Wednesday, April 25, 2018


In 2014, Mike Lofgren, a long-time Republican Congressional aide, defined the ‘Deep State’ as a “hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.” In 2016, he wrote a book called The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government. whistleblower Edward Snowden said that “the Deep State is not just the intelligence agencies, it is really a way of referring to the career bureaucracy of government. These are officials who sit in powerful positions, who don’t leave when Presidents do, who watch presidents come and go…they influence policy, they influence presidents.”

When the term was coined, it became associated with the “military-industrial complex” that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his 1961 farewell address in which he said: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

The term became prominent after Donald Trump was elected President and sought to fulfill his promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington, conceivably a euphemism for the Deep State. Trump aides, supporters and conservative media outlets have alleged that the Deep State is undermining Trump’s legislative agenda.

The Deep State is really nothing more than the domestic efforts of the same actors and groups that had been behind the New World Order of the 1990s and its current incarnation, Global Governance.

During his campaign, Trump explained that it was going to be an easy task to right the ship, but he didn’t fully understand the task he was taking on. His efforts are nothing more than a bump in the road for the conspirators who work behind the scenes to engineer a path towards a Socialist government in this country. During the 1950s and 1960s the United States fought the spread of communism, only to find out that it was an extremist view artificially created to mask the true enemy of Socialism.

To really understand the nature of what the Deep State actually is, you must know that it is at its core a Satanic conspiracy.

In the Bible, we find that Lucifer ruled the earth (Ezekiel 28:1-19), till he rebelled (Isaiah 14:12-17), leading a third of the angels (Revelation 12:4), and fell from Heaven (Luke 10:18). It is uncertain when this occurred. Some say there was an earth before the one we currently live on (Jeremiah 5:23-26), which existed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which is referred to as the Gap Theory. In this regard, Creation was really more of a restoration, and when Adam and Eve were given dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28), we find Lucifer, now referred to as Satan, manifesting and convincing them to eat of the tree they were commanded not to. This resulted in them being cast out of the Garden.

Because authority over the earth was taken away from him, Satan has been working since then to take it back. He has been using the Elite of this world to do it.

After the Napoleonic Wars, the International Bankers and political Elite were sure that Europe was tired of all the fighting and convened from September 1814 to June 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, the biggest geopolitical meeting in European history. Their hopes were to unite Europe into a League of Nations-type federation so they would have complete political control over most of the civilized world. However, their attempts failed, and all the machinations prompted the United States to draft the Monroe Doctrine on December 2, 1823 to protect America from intervention by European powers, by adopting an isolationist mentality to keep from getting entangled in the affairs of other nations. This defeat, President Andrew Jackson’s abolishing of the 2nd Bank of the United States, and Lincoln’s circumventing of the International Bankers by issuing his own “greenbacks” to finance the Civil War, made the Elite realize their attempts at world control was not going to come so easy. They laid out a long-term strategy, on various fronts, to work toward a common goal using incrementalism. Basically, they had to rewire and reprogram this country to unknowingly move in the direction of Socialism.


Their first task was to take over education so they could indoctrinate the youth, thereby guaranteeing that they would be able to place into power adherents who believed in what they were doing.

In 1889, William Torrey Harris, the U.S. Commissioner of Education, told a high-ranking railroad official that the schools were being scientifically designed not to over-educate children. He believed that the schools should alienate children from their parents and religion. In 1890, Andrew Carnegie (founder of the Carnegie Steel Corporation) wrote 11 essays which were published under the title The Gospel of Wealth. The underlying premise was that the free-enterprise system had been locked-up by men such as himself, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller, and that they not only owned everything, but also controlled the government. His worry was that subsequent generations would realize this, and work against them. His solution was to control the education system, and to create a direct relationship between the amount of education a person had, and how good of a job they could get. Therefore, this created a motivation for children to attend school, where they would be taught only what the social engineers of this country wanted them to know.

This was to be accomplished by instituting the educational system developed by Prussia between 1808 and 1819. German Philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) in his “Addresses to the German Nation” (1807-08) said that he did not trust parental influence and preferred education to be carried out in a “separate and independent” environment controlled by the State. Prussia became the 1st government to have compulsory education, setting up a 3-tiered system. The children of the elite, about one-half of 1 percent, went to schools called Academies, and were taught to think and be independent. A little over 5 percent went to Realschulen, where they were partially taught how to think. The other 94 percent went to Volkschulen, where the idea of being a follower and a good citizen was stressed.

This system of education was brought to the United States through the effort of a coalition of big business led by Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and Rockefeller; major universities like Columbia, Johns Hopkins, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Michigan, and the University of Chicago; and large foundations like Carnegie, Ford, Mellon, Peabody, Rockefeller, Sage, and Whitney. The success in creating an organized compulsory educational system in this country, has allowed the elite of this country to prevent each generation from truly understanding how this country is actually run, thus keeping them from doing anything about it. This ‘dumbing-down’ has enabled the government to more easily assimilate the people of this country into a population which can be easily deceived and controlled.

John Dewey, known as the “Father of American Education,“ was a Socialist, a founding member of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, and one of the 34 signers of the Humanist Manifesto in 1933. In his books My Pedagogic Creed (1897) and The School and Society (1899), he expressed his belief at how the schools should be instrumental in “developing a socialist society in America.”His system of ‘progressive education’ would deemphasize academics, by using psychology. The July, 1908 Hibbert Journal quoted him as saying:“Our schools…are performing an infinite significant religious work. They are promoting the social unity out of which in the end genuine religious unity must grow.”


Starting in the early 1900s, plans were made to take over the financial structure of this country, with a lot of money being paid in bribes to key members of Congress, and the manipulation of the Presidential election in 1912 to get their man, Woodrow Wilson, elected. He is quoted in the book The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People (1913) as saying:  “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

The International Bankers needed a Central Bank established in the United States so they could control it and the country. Sen. Nelson W. Aldrich, the most powerful man in Congress, was in the pocket of the Bankers, and he would shepherd the entire process. As head of the National Monetary Commission, from 1908-10, this 16-man committee traveled around Europe to study the central banking system there, which was controlled by the Rothschild banking family. On November 22, 1910, he called a meeting of the banking establishment, intending to keep them isolated until they had developed a “scientific currency for the United States.” This secret meeting took place on Jekyll Island, then a private island off the coast of Brunswick, Georgia. About 10 days later, they emerged with the groundwork for a central banking system, in the form of not 1, but 2 versions, to confuse the opposition. At the time, there was a general mistrust of bankers, and George McC. Reynolds, the President of the Continental and Commercial Bank of Chicago, said to a group of bankers: “I believe the money power now lies in the hands of a dozen men...” The threat from this powerful private banking system would be supposedly ended with the establishment of a central bank. But, the plan was to railroad it through Congress by avoiding the term ‘central bank.’ President Wilson himself suggested that the proposed regional banks be called ‘Federal Reserve Banks.’

