Category: Blog

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. 

©JMW/8-2025 
All Rights Reserved  

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. 

©JMW 7/2025 
All Rights Reserved 

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]. 

©JMW 7/2025 
All Rights Reserved 

Beginning his interview of then Health and Human Services Secretary appointee, Robert F. Kennedy, republican senator Ron Johnson lauded Kennedy, a democrat, for setting aside his political differences to work with President Trump on an important initiative: finding the root cause of so many chronic health problems in the United States.  

“We need to get to the answers [of chronic illness],” Johnson said. 

“There is no issue that should united us more than this chronic health epidemic,” Kennedy agreed. “There is no such thing as republican children or democratic children; these are our kids. Sixty-six percent of them are damaged. I know what a healthy kid looks like, because I had so many of them in my family. I didn’t know anybody with a food allergy, peanut allergy. Why do five of my kids have allergies? Why are we seeing these explosions in diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, neurological diseases, depression? All these things are related to toxicity in the environment.” 

Kennedy is right, at least about the explosions in disease—ask any doctor. As potential HHS secretary, now confirmed, he claimed he is the person to fix the problem, too.  

“I don’t think anybody is going to be able to do this like I have—because of my peculiar experience; because I’ve litigated against these agencies. When you litigate against them, you get a PhD in corporate capture [where private industry uses its political influence (money) to take control of the decision-making apparatus of the state], and how to unravel it. I’ve written six books about these agencies. I know a lot about them; and I know how to fix it. And there’s nobody who’ll fix it the way I do, because I’m not scared of vested interest.” Rather: Kennedy is neither (a) a corrupt bureaucrat nor (b) scared of Big Corporate Food. 

So, Kennedy has the answers to human health. But does he? All he is really saying is government agencies, specifically the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), apparently, are on the take and corrupt and allowing people to be chemically poisoned by Big Food. Per the Trump era, we know political corruption government-wide is incontrovertibly true. But people are being chemically poisoned? Is making their customers and fellow human beings sick really the strategy of America’s food producers?  

Meanwhile, doctors one and all are complaining that Americans are not only eating too much but have unhealthy diets, and are advising them to eat less, exercise more, and lose weight. Instead of chemical poisoning, could this be the problem? Gluttonous Bending-Elbow Disease and a lack of self-discipline?  

If Kennedy were to say, “Americans are fat and unhealthy. Eating too much they’re digging their own graves.” The medical community would certainly agree. But how would those remarks go over with the masses?  

About as well as they would over in the doctor’s office.  

“You’re fat and unhealthy, Mrs. Smith. You’re digging your own grave.” 

Gasp! “Why, the nerve!”  

“At 5’2” and 345, Mrs. Smith, I feel obligated to intervene, to limit the blast radius.”  

Suffice to say, where it concerns health and healthcare praise from the masses, targeting Big Food is much more profitable. 

Okay, so what happens when we sue Big Food into oblivion, mark all their corporate chests with a giant red A, and then have the same problems we had before? What then? When we find out we still haven’t the solution? When we still have the explosions of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, neurological diseases, depression—all these things related to the poisoning of our daily bread by Big Food?  

Who do we blame then? 

Trust me, a culprit will be determined, suspects ranging from the earth’s toxic soil to every participating food production, handling, and preparatory entity and product in between—too many waves in microwaves. Too many metals in silverware. Too much non-stick on non-stick items. Someone will be culpable, because there is money and celebrity in it—monetary jury awards from litigation, and heroism for being the person to defeat corporate evil and heal all humankind.  

Incidentally, notice how the evildoers are always corporations? Know why? 

Because that’s where the money is! 

So basically, a lawyer and politicians are claiming human health is within their domain and under their control. Listen to them. Trust them. Do what they say, and the result is human health and healthcare Nirvana! After centuries of medical practice, and with such incredibly advanced medical tools and technology, nobody knows more about the human body than modern medicine and physicians. At least they can say, “Yeah, we’ve seen this before. Let’s start a potassium drip and monitor blood pressure. That should fix it.” At least physicians have a background in the human body and human health, and vast, centuries established research resources at their disposal. Medicine is more prepared than ever to diagnose and treat illness and disease. Yet even physicians have their limits. Else when someone dies, physicians wouldn’t say, “Well, we did all we could.”  

