Connect with us

Culture and Religion

2019 should be the year of the question



2019 should be the year of the question

Now is the time to ask the important questions about Liberty and individual rights.

This year will be the lead up to the 2020 presidential contest, a time to choose between Liberty or Socialistic slavery. Thus, it is more than appropriate that we designate this year as a time to discuss the big issues of our time. This is in the best Socratic tradition beginning a dialog exploring certain assumptions or sacred cows. In the modern vernacular, ‘starting a conversation’ or ‘speaking truth to power’ [Whatever that means].

Some of these inquiries will cause our friends on the authoritarian socialist Left a bit of discomfort. In other words, lose their collective minds, since for them only certain kinds of ideas are allowed these days. Generally those that only serve to affirm Leftist orthodoxy. Those that call into question certain assumptions on their part or challenge the inevitability of socialism are verboten or call into question the validity of collective punishment or the myriad labels of the Left. These inquires confront collectivist orthodoxy the true version of ‘Speaking truth to power’. Leftist would welcome these questions if they were open to having a true debate.

Philosophical questions.

  • What is the correct definition of Justice?
  • What is the ‘Ideal State’?
  • Are governments trustworthy?
  • What is the most important Constitutional amendment?

The last one is to make a point that the most important Constitutional amendment is the one valued the least by someone. For if one doesn’t support someone else’s Rights, why would they reciprocate? The best example would be the media demanding gun confiscation while holding freedom of the press as sacrosanct.

Questions Leftists cannot answer.

  • Are you a Leftist or a Liberal?

While this may seem to be innocuous leftists usually dodge it because as Dennis Prager has pointed out, there is a vast difference between the two. In most cases Leftists who advocate the destruction of Liberty with socialistic slavery while claiming to be ‘Liberal’ are merely out to deceive.

Questions on individual or natural Rights.

  • Do people have the Right of free speech?
  • Do people have the Right of self-preservation?

These are questions that most Leftists will not answer because it reveals too much of their dogmatic personalities. They usually cannot admit to having the common sense Right to self-defense lest they eviscerate their gun confiscation agenda.

Questions on coercive or collective Rights.

  • Do people have the Right to free college?
  • Do people have the Right to free housing?
  • Do people have the Right to free health care?

Similarly, they cannot admit to any of the coercive or collective rights because that would entail enslaving others.

  • Has anyone ever really denied existence of the climate? [As in ‘climate denier’]
  • Has anyone ever really denied that the climate changes? [As in ‘climate change denier’]

Those are the implications of the phrase they use, despite their incessant rhetoric to the contrary. The odds are they won’t be able to point to some who has done this.

Why do we have to do something about…

These are questions in direct contradiction [or ‘resistance’ if you will..] to the orthodoxy of the authoritarian socialist Left. It should be noted that the corollary questions that are the reverse of these questions are really never asked. It is generally assumed that we must do something about these issues, and we must do it now before we think about the implications to Liberty.

  • Why do we have to do something about guns?
  • Why do we have to do something about income inequality?
  • Why do we have to do something about Global Cooling.. Global Warming…Climate Change.

Questions on every new government program being proposed:

  • Has the same thing worked in the past?
  • How much of other people’s money will it take?
  • Where are the funds for this program supposed to originate?

These are questions that should be asked every time a new version of the Left’s ancient ideas are put forward. It should be obvious that there is no point in trying a new program that will fail if it’s based on the same rationale as an old program. Promises of fantastic new programs should be rejected if they cannot explain how they will be funded.

  • Was Hitler a Liberal?

Think of this as a political Koan. Clearly, most people would answer no to that question, but why is that the case? Replace that with any other infamous character from the sordid history of socialism. Was Stalin a Liberal or Was Che Guevara a Liberal? This highlights the reason why at some point along the political spectrum it’s impossible to cast those of the far left as being Liberal. This severe discontinuity illustrates that Liberalism is the antithesis of collectivism. The latter requires the suppression of individual Liberty, thus Leftists cannot be Liberal.

