wherever they show up, law enforcement is the authority on every scene. Otherwise, why have law enforcement? Of what use is it?

So, though it has been said a thousand times already, Good died because she didn’t follow authoritative commands. Then used her vehicle as a weapon to runover a law-enforcement officer, who, incidentally, ended up in the hospital—again!—with internal bleeding from the incident. As video of the altercation clearly demonstrates, we know Good and her wife both heard the officer’s commands, who was no less standing next to Good’s rolled down car window yelling exit-the-vehicle orders at her. On the other side of the car, we know Good’s wife heard the commands, too, urging Good to, “Drive, baby. Drive!” when she heard them. And drive Good did, directly at the assisting officer in front of her car, who was enforcing the lead officer’s exit commands and blocking Good’s escape.

That is the entirety of this case. All nonetheless captured on video and apodictic.

Well then, you ask, where is all this complexity and confusion coming from?

Well, from the people, liberals, who want to make the incident complex and confuse everything and everybody. Because, see, (a) this is what evil people do, and (b) the video-captured truth doesn’t help them, isn’t on their side. Clearly, the victim didn’t follow commands, one, and then targeted a cop with her car, two. Whether the targeting was intended or not is meaningless. Authority is to be obeyed; its commands followed. Thus, law enforcement is justified in the incident and liberals are screwed. Hence, there needs to be yelling, screaming, accusations, and confusing complexity added to this ordeal. There needs to be people banging drums, bellowing in bullhorns, and throwing outrage tantrums. And no fact is to be left to stand by this group, either:

The victim was in the middle of the road blocking traffic …
“She was turning around.”

She was blaring her car horn for 3 minutes and dancing to the sounds she was making …
“She was getting people out of her way.”

The cop told her to get out of the car three separate times …
“We don’t know what she heard.”

He was standing at her open car window, fer chrissake …
“So! The scene was chaotic.”

Well, her wife heard it on the other side of the car, and urged, “Drive, baby. Drive!” …
“We don’t know that, either!”

The victim targeted the officer standing directly in front of her car …
“We can’t know what’s in someone’s mind!”

Doesn’t the video evidence and internal bleeding speak directly to that …?
“Fascist!”

No fact left to stand, this is how a conversation goes with those determined to complexify and confuse the incident. The bottom line is it can’t be the victim’s fault, because liberals don’t want it to be her fault. This is doctrine and subsequent religion that these deniers want rejected. They want to blame law enforcement, ICE, and ultimately Trump, and by God that’s who is going to get the blame, whether that condemnation is accurate, true, and fair, or not, and no matter what any stupid video undeniably proves.

This isn’t lunacy, folks. This is religion. Liberals want to believe this version of events, and by God they are going to believe it, no matter what. And if you think this religious zealotry just applies to lowly, Minnesotan anti-ICE street warriors. Think again.

Geraldo Rivera is a smart guy—not very wise, but smart. He saw the video, too, and said Trump and ICE are lying about the shooting. “No one could’ve perceived [Good] to be violent. The government narrative,” he said, to mean: Trump’s narrative, “is bogus and belied by the video.”

The government’s story is contradicted by the video, Geraldo?

Good was three times given a command by law enforcement, clear as day. She refused it, then tried to flee the scene and ran over an assisting officer standing directly in front of her car. You say you watched the video, too. Who is the authority on the scene? What is the protocol for citizens in these situations, Geraldo?

Make no mistake, Geraldo knows who the authority is on the scene and the protocol for citizens, both. The flagrant video disobedience and victim recklessness are impossible to miss, too, but not impossible to misinterpret, obviously. Because that is precisely what Geraldo did: interpreted what actually happened into something more ideologically palatable and profitable, into doctrine and a belief and a subsequent religion that supports what he, as a matter of zealous religious faith, wants to believe. Why the clearly intentional misinterpretation? Or rather, the lie?

Because Geraldo is a liberal who doesn’t like Trump, and who wants ICE to get the blame for this incident, instead, so that Trump and MAGA voters ultimately get the blame. It means Geraldo thinks it is okay to sacrifice law enforcement officers in his psychotic and unhinged get-Trump and dismantle-MAGA religious pursuits. He doesn’t care if he smears and condemns the officers, or if they are injured or killed as a result. It doesn’t matter to him that they are merely following the commands of their elected superiors and performing their assigned task, duties, and function. Sticking it to Trump and MAGA is all that matters, and sacrificing law enforcement is the way to do it—for shooting an innocent, non-violent woman who was merely lost after dropping off her kids at school and trying to comply, of course.

But, that’s not at all what happened, you say.
No. It isn’t.
So then, Geraldo is lying, you say.
Well, isn’t he? You saw the video, too.

Actually, Geraldo isn’t lying. No, it isn’t true that officers shot an innocent, non-violent woman who was trying to comply. But this is what Geraldo wants to believe, is the much desired and necessary religious doctrine to which he wants to subscribe. To hell with the truth, the law, justice, and morality.

Gee, is this a religion for good or evil. I can’t tell.

Fox News’ former lead man, Brit Hume, was asked about the incident, too. He said he had watched all the videos repeatedly, but, “I gotta say, I am really struck by the certainty with which people on both sides of this issue state their diametrically opposed views of what the videos say.”

“Struck” by the certainty and confidence, Brit? When law enforcement instructs someone to get out of the car, is law enforcement not the authority on the scene, and aren’t people supposed to immediately obey their commands, Brit? When an assisting officer stands in front of someone’s car enforcing the lead officer’s commands, are citizens to comply? Or to try and flee and run the officer over?

Isn’t it all just this simple, Brit? Are you not “struck” by the simplicity?
And does the simplicity not “belie” your conclusion, Geraldo?

The rest of us must obediently and dutifully comply with authoritative commands from law enforcement. Because, well, that is the lawful and subsequently required response. Hume and Geraldo would assuredly obey and comply, too. So what makes Renee Good any different, Brit? These are the rules for every single person in America, is the “rule of law,” in fact. And everyone is subject to the rules except … Renee Good? You are surprised at how “certain” and confident people can be after simply applying these rules to an incident in Minnesota?

Gee, could you not apply them, too, Brit? Geraldo?

The fact is this incident isn’t confounding to Hume or Rivera, either one, or to any other liberal for that matter. They all know the protocol and, like the rest of us, can all see what happened. And if this had happened to a MAGA affiliated person, I don’t know, say like, two MAGA-hat wearing, bleach-wielding Nigerians in Chicago, liberals all would be screeching about the authoritative sanctity of law enforcement and laying out the protocols for dutiful citizenry compliance with lawful authority. So why can’t liberals do that with this incident?

Well, I could say liberals know the truth of this incident, but simply refuse it, because they hate Trump. That part is true; they loathe Trump. But as for the truth of the incident, liberals actually can’t see it. I used to think they could see the truth and just didn’t want to acknowledge or admit it. But I don’t believe that anymore. Because I think their hate and subsequent desire for another outcome, for doctrinal beliefs and consequent religion that support that outcome, blinds them to it. Not blindness in a way that they can’t visually see the evidence and truth with their eyes and register it in mind, but more that they deny and reject it emotionally and spiritually. Or rather, in their hearts, which are petrified toward anything they religiously despise and oppose, like Trump success, and like MAGA validation and ideological supremacy, for examples.

Simply put, liberals don’t allow themselves to see anything, to acknowledge any evidence, that indicts or condemns their hate or that challenges the held religious beliefs that maintain it. Their eyes see the evidence, but their hearts, like hardened titanium, deny and reject it. Anytime the truth contradicts what they want to believe, or contravenes the hate they want to continue, and especially when it condemns their own beliefs and religion and, worse, justifies and empowers their ideological enemies—the truth is literally reviled by liberals, is vehemently despised and abhorred.

So much so that it doesn’t matter if what their eyes are seeing is true; they reject it, won’t see it, can’t see it. An opposing, condemning truth cannot exist because their own doctrine and hate must prevail and endure. Their manufactured version of events is all they can see, is all they will see, and nothing else. No matter how obvious the truth, liberals are blinded to it, to reality. The religious zealots they are, they then convince themselves that their perspective and opinion are justified and moral, too. Because the perspective and opinion must be justified and moral, else their desired beliefs are contradicted; else their hate is contravened; else their religion is condemned, and Trump and MAGA are righteous, exalted, supreme, and empowered.

And this is important: it is the same religious zealotry for famous, big time media personalities as it is lowly, Minnesotan anti-ICE warriors.

It is all to say liberals convince themselves of the lie they want to live, and of their righteousness. As far as they are concerned, the lie is the truth, is their doctrine and religion. And they cannot and will not be talked out of their religion, either. They are willfully blind to anything contrary and contravening.

