I registered to vote on my eighteenth birthday this summer. It wasn’t hard. All I had to do was drive to County Square, follow the signs to Voter Registration, and fill out a form. There was no line on that Wednesday afternoon. It was quiet. The employee who helped me was polite, but not terribly enthusiastic.

I, however, struggled to contain my enthusiasm like a legal adult should. Smiling like a fool, I whizzed through the paperwork and forgot to put my signature at the bottom of the form, which the rational employee had to politely remind me to do.

After ten minutes in that unexciting gray office, it was done. Waiting until my voter registration card showed up in the mailbox was all I had left to do. Roughly a week and a half later (not that I was counting), I ripped into the envelope with glee. The process wasn’t stressful, but it was rather anti-climactic considering how long I had been looking forward to this day.

I remember going to the polling place at our local elementary school with my parents when I was six years old. That’s my first memory of voting and the election process. I’ve always thought of polling places as undeniably solemn, calling for reverence. I didn’t make a peep after we passed through those doors. My younger sister and I would each accompany a parent to the electronic ballot boxes. They allowed us to look at the screen, and although we didn’t understand anything about the names and words in front of our eyes, we felt the importance of the situation, nonetheless.

I didn’t have a clue who any of these people were, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, or what straight ticket meant, or what the difference between a Republican and a Democrat is. I just knew that we were here for a good reason, and that one day, it would be my responsibility too.

I don’t remember a time when I was not anticipating casting my own vote. This is a great year for it – just a few months after turning eighteen, I’ll get to participate in an interesting election, to say the least.

Before going any further, I should make it clear that I don’t follow politics as closely as I should. I do not have social media, but I do read The Epoch Times and World Magazine. I try to keep up with major government events, however, they don’t take up much time in my daily routine. I groggily read the newspaper over breakfast. Sometimes, if I hear a friend or family member mention an almost unbelievable headline, I’ll look it up online.

I am putting a lot of thought into how I will vote in November. I’m comparing the candidates and mourning over the lack of options. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate.

I started drafting this post by listing all each candidate’s policies and my opinions on them, but that became very boring very quickly. So, I’ll stick to the most interesting ones.

First, Kamala Harris is pro-child slaughter. She wants it to be unlimited, unjudged, and uninhibited anywhere, any time. But a land that kills its children is a land of death. For many, the sugar coating seems to be melting off phrases like “reproductive freedom,” and the pro-life movement is hard at work. Harris wants more babies to die, and that’s one of the many reasons she does not have my vote.

She believes in Supreme Court reforms, including eighteen-year term limits. Part of the issue is the judicial branch has begun acting like the legislative by effectively creating laws and nearly becoming a more important branch. According to the Constitution, the legislative branch is the most powerful and important, which is fair, because it contains more people and is more directly influenced by the citizens themselves. If the judicial branch did succeed in being more important, then perhaps term limits would be a good idea. But I think it’s possible that Harris simply seeks to remove the justices who Trump appointed.

When it comes to law enforcement, she is ignorant. She wants to create a “national registry for police officers who break the law.” She supports banning officers from using choke holds and carotid holds, obviously neglecting to consider that seventy-one police officers lost their lives in the line of duty in the first half of 2024, in a 15% increase from last year. Far too many Americans, including those in positions of power, either don’t realize or don’t care that members of law enforcement risk everything every time they pull a car over, enter a home, or confront someone breaking the law. These situations can become incredibly dangerous for the officers in a split second. And yet, somehow, politicians and mainstream media have been trying to draw our sympathy not towards those who protect us, but toward those who do wrong. In a godless society, good and bad are flipped, and villains are exalted above heroes. Kamala Harris is a perpetrator of this upside-down morality.

Harris believes in “freedom from gun violence.” She claims to support the 2^nd Amendment, but clearly does not, because she still wants to legislate everything about firearms. The language of the 2^nd Amendment is undeniably clear that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This right is to be entirely left alone. It’s not even up for discussion in legislative chambers. But here we are, with dozens of state and federal laws boxing in guns and the people who choose to own them. Some of the policies Harris wants to legislate are “red flag laws” and not selling assault weapons to civilians. But what kind of gun isn’t an assault weapon? This isn’t logical. It shows more ignorance on Harris’s part. I could write about this topic until the cows come home and your eyes fall out of their sockets, but for now, I will resist.

Furthermore, like Biden, Harris thinks it would be fun to play Robin Hood. But sadly, the government taking from the rich and giving to the poor isn’t a quaint or heroic like a storybook. It’s socialism. Many people immigrated here years ago chasing the American Dream. They sought a land where the government and other systems in place would not shove them down when they managed to stretch up to another rung on the ladder. But now, we have gotten so turned around that presidential candidates openly oppose them. The middle and lower classes may feel uplifted in this moment in history, but what about those whose future choices make them wealthy? The unspoken message is “the rich are bad, and the poor should stay poor.” It’s not prosperity for everyone – it’s average for everyone.

When it comes to healthcare, Harris follows in Obama’s footsteps, pushing for the Affordable Care Act. Its implementation would be made possible, she says, by taxing the wealthy more. But is government healthcare really a good idea? I’m not going to lay out an entire argument for small government here, but I do support it. Healthcare shouldn’t be the government’s responsibility, and modern Americans don’t know it’s wrong to feel entitled to it. Healthcare is incredibly flawed right now, and I think Harris knows that. The problem is she thinks that the federal government is the cure.

These are Kamala Harris’s some of policies and promises for her presidential campaign. But if she truly believes that the implementation of these ideas as soon as possible would be the best for the American people, why doesn’t she use her remaining months as vice president to at least start doing it? That would be a decent indicator that she loves America and genuinely sympathizes with the average citizen.

Not that I am entirely convinced that Donald Trump cares about Americans more than continuing his dynastic reign. I am not on the Trump Train. He is very proud, but he has decent and effective policies. He is stalwart but incredibly arrogant. Of course, it would be almost impossible not to be, considering his success. It would be difficult not to be just as rude and prideful if I were in his shoes.

Despite this, the most important thing about a presidential candidate isn’t his personality. It’s his values and ability to follow-through. With Trump, we already know he can follow through on his promises. It is an undeniable fact that the economy was better under Trump. He is forward and direct about his policies. We never have to guess what he believes, because he is forthright and blunt about his opinions.

His position on abortion leaves much to be desired, but it is not as drastic as the Democrat’s. He says the states should decide. While this still doesn’t recognize all human life and condemn baby murder, it is much better than the federal government trying to force the whole nation to kill their infant citizens.

He adamantly states that uncontrolled immigration into our country right now is a big problem. On his website, the number one statement of his platform is “Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion.” Number two is “Carry out the largest deportation operation in American history.” Number ten is “Stop the migrant crime epidemic, demolish the foreign drug cartels, crush gang violence, and lock up violent offenders.” Clearly, Trump is taking a no-nonsense approach to immigration and the border.

Trump respects the 2^nd Amendment. Number 7: “Defend our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms.” These aren’t Republican values. They’re American values which have been proven to uphold our liberty.

As for taxes and the economy, once again, his opinion is clear. He makes clear his plans to repair the economy. These include battling inflation and outsourcing, giving blue-collar employees large tax cuts, and rebuilding cities that have been misgoverned by Democratic mayors.

Arguably, these policies sound more practical than Madame Vice President’s. But Trump still isn’t the greatest. He’s made many mistakes and is power hungry. Neither candidate is ideal.

It is easy to feel hopeless about something you cannot change, like national politics. Many of us watch the happenings in DC with weeping and gnashing teeth, but this is not nearly as effective as being involved in local politics. A simple way to start is to attend county council and schoolboard meetings, or to join your county’s GOP. The more people you meet, and the more you learn, the more ways you can enact positive change. Having big aspirations isn’t wrong, but they can cause burn out. Starting small is not only more possible, but it may also be all we have left if everything goes off the rails in DC one day. Forming relationships, trust, and communication with your local government early goes a long way. So, we don’t need to feel hopeless! We can be a hopeful, powerful tool in God’s hand. I must remind myself of this as I prepare to go to the polling place.

I am so excited to vote for the first time! While remembering that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, I will choose one who I think will do the country more good. That’s the point, after all. Let’s push political party, charisma, emotion, public speaking skills, and general decorum to the side. Action and results are what this struggling nation needs. I look forward to taking an active role in the upcoming election, and I hope you will too!

Few of us expected Hurricane Helene to be as destructive as it turned out to be when it hit on Friday, September 27. In rural upstate South Carolina, many homes and businesses are still without power. There was a serious rush for gasoline for the next three days immediately following the storm. Trees lay across the roofs of some houses, and I’ve seen one house completely split down the middle by fallen timber. Those who weren’t prepared found themselves in long, wending lines for fast food at the few restaurants open. People need help. And in this unforeseen situation, it has been an unexpected joy to watch my community pull together.

Perhaps you’ve heard about how rude, selfish, and sometimes violent people have been at grocery stores and gas pumps. After a natural disaster, when we feel desperate, it’s instinctive for us to only look out for “me and mine.” But there is a force of people determined to stay cheerful in adversity and to help others. This is known as the Body of Christ at work.

The Methodist church down the road offered free meals under a blue pop-up tent. At the local community center, civilians set up a stand with free snacks and drinks. FEMA gave out food and water at the fire station. It’s not hard to find strangers helping one another.

When the storm hit, a local small business buckled down and focused on selling essentials such as propane, milk, and bread. They extended their hours and their hands to help the community. They committed to staying open as long as people kept coming for three days, and even opened on Sunday.

A little farther away, there’s a beloved mom-and-pop restaurant. In its friendly atmosphere, the owner sings to you on your birthday and signed one-dollar bills are thumbtacked to the counter. They’ve told everyone to come eat - with or without payment.

Life hasn’t been peachy keen for all of us in my area since the storm hit. But we definitely have much to be thankful for. Not far away, the effects of Helene are much more catastrophic. Some of the worst and most historic damage is in western North Carolina. As of the writing of this article, authorities have verified that 230 have lost their lives. The number of missing is disputed, but most sources agree that there are hundreds of people yet to be found. Trees, cars, homes, and human beings were swept away by the ferocious flood waters. Bridges were destroyed. The flood dumped bodies and debris were into the formerly beautiful Lake Lure. There is an entire swath of towns and forest that has become a wasteland.

With all this destruction, one family is thankful to be alive. For security purposes, pseudonyms will be used in this article. The Smith’s eldest daughter, Sarah Martin, is part of my church. She began worrying about her family on Friday when Helene hit, and she couldn’t tell her father happy birthday.

Before the storm, the Smiths had planned to move out of their house on Tuesday, October 1. Their belongings were packed and ready to go. But they lived near the Saluda River, and as the river swelled, their plans changed. Their neighbors evacuated, but authorities told them that they would probably be okay where they were. The empty homes across the street were completely leveled. Torrential rain washed the nearby roads away. As the water inched closer to their house, they moved in with their neighbor, a firefighter, a little farther away from the angry river and stayed there for three days. During that time, they grew closer to their neighbor, who they had barely spoken to before, and soon began calling him Uncle.

With no phone service, rapidly dwindling supplies, and the river ominously approaching, they knew that they needed to get out of the river valley.

Two kayakers came all the way up from Greenville, SC, transporting a mobile Starlink cell tower that they set up near the Smiths. On Sunday morning, they were finally able to communicate with Sarah. They made plans to bring them to her house in SC that day.

They knew they needed to be airlifted out of the area. The roads were gone, and they were trapped. But originally, they were told that the helicopters were too busy for them, and that they needed to make a four hour hike up out of the valley to a gas station, where hopefully someone could get through to pick them up. This would be a difficult task for anyone, but the family of nine had even more struggles. One of their sons, nine-year-old Malachi, is autistic and doesn’t usually walk much, and the family had barely eaten or slept in three days. Trusting in God, they decided to make the journey.

Later, the escape plan changed, and they were told that they could be airlifted after all. So, they hiked two miles up the road, working around downed trees and power lines. Malachi courageously walked a mile and a half of the way, surprising his family members. If the dam broke, they would be directly in the surging flood’s path. Nineteen-year-old Belle told me that her parents and siblings near her age didn’t tell the children “Because they wouldn’t have hiked as hard.”

They were able to make the trek to a Blackhawk helicopter. They all crammed in together and it flew them to an elementary school in a nearby town. Ten-year-old Anna smiled when she told us about getting to wear the headphones and hear what the pilots were saying. After they landed, Belle heard a servicemember tell her father to leave the school parking lot soon if he didn’t want his children to see the dead body that was being flown towards them.

While the Smiths were preparing to set out, my church was worshipping. Sarah shared the story with us after service. Immediately, men offered their trucks to help with the rescue. Our friend Lucy Hayes said, “I’ve got dinner tonight,” even though she didn’t have electricity and hadn’t been able to go grocery shopping since before the storm. People who had been without power for days forgot themselves and were willing to give anything they could to help the family.

A few hours later, we stopped by the Hayes’ house to help with dinner. Mr. Hayes, Mr. Martin, and another friend had all left for the elementary school. It was a roughly forty-five-minute drive. Sarah and her three children were at the house too, waiting for their family’s safe arrival.

We cooked and cleaned and talked until they came. At approximately 5:15, the vehicles pulled in, full of exhausted sojourners. We served them bean soup and naan bread and handed out bottles of water. They ate, but they didn’t eat very much. Their stomachs had to recover from eating so little in the past few days. However, Sarah said that the next day, they devoured thirty eggs.

While we were there, Mr. Hayes found a way to power the water heater with his truck, so that they could take warm showers. Their hiking backpacks, stuffed full of all their belongings, filled the entryway. Some children roamed around outside, while others played with a water table. The young adults in the house sat quietly.

Less than two hours after they had arrived, it was time to transport them to the Martin’s welcoming but small house for the night. My family helped shuttle them over. During those ten minutes in the cars, we heard more of their amazing story. We dropped them off with some air mattresses and bedding.

Throughout the evening, they were kind and thankful, despite their difficult situation. It was a clear testimony of Christ in them. I hope I never forget the sincerity in Mrs. Smith’s voice when she said, with a steaming paper bowl of soup in her hand, “Thank You for the Body of Christ.”

The story is spreading. A friend set up a GoFundMe, and a family in our church started a drive at their homeschool co-op. People freely gave them enough necessities to move into their new house this past Tuesday, just like they had planned to do before the storm. Belle’s boss let them borrow a minivan, and Mrs. Smith said that they now have so much food, she won’t have to cook for a week. They still don’t have power or cell service, but they are borrowing a generator. While times are still hard for them, and they deal with the loss of almost everything they owned, they no longer have to fear for their lives.

The Smith’s story is like what many others are going through right now in North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee. We may be alright, but others are suffering. These Americans, and those who have ventured into the wasteland to rescue them, need the Lord’s protection, provision, and guidance. Let us pray unceasingly for them for as long as it takes and thank God for the Body of Christ at work.

Hillary Clinton Says the Truth

Hillary Clinton promoted the left’s line of thinking the other day while being interviewed by Rachel Maddow. 
 
On September 16th, X poster End Wokeness posted a short clip of Hillary Clinton’s interview, and the video is making the rounds as it raises eyebrows. 
 
In it, Hillary Clinton said plenty of things that would rile a range of people, from crazy deplorable right-wingers to extremist thinkers who believe in the First Amendment. 
 
She stated, “I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda, and whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged, is something that would be a better deterrent…” 
 
The irony is rich with this one. 
 

Hillary Clinton and Propaganda

Hillary Clinton has crafted a career out of shoving propaganda down the throats of unsuspecting Americans for years. After Clinton defended her husband by slandering his accusers, she continued to craft narratives that were advantageous to what she needed for the moment. 
 
The climax of her propaganda resulted in the Steele Dossier and the flow of “Russia, Russia, Russia,” LIES and DISINFORMATION that spread regarding President Trump. Her fingerprints were all over the entire operation and they almost got away with it. 
 
Mind you, she understands the most important facet of propaganda: get to the people first. 
 
We as people tend to form a natural confirmation bias when we hear new information. The first information we hear leaves the most impact. From there, a propagandist just needs to reiterate it and establish it in the minds of the public and they will have a willing group following their every statement. 
 
While people may wake up, the masses will continue to believe the lie from the establishment especially if it is sounded like a trumpet from the rooftops of the corporate media buildings. 
 
We do this when we casually read a headline or two and go about our day. The propaganda gets posted on the front page and everybody runs with it. If a correction or detraction is ever printed, they typically print it in a tiny little spot out of the way of the common reader.  
 
And while Hillary Clinton and the Democrat party have promoted plenty of whoppers when it comes to propaganda, they have absolute disdain for anything that might challenge those lies. 
 

The Danger of Hillary Clinton’s Quote

For those in the know, Clinton’s quote doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already understand. She will stop at nothing to gather power and crush her opposition. We watched it with Trump, and we saw fits of her unbridled hatred for those who support the man. 
 