The takeaway

This wasn’t by any means meant to be inclusive, this is just to ‘start a conversation’, on where we are to go as a free people. Do we head down the dead-end road of socialism, or do we stay on the road of Liberty? The answers to these questions and many others to be asked will decide that for years to come. As it is vitally important to ask these questions, it is also manifestly important that we properly debate and find the answers.



They don’t want your guns, they want your doctrine



They dont want your guns they want your doctrine

Beto O’Rourke may in fact be the most honest of the Presidential candidates. He may have gone full Swalwell in an attempt to revive a disastrous campaign; however in recognizing his present shortcomings, Beto O’Rourke has gone the AOC route of revealing the poorly hidden secrets of the Democrat Party. For years, the right was (falsely) accused of using a straw man fallacy with gun confiscation, but Beto O’Rourke has now been unabashed in championing the policy. O’Rourke merely confirmed what we already knew: the socialists want to confiscate our guns. They want the monopoly on force, so they can upend our way of life.

But this upheaval, revolution, is not about redistributing the wealth, fixing the climate, or reducing violence. Beto O’Rourke’s latest Freudian slip is all the more telling. At the gay town hall hosted by CNN, Beto O’Rourke said that the government should strip away tax exemption from churches that refused to partake in the gay agenda, which includes but is not limited to the performing of marriages, removal of ministry standards that prohibit (blatant) non-Christians, and permitting men to pee with little girls. Put more concisely, Beto O’Rourke wants to use the government to coerce the doctrine of the church.

Blatant unconstitutionality aside, if the socialists have their way, we will be at the mercy of the courts, legally speaking, who have an entrenched precedent of conjuring their own law. There have long been talks by atheist about taxing churches, a less unconstitutional means of persecuting the church. The atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation erroneously claims that we pay more in taxes because churches pay nothing, ignoring the history of the income tax in America. The Supreme Court touched on this issue in 1970, ironically close to Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court maintained in Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York that:

Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Even a Supreme Court devoid of Christians would have agreed that the Establishment Clause is best maintained through the financial insulation of church and state, that history showed that when the church supporting the state was as threatening to freedom as the reverse. But what Beto is suggesting is a next level takeover. He wants to use government to manipulate the doctrine. So after he has taken your guns, he will use “civil rights” law to target the church. But remember, nothing about Beto O’Rourke is original. He’s just trying to be AOC while also trying to be Eric Swalwell. The Equality Act that Taylor Swift loves to promote would also place churches in the cross hairs of the law, should they remain faithful.

This isn’t a new ambition. Socialism is atheist by its nature and has never existed with a thriving church. In similar fashion, socialism has corresponded with the direct persecution of the church, often with genocidal purposes. An ideology that lumps people in with the collective dismisses the individual pursuit of a relationship with God.

The Second Amendment is a defense mechanism against various forms of government tyranny, among them the aforementioned scenario. Pacifying civilians is never an end but always a means to an end. A disarmed people are neither safer nor freer. In this case, Beto O’Rourke, by the progression of his rhetoric, wants to disarm the populace and coerce doctrine. This is the exact reason to refuse disarming. The socialists want to control our doctrine, by extension, what we think. They ultimately, as Beto O’Rourke’s policy suggestion explicitly demands, want to command us to disobey God, to rewrite doctrine to appease the latest whims of society.

The socialists aren’t floating confiscation just for the sake of confiscation. Institutions that have historically rejected collectivism and adhere to an objective morality standard are natural adversaries to the modern socialist movement. Therefore socialists would see strategic gains in undermining these institutions. This logic is not new or surprising, but is becoming increasingly obvious and less conspiratorial. The words of Beto O’Rourke corroborate the suspicion that gun confiscation is a means to enact religious persecution among other tyrannies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Pete Buttigieg attempts to recreate God in his own image



Pete Buttigieg attempts to recreate God in his own image

By Richard Ferguson

During a town hall meeting a CNN host asked Pete Buttigieg that question, “As a Christian, can you point to any teachings in faith that provide instructions to deny services to the LGBTQ community? His answer was a total copy-edit to both Christian and Jewish foundational writings, saying, “When religion is used in that way, to me, it makes God smaller.”

Instead of rebuking Pete’s answer, it was met with thunderous applause.

