Milo Yiannopoulos and the Rise of American Nazism, Part 2

In part one of this article I wrote the following: Is the leftist claim that Yiannopoulos represents Nazism credible? Yes! (as to him but not yet as to Trump). Because they know what conservatives do not: that Nazism was always about Nationalist “butch” homosexuals wresting power from Communist/Socialist “femme” homosexuals, first in the streets and then in the seats of government and the treasury. (Anti-Semitism was only incidental to the Nazi agenda for the first dozen or so years.) In that sense “Milo” represents the very essence of Nazism as will the Trump Administration if it aligns with the homosexuals instead of the Christians and Torah-faithful Jews. (By definition it’s an either-or choice for Mr. Trump.)

That summary skips over a couple of steps in my analysis and I apologize for leaving people confused.

No, I’m not saying the Yiannopoulos is himself a Nazi, or even a “butch” homosexual. What I see in Milo is just another too-smart-for-his-own-good, overly indulged, Torah-defying Jewish boy making his fortune by acting outrageous and defying social norms (in this case the politically correct norms). Indeed, I strongly suspect that he is a closet leftist or cynical opportunist simply “punking” the conservatives like Sasha Baron Cohen punked and humiliated those poor Eastern European peasants who fell for his “comedic” fraud. (This short video clip shows how thin Milo’s veil of false sincerity really is

As such, Yiannopoulos himself (while perhaps sincere at first) is just cashing in on the Kardashian-effect of our dysfunctional celebrity freak-show society and will may well pull a David Brock and switch sides whenever it stops paying off financially, or perhaps like Bruce Kaitlyn Jenner he’ll just swing for the higher trapeze to stay in the spotlight a little longer.

However, for all his smarmy pseudo-conservatism, Yianopouloos is a symbol of the “gay right” whose celebrity is not of his own making. He is a tool of hidden forces whose purpose is to normalize homosexuality in the right wing by people like billionaire Paul Singer, There’s the danger, because the real “gay Nazis” are salted through this society as they have been in every society – the same general ratio of masculine oriented male homosexuals to femmes here as in pre-Nazi Germany. Homosexuality is a bi-polar gender identity disorder with some manifesting a dysfunctional form of masculinity, others manifesting effeminacy – with a small percentage on each side going to polar extremes, like transsexuality. Most Femmes lean Communist/Socialist. Most Butches lean Fascist. My charts on this phenomenon can be seen here:

Just as effeminate male homosexuality reflects a certain recognizable demonic spirit (a flamboyant hypersexalization of all aspects of life), so the masculine version has a common psycho-spiritual identifyer: a pathological conviction of it’s innate superiority and right to control the world by brute force. This is thoroughly documented in The Pink Swastika and has been more-or-less acknowledged by the “gay” movement itself:

In that sense, then, Yiannopoulos is the useful idiot popularizing the “gay right” to the millennial generation (and schoolchildren) that will empower the “butch” homosexuals to come out of the closet. That’s what I mean by the rise of Nazism. You might not be able to see it yet, and might even doubt my analysis, but remember that I said it because it’s coming and you’ll be able to recognize it when it does.

Now, as to how this “Milo phenomenon” could cause President Trump to “Break Bad” against Christians and Torah-faithful Jews, we need to look at how he chooses sides on social issues that aren’t his personal priorities.

It would seem that Mr. Trump’s positions on business and immigration issues reflect his actual worldview, but on other matters he seems to choose positions and personnel through a process similar to the “trial by combat” of the Middle Ages. He invites the best candidates to compete with each other for his approval and then picks the last person standing; sort of like what I imagine he did on “The Apprentice,” though I have never watched it (or any other “reality” show).

I think that explains why he has chosen some strong pro-family leaders for his inner-circle, chief among them being Mike Pence, but has at the same time leaned in favor of the “gay” movement rather than the pro-family one regarding public policy. This is because the “gays” ostensibly won the culture war on “gay marriage.” I say ostensibly because if you ignore the ever-dishonest LGBT narrative parroted by the mainstream press and look objectively at the facts, the pro-family movement actually won that war with 35 state DOMAs but was robbed of its victory by Justice Anthony Kennedy and a small handful of activist federal judges. But this is about Mr. Trump’s perceptions, and I think he believed the narrative so he went with the “gays” on LGBT issues.

He’s pro-life because Christians now have the muscle to defeat the pro-aborts. He’s pro-Russia because Putin is tougher than NATO. He’s pro-Israel because Netanyahu is tougher than the Moslems. I think he really sees the danger of Islam to the West and would back Israel anyhow, but I think he could switch from partner to policy dictator in Israel if a less Trump-friendly leader became the Jewish Prime Minister. I think that’s a concern across the board with Mr. Trump: even if you’re a player, he only loves you if you back him (e.g. the Ted Cruz relationship).