What fascinates me is that she has completely taken off any cloak of “goodwill” and has leaned into the message of “crush the enemy.” The sad part is that something like this has been the Democrat’s method for a while. Since the Biden administration began, we’ve witnessed information come out of how passionate the Democrats are to control speech...something they used to defend with vigor against an authoritarian evangelical right-wing. 
 
We’ve had truth-teller journalists like Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, Glenn Greenwald, and more get slammed and slandered for reporting on government authoritarianism. They’ve shown us the lengths the government went to when attempting to control the Covid narrative. People were banned and their careers were threatened merely for speaking out against the official narrative. 
 
Emails between people like Dr. Fauci and his cohort explicitly stated that dissenters to the main narrative needed to be crushed and made to look like quacks. 
 
The major revelation of Clinton’s statement is not that we’re suddenly finding out she’s a tyrant. We all have known that forever. Neither is it that we have finally been blessed to see her true motivations. It’s old hat by this point. 
 
No, the revelation in this statement is that the Democrats and their regime have announced that they are doubling down on policing speech and thought. 
 

This is Only the Next Step

They’re no longer hiding the truth or attempting to whitewash over the direction of their crackdown. No, this is just the opening salvo. It’s the mission statement. The treatment of people, especially those who support Trump, will only get worse as the Democrats retain and entrench their power grip over the legal structure of the nation. 
 
A few years ago, we covered the attempted creation of a Disinformation Governance Board. Of course, the explanation was that they wanted to counteract disinformation from foreign actors. Because Russia bad. America good. 
 
Yet, a furor arose when the news was made public. The government got slammed by people from all walks of life. They knew the department would neither A) Stick to purely foreign influence nor B) Control themselves when it came to the American public. However, they attempted to hide behind good intentions and gave lip service to protect the rights of the American people. 
 
We as the American body have put up with quite the abuse from our government, but it was always under the auspices of protecting our rights. In truth, we’ve been sold out by the ones who continued to proclaim America as a free nation founded on the concept of liberty. 
 
But in actuality, they shoved massive legal frameworks the Patriot Act down our throats. Now, we get the joy of being interrogated and physically molested before we fly across state lines. Heck, even if you’re not traveling across state lines, you’ll be given the third degree.  
 

Hillary Clinton and the Democrat’s Intentions

So, when Hillary Clinton comes out proclaiming that we may need to civilly or criminally punish people who speak disinformation, we know the truth. She’s merely setting the stage for the bigger push. Their tyranny no longer requires special cases or foreign interference. Now, it’s merely the government defining your words for you and whether you should be punished for their own interpretation of your words. 
 
The vague nature of the words disinformation and misinformation have provided plenty of space for people like Hillary Clinton to freely move. Typically, a tyrannical government will give you just enough words to give them freedom to do what they want, while using those words to restrict you and your rights. 
 
Since disinformation is so poorly defined, it becomes a proper weapon against anybody for anything. They merely have to use what you said against you, and you become the one with the onus of proof.  
 
For instance, what would stop Hillary Clinton and the Democrats from determining that anybody who says “Trump is not a Nazi” is in fact spreading disinformation? How would you defend yourself? Could you?  
 
You may think that you could take up a line of defense in presenting what a Nazi really is, and how Trump does not align with those credentials. But it doesn’t matter. Kangaroo courts are a physical presentation of propaganda. 
 
A while ago, we talked about the use of kangaroo courts, and Hillary Clinton is shaping the narrative to open up a whole new franchise of these courts. In Soviet Russia, courts had the verdict printed out before the defendant ever took the stand. The show of the trial merely gave the government the justification it needed to determine that your criticism of Stalin’s hair meant you were against the state and must be punished. 
 
We’re not far off. 
 
Clinton proved her belief in the righteousness of the state and the wickedness of the dissenter. She voiced out loud that to the Democrats, certain speech should be punished. This means that your speech could be criminal. While no laws are in the books that speak to disinformation, they have now thrown down the gauntlet and declared that certain speech will in fact soon be criminal. 
 
We tend to point to the First Amendment and yell loudly, “But this says, ‘Freedom of speech’,” yet we are bewildered they don’t hear us. So, we yell louder. The issue is, that they hear us very clearly. The problem is they put no stock or value in the meaning of the words. 
 
It’s similar to a Muslim who approaches a Christian and says, “You must pray 5 times a day. You have to do it, or you will not enter Heaven!” 
 
The Christian would rightfully respond, “I don’t believe in your law. I don’t agree with it. I’m not going to determine my conduct by your law.” 
 
Hillary Clinton and the Democrats do not believe in your constitution. They do not rely on the fundamental values of the framework. They look at your freedom of speech and say, “Go ahead. Live by that. It frees me up to continue to influence levers of power so that I can one day control your speech. Then, you can yell, ‘Free speech!’ at me all you want, as I throw you in prison for saying something I don’t agree with or might harm my attempts at power.” 
 
They’re letting you try to cover yourself with the paper of the Constitution, but it will not protect you in the long run. Just like the value of money, its worth is found when we as a people come into an agreement that the value is what we say it is. If people reject the value of the Constitution, then they will not self-govern with its words. 
 

Hillary Clinton and the People in Power

Those people in power? They don’t respect or value your rights. They see your cries for your rights as merely a speedbump on their highway to tyranny. 
 
The people have recourse, but they must gather the courage to pursue their protection. It involves going on the legal offensive. It involves making public and clear the aims and intentions of the government. It means supporting people who put in the time and research to bring these things to light. It means going under the microscope of a massive government named Leviathan and standing in the gap. It means sacrificing safety and comfort. It means taking on major risks. It most likely means some form of destruction of your finances, family, or freedoms. 
 
It’s a tough pill for the American public to swallow. We tend to think the system will defend our rights for us. The problem is the system has become a threat. Until we catch up, we will believe in passive recognition. 
 
We say to ourselves, “As long as I see there’s a problem, things will get solved.” 
 
It doesn’t work like that. Plenty of people in the Soviet Union saw the problems. Few had the courage to stand against the machine. They were crushed precisely because so many people attempted a passive, quiet recognition of the truth. It didn’t take long for that quiet recognition to mean that even jokes could land a person in the gulags for 20 years. 
 
I’m telling you if you do not speak out vociferously about the state of things, the stakes of saying it will rise dramatically. Hillary Clinton is not just blustering and talking wildly. She is speaking the heart’s position of her and her ilk – the government establishment. 
 
Remember, they’re in this to protect their power. When you see it that way, it all makes sense. 
 
 
 

At this rate, not only am I four-eyed, cross-eyed, and glassy-eyed, but I’m red-eyed. (That’ll make sense in a moment.) I’ve come to realize what these eyes are seeing is the entrenchment of the new religion. 

To cover the Democratic National Convention on the podcast, I sat staring at an endless stream of X posts questioning Harris and Walz, rejecting the Democrat party, and proclaiming the thoughts of those who are tired of corruption, lying, and misinformation. 

But what stuck out to me the most about the DNC was the entrenchment of a religion adversarial to Christianity. 

This adversarial religion begins with the worship of self, but where it ends could be absolute destruction. 

The New Religion and Abortion 

Right off the bat, the DNC made headlines all around the conservative sphere with talk of inflatable IUDs and an unholy sacrament presented front and center. 

That unholy sacrament of the new religion rolled up as a mobile replacement shrine to what would have been Molech and Cybele in another civilization. The altar on wheels parked out front of the DNC this week to offer free abortions and sterilization. Frankly, I’m surprised they didn’t throw in a family pack like a fried chicken joint and offer child mutilations in honor of Tim Walz.  

But they at least had the sense to offer coupons for hot dogs. Nothing like cheap garbage meat makes the pain of destroying your future child or rendering your tool of procreation useless go away.  

 The New Religion's Beliefs

While you might think that ancient demon worship through murder and mutilation was enough to turn your stomach (much like the hot dog), the messaging from the Democrat party itself shows a deeper entrenched level of a new religion than one ever thought possible. 

Despite the lack of a policy position on Harris’ website, we have been fed small breadcrumbs of what a Harris/Walz ticket might prioritize. 

Most of us missed the first thing that came out because they released it under the radar. Even though most people don’t have the hair prick up on the back of their neck when the words “price controls” come around, those deadly two words should make everybody stop in their tracks. 

Almost no economist worth their salt believes that price controls help an economy.  

In a 1992 survey of economists, only 8.4% supported the idea that wage-price controls are useful when dealing with inflation. Yet, the Democrats floated the idea on the waters to test how the people might respond. After all, they need to solve the inflation they instigated and encouraged. 

Now this alone would not be a sign of the slide into an adversarial new religion underneath our noses. 

However, some of the few policy positions floated by the Democrats involve raising the corporate tax rate as well as instituting an unrealized gains tax. While they quickly associated the tax with the ultra-rich by saying it only involves those with $100 million in assets or more, they conveniently left out how taxes like this would absolutely crush the economy for minimal gain. 

However, the policies weren’t the only thing showing the new religious structures being erected. 

Not only are the policies coming out in support of higher taxes, more strangles on the economy, and expanded programs, but they sacrificed the concept of democracy in front of their very own loyal base. And the base cheered for it. 

The New Religion's New Mouthpieces

Kamala Harris failed to garner ANY support during the 2020 primaries. She stepped out due to being so unpopular, yet somehow secured a vice president position based on her skin color and gender. Once old man Biden proved he was too old and decrepit to do anything political, the elites in charge skipped an open primary. They quickly secured Kamala Harris as their candidate, despite the fact that Biden had won the 2024 primary. This helped them not only squash the thought of the people stupidly choosing their own candidate but made it much easier to slide all the millions of dollars Biden had raised into Kamala’s coffers. 

She is surrounded by the elite of the new religion. And they put one of their biggest proponents in the VP spot behind her. 

Tim Walz as Harris’ vice president pick proves a lot to those concerned that this next administration might be leaning into an established socialist order (and worse). He is the grinning, overly enthusiastic uncle who might sell a car with a bad transmission to an old lady to make a buck. He’d pat her on the back and wave goodbye as the car lurched out of the parking lot. 

The man seems to thrive on revolution, as his own wife admitted to opening the windows to enjoy the smell of burning tires in the morning. She reminisced about the meaning of the tires and the protests they represented. It’s only one step removed from loving the smell of napalm in the morning. 

Walz held off the National Guard and security forces during the BLM riots. He signed laws giving the government approval for the state to take kids out of non-gender-affirming homes. He seems to love expanding social programs.  

Debates rage about his love of China and whether he supports the Communist government or just doesn’t like some of its policies. However, a person does not tend to travel to a nation 30 times and learn the language unless they have some form of acceptance from the government. 

He posited that “One man’s neighborliness is another man’s socialism.” 

With Harris and Walz on the ticket, the new religion’s leaders can rest easy if they win. They have their mouthpieces in place and the ability to control the entire system.  

The New Religion in America 

The new American religion has many aspects to it. It disintegrates the family and assumes government authority over kids. It crushes capitalism through taxes, regulations, and antagonism to the economy. It floods the country with a more righteous group of people who are loyal to the state. It condemns and silences alternative voices. It desires to control every choice, thought, and action. Complete submission and obedience to all of its rules make the common citizen a sudden worshipper. It carries an entire structure of belief systems that are threatened by any attempt at challenging them. It boasts its priests and preachers. It reveres and establishes its sacraments. 

Mind you, the new religion is not just “communism.” It’s an entire restructuring of the Western way of life, which used to boast Christianity as its religion. The new religion is global in its organization and sets itself in opposition to Christianity and Judaism specifically. 

It has answers for every aspect of your life and those solutions were on full display at the DNC. 

Economic problems? More taxes, regulations, and laws against those evil corporations. 

Identity problems? Celebrate and worship how you feel and your desires. 

Family problems? Ensure the government has authority over children. 

Fear for the future? Utopia is right around the corner. We just need to institute a few more things and you’ll be happy in their version of “heaven.” 

Neighbor problems? Just report them to the new religion’s god and they’ll take care of that pesky neighbor for you. Your prayers are answered. 

Have a Satan problem? They’ll try to rid you of his menace. 

To them, Trump is not just evil. He’s not just literally Hitler. He is the incarnate of Satan. He is the force of darkness that must be crushed. 

The priests (the elite) and the preachers (media and journalists) all took every measure possible to let you know that Satan is alive and well in America. He may be missing a bit of his ear now, but rest assured they will do everything they can to put him in prison...or worse.  

And the moment they rid the world of Trump; they will feel safe to fully establish their religion. 

The New Religion Gaslit You

You see, for decades they gaslit you. They told you that you were evil, hateful, close-minded Christians who wanted to enforce your religion through government. You begged and pleaded with them, saying to anybody who would listen that you didn’t want to force your religion on anybody. Instead, you wanted to love and understand them. You wanted peace. 

They wanted you to back off so they could establish their own new religion through the state. Now we have laws in certain states requiring parents to take oaths against their conscience by agreeing that their daughters are now sons, and their sons are now daughters. 

The Puritans would be shaking their heads in shame after they fought for almost 100 years to avoid condemning oaths. 

The progressive movement harassed you when you said you didn’t want certain books available to your kid without your supervision. They determined you were forcing your morals on them. 

They screamed and cried that your position on abortion was tantamount to you controlling their bodies. 

Yet, there is no such thing as an ideological vacuum. Something must take the place of the old belief system. The progressives have successfully brainwashed the masses into believing that they are not a new religion but merely secularism in progress. Now, the Christian hides cowering in their pews with their mouths shut as the progressives continue to solidify their march through the institutions of power. 

We’ve witnessed the force and crackdown happen here in America when an alternative belief system attempts to rise up. We’re watching it happen in Britain. It happened and solidified a while ago in Canada. New Zealand and Australia proved the progressive rot. 

What is The New Religion?

The new religion in America isn’t communism. That’s much too simple and outdated. It’s not just globalism. That’s too shallow of a connection to the rest of the world. 

Instead, the new religion puts its tenets on display without ever really telling the truth. Every idea of the progressive machine gives to the pleasures of the common man, who in turn worships the god of the new religion. While we see: 

Abortion 

Vasectomies 

Crushing state force 

The destruction of personal property 

They desire 

Ending future generations 

Preventing humanity from continuing 

Control over every aspect of your life 

Removal of any power in defending one’s sovereignty 

In a nutshell, the new religion hates humanity and desires to give control to a select few. They want complete control over the common man and yet hate him at the same time. Which sounds strangely like something Satan would do... 

You are not loved by the new god. You are despised. 

You are not created by the new god. You are only destroyed. 

You are not unique to the new god. You are useless dirt. 

Your presence is not enjoyed. It’s loathed. 

No, the new religion is not communism. It’s not just the reanimation of old gods (demons) in new ways. It’s not just economic systems. It’s all of that with the express purpose of creating obedient worship of the state to uplift the world system. It's the ultimate consolidation of all of these aims. But in the end, it's final goal is to sacrifice you for the greater good. 

In Christianity, God sacrificed Himself for you. 

The choice is becoming all too clear. Follow Christ and be hated by a system that already hates you. Or, reject Christ and become a cog in the machine of the system that will hate you anyway. 

Only through Christ can you step out and become separated from the new religion, which is just the old religion as a new attempt by Satan. 

Make your choice. Christ or the new religion. Which will it be? 

Oftentimes, people living in America sit back with a cold drink and watch the drama unfold as though it were a daytime soap opera. After all, we live here in America, where we have the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, bald eagles, and Donald Trump.  

But can we rely on that protection while being passive about it? Is it truly something the US government would never trample on or try to circumvent? 

Tim Walz's War on Free Speech – The Only War He’s Been in 

Governor Tim Walz has been assigned to the Harris presidency ticket. The man obliterated Minnesota during the BLM riots; all in the name of social justice and the progressive cause du jour. However, Mr. Walz previously opened his mouth and said something rather extraordinary that may matter more than his lack of bringing in troops to quell riots. 

In an interview with MSNBC, he said, “I think we need to push back on this. There is no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” 

If you look at the First Amendment, he is right: misinformation and hate speech are not specifically named under the protective covering of the right to free speech. 

However, if we remember correctly, the First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…” and then lists a series of situations that Congress shall make no law regarding. Included in the series of situations that Congress shall make no law regarding, it says, “Abridging the freedom of speech.” 

Abridging means to make less, diminish, or shorten in duration or extent. In other words, Congress shall make no law regarding the diminishing of freedom of speech. This means that things like “misinformation” and “hate speech” are AUTOMATICALLY filed under freedom of speech. They are speech, are they not? 

But Congress Isn’t Writing Laws Against Free Speech 

Some may argue that Congress is not making any laws regarding free speech. They may try to argue that government “influence” against disfavored speech is completely acceptable. They’re purposefully being obtuse for two reasons. 

First, Congress is the only branch within the government structure (at least as the Constitution lays out) that can write law. The executive branch enforces those laws, and the judiciary interprets those laws for their use. This means that the only time a government should act against a citizen is when a law has been transgressed. Also, nowhere within the Constitution does it pass the power of law-making to other organizations...such as the three-letter agencies. Those agencies, if at all constitutional (and one wonders), exist solely to aid in the executive branch’s carrying out of the enforcement of laws. Unfortunately, Congress gave away their responsibility of writing law and allowed the bureaucratic behemoth in Washington DC to write regulations and ordinances. 