When the final legislation was voted on, different versions were passed by both Houses, so a Conference Committee was initiated, which was stacked with 6 Democrats and only 2 Republicans, to ensure that certain portions of the original Bill would remain intact. It was hastily prepared without any public hearings, and on December 23, 1913, 2 days before Christmas, when many Congressmen, and 3 particular Senators, were away from Washington (because they were told there would be no voting on anything until after the holidays); the Bill was sent to the House of Representatives, where it passed 298-60, and then sent to the Senate, where it passed with a vote of 43-25 (with 27 absent or abstaining). An hour after the Senate vote, President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, and the Banking Elite had taken control of the American economy.

Sen. Warren G. Harding (OH-R, 1915-21), who was elected as our 29th President in 1920 (1921-23), said in a 1921 Congressional inquiry, that the Federal Reserve was a private banking monopoly. He said: “The Federal Reserve Bank is an institution owned by the stockholding member banks. The Government has not a dollar’s worth of stock in it.” His term was cut short in 1923, when he mysteriously died; leading to rumors that he was poisoned. This claim was never substantiated, because his wife would not allow an autopsy.


In the fall of 1917, a group called ‘The Inquiry’ was assembled by Col. Edward Mandell House to negotiate solutions for the Paris Peace Conference in Versailles. They worked out of the American Geographical Society doing historical research, and writing position papers. The Inquiry was formed around the inner circle of the Fabian-initiated Intercollegiate Socialist Society.

In the spring of 1918, a group of people met at the Metropolitan Club in New York City to form the Council on Foreign Relations. The group was made up of “high-ranking officers of banking, manufacturing, trading, and finance companies, together with many lawyers...concerned primarily with the effect that the war and the treaty of peace might have on post-war business.” The honorary Chairman was Elihu Root (lawyer; U.S. Senator, NY-R, 1909-15; U.S. Secretary of War 1899-1904;  U.S. Secretary of State, 1905-09; first President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1910-25; won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1912; who supported the income tax amendment and the League of Nations), the most recognized Republican of his time. From June, 1918 to April, 1919, they held a series of dinner meetings on a variety of international matters, but soon disbanded.

In a 1919 subscription letter for the magazine International Conciliation, M. C. Alexander, the Executive Secretary of the American Association for International Conciliation wrote: “The peace conference has assembled. It will make the most momentous decisions in history, and upon these decisions will rest the stability of the new world order and the future peace of the world.”

House, who President Wilson called his “alter ego,” because he was Wilson’s closest friend and most trusted advisor, was an admirer of communist Karl Marx. House lobbied for the implementation of central banking, and then turned his attention towards a graduated income tax. In 1912, House anonymously wrote the book Philip Dru: Administrator (published by Fabian B. W. Huebsch), which was a novel that detailed the plans for the takeover of America, by establishing “socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx,” and the creation of a one-world totalitarian government. This was to be done by electing an American President through “deception regarding his real opinions and intentions.” The book also discussed the graduated income tax, and tax-free foundations. The novel became fact, because Philip Dru was actually House himself, and it revealed the manner in which Wilson was controlled. Incidentally, a central bank, providing inflatable currency; and a graduated income tax, were 2 of the 10 points in the Communist Manifesto for socializing a country.

On May 30, 1919, Baron Edmond de Rothschild of France hosted a meeting at the Majestic Hotel in Paris between ‘The Inquiry’ and The Roundtable (a British group who saw England not only as a European power, but an Atlantic one also) to discuss a merger. On July 17, 1919, House formed the Institute of International Affairs in New York City, and ‘The Inquiry’ became the American branch of the Round Table. Their secret aims were “to coordinate the international activities and outlooks of all the English-speaking world into work to maintain peace; to help backward, colonial, and underdeveloped areas to advance towards stability, law and order, and prosperity, along the lines somehow similar to those taught at Oxford and the University of London...” In 1921, when it became apparent that the United States wasn’t going to join the League of Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was incorporated on July 21st, consisting of members from both groups, and others who had participated in the 1919 Paris Peace Talks.

As their ranks grew, they began to receive funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, and later the Carnegie Endowment and Ford Foundation. By 1936, their membership reached 250, and they already had a lot of influence on 5 major American newspapers: The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, and the Boston Evening Transcript. This gave them the ability to slant the news in a way which would reflect their views, and thus begin the process of molding the mind of America to suit their needs.

In 1937, the CFR came up with the idea for ‘Committees on Foreign Relations,’ which would be established in various major cities around the country, for the “serious discussion of international affairs by leading citizens in widely separated communities.” Between 1938 and 1940, Francis P. Miller organized these mini-Councils with funding from the Carnegie Corporation, to better influence thinking across the country. John W. Davis said after World War II that these committees had “provided an avenue for extending the Council to every part of the country.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt had Henry Wallace (U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 1933-40; who later became Vice President of the United States, 1941-45; U.S. Secretary of Commerce, 1945–1946) and Louis Douglas (Director of the Budget Bureau) work with a CFR study group on national self-sufficiency, out of which came the Export-Import Bank and the Trade Agreements Act of 1934.

On September 12, 1939, after the start of World War II, CFR members Hamilton Fish Armstrong (managing editor of the CFR journal Foreign Affairs; journalist at the New Republic magazine) and Walter H. Mallory (Executive Director of the CFR), went to the State Department and met with Assistant Secretary of State George S. Messersmith (also a CFR member), to offer the services of the Council by establishing a CFR study group concerning the war and a plan for peace, which would make recommendations to the State Department. They proposed to do research and make informal recommendations in areas regarding national security and economics. Secretary of State Cordell Hull (1933-44; U.S. Senator, TN-D, 1931-33; U.S. House of Representatives, 1923-31; received Nobel Peace Prize in 1945 for co-initiating the United Nations, and was referred to by President Roosevelt as the “Father of the United Nations”), and Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles (1937-43; a major foreign policy advisor to President  Roosevelt; CFR member) liked the idea, and the War and Peace Studies Project was initiated with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, who gave grants totaling $300,000 over a 6-year period.

In December, 1941, at the urging of the CFR, the State Department created the 14-member Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy, in which the CFR was represented by 8 of its members (2 more became members later).

As World War II came to an end, CFR study groups planned the reconstruction of Germany and Japan, the establishment of the United Nations, the initiation of the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank (the UN International Bank for Reconstruction and Development). In December, 1943, the CFR began to outline their proposal for the United Nations, which was presented at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. Historian Ruth B. Russell wrote in her 1958 book, A History of the United Nations Charter: The Role of the United States, 1940-1945, that “the substance of the provisions finally written into the [UN] Charter in many cases reflected conclusions reached at much earlier stages by the United States Government.” The United Nations was established for the sole purpose of setting a foundation for world government.

In 1952, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter said: “The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.”

Since then, through the Council on Foreign Relations and other organizations like the Bilderberger Group and the Trilateral Commission, men who want this country run by a Socialist government, and ultimately a world government, have been appointed to positions throughout the United States government. They are so deeply imbedded that it is impossible to root them out. They perpetuate themselves with like-minded traitors.