In their relaxed, I’m-more-accomplished-than-you tone, Hume and Rivera, and liberals all, would no doubt say they are simply being objective in their analysis, and that MAGA people just don’t like what they are saying because MAGA people are Trump doormats, er, loyalists.

Well, is law enforcement the legal authority on every scene or not? When they give a command, is everyone obliged to follow it or face the myriad consequences?

Ballgame, folks. Accomplishments and religion notwithstanding.

Shrugging Off Institutional Theft

“What the poor most need,” says conservative icon, Thomas Sowell, “is to stop being poor.” And the best way to lift the most poor people out of poverty on a mass scale?

Via an economy that creates vast wealth, like a capitalist economy.

A capitalist economy encourages not only more business, but more business growth. It creates more jobs of every sort, so that more people of varying skill levels can work and make a living. From there it is up to the individual to govern their life and finances in a way that they don’t have to be poor anymore, however that is defined. There isn’t a second system, another or better way to create wealth and banish poverty. Wherever they are found on planet earth, human beings improve their financial situation and social status via work and employment, and ultimately capitalism.

Universally, this is how it works, is how human beings thrive, survive, and escape poverty. The only people who don’t seem to understand that this is how it works, are liberals. Sowell says that liberals think money is a sourceless commodity that just exists somewhere, and that they have a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. Great respect for Sowell, and perhaps his remarks are in jest.

But, au contraire …

Liberals know exactly where wealth comes from and how it is produced. Moreover, they know precisely where to find it. They constantly accuse entrepreneurs and business owners of being too wealthy and greedy, and of taking advantage of working men and women. Why target these particular people?

Because that is where all the serious money resides, and the largest concentrations.

So, don’t be fooled. Liberals don’t think money just exists somewhere in a large heap sourceless. If that were true, they wouldn’t know exactly who to target and where to find it. Liberals are the money version of Bloodhounds; they are Moneyhounds, a relatively new breed. Money can run, but it can’t hide. Make no mistake, liberals thoroughly understand the concept of wealth, and when it comes to money that defines and facilitates it, they have but one, singular goal: confiscating, re-distributing, and ultimately controlling it.

In other words, liberals understand capitalism and the benefits of capitalism to the societal poor full well. They don’t really care about the poor or getting people out of poverty, mind you, but they nonetheless use that fraud as a pretext to enrich themselves with OPM, Other People’s Money.

Or rather, hard-earned taxpayer income.

Liberals confiscate the money—yes, they just take it, because government can. Then they pass it around to various government agencies and political causes, which benefits liberals politically, or rather, electorally, which then leads to a hefty public service salary, naturally. Then the money they dole out to all those agencies and causes, the hard-earned taxpayer income, it returns to their campaign coffers and personal checking accounts, too.

With a side-eye wink, “Sure would appreciate a campaign donation,” liberals say to all the cause and agency heads. And everyone understands the tone. In fact, they don’t need to be asked. Government programs and massive government bureaucracy equal political and personal wealth.

Or to be more direct and crystal clear: liberals steal the hard-earned income of the American people for themselves.

An obscene amount of the people’s money flows into the United States treasury, and liberals’ sole interest is exploiting as much of it as possible to personal and political benefit. Hence, despite their duplicitous protestations to the contrary, liberals actually love capitalism; in terms of wealth creation, it’s the easiest, most exploitable game in town. Capitalism is how the world universally works, and liberals know exactly how to make it benefit them. They know exactly where the money is, and all they have to do is accuse the people that have more of it:

“You rich billionaires need to pay your fair share!”

Of course, “billionaires” really means: any and every entrepreneur nationwide with elevated cash flow, proven by the income limit liberals set which is much, much lower than “billionaire” status. Simply, liberals want more taxation and more government programs and a larger government bureaucracy, because it means more money for them to exploit, and more opportunity to steal it. And if you think you are the unaffected working man and woman with your comparatively small-time paycheck. Think again. Gas taxes. Property taxes. And gee, what is that “fed income” deduction on your paycheck stub?

Liberals thank you for your contributions, too.
They need it to continue their war against those greedy “billionaires” on your behalf.

Basically, liberals are the Wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belfort, on the phone with his latest investment sucker: “The reason for the call today, John, is something just came across my desk, John. It is perhaps the best thing I’ve seen in the last six months! If you have sixty-seconds, I’d like to share the idea with you. You got a minute?”

Likewise, all liberals do with their political apparatus is con voters—the intellectually and instinctually weakest voters, that is—into envying the wealth of their fellow citizens; into jealousy; into believing the wealth of their fellow citizens is unjustified and unearned, and even stolen. Meanwhile, liberals grow the size of government, agency by agency and cause by cause, to create a revenue stream of taxpayer cash for their collective campaigns and themselves.

What a great economic system and country!—liberals say quietly to themselves, while publicly ridiculing trickledown economics, “billionaires,” and capitalism … the only economic system in the world that can help human beings escape poverty on a mass scale, which liberals only exploit.

So, like Belfort, liberals are just low-life con artists masquerading as statesmen and important persons of affairs. They aren’t interested in climate change, or lifting the poor out of poverty, or economic concepts, or anything else. They are interested in getting their cut of the American people’s hard-earned income. It’s the entire political game for liberals. The day-to-day political drama is just performance art, the “compassionate” show that liberals put on to conceal their con and their effortless [liberals snickering] heist of the American people’s income.

This is precisely why liberals and their established order have gone after Donald Trump with such reckless abandon for the past 11 years. Trump understood what they were doing, what they had been doing for decades, in fact: stealing the American people’s money, filling their political coffers, and enriching themselves personally. That is what the whole Trump era has been about. Trump saying, It’s the American people’s money and, you, liberal and GOP politicians and, you, liberal establishment, are going to stop ripping them off and bleeding them out! It’s not your money; it’s the people’s money. And your grand, sleazy, self-enriching political con is over.

For obvious reasons, establishment liberals disliked this arrangement. So, they tried everything from treasonous plots to assassination attempts to keep things exactly as they were, their lucrative arrangement and con intact and producing at current levels. These people aren’t interested in “public service.”

They are interested in enriching themselves with taxpayer income.

Raging hypocrites they are, liberals are doing exactly what they accuse billionaires and business owners of doing. Only, unlike billionaires and business owners, liberals don’t provide a single thing to the economic process. Not-a-single-thing.

Gee, are we not defining parasites?

Say the reader is doing pretty well financially and hires a competent accounting professional to oversee the family finances. Later, say the reader learns that the hired hand has been embezzling the readers’ money. Tens of thousands of dollars gone, perhaps millions, stolen, never to be recovered. The con exposed and damage assessed, I ask: what are the reader’s anger and outrage levels?

The levels are pegged at “10,” obviously, the needle yet vibrating intensely against the limit peg. Insane with rage though readers understandably are, what they need to conceptualize is that America’s political class has done this very same thing to them.

There is no difference at all. None. Zero.

Via government, America’s political class has been systematically stealing the readers’ money and enriching themselves. The money flows in, and the political class simply, parasitically, takes its cut. Of course, the money must be sent through the necessary channels for proper laundering, but this is how systematically easy the theft has become.

And it is a lot of money.

Trump’s DOGE team uncovered $2.7 trillion in waste, fraud, and abuse in healthcare alone since 2003. That money is gone, never to be recovered. No receipts, no accounting. Gone. Just last week Americans learned they were defrauded out of $9-billion-dollars and counting by Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz. Investigations are being opened into other states, as well, and suspected to yield similar fraud results. And in a macro sense, the national debt left by the political class to be paid by the American worker’s hard-earned income?

Try $38 trillion dollars, and counting.

I don’t know how one makes people understand that all this stolen money is their money, too, same as the money the fictitious personal accountant pilfered. For some reason, some people don’t want to equate the two. Oddly, it’s as if one is a personal offense and one is not. When they are both indeed personal theft. Just because the government takes the people’s money doesn’t make it the government’s money. It is the people’s money, still. The people’s wealth, still. Furthermore, it is supposed to be used for national defense and infrastructure, not to enrich politicians and political parties, which is precisely and indisputably what has been happening.

Getting people to conceptualize this theft as personal, however, is strangely difficult. As to the reason for this odd disassociation, the eminently sensible, Michael Crichton:

“There are unpleasant realities in the world, and people avert their eyes from them, or change the subject, or make excuses for what has occurred. They imagine this is an acceptable strategy in life—in fact, that it is a more humane strategy. [Then something severe happens to people and they] no longer believe that. If someone tried to kill you, you did not have the option of averting your eyes or changing the subject. You are forced to deal with that person’s behavior. The experience was, in the end, a loss of certain illusions. The world was not how you wanted it to be. The world was how it was. There were bad people in the world. They had to be stopped.”