This means that an agency or representative of the government cannot diminish or limit the speech of an individual – no matter how much they dislike it. If Congress cannot move against a citizen through law, how could we possibly believe that a government official could act against a citizen without similarly defying the Constitution? Why would their action which amounts to the same results somehow be more righteous than an act of Congress? 

Second, a government should not have opinions. Controlling speech amounts to an opinion on what the citizens are saying. The federal government was structured to be a representative and arbiter of the states to each other and the rest of the world. Interaction between the individual and the federal government was supposed to be extremely limited. In fact, the Constitution says that the federal government cannot directly tax the individual. But, you know, constitutional illiteracy and all that... 

Worse yet, a government should have no opinions when it comes to things like personal beliefs, convictions, health choices, science, education, etc. It's not their jurisdiction. If the government wishes to argue against a belief of the citizenry, it may do so in an official capacity, but it must never use suppressive force directly or indirectly to modify the speech of its citizens.  

Mr. Walz – You’re a Dictator in Progress 

Mr. Walz, you are flat-out wrong, and you know it. While you spit invectively at anyone who you believe is foolish enough to have faith in the protection of speech, you might want to refresh yourself at the fount of rights. Even though you believe that government coercion and oppression are useful tools to get what you want, you march in the footsteps of some very wicked and dangerous forefathers. 

Governments have killed people for “misinformation” and “hate speech.” 

After all, who labels misinformation or hate speech? You? Congress? How about people offended by the comment? Strangely, you fall worship at the feet of the monolith US government. At some point, you determined that a collection of human beings must be wiser, more expert, and truer than the collection of human beings they rule over. You give that group of uniquely god-like humans the power and authority to wage war against a group of clod-like human beings who must be engineered to speak what the government deems right. 

You’ve decided that the gods must save the clods from themselves and their evil free speech. Sadly, a god complex in a group of humans often ends in the destruction of masses of people. 

Our Historical Struggles with Free Speech 

Despite what most may believe, our founders themselves struggled to cope with the idea of defending freedom of speech for the citizens. John Adams himself signed the Alien and Sedition Act, which put people in jail for speaking against the government’s objectives and positions. This happened a mere 9 years after the Bill of Rights was written! 

Later on, we had the Espionage Act, which criminalized speech critical of the war effort. Eugene Debs was given 10 years for giving an anti-war speech. 

Our government ran afoul of free speech amid the Civil War, Red Scare, Jim Crow, Vietnam, and COVID-19. Throughout our history as a nation, the ones in power have feared the dangerous opinions and voices of the people themselves. 

Every single time, the claim is that the rising crisis demands control of speech. Each appeal to speech control seems to circumvent the spirit of the 1st Amendment. What is the spirit of the First Amendment? Do not control a person’s convictions or expression of those convictions! 

Nowadays, agencies and bureaucracies feign adhering to the Constitution by sending petitions to the private sector, controlling the narrative through media mouthpieces, and slowly crushing the ability of the dissenter to convey their message. 

Free Speech Requires Standing Against Wickedness 

Wickedness finds a method and will only follow the rules as far as the righteous enforce them. A populace must speak, become boisterous, and use publicity to reinforce important boundaries designed to hem in the force of the government. This means standing on conviction even if the threat of jail or fines manifests. While it is difficult for the average citizen to think of going up against the might of a government with a blank check to prosecute you (with your tax dollars mind you), it is the collective bravery of those willing to take that risk who bring change. Men like Mandela, MLK Jr., Gandhi, and more did not avoid the pressure of a government. They knew that pressure itself would bring to light the atrocities committed in the name of the “common good” and “safety”. 

Remember, your greatest rights were fought and died for by those willing to take a stand. Even the Puritans waged a war for speech against the Queen in England during the mid-16th century. 

In 1563, Queen Elizabeth saw fit to claim herself the head of the church and the state, and in doing so attempted to stifle any criticism of her marriage of state and church. 

The Puritans deeply believed such a move was religiously wrong and the Queen began persecuting them. She forced them to confess by taking oaths against their conscience. The Puritans fought against the oaths, and for almost 100 years, they battled Queen Elizabeth, King James I, and King Charles I. Finally, in 1640, with London in absolute chaos, the oath was removed, and the court that enforced it was disbanded, and the commission in charge of the court was liquidated.  

What did this produce? The right to remain silent. In other words, the right to determine your speech for yourself.

Free Speech is Defensible 

The continual war for speech rages directly in opposition to the war for control over speech. As a government leans into the idea that speech is dangerous, it must take a vocal and adamant population to stand firm that speech is necessary in all its forms. 

The citizen must speak for himself no matter the cost and recognize that if the government fears it, then it must be worth saying. 

It seems as though Donald Trump and Elon Musk draw lightning no matter where they go. Put them into the same space and suddenly the whole world draws near to see the fireworks. And like clockwork, discussions swirl around free speech. 

Monday night, X Spaces hosted a conversation between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. 2.1 million people listened in, while the post itself gathered over 54 million views. While these numbers are impressive, the number one Spaces event remains Musk’s discussion with Ron Desantis a few years ago. 

Of course, technical troubles before the discussion with Trump caused saliva to run down the chins of the establishment media. They took no time at all to report about the “glitches” and “technical difficulties” before the program began. 

Musk claims the attack was a DDOS attack or a distributed denial-of-service attack. This type of cyber-attack is akin to trying to fit so many people through the gate that the system crashes and is of use to no one.  

The drooling, lap-dog media put it upon themselves to march out anonymous sources who claim Musk was lying and that he was lying about the attack. 

The hatred for Musk and for Trump showed itself on full display both before and after the event.

The EU Put Their Hat in the Ring 

Hours before Musk and Trump were scheduled to sit down, the internal market commissioner of the EU, Thierry Breton, threatened Musk and his attempt to put EU citizens at “serious harm”. 

In his strongly worded letter, Breton made it his duty to warn Musk that he must do “due diligence” to oblige by the Digital Services Act of the EU. Breton stated in his letter, “As the individual entity ultimately controlling a platform with over 300 million users worldwide, of which one-third is in the EU, that has been designated as a Very Large Online Platform, you have the legal obligation to ensure X’s compliance with EU law and in particular the DSA in the EU.” 

He continued, “This notably means ensuring, on one hand, the freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism, are effectively protected and, on the other hand, that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events, including live streaming, which, if unaddressed, might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security.” 

One wonders how a person might reasonably protect freedom of expression and information, and yet at the same time censor anything possibly deemed “detrimental” to civic discourse and public security. 

Breton posted the letter on X with a caption reading, “With great audience comes greater responsibility. As there is a risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in the EU in connection with events with major audiences around the world, I sent this letter to @elonmusk.” 

The tyrant-in-training finished his letter with a promise. He wrote, "My services and I will be extremely vigilant to any evidence that points to breaches of the DSA and will not hesitate to make full use of our toolbox, including by adopting interim measures, should it be warranted to protect EU citizens from serious harm," the Commissioner added.  

Meanwhile, reports now indicate that Brussels itself did not approve the letter and seems a little miffed that Breton stepped out the way he did. The Financial Times reports that the European Commission denied that Breton had approval from President Ursula von der Leyen to follow through with the letter. 

The Threat Against Free Speech 

Even though Breton seems to have embarrassed himself slightly in the eyes of Brussels, X continues to be under the microscope of the EU. Strangely, it’s as though a platform whose owner talks frequently about free speech, and rights might be a threat to the authoritarian regime of the EU. 

Add in the riots in the UK and the 1984-style crackdown on how information flows on social media, and X has again found itself in the crosshairs of the censors-on-high. 

If the EU decides that X has not followed the DSA discussed by Breton, they could potentially face fines of up to 6 percent of their worldwide turnover, as reported by the Financial Times. This would make for a nice little bonus in the EU coffers. 

The Power of Independence and Free Speech 

Unfortunately, the EU wasn’t the only entity discussing speech censorship BEFORE the Trump and Musk interview. During the press briefing at the White House on Monday, hours before the interview, the Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson Jr. wondered, "What role does the White House or the president have in sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of intervening in that? Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but, you know, it’s a wider thing, right?" 

Imagine, a reporter questioning a White House Press Secretary on the role of the President in stopping “misinformation” from a conversation between a business owner and a presidential candidate. 

Of course, the fact-checkers were out in droves to claim that Trump lied anywhere from 20 times to 200 times.  

But the gall of the progressive and authoritarian camp is on full display before our very eyes. We now witness preemptive strikes by those who deem speech a danger to society and civility, as they clamor for any means necessary to stop a man they hate. 

Regard for citizen’s rights has been flown out the window under the cover of public safety. And they will continue to do so. 

Why? Fear drives panic. Panic pushes people to look for someone to be in charge. When a person steps up and offers their hand, all they ask in return is the obedience and submitted heart of the person following them. Our expert and political class recognizes that society has hit the point at which they can drive fear to build obedience. 

Look no further than Covid, when people masked up and socially distanced by the billions, all because their government told them to be afraid. Now, the new pandemic is not an air-borne illness, but conversations and posts on social media. The infection and sickness are now racism, hatred, and violence. 

Even though the tiny number of cases is questionable, the authoritarian establishment will continue to double down on this danger. At the end of the day, they care so much because they themselves live in fear. They fear the populace. They fear the loss of power. They shake at the thought of falling into obscurity and seeing their aims and goals fade into the mist. 

Never Back Down on Free Speech 

We’ve watched plenty of moves to squash, restrict, and punish free speech. The common individual must grasp free speech with every fiber of their being. If we do not, we will compromise the deepest parts of us – our beliefs and convictions. Once we give in to the bully forcing us to be silent, we will dramatically shift our inner beliefs to match our actions. We will slowly and surely shrug our shoulders saying, “It didn’t matter that much anyway.”  

If we find ourselves in that position, then we’ve already lost. Now is the vital time in which the American spirit can push against any thought of authoritarian control. As a populace, we can make sure those in positions of power give up their own beliefs and convictions instead. 

We can ensure they are the ones who shrug their shoulders and say, “It didn’t matter that much anyway.” 

While we have stock market crashes, war between Iran and Israel, elections heating up, and Olympic boxing controversies, we may learn a couple of lessons from the chaos unfolding over in England.

What Happened in the UK?

A 17-year-old boy is being accused of stabbing three little girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport.

Axel Rudakubanais currently being charged with murdering three girls while being charged with 10 counts of attempted murder after stabbing others in the class.

Rumors swirled around the event, as people claimed a Muslim immigrant had stabbed the girls in a rampage. Rudakubana’s family is of Rwandan descent, however, it is believed that Rudakubana was not a first-generation migrant. They are also believed to be faithful church-going Christians. Of course, we must be skeptical of any and all information provided.

This event sparked massive protests which included burning vehicles and setting buildings on fire. As a response, roving groups of Muslims counter-protested as coalitions of communists, LGBTQ, and pro-Palestinian protesters also set themselves against pro-UK marches and protests.

Riots in the UK

While the media and government are quick to blame “disinformation” for the uprising in protests, various local sources have expressed what they believe is inspiring their fellow Brits: frustration at a two-tiered system that has seen countless events in which the natives are subjected to arrest and prosecution as immigrants avoid harsh punishments for horrible crimes.

At the same time, the energy and chaos of the boil-over have dangerous consequences. Videos of Muslims attacking white Englishmen, and the opposite have flooded X, along with videos from the riots and protests that have engulfed plenty of cities. Some groups of pro-UK men have torched hotels in which migrants have been housed, and city centers have been torn apart. Muslim patrols are now seeking out white men and beating them in the streets.

Meanwhile, news reports on the scene discuss the danger of “far-right” protesters as Muslim men can be seen in the background carrying machetes and weapons.

During some of these events, police took it upon themselves to politely ask Muslim men to carry their weapons to their Mosque, while 24-hour courts are being opened to try and convict “far-right” protesters.

Contrasts have been made between the reaction of Prime Minister Kier Starmer when the Black Lives Matter riots were happening a few years ago and the current riots of outrage over the death of the three little girls. During the BLM riots, Starmer made certain to voice solidarity with those mostly peaceful protesters. Now, Starmer vows swift and brutal justice against the “rioters” and their violent actions.

The language of the government officials throughout the course of the weekend has been nothing short of unified as they label all of the protesters as violent, far-right thugs and opportunists. When some officials have attempted to link the enraged emotions of the protesters to migration and a seemingly two-tiered system, they have been swiftly censored and deleted from social media. Not just this, but when calls have been made to hear the frustrations of the “native” population, calls are made to remove the license of the news organization and to make platforms responsible for promoting incitement.

Tommy Robinson, a pro-UK native boogeyman of the left, was wrongfully indicted by the media for his supposed role in the riots, even though Robinson was on vacation with his family outside of the country. The news, however, chose to report that Robinson had skipped town to avoid a court proceeding.

Home raids are now being done not just for those who physically participated in the raids but in search of people who are being accused of whipping up sentiments online. This can and has included people who have shared information or posted opinions on the events.

The Danger of Free Speech

In his address, PM Starmer stated regarding the mobility of the protesters, “And we must have a policing response that can do the same. Shared intelligence, wider deployment of facial recognition technology, and preventive action – criminal behaviour orders, to restrict their movements before they can even board a train. In just the same way we do with football hooligans. And let me also say to large social media companies and those who run them, violent disorder clearly whipped up online, that is also a crime. It’s happening on your premises and the law must be upheld everywhere. That is the single most important duty of Government. Service rests on security. And we will take all necessary action to keep our streets safe.”

Various news outlets have taken it upon themselves to write articles asking which horrible people online are behind the riots as they take Elon Musk to task for championing X as a free speech platform. The New York Times has even taken it upon themselves to ask what social media companies will do about riots being fomented online.

Of course, governments and news organizations(are they not an extension of one another?) have cried loudly and often about the dangers of disinformation and misinformation while spilling forth a confusing brew of lies and misdirection. Mind you, they cite each other as credible sources and proper opinions.

In one embarrassing example, Good Morning Britain’s Ed Ball interviewed his wife, MP Yvette Cooper about the riots and the dastardly far-right thugs. Using appeals to emotions and carefully curated content, they uplifted the innocent status of one group and the absolute banality of evil residing in the other group.

The media and government claim that social media must be stopped, yet at the same time peddle their own narratives without a second thought. All while many social media platforms work hand-in-hand with them to curate the “truth.” (For an outstanding source, look up Matt Taibi and his work on the Twitter files.)

They claim that they must be the gatekeepers of truth and that the populace is not trustworthy enough to understand or grasp hold of the truth floating past.

Fear of Free Speech

Entrenched and established powers fear the cognizance of the populace. As a populace becomes more and more frustrated with the agenda of the elites, the powers-that-be escalate their own fear and use it as motivation to then subject the populace to a two-pronged attack.

Scare the populace into submitting by telling them how dangerous they are to be caught with freedoms and enact programs to supposedly alleviate the fear and protect the populace from themselves.

In other words, “I’m scared of you. You’re a risk. Your neighbors are a risk. So, we’ll oppress you and then we can all be safe from you.”

Fear dictates so much in a social group and becomes a powerful tool to entrench agendas once thought to be merely conspiracy theories. Instability provides organizers the opportunity to sell frightened people the illusion of safety and stability. After all, offer a person comfort, safety, and stability in hard times and they will gladly do what you ask or submit to whatever requirements you’ve placed in front of them.

The UK itself has sat under the thumb of a techno-dictatorship for decades. The people of the UK have become largely complacent with cameras on every single inch of their homeland, raids for social media posts, advanced spying tech used on the populace, and draconian lockdown and mandate measures.

Unfortunately, we in the United States do not fare much better.

What Can We Learn from the UK Riots?

We in the United States most likely will not learn much. We are victims of our own success in a way. Those who know about the First Amendment and the protections it affords often believe that our First Amendment will always exist for our safety against tyranny. Little do we understand the efforts the government, media, and private companies make as they look to circumvent a citizen’s free speech.

Lest we forget, the government attempted a program under the Department of Homeland Security titled the Disinformation Governance Board. While officials assured Americans that it only had to do with foreign entities, a furor arose over the presence of people in the government attempting to parse out “disinformation” from “truth” in an official capacity.

We smelled the rat and looked to expel it. But the problem is, that thousands of rats are already crawling inside our walls.

Thankfully, a site such as X provides a powerful resource for ferreting out the truth about events such as the riots. The site may not be decentralized in the truest form, but access to information through millions of people is akin to decentralization. X still struggles with some censorship issues and is not perfect by any means, but the choke-hold algorithms put in place by sites like Facebook and YouTube do far worse damage.

The UK riots were a long time coming. For years, the populace has felt unheard when it comes to vast numbers of migrants. The people still hold frustration and hurt from the absolute debacle of the Rotherham grooming gang controversies and its apparent two-tiered justice system. The citizens’ frustrations have mounted as their major population centers are increasingly filled by migrants. Look no further than the UK’s own reports on the numbers being migrated into the UK.

While media outlets claim the citizens are overblowing the situation, even the IMF has published articles extolling the virtues (and reasons) for massive migration. They cite the falling birthrates of native populations and the economic importance of importing a new workforce.

Debates rage and narratives are constructed on both sides. The power of speech becomes more important as each side recognizes the need to influence people to their side. As the information war heats up, we can easily expect one side to stamp down more and more on freedom of speech, travel thought, and religion.

Those in power do not like that power threatened. Unfortunately, many of those in power only understand the language of power. As our education systems have been handed over to Marxist and progressive minds for the past 120 years, we cannot but expect that those who appreciate and uphold the established structure will defend its very existence.

The system becomes their god. It feeds them, protects them, provides for them, and guides them. After all, it keeps those nasty, brutish invading individualists out and punishes them for the audacious thought of threatening the levers of establishment power.

So do not expect the system to do you any favors. Do not expect the system to give you justice. Giving you justice will only show the system its own immorality and injustice. No man or structure, built up in pride, is willing to become introspective.

While we may hope and pine for the day the elites learn to back off, much like the founders hoped the crown would do before the Declaration of Independence, it will not happen without the populace unified and demanding adherence to the supposed social contract between a government and its people.

If you learn one thing America, it is that the injustice of power oppressing the people cannot rest. If individualists and conservatives must learn the language of power to speak to the entrenched elites, then so be it. It is all they speak. It is all they know. You may not do it willingly or with enthusiasm, but neither were our founders flippantly desirous of the consequences when speaking truth to power. Speak truth to power. Do not let your voices rest. And while of course, we all call for peaceful protest...protest we must.

It’s a weird time to be alive. 

We’ve watched the age of reason push its way through the centuries and now we seem to be sitting in a weird waiting room of cultural collapse. It’s as though we’re watching Western civilization destroy itself in slow motion when in reality it is plummeting fast. From the Enlightenment to today, we’ve sprinted ourselves towards destruction. 

You may wonder what Western civilization and the Enlightenment have to do with what we witnessed at the Olympic Games, but a direct connection can and should be made. 

The Enlightenment 

During the Enlightenment, ideas such as science, skepticism, and rationality made massive inroads. These informed the zeitgeist of the last 300 or so years. The pursuit of intellectualism during the age of reason did away with such frivolous ideas as myth, religion, or divine influence while upholding the rational basis of materialism. 

A few hundred years after the Enlightenment took off, we saw a massive doubling-down on these ideas with a general acceptance of materialism. Darwin’s theory of evolution primed the pump and preceded the philosophical implications of Darwinism, which included Marxism, Fascism, and the like. Marx himself found massive inspiration from Darwin and materialism in his weighing out of the economy as a social structure.  

While some may argue that Marxism itself is an economic theory, it quickly and easily consumed not just the economy but encompassed civilization and culture. After all, an economy is merely a massive expression of a society at large.  

Psst - (Marx himself desired to walk through the ruins of civilization...so there’s that.) 

But now, we seem to be sitting expectantly as the culture collapses like a building scheduled for demolition. And the Olympic games were a perfect example. 

Pride, Greece, and the Olympic Games 

Look no further than the hedonistic display at the 2024 Olympic Games opening ceremony. Debate rages as to whether the event evoked a theme of Greek mythology or expertly used demonic symbolism to mock and ridicule Christians.  

Even if it did happen to be a truly innocuous expression of Greek mythology, it perverted its mission. The massive focus on drag queens, the LGBTQ community, flamboyancy, sexuality, gender confusion, and self-indulgence became too much to ignore. Even though the presence of Dionysus supposedly showed the “festival” nature of the event, the presence of drag, gay, and sexualized imagery everywhere became the focus while Dionysus merely pointed the way to the central theme of unbridled hedonism. 

In other words, LGBTQ became the fanciful mythos of the night.  

However, they chose not to stop there. 

The event took on plenty of imagery that could be explained away as symbols of Greek mythology and paganism. 

More and more, expressions of paganism and old-world symbolism seem to be making their way back. While the occult, paganism, and old world always threaded itself through western civilization by being passed across generations in dusty books and dark rooms; the overt expression of ritualistic symbolism and pagan worship had an age of staying out of the limelight of the general public. 

No longer is that the case. The Olympic games gave us proof. 

Western civilization has lost its faith in materialism. It just doesn’t realize it yet. Whether the Pride movement was borne as a natural consequence of materialism or not will be a debated conclusion for ages to come. But no one can deny that general respect for decency and morality was lost in the ages following the height of rationalism. 

The rejection of Christian moral foundations provided the fertile soil for not just the immoral but opened the floodgates for people to seek meaning greater than themselves through the methods generally sought before the age of science and reason. Don’t forget, that witchcraft and the occult are rapidly growing practices. 

Western Civilization and the Olympic Games 

As Western civilization sought to shake off the chains of such an oppressive Christian identity, it was left scrambling to pick up a new identity. Sexuality became the religion of the masses. It consumed us and understandably so. Sexuality was God’s gift to us as humans. To unite as one flesh and create new life was akin to the joy God feels at being able to have creation itself in existence. He supercharged sexuality for us, and we removed Him from the act. 

Materialism allowed for the hollowing out of the spiritual nature of sexuality and let the minds of men race to the abyss. After all, if we are mere animals, and sex has no more value than a jolt of feel-good, then why not pursue the basest of desires: self-gratification? 

Western civilization fell headfirst into the trap set by Satan. We now have come full circle by reigniting the recognition that there is more to this world than just what we can experience through the five senses. Unfortunately for us, we did not reestablish the truth of God. Instead, we hollowed out faith in the supernatural and are slowly rebuilding it in our image. 

The grotesque nature of pagan symbolism will only grow in its boldness as more humans become the tools of the kingdom of darkness. Our allegiance is required to one or the other. Either God’s kingdom or Satan’s. There is no neutral position to take in the spiritual war. 

Pagan Symbols in the Olympic Games 

When we witness imagery like the world did a few nights ago while watching the Olympic games, we must recognize it for what it is. It was a spiritual flag planted by Satan. Whether the show's director knew what he was truly doing or not doesn’t matter. Most make a pretty reasonable argument that, deep down, Thomas Jolly knew exactly what he was doing. 

The woman at the center of the display even posted on social media that it was the “New Gay Testament.” You can’t get around that too easily. 

But let’s say that the director and coordinators of the Olympic Games ceremony truly had no idea of what they were doing. It doesn’t matter. The presentation showed not just symbols that would be an affront to God, but uplifted and celebrated old religions as though they were uniquely worthy of celebration. 

Sadly, we’ve also witnessed disgusting displays of pagan and occultist symbolism at global events such as the Birmingham Commonwealth Games in 2022 or the 2016 inauguration of the Gotthard tunnel. Looking at these events brings an obvious gasp to any Christian who has some sense of biblical imagery and the pains which humanity has repeatedly taken to insult God through their perverted worship and insults to His holiness. 

Sexuality and a Dying Civilization 

The presentation seen from the Olympic Games the other night contained an endless supply of gyrating, groping, convenient slippages of private parts, hyper-sexualized gender confusion, and even the presence of children in inappropriate company. Marry the whole thing to paganism and old-world religions and you have a recipe for a true affront to the Abrahamic faiths.  

We are dying as a civilization, and this is our last gasp of breath. Much like Stalin shaking his fist at God, we’re not using our final breath to repent but to pridefully resent God and His righteous nature. 

In the end, sexuality plays a pivotal role in ritualism and the occult. Whether gender confusion, unnatural acts, or worse, Satan conveniently creates a dark trifecta of temptation with power, sex, and wealth. 

However, this isn’t the first time a civilization has found itself dying such a death. Camille Paglia noted when discussing the gender confusion of dying civilizations, “And the people who live in such periods of late phase of culture, whether it's the Hellenistic era, whether it's the Roman empire, whether it's the move decade of Oscar Wilde in the 1890s, whether it's Weimar Germany; people who live in such times feel that they're very sophisticated; they're very cosmopolitan. Homosexuality, heterosexuality...anything goes and so on. From the perspective of historical distance, you can see that it's a culture that no longer believes in itself.” 

Our civilization no longer believes in itself, yet it mistakenly believes it is beyond morality’s supposed chains. The modern West pursues the zest of life by chasing after the more outrageous, the more explicit, and the more animalistic. What they don’t realize is that the pathway is a steep avalanche to destruction. 

And Satan will only provide a smooth pathway to speed up Western civilization toward the crushing weight of consequence. We cannot last long this way, and as our civilization embraces the ritualistic practices of the old, we will see how deep the debauchery goes. 

The Book of Romans 

Take to heart the death spiral of the West, and then read what Paul has to say in Romans. 

Romans 1:18-32 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” 

Our culture spends a lot of time telling us all what it believes masculinity should be. The descriptions vary, but our culture hopes to sway all of us toward their view. While men have searched for masculinity since time began, the conversation rarely ever took such a controversial tone in popular society. Today, society cannot determine whether men or women are different. In the next breath, we argue that men can be women and vice versa.  

 
CS Lewis once said, “[The difference between the old and the new education being] in a word, the old was a kind of propagation – men transmitting manhood to men; the new is merely propaganda.”
 
Don’t we feel this today? Couldn’t we argue that the new method of handling manhood is tantamount to brainwashing the youth in hopes they will align with the propaganda later down the road? Unfortunately, the difference between the propagation and the propaganda rests in whether it is men transmitting true manhood, or society raising our sons to be “men.”
 
Masculinity is a piece of nature that cannot be propagandized out of men...no matter how much the society gnashes its teeth. However, problematic outcomes follow if masculinity is not applied properly. When we do not provide the proper guidance, men run into a whole host of problems and issues.
 
Then, society turns around and blames them.
 

False Masculinity

What is masculinity?  
 
Knowing what it is not may be helpful before discussing what it is.
 
A few years ago, the APA came out with guidelines on how to provide therapy to men. Within those guidelines, the discussion turned to the risky behavior of traditional masculinity. Included in the dangers of traditional masculinity were the traits of what is deemed “toxic masculinity.” This “toxic masculinity,” was made up of 4 specific traits: stoicism, aggression, dominance, and competition.
 
At the bottom of it all, the reader or common person is left with the feeling that something deep within men is wrong or off. After all, these men who participate in risky behaviors are less likely to go to therapy and more likely to skip vegetables. Oh, the humanity!
 
Masculinity is not found in arrogance, sexual promiscuity, greed, hedonism, or any of the images society wants to place on men. It is not found in drunken bar fights, binge drinking, or wild stunts.
 
Society has determined that true masculinity is the cause of all the issues in a man’s life, and therefore any trace of traditional masculinity must be removed. This means embracing emotions, and one’s femininity, becoming accepting of weaknesses and shortcomings, and focusing on being happy with oneself as opposed to seeking growth, development, and improvement.
 
In society’s mind, a man must embrace his inner female to become more “masculine.”

Satan’s Trick

This is Satan’s trick. He demonizes what God creates and twists it to lead us astray. If we look at those traits of stoicism, aggression, competition, and dominance – we find suitable actionable traits that help a man prosper, grow, and overcome. What a man should not do is precisely what society is telling him he should do.
 
While society concerns itself with actions such as caring, kindness, sensitivity, and emotional vulnerability, a true man presents those naturally as an outcome of him truly embracing the masculinity within him.
 

What is Masculinity: The traits

Even though stoicism, aggression, competition, and dominance may provide a man with the right ambition, outlook, and drive to overcome issues, a man must hold some deeper values at his core. I believe men would do well to develop some of the following specific values. Certainly, more may be deeply useful, but I am convinced that a man who focuses on these four values will grow much faster than his brethren who do nothing or focus on the wrong things.
 

1) Truth

God designed us to align with truth. When we as men are honest both with ourselves and others, we avoid massive pitfalls that lead us down the path of decay. A man’s honesty provides him with the resources to correct poor actions and gives him a nature of trustworthiness that is rare in today’s world. A truly honest and humble man can be trusted by his neighbors.

 
He holds himself to the standard and likewise will hold others to the standard of truth. The beauty of holding truth at a man’s core is that he prepares himself to accept what needs to change. He cannot lie to himself about his shortcomings. He cannot lie to others to cover up such shortcomings.
 
This creates fertile soil in a man to become truly masculine.
 

2) Sacrifice

We were not built to be selfish but to be selfless. Take for a moment the example of Christ. If we believe Christ is God in the flesh, then we must accept that whatever Christ does is an example to us of how we should be. Christ lived in a completely selfless state and gave Himself up as the ultimate sacrifice.
 
As men, we become a true, masculine man when we recognize that our duty is not to ourselves, but to our loved ones, neighbors, community, and our God. A man sacrifices himself to provide for his loved ones, protect them, and bring forward the next generation of his community. In Christianity, we die to ourselves. Christ asked us to die to ourselves daily. Paul says it is no longer us who live, but Christ in us. This sacrificial ethic lays the groundwork for men to become fully realized in their potential.
 
When a man sacrifices himself completely, he throws away fears, excuses, and concerns for his well-being. This creates a limitless man. One who can seek to accomplish anything given to him. Nothing limits him. When a man truly sacrifices himself for the good of others, his aggression, competitiveness, dominance, and stoicism are more useful tools to complete the task in front of him.
 

3)Responsibility

A sacrificial man will pursue and complete his responsibilities. It is the man who works extra hours to ensure the bills are paid. It is the man who handles the needed maintenance around the house when he would rather be sitting on the couch. It is the man who plays catch with his son because the valuable father-son time trumps any personal desires.
 
A true man is fully responsible, and others know they can count on that man to complete his responsibilities. Without complaint, grumble, or excuse (Ie – stoicism.)
 
What is true masculinity when it comes to responsibility? We as men recognize that a lot rests on our shoulders. We know that provision for the family should fall on our shoulders. We also recognize that the protection of our family is in our hands. We know that a growing family provides the opportunity to create a legacy across generations. A man knows these facts, knows he is responsible for these things, and does everything in his power to uphold the share of his responsibility.
 
Responsibility is not just completing tasks at work. It is becoming truly reliable in all things and all requirements.
 

4) Discipline

Nothing matters if a man does not complete the task. Every day, we are required to complete tasks that do not interest us. We also know that the goals we want to achieve require a minefield of tasks that do not seem interesting or downright scare us. Want to know the answer to the question, “What is a man?” A man is disciplined in doing what is necessary.
 
Imagine a man who combines these traits in full. He is disciplined to sacrifice himself to complete the responsibilities given to him. He does it while uplifting honesty and integrity. He gives no illusions about who he is or what is expected of him. He handles himself properly every day and goes about his difficult, challenging tasks every day without complaint or grumble.  
 
Deep down, every guy wants to be this man and every woman wants her husband to be this man.
 

So, what is Masculinity?

It is the character of a man who is fully realized. He handles his business with honesty and integrity. He becomes forged by the fires of adversity and challenge. He steps up and always does his best to deliver.
 
He is not perfect, and by no stretch of the imagination does he always succeed. But even in failure, a masculine man recognizes the good. He learns from it, takes responsibility, and disciplines himself to succeed the next time.  
 
Society tells us that masculinity needs to be reformed and adjusted. They are wrong. They are demonically wrong. Masculinity in the West needs to be emphasized, promoted and propagated. We need to have true men raising the next generation of men. Only then will our society heal and grow the way God intended.
 
What is masculinity? It is the real man who is fully actualized.
 
 

On the 4th of July, we as a nation reflect on what our founding fathers did to provide us with such amazing opportunities and blessings. We honor our struggle for independence and the dangerous step into a war with Britain to earn that independence. 

Our founders may have claimed independence on the 4th of July, but it took them seven years to prove it true. Thankfully, the war's end justified the Declaration of Independence and started America on a course of becoming a history-changing nation. 

We went from a rag-tag group of colonies to completely changing the face of the world permanently in only 150 or so years. 

Some might say we changed the face of the world the day the Declaration of Independence was signed. 

Either way, on this 4th of July, we at Self-Evident would like to give you a few reasons why we have such a passion for not only America, but its history, foundations, and heroes. 

1) We Were Founded on Liberty 

When King George III chose to ignore the colonies’ last attempt at reconciliation, the floodgates of revolution poured through. Deep within the hearts of the colonists sat a yearning for liberty. After 130 years of increasingly oppressive measures from Britain, the colonies felt they had no recourse but to take up arms. 

Our founding fathers felt so passionate about their rights that they pledged their lives to an ideal in public fashion by signing the Declaration of Independence for all the world to see. These men, coming from all walks of life, quaked the earth with the ink of their pens. The nations of the world felt the tremors and watched with bated breath as a small group of colonies set their face against their own crown. 

Throughout all of it, the call of liberty never waned. Despite being outnumbered and impoverished when it came to food, clothing, weapons, ammo, and soldiers, our ancestors dug deeper and continued to pursue the expansive haven of rights that nestled within the victory of independence. They knew that victory meant striking gold in their excavation of liberty, and the bounty offered at victory meant the possibility of true liberty for their children and future generations.  

Thankfully, when it seemed as though our revolution would fail, the French came to our aid and helped bring the long, protracted war to a close. 

Our desire to create a nation founded not just on the gospel but on God-given rights and liberties inspired the world around us. In the coming years, transformation swept through Europe as people attempted to throw off the shackles of their own oppressive regimes.  

While some of those movements were messy, complex, ill-advised, or downright opportunistic, our own desire for liberty showed the true American spirit. Our heritage did something for us that could not be imitated by most other people who attempted to grasp liberty. After all, the wilderness of the American East Coast, tumultuous global politics, and the correct brew of faith and philosophy forged a truly American identity. 

From the beginning of the colonies until the signing of the Declaration of Independence, American individualism found its form in recognizing individual sovereignty. Personal property, inalienable rights given by God, the prosperity of hard work, and deep faith and reliance on God all shaped the American identity. 

We settled and developed the land. We fought the French and Indian War for Britain. We overcame illness, attack, famine, winter, and hardship. We built a thriving nation that became a light on a hill for the rest of the world.

And liberty made it possible. 

2) We Honored God 

John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." 

From the various colonial charters and constitutions that named sharing the gospel our main mission to the words of various founders giving God the glory – our ancestors knew that the divine authority deserved honor, worship, and praise.  

Without God, our nation would not have come to be. From the bluster of hurricanes to the rising of rivers, and the falling of fog – God made His presence known in protective miracles for our nation. As Nathaniel Webster once said, “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”  

While we might consider the creation of the Constitution a miracle in itself (which it was), the decades preceding that document are replete with stories of God’s hand guiding our nation. We witnessed men become bullet-proof. Our allies arrived to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The land itself fought in our favor.  

Truly, the prayers of both the colonists and our founding generation powerfully moved the machinations of heaven. Anybody who takes a moment to look at history cannot deny the powerful miracles God worked on our behalf. 

Accordingly, our founders knew that days of humiliation and prayer not only petitioned God but joined our nation in a single, prayerful purpose. From the beginning of the colonies, the community knew it must approach God for our daily provision and protection. Those who called for days of prayer and humbled themselves before the Lord fully knew His hand was required for the health of our land.  

Benjamin Franklin himself said, “In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understandings? At the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard — and they were graciously answered. All of us, who were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?… I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men! And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”  

But faith in the Lord as the builder of our house did not cease with the ratification of the Constitution. Even when we structured our nation and continued to develop it by adding states, each state constitution gave deference to God. Not only this, but many states enshrined the importance and power of the church and religion in their constitutions as well. 

In other words, God rightfully rested in the foundational identity of America as a nation. 

3) Our Founders were True Men 

They were never perfect. Though neither are we.  

Unlike our leaders today, the founders were men of insight, intellect, and wisdom. We may attempt the sad comparison between ourselves and them, but if we dare try, we may find ourselves sorely lacking. The stain of slavery rests heavily upon the shoulders of our founders. Just as the horrific burden of abortion rests upon us in modernity. 

And while we may attempt some self-righteous superiority, the truth is our founders truly understood governance in a way that may be lost forever. They studied the ancient civilizations as they debated and argued what the best possible structure of government would be. The downfalls and possible weaknesses became obvious to them, and yet they continued to debate on how to best ease the pain of those shortcomings in the system they were creating. 

The beautiful blend of separation of powers, checks and balances, protection of liberty, and respect of rights gave rise to imitation constitutions all around the world. The results of their work proved exponential. 

Unfortunately, most don’t see this. The tireless work of our founders truly is underappreciated when we consider what they went through and the effect they left on generations to come. 

We tend to look at America with the magnifying glass of pride and arrogance, but our ancestors were sober and vigilant in their labors. They weighed it out and debated over every word written in the Constitution. They knew – add a word in one place and it could mar the face of the American experiment forever. Take a word out in another place and it could fundamentally shift the American approach to governance. 

These men didn’t just want to become free. They desired to institutionalize liberty and create a boundary around it that might not fail – even knowing it most likely would eventually fail. 

4) We are Truly Unique as a Nation 

We as Self-Evident do not wear rose-colored glasses. We freely recognize how far America has fallen from the inspirational ideas of our founding fathers. However, we do not lose hope. The heart of America is still there, hidden behind the dark assault of the power-hungry and the wicked. We know our nation’s humility before the Lord lies buried beneath a dirt pile of pride but nonetheless sits ready to awaken. And at the end of it all, we as an organization understand that God can walk us through anything and everything.  

Even if the American experiment collapses to the dust and shudders as it exhales its final breath, the people of God will be ready to carry His will. We will walk as ambassadors of the Kingdom of God, no matter whether the borders and government of the nation hold or not. Our earnest prayers are for our nation. But we simply put our faith in God and lean not on our understanding. 

The beauty of America is in its significance on the historical landscape. Much like the words of Solomon, America may only see a season. But it is the American identity, the American spirit that may still live and thrive throughout the darkness.  

As long as the breath of life remains in America’s church, we can rest assured that the deep truth of liberty and rights is encapsulated and preserved for a generation that will unleash them once again. 

Our petitions before the Lord desire that His faithfulness would rest upon our children and our children’s children. We ask Him to give to them the fruits of our sacrifices. We eagerly desire that they would recline beneath the tree of liberty, even if it be nourished by our flesh in a sacrificial gift to secure their blessings for future generations. 

Recently, several articles published by Robert Downen and Juan Salinas II from The Texas Tribune sought to do damage to a True Texas Project event being held next month. Massey Campos and Mike Sonneveldt, from Self-Evident Ministries, are slated to be keynote speakers at the event, both before and after the breakout sessions.

This event, a 15-year birthday celebration, will host speakers covering several major topics. The themes of the break-out sessions include titles such as "Multiculturalism and the War on White America", "Great Replacement Theory", "The Case for Christian Nationalism", "Is Christian Zionism Biblical?", and more.

Of course, these topics make great fodder for those in the progressive camp. The issues are spicy enough to bait activist journalists and leaders of progressive groups to use all of the usual rhetoric against such lectures. Words like racist, xenophobic, white supremacist, white-identitarians, Christian Nationalists, and so forth become common focal points when trying to build a generalized identity of the event and its speakers. People believe that the labels become powerful artillery in a war of ideas.

And that is precisely the intention of these articles and the subsequent discussion taking place. The true meaning of the topics does not matter. It's all about association. Whether the topics and speakers themselves truly hold the motives they're being accused of doesn't matter...it's all about association.

If an association or tangential link can be used to drag down public perspective, then activists will stop at nothing to play up the connection. In fact, it becomes a primary tool and reeks of a thorough internalizing of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. The more an association with an extremist person or thought can be made, the easier it is to isolate, embarrass, and destroy a group or organization.

An ulterior motive shows itself best in covering up the inconvenient facts or nuances of an issue. While these speakers were certainly called and asked whether they wanted to associate with such an event, we find little evidence of honest work being done to understand the foundational beliefs of the speakers. Conclusions were made and guilty associations were played up.

In fact, even Richard Spencer's name was conveniently used to draw gross connections to Paul Gottfried. Mind you, Gottfried has publicly denounced antisemitism and the white supremacist movement. He is Jewish, attended a Jewish university, and his family escaped Hitler's government and the genocide of the holocaust.

In the mission of the activist posing as an investigator, the inconvenient facts should never get in the way of the emotional goal. In other words, you can't create fear, animosity, division, and suppression unless the emotions of the ignorant and uninformed are stirred into passion and vitriol. Use Spencer's name, attach emotions to Gottfried.

Self-Evident's Position

We will proudly be attending True Texas Project's 15-year birthday celebration. In a recent phone call, we were asked by Mr. Downen whether we wanted to step down from this event and if we had a comment.

Here's our comment: We refuse to step down.

In honor of the supposed thirst for knowledge, we will provide some of our reasons.

1) Why would we do what our opposition wants us to do?

Despite the seemingly caring demeanor, a member of the opposition is not out for your good. Their request of you should always be circumspect, especially if it is not to build a relationship but to offer an option.

Activists do not wish for your success unless you are aligned. They wish to silence, suppress, and destroy their opposition. Placating them provides the fastest way to lose your self-respect and gain a reputation as a fool and a slave to their desires.

When a person who is your opposition comes to you with a suggestion on how to be better, it should be easy to see the sleight of hand. Remember, the voice of Satan seemed to be concerned for Eve, but the machinations were death and destruction for her progeny.

Listen to the voice of your accuser at your peril.

2) We don't need to fully agree with everyone

We're not interested in whether we agree 100% with everything said at any event we go to. In fact, it is expected that no matter where we go, a disagreement in beliefs will occur at some point. It is asinine to assume that positions and beliefs must align perfectly, or else you are in danger of being associated with that thought or idea.

Unfortunately, we live in a culture in which association means reputation. And reputation means everything. While some may concern themselves with every person they could possibly be associated with, we at Self-Evident recognize that at some point, a vindictive enough person can associate you with anybody. Whether it is random comments on an X or Facebook post, something taken out-of-context, or a former leader or associate – the world is rife with "ugly" connections.

Simple-minded people base their judgment of a person on vague associations. The conniving recognizes and uses this to their advantage. It becomes a game of name-dropping with the intended consequence being to damage someone's reputation.

3) We're there to minister

We are a ministry. We will go where we're called to speak the truth. We have been invited to organizations in the past that would rankle the feathers of the common Christian or conservative. We didn't care. We went and spoke Jesus. We gave the truth. We prayed with those people. We ministered where we could.

While we are far from being Jesus, He Himself was a man of no reputation. He was often ridiculed by his accusers for spending time with the tax collectors, prostitutes, and drunkards. His goal was to minister, heal, and convert the unwashed masses. The elite and establishment figures didn't like Him because He spent too much time with the outcasts and "associated" with the wrong people and espoused the wrong thoughts and ideas. But they HATED Him because He converted people into His followers. His presence threatened the supposed authority of the elite and therefore was dangerous.

Most importantly, He did not value His reputation among men but continued to do the will of His Father. This disregard for His worldly reputation not only earned Him eternal honor but led Him to the cross – a place He willingly went. Even when evil, inaccurate, and false accusations were lobbed at Him to seal His fate of execution, He continued with His mission.

We as a ministry will go where we are invited and where we're called. Even if it were an event in which we disagreed with the main premise, we would be inclined to go and give the truth. If we're invited to give our message, then we will. After all, the fields are ripe for harvest with a people who need to hear the message of Christ!

4) We love True Texas Project

We have a long relationship with True Texas Project. We have done tours across Texas, speaking to their groups and forging relationships with their people. We have never seen the aforementioned antisemitism, white supremacy, and extremist hate that supposedly boils over from every crevice of True Texas Project.

We have seen the groups be nothing but kind, generous, and thoughtfully dedicated to getting active and doing something in their locality. We watched as they prayed openly, ministered to each other, and desired a moral and value-driven Texas.

While progressives may wish to trash and belittle the group, their usual tropes become worn-out and dusty. We get it. Conservatives, especially those deplorable ones who love God, guns, and country must all be racist extremists with Hitleresque aspirations. But at some point, the labels lose meaning. And we will not swallow the tripe of a couple of articles slathering on the labels written by antagonistic outsiders when we personally know and love those who lead and serve in True Texas Project.

Conclusion

Some may say that the titles of the breakout sessions are racist, xenophobic, and promote conspiracy theories.

So, we're going to be clear, lest you accuse us of being vague. We agree with plenty of the points being made in these lectures. There may be points we don't agree with, but it does not matter to us. Either way, we will be there to minister and show the light of Christ. We will be there to support a movement we feel is doing great work in Texas. We will show up and give our backing to down-home folks who do not wish to see their country ripped to shreds by those people who have no interest in the history of America but merely wish to wipe the slate clean and build the nation in their own image.

See you in Texas.

We tell ourselves that if we are in Christ, then we are free. But do we understand what true liberty means? Do we understand that liberty was a gift from God given as a right? 

To show you the development of God-given liberty in Western civilization, I won’t start at the beginning. Instead, we’re going to start with a document that every American should love and cherish. 

The Declaration of Independence 

Our Declaration of Independence makes quite a powerful statement.  

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” 

In other words, our government, put in place by men, derives its justified powers from those same men. More importantly, that government was instituted among men to secure our rights. Not to provide us with welfare. Not to give us safety and comfort. Not to do everything for us. Our founder's most fundamental philosophy about government in America is that government is instituted to protect our rights. However, the government does not give those rights. Their only job is to protect the rights GOD GAVE US! 

Following the truth that our inalienable (non-transferable) RIGHTS come from God and are protected by government is a short list of rights laid out by the founders in the Declaration of Independence. Those vital rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Let’s take a step back and simplify what the preamble means. In summary, it says: 

“There are certain truths that are just ‘duh’ statements.” Those truths include the following: 

1. Men are created equal 
2. God gives men rights that cannot be transferred or stolen 
3. Those rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness 
4. Governments were put there to protect rights. 

This means that it should be a duh thing to all of us that men are equal, God gave all those men certain rights that can’t be taken or transferred, those rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments were put in place by men to protect those rights. 

What is the government for? To protect those RIGHTS.  

Included in those rights is liberty. The idea of truly being free in your person, conscience, and action. The right to liberty is the truest sense of freedom within the self and a person’s expression of themselves. 

But how did they get to this idea that liberty mattered? 

Does the church need to concern itself with liberty? 

What is Liberty? 

Plenty of governments across time have provided some sort of recognition of rights. Usually, those rights were not recognized as being given by God but as a blessing from a government viewing itself as a god. 

However, western civilization had a major moment that changed the landscape of governance for all time. A government, which viewed itself as having a divine right to authority, found itself forced to recognize that the people had value and themselves held some form of rights. 

The History of the Magna Carta 

During the early 1200s, King John of England caused quite a stir by warring and feuding with several kings. He pressed for higher taxes on his subjects to support his wars. This forced his officials to become downright oppressive in collecting such taxes. Unfortunately for King John, his barons despised him due to his oppressive and arrogant nature. 

After losing a battle in 1214, the barons had had enough. They forced a meeting with King John. If he wanted to have their support and resources, then he would have to agree to some demands. This was the formation of the Magna Carta. While the document failed, the fact remains that an agreement about rights had been decided between the people and the king. Prior to the Magna Carta, kings had attempted various charters and agreements with their nobles and clergy. However, those charters were a king’s free will promise. 

The elites may have been the first beneficiaries of individual rights, but they were not the only ones. We, as common people today, benefit from the rights the Magna Carta defined. 

Included in the Magna Carta were issues such as: 

• Right to a fair trial 

• Placing the king under the rule of law 

• The property rights of the barons 

The concept of the rights of all people continued to develop over the next several hundred years. After all, the statement “all men are created equal” was not a foregone conclusion throughout Western civilization. 

By the time that statement was written in our Declaration of Independence, the concept of equality of men had been developed by Enlightenment thinkers. Men such as John Locke explored individual sovereignty and individual rights and liberties. 

John Locke and Liberty

Locke became so influential to our founders that his words inspired the Declaration of Independence we cherish today. 

In Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, he begins by arguing that in the natural law or natural state, all men have equality. Locke viewed natural law as that which was the governing law placed into creation by God. To Locke, men under natural law are endowed by God with a state of liberty. However, that liberty ends when it infringes on another man’s rights and liberties. 

Locke said, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” 

He specifically viewed liberty as the right to steward yourself, what you’ve been given, and what you’ve created. Whatever you think or create, by natural law, is your property. If you take natural resources and mix them with your labor, then you have created private property. Furthermore, liberty is the sovereignty of men over their property, themselves, and their future. 

To protect this concept of liberty, Locke believed governments were put in place to be a protector of our individual rights, which included liberty and possessions. 

Thomas Jefferson said it succinctly by stating, “The policy of American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.” 

This desire to live under a government that truly protected liberty drove our founders to finally push against the oppressive boot of the British crown. They saw British control of their property as the action of a government no longer concerned with liberty, but the control of its people. 

The Road to Declaring Independence and Liberty 

After 120 years of abuses in which the colonies were continually oppressed with increased restrictions, taxes, and regulations, they finally chose to throw off the yolk of their oppressor. The crown attempted to raise money or control the colonies through their actions which the colonists found extremely offensive. Such gross infringements included (but were not limited to): 

• The Navigation Acts of 1651: Restricted trade for the colonies to only Britain 

• King Charles II: Regulated trade and nullified charters when the colonies opposed 

• Molasses Act of 1733: Forced the colonies to purchase molasses from Britain and not France 

• Sugar Act 1764: Cut duties on foreign molasses, retained high duty on foreign refined sugar, and prohibited foreign rum 

• Stamp Act 1765: Required official stamps to be purchased for lots of common documents. 

• Declaratory Act: Gave full powers over the colonies to parliament 

• Townshend Acts 1767: Placed duties on common useful goods and put in a board of customs in Boston 

• Coercive Acts 1774: 4 Laws used to crush the colonies back into submission 

The colonies pushed back at each turn and argued that their rights as English citizens were being abused. After all, the crown chose to not honor either the British Constitution or the Bill of Rights of 1689. 

These unconstitutional acts perpetrated against the 13 colonies drove them to unite as a single entity, represented by a Continental Congress. The Second Continental Congress sent its final petition to resolve the matter in hopes of staving off a war and restoring peace. However, King George III rejected the Olive Branch Petition, labeled them rebels, and parliament passed the American Prohibitory Act. This banned all trade with the colonies and determined to treat all American ships and cargo as an enemy. 

The colonies knew that the decision had been made for them. They wrote the Declaration of Independence to announce before the world that they were separating from England and establishing their nation in the spirit of liberty. 

The Bill of Rights 

Following the war, America chose to create a constitution for themselves. During these debates, the arguments continually revolved around how to provide a framework for a stable government yet protect the liberties and rights of the people. Do not forget, they saw what a government that did not respect liberty could do politically.  

During those debates, a large discussion regarding the inclusion of a bill of rights boiled over. Some argued that writing down any rights would mean the government felt those were the only rights men had. Others argued that not writing them down would mean a government could then believe men had no rights. After all, men are sinful and wicked. 

Eventually, the Constitution was ratified with the promise that a bill of rights would be written by the first Congress. Our nation’s founders held to their word and drafted the Bill of Rights. This document included the first 10 amendments we know today. These rights are considered to be given to us by the divine authority and were written to ensure the government never attempts to infringe on those rights (as well as others not written.) 

Included in the list of 10 amendments are rights such as: 

• Freedom of religion 

• Freedom of speech 

• Freedom of press 

• Freedom of assembly 

• Right to petition the government 

• Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure 

• Right to speedy trial 

• Right to not self-incriminate 

• and more 

   

Our Role in the Fight for Liberty 

For 248 years, our nation has said it values God-given liberty and the government’s role in protecting that liberty. 

However, what happens if no one actively works to protect against infringement of those rights? While we may believe that our rights are self-evident and therefore will always be protected, the truth is a different matter. We must proactively defend the right to liberty and demand our government do the same. 

Today, our fellow Americans deal with unconstitutional steps from our government at every level. The temptation of new laws, programs, regulations, and personal agendas has rendered the Constitution and the Bill of Rights moot in many situations. People pay lip service to the Constitution as they destroy it. These days, our Bill of Rights seems to be more of an obstacle in the way of government “progress” than it does a bulwark to protect our liberties and rights given to us by our Creator.  

But the church can become the voice upholding our liberties. We as the church should understand freedom and liberty better than any other body or organization. We have the opportunity to uphold God’s law without fear of standing against our nation’s founding documents precisely because the founders wrote the inalienable nature of rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness into our nation’s founding documents. 

This means that we as the church may move forward in our protection of liberty for the defenseless without concern or worry that we may be stepping against a righteous authority. We owe those who are oppressed by men not following our nation’s foundational principles of liberty. We as the church hold the duty to defend liberty, as spelled out by our founding documents and given to us by God. 

One thing stops people in their tracks when discussing the founders. Some of our founders owned slaves. However, some of our founders never did. Some stood for slavery. Many did not. Even though the topic is extremely nuanced, the 1619 project and similar “historical” theories believe slavery stood as the sole driver for Independence. 

After all, how could men who talk of “liberty” and “freedom” possibly believe that holding other people in slavery would be acceptable? 

Many people want to believe in the founders and what they stood for, but the specter of slavery stands in their way. We want to give you a resource to begin to unravel this major issue and give you peace of mind that our founders were men—just like us. They were imperfect and barely saw eye-to-eye on anything.  

But what the 1619 project and progressive revisionists do not want to admit is that many of our founders believed in some form of abolition of slavery and the slave trade. 

Did Other Countries Have Slaves? 

Perhaps a country that never allowed slavery existed. No one denies that could be the case. However, across the world and throughout the centuries, slavery was the rule...not the exception. 

Some of the cultures who had slaves include:

• Egyptians 
• Babylonians 
• Chinese 
• Greeks 
• Romans 
• Africans 
• Aztecs 
• and more 

Not only did civilizations such as these hold slaves, but the Islamic slave raids across the Mediterranean coast of Europe got so bad that the church initiated the first Crusade. You read that right. The first crusade was a response to Islamic slave raiding throughout the European and North African Mediterranean coast. 

Mind you, the Islamic slave trade was so destructive that it turned the Mediterranean into a war zone and split not just Roman civilization but Christianity in general. 

From 1453 to 1700, customs statistics suggest around 2.5 million slaves from the Black Sea were imported to Istanbul. Along with this, it is estimated that more white Christian slaves were taken to Barbary than black slaves to the Americas between 1500 to 1650. 

Was America Founded on Slavery? 

Colonists established America’s first colony in 1607. While these colonies did occur in America, they were still owned and controlled by Britain and its corporations. 

Even though some of those colonies passed anti-slavery laws before the American Revolution, Great Britain vetoed those laws. One of Thomas Jefferson’s complaints in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence stated: 

“He [the king of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”  

In other words, Thomas Jefferson himself pointed the finger at the king, who defended the slave trade and suppressed “...every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.”  

Unfortunately, that grievance did not remain in the final draft of the Declaration of Independence. Georgia and South Carolina protested its inclusion and refused to approve the Declaration of Independence if it remained. By removing it, the Continental Congress was able to secure a unanimous vote for independence. They feared that if the colonies did not stick together, that Britain would pick them off and make quick work of them. 

In 1777, (a year after independence and America officially became a nation) Vermont drafted their constitution. This document included the abolition of slavery! The official language said, 

“no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one Years, nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent, after they arrive to such age, or bound by law, for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like” 

Similarly, the Northwest Ordinance was written only 10 years later with the abolition of slavery. The Northwest Ordinance gave the United States of America a process to admit new states from the territory, created a government over the territory, and provided a bill of rights for that area. 

By abolishing slavery in the document, the founders ensured that the slave trade would have a short shelf life as America grew. Article 6 of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 said, 

“There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid." 

Not only did Article 6 of the Northwest Ordinance set the tone for the new territory, but the language was used as the 13th Amendment, which was ratified in the same year the Civil War ended. 

And just in case you need more evidence, look at the following timeline:

• 1794: The out-going slave trade was banned 
• 1798: The inbound slave trade from Africa to the Mississippi territory was banned. In 10 years, they would have the authority to ban trade from Africa to the original 13 states. 
• 1800: American citizens were banned from trading slaves between foreign countries. 
• 1803: A law permitting state laws helped restrain the internal slave trade. 
• 1807: The government passed a law to take effect on the first day of 1808 to prohibit the slave trade from Africa. This finalized the Constitutional allowance to end the Atlantic slave trade in 1808. 
• 1820: The slave trade was labeled piracy and the punishment of death added to the consequences for participating. 

While these changes were taking place, even some of the original slave states adopted gradual emancipation. 

Let’s be clear. America had slavery. It stained the founding of our nation. It brought controversy into our land and created a racial divide that has never fully recovered. We as Christians must lament the wickedness of our forefathers who supported and protected such an atrocity. 

However, plenty of our founders' words and actions confuse us as to their heart on the matter. While they spoke with condemnation about the practice, some still held slaves. Others freed their slaves or changed positions later in life. Some supported the practice. And some even spoke with disdain over slavery yet retained their slaves. 

No one is perfect, and we must understand that.  

The question is: 

What Did the Founders Say About Slavery? 

Some men, such as John Adams, did not own slaves and felt rather strongly about the institution. 

John Adams said, "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…. I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in abhorrence." 

Alexander Hamilton did not own slaves and said, "The laws of certain states … give ownership in the service of negroes as personal property…. But being men, by the laws of God and nature, they were capable of acquiring liberty— and when the captor in war …thought fit to give them liberty, the gift was not only valid but irrevocable." 

While some men did not own slaves, others are reported to have owned slaves while passionately defending abolition.  

William Livingston succeeded in banning the Atlantic slave trade in New Jersey in 1786. Mind you, this was 22 years before the national ban took effect. He said, “I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my lifetime, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out. . . . For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event.” 

However, accusations through a political plaque placed on the Livingston campus in 2021 state that William Livingston owned two slaves at one point in his life. A woman named Belle and her son Lambert.  

James Madison owned slaves, yet believed in abolishing the slave trade, providing a colony in Africa for freed slaves, and believed that racial relations may not be reconcilable due to slavery. 

He said, "We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." 

George Mason gave a bitter condemnation of the practice and a tad bit of prophecy by stating, “Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.” 

Of course, some of the biggest names of our founding also owned slaves, and many wonder whether they were hypocrites or somehow retained their honor. 

Did George Washington Own Slaves? 

Yes. No dancing around the fact that Washington owned slaves. However, the truth of the matter remains larger than just a “Yes” or “No”. 

Unfortunately, until 1782, Virginia law did not allow residents to free their slaves. In 1782, a law was passed which allowed owners of slaves to free them through a will. When Washington died, he released all 123 of his slaves. 

Not only did he free his slaves, but he also provided for many of them by leaving money, property, and jobs.  

While Washington may have freed his slaves, Virginia law stipulated that slaves gained through marriage or “dowry” could not be released by his hand. Those slaves were kept by Martha Washington until her death when they were divided among her grandchildren. 

Did Benjamin Franklin Own Slaves? 

Early on, Benjamin Franklin viewed blacks as having limited mental capacity and being inferior. However, after being invited to involve himself with a school for black children, Franklin quickly changed his heart and mind about the institution of slavery.  

At one point, Benjamin Franklin even said, “Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils.” 

He realized the difference between the capabilities of black children compared to white children was not the result of inferior nature but due to negative environment and harsh conditions.  

He became the president of the anti-slavery society and sought not just abolishing slavery but education and help for black children.  

Most evidence suggests Franklin ordered that his slaves should be freed, with some evidence suggesting he freed them in his will upon his death. With one slave named Bob, Franklin tied his daughter and son-in-law’s inheritance to freeing Bob in his will. 

Thomas Jefferson 

Jefferson stands as one of the most controversial figures in the slavery debate. He stood publicly as extremely vocal against the slave trade and even drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans.  

He held firm that emancipation would have to be part of the democratic process. However, he felt that maintaining slavery was like “holding a wolf by the ear.” He had witnessed the Haitian revolution and an aborted rebellion in 1800. He felt that whites and blacks were two separate nations, and quickly emancipating black slaves could spell disaster. 

Jefferson even went as far as supporting the effort to recolonize Africa. Such ideas and drive became the inspiration behind the founding of the nation of Liberia in Africa.  

While Jefferson did free seven of his slaves at his death, 260 or so remained enslaved and were given to his children in his will. Some believe Jefferson’s financial issues and major debt resulted in his handing down slaves to help relieve the pressure of debt on his children. 

The Truth About Slavery in America 

Just like anything in history, the truth about American slavery is nuanced. Those who do not know may believe that everyone at the founding of America owned slaves, every founder tried to defend the institution, and abolition only came after the Civil War.  

The truth is that plenty of our founders abhorred slavery, states pressed for legislation to outlaw the slave trade, and the nation itself outlawed the trans-Atlantic slave trade by 1808. While this did not solve the problem of the slave trade within the nation, states continued to restrict or compress the slave owner’s ability to keep their slaves. By 1861 (the start of the Civil War), an obvious backlash against slavery had swelled into the possibility of violence. 

Our founders saw the writing on the wall. The stain of slavery would lead to poor race relations and such a wicked act could bring about God’s judgment on the nation they fought so hard to found. 

You thought the worst of it was over. 

We watched the protests on college campuses and allowed the news of it all to blend in with the noise surrounding our everyday lives. After all, we have a 24/7 news cycle that continually brings things to our attention and then erases that with the next big story. 

However, the college campus protests and colonization (see what I did there?) are not subsiding. Instead, they are growing and spreading as students reach their last days of school before summer break. 

It Gets Worse 

Even though we may hope for a burn-out of this “pro-Palestine” fire, we will be sorely disappointed. Not only will the fire continue to spread and grow in the summer months, but the government is now getting more and more involved. 

This will not end well for the American citizen. 

Antisemitism Monitors 

Within the past few days, Congressman Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) introduced legislation that would bring the federal government into the action. In their proposed legislation, the federal government would have the ability to track incidents of antisemitism through the use of monitors on college campuses. 

Any college that refuses to hire the government-mandated monitor would see their federal funding stripped. The bill also requires the colleges to cover any expenses related to the monitor’s work. If they refuse the Department of Education’s requirements, then federal funding will disappear. 

Representative Torres said the bill was written “in response to the ongoing demonstrations at Columbia University that have created an environment that many Jewish students view as hostile to their well-being and safety.” 

“Campus antisemitism is at an all-time high, and American universities are not capable of handling it when left to their own devices,” Torres said. “Jewish students have told my office that they feel completely abandoned by their university administrators and they view Congress as the only avenue for accountability and safety.” 

However, Torres is no stranger to antisemitism bills. In December of 2023, Torres introduced a bill that would have included antisemitism in the DEI Act of 2023. He helped sponsor a resolution recognizing Israel as America’s democratic ally. Not only that, but Torres also sponsored the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Within that act, antisemitism is defined to include “the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” 

This Isn't the First Time 

House Speaker Mike Johnson energetically came out against the protests and colonization (encampments) on college campuses. He not only condemned antisemitism but also gave credit to the possibility of bringing National Guard troops onto campuses to break up the students. 

Johnson was not done. 

He and other lawmakers met with Columbia University’s president, Minouche Shafik, and shortly after called on her to resign. 

But Johnson still was not done. 

He not only called for the National Guard but also stated the next step during a press conference. Johnson said, “There is a nexus to federal funding. If these campuses cannot get control of this problem, they do not deserve taxpayer dollars. That’s a very serious issue.”  

Bringing it All Together 

On our April 26, 2024 podcast, we discussed the problem with these protests. With names that include things like “People’s Revolution” and “Solidarity”, it’s not hard to recognize the lens through which these students are seeing their role in this mess. 

Some of them probably understand the truth – that a protest will not result in divestment from Israeli companies or the nation of Israel. They most likely get that an encampment on a college campus will not end the war or bring about a ceasefire.  

Then again, that was not the goal of the entire movement. This is revolution. It is agitation. It is passion. The few (who know what they are doing) continue to whip up the useful idiots for their cause of communism/Marxism. The organizers and leaders of these movements know exactly what they are doing. They prey on the college students supporting the cause. 

Most students desire to be a part of something bigger than themselves. They want to make a change. Many of them likely did not know anything about Palestine before the past few months. However, the leaders saw the opportunity. They incited passion, drew in the sold-out believers, and shifted them with subtle moves into a Marxist movement. 

Our Government is not Helping 

Meanwhile, our government never ceases to take advantage of a bad situation to make things worse. We just watched the FISA Section 702 extension get passed, setting up an obliteration of Constitutional protections. Now, they are doubling down on the idea of hate speech by setting up antisemitism monitors. 

The cure will be worse than the sickness. 

While speech and thought control made great gains with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the war against thought has been raging since this nation was founded. 

A Quick History of Government Speech Control 

Even before the founding, colonists ran into trouble for writing disparaging things about King George III. Their houses were ransacked searched, and all of their personal writings taken. Due to their own opinions, they found themselves at the center of a royal investigation. 

During the tenure of John Adams, American citizens were prosecuted and imprisoned for being critical of the American government’s actions and attitudes during a tenuous time in the relationship between America and France. Adams became so despotic that even the sermons of the clergy were not outside the scope of his dragnet. 

Abraham Lincoln made moves to arrest journalists, politicians, and private citizens if their opinions on the Civil War became too inflammatory for the likes of the American government.  

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law, a whole segment of thought and belief became outlawed. While racism is abhorrent, the government saw fit to force people to act against their conscience in governmental, business, and even private affairs.  

Now, we watch the movement-du-jour attach itself to the Civil Rights Act, inspiring each small collective to glue their identity to the “protected classes” of the Civil Rights Act. Whether gay, transsexual, Israeli, Palestinian, physically disabled, or any of the infinite classes of people: a Civil Rights protection designation is priceless. 

The Results 

By attaching the idea of “hate speech” to “discrimination”, a new level of speech control may make its way around the First Amendment and over every way we communicate. 

Adding antisemitism to this idea of “hate speech” clearly shows the government’s hand. Controlling speech by determining whether it is “hate speech/antisemitism” allows the government to further tighten the noose around the neck of the American citizen. 

Do not forget, after 9/11, we put up with threats of criminalizing “islamophobia” and saw movement in that direction. Now, the government is using our tax dollars as a threat against the college campuses to get them to play along with a tried-and-true system of government control: the government monitor/agent. 

This is Not a Defense of Campuses 

Our college campuses have harbored this type of stuff for decades. For too long, no one lifted a finger as protesting students poured out wrath over the idea of whiteness or even masculinity. Being white became not okay, and the faculty and administration supported it. When universities had the chance to stand up to insanity and tell their students to get back in line, they balked. Some say the universities were afraid of their own customers. 

When men were railroaded before kangaroo courts and their lives were spilled before the world, the universities looked the other way. Prosecuting a drunken hook-up became a blood sport for angry feminist administrators and faculty. 

But plenty of us know the truth. They did not want to stop the students or the movement downhill. The student bodies turned progressive, and we are witnesses to the results. Remember, these people in faculty and administration were steeped in progressive, revolutionary, Marxist thinking. They became the next generation of institutional foot soldiers. They were the next disciples of Karl Marx. 

The funny thing about disciples? They believe in the religion they follow. They dedicate their life to it. So, the universities never batted an eye because they were getting the results they were looking for. 

What About These Protests? 

While some college campuses may make some moves to calm down their students, the overarching motive is not to restore the constitutionalist, liberty-minded approach of the Founders. Instead, the problem is in their wallet. High-level donors do not like the imagery of Hamas-scarf-wearing students chanting things like “From the river to the sea” and talking about death to various peoples. The donors are frustrated and threatening to pull their funding. 

We watched this occur with the TikTok divestment bill. What many do not realize is that the TikTok divestment bill was pushed by wealthy donors who saw the algorithms change in favor of Palestine. All of a sudden, TikTok was flooded with pro-Palestine content while pro-Israel content got swept under the rug. Eager to protect those dollars, democrats began going to bat for divestment. All this, despite them fighting Trump about the idea a few years ago. 

The Columbia Act 

This act, the College Oversight and Legal Updates Mandating Bias Investigations and Accountability Act, does nothing but put more power in the hands of the government to police and control the thoughts of their citizens. While public universities are unfortunately funded by us, they do not need a government monitor assigned to them.  

This act reeks of moves the Chinese Communist Party makes in assigning party observers to ensure the party values are always upheld. 

Here in America, the best disinfectant for bad ideas is sunshine. Let the horrible ideas be put forward, and let the American public decide. 

Not long after, President Biden signed the bill into law. 

Extension of FISA Section 702 

FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides the government with the ability to conduct surveillance on foreign actors for national security. It allows the government to use technology and various means to collect information, data, and evidence. 

In 2008, Congress passed Section 702 of the FISA, which gives the intelligence community the green light to “collect, analyze, and appropriately share foreign intelligence information about national security threats.” 

This bill, FISA Section 702 extension, reauthorizes the government to surveil without requiring a warrant. While this bill will be up for another debate in two years, the general consensus of Americans who care about the Constitution is that a two-year extension provides no comfort or respite. 

However, due to some political wrangling and gamesmanship, the bill allows surveillance to continue until April 2025, even if Congress chooses not to reauthorize the law in two years. 

Did Anybody Fight the FISA?

The House chose not to pass an amendment that would have added some needed reforms to the FISA under Section 702. A few days later, six different amendments were defeated in the Senate. Those six amendments would have put some boundaries on the powers to spy. The amendments considered those powers to be “too broad.” The Senate obviously begged to differ. 

Unfortunately, Section 702 allows the NSA to collect all kinds of intelligence on foreign actors. Even though certain restraints are supposedly placed on the intelligence community regarding US citizens, questions are raised about what happens with incidental information. 

However, that is not the greatest concern in this new law. 

What’s The Problem with the FISA 702 Extension? 

Senator Ron Wyden said it best, “If you have access to any communications, the government can force you to help it spy. That means anybody with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a wi-fi router, a phone, or a computer. … If this provision is enacted, the government can deputize any of these people against their will and force them, in effect, to become what amounts to an agent for Big Brother.” 

While the bill originally was intended to deal with the collection of foreign intelligence through warrantless searches, it collects plenty of American citizen’s private phone calls, emails, texts, and other electronic communications. The Brennan Center reports that over 200,000 warrantless “backdoor” searches happen every year. And those searches are with Americans’ private communications. 

Even though the government may tell us that they follow the rules, the truth bears repeating: they are not following the rules. Declassified documents have proven time and time again that the private communications of anybody from activists to Congressmen have been swept up in FBI backdoor searches. 

Not only that, but the intelligence community routinely gives themselves a nice end-around to the pesky 4th amendment. By using data brokers who sell data lists and information, the FBI and other intelligence agencies can bypass the necessity for a warrant and of course: that whole foreign actor issue. 

Unfortunately, Section 702 is a collection of some of the nastiest attempts to destroy American citizen’s civil liberties. 

When the bevy of amendments was shot down, Congress told us that they A) Didn’t see the need for warrants to protect the citizen’s rights B) Felt it was necessary to force Americans to become impromptu spies on their customers, consumers, patrons, family, and friends C) Saw no reason to stop the brokering of sensitive data to intelligence agencies and D) Had no interest in ACTUALLY protecting the American citizen’s God-given rights. 

This is Unprecedented...Right? 

No, sadly this is not the first time something like this has happened. Even though the typical American can recite plenty of events that curtailed our rights (Patriot Act for one…), we may look to something farther back in history and learn from our founding fathers. 

As far back as at least 1604, the idea of unlimited access to the private materials and communications of a citizen was a questionable practice. 

In 1604, during Semayne’s case, Edward Coke argued, “The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose.” 

Writs of Assistance 

While English common law continued to make strides in recognizing the danger of unlimited governmental authority, it failed to truly protect the colonist's rights and liberties. 

The British struggled to control smuggling and attempts to get around their regulations and restrictions on trade. By using Writs of Assistance, inspectors could take a general form and use it to search any property or space and seize anything that was a “prohibited and uncustomed” good.  

However, the colonists hated such an open-ended document. Until 1750, the only warrants even defined in the handbooks of the Justices were general warrants. These gave little to no oversight for authorities. 

In 1756, Massachusetts passed a law banning general warrants as a response to the Excise Act of 1754, which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists over goods subject to customs. 

When King George II died in 1760, all Writs of Assistance expired six months later, as determined by law. This event led to a major case brought forward by 50 merchants. 

James Otis and The Writs Case

James Otis came to the defense of the merchants in the colonies and fought against the idea of general warrants. 

Despite losing, Otis’ involvement in the case was so important that John Adams viewed the case as “The spark in which originated the American Revolution.” 

Otis’ remarks during the case were beautifully and forcefully argued. They provided a strong philosophical foundation for the concept of rights and liberties versus the tyrannical power of an authoritarian government.  

Otis stated, 

“I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book” 

“Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.” 

Even though Otis lost the case, he made such an impact on his fellow colonists that he went on to become a member of the MA legislature and passed legislation requiring special Writs of Assistance be “granted by any judge or justice of the peace upon information under oath by any officer of the customs” and banning all other Writs. However, the governor overturned it, seeing it as contrary to English law. 

Two Years Later 

A case was brought before the English courts involving two political authors who wrote critical materials about King George III. Both John Entick and John Wilkes had their houses searched in the investigation, with all kinds of papers and writings being seized by the authorities. The men sued the government for wrongfully collecting private materials and won. 

While in the Entick affair, the government at least carried a warrant with Entick’s name on it, no such papers existed for Wilkes. His home was involved in a sweep of 49 suspects (without his name being listed as a search target.) 

Chief Justice Pratt, who presided over both Entick and Wilkes cases, said, “Papers are the owner's goods and chattels: they are his dearest property; and are so far from enduring a seizure, that they will hardly bear an inspection; and though the eye cannot by the laws of England be guilty of a trespass, yet where private papers are removed and carried away, the secret nature of those goods will be an aggravation of the trespass, and demand more considerable damages in that respect..” 

He further stated, "[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave.” 

Eventually, Pratt addressed the jury and said, “The defendants claimed a right, under precedents, to force persons' houses, break open escrutores, seize their papers, &c. upon a general warrant, where no inventory is made of the things thus taken away, and where no offenders' names are specified in the warrant, and therefore a discretionary power given to messengers to search wherever their suspicions may chance to fall. If such a power is truly invested in a secretary of state, and he can delegate this power, it certainly may affect the person and property of every man in this kingdom, and is totally subversive of the liberty of the subject.” 

 He saw the danger in a government with unlimited access to the private communications and belongings of its citizens. He also took note of the danger of open-ended warrants and general searches. 

The 4th Amendment 

By 1784, eight state constitutions contained some provisions against general warrants. 

The MA Declaration of Rights stated, “Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.” 

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the 4th amendment survived the ratification process. Interestingly enough, a slight language change has provided debate within courts. 

The original version, authored by James Madison, stated, “The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.” 

The phrase “warrants issued without probable cause” was modified to “no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause.” 

In England, there were lawful warrantless searches. However, the language has been read to mean that the only reasonable searches and seizures are those that meet the requirements of issued warrants. 

This has divided courts as to whether searches and seizures can be done without a warrant, or a warrant must be required. The division especially concerned the difference between searching for a suspect incident to arrest vs. searching areas within and without the control of the suspect. 

So Back to Section 702 

The government now has the right to force private citizens to hoover up any information that passes through a wi-fi router, cable box, server, phone, tablet, etc. under threat of punishment. They do not have to worry about the 4th amendment. Instead, we become their spies...much like the Soviet Union did with their own citizenry. 

Sadly, our 4th amendment has lost most of its teeth, and Section 702 is one more punch in the face. The power of the intelligence community (especially the NSA), the power of hidden courts, warrantless searches, oppressive investigations into private citizens, and the chilling effect of the government’s coercive tactics have all laid waste to our rights. 

Our founding fathers, such as Otis, passionately fought the idea that the government had free reign over a private citizen’s personal possessions (which included communications.) The question is: when they recognized such a gross destruction of their rights and liberties...what did they do? 

Differing Views 

Some of us hold a general understanding of the Declaration of Independence. This group views the preamble as proof we have some rights, such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. While this first group may come to a consensus that rights are good and we should all have them, they miss more important meanings from the passage. 

 Others believe that rights such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are provided to us by God. Therefore, the government cannot take those rights from us. If only God can give us rights, then surely, He is the only one who can take them. 

 This group certainly stands on truth. If you get them talking long enough, they will most likely point out that governments may not give us rights, but their job is to protect those rights for us. We the people allow ourselves to be governed because of our belief that governments are justly created to secure our rights. 

 However, this second group has a blind spot. 

The Deeper View

It is true. Governments were instituted among men to secure our rights, which include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. These rights are not exhaustive but certainly create the foundation of rights that have been granted to humans by God. Our founders named these specific rights to give a clear understanding of what the government could NOT touch in our lives. After all, protecting something means ensuring its health and well-being. 

 Unfortunately, the government of today seems to have forgotten its primary role in the American experiment. It was not to regulate every step of our lives, make us safe through the use of bubble wrap, or take our money to spend on their pet projects. 

 Our government truly lost its way and must return to its original calling. 

 Even though we as a people may claim this from the rooftops, we must bear our portion of the responsibility. We missed our own presence in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. 

Our Role. Our Failure. 

We tend to believe a few lies regarding the government, our rights, and our responsibilities. We believe that our responsibility is to vote for our politicians, and they must then do the work of staving off all matters of evil from their tyrannical opponents. We believe that the government’s role is to protect our rights so that we may passively go about our days. 

Our hearts tell us that we are slipping down the pathway into an oppressive, destructive tyranny.
And we may be. But we must help shoulder the blame.

Our government failed and continues to fail. But did we not permit it to do so? While we may trumpet the truth of the rights we have from God, we so often fail to use our consent to be governed as the acknowledgment that the government MUST lead a restrained life. That restraint requires knowledgeable people who understand that government is a tool of defense, NOT a means to fulfill every desire and support every opinion.  

 We turned our government from a bodyguard into our hitman. 

It’s Our Fault. 

For some reason, even the most ardent supporters of individual rights and the “leave me alone” culture seem to have bought into the idea that government must control people on all levels. Especially if those people do not do what we like. We clamor for the government to rezone an area to keep business out. We vote for candidates based on how they vote for new housing projects or apartment buildings. They know they can get our support as long as they promise the new community program or school project. 

When our neighbor’s grass gets too long, we seek out the HOA or the city council to do our dirty work and fine the person. We do not wrestle with what might happen to our neighbors if they refuse to pay the fines or go along with the regulations. 

We created mayhem by deciding that government bodies must compel our neighbors to follow our desires, and yet somehow attempt to stay consistent with our cries of “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness!” 

It Starts with Individual Rights 

That simple list of three foundational rights has become known around the world. We say them over and over to each other while losing their true grasp and meaning. We fail to recognize our own limitations in upholding those rights, instead viewing them through our own lens and our own reception of such rights. 

Thomas Jefferson said, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” 

When we use the law, regulation, or codes, we run a powerful risk of producing the exact opposite effect of our supposed attachment to liberty. While that Declaration clearly rebuked the crown for all of how the government had oppressed people’s rights, we failed to keep ourselves accountable. 

If we truly honored and respected individual rights, we would be careful to restrain ourselves when reaching that dividing line between our “sphere” and our neighbor’s. Even though we have a right to voice our opinion on the matters of what our neighbor does, we should hold such terrible power of coercive law and tax with a somber and sacred honor. Their rights to their person, their life, their property, and their sphere should only be infringed upon when the due process of law determines they forfeited those rights through their own instances of infringing on other’s rights. 

A righteous law provides consequences for those who infringe on the rights of their neighbors. An unjust or wicked law restricts the liberties of the individual. We must take an account of our own view of government. Have we decided government is our personal attack dog in the local sphere? Do we “hire” the government to provide protection from inconvenience? Or worse yet, do we hire the government to steal funds from our neighbor to support our own pet project? Is our government the action arm of our own ideas of what constitutes an “enjoyable” community?  

The Truth 

We bungled the job. We the people scream in frustration with a tyrannical government crushing us through legislation, tyranny, and obscene theft of our own hard-earned money. But we are to blame. We practiced the same thing in our local communities and came to believe that the bigger circles of government must act accordingly. 

The HOA’s, county commissions, city councils, and school boards all became a massive popularity contest with our neighbors. People looking to get elected realized they could thread the needle between no new taxes and shiny new programs. They gave us what we wanted instead of saying “No,” like the responsible representatives they should have been. 

But I do not blame them. We made it clear to them: give us what we want, or we will not vote for you next time. So, like any sensible human being, they changed their tactics. And the ones who just wanted power were all too happy to oblige us. 

On the other hand, we suffered the immoral and wicked politicians who only chased positions to climb the ladder into the federal government. They never felt the wrath of the people for stomping on our rights. Instead, we shrugged our shoulders and patted ourselves on the back, saying “At least it wasn’t the other guy.” They walked away with the election victories because we bought into the game of Democrats vs. Republicans. 

We watched the eroding of individual rights because we were the culprits. We promised ourselves all kinds of shiny new laws, regulations, programs, and projects...through our representatives. They told us they would protect us, and we cheered. 

In Reality 

In reality, we were greedy and undisciplined. Plenty of people did not know, but too many of us did not care. Our personal desires were too important. The new park, the new school, the new regulation, or the new street development all glittered before us. We never thought about the theft of funds from our neighbors. We only thought about whether our wallet could handle the increase or whether our lifestyle could avoid the law. 

After all, who would vote for a law that crushes them? Who would vote for a tax that left them destitute? We compromised in degrees, but it burned us in the end. 

Now, the train is running full steam down the tracks, and we are frantically fumbling for the brakes.  

What Now? 

We at Self-Evident do what we do because we have hope. A new generation is rising rapidly, and we believe that they and those who follow them can begin to undo the damage. It will not happen overnight, but instilling the foundations in them WILL reap rewards for our grandchildren. 

More importantly, our faith determines whether the current state (and future state) of this world affects us or not. When fully submitted to Christ, we can find hope, faith, and love in any situation. We can carry the peace of God with us everywhere we go. We can overcome any brutality this world throws at us and know that His kingdom is not of this world. This is living a true life of liberty. When we are free in Christ, we are free indeed. 

 Not just that, but we can love our neighbor as ourselves and can protect their liberty...just as much as our own. 

Imagine that: Loving God with our whole heart, mind, body, and strength opens us up to liberty of conscience. Loving our neighbor as ourselves means protecting our neighbor’s liberty. 

If you enjoy blogs such as these, be sure to check out the Self-Evident blog page for weekly updates!

Mark Driscoll knows how to make a splash. 

Recently, at the Stronger Men’s Conference, Driscoll took some time to point out what he thought was a dangerous display of idolization. 

What was he going on about? 

The event featured a man named Alex Margala performing on a raised platform. Margala took off his leather shirt, performed some acrobatic moves on a tall pole, and eventually swallowed a sword. 

Margala has competed on both “America’s Got Talent” and “Britain’s Got Talent” with stunts involving swords, chainsaws, and more. It’s reported that Margala previously worked as a male stripper, but for the sake of this blog: that cannot be confirmed. 

The Driscoll Fallout 

Pastor Driscoll climbed onto the stage the next day and spoke. He said, 

We're going to talk about how to be an Elijah and how to deal with the average Jezebel.  

But let me do this. [Kneels] I've been up since 1:00 in the morning. The reason I'm hoarse is I’ve been praying for you, and my heart is very burdened for you.  

I want to be very careful with this, and it's not what I want to say, but the Jezebel spirit has already been here. The Jezebel spirit opened our event. This is a rebuke and a correction of no one; this is an observation.  

Before the word of God was open, there was a platform. It was a high place. On it was a pole, an Asherah. The same thing that's used in a strip club for women who have the Jezebel spirit to seduce men.  

In front of that was a man who ripped his shirt off, like a woman does in front of a pole at a strip club.  

