Category: Blog

Diagnosing Evil

At the Last Supper before his crucifixion, Jesus told his disciples that one of them would betray him. In proximity, Peter privately asked Jesus to identify the traitor. Jesus said it was the person to whom he would offer a piece of bread, which he then dipped in broth and handed to Judas Iscariot. The moment was no doubt awkward, but here is the applicable part …

After Judas received the offering, the Bible states, “Satan entered into him.” Reading the text, many might wonder what this event was like, this invasion of a human body by Satan and evil. And the truth is, there wasn’t anything special about it at all. In fact, everyone in the room but Jesus was oblivious.

Satan not physically present, the event is obviously spiritual in nature. So then, supernaturally, satanic evil simply and invisibly entered into a human being—no theatrical production, no observable red glowing eyes, demonic facial expressions, or Exorcist-like voices. This is the misconception with evil, incidentally, that it has these spine-chilling visible markers that identify its presence, like in the movies. Highlighting his “master deceiver” credentials, however, this is the fraud Satan uses so people won’t recognize the cunning, stealthy, casual way he truly operates. Victims expect a fearsome, demonic presence and get a warm, familiar face instead. It’s like, “Oh, that’s just Judas from the block. He’s cool; he’s one of us.”

Then, Judas stabs you in the back.

Anyway, sans a single visible sign, everyone in the room was completely clueless regarding the satanic evil therein. Then, under Satan and evil’s control, Judas went to conspire with Jewish religious leaders. He took their money, later kissed Jesus on cheek, and became the betrayer Jesus had prophesied him to be. After which Judas hung himself for shame and guilt.

Now, I offer this scenario to ask: what is the difference between this Last Supper scenario and, say, a woman, Lindsay Clancy, strangling her children to death, then throwing herself out a second-story window to attempt shame- and guilt-fueled suicide? Or how about this situation: a South Carolina mother, Taylor Gosnell, attacking her 6- and 3-year-old children with a knife, leaving them to die with 50 stab wounds and nearly severed limbs?

One as evil as the next, there is obviously no difference at all. Jesus wasn’t there to offer a piece of bread and open these two women’s bodies and souls to the prince of darkness and evil. But clearly the prince entered, nonetheless.

All these people nowadays believe in God and Jesus and all this Bible stuff, supposedly. Well, why are the events of the biblical era inapplicable to the modern era? The world is the same world today as it was back then. Shouldn’t the standards and clinical rules of the biblical era still apply to the world today? Shouldn’t phenomena like satanic possession still be possible and definable? If Matthew, Mark, Luke or John had written about a woman who, like Judas, had been physically possessed by Satan and subsequently murdered her own children. We would be highlighting and proclaiming that an act of satanic possession and evil in Sunday morning church services, too.

Incidentally, what would it look like were a woman invaded by satanic evil?

Well, it wouldn’t look like anything, either. Hereto, the world would be oblivious, clueless. How everyone would know, the only way the evil invasion could be assessed, is via her manifest behavior and deeds. Good mothers don’t murder their own children. Evil mothers do that, an act everyone would no doubt see as such, too. So then, like Judas, these two murderous mothers must have been physically invaded and possessed by satanic evil, too.

Because what they did was definitively evil.

Of course, this isn’t how modern medicine would see it. The women would suffer from a diagnosis in a medical manual, instead, like “postpartum-psychosis” and “ -depression.” Sure, what the women did was evil in an abstract way, modern medicine would scoff. But it wasn’t caused by satanic possession. What are we living in [chuckle], the biblical era?

Well … aren’t we?

In a created world, what has changed?

The human experience began at some point long ago, and this biblical era wasn’t part of that experience? With all those historically verifiable and familiar names and locations and kingdoms in the Bible, it sure seems like it was part of it. Regarding human illness and suffering, satanic possession was definitely an applicable and diagnosable health issue back then, evidenced by Jesus exorcising so many demons from humans, humans declared to be possessed and clinically sick. So, why can’t satanic possession be a diagnosis now? Today? Is it really that difficult to see the strangulation and butchering of innocent, defenseless children as an act of modern-day, biblical era evil connectible to old world Satan? Or how about connectible to just regular, garden variety evil?

In fact, why do humans even use the term “evil” if it has no real meaning? What does evil mean, anyway? What is its origin? Where does it come from? Or more pointedly, whom is it named after?

“Well, medicine doesn’t assess spiritual matters,” modern medicine would claim.

So then, what? We just ignore the whole idea as an explanation of human behavior, illness, and suffering?

“Well, medicine can’t diagnose the abstract, can’t determine such spiritual aspects as good and evil residing in individual human beings.”

So why not? Jesus sure as hell did. He spoke directly to this sort of diagnosis, in fact. Asked how we, as humans, could know who other people really are on the inside, whether they are evil or good people, specifically. Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruit.”

Fruit is a metaphor for behavior. If someone is kind, for example, they are kind all the time, exhibit traits of warmth and benevolence all the time, or at least predominantly. Recognizably, they are a kind person. If a person is angry and bitter, on the other hand, then they are predominantly angry and bitter. The critical and hostile meanness commonly appears because that is what and who these people are on the inside.

The external, visible behavior, the “fruit,” invariably corresponds with the internal person.

Or for clarity in this case, good people do good things, and evil people do evil things.

And regarding these good and evil people, who understands them, understands human beings, better than medicine? Medicine studies and diagnosis human behavior all day long every day. In diagnosing and treating people, why can’t it make this same behavioral connection? Why can’t it consider the spiritual health of human beings, and the role good and evil might play in human behavior, illness, and suffering? Casting out demons from inside people, Jesus certainly considered the spiritual health of human beings medically relative. So why does modern medicine ignore it now?

If someone is brought into the hospital frothing and deranged, why does medicine give the person’s condition so many different clinical names: schizophrenic, psychopathic, et al? Why don’t physicians just say the patient is possessed with satanic evil? They never say that, ever—even though good and evil are not only foundational concepts of the human experience, but well chronicled historically as an aspect of it. To the medical community, it’s like making such a diagnosis is absurd, risible. Except, Jesus made it, and even healed people of their spiritual ailments, too.

So, what is the argument now? Jesus wasn’t a legit historical figure?

Okay. Why do people today believe in the existence and legitimacy of, say, Julius Caesar, or Socrates, or Christopher Columbus, when people didn’t live in the eras to which these historical figures belonged? These figures are believed to have existed and to be legit because, as part of history, people wrote about them in books.

Well, people wrote about Jesus, too.

People who lived with Jesus, actually; who traveled alongside him and chronicled his life and his extensive miracles. They wrote an entire New Testament about him, in fact, in the most popular, best-selling book of all time, no less. So, Jesus is as legit as any historical figure, and then so must be the standards and clinical rules of the biblical era.

Meaning: in the modern era, satanic possession is still an applicable and diagnosable human health consideration.

Given the continuing standard, there is no way to classify mothers murdering and butchering their own children as a “good” thing. The acts conclusively evil, the bodies and souls of these women must have been, like Judas, physically invaded and commandeered by satanic evil. Instead of the clinical terms, why can’t modern medicine simply make that diagnosis and express it as it would any other? Expressed perhaps this way:

“Well, the patient was possessed by satanic evil, obviously, murdering her own children. We could apply one of many clinical diagnoses, but evil is clearly the baseline in these unfortunate events, is the motivating factor.”

And isn’t that true? Evil being the baseline?

In fact, evil is the most obvious aspect of the entire incident. Even if you don’t really believe in the whole concept of God and Satan, and good and evil. You are still obliged to call women murdering and butchering their own children acts of evil, whether they are “satanic” evil or not. The question is, when do we begin considering satanic evil an explanation for human illness and subsequent behavior? Instead of stopping at the clinical diagnoses, as we do, when do we begin diagnosing and addressing the deeper, foundational, and motivational evil? Easily recognizable and identifiable, evil is right there in front of everyone’s eyes, is in fact the baseline in every unjust and unspeakable thing human beings do to other humans. Yet we stop at all the clinical diagnoses and avoid the most obvious diagnosis.

And in that, do we not avoid the problem? The root cause?

The events of the biblical era still applicable today, the concept of God and Satan, and of good and evil, is the very foundation of the world and the human experience. Everything else, specifically every medical diagnosis, is consequently subject to that foundation and to those parameters.

In other words, the concept of God and Satan, and good and evil, are at the core of and drive everything in the human experience, and ultimately the world. If you don’t believe that, well: Armageddon. The world’s final, end-of-the-world battle between, yes, God and Satan, and good and evil—which doesn’t involve two faceless, thematic entities, but rather actual people: the righteous and evildoers. The good and the evil. So then, the medical diagnoses are just an overlay, are just secondary conclusions. Actually, they are just a way to avoid saying humans/patients are, like Judas, possessed by satanic evil.

Medical diagnoses and terms are much safer; they don’t invite “religious kook” derision and mockery.

Except, in a world founded by God, humans are still subject to the standards and clinical diagnoses of the biblical era. The same Satan that invaded Judas can invade modern mothers, too, and clearly did. In fact, think about all the evils human beings do to other humans. What is the baseline in all of that wickedness, the common denominator? We can label it whatever we want medically—the delusional betrayal by Judas, the postpartum psychosis of murdering mothers—but the culprit in every case is evil.

In fact, satanic evil. Because there is no other kind.

Closing his letter to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul explained the human experience this way: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood [other human beings], but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

In other words, we have been looking at this human experience thing all wrong, have been shortsighted in our health assessments, remedies, and in our quest for human salubrity. Thus, we clearly aren’t doing human healthcare as well as we can.  Because we are excluding a vitally important aspect of the human experience which would allow for it.

We can change that, and we must.

©JMW 10/2026
All Rights Reserved

Don’t Neglect The Republican Communists

To influence Americans not to vote for Donald Trump in 2024, liberals openly called him every frightening name in the book: tyrant, Hitler, Nazi. They accused Trump of treason, bribery, insurrection, rape, and even pedophilia. A person could not have been given uglier, more dissuasive labels. Yet 78 million people still voted for him. 

Seventy-eight million is a helluva lot of people. A majority mass, in fact, which should make republican leadership very happy. A republican having the worst possible labels and accusations publicly applied to him before an election, and still garnering the support of such an astounding number of voters?   

Why, GOP leadership should be thrilled, elated!  

So elated, in fact, that leadership should be out there praising and encouraging this vast support system, particularly the republican base within. Savvy conservative voters who heard these distressing attacks and still said, “Yeah, no. We ain’t buyin’ it.” This leadership action seems a no-brainer. Yet here is GOP leadership, “The Architect” and RINO republican, Karl Rove, calling those 78 million American voters bigots, white nationalist racists, and Jew-hating misogynists.  

Excuse me, no. Rove isn’t saying that about all 78 million voters, actually, some of whom are democrats and independents and what not. He is saying it strictly about his own party’s voters, registered republicans, if you can believe it. Republicans who not only selected Trump overwhelmingly in the republican primaries, but who voted for him overwhelmingly in the general election, too. Rove, the Wall Street Journal:  

“Conservatism and the party it dominates [the Republican Party, Rove’s party], have an increasing number of bigoted advocates of a ‘heritage America’ composed of white descendants of the original European settlers. There are ‘just asking questions’ Jew-haters, misogynists who worship hypermasculinity, conspiracy nuts seeking clicks for profit, and religious bigots who won’t differentiate between Muslim terrorists and Muslim American patriots. These people are diminishing the Republican Party, not building it. I’ll have no part of it.”  

Gee, does Rove not sound exactly like an establishment liberal? Hmm. Interesting. In fact, if I had offered the previous quote nameless, would the reader not bet-the-ranch that a liberal had said it?  I mean, if you are going to be a political leader, Politics 101 teaches: what is the majority doing? We want to stand with the majority. Here is a 78-million voter majority, and Rove and RINO leadership are maligning and lecturing them.

Well, not all of them. Just their fellow party members.

This is the gift of Trump. Not that he forced the liberal establishment to show how criminal and corrupt it is, and has been, but that he flushed Rove and these GOP establishment loyalists, these republican RINO’s, out of the shadows and into the light. These RINO’s are the bigger rats because, at least liberals have the stones to be open liberals. Think Rove and these RINO’s aren’t establishment loyalists? 

The fellow republican, Trump, has the gale force wind of 78-million majority Trump/republican voters in his sails, and who is Rove vilifying? 

Not the democrats. Not the liberal establishment—both of whom broke literally any and every law to destroy a duly elected president, no less. 

The loyalty clear enough?  

Republican voters elected Trump because they had observed with their own eyes this egregious, communist lawlessness for, at the time, eight-years running. They saw what the liberal establishment had tried to do to Trump via Russian collusion, manufactured impeachments, and massive lawfare. And here is the crucial point:  

Rove and his fellow RINO’s observed it all with their own eyes, too.  

Rove well understood the communist criminality of a treasonous plot; the communist nature of manufactured impeachments and law fare and complicit media. And singing in perfect pitch with the liberal establishment, he is now calling his own voters, again: 78-million of them, bigots, white nationalist racists, and Jew-hating misogynists for voting for his own party’s candidate. After all the communist crime he witnessed over the last 10 years, Rove is voting democrat in the upcoming midterms, too, and he and his fellow RINO’s urge others to do the same. 

Rove, George W. and Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, all these Republicans In Name Only republicans—I don’t care what these people try to tell you, they are not true conservative Republicans. And if only that were the worst of it. Seventy-eight million majority republican voters are banding together to fight a deeply and manifestly corrupt communist establishment in their country, and these RINO’s are serving the communist establishment.  

Gee, whatever could that imply? 

The Democrat party, the GOP establishment, the corporate media—this isn’t the “liberal establishment.” Given the last decade of observable authoritarian crime they have all participated in, these are communists. We need to stop with the velvety glove “liberal establishment” nonsense and start calling these people what they are: evil communists. All worked together to get rid of a candidate, and ultimately a duly elected official that 78 million majority voters elected, but that these politically diverse communists do not like. In that collusive effort, these seventy-eight million majority voters weren’t just left to smell and suspect communism. They could observe it with their own eyes. They saw what the establishment tried to do, and continues to do, to a democratically and duly elected leader it despises, whom these communists say represents bad policy and is bad for the country. 

And what Rove and his fellow communists are doing isn’t bad policy and bad for the country? 

Seventy-eight million strong, the American people are on to the communists. True to authoritarian form, Rove and his fellow communists are now calling voters every frightening name in the book and accusing them. The communists failed to stop Trump, now his voters are in their crosshairs. That’s the problem with a republic, dammit, Rove says to his fellow communists in the legislative lounge. Peasant voters have a say in their leadership.

Let’s just run the numbers: 78 million Trump voters, 15 to 20 republican RINO leaders, and yet 78 million people are the stupid ones, are the bigots, the racists, the misogynists—not a single brain or an ounce of savvy and wisdom among any of them, say RINO leaders.

The 78 million aren’t taking too kindly to the disrespect and hubris, either. Election by election, the party’s voters are throwing these RINO’s into the streets. Republican voters want somebody to lead their fight against the establishment communists. They want somebody that is not going to concede or betray them; somebody that is going to find the fraud, waste, and abuse of their hard-earned money; somebody that is going to close the borders and stop a caravanning invasion of illegals; somebody who isn’t going to allow a corrupt, communist establishment to destroy their nation and make slaves of them.  

Led by Rove and his fellow RINO’s, the Republican Party has been complaining about all this stuff for decades. They could have investigated and stopped the fraud, waste, and abuse any time they wanted. They could have dealt with illegal immigration, could have gone to war with the liberal establishment and corrupt corporate media. For decades, the GOP-led party campaigned on all this stuff.  

So, why didn’t they do anything? 

Easy: because they were helping the communists. 

Republican voters control the Republican Party now, which is how it was supposed to be all along. The fact Rove and his fellow RINO’s are calling their own voters bigots, racists, and Jew-hating misogynists tells you what they think about the arrangement. Think what they want, republican voters are cutting all these sidewindin’ RINO’s loose and sending them to pasture. Hitting the gate, the RINO’s huff and puff, telling everybody how they feel. And how they feel demonstrates to the entire world precisely what they were all along:  

Communists pretending to be conservative republicans.  

Because they sure as hell didn’t want this current MAGA fight. They sure didn’t want to do the things Trump has done with the corrupt media, with DOGE, with Iran, with Venezuela, with oil, with trade, with immigration, with the Democrat Party and liberal establishment. And they sure as hell didn’t want what Trump has done to them. 

RINO’s like Rove, they aren’t objective, middle of the road moderates sitting on the fence telling everybody how to fight fairly and more statesman-like. They are communists, the enemy—and I couldn’t care less if they like that characterization or not. Voters in general need stop viewing these people as loyal, constitution-loving Americans who have the country’s best interests at heart. They don’t. They have not only watched liberal communists break every law trying to destroy a democratically and duly elected president for the last 10 years.

They have helped. They are still helping.  

RINO’s understand the fight between Trump and the liberal establishment full-well, and maligning 78-million voters devoted to America’s and Trump’s cause, these RINO’s clearly choose communism. They were never on the republican team, folks. They were the Washington Generals all along—decided and perpetual losers who, to get their wages, were tasked with making it look good for the fans. These RINO’s didn’t want the waste, fraud, or abuse remedied. They didn’t want trade restructured and made more beneficial for US. They didn’t want the Iran fight and energy independence. The immigration and border fights. The Venezuela solution. None of it. As Trump did, they could have made those fights at any time over the last 30 years. They never made them.

If they had, Trump and 78 million voters wouldn’t be their enemies.

In the panoramic of all these politics, these RINO’s ultimately didn’t want the liberal establishment fight. And Trump making the fight with these establishment communists, and solving all these longstanding political issues, why is he the one fight these RINO’s did want? 

It’s because (a) these republican RINO’s are communists, who (b) liked the way things were before Trump—the communist liberals in charge and them benefitting, earning their loser wages and enjoying their subordinate political notoriety. Sure, being abused by authoritative liberals is humiliating at times, but then the good life does have its sacrifices. These RINO’s aren’t just establishment friendlies. They are beneficiaries and loyalists, as their 10-year, ongoing communist fight against Trump and 78 million voters should conclusively prove. And if you still think they aren’t loyalists, well, are they fighting alongside 78 million MAGA members? Or are they calling them bigots, racists, and Jew-hating misogynists with whom they will “have no part?”  

So again. The loyalty clear enough? 

Calling him “The Maverick,” establishment liberals lauded RINO John McCain whenever he opposed his fellow republicans. When he ran for president against a democrat, however, against an establishment agent, the establishment mocked him, and his VP Sarah Palin, too, and torpedoed his campaign to help Obama win. So, McCain couldn’t figure out he was a useful idiot to the establishment communists?  

Helping his team succeed, McCain would neither think nor feel that way at all.  

In fact, he saw his exploitation as a privilege, a worthy sacrifice for the good life.

RINO Paul Ryan was speaker of the house when House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chair, Devin Nunes, brought into Ryan’s office the evidence of spying and Russian collusion treason by Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. Third in line to the presidency, Ryan saw all the evidence, saw the communist treachery of the entire liberal establishment, firsthand. Knowing the truth, he watched the phony Mueller investigation playout for 3 years and then end with Mueller finding zero collusion between Trump and Putin. No collusion meant a treasonous plot, of course, and the first to be read-in, Ryan, he knew precisely who had orchestrated it. 

Yet in the ensuing 2020 presidential election, Ryan publicly opposed Trump, the treasonous conspirators’ victim, to give the presidency and control of the country to fellow communist, Joe Biden. Four years later, after the invasion of illegals and the treasonous lies of 51 former intelligence officials, and other distinctly communist sundries, Ryan vehemently opposed Trump again. He said the Republican Party couldn’t win with Trump—couldn’t win against a communist establishment who had tried desperately for eight years to utterly destroy Trump by every illegal means necessary, to include assassination, of course—all of which Ryan no less witnessed … with his own eyes.

And here’s something illuminating: seventy…eight…million republican voters disagreed with Ryan and all his fellow RINO republicans. Add to that this fact: citizen support for Trump has in fact been growing significantly election over election: 63 million in 2016, 74 million in 2020, and to 78 million in 2024, roughly. One would think that these republican RINO’s would figure this out,

would see the wind ribbon blowing favorably in their direction. Know why they can’t figure it out and can’t see?

Because they are communists, folks.

To dissuade voters, these communists openly called Trump every frightening name in the book and accused him of every despicable crime. It is foolishness to think anyone who continues Trump’s America First, anti-establishment, “fake news” agenda and mission won’t be treated the same way.

In other words, don’t for a second think Trump is the problem. Insert Marco Rubio into the presidency, or J.D. Vance, or any other anti-establishment, MAGA-minded loyalist. They will be the latest threat needing to be destroyed—first attacked by the communist RINO’s in the republican primary, then attacked by the full communist establishment in the general, the media in assistance, obviously, the entire way. Of course, don’t neglect all the communist disciples staffed in the judiciary, either, in the FBI and CIA, and in every state and federal agency who will answer the call to communist arms if all these preemptive measures fail. A duty-driven action we have all no less experienced already. Indeed, the communist offensive will continue, lawless and full throttle. 

Because, simply, MAGA mission success not only means communist defeat, but the death of the RINO ruse.

*Screenshot: “Wind Change” 2000 Tm Hanks/JoBlo Movie Clips

©JMW 9/2026 
All Rights Reserved 

Pink Shirts, Heart-hands, and The Ongoing Liberal Con

Dig deep enough and exhibit some patience, and you will eventually unearth the real reason behind the things liberals are doing. Like in this Lindsay Clancy ordeal, for example, and why women are flocking to the defense of a woman who strangled her three children to death with exercise bands. To me, the empathetic unity here didn’t make any sense. Murdering children and infants? I don’t care who commits that heinous act. The last humans one would think to see on the streets making heart-hands for the culprit would be women.  

Yet, sending love wishes in pink shirts, there they are …  

Even so, my well-oiled instincts kept telling me this odd unity had something to do with Liberalism, the religious death cult. Whenever death and destruction are involved, Liberalism is always loitering and associated. So it had to be involved here, too. But perhaps there was something else, something I was missing.  

I was fair-minded enough to consider that, as a man, I know little about postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis, either one. Having witnessed its effects on women myself peripherally, I knew postpartum depression was pretty powerful, emotional stuff. Maybe that was indeed what was uniting these women, the gender specific experience of deep, hormonal, and confusing emotional suffering. I held that possibility out. In fact, I leaned on that conclusion as the probable reason for the solidarity with Clancy. Genuinely trying to understand, I had some public and private conversations about it, mostly with women. In terms of an explanation, the overwhelming consensus was that women were, indeed, relating to the postpartum depression and empathizing with Clancy’s emotional difficulties. Men could learn something from that—from the direct experience of women with a female issue, that is.  

It is like men getting kicked in the groin. Women can’t know what that feels like, because they haven’t testicles. The only way they could know what it feels like is to have testicles and to get kicked in the groin. Then they would know. Likewise, men don’t understand what postpartum depression and psychosis feel like. As women watch men grimace and roll around on the ground after a shot to the beans, men can observe these effects of postpartum depression via women, too. They can’t know what the condition actually feels like, of course, because they aren’t women and can’t have babies, and can’t then physically experience the hormones, the feelings, and ultimately the whole postpartum phenomenon.  

Clancy was experiencing this condition powerfully, doctors say, and women are the only ones who can intimately and truly understand and explain it. I imagine it feels like most other depressions, which are a lot like the weather, as Michael Crichton once put it, describing his own bouts with depression. One day it is cloudy, the next is sunny. Or this week has been sunny, and perhaps a whole month has been cloudy. You would like to say the depression is the result of this thing or that thing, but you can’t really put your finger on a singular thing. And although the condition can be mild, it is sometimes virulent, overwhelming, and incapacitating. 

My question, as always, is where does God fit into all this? The creator of all things, what role is he playing? He said he was going to punish people for their disobedience, sin, evil, and whatnot. Could all this emotional suffering be his doing? And why was he doing it? 

Anyway, it all makes sense; I just wasn’t satisfied with that as an answer for the female solidarity, that women were empathetically relating to Clancy’s postpartum depression. Frankly, I don’t think people care that much about people they don’t know, enough to organize, don pink shirts, and make heart-hands outside of a courthouse. Thus, the empathy reason seemed flimsy, seemed too shallow, too plastic. Besides, the little voice in my head was saying, “Ah, ah, ah, John. You know liberals are phonies, that they don’t do things for legit reasons, or at least the reasons they say they are doing things. There is always an agenda with these people, a motive beneath the faux-compassionate, hard plastic proclamations, signs, and slogans …”  

Whenever you are messing with liberals, you have to pickaxe your way through the hard plastic crust, sometimes feet thick. And even when you get to the earth beneath, you sometimes find you are slinging shovel loads of dirt up and way over your head and out of the hole before you find what you are searching for: the real reason liberals are doing things, or aka, paydirt! This is precisely what occurred in this case. I finally unearthed the truth and figured out what these women were in it for. I thought they were a bunch of liberals, turns out that is true. I thought that part of this empathetic defense of Clancy was because, somehow, these women had associated Clancy’s murderous crimes with the abortion issue, Liberalism’s cause supreme.  

In other words, if they didn’t defend this woman murdering her children outside the womb, then there is little difference between that and murdering them inside the womb. I’m unsure how they were connecting it, actually, but it seemed logical, and definitely liberal. Liberal women are serious about the right to kill fetuses in the womb, and if you concede this, that Clancy is a murderer of children outside the womb. Then you are a murderer when you do it inside the womb, too. What is the difference, really? It is a connection these liberal women wanted to avoid, I thought, and the best way to prevent it from being made was to champion Clancy and condemn people’s criticism of her. The trick was to do it without seeming that you were sanctioning the heinous murder of innocent, sacred infants and toddlers.  

So, in service to that objective, and confirming my original theory, these women organized and said they identified with Clancy’s emotional struggles and wished her to know she was not alone—remarks otherwise known as the “hard plastic crust,” often feet thick. This is how liberals invariably do it, go heavy on the compassion angle, displaying to the world that they, the humanists, are the compassionates who really care about people, who are always there for other human beings. Because “love wins” with them, of course—everywhere except in this Clancy case, obviously, where strangulation and death won. Anyway, liberals like the public credit and plaudits for this compassionism: Look what fine people we liberals are! Always there for our fellow humans, they say, as they smile and wink coyly for the camera during somber court proceedings involving three murdered kids.  

This is liberals and Liberalism in a nutshell. Despite what they say, they don’t really care about anything or anybody. To serve their goals and ambitions, they just pretend they care. And because they care [smile, wink, demure shoulder punch] more, they are better than you, too. Made evident by all the colored cause ribbons they wear. 

So then, one is clearly obliged to presume that these liberal empaths were/are exploiting Clancy, too, which became evident via a recurring and verbalized theme among them: “Clancy was failed by the healthcare system.” So, despite repeatedly seeking help from the American healthcare system, the system not only failed Clancy. It, not Clancy, is responsible for the murder of her three children.  

And, paydirt!  

Like I said, dig deep enough and exhibit some patience, and you will eventually unearth the real reason behind the things liberals are doing.   

This is all about victimhood, the very foundation of the entire Liberalism model. In this case, liberals said: Let’s turn Clancy into a victim so people can’t criticize her or what she has done. So people won’t connect abortion and murder inside and outside the womb and have a legit means to criticize abortion, our cause supreme. Because abortion, after all, is the result of women being victimized by men—rape, incest, a patriarchal society. And yes, the whole society. So the victimhood strategy works, is in fact the go-to tool in the liberal toolbox. Here, in the Clancy case, women are victimized by the healthcare system, which is surely meant to imply men, too.  

In any case, the question is: what were these doctors supposed to do?  

Doctors aren’t God or exorcist priests. They simply “practice” medicine. A woman, like so many others, comes in having emotional difficulty with postpartum depression. Doctors treat her, as best as they know how and can, listening to her, giving her generally and widely prescribed medicines and treatments, meds and treatments that work for scores of other women, incidentally. Doctors are trying to determine what is wrong, are trying to help. Researching and developing, the healthcare system is trying to help, too—but these people aren’t miracle workers. They don’t have miraculous drugs to fix these emotional problems. They don’t have exorcist priests on staff to exorcise the depression demons from people, either. The healthcare system and its doctors are simply doing the best they can, which is pretty damn good, actually, given the impressive success rate, and the fact 99.999% of postpartum depressed women don’t strangle their f-ing children to death with exercise bands, too.  

Am I the only one noticing that the healthcare system is actually remarkable and laudable?  

Yet, in typical and true liberal fashion, here are these liberal women organizing themselves around victimhood status so they can point their finger and condemn doctors and the American healthcare system. Miserable and incurable malcontents, this is what liberals do. Hating everything, to include themselves, all they like to do is destroy things; it is their life-affirming ambition. If it isn’t masculinity and a patriarchal society and whiteness. Then is the nuclear family. If it isn’t the family, then it is the healthcare system and doctors. And once all that is destroyed, it will be something else. And once they have destroyed the something else, it will be the next thing. Liberalism is just a massive path of carnage and debris. Destroying the healthcare system, liberals will make healthcare so expensive that nobody can afford it. In fact, because of them everybody is suffering that costliness now and angry at the healthcare system.  

Enter: Lindsay Clancy, the new Liberalism poster mother for finishing the system off. 

So that is the synopsis of this Clancy ordeal, the paydirt. Perpetual victims, these liberal women are taking the opportunity to, depraved as it is, align themselves with a child-murdering mother so they can malign and hopefully destroy the American healthcare system, Liberalism’s long-pursued target-o-destruction.  

There are two reasons people do things: a good reason, and the real reason. The good reason provides an explanation for others. Pay attention and people will tell you the real reason, as these liberal women conveyed directly. Victimized all the time, they are mad at something, at someone, and they cannot help but tell the world at what and at whom they are angry. They aim for people to know, dammit, and in this case it is the American healthcare system! Despite having the best healthcare in the world, which these women have all experienced, no less, and from which they and their families and friends have all benefited time and time again. They think healthcare would be better if their liberal political leaders were running it, instead of all these incompetent amateurs with all the medical and healthcare training, expertise, and experience. 

Communist, single-payer, government-run healthcare—that is the drive behind all this, make no mistake.  

It is no secret that liberals have been trying to establish communist healthcare—Hillary Clinton in the 90’s, Barrack Obama and Obamacare in 2010—and these Clancy empaths, who are either co-conspirators or useful idiots, are the latest effort in that Liberalism cause. So then, do this math: in a healthcare system successfully treating millions of women, women with postpartum depression and psychosis, specifically, not to mention every other female health condition. One woman murderously strangling her children is enough to condemn and destroy the entire healthcare industry? Is enough to turn healthcare over to the, uh, political medical pros?  

Sure. Great idea. Totally reasonable, too. Gee, perhaps this postpartum psychosis, and maybe just regular psychosis, is more widespread among women than we think. 

It really is this unsophisticated. Liberals are only happy when they are railing and tearing things down. They do it to themselves, and they want to do it to everything around them, too. They couldn’t care less about healthcare, or Lindsay Clancy, or anything else they are screeching about: racism, white privilege, toxic masculinity, women’s rights, gay rights, trans rights, abortion, none of it. They are just using the issues and opportunity to purge all their misery and unhappiness, which they keep bottled up all the time because civilized society demands it. There is always something or someone to be angry at and to accuse, because liberals need the release. Meanwhile, they are destroying things that they and everyone else not only desperately need, but that are well proven and work laudably. Facts about which liberals couldn’t care less. In fact, when everything is left in ruins, they will be standing in the ruins screeching about the ruins. Nothing can be fixed, because liberals don’t want anything fixed. Fixing and construction aren’t their life-affirming mission. 

So, when you hear people demand, “We want systemic change,” as these heart-handing liberal empaths proclaimed. Well, you should know that the liberal con is on—I say, as I lean on my shovel deep in the earth, the paydirt under my boots.   

©JMW 8/2026 
All Rights Reserved 

The Biggest Benefit of Republican Pushback

Rush Limbaugh flogged liberals five days a week for nearly forty years and republican voters relished it. What these voters really wanted, however, was a republican leader like Limbaugh. Somebody willing to fight back, somebody to stick it to smug democrats and their corrupt established order. 

George W. Bush, for example, he thought that sort of aggressive behavior beneath the office of the president. He wasn’t going to fight back, or fight at all, even though he was being publicly lied about and savaged every day by democrats and their media, for eight long years.  

2008 presidential candidate, John McCain, he chastised a fellow republican at one of his campaign events for merely mentioning his opponent’s middle name, Barrack Hussein Obama. “I condemn it,” McCain said. “I absolutely repudiate such comments. It will never happen again.” Democrats and their media called McCain “The Maverick” because, ever the naive statesman, he routinely betrayed his own party and helped democrats. Then, the second he ran for president, they savaged him, too.  

So, here democrats and their media are bludgeoning candidate McCain every day, as they did George W. Bush, a should-have-been enlightening precedent McCain no less witnessed and experienced. Here they are nakedly telegraphing to McCain that all their “Maverick” worship is just a ploy to get him to keep helping democrats and betraying republicans.  

And there is McCain, still trying to curry favor with his abusers: “I condemn it!” 

Then there was Mitt Romney. Owned by Candy Crowley in a presidential debate, Romney was definitely no fighter. The good looks are a dead giveaway. One can’t be a fighter and maintain such a pretty face. 

So, recognizing the “our liberal friends on the other side of the aisle” Reagan-era was over, republican voters longed for a warrior—and not just someone willing to punch democrats back defensively, either. But someone to put democrats on the ropes, to make them shield their ribs and solar plexus. Their candidates were getting abused, which meant republican voters were being abused, and they were tired of it. Tired of their naive, milquetoast candidates not fighting for them and advancing their issues, for which they elected the leaders, no less. Republican voters wanted a gladiator, and in 2016, they finally got one.  

Day One, Donald Trump glided down the escalator to announce his candidacy and immediately began scalding the democrats’ asses. No Mr. Nice Guy. No “I’d be honored to have your vote” pleasantries. He just started laying the wood to democrats. Day after day it continued, too, relentless. It was intoxicating for republican voters, who were relishing every incident, specifically the 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting a few months before the November election.  

The massacre involved a radical Muslim terrorist, Omar Mateen. Swearing allegiance to the ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a 911 call during the actual shooting, Mateen killed 49 people and wounded 58 in the nightclub. Pulse was a gay bar, filled with a top-tier demographic that democrats profess to revere and defend. And yet, 107 presumed gay Americans either dead, dying, or wounded, and the democrats were defending, if you can believe it, Muslims. Trump was incensed. Delighting republican voters, he publicly gave it to President Obama and the democrat nominee for president, Hillary Clinton:  

“We’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind, you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words radical Islamic Terrorism. There’s something going on; it’s inconceivable.” 

Trump was nakedly implying that President Obama was a Muslim traitor protecting Muslims, which many already suspected and believed, and which Hillary Clinton had essentially proposed herself in her 2008 democrat primary fight with Obama. Along with her and the rest of the democrats, Obama refused to use the term “radical Muslim terrorists”—in fact, democrats demanded that people not use the term for offending Muslim Americans—which only enhanced the suspicion and belief. Trump making the accusation and demanding answers was just what republican voters wanted from their candidate, and the action made both Obama and Clinton nervous. The pair immediately headed to the microphones, but not to clarify their support for their beloved gays or the American people, but to ask how calling killers by another name: “radical Muslim terrorists” was going to change anything.  

Republican voters luxuriated in Trump’s attack, and the fact it forced Obama and Hillary to defend themselves. But while such attacks and results feel good to republican voters and serve a long-ignored craving, the benefit here or in any attack isn’t democrats being exposed, which isn’t valueless, incidentally. It is good that voters see how immoral and odious democrat politicians are, and how duplicitous. As delicious as the exposure is, though, the greater benefit is that the attacks flush out the media. Attacks on democrats force the media to reveal its political loyalties, biases, and ultimate corruption. We know democrat politicians are corrupt and evil frauds—  

“If you like your healthcare, you can keep it.” 
“Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.”  
“51 former intelligence officials say the laptop is a Russian plant.” 
“Joe Biden is the best cognitive version of himself ever” 

—but so is the media. They sell, defend, and conceal all the democrat lies, schemes, and fraud. The modern media isn’t merely complicit. It is a democrat co-conspirator, a fact Limbaugh daily proclaimed and one now clear and undeniable. In fact, it appears the media doesn’t really care if the public knows it is a co-conspirator. So while attacking and exposing democrats feels good, don’t neglect the massive benefit of the media’s exposure. 

As for the political side of the conspiracy, democrats are easy targets because they aren’t used to being attacked and having to defend themselves. Forced to do it, they don’t handle it very well at all. Mainly because republicans never force them to practice. The point is democrat pols are Liberalism’s first line of political defense. And frankly, the first line of defense sucks—when it is attacked by republicans, that is. Hence, the media—who normally get to hide behind a veneer of fairness and objectivity. Able to hide because, well, naive, milquetoast republicans, and some might say complicit republicans, they allow it.  

When a republican starts laying the wood to democrats, however, the media, in aid, must assume a more visibly active role, which is precisely what one observes when they sit down and watch the news. It isn’t “the news” anymore. It is the democrats’ accomplices making the case for democrats and Liberalism. It is the accomplices making sure democrats look good and supreme in every issue and get themselves elected. It is the accomplices illustrating to the world its loyalty to the Democrat Party, its bias, and its communist corruption.  

People often wonder who leads the establishment, democrat pols or the media.  

It doesn’t matter. On the same team and having the same objective, they are all enemies of the state.    

Democrat politicians clearly lie. But it is more than lying currently, as a treasonous Russian collusion plot, rigged elections, and communist healthcare prove—a healthcare plan you can keep if you like, and you will like it, trust them. They aren’t lying just to win elections and be Masters of the Universe anymore. They are trying to destroy the United States as founded. It isn’t accurate to merely say they don’t like America. They hate it—it’s racist, and ill-founded, and white supremacist. Directly and indirectly, they say so, and their utterly lawless, anti-American treachery confirms they mean it.  

Well, as bad as this is for a nation, political leaders despising their own country and trying to transform and enslave it. Worse is the nation’s media corporations helping them to do it. While democrats commit treasonous plots and rig elections, the media is right there helping them execute the plot, to cover up the plot, to avoid exposure and punishment for the plot, and helping them to rig the elections, to conceal the election fraud, and to avoid exposure and punishment for the election fraud.  

Did I miss anything …? 

I don’t know what kind of terms one puts that idea into, or what kind of words one uses so that people experience the intuitive flash: “Oh my God. The national media is helping a political party rig elections and destroy my country!” But this is what the media is doing, clear as day. In fact, the conspiratorial collusion has never been clearer. And why has it been made so abundantly clear and incontrovertible? 

For fearless republican attacks on democrats. 

Attacks that must continue. 

Contrasting a vile and aggressive Trump to republican candidates of the past in a 2016 campaign speech, Hillary Clinton said that, accepting the 1996 republican nomination for president, Bob Dole pointed to the exits in the convention hall and told any [republican] racists in the hall to get out. She said that 2008 republican nominee, John McCain, told his own supporters they were wrong about Obama, that Obama was a decent person and an American citizen—which is funny because Clinton was the one who’d started the whole “birther” business about Obama.  

Nevertheless, completing the contrast, Clinton then shrieked, “We need that kind of leadership again!”  

First, Dole and McCain lost, which was exactly the result Clinton wanted repeated in the 2016 election. Second, nobody despises republicans more than democrats, and no single democrat more than Clinton. Thus, Clinton could not care less about the morality or goodness or effectiveness of republican leadership. She never wants to hear the term leadership applied to republicans again, in fact. Hence, she has absolutely zero desire to help republicans improve their standing with voters or to help them win more elections, either one.  

In other words, Clinton’s speech was BS—pure, well-fermented fertilizer. And right there helping to deliver the load of road apples to the public? Right there doing puffy profile pieces on Bob Dole and McCain, and asking what Trump was doing in a Moscow hotel room with prostitutes? 

The media. 

Whatever democrats are saying, they are saying to help themselves politically. Whatever the media is saying, they are saying to help democrats politically. The problem with modern liberals and their establishment is that the objective is more than mere political strength and electoral triumph. 

They want America’s righteous soul; and they are united in owning it. 

©JMW 8/2026 
All Rights Reserved 

The Origin of Happiness

No topic can be effectively discussed without first settling the subject of human origin. Yes, the issue is that impactful and important. Human beings arrived on earth somehow, for which there are but two options: God and creation or evolutionary happenstance. Humans clearly exist; that much is certain. Therefore, they must have origins, which means this issue must be preliminarily addressed and resolved, because the conclusion defines the human experience and establishes its rules.  

So to have a truly insightful discussion about human happiness, we must first stipulate from whence humans came. Because only then can we apply meaningful data to the topic and effectively explore it. There is no way around it; origin is the issue of the human experience. Sans a premise for human life, we can’t really determine anything concrete. We can fight about where human beings came from, but we can’t assign any truth to human issues until the subject of origin is resolved. Everything involving the human species hinges on that singular dichotomy and conclusion. Either God is legit and in command, or humans and their wisdom is king, and the best humankind can do. And the unavoidable fact is that one option is true, and the other is a fraud.  

Because origin can’t be shared. 

On the one hand, if we say humans are creatures of evolutionary happenstance, then we can then explore the subject of happiness as humans do conventionally and traditionally, or perhaps clinically. Rather, we can explore the world’s opinions and prescriptions for human happiness, as opposed to God’s opinions and prescriptions. Legendary author, Michael Crichton, wrote a splendid, if brief, essay on the subject, for example, in which his insights were actually correct, at least as correct as a “worldly,” human perspective can be. If, as Crichton put it, people just get out of their own heads. If they “resolutely turn the spotlight off themselves, forget their own self-importance, their aches and pains, their feelings and fears, [and] instead get busy” participating in a world that needs them. People would be happy.  

I am a huge Crichton fan, for many reasons. Primary among them is that Crichton, despite being an admitted Atheist and subsequent evolutionist, was still able to observe the world in an honest, realistic way, which he nonetheless unflinchingly conveyed through practical prose. There may not be a God, as far as Crichton was concerned, but that didn’t mean people had to create a fake, alternative reality for themselves in which to live, and wherein to behave like fools. It didn’t mean people had to lie to themselves about what is happening before their very eyes, about data/evidence that is clear and incontrovertible. Reality and truth were Crichton’s only path forward, because everything else was simply a delusion. And believers in God or not, intelligent people didn’t have to delude themselves.  

When interpretation of any phenomena was required, Crichton simply saw what he saw, reviewed the data, and addressed issues realistically and honestly, which is the approach every human being should take regardless of human origin. If the outcome doesn’t offer the result you want or support your desires. If it isn’t what you want to believe. So what. Take the reality path, anyway, the righteous path to moral and supremely beneficial truth.  

This, admirably, was Crichton’s approach to the world’s many mysteries and problems, which he even employed to his own determent on occasion. He wrote a book, Disclosure, for example, about the sexual harassment of men by powerful women. The liberal media and women’s groups hated the novel and raged at Crichton over it—despite it being verifiably true, that powerful women were abusing subordinate men in the workplace. It was the same with State of Fear, a well-sourced and footnoted novel exposing the fraud of climate change, over which the liberal media and climate alarmists raged, too. 

The point is that, if people are willing to be honest with themselves and about the issues, there is a human pathway to happiness, and to effectively managing many of life’s challenges, that at least makes sense. Crichton’s prescription is good medicine, at least from a “worldly” perspective. Within a debate about human origin, however, the question is what does God say about human happiness? Rather, what are the rules on happiness in a creational model, in a world commanded by God? Because the authority aspect matters.  

Via the Bible, God said, “Vengeance is mine.” That he and he alone will issue consequences for human disobedience, sin, and evil. Ultimately, he left absolutely no doubt that he oversees the human experience and comprehensively controls the entirety of the human condition. Included in this condition is happiness, of course, and both the demonstration and verification of the control in this precise area is clearly revealed in an Old Testament incident.  

Basically, in leading God’s people, the Jews, King Saul had disobeyed and angered God. The interesting thing is, God not only abandoned Saul for his defiance. He took Saul’s happiness with him and replaced it with torment. Per his signature book, the prophet Samuel: 

“But the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.” 

So, Saul was happy. Then, suddenly, he was not only unhappy but tormented—by a subordinate evil spirit sent by God, no less. Intriguing as that revelation is, here is the important part: the emotional transition was commanded and controlled by God. As an interesting aside, one wonders how modern medicine would have interpreted Saul’s condition? Wonders what kind of conclusions would have been drawn and diagnosis made? What kind of therapy and medicine would have been prescribed? But then, would any of these diagnoses and remedies even be treating the actual ailment?  

No. Because God controls human emotion, and ultimately happiness. 

So this condition cannot be overcome, obviously, cannot be cured. Unless God commands, people can’t get better, can’t restore happiness. So then, given the debate over human origin, where are we with all these “worldly,” evolution-styled remedies and prescriptions? It makes one think about all the troubled, unhappy people in the world and who is controlling their suffering, and moreover the reasons for it. We have all these psychiatrists and mental institutions, all these diagnoses and therapies, and all this so-called “worldly” medical wisdom regarding human happiness and other assorted emotional sufferings.  

But if God is controlling the human mood levers, how wise is all of it, really?  
How authoritative are science, physicians, and modern medicine?  

It is invariably said that humankind has come a long way. That science knows so much more about the human body and mind than it did previously, and about how to diagnose and treat human illness, such as depression and unhappiness, and so on. They have all these powerful tools with which to do it, too. Well, apparently, at least according to the creational theory of human origin, the whole science and medical complex might consider their limitations.  

The issue of human origin demands an authority of humankind and the human experience, and science and modern medicine seem to have coronated themselves. But then, there is God. People should consider God’s authority in the matter not necessarily because Reverend Smith tells them to on Sunday morning, but because there only two sources for human origin, and God is one of them. In these deliberations, people might also consider that, sitting in a classroom people get to discuss evolution, which is deemed “education”—the ape to man charts, the universe-beginning cosmic explosions, and what not. Introduce God in the same classroom, however, and that perspective is deemed “religion” and frowned upon, despite God and creation being at least an equally viable source for human origin. 

Contrasting the two theories, the cause-and-effect paradigm is readily apparent. Here is God, for example, issuing plagues and regulating human emotion. Then there are science and modern medicine, researching and diagnosing these plagues and emotional imbalances, and developing treatments. And yet science and modern medicine are the human health and healthcare authorities?  

The conclusion isn’t very logical, obviously.  

One person who is supremely logical, however, is the Bible’s King Solomon, whose wisdom is no less legendary. In baseline terms, he made this observation about human happiness:  

“For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God.”  

“Joy” being obvious happiness, of course, and “travail” being sorrow, distress, torment, and basic unhappiness.    

So clearly, within the creational model at least, human happiness comes down to acknowledging, serving, and pleasing the creator of all things, God. Otherwise, one is destined for unhappiness, like so many troubled and unhappy people in the world, for whom we say we must do something, which we do via physicians and hospitals, and all the research and therapies. These are the human answers to unhappiness and misery. Theoretically, however, there is another answer: creational theory and God. In his signature book, the Bible, the guidebook of the human experience, he shot this at humankind:  

“There is no savior but me.” 

Obviously, he creates the circumstances for this rescue, too.  