Proving there are bad people in the world, and unpleasant realities that need to be acknowledged, Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, says, “The General Accounting Office believes that there is somewhere between $300 and $600 billion in annual fraud; roughly 10% of government spending [aka American worker’s hard-earned income] that disappears due to fraud. If we could recapture that, that is 1-2% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product).” Only, the fraud isn’t just recipients gaming the system.

It is the system itself.

Or rather, the government. The political class.

The political class of the United States, led primarily by liberals and their established order, has been caught, thanks to Donald Trump, robbing the American citizenry blind. This isn’t politics; it is theft, by criminals. Personalized and individualized theft, in fact, about which there should be no more illusions, and for which there must be accountability.

Well, the government will handle it, you say.

You mean, like it handles the American worker’s hard-earned income?

In what other scenario do you tell and even demonstrate to victims they are being robbed, and the victims shrug it off? When does that ever happen?

It doesn’t happen.

When do people allow liars and thieves to run amuck and take advantage of them, or anyone else?

They don’t allow it, normally,

The difference here is that the criminal is government, the political class, liberals and their established order. And for various reasons, some people don’t want to acknowledge that undeniable fact.

Well, the incontrovertible fact remains: these are bad people who must be stopped, and the American people had better stop dickin’ around with their aversion to unpleasantness.

When Nature Condemns

Sex within the human species requires erection in the male and lubrication in the female; two organs, and creatures, clearly and perfectly designed for the other, and obviously for the occasion. Via their ovaries, females produce eggs, which are released into the Fallopian tube, where they are fertilized by injected sperm via the male penis and intercourse. Afterwards, the fertilized egg(s) travels to the female uterus for implantation. Herein, the egg, the eventual human, finds a perfectly designed prenatal nursery, wherein the developing fetus is nourished and nurtured until maturity. Upon which a human infant is introduced to the world via the female vagina and childbirth.

The preamble isn’t a human physiology or sexual reproduction refresher. Rather, it is to illustrate the remarkable sexual congruency and dependency of the male/female union. Everything in the enterprise perfectly compatible for coitus and procreation, we can then conclude the male/female pairing a “natural” partnership. All the unique and opposing parts working in exquisite harmony, this is the obvious human mating paradigm. Fully and symphonically complimentary, men and women are specifically designed for each other, are the “natural” fit within the human species.

Of course, by deeming something “natural,” as Chinese mystic, Lao Tzu, essentially put it, one deems something else unnatural. Labeling a person fit leads to judging another unfit. Assessing something beautiful, other things become automatically ugly. And so on. So, while men and women are the “natural” pairing within the human species, two men or two women engaged in a like partnership and intimacy are then unnatural.

In fact, men and women participating in these aberrant, abnormal activities would be practicing the “[un]natural” and subsequently “vile affections” characterized by the Bible’s Apostle Paul.

Now, if Paul had written this for the Bible or a medical journal, say like, the Damascus Medical Review, it doesn’t matter. In either venue, the claim is clearly and invincibly true. Because the “natural” way of human partnering is patently and undeniably male and female. Or rather male for female, and vice versa. In fact, let’s eliminate God from the scenario entirely—he’s gone, doesn’t exist. Even in a world without God, one needn’t be a human physiology major or medical professional to recognize the “natural,” complimentary alliance between men and women—the aroused vagina a lubricated portal; the erect and rigid penis cylindrical and probing, in need of lubrication; the procreative result of the union; the required and unique physical functions within the result, that deliver the incredible and beloved result.

Again, the obvious: men and women are “natural” mates.

So, if the Apostle Paul were just some journal contributor calling the affections between men and between women “unnatural,” no one would consider the assessment a religious condemnation. The conclusion would simply be accepted as a fact of obvious nature and science from a commonsense observer of the incontrovertible physical evidence. The male and female partnership simply makes logical sense, people would say. Making the assessment in the Bible, however, Paul becomes a radical zealot imposing his extremist religious beliefs on everyone else.

Given the precise and unmistakable compatibility between men and women, however, Paul is incontestably correct. Relied on to move the human species forward, men and women are natural mates, rendering any and every other human partnership, unnatural. Every other species in the world relies on the “natural” way for their very survival, too, and can’t help but submit to their nature, either. Coming into season, for example, a female gorilla searches for a male gorilla and offers herself to him. She can’t deny her natural urges or stop the result, either one. Ditto the male gorilla. Like every other creature, Gorillas are slaves to their nature, to the natural order of species relations, and thus natural propagators of their kind. The only creatures able to make the unnatural natural, and who would even attempt to make it so, are humans.

Of course, those who involve themselves in these unnatural acts and relations would say, “Love is love! You can’t help who you love”—and want to have sex with, which is what they ultimately mean.

Okay, fine. But it still isn’t natural.

In fact, both scientifically and biblically, it is incontrovertibly unnatural—this offered as a statement of empirical fact and sans an ounce of judgment, incidentally.

So then, it really isn’t God or Paul or religion condemning people inclined to these “[un]natural affections” and relations. It’s nature, and the science of nature, as well as logic and common sense. God, Paul, and religion are merely pointing out what science and the commonsense observation of physical evidence undeniably verify: men and women are natural mates. And frankly, any idea or arrangement to the contrary is just, nonsense. Delusion.

So, is homosexuality wrong? Well, it is definitely unnatural; that much is clear. Hence, in that sense it is wrong, in that those inclined are directly opposing natural design, be that design intelligent or evolutionary. God, Paul, and religion merely second the idea, but then further contend homosexuality is morally wrong. Immoral because the opposition to clear and observable natural design denies God, his authority, and usurps his clear intentions for human coupling.

It’s like looking up and observing spherical planetary objects throughout the sky and universe, but then proclaiming the earth flat and plain-like. The entire universe is filled with round, familial planets, yet somehow the earth alone defies that ubiquitous and no less observable celestial trend. Okay, sure. Likewise, virtually every creature in nature subscribes to the male/female dynamic as a means of natural species pairing and propagation. But somehow the human species alone isn’t subject or beholden to that universal tendency.

Okay, sure.

Under the weight of logic too powerful to dispute, it is typically here that nature deniers and their supporters start screaming. “Why do you care who people love?!”

Well, I don’t. Just don’t call what you’re doing and supporting “natural.”

Natural is indisputably something different.

The Modern Toll of A Decades Long Inferiority Complex

As an ideology, Liberalism is populated by groups of people—Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ+, environmentalists, feminists, Palestinian freedom fighters, Atheists, et al—with different political interests and goals, all striving for various and unique outcomes within the larger Liberalism religion, and it most certainly is a religion.

So, given all this competing, self-interested diversity within a singular faith, what is it that unites liberals? What is it that would unify such a diverse sectarian spectrum to, say, collectively celebrate the public assassination of a powerless conservative activist?

Well, evil is the obvious unifying force here, the religion’s nourishing roots. Every branch on the Liberalism tree represents some form of evil ambition. Liberals serve evil, sure, but there is something that really offends and triggers them like nothing else. Something so intolerable that it makes them violently, and in some cases, murderously, incensed. The trigger?

Having their intellectual and ideological inferiority publicly demonstrated, confirmed, and perceived.

Liberals hate that—hate the rank insubordination, actually.

Simply because they have decided it so, liberals fancy themselves superior humans. The problem is, they lie. They lie strategically and intentionally, by omission and knowingly, and do it all without a single atom of shame or remorse. Caught lying, they tell another lie. Lying is a tactical and welcome way of life for liberals, who even lie to themselves, which, of course, is what makes all this peripheral lying and dishonesty possible. Incidentally, if liberals will lie to themselves, do you really think honesty with you is any more important to them?

Let’s say it’s not.

So, how can liberals ever be superior when they lie? You ask.

Well, they can’t be, obviously. If you lie, say, in a debate, and someone exposes your lie. Then your opponent wins the debate, and you, the debate’s loser, are clearly and incontrovertibly inferior, intellectually and ideologically and competitively speaking, at least. And this—people putting devastating truth to the lies liberals tell and thereby demonstrating their inferiority to the world at large—is precisely what triggers liberals … like nothing else.

Liberals are filled with all this arrogance about themselves and their ideas, which is precisely how they present those ideas publicly. They boldly make what they think is a devastating argument. Then, in front of everyone, both they and their argument are savagely destroyed by conservatives with data, facts, and cold, hard, uncompromising truth. Conservatives like, say, Rush Limbaugh and Charlie Kirk. One would think the result utterly humiliating, and it is.