These are the men who make up the Deep State. As they were incrementally brought into the government, the CFR became entrenched into every nuance of government administration. And when a new President is elected, they need educated and experienced people to fill Administrative roles within the government. And who do they look to? The Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, of course. They become the Advisors who help direct the President’s domestic and foreign policy. Jimmy Carter’s Administration was riddled with members of these groups, and they so dominated his policy, that he is considered one of the worst Presidents in American history.

This is why Trump is not going to be successful in “draining the swamp,” because he doesn’t realize how deep it actually goes. It has taken generations for the enemies of this country to get the people in place necessary to carry out their diabolical plans. He may slow it down, and delay some of their actions, but that’s it. Have you ever seen such an embattled Administration? It’s because this element within the government is fighting anything that Trump wants to do which seeks to derail their plans. It’s not just coming from the Left. His own Party has fought his legislative agenda, and because of its dysfunction stands a chance of blowing the window of opportunity they have with a majority in the House and Senate.

The mid-term elections in 2018 do not bode well for the Republicans because they are weak, privileged, cry babies who are still butt-hurt because of Trump’s election. A man who has never held political office. They just don’t get it. Trump was elected as an outsider, because the people of this country are tired of the direction this country has been going in. They want change. But Congress doesn’t want change. That should tell you something. The Deep State is why Presidents come and go, but nothing ever changes.

The Hillary Clinton campaign, Democratic Party, pro-Clinton expenditure groups and Political Action Committees spent a record $1.2 billion, which was twice as much as the $600 million laid out by the Trump campaign. The Democrats were ‘trumped’ by all the free publicity the Republicans were able to garner because of Trump’s celebrity status, and his whirlwind style of campaigning. Throughout the campaign and up to election night, the Democrats were convinced that Trump didn’t have a chance to win. Hillary still has not recovered.

The Democrats have already started to ramp up for 2020, and you can bet they’re not going to make the same mistake again. They’re looking for their own celebrity to run, and recently, Oprah Winfrey’s name has been floated as a possible candidate. However, she has said that she won’t run. Michele Obama’s name has even been put out there. As President Obama’s 2nd term wound down, the Democratic Party was fully invested in Hillary to be their standard bearer, and there was nobody in the wings waiting to be groomed. They don’t really have a well-known candidate with name recognition, which is why they’ve been floating the idea of a celebrity. So, you can bet that the Democrats will be spending upwards of $2 billion in the next Presidential election, and you’re going to see an unprecedented campaign and media onslaught behind whoever the Democratic candidate is. If Trump is reelected, it will surely be a mandate that Congress can’t deny, and they will be forced to capitulate to some of his ideas. The Democrats know this.

But for now, for the remainder of Trump’s term, when the traitors are being held at bay, and their efforts stalled, it is your opportunity to get your financial affairs in order. I believe that the economy is going to collapse. Because they control this country through the Federal Reserve, it can artificially be done at any time, just like the Stock Market Crash of 1929. But, there are some things which need to be done before they can pull the trigger, mostly having to do with infrastructure. So, while there is a lull in the action, now is the time to prepare for the coming Socialistic government.

If you’re interested in more information as to how we are being led down the path to world government, read my book Final Warning: A History of the New World Order, available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018


On April 27th, 2018, America will see the premiere of the newest Marvel Universe movie– Avengers: Infinity War. It is the most ambitious movie ever made in the superhero genre. With the record-breaking performance of Black Panther, now the 3rd biggest domestic motion picture of all-time, Marvel has high hopes for this movie, which has all of its major characters in it. The first Avengers movie in 2012 had an opening weekend box office tally of $207,438,708, the 4th biggest opening of all-time, but the biggest superhero opening. It's not a big stretch to say that they are hoping for much more with a movie they've been building up to for a few years.

Courtesy of Box Office Mojo
Superhero movies have become a box office staple, and in a list of the top 50 domestic movies of all-time, there are 22 of them there. They are action-filled, and for the most part, they are family-friendly– and they are a lot of fun. 

Personally speaking, I was never a superhero kind of guy. When I was growing up, one of my friends tried to be Superman, tied a towel around his neck and jumped off the roof of his front porch. He broke his leg. Nope. I stuck to the heroes who really existed, or rather, could have existed, like the Lone Ranger, Zorro, the Phantom, and Batman. However, America has gone all out in its acceptance of superheroes who possess extraordinary powers and abilities beyond that of mortal man.

For Christians, is there a danger here, watching these kinds of movies?

In the Bible (Luke 17:26-30) Jesus says: "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

We have to consider why the days of Noah and Lot were isolated when the cataclysmic events that resulted (the Flood and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) are compared to the coming of Christ. Jesus gave a number of clues about when the event known as the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ were to take place. 

“Gospel must first be published among all nations” (Mark 13:10); “that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition” (2nd Thessalonians 2:3); “then shall be great tribulation…as was not since the beginning” (Matthew 24:21); “a falling way” (2nd Thessalonians 2:3); “immediately after the tribulation of those days…they shall see the Son of man coming” (Matthew 24:29, 30) 

It seems that Jesus is pointing to something that occurred during the days of Noah and Lot, that will happen again in the days leading up to His return.

Genesis 6:4 says that "there were giants in the earth in those days [before the Flood]; and also after," when fallen angels came to earth and mated with human women, the union of which produced giants, which "became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." That about says it all. Stories of the fallen angels, and the exploits of the giants became legendary. The apocryphal book of Jasher (referred to in the Bible in Joshua 10:13, and 2nd Samuel 1:18) 7:45-48 indicates that Nimrod, the son of Cush, who was the son of Ham, who accompanied his father Noah on the Ark, became so powerful that he ruled over all the sons of Noah, and "did not go in the ways of the Lord, and he was more wicked than all the men that were before him" since the Flood. He "rebelled against the Lord," "made gods of wood and stone," and "taught all his subjects and the people of earth his wicked ways." The first mention of idols is in Genesis 31:19, during the time of Jacob (1896-1749 BC). Deuteronomy 32:17 (the time of Moses) says: "They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not." The legends and traditions of the fallen angels and the giants became the basis for the Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian gods, and eventually the Greek and Roman pantheon of gods.

In June, 1938, Action Comics #1 came out, featuring Superman, the very first comic superhero. He was the first in a long succession of mighty beings who had superpowers and saved the earth from all sorts of international and intergalactic threats. But what was the basis for these heroes?

"They're our Greek myths," says Laurence Maslon, the author of Superheroes!: Capes, Cowls, and the Creation of the Comic Book Culture. "But the difference is, they're no longer what the Greek myths were to the Greeks– they're what they were to western civilization centuries later. We know them so well now. They have outlived the intent of the original. And there are people who grew up with them, seven-year-olds who are 57 now. They don't want to throw them away, but they want to interpret them through the lens of their own time." 

In a Gizmodo website article (03/26/16) by Becca Caddy called "Myths, Monsters and Heroes: How Comic Books Were Influenced by the Stories From Our Past," she wrote: "It doesn't take an expert in ancient cultures to draw parallels between the stories of our favorite comic book heroes and the dema-gods from Greek myths..."