Perhaps no one would die, or even suffer, if physicians were as medically qualified as lawyers and politicians.  

The point is human beings are claiming to have the solutions to human health, to effectively have control of human health. While some possess superior knowledge and expertise in the field, does the discussion of human health really begin and end with human beings? Is the healthfulness, the very lives, of all humankind really in human hands?  

Shoulder-wedging my way through the human hubris, I have a question: 

Where does God fit in to the human health discussion?  

Presumably, 2.5 billion Christians and Jews around the world would like an answer to the question, too. The creator of the universe and all living things doesn’t have a say in human health?  

Reading my Bible, I time and again come across human health related implications, and even proclamations, within the text. Contrasting all the human doctrine about human health with scripture directly in hand, I catch myself asking:  

Is anyone else reading this freaking thing?    

The fact is there are but two theories of human origin, evolution and creation, and the issue of human health is implicitly bound to one of them. On one hand are human beings—science, medicine, and politicians and lawyers, evidently—claiming to have the answers to human health, which, regarding the politicians and lawyers, doesn’t appear to be about health so much as it is green. Or as God would put it: mammon. And on the other hand is God, whom the scriptures repeatedly confirm as, well, the boss of everybody and everything, to include human health.  

Like it or not, the Bible does come with certain unavoidable implications. For example, if God created everything, then his power and authority are not only implied, but supreme. Who can challenge a being that speaks a universe into existence and creates humans from dust?   

The Creator, God controls everything, and humans are his subjects. He declared himself the “alpha and omega,” the beginning and the end, which is almost universally interpreted as a mere power flex. However, it means something deeper, that God is the beginning and end of all earthly matters, is indeed the ultimate “truth” in all matters. All earthly matters begin and end with him, specifically the matter of human health. Whatever humans conclude or say about human health, or about any other issue of the human experience, for that matter, is a subordinate view. 

The most obvious example of God’s control is his power over life and death. He obviously created life, which implies he can destroy it, too. There are many biblical examples of this destructive power, too. One being the flood, where every human on earth but Noah and his family perished. A more singular and practical example is the death of Uzzah, an unfortunate man who merely touched the Ark of the Covenant to steady it. The offense angered God, who summarily killed Uzzah on the spot.  

Taken to a local hospital, one could be certain physicians would conclude an opposing cause of death. Uzzah’s heart gave out; he suffered a myocardial infarction. He had a stroke, was suffering severe dehydration. And evidence for these conclusions may even present.  

But we all know the real cause of death in this case: God.  
The Supreme Commander of Human Health.  
Would the medical community ever make such a diagnosis? That God did it? 
Folks, we’ve determined that God killed this poor man.  
Have we ever heard this determination even once? 

Another example is Nabal, an evil human being. Nabal angered King David, who was riding out in a fury to get even. Nabal’s wife, Abigail, rode out to stop the king. Per an offering of food and drink, she begged and subsequently inspired the king’s mercy on behalf of her husband. True to his words, “Vengeance is mine,” God, for David’s discipline and mercy toward Nabal, “smote Nabal, that he died.” Nabal’s heart, the scriptures say, “died within him, and he became as stone.” Ten days later, he succumbed. Nabal was a rude, mean-spirited man, and a gluttonous drunk. Taken to the local hospital his death would have surely been labeled alcohol-related—addiction, abuse—or a result of his apparent gluttonous habits.  

But again, we all know the real cause of death: God.  

The most thoroughly compelling example of God’s power over life, death, and human health is King Hezekiah. A loyal and beloved servant of God, the king lay sick in bed. Via the prophet Isaiah, God told the king to set his affairs in order because he would not recover from his ailment. Distraught, the king prayed, asked God to remember his devotion and loyalty. Moved with compassion, God not only healed the king, but granted him 15 more years of life, er, health.  

So, if God healed the king of his ailment, then it can be inferred God was responsible for the ailment, too. Then granting the king 15 more years of life, er, health, the conclusion is obvious— 

God is in absolute, unopposable control of human health.  

Birth to death, every single aspect of human health falls within God’s domain and is under his command. Go ahead, pick an ailment. Any ailment. Let’s take leprosy, for example. Modern medicine tells us leprosy is a chronic bacterial infection that primarily affects the skin, nerves, and mucous membranes. A plague that, thankfully, modern antibiotics can now cure, that is if God allows. How do we know God has power over leprosy, and over its cure and incurability? That God is the final health and healthcare authority? That the very breath and life of all humanity, the level of sickness and misery and suffering and healthfulness people endure and enjoy, is in his hands alone? 