But just the ‘trinity’ of Pete, the Democrat audience, and it’s sycophants in media want to recreate Judeo-Christian truth into their own image, doesn’t mean the Creator of the universe is in agreement simply because He chose not to rain fire and brimstone from heaven as an immediate response.

Clearly, Almighty God, Creator of the entire universe of all that is seen and unseen can never be small in any way, shape, or form. Only a small mind would view God that way.

If Pete Buttigieg wishes to create a new small religion, it’s his prerogative. Such an effort is supported by the U.S. Constitution and the free will God allows all of us. Maybe he can call it the gospel according to Buttigieg, or just ‘Peteiology,’ but he dare not call it Judaism or Christianity.

Pete’s analogy about a Christian’s rights with his fist ending at the other person’s nose is totally out of place considering we are NOT talking about violence. Unconditional Christian love does NOT mean unconditional approval. Loving others does not mean ignoring wrong behavior that could lead to their annihilation. That is NOT Christian love. Christian love promotes moral guardianship. Just as friends don’t let friends drive drunk, we must not let ‘friends’ corrupt what we know is right.

This is what politicians do best. They frequently twist answers to questions to sound great and loving when in fact they are avoiding the question and giving false answers.

Pete’s form of Christian love seems to be “live and let live” and “let everyone do what’s right in their own eyes” which is not synonymous with the Judeo-Christian ethic. But whether Pete Buttigieg likes it or not, there are many Bible verses about homosexuality. The Judeo-Christian book of Leviticus is very specific.

Are we to have “agape” love for all people? Yes. But trying to copy-edit the Torah is ‘sloppy agape.’ Does the fact that Peter was an altar boy and claims himself to be a very knowledgeable Christian fountain of knowledge make a difference? Satan himself knows scripture inside and out and even quotes it as an ‘angel’ of light.

What is the essence of the one true Christianity? It is simple and absolutely beautiful as written in Matthew 22:36-40

In verse 37 Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” In verses 38-40 Jesus said, “This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Every other commandment and Christian principle is derived from these two simple and lovingly profound commandments. These are very simple, very profound and very HARD to apply in life in this physical world we find ourselves in today. This is why we must pray to God for His guidance every day.

Praying means we need to be humble before God. I cannot find a trace of humility in any of the Democrat candidates for president. These people have put on a thin veneer of humility, thinner than a worn-out paint job on a 1955 Chevy Bel Air left out in the desert sun too long. You should be able to see through their rusted-out socialist philosophies like a worn-out tissue paper.

So, do not believe our schoolboy altar boy who may envision himself as master of the theological universe. In reality, he is attempting to draw people into his deceptive web that includes false religion and recycled socialist dung. Open your eyes dear people and see the truth of things Petey is hiding from you.

Richard Ferguson is a retired business executive who once traveled the country visiting countless corporations and executives singing the praises of Hewett Packard products. Today he is a full-time author, sounding the alarm of how liberal Democrats are attacking the United States from within.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

William Barr nails the secular upheaval of Judeo-Christian morals



William Barr nails the secular upheaval of Judeo-Christian morals

Humans have a moral compass. We’ve had it for over 2000 years. Before we had it, there were other parts that were already being formed so mankind would have a basis for morality and absolute truth that differs from postmodernism or its emerging despicable cousin, the post-truth society of false absolutes based on personal feelings.

This moral compass is the Bible, and our adherence to Judeo-Christian beliefs as a nation and in many places around the world has helped mankind keep evil at bay. Our flawed efforts through the millennia have fallen short, not because the Word wasn’t perfect but because we are not perfect. This has eroded to the point that modern society is experiencing a secular upheaval forcing cataclysmic decay of our morality.

We are flawed. Progressives are trying to use these flaws to pull us further away from the truth of our existence and the only truly moral compass we possess. They’re doing it through media, education, and entertainment. They’re attacking churches, synagogues, and adherents to the Bible with an anti-Biblical worldview that is growing increasingly militant.

Attorney General William Barr recognizes this and expressed as much during a speech at Notre Dame last week.

William Barr’s speech on religious freedom should resonate with everyone who recognizes the degradation of our values as a people and a nation. The further we diverge from the Biblical worldview, the worse the world becomes.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading