Category: Blog

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

James Comey: Crime Fighter

When former FBI Director James Comey posted a picture of the “cool” 86 47 seashell formation, everybody knew then and knows now that (a) Comey knew what the message meant, and (b) that he was advocating for the assassination of the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump.  

Comey is not a naive or dumb person. Immature and childish, yes—at 65-years-old unfortunately. Naive and dumb, no. Quite the opposite. Comey is smart, just not very wise. Big difference, this intelligence and wisdom business. Now that he has been indicted, trial is a reality. If he doesn’t plead out, which he won’t. Comey is much too haughty and immature for that. 

Plus, he still trusts the establishment system. 

Over the past year, the FBI has charged dozens of cases regarding threats to the President of the United States. Comey’s case is but one. Nick Guadalupe Cruz-Lopez, Diego Villavicencio, Christopher Davies, Sheldon James Biddle—all were indicted for such threats. Davies, for example, wrote a letter to a state correctional institution official stating he had “orchestrated the most daring Presidential assassination that this country has ever seen.” He was indicted, stood trial, and was sentenced to 27 months in federal prison. 

Who is this person, Davies, you ask?  
Who are any of these indicted people, actually?  

Exactly the point. These citizens threatened the life of the President of the United States and are being prosecuted and condemned for it. So, what makes Comey any different? He is a citizen, too, subject to the same laws. Is it that he is a former FBI Director? That his name is recognizable? Unlike these other citizen defendants and criminals, why does an air of distinction surround his indictment? If Comey’s name was Christopher Davies, would there be the same air? Why does it feel Comey is somehow above the rules and standards set for every other citizen?  

It feels that way because that is the way it is. 

Comey can’t be indicted and convicted because he is person of distinction and prominence, or rather, a celebrity elite, which is precisely how Comey and prominent liberals like him feel about themselves, too. And for this, their opinion of the law? Such important persons of affairs, celebrity elites feel they don’t have to answer to the law, that they aren’t obligated to the same legal standards. The law is for everyone else, not them. And when it is applied to them. Why, it’s an outrage, which is exactly how liberals behave. Davies says he has a “daring” plan to kill the president, for example, and he gets two years in prison. Comey uses seashells to say kill the president, and he thinks it is utterly absurd that he would be indicted. He and his fellow elitists say prosecution is a right-wing conspiracy, is political retribution, and even tyranny. Comey not only says the charge is absurd; he believes it. Why?  

Because Comey is an elitist narcissist. A psychopath, actually. People think this psychopathic designation too aggressive and hyperbolic, but it is not. In fact, it might be an understatement. 

Observing liberals, they all behave the same way, which is the exact opposite of how you would expect them to behave in situations like these. When the law is applied to them, they don’t slink back in fear and trepidation, don’t get nervous and hole-up somewhere. Self-assured, they march forward and boisterously say, What the hell is this BS? Who the hell do you think you are, anyway?! This isn’t how the Department of Justice is supposed to function? This is tyranny, goddamnit! And why do they behave this way? 

Because liberals are psychopaths who feel they can do whatever the hell they want without consequence. They can even orchestrate and execute treasonous plots if they want. 

No big deal. Needed to be done, they think. Such important persons of affairs, unbound by the standards and restrictions of society unlike ordinary people, they are just the people to do it, too. 

People have made this elitism point about liberals for decades and it never seems to have any public efficacy. It isn’t an emotional characterization people make in frustration and anger: “Liberals are arrogant jerks!” No, it is literally true. Liberals think they are better, more important than you. They actually feel this way and, short of verbalizing it, give every indication that they do feel that way. They look down their noses, consider you—yes, you!—and all who disagree with them imbeciles, idiots, and vermin. Their view such, they are shocked that anyone would dare accuse them, much less charge them with a crime. This is how arrogant liberals are and how self-important they feel. They know full-well they used seashells to say kill the president. But screw you, pal. I’m a liberal; I can do whatever the hell I want, peasant. This is the attitude of elitist liberals like Comey, and liberal voters ride their coattails to what they believe is their own superiority—superiority by association. 

Nevertheless, here’s the worst part …  

The judicial system, with its activist liberal judges, along with the American people, mostly these servile liberal voters—they encourage this elitist, psychopathic behavior.  

If you are of elite prominence, you get treated differently—as long as you are liberal, that is. You don’t get treated like Cruz-Lopez, Villavicencio, Davies, or Biddle. You know, ordinary unknown criminals. Liberal elites are special, just ask their voters. Thus, Comey is special, and the system must take care to reflect that importance. Unlike Comey, Cruz-Lopez doesn’t have a major media corporation making a defense case for him, for free, and before a single word has been spoken to a judge about the case. Never mind the fact that Comey, America’s lead crime fighter, is involved in FISA Court fraud, leaking classified information to professorial friends and the news media, and treasonous plots—all to destroy his target, and an innocent victim, no less: Donald Trump. 

Jeez. Does it get any more heinous? 

And when Comey—again, America’s lead crime fighter—failed to eliminate Trump in his initial mission. He sent signals with seashells to inspire someone else to finish the job, just to free his treasonous teat from the criminal ringer.  

All alleged, of course. For now.

Comey is a disgraceful human being, and supremely arrogant. So arrogant, that he thinks people will buy his defense of ignorance, that he didn’t know “86” was synonymous with violence, which he “opposes.” He makes blithe videos about his innocence, too, and lectures everyone about how “this is not what the Department of Justice is supposed to be.” After solely turning the FBI into what it isn’t supposed to be, a treasonous criminal enterprise. 

So, I’m not sure how much credibility Comey has regarding what the Department of Justice is supposed to be. It is all of little interest to Comey, though. Rest assured, he is so hubristic that he actually thinks he is above all this still, and that all this will yet end with a big Trump-humiliating thud. Because he, Comey, can’t be touched.  

People think this cocksureness is just fear masked as confidence, but it isn’t. There is fear, sure, but Comey and elite liberals like him are used to preferential treatment within their established system. Thus, they not only think they are entitled to preferential treatment, but wholeheartedly believe they are going to get it, too. Comey believes he is going to receive it. The reason he does is, well, which of his fellow elites have proven touchable thus far? Eleven years of unprecedented and historic get Trump malfeasance by Comey and his liberal elite friends in politics and media, and which one has been held to account?  

None but one: Kevin Clinesmith. A lowly attorney in the FBI’s Office of General Counsel who pled guilty to altering an email and lying, and was given probation. The established system didn’t save Clinesmith because he didn’t have faith in it. Because he didn’t exhibit the brazen cocksureness that the system provides. Loser. 

Liberals understand what they have in their established order. 
With confidence, they expect it to do its intended job, too. 

This is what makes elite liberals so brazen: Who the hell do you think you are, anyway?! Only, it is not like it was in olden times. Meaning, the gifts of system security and preferential treatment aren’t assured for liberals as they used to be. Trump in charge and relentlessly dismantling their established order, liberals, namely Comey, are finding themselves not just accused and indicted, but litigiously vulnerable. Comey is being tried in North Carolina, where the seashell incident took place, and not in Washington DC, where nearly every judge and potential juror loathes Trump as much as Comey, the crime fighter. It was quite the error on Comey’s part, having his seashell fun in North Carolina instead of DC, where he is protected. And what caused the error?  

Comey’s blind arrogance, of course.  
Here’s to blind arrogance [clink!] … 

©JMW 5/26 
All Rights Reserved 

The Narcotic of Cheap Celebrity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch everything remain exactly as it is. 

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

Here is where her remarks are useful … 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sycophants cheering] 

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

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

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

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

Ahhh. Feels sooo good.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©JMW 2026/2 
All Rights Reserved 

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

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

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

Would you believe Jesus? Yes, that Jesus. 

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

Wanna bet. 

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

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

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

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

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

Me, too. 

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

Ouch. That stings. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody? 

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

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

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

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

They were “sore displeased.”  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberals. Godless, evil liberals. 

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

Same dynamic. Same evil. Different time. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good and evil—squaring off in a final battle. 

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

Well, because that’s What Jesus Would Do. 

©JMW 1/2026 
All Rights Reserved