That man then ascended. See, our God is not arrogant. He doesn't ascend. Our God is humble. He descends. And then, he swallowed a sword, and Jesus cr—Okay, Pastor John, I'll receive that. Thank you. 

Pastor John Lindell yelled from the front row to Driscoll that he was out of line, and that he was done. Pastor Driscoll received the statement and left the stage. Later on, Pastor Lindell referenced Matthew 18 and argued that Driscoll was out of line with his public condemnation of the performance. Reportedly, the men met behind the stage and came to terms. Later on, the two pastors took the stage and publicly reconciled the situation. 

Matthew 18 

Driscoll was a guest at the church putting on the conference. He took the stage and proceeded to describe the presentation as that of a Jezebel spirit-driven moment. 

It’s understandable that Lindell then took the stage and voiced his displeasure with the fact that Driscoll should have approached him privately about the matter. In the spirit of Matthew 18, that does seem to be a fair point by Lindell. 

Approaching your brother privately about a matter retains respect and dignity for the one being confronted. Oftentimes, a miscommunication or a preconceived notion can be done away with rather easily through a simple conversation. 

Matthew 18 also gives direction if a person chooses not to listen to the correction. A man can go to his brother with two or three witnesses, and if that fails, then present his complaint to the church at large. 

Driscoll should have approached Lindell privately. If the act itself pushed him to wake up at 1:00 am praying for the other men, then it affected him enough to sit and stew for a while. There’s no reason a phone call or a pull-aside could not have been arranged. 

Following Matthew 18, Driscoll then could have relied on several others who saw the act to come with him if he so needed. And if all of that failed, he had the perfect pulpit to present to the men’s conference his frustration with the presentation. 

Was It a Jezebel Spirit? 

Driscoll pulled the “Jezebel spirit” accusation from Revelation 2, which states, “‘I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first. 20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.” (Revelation 2:19-22) 

The accusation includes the idea that Jezebel leads the servants of Christ into idolatry and acts of immorality. 

The presentation does have a flavor of sexuality to it, though it’s hard to tell if Margala meant that or if that’s just how he presents himself in his performances. Driscoll was quick to add up the commonalities: 

Raised platform = Altar 

Pole = Asherah Pole 

Shirtless dancer = Tones of sexualized female 

Dance = Presenting “strip tease” 

Man climbed = Man ascending 

More commonalities could be pointed to. The man “led” the presentation, meaning he was the “priest” or “leader” of the “worship.” The quick descent is reminiscent of the casting out of Satan from Heaven. The leather pants are representative of the cow that would be placed on the altar. And we could go on. 

Driscoll saw the performance as a demonic takeover of the event at large. Whether he’s right or wrong, he tapped into something that seemed to be an odd and awkward connection to a men’s conference. People have lambasted this particular men’s conference in the past for some of the over-the-top “manly” things they’ve used as enticement. Tanks, Chuck Norris, wrestlers, sports stars, BMX riders, and the rest have all made an appearance. The show seems to run on the idea that a live conglomeration of action movies and barber shops is all that’s needed to connect to men. 

While the leaders of the conference may have been well-intentioned, the idea was not well thought-out. Without joining Driscoll in saying it was a ritual of Jezebel, the whole thing seemed disconnected from drawing men closer to God. Swallowing swords and death-defying stunts do match up well with men taking risks, but a man who rips off his shirt while wearing leather pants and proceeds to use a stripper pole in his performance seems counterproductive. 

This opinion may not win any fans, but the truth can be discerned without jumping into the wagon of “It was a total Jezebel presentation.” It may have been a subtle laugh by demons, but the lack of discernment by those running the event shows in spades. 

Who Was Right? 

Both. Lindell was right that Driscoll stepped out of line by confronting the situation publicly before ever confronting Lindell and his staff behind the scenes. 

Men as guest speakers have chastised and berated churches from the pulpit in the past, but those situations rarely end well. One man steps off feeling vindicated that he let the kingdom of Satan have his tongue-lashing, and an entire congregation walks away A) Wondering what just happened, B) With a new thread of doubt in their pastor and church and C) Angry and frustrated at the spectacle they just became. 

The situation rarely finds a true healing considering most people become defensive or silent. The relationship with that man is destroyed and the pastor is left in the wake of the undermining he just received. 

Taking it to the man one-on-one provides an opportunity to rectify the situation. It also allows the home pastor to have the opportunity to confront the situation on his terms with his congregation. Giving him the chance to apologize or clarify can do wonders for the relationship between a pastor and his flock. 

Unfortunately, some men would rather stand and get credit for their recognition of righteousness than never have their name connected with their call out of sin. 

However, Driscoll recognized something awkward and discomforting in the presentation. It seemed out of place. It appeared in poor taste. Whether it was truly a “Jezebel spirit” is for the charismatics to argue about. Either way, a men’s conference does itself a disservice to have a shirtless man doing acrobatics on a tall stripper pole on a raised platform. 

Just think about that again. Does that sound like a spirit-filled men’s conference? 

What Now? 

Hopefully, the men putting on the conference will take this situation as a sobering reminder of how something with good intentions can go very wrong. In our hopes of connecting with men on their level while counteracting the feminized nature of typical church events, we run the risk of swinging whole-heartedly in a secular display of “awesome” moments and “action-packed thrills.” 

Meanwhile, there’s hope that Driscoll learned his lesson from this event. He’s a hard-charging, dominating personality (all the controversy aside). He tends to do what he wants to do and at times seems to shirk procedure and order. 

Let’s pray both sides learned their lesson in this whole situation. If the next Stronger Men’s Conference has a more toned-down theme while Driscoll is more careful of his judgments, we might see a redeemed event in a time of much-needed direction for men. 

The “Migrant Crisis” 

We need to stop calling the crisis at the border a “migrant crisis”. 

Progressives understand the power of language. They use it like a battering arm against unsuspecting conservatives. They did this with the term for people who cross the border illegally. What once was “criminal alien” became “illegal immigrant”, which morphed into “undocumented migrant”. They even attempted “asylum seekers”. 

At some point, conservatives need to step up to the plate and quit apologizing for how they feel and what they believe. The truth is the term should be “invasion of criminals.” It stands as nothing less. 

This moment moves beyond policy, politics, and candidates. This comes as a crossroads in the life of our nation. 

It’s not racist. It’s political theory. 

Those who claim that the statement above reeks of racism and xenophobia are truly disingenuous. The founder of our organization is 1st gen American. His parents migrated here from Mexico. We wholeheartedly support immigration into America and love people across the world. However, the continued march of millions of people across our border proves a strong point: these people and their handlers do not love this nation. They have no interest in the betterment of America. 

Look no further than the actions of Mexico’s president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Recently, he threatened the US if they did not agree to what he wanted. He recently demanded that criminal aliens who cross America’s border should be given work visas, billions of dollars should go to Latin America, and sanctions on both Venezuela and Cuba should be lifted.  

If the US does not give in to his blackmail demands, he threatens to open up the floodgates (as though his little dip of slowing down the waves mattered in the least).  

His demands are nakedly global and a true insult to America.  

For some reason, Obrador believes in exporting masses of his citizens into another country. Strangely, he supports opening up the economic floodgates into oppressive regimes. As long as he has been in office, he has put together a history of backing the waves of criminals into the US. 

It does not take a rocket scientist to see what is going on. 

Criminals 

A large number of the criminals who cross the border find jobs that pay cash. Many of them then do the familial thing and send portions of their money back home to their relatives and extended family. They build up a pocket of wealth and try to anchor themselves to this nation with kids. I’ve watched with my own eyes as criminals sock up wealth to build houses and lives back in their home country. It only took a journey across the border in the dead of night to become wealthy back home. 

More importantly, the influx of these criminals provides a generational redirection of the politics, beliefs, and structure of this nation. If they keep dumping across our borders by the tens of millions, what do you think the foreign policy towards Latin America will look like in 20 years? 

Obrador plays a long game. Much like China. 

We’re losing the truth 

Unfortunately, our shortsightedness and progressive ambitions for globalism continue to eat the nation from the inside out. The vast majority of these people have no understanding of our founding fathers, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. They have not grown up on the bedrock philosophies of individual sovereignty, limited government, liberty, or God-given rights. The few who have and appreciate these things are NOT the majority, nor will they be influential in the next couple of decades. A large portion of these people are men of fighting age, with brash and antagonistic views toward our nation. It is an economic pilfering. It is a rampage. Look no further than Venezuelan tiktoker’s boast about how to steal houses and turn them into a business. 

Sadly, our generations of kids were starved of the traditions, culture, and mores of our nation. They sat through years of history classes which spouted derogatory drivel about our founders, white people, and America as a nation. Match them up with the criminals coming across the border and you lose a nation’s identity and heart. 

At this point, the border has become a warzone. New York Mayor Eric Adams recently wanted to take a trip to the border, but the State Department flagged the border for “safety concerns.” The Biden administration actively attempts to stop Texas from protecting its border while the courts argue about whose role it is to pass judgment on whether Texas can legally protect itself. 

Sometimes you need to step back to understand what is going on. Look at the amount of money being funneled into wars in Ukraine, Israel, and soon-to-be Taiwan. Remember the amount of pork in the recent spending bill. Never forget that no energy is spent on border protection and that the Biden administration seems to do everything in its power to keep the flood coming. 

Why are they doing this? 

The easiest answer is often the correct conclusion. The easiest answer is that it is intentional. Unfortunately, it bears a lot of upsides for those in high positions in government. Go back to 2020 when the Trump administration attempted to include a citizenship question on the census. Arguments wildly flew claiming racism, bias, and fear of deportation. Today, we look at the reality of how the massive influx will forever change the representation in the House by adding seats and districts, along with modifying the Electoral College. More people, more political power. 

The best part? The political loyalty of the criminals crossing the border swings to the left. After all, if you were provided with plane tickets, phones, money in your pocket, free housing, food, and quiet promises of a new life...wouldn’t you support that party? 

Obrador merely presents the other side of the same coin. He sits and berates the US for not giving enough (like the true good socialist that he is) all the while allowing his citizens to flee his nation. 

Now, the US has been horrible to nations in South America, so I do not necessarily blame them for not liking us. But our lack of coherent response or standing up for ourselves is NOT because we just can’t get our act together. It’s because of the self-loathing of the typical American elite. 

What do we do? 

What do we do about it all? The truth is: that you can only do so much. However, massive political shifts tend to be led by very few. Some believed that Jim Crow laws and segregation would never end. Others never thought Roe v Wade would be overturned. 

Thankfully, our system works in cycles. They may be massive cycles, but the pendulum will swing. The progressives work furiously to outrun the cycle. They hope they can make enough drastic changes before the cycle swings so that they will still be ahead at the end of the day. 

The conservative response should stand on conviction and the bulwark of truth. This moment is precisely when conservative beliefs should stand in confidence and power. Why? Because the tide is turning. TikTok suddenly seems to be growing with people looking to get clicks by bashing Biden. The “in” thing is quickly turning into conservative talking points. The time is ripening in which a powerful conservative movement could unravel decades of progressive wins. 

After all, the conservative movement has HAD IT with squishy Republicans giving the democrats everything they want while sheepishly throwing their hand to their forehead and whispering, “No, please don’t. Don’t do that,” as they give in every single time. 

Staunch, vocal conservatives seem to be making more waves while challenging the establishment leadership. A new ethic of “if you won’t treat it right, we’ll just burn it down” seems to be making the rounds. That itself carries the spark of revolution within it. 

People must come to the end of their comfort and patience to truly stand up against the crushing power of crawling tyranny. That time is fast approaching, and the progressives with global aims know this. They know they are running out of real estate and need to seal the deal before everything turns. 

Our founders were men who pushed to change a system that oppressed them and forced quiet submission upon them. They remained loud, vocal, and driven to stand against the slow movement toward complete subjection. 

Our forefathers should do more than just inform us. They should inspire us. 

America sits in rough shape. 

We watch our government act like a third-world dictatorship. It levies criminal case after criminal case against the candidate leading the opposing party. It goes after parents who speak up at school board meetings. It attacks people who pray in front of abortion clinics. It forgets the 5th Amendment as it brutalizes the opposition. 

Then our government turns around and allows chaos in the form of riots, destruction, murder, theft, and assault. Political points of view, organizations, and associations all matter as to whether the full weight of the law will come down on a person or not. After all, a prosecutor charging a former president of lying, corruption, etc. has been granted clearance after being found guilty of committing the same things. 

Our borders are completely open, allowing in Venezuelan gangs, Haitians (they’re coming), Chinese nationals, and more all in the supposed name of “progress.” Our cities need military personnel to try and stem the destruction and danger on public transport. 

The debt continues to climb as we fund foreign wars and throw money into the wind like the flow will never stop. 

We export abortion on a mass scale, we import floods of sex trafficking and turn a blind eye to the mountains of children being destroyed day in and day out by our insatiable wickedness. We have fallen as a sex-crazed, saturated culture that invests ourselves so deeply into entertaining our pleasures that we’ve forgotten that virtue even exists. 

Our church tears itself apart by pointing the finger, claiming everyone is a false prophet, and throwing words of prophecy all day every day in hopes of a few new viewers and clicks. 

We are drunk and reeling. 

Why? 

We all carry our opinions on how it happened. Some even believe we still follow a good course. Some think we may be just around the corner to the good ol’ days.  

I hope so, though I cannot say I have the same hope as those people. 

Unfortunately, we think we have the solution to all the problems figured out. In our self-righteous cause, we throw out 14 different solutions. A 14-step program to get America holy and righteous again. And if America would only follow those steps, then everything would be glorious. 

In reality, I can’t help but think of the biblical process for something like this. I think of prophets like Habakkuk who laments for his nation. He pleads that the Lord might stay His hand yet cries out over the wickedness and injustice. Abraham pleads that the Lord might stay his hand if there is but one man found righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah. 

At the same time, the prophets and leaders whose hearts broke for their people desired to see wickedness punished. They lament the injustice and the wickedness.  

I almost find solace in knowing that this is not the first time a nation has become truly corrupt as we have. 

This isn’t meant as a bashing of America or its people. It’s just a clear look at reality. We as Americans are in a mess of a situation, and something needs to change. It cannot stay like this forever. 

I share those biblical greats’ hearts. Not because I’m somehow akin to anything that these men were in God, but because I feel the pain. My heart breaks for our nation. It breaks for the injustice and wickedness. I sit, watching mounds of injustice pile up like snow on the cusp of becoming an avalanche that races down the mountain and crushes us. I long to see the wicked truly punished, yet my heart breaks for the sweeping up of the people in the nets of justice and wrath. 

My heart breaks because I know that when this nation finally teeters over the edge, chaos will reign supreme. 

So, what’s the hope? 

My prayers for this nation are simple. 

“Lord, please. Have mercy on us. But refashion us to become what you want us to be. Lead the hearts of your people first. Cleanse us and cleanse the nation of wickedness. But Lord, please…have mercy upon us.” 

Plenty of prophecies are getting bandied about concerning judgment on America and how God will sweep away the wickedness. Other prophecies give comfort that those who are truly in Christ will be spared from the coming “flood”. That should force us to look inward. It should drive us to repent for our own heart’s positions. 

I think the most dangerous position to be in at this moment is, “Everyone else is wicked. I’m righteous and clean.” Perhaps you are. But when God talks about righteous men, He rarely talks about a large group of righteous people. He tends to say that no one is righteous. Not even one. 

In the days of Noah, there was a single family considered righteous. Instead of placing our hope in what we believe ourselves to be, I think a sober-minded introspection is in order. I know it starts with me, and it is taking place as we speak. 

And I get it: we are absolutely righteous in Christ. We as His faithful servants are covered in His purity and gift of grace. However, how truly obedient are we to that process? Or are we double-minded in our hearts? At least a little…? 

The hope is that God is good. He is merciful. He is loving. He is forgiving. 

In the letter to the church of Laodicea, Christ tells the lukewarm church, “I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.” (Revelation 3:18) 

In other words, He offers us the solution to our own ailments. We don’t fix them ourselves. We go to Him to get our gold, our clothes, our covering, our healing, and our vision. We ask Him to cleanse us and renew us.  

But that takes a true prostration. A true repentance. A TRUE accounting of where our hearts are with the Lord. Remember, Christ’s letter was directed at a CHURCH that thought it was good, righteous, and doing well. They thought they had nothing to worry about. He told them He was about to spit them out of His mouth! 

This means that we as the church must be the first ones down on our knees. We see the wickedness and injustice in this world, but not only have we allowed it: but we’ve either passively or actively participated in it. 

How can we be angry with the sex industry when we’ve eaten its fruits? How can we complain of injustice when we look the other way at small wickedness in our daily lives? How can we complain of compromise when we ourselves compromise to save face or save ourselves? How can we complain that this nation has lost God and needs to return to Him when we built idols of our own gods?  

It begins with us. You cannot change what happens at the top levels of government. But as a single man or woman, you can begin the process of going to the healer in Christ and putting down at His feet those things that have kept you from being closer to Him.  

Lean in and know that He is good.