Andrew Latham wrote in his (April 2012) Master Thesis Comic Books vs. Greek Mythology: The Ultimate Crossover for the Classical Scholar: "The similarities between the superheroes of serialized comic books and the heroes of Greek mythology, result in an interesting genre of literature that can allow classical scholars to observe how modern writers reinterpret the classical texts of Greek mythology."

In the 1980s, as Hollywood seem to run out of ideas, comic books represented an untapped resource of characters and story lines, and they began to harvest them for the silver screen. Carl Pettit's (06/12/13) blog for the Huffington Post website was titled "The True American Gods: Comic Book Heroes."

It is clear, that the template for our modern superheroes came from the mythology borne of the fallen angels and giants. 

The history of the Jews contains a number of accounts of the times when they would slip into idolatry and the worship of idols and false gods, and they were punished for it. Exodus 20:5 says: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." And Exodus 20:3 says: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This included honoring them in any way, making images of them, praying to them, worshiping them and sacrificing to them. Basically, if you acknowledged false gods in any way, you pretty much rubbed God the wrong way.

If you've had a child, and you named it after one of your parents or another relative, you did it to honor that person. Correct? When a government entity erects a monument, a school, a bridge, or builds a battleship, and names it after someone, they are honoring that person. Right?

Did you know that the month of January is named after the two-faced Roman God Janus; that February was named after the Roman pagan festival of purification; that March was named after Mars, the Roman god of war; that April was named after Aphrodite, the Greek equivalent to Venus [though some etymologists maintain that the name stems from aperire, a Latin verb which means "to open" and refers to all the blooming that is associated with Spring]; that May is named after Maia Majesta, the Roman goddess of Spring; and June is named after the Roman goddess Juno.

And how about the days of the week? Monday is derived from the Anglo-Saxon Monandaeg or the "Moon's day" because the moon was worshipped as the wife of the sun. Tuesday was taken from the Anglo-Saxon Tiwesdaeg or "Tiw's day" in honor of Tyr, the Norse god of war. Wednesday comes from the Anglo-Saxon Wodensdaeg or "Woden's day" to commemorate Odin, the Norse god of storms, who was the father of Tyr. Thursday came from the Anglo-Saxon Thunresdaeg or "Thor's day" for Thor, the Norse god of thunder. Friday was taken from the Anglo-Saxon Frigedaeg or "Frigg's day" to honor Freya, the Norse god of love, who was the wife of Odin. Saturday comes down to us from the Anglo-Saxon Saterdaeg of "Sater's day," which is named after Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture. And Sunday honors Sol Invictus, the Roman Sun god.

The holidays of Valentine's Day, Easter, Halloween and Christmas are all adapted from pagan celebrations.

So, we can see that we have long recognized false gods. Case in point, Thor, the Norse god of Thunder, who Thursday is named after. He made his debut in the sci-fi/fantasy anthology Journey into Mystery (#83, August 1962) and was created by the legendary Stan Lee.

Now we are making movies about false gods (honoring).

Spending billions of dollars to see movies about false gods (offerings).

Courtesy of Box Office Mojo

Making Halloween costumes of false gods (worship).

Playing with images of false gods (worship).

Displaying statues of false gods (worship)

Trying to become as a false god (personification).

In the article "Why We Love Superhero Films: The Humanity Behind the Mask," posted on The Artifice website (12/25/14), Megan McKay wrote: "...superheroes demonstrate that while they have enhanced powers and abilities and can save the world from alien invasions and psychotic killers, they still have to deal with the realities of being a person. In spite of these realities, all of which the audience can relate to, our heroes still make those altruistic choices that everyone would hope to make if presented with the same situations. Moviegoers walk out of the theater feeling enthralled and inspired...Where a viewer finds common ground with a superhero they find a source of strength, of courage, of inspiration. People walk around wearing Batman shirts, drinking from mugs emblazoned with Captain America's emblem, collecting little vinyl figurines of their favorite heroes. Doing so reminds them that these heroes deal with the human realities running rampant in their own lives, a comforting thought for many an audience member."

God gave us a Bible with plenty of examples of heroes that succumbed to weaknesses of the flesh, to serve as examples that redemption can come in spite of faults: Noah was found to be drunk (Genesis 9:21); Samson, blinded by lust disclosed the secret of his strength (Judges 16:17); after accidentally seeing the naked Bathsheba washing herself, King David ended up sleeping with her, getting her pregnant, then arranged for her husband to be killed in battle so he could have her (2nd Samuel 11:2-27), and Peter denied the Lord 3 times (Matthew 26:75).

In the natural, to suggest that we have become a nation of idol worshipers seems almost laughable because we don't look at it that way. But the thing is, how does God see it? When you see the things the Jewish people were punished for in the Bible, how is that any different than what we're doing today. When you look at it through spiritual eyes and Biblical glasses, it truly is as the days of Noah and Lot when false gods walked the earth and were worshiped. Everywhere we turn today, books, movies, television, DVDs, and the internet, we see representations of false gods that we honor in many different ways. 

We have turned our eyes and affections away from God, to derive inspiration from false gods. I just can't imagine that God would find that favorable. To me, I think that God may consider that a sticking point in a relationship. Paul proclaimed in Philippians 3:14: “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” It is God’s desire for you to make a commitment to what He has destined for you. When you do that, you enable God to do more things in your life– to tear down and rebuild, help you establish priorities, and work toward an intimate relationship with Him. 

Spiritual leadership is not won by promotion, but by prayers and tears.
It is attained by much heart-searching and humbling before God;
By self-surrender, a courageous sacrifice of every idol;
A bold, uncompromising, and uncomplaining embracing of the cross; 
And by an eternal, unfaltering looking unto Jesus crucified.
This is a great price.
But it must be unflinchingly paid by him who would be a spiritual leader of men.
A leader whose power is recognized and felt in Heaven, Earth and in Hell.

Samuel Logan Brengle


In the United States, we have seen the growing Muslim influence, and although there is a tendency to tie the religion to a rise in terrorism, it continues drawing adherents.

Following the tenets of the Qur'an (no quibbling about different versions here) and Sharia Law, Muslims apply themselves to daily prayers (Salah), fasting, dietary restrictions, anti-homosexuality, anti-adultery and a general disdain for the things of the World. They are a very strict, rigid and disciplined religion.

They worship Allah. They say Allah is God.

Allah is NOT God. Allah is A god. He is actually an ancient Moon god.

Nevertheless, his followers are so dedicated to Allah, that they will blow themselves up for their god.

In 1961 boxer Cassius Clay converted to Islam and changed his name to Muhammad Ali; in 1968, basketball player Lew Alcindor converted, and changed his name to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; and in 1977 musician Cat Stevens became Yusuf Islam. In the Bible, when men stepped into their destiny, their name changed. Abram became Abraham, Jacob became Israel and Saul became the Apostle Paul. Ali said that Cassius Clay was his slave name; but Paul said: "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more." (1 Corinthian 9:19)

While many fall to the deception of Islam, Fundamental Christianity, as a religion, is shrinking, and has been.

Religion has always been that moral compass that provides direction, helping us to find our way. But it seems that the very leaders themselves have lost their way, and have become the blind leading the blind.

It's amazing how many issues are dividing the 'Body' of Christ: the authority of the King James Bible, the Gap theory, the timing of the Rapture, is there a Hell, the concept of the Trinity, Once Saved-Always Saved (Eternal Security), Homosexuality/Transgenderism, Evolution, Abortion, women in Ministry, the basis for the Flat Earth theory, the Mandela Effect, Speaking in Tongues, and politics/social justice issues and the role of government. It's almost as if Christians are just looking for ways to break fellowship, be divided and separate, and to not have relationship with each other.

Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Galatians 1:8-9; and Revelation 22:18-19 all warn against changing the Bible, yet Bible publishers have tweaked the Word of God to further their own agendas by deviating from the Authorized King James and producing over 50 different versions of the Bible. They can't all be God's Word, now can they?  The so-called Bible scholars say that Jesus didn't say certain things and that particular events never happened. They claim that questionable older manuscripts are more accurate. They have created so much confusion that many people are not even sure as to what Bible they should be reading.

In Time Magazine (11/15/1993, pg. 74), Billy Graham is quoted as saying: "The only thing I could say for sure is that Hell means separation from God. We are separated from his light, from his fellowship. That is going to Hell. When it comes to a literal fire. I don't preach it because I'm not sure about it. When the Scripture uses fire concerning Hell, that is possibly an illustration of how terrible it's going to be- not fire but something worse, a thirst for God that cannot be quenched." Bible teacher Rob Bell  was infuriated when he saw a street preacher preaching about sin and Hell, because Bell teaches (in his 2011 book Love Wins) that there is no Hell. A loving God would not send souls to Hell. The accusation is that the teaching of Jesus has been mistranslated. It took a secular journalist, Martin Bashir from MSNBC, to correctly point out that Bell was "amending the Gospel, the Christian message, to make it palatable."

But it doesn't end with Bell, because he is just part of the Seeker-Sensitive movement within the Church that is preaching a message of inclusion. This network of mega-churches is referred to as the Emergent Church. The Social Justice Warriors that have emerged out of the Progressive and Liberal political ideologies have been working to shame us into accepting everyone, no matter how perverse their lifestyle is. It has become their life's mission to ensure that nobody is offended, or made to feel bad; and anything that offends, is considered hate speech. This is the mindset that is being adopted by the Church. When pastor Rick Warren (unofficially known as "America's Pastor") was in the planning stage (late 1970s) for his Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, he went door-to-door in the area, and for those who didn't already attend a church, he wanted to know what it would take to get them to attend his church. Basically, it was like a parent saying to their child, what do you think would be the best way to raise you?

Church has become focused on entertainment, instead of attainment. The focus is now on the worship and music (practically a rock concert), and it's all about creating a cathartic experience. It has become a living, social platform, complete with coffee and donuts, where you go for your weekly pep talk to get you through the week. You won't hear anything about Hell, and they don't preach against sin. All are welcome. If you're a man, and you like to kiss men. No problem, Jesus loves you, we love you, you're welcome here.

The divorce rate in the Church is not much different than the World. When I had a bad experience with the owner of a large Christian bookstore who was handling the mail/phone orders for my book, I was told that Christians were the worst people to do business with. Since the 1980s we've been seeing pastor after pastor outed for issues of morality. Some have left the ministry, some have not.

The attitude has been, it doesn't matter what the Bible says, it's wrong. Yeah, it says that, but it was mistranslated, and it really says this. This is why the Bible is being changed, to change doctrine, to make it more acceptable. And to make money.

From 2005 to 2008, Tony Jones was the National Coordinator of The Emergent Village, an organization involved in planting the Emergent Church, and in 2006, he co-chaired the first meeting with Emergent Church leaders, and is recognized as a co-founder of the movement. Though married, in 2006, it was discovered that he was having an affair. Doug Pagitt, another Emergent Church leader, justified the action with the theological argument that Jones said that his spiritual wife took precedence over his physical marriage, which was really just a legal matter. They divorced in 2009. Jones "sacramentally" married his new wife in 2011, but he refused to legally marry her until 2013, because he didn't want to get married until it was legal for homosexuals to get married. He is still in active ministry.

Christianity has become a religion of compromise.

It's been drilled into us from childhood that we should go to church on Sunday. Culturally speaking, it's just the right thing to do. What better way to accomplish that, than to go to a church that plays music like you hear on the radio, and doesn't condemn your lifestyle. It's a slam dunk.

This is why you have all the division when it comes to the issues I mentioned before. You have a part of the Church that doesn't want to 'rightly divide' what the Bible says, because it doesn't line up with their personal beliefs and theology. For many years you had a doctrine that was strictly adhered to, but it was forced to change so it could fit into modern Society and the way things are today.

The Bible is constantly being rewritten, and doctrine seems to waver with the prevailing winds. In short, Christianity has been compromised. A religion whose foundation was built on the rock, now appears to be sitting on shifting sands. Where it formerly represented something to spiritually hold on to, now exists as a concept of having your cake and eating it too. But is that what people really want?

I maintain that the Islamic religion is growing exponentially because it offers something written in stone. A religion so unwavering in its theology, that it defies all common logic as to how it is able to continue. Whatever the clerics say, is what goes- without question. Like it or not, some people need to be told what to do. That is why there are leaders, managers and supervisors, to provide the direction that is needed for people to get established and grow within the confines of their professional careers.

If this trend of Liberalism continues in the Church, the 'anything goes' mentality is going to cause many more to leave structured religion. Over 50 years ago, churches had 2 services on Sunday, a Wednesday 'Bible Study,' and other types of church activities. But today, many churches only have a Sunday morning service because the Church no longer holds the same commitment as it did in the past.