But then, imagine the feeling when you genuinely believe yourself and your ideas to be thoroughly superior and invincible.

Humiliating doesn’t begin to describe the experience.

Triggered!

Liberals want the lies they tell to continue, to be the publicly perceived truth, i.e. climate change; that President Biden is cognitively sharp and able, “the best version of himself ever;” that the border is secure; that vaccination prevents the covid virus. The religion’s leadership lies because the lies are useful to them, useful towards the religion’s political goals and ambitions, and in helping accomplish those objectives, namely political power and cultural control. The religion’s ever-devoted members on the other hand, aka liberal voters, these liberals want desperately to believe the lies of their leaders. So they do believe. Then, with utter abandon and confidence, they subsequently repeat the lies, in public. Where they rudely discover that both they and their ideas are neither superior nor invincible [mocking audience laughter].

Ouch.

Liberals not only love lies. They need them to endure—more for their inflated sense of superiority than their political objectives. But when those lies are exposed, especially in public settings, liberals get triggered. Triggered because, well, they and their ideology are clearly and unmistakably inferior. And given their high opinion of themselves and their ideas, liberals become incensed, and even vengeful. The truth laid bare, their arguments are garbage, and they look foolish. But worst of all?

The whole world is bearing witness.

This is what you see anywhere—Fox News, CNN, network news, The View, a Turning Point USA “Prove Me Wrong” college campus event—liberals and conservatives are debating the current political issues. Liberals come armed with their flimsy religious lies, and then have their arguments publicly decimated by data, facts, logic, and cold-hard truth. And rather than acknowledge the truth and their obvious fraud and inferiority, and thus improve themselves, liberals seethe. Of course, this rage is seldomly visible or apparent. Simply because liberals refuse to let anyone perceive they were ideologically defeated and are intellectually inferior.

The rage is boiling internally, though! You can be certain of that.

And ultimately, that fury is unleashed, which takes many forms. Some liberals type ugly messages on social media pages. Some talk belligerently over their opponent. Some yell and scream. Some curse. Some wag their finger, slap, and throw things. Some throw punches. Some even grab their rifle and assassinate people from 200-yards distance. And why are liberals so unhinged and aggressive?

Mainly because their inferiority is public and glaring. Secondarily, it’s because their beliefs and religion are second-rate rubbish—and second-rate is being generous.

Weirdly, liberals believe their lies make them indomitable and perpetually superior. For example, despite border crossings being at historic levels during the Biden administration, and despite murderous and insane illegals being shipped all over the country’s interior unvetted. Liberals proclaim, “The border is secure!” Despite the contrary evidence, they arrogantly think this lie is enduring and insurmountable. Then it gets destroyed by congressional testimony, by incidents of illegal migrant crime around the country, and by video footage of border chaos from conservative news agencies, independent journalists, and activists. Their lie blown to smithereens, how do liberals respond? Are they contrite? Apologetic?

No. They’re incensed!

Are they furious about the congressional testimony or the illegal migrant crime data? About the damning video footage from the border?

No. They’re livid at the truth, and moreover how it makes them look: foolish, inferior.

That’s the real villain in all this: the truth.
And that, folks, has been the problem from the beginning.

First it was Rush Limbaugh using liberals own words to put the truth to their lies on the radio every day. “Why, folks. Here’s William Jefferson Blythe Clinton a few months ago telling you he ‘didn’t have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky’ http://playback. And here’s ol’ Slick Willie now explaining why his, uh, DNA is on Ms. Lewinsky’s blue dress http://playback.”

You can’t lie your way out of your own hypocritical words and DNA, Slick.

And rather than being angry at Slick for lying to them, liberals are mad at the DNA! Aka, the truth.

The first of his kind, someone willing to publicly demonstrate the religion’s deceit and inferiority, liberals called Limbaugh an “entertainer.” They tried to dismiss him, but the daily exposure stung, and fiercely.

A few short years after Limbaugh’s national radio debut in ’88, Fox News began reinforcing liberal inferiority daily, too. When Roger Ailes founded the network in 1996, it was begun in answer to the mainstream liberal media that was using their platforms and news divisions every day to help the Democrat Party and Liberalism win elections. Via the media, it was election rigging 24/7-365 for democrats. Mail-in ballot fraud, vote harvesting, and internet control of voting machines were mere enhancement. Ailes and Fox News were equally reviled by liberals, too, and still are today. Why?

Because Fox daily demonstrates and confirms liberal inferiority, too—24/7-365.

Alternative media illustrating the religion’s second-rateness to the world every day, liberals had nowhere to hide. In ensuing years, the alternative media only grew and expanded, and liberals became increasingly more agitated and vexed. If their inferiority wasn’t already established, Donald Trump arrived on the scene and began calling the media “fake news” and putting their incompetence, corruption, and inferiority on daily blast. Then, worse, he beat the religion’s treasonous plot, beat its mountainous and manufactured law fare, beat its election rigging, beat its impeachments, beat its insurrection scheme, and thereby cements liberals’ inferior, second-rate status for all of humanity.

Meanwhile, conservatism’s next generation and youngest disciples, namely Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, were taking to college campuses around the nation and humiliating liberals and their religion in front of, gasp!, America’s youth. The religion’s future was being successfully proselytized! Their ideas and arguments being publicly obliterated and mocked, the 40-year conservative offensive was in full blossom and clearly triumphing, inspiring the whole world to laugh at liberals and their second-rate religion.

And the scorn, louder and more deafening than ever, is proving more than liberals can stand.

The fact is liberals can never be right because truth is their enemy. Thus, it becomes incredibly frustrating to be humiliated in debate all the time, public and private, and to be persistently wrong no matter how passionately and confidently you argue. It’s just, too much. Too humiliating. Making your argument and having it destroyed is embarrassing enough. But being mocked and laughed to scorn, particularly in front of an audience, is just, unbearable. This is what conservatives have been publicly doing to liberals for decades now, and the frustration of that sustained humiliation has been building and building, like the stress in pressure cooker. Their inferiority more visible and apparent than ever, liberals are lashing out in various ways angry and aggressive. They not only can’t win an argument. They look ridiculous when it’s over, which, I might remind, is 180-degrees opposed to how liberals perceive themselves.

Que the rage and violence.

Liberals had never been in this position, having to defend their second-rate ideas and beliefs. The religion’s leadership, aka the liberal establishment, invariably guaranteed cultural superiority for the religion and subsequent primacy of ideas in debate. Their arguments being publicly ripped to shreds by conservatives for the last 40 years, however, brought an end to that dominance and has taken its toll.

Liberalism is not only being rejected and replaced; it’s being widely mocked for the obvious inferior lie it has always been. Their ideology unable to survive reality and common sense, liberals are terrified and panicked. The religion’s rank and file are frightened because they see their once confident leadership is scared. The entirety sees their ideology being exposed as fraudulent and weak. They see themselves losing the power and control they once enjoyed over debate and the culture. They see popular opinion turning against them and feel increasingly more isolated. And worst of all?

They know they can’t beat the truth and win on the issues, nor then stop the humiliation and escape their eternal inferiority.

It’s a perpetual nightmare, obviously.

Liberalism was never going to win or endure because it is a massive fraud. A giant scam the entire world was going to see straight through once courageous people started providing contrast. And forty years of deft and public contradiction have made the reality abundantly clear and incontrovertible:

Liberals and their religion are irreparably inferior.

Despite all their Hollywood celebrity and media prominence, their Ivy League academic degrees, journalism awards, and high mindedness and gay manner. Liberals are eternally inferior to the conservative rubes they constantly lecture and condescend, and they hate the rubes for it.

Former Clinton advisor, George “Little Man” Stephanopoulos [he’s a diminutive 5’5” tall, and exceedingly grateful television cameras add 6 to 8 inches of stature], is now masquerading as an objective ABC News agent on behalf of Liberalism, his religion. Little Man wanted desperately to establish that people were dying around the world because Donald Trump had shuttered USAID (United States Agency for International Development). The agency lives on, however, but is now run by the Department of State and its Trump appointed Secretary, Marco Rubio, who repeatedly humiliated Little Man on the point in a recent interview.

Trump and republicans are killing people, dammit! Returning to it repeatedly, Little Man really wanted this lie established, really wanted it to be the publicly perceived truth. Why? Because the fraud politically benefitted his religion, Liberalism, er, communism. The problem, as usual, is he’s lying. A strategy with which one can neither win nor endure.