Moses, the book of Exodus: 

“And the Lord said furthermore unto [me], Put now thine had into thy bosom.  And [I] put [my] hand into [my] bosom, and when [I] took it out, behold, [my] hand was leprous as snow.” 

Afterward, God had Moses return his leprous hand into his coat and, pulling it out, it emerged cured. In preparing Moses to lead his people out of Egypt, God used the incident to convey not just his power and authority, but his control over human health, which he later demonstrated even more profoundly via the Egyptian plagues—frogs, lice, flies, murrain, boils, hail, locusts, perpetual darkness, death of the firstborn—before the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. And if people need to hear God directly proclaim his power over the disease and ultimately human health. Speaking to Moses and Aaron: 

“I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession.” 

Just as he put the plague on Moses’ hand and then cured it.  

So, what about a more common health problem, like, say, hemorrhoids. Hemorrhoids are swollen and inflamed veins in the rectum and anus, a condition doctors say can be caused by straining during bowel movements, sitting on the toilet for long periods, lifting heavy objects, obesity, and certain medical conditions such as portal hypertension. The condition can be hereditary, too. Uncomfortable though the ailment is, people use over the counter remedies to mitigate the discomfort and, in most cases, consider it a temporary nuisance born of mostly common, everyday influencers. 

Could such an average, ordinary health condition be under God’s control, too?  

Could such an ailment even be found in the Bible?  

Indeed, it can. 

The Philistines took the ark of God from the Israelites and brought it to the people of Ashdod, the sixth-largest city in Israel, on the Mediterranean coast. This apparently displeased God: 

“But the hand of the Lord was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods [hemorrhoids], even Ashdod and the coasts thereof.”  

In response, and to rid themselves of the uncomfortable plague, the Philistines took the ark to Gath, a Philistine city. What happened to the people of Gath?  

“[God] smote the men of the city, both great and small, and they had emerods in their secret parts.” 

Modern medicine also says hemorrhoids can develop without any apparent cause at all. Perhaps there is a Divine cause it should now consider.  

How about pregnancy? The entire process of bringing life into the world is obviously a human health matter. Women want to have children. In the most favorable conditions, some repeatedly try and fail inexplicably. How come? They meet all the necessary requirements, have all the required equipment. So, what is the problem? Modern medicine has its own answers to the difficulty. But could God, the Creator, have control of the womb?  

“Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee,” God famously told the prophet Jeremiah. So then, that would imply, yes. God not only has control of the womb, but both control and foreknowledge of the life that is formed within. A good example is the prophet Samuel and his mother, Hannah. One of two wives to Elkanah, Hannah, though fully equipped and striving, could not become pregnant. Why not? Samuel, via his signature book: 

“The Lord had shut up her womb.” 

Though modern medical tests would have surely declared otherwise, Hannah’s inability to have children wasn’t for infertility or some other common modern medical reason. In control of human health, God was preventing conception. Distressed, Hannah prayed fervently to God, who heard her petition and had compassion, and blessed her with one of the Bible’s most esteemed prophets, Samuel. 

Another highly esteemed biblical figure, Abraham, lied about his attractive wife to protect themselves. Visitors in a foreign land, Abraham feared other men would slay him to have his beautiful wife for themselves. So, he told everyone she was his sister. The news pleased the land’s king, Abimelech, who sent for Sarah and took her for himself. God showed the king in a dream, however, that she was Abraham’s wife. Despite immediately returning Sarah to Abraham, there was yet a punishment for King Abimelech. The Punishment?  

“The Lord has fast closed up all the wombs of Abimelech’s house.” 

God issued a plague of infertility, which was rescinded only after Abraham prayed for the king and his house.  

Plagues, pestilence, disease, human suffering and healthfulness—it is all clearly and indisputably in God’s control. In other words, everything related to human health is within God’s domain and under his command. At least, if one believes the Bible and in God. Humans endure hardship and infirmity at his discretion and command, which means his pleasure and displeasure with people individually is the sole determinate in their affliction and healthfulness. The Psalmist made this crystal clear: 

“Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits. Who forgiveth all thine inequities; [and] who healeth all thy diseases.” 