It is now up to the remnant of the Church that refuses to give in and back down. That  segment who are Christians out of commitment and not convenience, and continue to preach the full Gospel of Christ, no matter the cost. It is time that this Liberalism in the Church is recognized for what it is- the "Falling Away" that the Bible talks about.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."  [Matthew 7:21-23]

Sunday, July 30, 2017


Read these Highlights from today's "Washington Post" article (Jul 30, 2017) "In GOP’s repeal failure, Democrats find a potential game plan" by David Weigel
"Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a freshman who favors universal Medicare coverage, said that Republicans have rewritten the playbook. “When we do have a Democratic president, and when we do have a Democratic majority, I’d support getting this through with 51 votes in the Senate,” said Khanna of a universal coverage, single-payer plan.“"
"On Thursday, as the repeal effort headed for the cliff, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) needled Democratic senators — 10 of whom face reelection next year in states Trump won — by introducing the text of a single-payer bill sponsored by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). For the first time, most House Democrats have co-sponsored Conyers’s bill; 43 members of the Senate minority, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), voted “present,” while five voted “no” on the Daines amendment. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) did so (voted “no” on the Daines amendment) because he intends — barring yet another jolt of life in the repeal campaign — to release a “Medicare for All” bill before the Senate’s August recess. The bill will be designed to reframe single-payer, which enjoys tentative support in public polls, as cost-effective and sensible. If Sanders’s bill gets a favorable CBO score, it would become a starting point for Democrats in future health-care debates."
"Conyers, meanwhile, was trying to make universal health insurance the party’s default position. On Friday, as most House members left town for their recess, Conyers joined Khanna at an event to launch a pledge for 2018 Democrats. Raising his right hand, the Capitol peering over his shoulder, Conyers said he would “stand up for ‘Medicare for All.’”"
"Medicare for All" is the Democrat's secret code for Single-Payer Health Insurance, just like the "Federal Reserve" was their secret code for Central Banking when the Democrats passed it in 1913. You're going to start seeing the term a lot as the Democrats, along with the RINO Republicans, have successfully sandbagged the legislative procedures intended to repeal the Affordable Care Act or ACA (Obamacare) and replace it with something better. Unfortunately, for the Republicans, in the years since its implementation, when they promised to do something about it, they were NOT working on a better plan, and upon Trump's victory, proved themselves to be unfit to hold office because they promised something they didn't really didn't want to deliver. Their failure to do something now, almost guarantees that a new plan would not be in place in time for January 2019.
This is how it was supposed to go.
Barack Obama was selected to be the one to lie (his now infamous lie of the year in 2013 that “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.”) to the American people and sell them the ACA. They couldn't trust Hillary to do it because she dropped the ball in trying to get universal healthcare implemented during Bill Clinton's first term in office. There are Democratic officials on record as saying this was the first step toward socialized medicine in this country. In a "Forbes" (Aug 10, 2013) article by Avik Roy, he quotes then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) when asked whether his goal was to move Obamacare to a single-payer system, as saying: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
Then there is the "Washington Post" OpEd piece (Nov 17, 2014) by Marc Thiessen outlining the revelations made by Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber:
"Gruber explains that the Obama administration passed the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-value employer health plans “by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we know it’s a tax on people who hold these insurance plans.” Americans would not support a tax on individuals, so “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on the higher prices . . . it ends up being the same thing.” The ruse, Gruber says, was “a very clever . . . basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
"Gruber boasts about how the Obama administration fooled Americans into paying to cover the uninsured by using sleight of hand, focusing on their concern over rising health costs. “Barack Obama’s not a stupid man, okay? He knew when he was running for president that quite frankly the American public doesn’t actually care that much about the uninsured. . . . What the American public cares about is costs. And that’s why even though the bill that they made is 90 percent health insurance coverage and 10 percent about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control.”
"Gruber says the Obama administration knew the individual mandate was a tax, but that if Americans knew the truth “the bill dies.” So the bill “was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes.” He adds that “the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” and that “the stupidity of the American voter . . . was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
The ACA was not built to last. Although the Department of Health and Human Services said the ACA website cost $834 million (though Bloomberg said $2 billion and Trump said $5 billion), there were initial problems with it, and on the campaign trail, Donald Trump insisted it still didn't work. If this is true, it certainly is an indication there was a reason why it wasn't fixed.
When Hillary unveiled her plan in 1993, the Left was against it because they wanted Single-Payer even back then, and although, during her Primary campaign against Sanders she said it would "never, ever happen," in an article by Stephanie Condon on the CBS News (Jan 29, 2016) website she wrote: "In 1994, when advocating for comprehensive health care reform as first lady, Clinton told reporters that if Congress didn't pass a reform bill that year, the nation would eventually embrace a single-payer plan. "If, for whatever reason, the Congress doesn't pass health care reform, I believe, and I may be to totally off base on this, but I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system," she said. " I don't even think it's a close call politically. I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country... It will be such a huge popular issue... that even if it's not successful the first time, it will eventually be."
So, the gameplan was the expectancy of a Hillary victory in the 2016 election. The time between her ascension to the presidency and the implosion of the ACA would have been spent in an indoctrination through the media for Single-Payer Healthcare being the answer to the inadequacies of the ACA, which could have actually been fixed, and saved. But they don't want to fix it. They want Single-Payer. They want more government control. They want a Socialist-structured program.
This is why the Republicans will not get their act together. The Republicans were handed an unprecedented opportunity with a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and the presidency; and they have failed miserably on their promises and the mandate that Trump brought with him. The politicians you keep re-electing don't care about what the people of this country want. They have their own agenda. That is now abundantly clear. There is increasingly more rhetoric in regard to Single-Payer Healthcare coming from the Democrats and appearing in the Main Stream Media. The strategy of the Democrats is to tie up the Republican's hands long enough that they can get through the Mid-term elections. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats in the Senate will be up for grabs and they think that their constant bombardment against the President will be enough for voter discontentment against Trump to translate into enough Democratic victories to regain control of Congress. Once this is done, and with the absence of a Healthcare plan in place, they will be positioned to be able to begin the debate and dialogue for Single-Payer Healthcare in this country.
When this happens, you can look back and thank John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; three of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, who voted "No" on the latest vote to Repeal and Replace.
We already know that the Democrats are still reeling from Trump's election; but so are the Republicans, and petty politics have come into play as he attempts to "drain the swamp." He has been thwarted left and right, and there has been constant turmoil in his Administration with continual leaks of information and problems with loyalty. I know that it has been the most contentious presidency that I've every seen. The Republican's 1994 Contract with America was certainly more successful and unified in their legislative endeavors, even with a Democratic president.
In February 2016, NPR reported: "Turned off by the partisan wars in Washington, 39 percent of voters now identify themselves as independent rather than affiliated with one of the two major political parties, according to a 2014 analysis by the Pew Research Center. Self-identified Democrats accounted for 32 percent of the electorate, Republicans 23 percent." No doubt the incredibly inept handling of the mantle of responsibility given to the Republicans will cause more Party loyalists to become Independent voters in order to coerce candidates into keeping the campaign promises that they make.
Term limits are being suggested to break the political stronghold held by many long-serving politicians in Congress, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) has gone as far as calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment (1913) to again allow senators to be selected by their state legislatures, instead of being elected by popular vote. The privileged members of Congress certainly didn't get the memo that the people of this country want change. That is why they elected an inexperienced outsider to be their president. However, while they continue to stonewall change, these same politicians, and the elite that own them, are quickly moving to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Thursday, January 19, 2017


I saw the above post on a 'friend's' Facebook page. Instinctively, I found it to be wrong on many different levels.

But first, let me provide some context to my assertions.