Basically, Rubio said USAID was shut down because it was a corrupt agency, used and abused by liberal democrats and their established order for religious profit, a fact exposed via DOGE audits. He asked Little Man why he didn’t blame England or Canada for not giving enough aid money. Or even China—the world’s second largest economy, who doesn’t give any aid money to these charitable projects at all.

In other words, why are you so eager to blame America, Little Man? The countries in which all these aid dependent people reside, how come they aren’t to blame? Where is their responsibility in all this, for all the death? Where are your accusations and ridicule for those nations and leaders, Little Man?

Finally, Rubio: “Anybody that tells you that somehow it’s the United States, if we cut a dollar, somehow we’re responsible for some horrific thing that’s going on in the world, is just not true.”

It was a crushing experience for Stephanopoulos, not that he realized or accepted it, evidenced clearly by his frustrated and contemptuous expression. As the whole world looked on, the conservative rube Rubio made him look ridiculous, humiliated him. And this is how it has gone for liberals the last 40 years, becoming increasingly more frustrating, degrading, and intolerable every year. Their religion a joke and their inferiority more apparent than ever, liberals are simply done taking the abuse and are turning to violence—

the last refuge of the incompetent and inferior.

It’s not just about the frustration of 40 years of public humiliation, however. Moreover, it’s about power. The religion’s leadership isn’t going to give up their control so easily, but it isn’t going to get its hands bloody in the war to save it, either. They have the religion’s membership for that, who leadership is now inciting with ceaseless “fascism” and “tyranny” and “end of democracy” rhetoric.

Let the useful idiots make public spectacles of themselves, says leadership.
Let them be exposed to criminal charges and prison time for *our* cause. Leadership’s job is to lead!

Indeed. Although, with religious soldiers this gullible and servile, not to mention gender confused, is it really leading? Or just basic exploitation?

Whatever the case, the collective motivation is clear: liberals are going to war over a forty-year inferiority complex. For their dependence on lies and pretentiousness, unfortunately, it is a feeling of inadequacy they can never relieve and a war they are destined to lose.

Jilted for A Communist Whore and the Pain of Reprisal

There is no cock in Eddie Vedder’s rock anymore, nor any of these so-called “rockers.” At one time, Pearl Jam and the whole genre, the entire rock and roll industry, actually, was giving the political establishment, “The Man,” the single finger and even double-barrel salute.

Now, they are all eunuchs tossin’ the establishment’s salad.

Crude, I know. Yet, here we are, the spectacle in full view.

I should say tossin’ their salad. “Their” meaning: liberal pols, whom these supposed “rockers” follow around to cocktail parties and political events to gripe about world hunger, American imperialism, and climate change—while denouncing addiction and the sexual abuse of women …

of which there is absolutely no history whatsoever in all of rock and roll lore!

Eh-hm.

As if some sort of fearsome outlaw, Jon Bon Jovi said he was “Wanted: Dead or Alive.” Well, they found him. Then they took him and turned him into a respectable show pony for establishment dignitaries. Hell, he may as well be leashed and on all-fours in black vinyl bondage attire and a bar gag.

“It’s my life … !” screams Bon Jovi, nearly unintelligible for the bar gag.

You bet it is, Jon. You and Vedder both. It’s just, a eunuch’s life now.
But hey, thanks for the memories.

“Ur elcome,” he replies, still nearly unintelligible.

Put these guys in the 60’s, and Woodstock would have been called: “Save the Wood Duck.”

But I digress.

Vedder may be peddling all “The Man’s” political desires now, but he still wrote some good music before becoming a gelding. Obviously, it is the testosterone that makes rockers rock harder, and that keeps the much necessary and much admired cock in the rock. Nevertheless, a lyric from one of Vedder’s old tunes serves to expose an egregious political sin.

In the Pearl Jam track, Nothingman [how, um, apropos] Vedder wrote about a girl who once believed his every word and story, but who one day became suspicious and distrustful. In other words, the veil concealing Vedder’s real identity caught too much wind. Ripped away, his lover’s eyes were abruptly opened to a new, long existing reality she simply could not previously perceive …

Vedder was a full of crap loser.

Better now than later, honey. It’s a good thing, trust me.

This phenomenon happens to people all the time, especially romantically. It’s all tulips and unicorns for a while, until one day someone wakes up to a rainbowy pile of unicorn crap in their tulip patch. It is precisely what happened to the American people in the 2016 presidential election and the ensuing 10 years. For decades, and much to the political establishment’s delight and benefit, the American people had been buying every word the establishment had to say, and every story it had to tell. Decade in and decade out, voters were satisfied with the same old political drama—the republican establishment pretending not to be liberals, and liberals letting them do it, all for the benefit of their collective establishment. Talk of tax reform here, border security there, but nothing ever getting done about anything, nothing ever changing. And not getting done or changing because the establishment wanted things to remain just as they were, nice and comfy-like. A well-oiled machine, serviceable and predictable and prosperous … for establishment members, that is.

And that’s the way it remained until Trump came, stone-faced, gliding down the escalator in 2015 to announce his candidacy and the end of their establishment grift. It was the beginning of the American people’s own “veil” moment, their forbidden fruit moment, when their eyes began to be opened to what they previously could not perceive …

The rank collusion and corruption of their elite and governing classes.

Or rather, to the pile of rainbowy unicorn crap in the tulip patch.

Before the treasonous Russian collusion plot was in effect and in vogue, it was the GOP, the republican establishment, doing everything it could in their own primary to get rid of Donald Trump, the establishment outsider and their subsequent enemy. Imagine that: helping your political opponents to get rid of your own party’s leading candidate. Republican voters loved Trump, and establishment republicans hated them for it.

Who do these rubes think they are? We pick the republican nominee, not them!

Funny, that’s how democrats feel about their voters, too. The difference is their voters know it.

If you are republicans opposed to democrats and Liberalism, why do you care so much who becomes your party’s nominee? Thereto, it’s the “people’s” choice, isn’t it? The GOP establishment cares because Trump was/is proudly and vociferously opposed to their established order. He didn’t have the establishment’s interests in mind. He had the “rubes’” interests in mind, and all that virtuous American greatness malarky. Simply, establishment republicans feared Trump was going to screw everything up, at home in the GOP and in their larger liberal establishment.

Trump defeated the GOP, of course, resoundingly. Then Hillary lost, and the story became Russia, Russia, Russia! It took a while for the truth of this treasonous plot to be established, but with President Obama and Hillary Clinton involved, as well as the nation’s FBI and CIA, the American people were stunned.

So, first it was the republican establishment trying desperately to take out their own party’s candidate, the people’s candidate, no less. Then it was a treasonous plot by a sitting president and his administration, and on behalf of his party’s presidential candidate, a fact inexplicably overlooked. And if all that wasn’t shocking and traumatizing enough, the American people discovered that their national news media, the people’s guard dogs against tyranny, were involved in the conspiracy, too, and are still actively involved.

Of course, that’s not everything. To conceal their crimes, the conspirators committed election fraud in 2020 and knowingly installed a demented president, whose illness the conspirators kept concealed for 4 years, while they orchestrated an invasion of the United States by illegal immigrants. To prevent his reelection, the conspirators targeted Trump again, too, with massive, manufactured law fare. Then, when the ailing president’s illness was publicly exposed, the conspirators replaced him not with a candidate of the people, but with one of their own choosing. And because it was all going so poorly for them late in the election season 2024, they threw in a couple of assassination attempts for insurance.

For the American people, all of this flagrant political treachery was a lot to absorb, obviously. So, like Vedder’s awakened lover, there they stood, eyes-wide and mouths agape at the pile of rainbowy unicorn manure in their tulip patch. Democrats and republicans had betrayed them. Likewise, their federal law enforcement and intelligence institutions—in fact all their once sacred government institutions have been betraying them. The news media betrayed them, too, and even the judicial system—oh, and don’t forget rock and roll.

Two words: profound betrayal.
Two more: unfathomable betrayal.

Infinitely worse than just rainbowy unicorn guano in the tulip patch, the treachery can best be summed up this way: while the American people trusted their government and worked their asses off to finance a better, stronger, more secure nation, their elite and governing classes were using their hard-earned wages to enrich themselves and their international friends. And when Trump came in to put a stop to it, the elite and governing classes, aka the political establishment, impeached him twice. For the first time in history, they tried him in court as a private citizen, hitting him with 5 separate cases and 93 indictments. Pre-reelection, they tried to exclude him from state ballots. They raided his home and wife’s underwear drawer, all unprecedented. They tried to bankrupt him, and to debank the Trump family so the Trump empire couldn’t do business. To say nothing of the treasonous plot they executed against him, the lethal Chinese bioweapon they employed to rig the 2020 election, which killed millions, incidentally, and the demented president they knowingly installed to hide their crimes and facilitate America’s utter ruination.