Of course, certifying the Psalmists’ claim was Jesus himself, the Son of God, who, during his relatively brief time on earth, resoundingly reaffirmed God’s control of human health. Observing Christ’s miracles firsthand in the City of Nain, the disciple and physician, Luke:  

“And that very hour [Jesus] cured many of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind he gave sight.” 

Jesus healed every health issue known to humankind: the deaf, the crippled, the anxious, blood diseases, cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, etc. And yes, even the ailments headlining a “chronic health epidemic” in a senate appointment hearing: “diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, neurological diseases, depression.” And if all that wasn’t proof enough of his father’s absolute power over human health, Jesus even raised people from the dead:  

“Lazarus. Come forth!” 

A four-day-old dead guy emerging from his tomb is what they call: compelling evidence of human health power and supremacy. 

Now. All this isn’t to dismiss or disparage modern medicine or science. These are important institutions and people doing vital work on behalf of humankind. Humans are fortunate to have scientists searching for cures, and doctors diagnosing and treating the afflicted. Humanity desperately needs scientists, physicians, and cures. In fact, it should be inspiring to this collective, to these chosen few, that God saw fit to make a physician, Luke, one of his son’s disciples. It is extremely high esteem. Humanity needs lawyers and politicians leading the advocacy charge, too, making sure we’re doing all we can as societies and nations to best ensure the health of respective citizenries.  

The problem, however, seems to be remembering who is actually in charge. Concerning human health, there is but one authority—but one sovereign determining human health and sickness, life and death, and in lone, unopposable control of the entirety of human health. To every human being, what issue is more important than health? There are a lot of important issues, certainly, but none more important. People want to be healthy and want their friends and loved ones to be healthy, too. As for the answers to this much desired human healthfulness, Moses offered the best prescription. Speaking to the Jews post the Egyptian Exodus:  

“If thou will diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and will do that which is right in his sight, and will give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians. For I am the Lord that healeth thee.” 

Translation: Human health and well-being are in God’s hands alone. 

Nothing gets people’s attention like health problems, which is why God uses human affliction. Per his eternal mercy and goodness, however, he provides scientists and doctors to mitigate and manage the fallout and damage. But ultimately, God is in control. Complete control. Human health is in his hands. There is no money, no mammon, in this conclusion. But it’s nonetheless true. 

So, instead of pinning our health future to an appointment hearing in a senate office building, or on any other humans, for that matter. Perhaps we should include this apparently new data, if ancient and original, in the search for better human health. Perhaps Making America Healthy Again begins there.

©JMW 2/2025 
All Rights Reserved 

JMWs Latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside.

Biochemist and genuine science fiction kook, Isaac Asimov, wasn’t much on intuition. “If intuition is as important to the world as reason [as science],” he observed, “and if Eastern sages are as knowledgeable about the universe as physicists are, then why not take matters in reverse? Why not use the wisdom of the East as a key to some of the unanswered questions in physics? For instance: what is the basic component making up subatomic particles that physicists call a quark?” 

Now, how many sages know anything about subatomic particles and quarks? Well, about as many scientists who know anything about profound intuitional wisdom. 

Asimov was a self-important asshole, obviously, not to mention nuttier than squirrel guano. Even so, he was a renowned scientist. One who didn’t think too highly of intuition and the spiritual realm, which really means he didn’t think very highly of God. He said so:  

“What nonsense all this supposed intuitional truth is, and how comic is the sight of the genuflections made to it by rational [scientific] minds who lost their nerve. No, it isn’t really comic; it’s tragic. There has been at least one other such occasion in history, when Greek secular and rational thought [scientists and science] bowed to the mystical aspects of Christianity [and God], and what followed was a Dark Age. We can’t afford another.” 

“Now, these were heated words,” wrote famed novelist and scientist himself, Michael Crichton. “And, reading them, I began to sense there was more at stake [for the science community] than the dispassionate assessment of questionable data.”  

It is to say, science wasn’t approaching the intuition phenomenon, a potential spiritual realm, with its normal sense of unemotional scientific inquiry. It was hostile toward it, instead. The question is why? Science isn’t hostile toward other unexplained phenomena. It seeks to explore and understand the rest of the world’s mysteries. That’s the function of science. Only here, with intuition, it’s not just averse, but truculently so. Being so pugnacious and defiant, clearly something is at stake.  