In my first Presidential election (1976), I voted for Jimmy Carter. This election was the last 'big' campaign. The man even had a campaign song ("Why Not the Best"). I later found out why such a massive media campaign had to be waged. I had registered as a Democrat, and became politically active, becoming a Committeeman, then District Leader. I joined the Young Democrats, became the Secretary of the county organization, and later President; and was the Corresponding Secretary for the Young Democrats of Pennsylvania. In my zeal, I did a lot of research on the history and platform of the Democratic Party and even printed a booklet which I distributed to many people. At that time I felt that the Democrats better addressed solutions for the people of this country.

After I got married (1985), then bought my house (1990), and had the real world slap me in the face, in the research I was doing for my book, I began to see a liberal agenda that was being played out on the national stage. I began to see how the social programs and legislative actions long advocated by the Democrats were hurting this country and preventing growth. So I changed my Party and became a Republican.

I wasn't a zealous Republican, and never became as active with them, because I also realized that they were not perfect, and that most politicians in either Party did not effectively represent the people that elected them. For example, I remember once when I heard a politician say that although a majority of people in his district felt one way about a particular Bill, he was voting the opposite way, because he felt it was for the best. In my book, that is taxation without representation.

So, my views had become quite conservative, because I had grave concerns about the economy, and I believed the Republicans were more interested in restoring prosperity to this nation. However, this year, with the political fracas revolving around a group of Republicans trying to wrest the nomination from Trump at the Republican National Convention, I decided to change my Party, because I didn't want to be part of any Party that would try to take away my vote.

I am now an Independent, but I am still a Conservative.

The graphic above is part and parcel with the post-election protests, riots, vote recounts, and Electoral College intimidation. I have never seen such political vitriol directed towards a Presidential candidate. It even surpassed the ire directed against Barry Goldwater in 1964. The Democrats are unwilling to accept the fact that they nominated the wrong candidate, who under-performed, and underestimated her opponent. In addition, they also failed to see that America wanted an outsider who they saw as someone who could reverse the direction this country has been going in.

This graphic demonstrates what they feel their new agenda should be. It's not enough that the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are seen as Liberal organizations, but public education in general has always been perceived as pursuing leftist policies. But now, the election of Donald J. Trump has left them in literal shock. But, in reality, that's not the problem. The problem is if a President Trump can do what he says he can do. If he can, that sets up a certain reelection. That doesn't bode well for Democratic coffers.

It now seems the Liberal agenda is calling for a renewed effort to indoctrinate children in our schools. Last year, in a letter distributed by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party that was written by a teacher in Philadelphia, he called for the same thing. Another Facebook post called for Liberal teachers to move into the Red States that made it possible for Trump to win the Electoral College vote so they can be instrumental in influencing and molding young minds.

I have a problem with this.

Even as a Conservative, I would not want any teacher imprinting their Conservative mindset onto a child. I don't know, why can't teachers just teach without taking advantage of their position by imposing their own political views. Why can't they just educate with a multi-dimensional approach so that children can be fully informed to be able to make their own decisions. During the 2008 Presidential election campaign, Republican candidate Ron Paul talked about how we needed to get rid of the Federal Reserve to solve our economic problems. People said he was crazy for wanting to get rid of part of the Federal government. The thing is, the Federal Reserve is not part of our government, it is private banking institution that has uses the principles of central banking to enslave many countries of the world. But they don't teach that in school. I had to learn it from my own research.

It is true that our public educational system has been dumbing down our children so they will accept that our government has their best interest at heart. That the increasingly socialistic bent of governmental policy is the best thing for this country. The intent is to create citizens who will not question authority. Perfect little robots. Sheep. Sheep being led to the slaughter. But now, Liberals have hit a bump in the road. There's a glitch in the Matrix. Their solution is a long-term project to rally the troops and exert even more influence to brainwash kids with a rotting philosophy to poison their minds to the truth.

More than any other time in history, Liberals have engaged in a campaign of hate that's never been seen before. Not only against Trump, but against the people that supported and voted for Trump. They have embarked on a vicious media campaign to vilify the Conservatives in this country that voted to bring change and want fiscal responsibility. This will become readily apparent during the Inauguration ceremony on January 20th when thousands of people will descend upon Washington DC to voice their opposition against the movement that swept Trump into office. It remains to be seen whether their frustration will boil over to the point of violence. But what I do know, the next 4 years will be filled with constant criticism and a campaign to undermine Trump's strategy to reestablish America's greatness.

Monday, November 14, 2016


Remember during the last Presidential debate, when Donald Trump was asked, if he lost, would he accept the outcome of the election? He said he would have to look at it at the time. The leftist Mainstream Media lost it, and was livid at his comment- that he presumably wouldn't accept the will of the people. Now, after the stunning victory of Trump, protesters have taken to the street in an attempt to use intimidation, disruption and violence to convince, someone, anyone, to change the outcome. One protester said that Hillary Clinton should sue Trump to keep him from taking office. This goes to show that these agitators, primarily college students, do not understand how our political system works.

Anti-Trump protesters fill the streets
The point of contention, is that Hillary won the popular vote, which means, according to these protesters, she should be President. However, our Republic is guided by our Constitution, and according to that document, our President is elected through the Electoral College process.

The Founding Fathers were apprehensive about establishing a direct vote to elect a President, because they were worried that the more populous States would skew the results, and wanted the smaller States to have some relevance. They did not trust the population to make that decision, fearing that a tyrant would be able to manipulate public opinion and gain power. And indeed, today, the most popular State, California, is so liberal, that Trump never even had a General Election strategy there. That's why we were given the Electoral College.

It seems that our colleges and universities are inciting these events by not teaching this process, therefore we have thousands of protesters in large cities all over the country trying to use coercion to force change. This is a Constitutional impossibility. Unless...the Electors of the Electoral College change their vote, which two have said they are going to do, and are in the process of trying to get others to do the same. If you remember, Cruz supporters at the Republican National Convention tried to do the same thing. Why do people think so little of the will of the people by trying to circumvent things to suit their own bias?

The purpose of protest is to exercise your freedom of speech to express your opinion as to why something should be changed. Look at past demonstrations for Civil Rights, and against the Vietnam War. These were things that could be changed. You can't overturn a free and fair  election. Now there seems to be an escalation, in that huge riots are being planned for Inauguration Day, and it seems to be an opposition to democracy itself.

Back in 2008, you didn't see Republicans going out and pillaging in response to the election of Barack Obama. Republicans accepted that it was a change election, and a backlash against 8 years of George Bush. But the new breed of liberals are different. If they disagree with the opinion of someone, though it is truth, they label it as hate speech; which has caused the rise of political correctness and a mechanism to limit free speech. It's okay for them, but not anyone else. They have instituted mob rule and an environment of fear.

These demonstrations can be laid at the doorstep of the liberal Mainstream Media. Ever since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, the Media has lied, twisted, and have taken out of context nearly everything that Trump has said. They are responsible for creating an atmosphere of fear for the Trump presidency. And why did they do that? To help Hillary Clinton. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, while talking to co-anchor Brooke Baldwin, said: "We couldn't help her (Hillary Clinton) anymore than we have. You know what I mean. She's got just a free ride so far from the Media. We're the biggest ones promoting her campaign."