All that? That’s how much the elite and governing classes resented Trump’s MAGA mindset and his intrusion into their establishment grifting operation.

And all sanction by, the “rockers.”

The political establishment betrayed the American people, and have been betraying them for a long, long time. Establishment members aren’t interested in democracy in the least. If they were, MAGA wouldn’t be necessary, and Trump wouldn’t be such the reviled, patriotic anomaly. As DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) audits have revealed, establishment liberals, both republican and democrat, have been making government bigger to create more avenues to shuttle taxpayer cash into their political coffers and personal bank accounts. They have been creating wealth for themselves via the stock market and pending legislation. They have been paying a complicit media to lie and shill on their behalf, and shopping their judicial allies to advance their agenda and conceal their crimes. They have been corrupting every government agency, too, so that the agencies not only do their bidding, but obstruct and destroy all elected and unelected opposition to their established fiefdom—which is pretty sweet, they must admit.

“Reaching across the aisle” was always just, performance art for the unsuspecting “rubes.”

Aided by gelding “rockers” like Bon Jovi and Vedder, the establishment has been playing the American people, their trusting lover, for suckers. Thanks to Trump, however, the people have discovered the unicorn excrement and are now wise to the con. Still, the establishment players think they are protected, and they are currently. Only, it’s not for their power and control, but purely because the American people, specifically the MAGA class, 78 million strong, are hardworking, patriotic, law-abiding people who still believe in the rule of law, and who are still counting on their government, meaning the Trump administration, to rectify the establishment’s treasonous betrayal and abuse of them.

The American people have been watching and listening carefully. They have been dutifully voting in rectitude and reform, and despite being relentlessly provoked, keeping their cool and their powder dry. If the reckoning doesn’t materialize, then to this lawful, loyal, duty-bound group of genuine American patriots, that means there is no law worth respecting, and then no justice but street justice.

And here’s a question for these establishment geldings and outlaws:

How enraged and retributive would people be when they realize their once trusted beloved has stolen their money, abused them and their family, and jilted them for a communist whore?

“Uh-oh!” Bon Jovi says, this time with perfect intelligibility.

America Isn’t for Everyone

All the news coming out about their leaders’ involvement in treasonous crimes, you can see the frightened stares and head shaking denial from the liberal faithful:

No, no, no. It’s not true!

It isn’t that the faithful really care about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or any of the treasonous Russiagate conspirators. They couldn’t care less about those people. Just like those people couldn’t care less about them—and they both know it. What they all care about is that their shared ideology, their Liberal Cult, is being exposed now for the fraud that it is and has always been, from its leadership down to its lowly, dependent, and thusly compliant voters.

The liberal faithful can’t stand the traitorous news. It is like hearing a terminal diagnosis or of the untimely death of a loved one—they just can’t accept it, don’t want to hear it. No,no,no! If it didn’t appear so childish and pathetic, they would put their hands over their ears and chant, “La-la-la-la-la …!”

And here is the worst part about the emerging evidence: not one of the accused, not a single conspirator, has offered a denial. Even worse, they’re lawyering up.

Not a good sign at all.

How do you refute a conspiratorial email saying you have to “stick to” the treasonous Russian collusion plot, and that the plot has to be a “team sport?” Gee, isn’t “team sport” synonymous with “treasonous plot?”

As I said, not a good sign at all.

So, here is the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the highest intelligence office and law enforcement agency in the land, dropping almost daily evidence bombs concerning treason in American politics. It is the biggest news story in American history, nearly 250 years, regarding accusations from the nation’s highest authorities, no less. It is a blockbuster event, to be sure, and whether the charges prove legit or not, where is the news media? Why aren’t they chasing all the accused down and shoving microphones in their faces for answers? As it was during the Russian collusion era, where are the deep, probing investigations into these historic charges and the nightly, breathless news reports?

None of this is happening, of course, and realize how bad that is—that a nation’s entire news media, save Fox News, is ignoring the biggest political scandal in American history. One that involves not just the highest crime of treason, but documented treason per the ODNI and FBI, and treason currently under grand jury investigation, even.

I don’t know—sounds pretty legit and newsworthy to me.

And the news media is not just pretending the story doesn’t exist. It is calling the ODNI’s and FBI’s declassified and publicized text messages, emails, and incriminating documents—all undenied by the accused, mind you— “lies” and “political retribution.” Gee, can you pretend a story is nonexistent and, at the same time, call the evidence coming out about it lies and political retribution? Either the story exists or not, right?

Here is something apparently novel: how about reporting the nonexistent story in Russian collusion-like detail and profusion, and allowing viewers to decide if it is lies and political retribution or not?

Because the way the news media is doing it now, they are contending there is no story, and that the emerging evidence about the non-story is all lies and political retribution. How can there be false and retributive qualities to a story that doesn’t exist?

News media: There is nothing to see here, folks.
But, what about these incriminating documents?
They’re lies and political retribution.
But, you said there’s nothing to see …
Yes. That’s right.

And then, reassured, liberal voters fall straightly and peacefully back to sleep.

While the remainder say, “WTH is this BS?!”

So what the news media is saying to the American people ultimately is that they, the news media, are more trustworthy and believable than America’s ODNI and FBI. Don’t trust the nation’s top intelligence office and law enforcement agency, folks. Trust us, instead! The News Media! We’ve got your back, America!

Gee, wonder if the news media’s role in this treasonous conspiracy has anything to do with these haughty supremacy vibes.

And understand, theirs wasn’t an act of treason against Donald Trump. It was a treasonous attack against American democracy and the American people. The media would love for voters to continue thinking and believing the crime was against Trump and only involves Trump. Because then the media is only calling Trump and his administration liars, and not the American people. That’s key, keeping the fight political, between Trump and the establishment. This way Trump is isolated, and the American people are fans at a big political brawl, observers unaffected and uninvolved, munching popcorn and with no skin in the game. If the American people realize the treasonous attack was against them, however, and that the crime was intended for their demise. Then the media is throwing shade at the American people and calling them liars.

Of course, the media has only to be concerned about half of the voting populace, knowing 75,000,000 liberal voters are shaking their heads and don’t want to hear the bad news about their leaders and gods, the media being one of those gods. Incriminating documents are emerging that prove their government committed treason against them, and liberal voters, 75 million strong, are saying expressively, No. No. No. It’s not true! It’s terrifying, really. Not just that 75 million people shake their heads in defiance about treasonous crimes of political officials. But that they can observe cognitively challenged candidates like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and still vote for them, purely out of yet more defiance. And defiance toward what, exactly?

Well, that answer is Neapolitan.

The baseline is Liberalism is a massive fraud, one that makes Bernie Madoff look like a rank amateur. Hence, the religion’s leadership are obviously con artists, and the membership obviously dupes, eager dupes. Thus, some liberals remain defiant on behalf of their religion because they don’t want to bear the humiliation of being dupes. They know they have been conned, and admitting so doesn’t set well with the ol’ ego. So it is best to continue the con and to defy your own intellectual foolishness.

Liberalism is the religion of malcontents, too. Aggrieved? Victimized? Pissed off? Then Liberalism is for you! Some liberals remain defiant because, well, they need something to rage about, and somewhere to rage. This group likes to rage. So the last thing they want is peace, obviously. Lying to these people is like throwing a bloody carcass into a pen of starving Hyenas. This group couldn’t care less if they have been conned. Cons taste good! Gives us more energy to rage! That’s how this group sees it, and it is precisely why they remain so defiant on behalf of the religion.

Liberalism is the religion of the needy, too. Of course, they aren’t really “needy,” in the classical sense, given many in this group are supposedly poor, but are yet obese, and have computers and cell phones, several televisions sets, and expensive jewelry, and 20’s on their hydraulically outfitted hoopties, from which they peddle drugs and weapons they can’t afford, but somehow can afford. But it isn’t just them. There are countless liberal NGO’s and non-profits who suckle at the religious power teat, too, who are equally dependent. It is a massive, diverse class of “needy” people dependent on the mother’s milk of not just survival, but prosperity. All remain defiant on behalf of the religion because, well, suckling is effortless.

For various reasons, the religion is everything to these people. What? Liberalism isn’t a religion, you say? Well, it has leaders and doctrine and followers. Members who, with fervent zeal, not only blindly believe the doctrine, but have trust and faith in their mere mortal leaders and gods.