Love the theory, hate it. It makes no difference. Regarding the human experience and condition, all that matters is human origin, and the individual human choice between the two sources that compete to define it. Daily immersed in human doctrine and treatments, people are well familiar with the “worldly” solutions. More foreign to them is God’s doctrine and remedies. The question is, when do we consider those as strongly?  

Theoretically speaking, it would seem that happiness demands it. 

“Human history is the long, terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy,” said Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis. Well, thank God we have all the worldly medical wisdom to manage the disappointment. 

©JMW 7/2026 
All Rights Reserved. 

All Thanks To The Societal Suckers

We know liberals can’t tell the truth, not that they can’t because they are inveterate liars, even though that is true, but can’t for the strategic exposure, the vulnerability of their communist intentions and plans. So again, we know liberals can’t tell the truth, because they would never get elected.  

Here they are for years, for example, preaching routinely about the lawlessness of illegal immigration, telling voters that immigration needs to be more tightly controlled and that a wall needs to be built. A project they no less passed legislatively and funded. Then they get elected in 2020, open the nation’s borders wide, and allow literal caravans of illegals to enter the United States unvetted. Putting the “illegal” in the phrase “illegal aliens,” they even sent planes to other countries to pick illegals up and bring them to their new, forever home. 

Transforming the racial make-up of the American electorate is what liberal leaders really wanted to do, and want still. But if they stood on the stump and declared that desire: “Yeah, we want to bring all the immigrants from around the world to America and change the nation’s racial dynamics, so we can win elections in perpetuity with a poor, dependent, foreign-born voting class. More and more Americans, specifically white people, are seeing us for the corrupt communists we are and are abandoning us, and we need to overcome that rejection. So, that’s what we want to do, America. This is our communist platform. Vote for us!”  

If liberals actually voiced this. If they said that they were accepting of the collateral damage murder of American citizens by illegals; that they wanted the cartel takeovers of American apartment complexes and the illegal alien crime, the drugs, the human trafficking, the child trafficking; and wanted the taxpayer expense and the multi-layered suffering of the American people. If they actually professed all this publicly and proclaimed their goal with these ideas was to make winning elections and maintaining power easier for themselves. Then nobody would vote for them.   

The “political wilderness” wouldn’t begin to describe the range of their banishment and ostracization. 

Nobody ever votes for communism. Ever. Hence, liberals must lie and deceive people to get elected and to institute it. Then, once in office and wielding power, they do what they really wanted to do all along. Like, throwing open America’s borders and importing illegal voters en masse. Liberals can’t be honest about this, obviously, else they would never access the power to execute the plan. So, they sound like border and immigration hawks on the stump, demanding a border wall and stronger immigration policies, and then open the borders wide and tell the public the borders are secure.  

The whole thing is a communist farce, obviously. 

So then, in a 343-million-person society, as is America roughly, success comes down to selling that lie, that fraud, and deceiving that society’s weakest members, intellectually speaking. We know leadership liberals are lying. For they must lie; they don’t have a choice. Then there is what they say and actually do, which are manifestly polar opposites. So only society’s weakest members, its suckers, would fall for such an obvious con. And who are these suckers? 

Enter: liberal voters. 

I Imagine liberal voters are the same all over the world, but America’s liberal voters are particularly gullible and dupish. They fall for everything. No, not: they fall for everything, haha. They actually do fall for everything, headlong. Every word, every con, every time. For example, a president can’t remember what he is saying one second to the next and wanders aimlessly into the White House landscaping, and told he is the best cognitive version of himself ever, America’s liberal voters believe it. Frankly, it is stunning how willingly they accept and believe what they are told—and despite their own eyes and ears telling them otherwise, no less. Like robots, they actually repeat the line to you, which even sounds robotic coming out of their mouths: “Biden is the best cognitive version of himself ever.” All that is missing is little electronic beeping noises when their remarks are complete—beep, bloop, bleep.  

Liberal voters are incapable of original thought, thoughts and words and opinions uniquely and individually their own. Given the way they get conned time and time again, the naivety is breathtaking. It appears immortal naivety at this point, considering how they still group up and chant and cheer their exploiters and abusers.  

Observing it all at a democrat campaign rally, you stand there helpless: Dear Lord. Somebody do something.  

How do you not recognize the border hawkishness, then the contrary, wide open border and migrant hordes? How are you unaware of the millions of illegal aliens being deported and the rampant illegal alien crime? Gee, where did all those illegals come from, anyway? Gee, what is all this anti-ICE sentiment about? How do you not recognize your leaders fighting harder for illegal criminals, yes, illegal criminals, than they are for you, the citizen who elects and pays them? In all this, where is the human savvy, the application of basic human logic? 

The reader is no doubt beginning to understand the phrase “weakest members.” 

Well, an elderly man has clearly and incontrovertibly lost his marbles, and the people we are talking about, liberal voters, they not only think it is acceptable that he carries the nuclear football, but that he makes critical policy and national security decisions for the country. They would go to their graves making sure that he did, too. If this isn’t next, absurd-level gullibility, then it is just blind, deeply religious cultism, neither of which can be repaired or reversed by human effort.  

Plainly spoken, realizing that you must lie to people, the next step is going out and finding human suckers who will believe you and fall for your BS. In the final tally, a statistic derived from recent election results, liberals suckered 74 million voters.  

That’s right: 74 million, folks.  

In large numbers, liberal voters are incredibly easy marks. The same can’t be said for republican voters, though. Because they long ago sniffed out their party’s liberal RINO fraudsters—the Bushes, Romneys, Ryans and Flakes—and got rid of them all, mostly. Republican voters said no more: “You RINOs have been campaigning like conservatives and then governing like liberals. You say you support our ideas, then you become liberals in office. You’re establishment frauds, and you’re finished.”  

Famous republican RINO John McCain, for example, campaigned almost exclusively on ending ObamaCare. Then, given the chance to destroy it, he chose to keep it alive, instead, merely because republican voters had nominated and elected President Trump. Not to mention, McCain and all the other republican RINOs spent the entire campaign season trying to prevent Trump’s candidacy, their party’s eventual nominee. The liberal allegiance and assistance didn’t go unnoticed by republican voters, who, with Trump’s help, summarily sent all the RINOs packing.  

The point is republican voters aren’t suckers. Liberal voters, on the other hand, they have been witnessing their leaders’ endless failures with Trump alone for 10 years. Every single thing their leaders have said has been a con, and yet a word salading fraud like Kamala Harris still garners 74 million votes. Even if we say half of those votes are fraudulent, are duplicate votes, or whatever, that is still roughly 37 million people, or rather, 37 million suckers, voting for this cackling trainwreck.  

They say a society is only as strong as its weakest members. Well, when you have this many societal suckers, I don’t think anyone can say that society is in good health.  

I imagine this is what happened to every historical society that failed and fell into communist despair. Simply, the citizenry stopped caring and started becoming gullible. The numbers grew until, one day, there were more suckers than there were savvy citizens. The suckers were like, “Yeah, it’s fine; don’t worry about it. Politics. What are you gonna do …” Then when savvy citizens complained about nefarious government behavior, the whole thing became tribal. The suckers weren’t defending their leaders, per se. They were defending themselves: their intellect and choices. So, you weren’t attacking their liberal leaders.  

You were attacking them, personally.  

Meanwhile, their leaders were, say, stumping about tighter immigration control and border security, but then flinging the nation’s border wide-open to millions of dependent, murderous, and insane illegals—not to mention the world’s spies and terrorists. But the suckers didn’t care, because their intellect and credibility were on the line; their tribe was under assault. They didn’t care about the issues, that their own damn country was being overrun and stolen. They cared about protecting their tribe and their little section of tribal turf—which the leaders of their tribe think is theirs, incidentally, and aim to solely possess, eventually.  

Of course, then the nation fell, and all tribes suffered.  

And make no mistake, it was all thanks to the societal suckers every-single-time.   

©JMW 7/26 
All Rights Reserved 

Credibility Matters, Except When It Isn’t Allowed

Speaking of his daily job of debate with liberal pundits on television, CNN’s Scott Jennings, invariably a lone conservative in a pack of constantly feinting liberal hyenas, said that, after a previous segment is over and a particular issue has been discussed, you simply must forget the feelings and drama of the past debate and move on to the next issue.  

It is basic emotional discipline, having the maturity to control your feelings and forge ahead.  

Always under collective mob attack everywhere they appear in the media, conservative pundits have had to develop this discipline and have matured in the control. Liberal pundits, on the other hand, not so much. Setting the premise for debate and controlling the dialogue every day and in nearly every media venue, liberals have never had to bother with such, to them, trivialities. Liberals running the game, it is house rules. Liberals get upset when their opponents don’t play by the rules, and minus the discipline and maturation, they tend to stay that way, too. This always occurs when, during debate, Jennings and conservative pundits like him publicly hand liberals their intellectual asses on television. Liberals don’t know how to deal with it and lose their, um, guano. Liberals can never win a debate because they subsist on lies and deceit, which is no less illustrated by these conservative pundits on all these news and opinion programs every day and night. It is easy to “destroy” liberals. All one needs to do is lay out the facts and tell the truth. 

Imagine it: simple truth being an indomitable debate strategy.   

Of course, to succeed in debate, liberals cannot allow this truth visibility or to stand, either one. Hence, they must talk about everything but the facts and truth, which they do by introducing another topic and redirecting the conversation to something else, something favorable. It’s the simple aphorism: “If you don’t like what is being said,” or in this case, if you don’t like the truth, “then change the conversation.” This is precisely what liberals do in every debate because the truth ends all debate and, worse, defeats them.  

Again, imagine it: truth to liberals is kryptonite, garlic, the cross of Christ.  

For instance, when you say you support a Nazi sympathizing, female abusing senate candidate. Then, when that candidate ends his campaign for being a Nazi sympathizer and for rape accusations, and you are suddenly and contrarily critical of that candidate for being a Nazi sympathizing female abuser.  

Well, the truth in this matter is you are a hypocrite—you sanction; then you disapprove.  

That hypocrisy then called out by a conservative pundit during televised debate, the charge is not only apparent, but lethal. So, rather than allow that truth its lethality, liberals simply change the subject. The trick is, liberals aren’t the ones defending themselves. Their opponents are.  

You are. 

To arrange this scenario, liberals will quite literally say anything. They will falsely accuse, make the most ridiculous assertions, and even lie, unashamedly and unremorsefully. Anything to (a) conceal the lethal truth, to change the subject (b), and (c) to have you on defense instead of them. This is much more preferable than them stammering and stuttering in search of a cogent thought, and it plays a lot better on tv, too. 

But then you are asking: what about the truth in all this?  

Precisely.  

If we accept that, the truth, then the conversation and debate are over, and liberals are the hypocritical frauds they are and have conclusively been shown to be. Of course, that shall not be. Because liberals are better than you. Proven, of course, by how they outwit conservatives with this redirection tactic and their lies. And yes, liberals are proud of that. You can keep trying to redirect the conversation back to the truth, but for its lethality, liberals simply won’t allow it—can’t allow it!  

You are on defense, not them. 

Of course, liberals can’t be humiliated, either, which is another data point and obstacle. Take the Graham Platner situation, for example: “Hey you guys loved Platner. Now, suddenly, he is a despicable reprobate.” Utterly shameless—incapable of the emotion, in fact—liberals don’t care about hypocritical appearances. When this very remark was directed at them, liberals didn’t feel humiliation at all, which can be positively deduced by their visible seething. Liberals are not only impervious to feelings of humiliation, but contrition, too. Liberals don’t sit there feeling awful about the damage they cause to others or the human suffering they have inspired. Feelings of remorse are nowhere on their emotional radar. For proof, just observe the expressions of Senate Judiciary Committee liberals while Sen. Lindsey Graham was scalding their asses over what they were doing to supreme court justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. All were smug and indifferent. The disgusting event occurred nearly 8 years ago, too, and each of these very liberals is still behaving the same way. No guilt. No shame. No remorse. No behavioral change. 

Clearly, liberals are impudent, evil human beings determined to remain that way.  