Carrying this analysis further, consider the implications for the Trump administration going forward. His inner circle is a balance of Christians and Populists which are faced off today over what some of us recognize is the ultimate spiritual issue of the end times: homosexuality, the sin that triggered Noah’s Flood and the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah, and that 2 Peter 2 defines as the basis for the heresy of the last days.

I don’t know the dynamics of the Trump inner circle but for the sake of convenience lets say it’s Pence v Bannon representing the opposing camps. Mike Pence is a strong pro-family Christian but he caved in a pinch when, as Governor of Indiana, he faced the Borg of LGBT power regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Bannon is probably the mastermind of the “Milo phenomenon.”

If my analysis is correct President Trump is going to go with one camp or the other based on who’s got the muscle to win the fight. That means we’re at fork in the road TODAY that will determine whether the Trump administration goes with the Bible or with the Milo-influenced crowd tomorrow. The results could not be more dichotomous nor more consequential. If ever there was a time when Christian leaders needed to take a firm persuasive stand, it is NOW. That means we need an immediate, unequivocal and robust rejection of the idea of the myth of the “gay conservative” by the church.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Milo Yiannopoulos and the Rise of American Nazism

The Soros army of Communists is rioting at Berkeley and we conservatives are expected to take sides with the one whose speaking tour has sparked it. However, I have two words for conservatives being enticed to embrace attention-hog Milo Yiannopoulos as a hero of conservatism: run away! With Trump now in office we can take back the education system ourselves, thank you very much. We don’t need this poseur’s help.

What we are witnessing in the contrived “Milo Phenomenon” is not the answer to far left control of our university system but an attempt by so-called “gay conservatives” to hijack the cultural pendulum that is finally swinging our way after half of century of hard work. Not only is Yiannopoulos a recently minted political opportunist rushing to grab the spotlight just as the tide of battle is turning, he also represents the very antithesis of conservatism: the abandonment of the marriage and family foundation of civilization that conservatism exists to conserve.

Don’t fall for the “Milo” branding campaign by granting him Madonna-like single-name stature. Open homosexual Yiannopoulos does not represent conservatism. Like homosexual Adolf Hitler did in Germany, he represents the rise of American Nazism and embracing him will do nothing but empower and justify the Communists who are his true counterparts. To steer this nation back to the civil and manageable political framework of liberal v conservative, the liberals must shun the Bolsheviks, including the Berkeley rioters and the conservatives must shun the Nazis, including Yiannopoulos.

Is the leftist claim that Yiannopoulos represents Nazism credible? Yes! (as to him but not yet as to Trump). Because they know what conservatives do not: that Nazism was always about Nationalist “butch” homosexuals wresting power from Communist/Socialist “femme” homosexuals, first in the streets and then in the seats of government and the treasury. (Anti-Semitism was only incidental to the Nazi agenda for the first dozen or so years.) In that sense “Milo” represents the very essence of Nazism as will the Trump Administration if it aligns with the homosexuals instead of the Christians and Torah-faithful Jews. (By definition it’s an either-or choice for Mr. Trump.)

As Voltaire said, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, and we are watching a repetition of Germany’s fall into Communist/Fascist hyper-polarization. As the author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, along with Orthodox Jewish researcher Kevin Abrams, I know better than anyone what that lesson of history is supposed to teach us and that is NEVER back homo-fascists as your answer to violent Communism.

First of all, there is no such thing as a “gay conservative” if words have any meaning. I wrote about this here:

I have always embraced the original goal of the “gay” movement, which was “the right to be left alone.” That’s true tolerance for people who choose to live outside the mainstream of society and I will defend them from invasion of their privacy. But advertising one’s homosexual identity as something good and normal is a deliberate act of subversion of the natural-family norm and not only deserves but requires opposition by the civilized world.

The emergence of homosexual leadership in the political right is a red-alert danger sign about the health of the movement, indicating that the primary force behind it is no longer Biblical but secular. I warned that this was coming back in my newsletter of April 1 2009:

“There is no question that the times are growing darker, and the Gospel is being challenged in this country like never before. And it will almost certainly get worse. Barney Frank is predicting the passage of at least three major pro-homosexual laws during Obama’s first term and globally, the ‘gay’ juggernaut is advancing apace. In recent months some have been equating his election to the rise of the Hitler, but I disagree. Obama’s election is actually equivalent in a historical sense to the Weimar government prior to Hitler, which was characterized by disastrous socialist economic policies and a concurrent extreme sexual libertinism. The resulting social chaos invited over-correction to the ‘right’ which opened the door for Hitler. There as here the transformation of the moral culture over decades from conservative to corrupt was orchestrated by the ‘gay’ movement: that is the central message and thesis of The Pink Swastika.