Why, sounds just like a religion to me. Textbook, even.

And this being so, America isn’t on as good a footing as people might think. When 75 million voters hear news of text messages and emails from their nation’s leading crime agencies about treasonous offenses involving their religious leaders, and are loathe to hear about it. Well, that nation is teetering perilously on the precipice of collapse. Communist collapse, that is. And obviously, whether it is naivety, dependence, loyalty, stupidity, or whatever, 75 million liberal voters are just fine with that.

I imagine this is how it has always been for fallen nations in history. Some humans want to be independent and left alone to live life their way and by their rules, and some need the comfort and security of other mere mortals deciding for them. Eventually, because human beings grow comfortable and lazy and entitled, more people than not are seduced and become dependent. Then the servile majority cedes themselves and the nation to their human gods, and dreadful communist rule ensues. At least, that has been the undeniable pattern.

Ironically, though, when this transfer of authority and power happens, the liberal faithful get exactly what they don’t want now. The humiliation starts. The raging ends, or else. And standing in endless lines for what was once abundant and common, the suckling is over, and liberals and everybody else become a whole lot leaner.

It is often said America is the “greatest” country in the world. People take that to mean America is great for being superior in this thing or that, or even many things. But what it really means is, America is great because it gives human beings power over their individual lives and destinies, never to be encroached upon by another human being, or group of human beings, as in government. Independent and in command, the citizen is the boss. Collectively, the citizenry is in control. They tell their officials what to do, not the other way around.

And simply, that isn’t meant for everyone.

The unworthy are easy to recognize, too. They are the ones with frightened expressions at news of treason by their religious leaders.

The Human Significance of Forbidden Fruit

Let’s make an experiment and remove every human from planet Earth. The entire species now absent, how many problems are there? Where are the strife and conflict? The complaining, accusations, and arguing? The senseless wars, the violence, the societal and planetary destruction? Imagine the world going on without all this human dysfunction and turmoil: the seasons beautifully changing, the animals frolicking, birds singing, every aspect of nature thriving, peaceful, and in perfect balance and harmony.

In 1872, Ulysses Grant set aside Yellowstone National Park, more than 2 million acres, as the first formal nature preserve in the world, to be under the managerial care of the United States Department of the Interior. By 1934, the park service acknowledged that the once plentiful “white-tailed deer, cougar, lynx, wolf, and possibly wolverine and fisher are gone from Yellowstone.”

In other words, humans began “scientific management” of the park, began messing around with the balance of nature, and screwed everything up. Until humans came along, nature was doing just fine on its own. Humans, well, they thought they knew better.

But clearly humans don’t know better. In fact, they are the one and only species that doesn’t have its act together—but that genuinely believes it has its act together, and better than all the rest. So convinced are they of this supremacy, they believe themselves necessary and worthy managers and regulators of all the rest. How very, god-like. But then, because nature has its act together, humans abandon the chaos of hustling and bustling cities for the peaceful, serene calm of suburbia and rural areas, which is incredibly appealing. Then, eventually, they turn that environment into another hustling and bustling agent of chaos, too.

Hence the conclusion, concrete and undebatable: humans present all the earth’s problems.

The question is why? Why can’t humans get their act together like the rest of nature and make the world a better place? What’s their friggin’ deal, anyway? There is an answer, a foundational explanation. Found in a place that, evidently, no one thinks to look, which is odd given the obviousness, and given all the scholarly and ministerial minds searching to solve the many mysteries of life. The answer?

It’s found in the Garden of Eden. Or rather, in the garden’s forbidden fruit.

Within the garden stood the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Hanging from its unique, winsome branches among the leaves was its delectable forbidden fruit, which God told Adam and Eve, the first couple, never to eat, or even touch. Of course, they did both, which resulted in a drastic change in human physiology and negatively altered human behavior. Consumption of the fruit wasn’t just an act of human disobedience toward their maker. Something happened to Adam and Eve, something physical, perhaps spiritual. Something that transformed humankind forever. It is to say, the fruit produced an affect, a result. The result?

Self-awareness.

The ministerial class likes to message that God cares for you and that Jesus loves you, and they do love and care. But never once in all my many years of religious instruction have I heard analyzed the immense significance of the garden’s forbidden fruit. Neither how it has influenced human behavior from time immemorial, nor regarding the challenges it presents to humankind, and the world. So, we’ll analyze it here.

Upon eating the fruit, Adam and Eve didn’t immediately fall over in convulsing fits. Genesis author, Moses, put the reaction this way: “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” Simply, the first couple each took a bite of the fruit and, shazam! Their eyes were opened—and not for their eyes being physically closed and then suddenly opened, but opened to new perceptions, to a new level of consciousness they had never experienced.

No convulsing. No dramatic scene. Just, a perceptive awakening.

So, for clarity: pre-consumption of the forbidden fruit, the first couple looked at each other’s bodies and had no awareness of nakedness at all, or moreover that nakedness was either good or evil. Then, post-consumption, they instantly noticed a penis, vagina, breasts, potential sexual stirrings, and a desperate need to cover themselves up, which they immediately did, sewing fig leaves together to fashion makeshift clothing.

So the effect of the forbidden fruit was self-awareness and subsequent self-consciousness—and not just consciousness of one’s own existence, but consciousness of one’s own appearance, behavior, image, desires, and so on. Most important was the eternal dichotomy now in place: good and evil, and the human ability to perceive it and to differentiate. Naturally, humans became self-centered and driven by their lusts, which is precisely why God, via the Bible, commanded self-discipline and a servant’s spirit as countermeasures to the new human nature.

It’s logical to conclude that, had the fruit been left alone, human beings would be walking around today naked without any sense of awareness or discomfort, either one. As clearly intended, human nakedness would be normal and accepted. Nobody would care about their diminutive penises or sagging, unperky breasts; about their fat rolls and double chins; their crows feet, eyebags, and laugh lines. No one would care about their imperfect smiles and excessively hairy bodies, their birthmarks and moles, or their many other appearance-related oddities, that wouldn’t be oddities at all. The cosmetic surgery industry wouldn’t exist, nor the toupee industry. And it’s not that modern human beings wouldn’t care about these things; it’s that they wouldn’t know to care about them. Having no awareness of self, no perception of self, none of it would be noticeable or even matter.

Humans would be free from all their self-conscious baggage!

The garden’s forbidden fruit laced with self-awareness, however, all these perceived human flaws and inadequacies do matter. Humans are forever cursed with self-consciousness. Interestingly, Satan told the first couple that if they ate the fruit, they would become gods. And for once, Satan wasn’t lying. Self-awareness creates an inflated sense of self-worth and a god-like, “me first” sense of entitlement. In contrast, it creates senses of human inadequacy, unworthiness, and despair, too—both reasons Satan wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. Playing on their self-awareness-driven sense of god-like entitlement, and their despairing insecurities, vulnerabilities, and desires. Satan knew he could more easily exploit and destroy human beings individually—his eternal goal and mission.

The opportunities were limitless!

How do you exploit and destroy people with no self-awareness-driven weaknesses? Who don’t fancy themselves entitled gods and perceive their flaws?

Not only did consuming the fruit disobey God, whom Satan despises. The resulting self-awareness made for easy human misery and destruction.

[Satan rubbing his hands together in ruinous glee].

Virtually every moment of their lives, humans walk around individually consumed by the world’s, by other human being’s, perception of them: how they look, what they say, how they behave. Other than sleep, there is no respite from the cognitive prison. Humans are virtually consumed with self. In contrast, take the gorilla in the zoo. As people look on through thick plate-glass, he lies in a hammock, defecates in his hand, and throws it on the glass at onlookers. The gorilla doesn’t care what people think, because he has no burdensome self-awareness.

Humans, on the other hand, do care. And why?

Because they were the only species to consume forbidden fruit.

This clearly observable phenomenon—the fact humans are the only creatures in all of nature endowed with self-awareness—undeniably affirms the Bible, its account of creation, and moreover the existence of God. In other words, if one needs a solid, a tangible instead of spiritual, reason to believe in God. Well, here it is. Right there in your self-conscious mind.

Self-awareness isn’t a gift. It’s a curse. A curse chosen for humankind, but a curse, nonetheless. All of humankind’s challenges return to it, too, and there is no turning back. No undoing the spell. There is a way to live with it, however. It’s becoming a believer, in God. It’s understanding, via the Bible, why humans are the way they are and what makes them, you, tick. It’s transcending that nature to become something better, something healthier and happier, and for the creator’s purposes, something more exemplary and useful. And then through that disciplined and aspiring effort, it’s being an example for others, encouraging them to better, healthier, and happier for themselves.