CNNs Brooke Baldwin and Chris Cuomo
Academy Award-winning Director Michael Moore, a big Hollywood liberal, in a CNN interview with Don Lemon, said that a majority of Americans are liberals and progressives who want things like equal pay for women, action to stop Climate change, are against the death penalty, and are pro-choice. He believes that the Congress, and now the new President, are not representative of the American people. However, Congress is elected through a direct vote, and Americans have voted for a Republican majority. So, how does that happen if liberals and progressives are the majority?

Michael Moore
Moore gave Lemon a list of 5 things ("Michael Moore's Morning After To-Do List") that need to be done by liberal activists:

1) "Stop saying you're 'shocked.'"
Donald Trump was elected because the Democrats who came out in huge numbers for Obama in 2008 and 2012, did not come out for Hillary Clinton. In 2008, nearly 70 million voted for Obama, and in 2012 about 66 million. In 2016, a little over 60 million voted for Hillary. She did not excite the Democratic base like Sen. Bernie Sanders did. She had high unfavorables, was not drawing large crowds and was dogged until the end by her Email scandal. In short, she under-performed. That's why she lost.

2) "Fire the pundits and pollsters."
Hillary held sway over the Democratic National Committee (DNC) because of being the wife of a popular 2-term president, a Senator, and Secretary of State; and in fact, as shown in the Wikileaks Email hacks, had so much influence, that she was able to lessen the impact of Bernie Sander's candidacy. The Mainstream Media heavily favored Hillary, and did not report on the negative things that impacted her campaign. The polls were skewed toward Democrats and women, which artificially showed her with high polling numbers.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) came close to taking out Hillary
3) "Repeat: 'Clinton won the popular vote.'"
So, because Hillary won the popular vote, we're supposed to suspend the Constitution to allow her to become president. If you break down the results, the slight lead in the popular vote is a misleading indicator of her popularity. Trump won 30 states, to Clinton's 21. More shocking is the county map which shows the country awash in a sea of red and illustrates the wide support coming from rural America. Hillary's support came from the huge metropolitan areas and the liberal New England States. This is why the Electoral College is a more accurate reflection of the will of the people.

Trump overwhelmingly won more counties than Clinton
4) "Take over the Democratic Party."
As previously mentioned, the success of Hillary's nomination came because she was able to control the DNC. Revelations of this forced the resignation of Party head, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and criticism of her replacement Donna Brazile, who CNN cut ties with after it was revealed the she gave the Clinton campaign copies of the debate questions prior to the CNN-sponsored event. Because of the influence Hillary had, Sanders never really had a chance. However, because of the huge crowds drawn to his campaign rallies, he was able to put his socialist agenda out there, part of which involved free healthcare and free college education. His message resonated with college students and others frustrated with the state of the country, despite the fact that taxes would have to be increased dramatically to pay for all the free things that were part of his vision. Moore believes that the progressives have to take over the Democratic Party to insure their platform is advanced.

5) "Obstruct Republicans in Congress."
This is Moore's call-to-arms to disrupt the democratic process as much as possible. The last time a Republican President had a Republican-controlled Congress was during the George W. Bush administration (2003-2007); before that, some of Eisenhower's administration (1953-55), and before that, part of Hoover's (1929-31). Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall on the Southern border, repeal and replace Obamacare, and rollback numerous Executive Orders that Obama signed to bypass Congress. Obama campaigned for Hillary in an effort to protect his legacy, and doesn't want what he's done to be erased and to stop the progress that has been made. Yet, it seems, with the election of Donald Trump, America wants to reverse the direction that Hope and Change have taken us. It could be argued, that because Trump overcame tremendous obstacles to become President, that he has a mandate to pursue his legislative agenda. With this perception, and a Republican-controlled Congress, he should have little opposition. This is what Moore said needs to be targeted. The right way to do this, is to change the balance of power, by Democrats beating Republicans on Election Day. Yet, Moore seems to be hinting at something a little more immediate.

The current wave of organized demonstrations, bordering on riots, seem to be the beginning of this battle, which will further the ideological division in this country, as a socialist agenda is being pushed. One protester acknowledged there will be blood, because it sometimes takes the death of someone to have their goals furthered. If these actions escalate and become more violent, some have suggested that martial law could be declared and Trump's inauguration delayed. However, it would take something on the level of a civil war for something like this to happen, and I'd like to think that this is something that Americans would not want to see in their streets.

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States is the biggest political upset in American history. Although the candidacy of Ronald Reagan, a former movie actor, garnered similar reactions, he had previously been a 2-term governor of California. Trump has never held political office. His campaign style rewrote the political playbook. In January, 2004 on the night of his Iowa primary loss, Democratic candidate, an overzealous Vermont governor Howard Dean was trying to fire up his supporters, finishing off with a rousing scream. Some say that ended his chances of winning. In the 2012 presidential campaign, 2-term governor Rick Perry was riding the top of the Republican polls until a debate in November when he couldn't remember the 3rd of 3 government agencies he said he would eliminate as president. That seemed to end his presidential hopes as his popularity began to slide. With the verbal gaffes that Trump has committed, Dean's and Perry's seem to be relatively minor, yet Trump's campaign was not adversely affected. And while he stood on his business acumen, the pundits criticized his actual business success rate.

The Howard Dean scream
Looking at old interviews, you can see that for a very long time, he's not agreed with what politicians have done with this country. His entire career in building a world-wide business brand, being a best-selling author, and the host of a hit television show, have given him a platform and name recognition. From the beginning, he's always identified with the working man. When Mitt Romney ran for President in 2012, he was labeled as being rich and out-of-touch with the working class. Yet, Trump, a billionaire, was supported by the working class and those who didn't have a college education. How can that be? It happened, because a year before he announced, he made it a point to find out what the issues were that Americans were concerned with. He realized that these issues ran parallel to his nationalistic views, which gave birth to his America First campaign pledge. The other thing, at a Donald Trump rally, he didn't just give a speech, he talked to his supporters in a conversational manner, like he was sitting with them in their living room. That endeared him to them, because he came across as a candidate that heard what they had to say, and agreed with them, and wanted to do something about it.

President-elect Donald J. Trump
Towards the end of the campaign, Trump told the crowds at his rallies, "What have you got to lose?" in voting for him. He maintained that voting for Hillary was like a 3rd term of Obama, and it would cause the country to continue going in a direction that would destroy the economy of this country. And that's the mindset we need to have. Obama was a community organizer who only ran for Senate to use it as a platform to run for President. What experience did he have? Yet, America gave him a chance, and he was ultimately re-elected. Ronald Reagan, the former actor, rates very high on many lists as one of our most beloved Presidents. Why should Trump be treated any different? He should be given the same chance to acclimate himself to the office. Because he's not a politician, there is no measure to compare what he's capable of doing other than to consider the company he has built, the brand he has made, and his many accomplishments.

America has chosen this man because they believe he represents the best chance of returning this country to a firm economical footing. He's been given a big job to do, and we owe him and his administration our support. His success, is our success.