“Right on cue, we’re seeing a populist anti-socialism uprising across the country in the form of Tea Parties and other gatherings. I’m all in favor of these, because at this stage the movement is largely Christian sponsored and manned. However, if the movement grows to the point that secularists outnumber Christian activists and begin to assume leadership roles, its tone and goals will likely shift hard to the right and away from Biblically-grounded moderating principles.”

That was 2009. This week the Trump administration made it’s first big mistake in shifting from Biblically-grounded moderating principles by deciding to continue some of Obama’s policies regarding LGBT issues. My friend Peter LaBarbera wrote about that here:

My guess is that all this pro-homosexual stuff, including the Yiannopoulos tour, is a strategy of Trump’s advisor Steve Bannon of Breitbart. His team thinks they can undermine the LGBT power-base by backing “gay conservatives” while redefining some aspects of the “gay” agenda as a part of conservatism, while suppressing the truth about its common roots with abortion (which they oppose). But if sodomy can be endorsed by conservatism so can baby-killing since the law against both is God’s: the law above all laws.

President Trump can’t have it both ways by “triangulating” the issues. “What fellowship hath Christ with Belial?,” the Bible asks. Trump is either with God or with the demons on this question. And the demons behind the debasement of human sexuality and marriage are far too powerful to be constrained by human conniving. Solomon himself, the richest and wisest ruler of all time, failed to learn that lesson of history and lost his kingdom for it (1 Kings 11:1-12). Somebody really needs to get past Bannon (whom I admire as a strategist in most other respects) to point this out to Mr. Trump. Perhaps Mr. Bannon will come to his senses on this, but the degree to which he’s apparently invested in the Yiannopoulos strategy suggests not.

The “gay” monster whose nose is just barely into the GOP tent at this point (the movement, not the man) will soon own it if it is not stopped now. Rather than cheering Yannopoulos like he’s “our prizefighter” on university campuses, we need to shut off the cameras so he’ll stop posing for them and go back to the closet where his unfortunate lifestyle belongs. Instead of letting Mr. Bannon’s team steer the conservative movement away from Biblical alignment, let’s both pray and actively push this ship back on the course toward true conservatism as it was understood by the pro-family, anti-homosexuality Founding Fathers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

The Separation of LGBT and State: How the Trump Administration should handle non-traditional sexual lifestyles.

One of President Trump’s first acts in office was to scrub the White House website of references to the LGBT agenda, which had been Barack Obama’s top global priority. The euphemistically-named Human Rights Campaign (HRC) condemned the move, but I vigorously applaud it and would like to offer a few suggestions for how the Trump Administration should deal with LGBT issues.

HRC named me it’s public enemy #1 in a 2014 report titled “Exporters of Hate,” funded by the Grimer Wormtongue of the GOP, billionaire Paul Singer. As it does with every person who disagrees even in the slightest manner with the notion of “gay” cultural supremacy, HRC and its ilk cast my reasoned opposition as malicious “homophobia” and imply that we pro-family advocates want homosexuals to be persecuted and purged from society. However, my true agenda has always been a matter of public record: a balance between the need of society to preserve the primacy of authentic marriage and the natural family as its norm, with the original demand of the LGBT coalition to enjoy a right to privacy behind closed doors.

When I ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2014 my platform was quite similar in several key aspects to that of Mr. Trump, and in fact I sometimes wondered if his campaign manager had read my website. (The biggest difference was I stated openly and often that I didn’t run to win, but only to have a platform to promote Biblical values in the political arena.) At the start of my effort in November, 2012, I laid out what was then a unique populist vision for Republicans, in an article titled “Time for a New Coalition in the GOP.”

Later, when I began actively campaigning across Massachusetts, I issued a White Paper regarding “gay” issues, on the theme of “Separation of LGBT and State:”

“…Nearly every legal, social and political battle in American society today pits LGBT activists against Christians,” I wrote. “In and of itself, the contest between LGBT activists and Christians is not a problem. Questions about the Christian heritage of the United States aside, we are a nation based in substantial part on the theory of a social contract whose terms are set by the people. Vigorous public debate about what our public policy should be is healthy and beneficial.

The problem is that government has put its thumb on the scale favoring the LGBT agenda, while Christians are limited by the so-called ‘Separation of Church and State,’ a phrase not found in our constitution, but which has nevertheless been determined by activist judges to be the law of the land.