Crichton: 

“Asimov himself had implicitly drawn the comparison between science and religion as competing ways of viewing the world.” In other words, either God is the basis for the universe, or science is the authority, which presents a problem for science. “That, of course, opened the door to the possibility that science [itself] was a religion—a heretical position few scientists would accept. But, in reviewing the essays of [science and scientists], I began to see science and battling for supremacy against perceived threats from other modes of perception.”  

The threat being: the spiritual realm and God. 

And according to Asimov and science, God doesn’t exist, and the lab coats are in charge. 

Authority—that’s what is at stake.  

Of course, Asimov and his fellow scientists would indeed be aghast at the “religion” charge, claiming science is merely a way of getting answers about the universe—a universe in which exists no God but science, mind you. Hence, science deserves the praise and accolades and worship, not God. For example, science says climate change will incinerate the earth. Only, God says the earth is his, its daily existence and destiny under his command and control. One can see clearly the doctrinal conflict. In a world without God, however, there is no conflict. Science is the authority; its ideology the only ideology.  

But wait. Ideology? Why, that seems to imply religion, does it not? 

Indeed. Science has its doctrine and subsequent beliefs which it offers the world to be accepted and believed. So that, just like every other religion, human beings will become, yes, both believers in science and the religion’s devoted disciples. Only, God says otherwise; that only he controls the earth’s climate and its catastrophes, for example, which the flooding of the entire earth would certainly verify, if you believe that sort of thing.  

So what we have is an old-fashioned doctrinal disagreement and religious war.  

Science versus God. 

You can’t get something from nothing, wisdom with which science agrees. So then, along with humankind, the universe must have origins. In regard, God said he is responsible. Knowing full well something cannot come from nothing, science created the Big Bang and human evolution theories. Okay, but what about the matter and material that was already present? The stuff that “banged” around the universe, and the elements that allowed for human evolution via primordial stew?  

Where did that stuff come from?  
Who is responsible for that something, which could not come from nothing? For the existing matter that gives science’s theories legs and allows it to exist?  

It would appear someone predates science—someone Supreme, er, more Supreme. 

This is the point at which science becomes angry and starts spouting esoteric terms and phrases to intimidate their opponents. When you can’t defend a simple point, you start barking complex, scientific terms and phrases, which is telling because science is supposed to be the search for answers and truth. When theories and data fail, the search is supposed to begin fresh, with new data and a new hypothesis, which is what occurs in every other scientific quest but climate change, apparently, and with every other religious scientific tenet that brings in the research grant dough.  

It’s not just about the dough, however. It’s also about notoriety. These scientists might know a few things about quarks and biochemistry. But, like everyone else, they can’t keep their marriages together and their kids off drugs and out of trouble. They can’t keep themselves out of rehab, either. Ask them to build or repair something, and they don’t know the difference between a screwdriver and a circular saw. Mention screwdriver to scientists and they think it’s cocktail hour. 

That’s why the scientific notoriety feels pretty good; that’s the scientist’s limited field of expertise, is what they know, is the pathway to feeling better about their averageness. A member discovers a new star or galaxy, and then names it after him or herself. Of course, there sits God, half-eyed and sighing: “Oh sure. Bob’s Galaxy. Charming.” Then the entire religious cult swings by to congratulate Bob on his scientific discovery, before Bob goes on television to tout his keen eye and scientific acumen to the world. “There the galaxy was, just sitting there, unbeknownst to everyone but me, via my exquisite calculations.” 

Where would humankind be without its scientific gods leading the way? 

Drawing an implicit comparison between science and religion as competing ways of viewing the world, Asimov stepped in it, let the proverbial cat out of the bag—not that he was the first, or that he will be the last. Of course, we must temper our criticism toward those who associate a screwdriver with cocktail hour. Using all those scientific terms and phrases, they just seem more “brilliant” than they truly are, a truth to which ex’s, marriage counselors, and rehabbing progeny would surely all attest. 

Even so, make no mistake. Science is a vitally important enterprise, one responsible for much human progress and health. It’s just that the people who constitute it have an over-inflated opinion of themselves, their work, and of their meaning and value to the world. Clearly, they have developed not only a god complex, but a corresponding religion, science, to support their deity. Orthodoxy and supremacy that they peddle in public education, too.  