Humans are either improving or degrading, are thus either aspiring or succumbing to their nature, to the curse of the forbidden fruit. So when your priest or pastor says, “We’re called to be something better, are called to excellence!” He ain’t lying, either.

Only, the call isn’t to be better, which clearly creates all the problems.

It’s to be worthy.

Get that straight, why, it’d be like heaven on earth.

Liberals, the Modern Legions

There was a man in ancient times who, every day and night, made his home among dank, mountainside tombs, wherein he cried and cut himself with stones. This poor man was miserable, obviously. He was depressed and desolate, then enraged, then even more despondent because there seemed no end to his misery. Day and night, his suffering was all he thought about. It consumed him.

The townspeople had tried to control the troubled man, had put him in chains and various other tethers, all broken by the man into pieces. Thus, nobody went around the tombs because he was a frightening menace.

Now. Were this man living in modern times, a team of psychiatrists and therapists would have him diagnosed with everything—manic depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder. Complete with a matching pharmaceutical regimen, of course. Doctors would be boasting about their diagnostic expertise, science about its role in advancing technology and chemical remedies. It would have all been a lie, however. Because this man, this patient, wasn’t mentally ill.

He was demon possessed.

Readers might recognize the biblical story written about by eyewitnesses Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Christ’s disciples, who not only chronicled the incident but the man’s incredible cure. Sitting in his dark, macabre tomb one afternoon and contemplating his unending misery, the man saw a boat beach on the shore nearby. Observing the invaders, the possessed man eyed Jesus. Yes, that Jesus. Instantly, the man ran towards and fell on his face at Jesus’ feet. “Please don’t torment me,” the ailing man begged. Ever compassionate, Jesus asked the man’s name.

“Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.”

In service to the current infirmity before him, Jesus commanded the evil spirits to depart from the man, which the demons dutifully did, but only after imploring to be cast into a herd of hillside swine. Entering the pigs, the entire herd then ran violently down a hillside, over a cliff, and into the sea, where they all drowned. Afterwards, the freshly exorcised man wasn’t just clothed, in his right mind, and greatly relieved. Finally happy and hopeful, finally himself again, he was eternally grateful.

He was cured! A result neither traditional nor modern science and medicine could have ever achieved. And why doesn’t anyone ever conclude that?

Why doesn’t anyone ever consider the spiritual aspect of human health and the subsequent limitations of human healthcare? It’s like science and medicine are the end all for human health, are the human experiences’ only hope for survival and a healthful continuance. Given this seaside exorcism, this is obviously untrue. God created humans from dust. For their continual disbelief and disobedience, God, throughout the biblical text, plagued human health in various and numerous ways. To be plain, he made humans sick, then either took their lives or cured them.

Hence, God seems a pretty big player in human health, as this possessed man’s restoration would certainly validate. In fact, God appears the boss of human health—individually and collectively, doing with it as he pleases.

Science and medicine had zero bearing on this seaside exorcism, and would have no bearing on such an illness today. In fact, despite the visible and yet bleeding cutting scars, and the glaring emotional distress, both industries would have mocked the idea of demon possession. To demonstrate how absurd, they would have shot the patient full of Thorazine and pronounced him cured and now living his best life.

“Who needs God when you’ve got Thorazine!”
Science: “We invented that!”

To science and medicine, a person walking around a drug-induced zombie is cured. “See? Thanks to medicine and science, folks, the patient can now move on to a productive and rewarding life!”—they proclaim, as they ease the brain-frozen, hospital-gowned zombie forward for crowd display.

End the Thorazine regimen, however, and the man’s back where he started: still demon possessed and miserable, which, again, medicine and science can do absolutely nothing about.

So then, how supreme and deistic-worthy are medicine and science really?

Personally, I wouldn’t want to do without them, particularly during allergy season, and when I have the flu, or a kidney stone attack, or any one of the countless health issues and emergencies I’ve endured in my life. It’s certain everyone else feels the same way.

Even so, science and medicine clearly have their limitations.

It would appear the only truly deistic-worthy physician and scientist is God. But then, say that at the press conference where physicians are going on and on about their diagnostic skill. Or write a rebuttal article for a science journal touting the supremacy of God and the obvious ineptitude and arrogance, comparatively speaking, of science and medicine. Let’s see if that piece ever meets with publication.

Vain creatures, every human loves to be lauded. Physicians and scientists are no different.

The point here is that this poor, tormented man is a human trainwreck. Living among tombs and dead people, he’s dirty, unkempt, and mutilating himself. Emotionally unstable, he’s accosting people and threatening them. Alone, he cries frequently, then laughs maniacally, then cuts himself some more to relieve the inner pain. All of which is psychotic behavior, of course. But then, not really psychotic, because he’s actually demon possessed, his ailment spiritual. In any case, given the supplied visual, I’d posit this:

Does this tomb-dweller not resemble your average American liberal?

Consider today’s liberals: blue haired, tattoos and piercings so numerous and gaudy that liberals look alien [tattoo needles and piercings: the modernized “cutting himself with stones” in relief of inner pain]. Liberals are constantly either depressed and sad or enraged and riotous, and viciously accosting people in mobs. Because their political candidate lost an election, they are on their knees in public squares wailing in emotional agony. Most heinously, they are calling young girls at summer camp “lil’ cunts,” and proclaiming they deserved to drown in a tragic Texas flood.

Looks and sounds just like a demon possessed tomb dweller to me. How ‘bout you?

Normal people amble by and, like Legion from his ancient tomb, liberals race to accost them: “Fascist!” “Racist!” “Evangelical!” Like young Regan MacNeil in the Exorcist, they do just about everything but green projectile vomit onto people [at least not yet], which would be the icing on the demon-possessed diagnosis cake. But do we really need that final, vomitous piece of disgusting evidence to draw the demonic conclusion?

What? Suspects aren’t truly “evil” until they green projectile vomit on people?

The original Legion was filled with demons, “… for we are many.” Don’t liberals appear plagued by the same problem? They make spectacles and mockeries of themselves. They abuse themselves, humiliate themselves—all with zero self-awareness or shame, incidentally. Vacillating abruptly between immense cheerfulness and blind rage, they are clearly unstable and miserable. They demonstrate no self-discipline or –control, no ability to reason, and no civility.

So then, what’s the difference between them and Legion?

Of course, most liberals aren’t lodging in cemeteries these days, and most don’t appear dirty, disheveled, lunatic Legions of old, either. Most would never abide such a beggarly appearance or existence, either one. It’s difficult to pull-off superior-to-you status when you look like a whacked-out tomb dweller with self-inflicted laceration scars all over your body. Despite the fine exterior, however, modern liberals still have the same evil and subsequent misery inside of them. They just conceal it, so no one knows. So how do we know they are filled with the same evil?

Behavior. It never lies.

Where do you think Legion would be today? Watching Fox News and shaking his head mournfully at the latest liberal mayhem? Or in the resistance trenches with modern liberals?

Yeah. Me, too.

It’s not really Donald Trump that liberals loathe. It’s the good that he is doing, the righteousness he is restoring. If Ron DeSantis or J.D. Vance or some other Trump-styled candidate wins the presidency in 2028 and comprehensively continues Trump’s policies. Then liberals will suddenly say, “Okay, now that Trump’s gone, we’re on board with morality, the rule of law, and all that MAGA American greatness?

With Trump gone, suddenly liberals will recognize but two genders?
Suddenly women’s restrooms and locker rooms will be female only?
Suddenly men competing in women’s athletics will become ludicrous?
Suddenly abortion will become murder?
Suddenly trans and gay pride books peddled to children will be creepy and wrong?
Suddenly the deportation of illegal criminals will be lawful, vital, and cool?
Suddenly, every evil doctrinal belief that liberals hold dear will become corrupt, wicked, and negotiable?

We’re supposed to believe Trump is the only thing standing in the way of all this transformational righteousness of the liberal collective?

Trump isn’t standing in the way of the righteousness. It’s the righteousness itself.

Vice President J.D. Vance:

“[Liberals] don’t need a unifying ideology of what they are for, because they know very well what they are against. What unites [them] isn’t the ideas of Thomas Jefferson, or even Karl Marx. It’s hatred. They hate the people in this room. They hate the President of the United States. And most of all, they hate the people who voted for him.”

All true, except, what liberals truly hate the most is God, the righteousness he represents, and the goodness he commands. And why do liberals hate these things?

Simply, liberals are modern Legions, and their inner demons command it.

Everyone else should take comfort in this fact: the very presence of evil is evidence of the Almighty God on whom they depend for victory.

[sign of the cross].