One emotion liberals aren’t impervious to, however, is anger—a ready feeling of the weak and immature. Hypocrisy or otherwise, liberals don’t care about the charge. They care that someone makes it and forces them into defense. They don’t care about the exposure, necessarily. They care about the discreditation. Defeated enough in the arena of ideas and debate, credibility, the coin of the political realm, suffers. Credibility diminished for too many poor and failed political opinions and positions, and nobody listens to what you say anymore. You are an ineffective intellectual pariah—and to self-important liberals, nothing could be worse. 

This is precisely why liberals do what they do: redirect and bury the truth. So then, actually, Jennings nor any other conservative pundit are the liberal’s enemy. Truth is their enemy, along with the facts that define it. And after lying about Donald Trump for 10 years and counting, from Russian collusion to faking assassination, for example, this is how liberals keep on going. Who survives so many humiliating debate defeats, day after day? Your opinions and positions proven to be pure, intellectual bunk for 10 years? Readers would not survive such a record at their jobs, for 10 minutes, much less 10 years.  

Well, liberals survive. The whole liberal complex has kept going because everybody sits around on all these news shows of the liberal media discussing what liberals want to discuss. Purely because liberals don’t want to talk about all their humiliating analytical and debate failures: the intellectual shortcomings, all the accusations that fell flat; the thousands of positions they took that the evidence ultimately didn’t support; about how their credibility is shot to hell and nonexistent. 

Liberals don’t want to talk about any of that because it is a direct condemnation. Because it allows someone like, say, Jennings to retort to every liberal pundit at the CNN roundtable:  

“Excuse me but, who the f— are you, liberal, and why are you still talking?”  

A legit remark because every position these liberals have taken, every accusation and argument they have made, has failed—in Trump’s case, for 10 years running. In the arena of ideas and debate, liberals aren’t merely failures. They are failures with zero credibility. Whatever they say should be perceived as intellectual foolishness and argumentative rubbish. Of course, saying “Who the f— are you …” to these people isn’t going to inspire contrition in their hearts, no more than it will motivate them to recognize or acknowledge the injurious things that they have been doing to people or the suffering they have caused. No, liberals are going to be filled with rage, instead. Seething rage. They knew the truth of the issues, and that their positions and arguments were not just wrong but patently false and fraudulent. They just didn’t like the truth. So they redirected the debate to something else. Wherein they then lied, knowingly. Wherein they falsely accused. Wherein they called people racist and bigoted, Nazi’s—and all at the expense and suffering of other human beings. And let me tell you how liberals felt about it … 

It didn’t bother them one bit. 
They did it all gleefully, in fact. 

Rejecting the truth and changing the conversation is how liberals and their media have survived the last 10 years. What happens to conservative pundits like Jennings in these circumstances is he ends up debating the next liberal fraud, never discussing the failures and utter lack of credibility of the liberals he is opposing. In other words, Jennings and everybody else ends up talking about the next candidate, the next election, the next manufactured Trump scam because we don’t ever go back and review the dismal liberal debate record and their dearth of credibility on the issues.  

Liberals don’t go back and review their record, and they make sure you don’t go back and review it, either.  

The only reason liberals haven’t disappeared from the public square altogether is because, via corporate media, they own the public microphone. They are the media. They say who speaks; they control what is said. We talk about these anchors and journalists, those who present the news and inform the public. However, they aren’t the problem. If corporate wanted honesty and credibility restored in their respective media enterprises, the intellectual failures would be punished, and truthfulness would be revived and reinstituted. If corporate determined it, the daily liberal con would end tomorrow. The reason it persists is because corporate, just a bunch of liberals, too, wants it to continue.  

I have a terrific doctor, Dr. Brian. I don’t ever have to get a second opinion from another physician. When Dr. Brian tells me something, we move forward. The reason for the confidence is that, for 30 years, he has been right about everything, and not just concerning my health, but the health of many of my family members. Every prescription, every piece of medical advice, we get better, feel better, and thrive. It is to say, Dr. Brian has tremendous credibility—trustworthy, abiding, and enduring credibility. I trust what he says because, well, he’s always right and earns it.  

The point is that it is just the opposite with liberals and their media. The only reason people still think they have credibility is because they get to sit on television every night pretending that they have it.  

So, before you believe a story, it needs to matter who is telling the story. 

©JMW 7/26 
All Rights Reserved 

The Human Worshipers

If there is no God, then who do human beings turn to for help and rely on in times of trouble? Well, if there is no God, then that leaves but one choice: humans.  

Liberals hate God. It doesn’t make sense to despise someone you don’t believe to exist, but liberals do, vehemently. And incidentally, why is that? It’s nonsensical, really, hating a figment of imagination. It’s just a figment, a ridiculous deistic creation. Just say you don’t believe in such nonsense and move on. Instead, liberals show open disdain for the Bible. They definitely hate the Ten Commandments, particularly posted anywhere. The openly hate and mock Christians and evangelicals, hate prayer in schools, the phrase “In God We Trust” on money, the phrase “One Nation Under God,” founding documents that reference God—over and over again, and a nation founded on God and Christianity, by white people no less.  

Liberals hate God, obviously. But when you ask them if they do, they hem-haw, say no. So, why the contradiction? Implying they loathe God is so many ways, then confessing the opposite? Well, what else would you expect from hypocrites? The dirty little secret is, they are probably afraid that there might actually be a God, and that offending him might not be such a good idea. Thereto, in a dichotomy of good and evil, when you say you hate God, you’re implying that you prefer evil, which isn’t a personal branding enhancement. 

Nevertheless, whether liberals believe in God or not, they certainly don’t follow his rules. To liberals, God is at best incidental in the larger world, perhaps a comforting thought in those desperate times when there is no hope to be found anywhere else. But other than that, God is nonessential. Rather, the big guy upstairs just isn’t dependable enough for liberals [because, eh-hm, he really doesn’t exist]. So regarding leadership, this is precisely why liberals are so drawn to other human beings. Smart, accomplished, prominent humans that liberals consider more intelligent and more qualified than themselves. Humans who can watch over them, who can solve their problems and protect them, and of whom liberals make earthly deities. These are the gods of liberals, to whom they grant authority, and on whom they bestow loyalty. It is called human worship, and it is a practice more common than some might suspect. 

While American patriots fought for their revolutionary independence, for example, there were “loyalists”—American citizens yet loyal to the British crown and not to the revolution—among them. The king, the monarchal paradigm, made these loyalists feel safe and secure. Loyalists valued this subservient arrangement, relished the idea of another human being(s), a king and his royal officers, taking responsibility for their lives, safety, and happiness.  

Who else was going to provide those things? God? [mocking laughter]. 

Well, that is exactly what the American rebels thought. Taking it to the king and his army, the rebels, in their righteous fight for freedom, thought God would indeed help them to prevail, and they were obviously right. But while these freedom-fighters were battling, their fellow citizens, these dependent and servile loyalists, these human worshipers, were providing aid and comfort to the British army. The loyalist’s fleshly lords and saviors.  

The point is some people prefer subordinating themselves and their lives to other human beings, who they make gods on earth. Real gods. Tangible gods. People smarter, more accomplished, more qualified, prominent, and ultimately better.  

Because, who else can fill that role? God? [more mocking laughter]. 

Long before the loyalists and the Revolutionary War, the Jews did the same thing. A trusted and respected prophet, Samuel was God’s chosen voice and messenger on earth, who also righteously judged all of Israel on God’s behalf. To be like all the other nations, however, the Jews determined they wanted a king to judge and rule over them, instead. This idea greatly displeased Samuel. God was the King of the Jews, was/is the God and authority of all humankind, actually, which Samuel well understood. Concerned, he appealed to God regarding the Jewish request. In paraphrased response, God:  

“Listen to the people; give them what they want. They aren’t rejecting you, Samuel. They are rejecting me, that I should not reign over them.”  

So, despite all the astounding visible miracles God had performed for the Jews in Egypt and beyond—all meant to help the Jews believe in him and to encourage their trust. The Jews still wanted someone else, a human being, to secure their lives and happiness. So here is God parting the Red Sea, which is no less 16 miles wide at its narrowest point, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is unlikely the spot where the Jews crossed, argue historians, but nevertheless. This miraculous feat having taking place before the very eyes of Jewish ancestry, relived and retold by Grandpa Levi every Rosh Hashana, feebly waving his favored walking-staff around with passion and verve to the wide-eyed delight of his grandchildren: “… and the sea walls rose from the deep sea bottom and cut a dry, 16-mile path straight to the other side!”  

Despite Grandpa’s captivating, eyewitness history lesson. Despite God having visibly demonstrated not just his unopposable power and strength to Grandpa and all the Promise Land-bound Jews, but his authenticity and legitimacy, too. The Jews still wanted a human god to rule over them instead. So, God obliged. 

He gave them King Saul, an oppressive ruler.  

Samuel tried to warn the Jews about what they were getting themselves into, what they were bringing on themselves and their families. They had angered God. Resentful, he was making them slaves to an oppressive human regime: You want human gods? You got it, folks. Still, the Jews wouldn’t listen: 

“Nay, but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight for us.” 

As if … God didn’t miraculously free them from Egypt and part the Red Sea. 

So, human worship is quite common historically, at least for some people, and those people are uniformly liberals. Liberal loyalists. Liberal Jews. Modern day liberal voters. They have belonged to various societal groups throughout millennia, but they all do the same thing: make leadership gods of ordinary human beings. In fact, the deistic ascension of human beings and human rule have been the societal standard for nearly all of human history. A practice challenged and changed by the self- and citizen-rule American experiment, which, not so surprisingly, has been fought every step of the way by the same old servile liberals yet yearning for their human gods instead. First a human king to replace God, then it was democrat politicians and their established order. 

Liberals mock the whole idea, scoff when you call them human worshipers. But here is how you know they do it and that it is true, that they deify ordinary human beings: their gods caught lying and cheating, caught being ordinary, fallible human beings, just like themselves. These human worshipers, these liberal slaves, overlook and ignore all the human failure.  

Their gods can’t fail; else the faithful have no gods.  

Liking someone else’s ideas, fine. But when that someone is proven a corrupt liar, and the loyalty and servility still remain. Well, that is entirely something else. It is making infallible gods of human beings and human worship, in fact. The eminent Thomas Sowell: 

“Facts are seldom allowed to contaminate the beautiful vision of [liberals]. What matters to the true believers are the ringing slogans, endlessly repeated. Darwinian adaptation to environment applies not only to nature but also to society. Just as you don’t find eagles living in the ocean or fish living on mountain tops, so you don’t find [liberals] concentrated where their ideas have to stand the test of performance.” 

Liberals see their human gods as unerring and utterly reliable. In fact, they won’t see them any other way, won’t allow any established facts of human failure to contaminate their beautiful deistic perception. They won’t visit places where these perceptions are challenged, either, like Fox News or talk radio, for example, or at Thanksgiving dinner, where MAGA members might attend. And if they do visit these venues, they shriek “racism!” and “bigotry!” to every criticism, accusation, and truth to manage and escape the performance testing.  

Simply put: their human gods and leaders shall not be challenged. 
Not Hillary. 
Not Obama. 
Not Joe Biden or Hunter. 
Not the news media. 
The liberal faithful simply cannot/will not abide it. 

One doesn’t find liberals assessing or acknowledging the failures of their human gods. One finds them defending their gods so that the idea their gods are mere mortals doesn’t root itself. For instance, when Kamala Harris is giving one of her infamous indecipherable word salad answers that makes no sense at all. There are the liberal faithful, applauding the remarks as the most profound idea ever uttered by a human being. Or when Joe Biden has a cognitive break and wanders aimlessly into the White House landscaping and the Amazon jungle. There are the liberal faithful, asserting that Biden is the best cognitive version of himself ever.  

When their gods lie, there are the faithful, supporting the lie, helping to perpetuate the lie. 

When their gods are hypocritical, there are the faithful, joining in the hypocrisy and calling the accusers names.    

Whatever immoral, depraved, or evil thing their human gods are involved in, there are the liberal faithful, shaping the perception of infallibility and ensuring their human gods endure. Why?  