What do young impressionable minds study in school? 

Big Bang and evolutionary theory. 

What do students subsequently come to perceive and believe? 

That science is God. Or rather, that ordinary human beings are gods—grotesquely fallible and inept though they are.  

Who is then replaced as the universes’ authority?  

The real God. The Creator of All Things. 

So. One can then understand why the Science Cult, which is just a collection of leftist liberals, gets so angry when someone demands that God, the real God, be given his proper authority, and that the corresponding doctrine be taught to young impressionable minds in educational institutions. Someone such as Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, who issued a directive to integrate the Bible into the public-school curriculum. And it wasn’t that Walters was directing daily church sermons to take place, either. 

“[The Bible, God,] it’s part of our history,” Walters said. “It’s crystal clear: you go back to American history. You look at the pilgrims. You look at the Mayflower Compact. You look at Thomas Jefferson talking about our rights coming from our Creator [in the Declaration of Independence]. You look at Martin Luther King Jr’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, where he references the Apostle Paul and multiple biblical references as examples. The reality is the left and these radical, woke [education] administrators want to indoctrinate and lie to your kids, and act like there was no role that the Bible and Christianity and the Judeo-Christian faith [and ultimately God] played in American history. Well, that’s a lie. And that is, frankly, pushing a left-wing agenda on kids to try to get kids to hate this country, by saying, look, there was no morality; there was no belief in God.  

“Well, look,” Walters concluded, “the primary sources are crystal clear. Here in Oklahoma, you will see the Bible in its historical context. You will see when individuals throughout history reference the Bible, cite the Bible. Again, it’s part of our history, the rights. The left-wing activists can be offended; they cannot like it. But we will not allow them to rewrite our history.” 

Rather, We will not allow liberals and their science deities to replace God. 

That’s the core of all this scientific rancor. Via science, and replacing religion for religion, liberals can teach their religion—which is undoubtedly a religion, one that denies the existence of God—to young impressionable minds in the nation’s classrooms. But Christians can’t teach theirs, which, along with God, undoubtedly defines not just America’s founding and history thereafter, but the universe’s existence.  

Muslim studies in the classroom? No problem. 

Greek mythology? No education is complete without it. 

The role of the Creator of All Living Things in the world?  

“Separation of church and state!” 

Science and scientists might be outraged by the religious characterization of themselves and their enterprise, but that is precisely what it and they are, a religion—complete with gods and doctrine and disciples and zealotry. Worse, via the classroom they are encouraging America’s and the world’s youth, and really every earthbound human, to abandon God and to join their religion.  

Some may ask: why can’t God and science coexist? 

Answer: because good and evil can never and will never occupy the same space. 

And this is where we are in the world currently: a religious war, a foundational war, between good and evil. Science can’t explain the intuitional/spiritual realm. It can’t explain how mothers sense something has happened to a child or loved one while not in their presence. It can’t explain human premonition that comes to fruition, or how people sense unseen danger. It can’t explain how people suspect a cheating spouse without evidence, or how scientists themselves have all these same intuitive sensations. And rather than confess to the personal sensations, and to the phenomenon’s clear validity, and then explore the phenomena, as is science’s actual purpose and duty. Science dismisses it all as “nonsense” and “comic.” 

Clearly, the spiritual realm is every bit as real as the physical realm, a point Crichton plead to the scientific community in an intended speech, one he never gave. And why didn’t he speak? 

Because, evidently science didn’t want to hear it. 

Because hearing it would validate its nemesis, God: “The Spirit of Spirits,” and not only end science’s authoritative reign, but expose their evil, God-denying cult. Legitimate and personally experienced phenomenon or not, it’s wise to keep challenges to your authority tamped down, excluded from public discourse. 

As Marcello Truzzi, former editor of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) journal once noted, “Scientists are not the paragons of rationality, objectivity, open-mindedness and humility that many of them would like others to believe.” 

Well, okay. But then, gods aren’t beholden to normal standards of human nobility. An idea that surely bleeds over into the god’s personal lives, to be attested to by ex’s, marriage counselors, and deistic progeny—and probably more than a few lab assistants. 

©JMW 8/2024 
All Rights Reserved 

JMW’s latest: New Rules:  Relationship Logic for the Darkside.