Because their gods must endure.  
Because these gods are all the liberal faithful have to rely on. 

So, when a nation’s founding documents assert that people are “endowed by their Creator,” and half the nation’s population, liberals, yearns for human gods instead. One can understand the political and societal friction. And it isn’t just about God and whose deity is supreme, either, but about the utter pathetitude of the liberal individual—collectively, people with no confidence in themselves and pining for hope and security among beings …  

Just like themselves. Only unerring and supreme. 

The societal result is despotism and communism, exemplified by King Saul. Led by God, nations thrive. Led by human beings, they invariably fall prey to human weakness and human failure, wherein people suffer, and worse. However, the problem isn’t leadership, necessarily. It is liberals, the human worshipers who make other humans their gods. Sowell again: 

“As long as human beings are imperfect, there will always be arguments for extending the power of government [human beings] to deal with these imperfections. The only logical stopping place is totalitarianism, unless we realize that tolerating imperfections is the price of freedom.” 

Making those arguments and extending that power to human beings are servile liberals. To them, it isn’t a world without God. It is a world with their gods ascended and in power—albethey flesh and human like them, but nonetheless infallible, righteous, and holy. 

©JMW 6/2026 

All Rights Reserved 

Locking Down The “Fair and Balanced” Border

Allowing liberal voices equal time in their content, Fox News wants to be “fair and balanced.” But don’t we have enough liberals deceiving and misleading people in the rest of the media already? The networks, CNN, MSNOW, the New York Times—if people want false and misleading liberal content, there is an ocean of it out there. Fox News needs to further imbalance the scale and supply more false and misleading liberal content?  

Fox needs to enhance the deception? 

“President” [wink-wink] Joe Biden wandering aimlessly into White House landscaping and the Amazon jungle, liberals and their media tell the nation that Biden is the “best version” of himself ever. While Fox News is broadcasting migrant hordes overrunning the border, and while the Biden administration is secretly shuttling illegals throughout the nation’s interior in the dead of night. The liberal media nonetheless declares the border closed and the nation secure. They tell the American people Donald Trump colluded with the Russians and stole an election; that he bribed Vladimir Zelenskyy; that he supported white supremacists at Charlottesville; that he raped E. Jean Carroll; that he broke campaign finance laws via Stormy Daniels; that he incited an insurrection; that he …; that he …; that he …. 

Every single charge was proven false and deceitful, and Fox News’ cast of “fair and balancing” liberals vehemently validated and perpetuated each and every lie on Fox air. Rather, they used the platform to advance the liberal media’s lies about Trump, his administrative sphere, and MAGA—to say nothing of the lies about the Republican Party and Conservatism. A library of nightly news footage to prove this true, the question is:  

How does that help the Fox brand? 

If people want media deception—and at this point, they are definitely choosing it—they have a sea of it to turn to everyday. Why allow Fox News to become just another news agency by which to be deceived and misinformed? What, pray tell, is “fair” or “balanced” about allowing people to deceive your customers? Or let me put it this way: how many stories do “fair and balancing” liberals get to get incredibly wrong before job performance becomes a consideration at The Fox Corporation?  

Perhaps I am breaking news of which Fox brass is unaware, but liberals despise Fox News. They say so routinely, everywhere in the media, and on Capitol Hill, too. They mock Fox, mock its massive viewership. So when liberals are employed and allowed into Fox’s hallowed halls, is it any surprise they wreak havoc? Besides the daily havoc of deceit and poor job performance, how about legal havoc, specifically? Like Cathy Areu legal havoc, for example. 

Dubbed “The Liberal Sherpa,” Areu claimed she was sexually harassed by some of the news division’s male stars, Sean Hannity among them. Finding the case evidence lacking, however, a judge tossed her lawsuit. Still, Fox corporate had to pay attorneys to defend themselves and their employees in court, to say nothing of the expense of reputational damage. Gee, what does that cost the corporation? Anybody in accounting tracking that expense? 

How many times must these “fair and balancing” liberals be allowed to do this sort of thing to Fox and their fellow employees? Areu didn’t care that she had no evidence. As a liberal, she isn’t there to care. She is there to destroy Fox’s credibility and brand, and the fact is there isn’t anything off limits to these shameless, morally rudderless, and committed liberal ideologues. To them, no charge is too reckless or absurd. And if they don’t have a charge, they will create one, obviously. The lack of evidence is meaningless to liberals because the goal isn’t litigious success, although that would be delish icing.  

The goal is Fox’s destruction—its credibility, reputation, brand—by any means necessary. Absurd?

Well, in what way are liberals enhancing the Fox brand? 
They aren’t, you say? Gee, whatever could that imply … 

Destructionists. That’s what liberals are and is what they intend. 

I think everyone has seen enough, especially over the last 10, 11 Trump years. Yes, the verdict is definitely in: the liberal media is politically corrupt, has been shilling for the Democrat Party and Liberalism, and deceiving the American public for decades. Lately, the liberal media isn’t covering historic crimes of treason, yes, historic crimes of treason, like Russian collusion. 51 former intelligence officials are allowed to boldface lie about intelligence to assist a liberal democrat in a debate and an election, and there is no liberal media effort to expose the conspirators there, either. A laptop detailing the voluminous crimes of a sitting president and his crime family, a congressional committee even unearthing the countless shell companies used to move their money around, and it is all totally ignored.  

Clearly and incontrovertibly, the liberal media has shown the American people that they are dedicated to Democrat Party electoral victory and Liberalism dominance. In fact, the last 10 years have revealed that, not only are they not going to report any news injurious to the Democrat Party and Liberalism. Complementing the reporting negligence, they are going to actively defend and protect both, too, which they manifestly do every day and night on their broadcasts.  

It is also clear that liberal voters are committed to ignoring all this glaring deceit and corruption, and to assisting the liberal establishment in its destruction of not just the nation’s many sacred institutions, but the country itself.  

The point is that, collectively, liberals have clearly sold out to the religious cause. Meaning, there are no allies to be found among liberals, only enemies. Thus, when you invite them into your news agency, eh-hm, Fox News, you are inviting people determined to destroy you and, in the meantime, discredit you and make your life miserable. If you are conservative or right-wing or anything related, liberals do not have your good in mind. But then, Fox News is neither conservative nor right-wing.  

Rush Limbaugh once asked, “In the daily packaging of the news, isn’t it interesting what the liberal media leaves out?” Well, what the liberal media was leaving out back then, and still leaves out, were any news stories or details that harmed democrats and the established liberal order. The liberal media was avoiding the stories and details because (a) their mission, their life-affirming religious goal, is to make sure liberals get elected to office, and that their established order remains intact and reigns supreme. But also because (b) the stories and details were/are a death knell to the Democrat Party and Liberalism, both of which liberals want desperately to endure.  

To great success, Limbaugh and Fox took those omitted news stories and details, packaged them and, along with cutting-edge analysis, presented them to the public. For which, Limbaugh and Fox were labeled “right-wing” and “conservative news” outlets by liberals. When all they were/are really doing is reporting what the liberal media refused to report, i.e. Russian collusion, and holding liberals to account for their deceit, political bias, and corruption.  

“Right wing news.” “Conservative news.” It’s all manufactured liberal nonsense. 

If people want the details of the Russian collusion plot, for example, then they must turn to Fox News for them. It is the only place to get informed about the story, because the rest of the national media isn’t pursuing it—to reiterate: a historic, treasonous crime. The liberal media ignored this and all the historic, treasonous news stories of the Trump era, because the news was a death knell to the Democrat Party and Liberalism. Because if the liberal media had investigated those stories. If they presented those details and facts to their viewers.  

Then the Democrat Party and Liberalism are dead. Belly-up. Rotting. Stinking. 

In fact, imagine that for a moment: the nation’s entire news media apparatus, not just Fox News, intensely focused on the treasonous Russian collusion plot of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration. Imagine every single news agency during that period involved in Fox-News-level focus on Clinton’s fake dossier, FBI FISA court crimes and abuse, and criminal Obama White House unmasking and spying on Americans. Imagine every single citizen in the country, whether in a bar, at the airport, or at home, able to tune in to their preferred news channel—ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et al—and being exposed 24/7 for months on end to that type of dedicated, comprehensive coverage of the crime. Imagine the reporters at all these agencies chasing the conspirators and shoving microphones in their faces demanding answers. Imagine the legal heat being brought to bear for a treasonous crime by a unified media, and the optics of all their investigative zeal being transmitted to the entirety of the American electorate. 

Were that to have happened, the Democrat Party and Liberalism would be finished. 

And the reason they aren’t finished is because that didn’t happen. In fact, quite the opposite. 

Clearly, Liberalism intends to endure. As part of its strategy, it sends its disciples—who don’t need to be assigned this duty, incidentally, and in fact volunteer to wear the explosive vest—to Fox News for employment. Wanting to be “fair and balanced,” Fox News then puts these religious zealots to work. Except, the only work these militant fanatics want to do is destroy Fox’s credibility and brand. And why? 

Listen up Fox brass: because liberals loathe Fox News, the media industry’s “great Satan.”  

And it isn’t really loathing, but extreme fear.   

This Fox News practice of presenting news stories and details that liberals avoid and leave out of their own newscasts must end. Liberals want the practice stopped because it crushes their credibility and destroys them. In other words, Americans getting the truth exposes and disadvantages the liberal media. Liberals not only mislead the American people via their own news agencies. They infiltrate Fox News so they can mislead Fox’s viewers, too.  

And one more time, Fox brass: how does that benefit the Fox brand?  

The sole purpose, the unrelenting religious mission of liberals and Liberalism—a mission every bit as ideologically intense and focused as the Iranian Mullah’s desire to crush America, the “great Satan”—is to ruin Fox News. No news agency does Liberalism and the established political order greater harm or poses a more serious threat. Liberals have destroyed their own media’s credibility and reputations, their news agencies distrusted and reviled to the tune of 83% of the American public. And to be “fair and balanced,” Fox News is allowing these zealots access to destroy its news agency, too? 

Make it make sense. 

So, perhaps it is time for Fox News to secure its own corporate borders and deport the enemy from within. Of course, when you have a liberal in republican clothing, like former Wisconsin congressman, Paul Ryan, on the board of directors. Sometimes those open borders and liberal saboteurs are useful. In wide-eyed rage, Ryan would no doubt lurch from his executive chair at the RINO charge and begin itemizing his conservative bonafides one-by-one on his fingers. Except, when a conservative like Trump is campaigning and in the White House, Ryan clearly likes having those borders open and those liberal saboteurs on staff to mislead Fox’s viewers and tear Trump down.  

Gee, Ryan likes having liberals on staff for their usefulness against fellow conservatives.  
What does that imply, anyway?  
Seems significant, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. 

Ryan useless, we must then appeal to Fox’s overlords, the Murdochs. As for them, they like to cater to conservatives, supposedly. But their newsrooms, just like liberal newsrooms, occasionally clash with movement conservatives, or rather, the genuine conservatives. Thereto, Murdoch’s media outlets sometimes promoted establishment or centrist republicans, aka RINO republicans, causing friction with these genuine conservatives.  

Gee, isn’t board member Ryan one of these “RINO” republicans? 

[Contemplation …] 

So, what are we saying? That Fox News is yet more liberal media?  

Well, it isn’t, of course. Fox News is “fair and balanced,” and thus only half like the liberal media. Meaning, Fox brass likes to cash in with its neglected conservative audience, but then keeps liberals on staff, too, to harangue republicans that republican voters like, but that GOP brass dislikes, all to maintain current establishment order and strength.  

[More contemplation …] 

Is it me? Or does this new closed border/deportation initiative seem too expensive and perilous? 

©JMW 6/2026 
All Rights Reserved 

To Your Health

“All the powers of the world cannot take away my life, until God permits. All the physicians of earth cannot preserve it when God calls me away.”   

So proclaimed English bishop, J.C. Ryle, and in case there is any doubt about what the good reverend meant. It is this: human life is solely and fully within God’s control. 

Not science. 
Not the pharmaceutical industry. 
Not the medical profession. 
Solely and fully under God’s control. 

In other words, you, human, you die when God says you die. Only then, and not until then. And in the precise way that he says, and only in the way that he says. This was true for Uzzah, who merely touched God’s sacred Ark and died on the spot. It was true for Ananias and Sapphira, also killed on the spot for lying about money. It was true for an entire army of Egyptians, too, drowned en masse in the Red Sea for pursuing the Jews, and even for Pharoah’s son, and all the firstborn Egyptians. Of course, autopsy and modern medicine would present clinical reasons for the deaths, and none would be attributed to God. 

Nevertheless, humans die when God says they die, which isn’t just a rule of a created world, but a pretty strong health flex by God, too. Nothing says I control your health more clearly than I can take your life whenever I want. Example upon example found within the Bible, the instances of God’s direct and indirect control of human health are too plenteous to list. As brief examples of direct control, he plagued the people of Ashdod and the surrounding coastal areas with emerods, or hemorrhoids—imagine it: a whole region of people waddling around like they just had the latex glove exam, faces pinched, grimacing. Head to toes, he allowed Job to be stricken with painful boils over his entire body, too. One of the clearest examples of direct health control is King Hezekiah. Sick and dying in his bed, the king petitioned God for his life. God not only healed the king of his terminal illness but gave him 15 more years of healthful living. 

In clear language, Moses crystalizes the point. Speaking to the Jews about their obedience to God post-the Egyptian exodus, he issued a strong, unambiguous warning about disobedience. A warning not just for the Jews, but for the whole of humankind. From Deuteronomy: 

“[God] will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt … also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed [or rather, dead].” 

Earlier in the book, Moses had said, “The Lord will smite thee with the botch [an inflammatory sore] of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst be healed.” Note the terms “diseases” and “sickness” and “plague,” and especially this: “whereof thou canst be healed.” God’s control of human health is readily apparent and incontestable. But if further convincing is necessary, there is one remaining and prime example: his son, Jesus.  

Few knew Jesus more intimately than the disciple Luke, a physician, incidentally. Luke was not only eyewitness to Jesus’ daily life and deeds. He remarked about them in his signature gospel. In one instance, people were gathered for a glimpse of Jesus, this extraordinary prophet everyone was talking about. Among them were emissaries of John the Baptist who had been sent to ask Jesus if he was the promised messenger from God. The emissaries inquired and, per Luke, Jesus responded thus: 

“In that same hour [Jesus] cured many of [the people’s] infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits, and unto many that were blind he also gave sight.”  

Afterwards, Jesus told John’s emissaries to return and tell John what they had witnessed, which was people being miraculously healed of all their many and variable health issues by the controller of human health’s beloved son.  

Or in other words, Yes, I am he. 

So, there can be no doubt that God controls human health and the subsequent lives of humans. On this point, let’s be crystal clear: if God wants an individual to have heart trouble, they have it. Cancer, they have it. Deafness and blindness, they are deaf and blind. Leprosy—so many stories in the Bible about this disease, they obviously have that, too. Pick an illness known to humankind, any illness. If God wants a particular human to be afflicted with it, they are afflicted. If he wants them cured, they are cured. Why? 

Because human life and health are solely in God’s control. 

It isn’t just the major, life-threatening ailments, either. Kidney stones, gall stones, allergies, eczema, dandruff, and even baldness. Baldness, you say? Try Amos 8:10. There are clinical explanations for all these minor afflictions, of course. People consuming the wrong foods and inviting kidney stones. Genetic and environmental factors encouraging allergies. Chronic stress and nutritional deficiencies rendering the scalp’s hair follicles weak and vulnerable. Scientists and physicians advise us that all these conclusions define and explain these human ailments.  

And yet, there is Jesus: healing humans of all their health problems. 

All this diagnosis doctrine from humans concerning illness and disease, and there sits God—chin in palm, half-eyed and annoyed. Is it any wonder that he mocks the so-called wisdom of humans? Here he is the controller of human health, lays that out chapter and verse in crystal clear, unmistakable biblical terms. Then, on his behalf, his son roams the region healing humans of every ailment known to humankind. Yet it is the clinical diagnoses and dogma that humans revere and trust. 

It seems an opportune time for this point: God isn’t a religion. He is the creator and controller of all life. Christianity isn’t a religion, either. It is an acknowledgment of the creator of all life’s supremacy and authority, and a humble expression of respect and fealty. And to this inescapable truth, every human being is subject. 

Point made, the Bible is filled with implications like this: if Jesus is curing every human health issue, restoring people’s sight and hearing, stanching their blood issues, healing their leprosy, and even bringing people long dead back to the living. Then doesn’t that mean God controls human health, and that he is the final arbiter in not only death but disease? The gospels are replete with stories of incredible human healing at Jesus’ command, and has the reader ever heard this implication drawn between God and the reader’s personal health?  

Perhaps it is one of those things that is just a little too obvious. 

Maybe we should focus less on theology and Jesus loving people, and more on the scriptures’ practical implications.   

Obviously, because he issued clear warnings to prevent both, God doesn’t want death or suffering either one for human beings. But humans are willful, defiant, and disobedient. So what does God do when he has plans for people, as he has for every human being, and when people refuse to respect his power and authority, or to even acknowledge him? Death isn’t beneficial to the cause, obviously. So, what can God do to get a person’s attention and redirect them?  

Well, it isn’t the only option, but it is certainly one of primacy: he leverages health. As he did with the Apostle Paul, for example, on the road to Damascus.  

In healthful arrogance, Paul was traveling a local dirt road when a bright light suddenly enshrouded him. After a brief conversation with Jesus within, Paul emerged from the experience blind. One minute he was confidently making his own way, oblivious to the power of Almighty God over his health and life. The next he is clutching an aide’s elbow and being led around, not like a blind person, but as one. Paul’s health had taken an abrupt and severe turn.  

Denouncing Jesus, the manifest Son of Almighty God, and persecuting Jesus’ followers savagely and unmercifully, Paul undoubtedly deserved to die, by God’s standards, anyway. Yet, God had other plans. He leveraged Paul’s health to accomplish his objectives, instead. Paul devoting his life to God and authoring most of the Bible’s New Testament, the strategy succeeded, too. This is important to point out because sometimes the strategy fails, and people become even worse versions of themselves—embittered, mean, spiteful, hateful. But Paul’s was a positive transformation, wherein he went from being an abusive persecutor of Christians and the emerging Christian movement, to a loyal servant prepared to be abused himself, and to even die for his creator. The value that Paul, that his transformation, brought to the modern Christian faith is incalculable. Despite his disobedience and blasphemy, God, with a little health-afflicting persuasion, used him anyway.   

So, in sum, the evidence suggests we have been looking at this human health issue all wrong. Modern humans can’t watch television or listen to the radio or read literature without being reminded of the frailty of their health, and of just how vulnerable they are to disease, suffering, and death. Open a simple internet tab and surfers are met with: “Experts say these are the worst foods for your kidneys,” and other such doctrinal health warnings that capture and unnerve people.  

Globally, for example,1 in 5 people develop cancer in their lifetime, or so the data reports. Every year there are 20 million new cases diagnosed worldwide. In the US alone, there are over 2 million cases diagnosed annually, which translates into roughly 5,500 new cases every day. And if it isn’t cancer, then it is Multiple Sclerosis, or Alzheimer’s, or Lou Gehrig’s disease, or Autism, or myocardial infarction, or one of a million other unsettling or frightening ailments people are destined to contract and suffer. And if we aren’t contracting them, then we should feel guilty for not getting them, when others do. And if we don’t feel empathetic and guilty, then we are inviting “karma” to make sure we are next.  

How can human beings ever expect to carry on happy and contented lives under such an assault—the ammunition being supplied by the world’s health “experts,” no less? 

The fix for all this fear and hysteria, of course, is these “experts,” modern science and medicine, and people adhering to all the doctrine of these industries. Don’t eat this. Consume more of that. Do more of this, and less of that. The inference is they, the science and medical industries, have all the answers to human health. Do what they prescribe, and these dreaded diseases and all the worry that surrounds them can be virtually eliminated. Google How do I avoid getting cancer and note the search results. I found a piece from a renowned medical institution entitled: Seven Tips to Reduce Your Risk of Cancer. “Take charge” of your health, the subtitle read. Then the article listed all the remedies that can ameliorate your fears and make life worth living: don’t smoke tobacco, eat a balanced diet, take regular exercise, be vigilant for the warning signs.  

Modern science and medicine are saving your life! 

Only, as the evidence makes clear, and as Bishop Ryle would surely ask: are they? 

If we are following the evidence and logic here, it seems the person humans need to worry about and please regarding their health is God. Science and the medical industry are good as far as they go. But the best guarantee of human health, it would seem, is good relations with the person who can both afflict and heal. Or for greater efficacy, perhaps the more extreme: the person who kills people and can raise them from the dead.  

Getting involved with that person seems rather, um, salubrious. 

Personally, I like my doctors, who are not only top-shelf physicians but terrific human beings. Extremely knowledgeable and experienced in their respective fields, I trust their guidance regarding my health decisions. But while they offer smart, common sense preventative measures and treat the illnesses I have. God is responsible for my afflictions and in total control of my health …  

and everyone else’s on the planet. 

How can an 85-year-old man smoke all his life and die in his bed of old age, and a 35-year-old man who never smoked at all develop lung cancer? Science and medicine can’t explain the scenario, which no less contradicts their conclusions and prescriptions. Like so many examples of this contradictory, usurping nature, it is an outcome that, I believe, God allows and presents just to demonstrate who is boss in this human experience deal. A person that should never have cancer, gets it. A person that should die for the terminal diagnosis, lives on.  

Simply, it is the real authority in it all illustrating and proving his supremacy.  

One would think all the astounding health-related miracles of Christ would be proof enough of this dominion. But modern humans, all anxious and concerned, worshiping at the altars of Healthcare and Health Insurance and diving headlong into the next well-marketed tub of health powder, scooping and mixing and drinking. The Veganism, The organic lifestyles. The spiritual journeys into self-healing. All in the insatiable, endless quest to fortify oneself against disease and suffering and fear. Well, all that miraculous healing of Christ is about as meaningful as solar-powered lights in a coal mine.  

Modernly, it falls on deaf ears to say early humans in the Bible lived hundreds of years, 900-plus in one case. Gee, how did humans manage so long without the gods of modern science and medicine? Especially with people consuming all that red meat and having no hand-sanitizer at the ready?   

“Did you sanitize your hands, Methuselah?” 
“Yes, dear.” 
A pleased grin. “Good. I’ll pick up another bottle at Walmart.” 

And all that solar radiation from the giant orb of death in the sky. How did early humans survive that for 900 years sans dermatologists and sunscreen?  

The truth is we have become much better at managing disease and treating people after all these years, but we have yet failed to recognize and acknowledge who oversees, who dictates, human life and health. Speak to all those people Jesus healed and raised from the dead, and they would tell you who dictates human life and health. You could wisely bet that some of them were meat-eaters with cholesterol problems and sun worshipers with skin disease, too. 

The point, if it isn’t obvious, is that modern science and medicine serve God, not the other way around. Having observed Jesus in miraculous action, the physician Luke would no doubt agree. Hence, people don’t have to live all nervous and apprehensive and afraid regarding their health. They should practice healthful living, certainly, which is just a fundamental matter of self-respect and excellence. But they should also put their faith in God, the commander and controller of not just human life, but health. Because healthwise, whatever befalls humans is up to him.  

Life, health, suffering, death—they are all up to him. 

The good news is that he is open to requests, to pleas for health and healing. If one knows God, then one has hope. Otherwise, good luck with the health powders and spiritual journeys. And the angst. Good luck with the lifelong health angst, which is no way to live.  

Before washing his hands of responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion, Pilate glared at his unresponsive prisoner. “Don’t you know I have the power to spare your life,” he boasted. To which Christ responded, “You could have no power at all over me, except it were given you by God.”  

In terms of human wellness, well, that pretty well sums it up. 

To your health.

©JMW 5/2026
All Rights Reserved