I propose this playing field be leveled by the establishment of a new legal and policy doctrine creating the ‘Separation of LGBT and State.’ The government should be prohibited from endorsing or promoting LGBT political goals or philosophy in precisely the same way that it is prohibited from promoting religion. Under my policy proposal, individual freedom of speech and association would be preserved, providing a balance between the needs of public health and private rights.

For example, government would no longer be allowed to promote the legitimacy of homosexual, bisexual and transgender conduct in public schools, but students could still form student clubs based on their personal choices. Activists could still hold public parades, but government officials would be restricted from marching in their official capacity. LGBT groups could establish community organizations, but no taxpayer money could be used to create or support them…In every way that Christianity is restricted in public life, the LGBT agenda should be restricted.”

I went on to state that in contests between Christian and LGBT activists, the First Amendment must always trump “sexual orientation” regulations.

President Trump has very publicly aligned himself with two strong leaders whom I also admire.

The first is President Ronald Reagan. Like Mr. Trump, Ronald Reagan rightly had a high level of respect for homosexuals as persons, but as President, Reagan recognized his duty to protect society from the destructive “gay” agenda, whose goal since the Stonewall Riots of 1969 is not tolerance but absolute cultural supremacy. He fulfilled that duty by appointing the preeminent jurist of the 20th century, Antonin Scalia, to the United States Supreme Court. Justice Scalia then wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v Hardwick (1986), which recognized the clear constitutional authority of all 50 states to regulate harmful sexual conduct, specifically including sodomy. (Mr. Trump should remember this when appointing Justice Scalia’s replacement.)

The second is President Vladimir Putin, the remarkable Russian strongman who almost single-handedly dragged the Russian Federation out of its post-Glasnost gangsterism into the rule of law, and purged Marxism from the culture by backing a massive revival of the Russian Orthodox Church. The resulting populist revolution produced a National Duma (congress) of patriotic social conservatives that in 2013 banned the promotion of non-traditional sexual lifestyles to children: a bill that was passed unanimously (436 to 0) and signed into law by President Putin.

Importantly, in Putin’s Russia of today as in Reagan’s America of the 1980s, an LGBT sub-culture thrives in the shadows outside the mainstream culture but has no power to promote it’s agenda in public schools or to enrich itself from the public treasury. Adults are free to live their lives as they choose, so long as they do so discretely and don’t try to cram it down everybody else’s throat. In other words, both of those men achieved the same reasonable balance for their nations that was the norm in many western nations in the 1940s and 50s before the Marxist revolution of the 1960s that spawned “leaders” like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I don’t have a conduit to the Trump Administration, but someone reading this article probably does. Please ask President Trump to establish a “Separation of LGBT and State” to take the government’s pro-“gay” thumb off the scale and give the American faith community a fighting chance to restore the natural family to it’s rightful place as the heart and foundation of our society.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Rules for Radicals of the Right: A Practical Primer for Populist Patriots

In 1971 Marxist strategist Saul D. Alinsky published his infamous handbook for “community organizers” titled Rules for Radicals, which ever since has been the essential resource for left-wing agitators, including the Clintons and Obama.

Alinsky dedicated his Rules for Radicals to “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer,” [the entity also known as Satan, the Father of Lies and Enslaver of Mankind].

As we conservative populists begin to reclaim our nation from Alinsky’s anti-American Bolsheviks, we need a resource for pro-American Constitutionalists. These Rules for Radicals of the Right are dedicated to the One who conquered Lucifer:

1. Tell the truth without hesitation or apology.

Truth is our most powerful weapon and strategy. Truth is objective, verifiable and self-evident to a clear thinking mind grounded in rationality and knowledge of the facts. Rationality proceeds from recognition and respect for the created order and the Creator Himself. His immutable laws provide the fixed standards by which any material or spiritual thing can be measured, proved and trusted. Without fixed standards there can be no steadfast rule of law making all men equal and free, only arbitrary rule by those with power to enforce their will.

2. Keep it simple but not stupid.

The enemy relies on confusion to create chaos and then exploits it to take control. He weaves a complex fabric of falsehoods, half-truths, misrepresentations, misdirection, hidden false assumptions and sophistry designed to mislead the gullible into drawing false conclusions. Complexity favors the deceivers. Honest and intelligent simplification frees captive minds.

3. Trust or not trust but always verify.

People who spin narratives or otherwise interpret facts or events instead of providing the straight facts to interpret for yourself often have their own agenda. This includes not just leftist media but can be any information source, including those you think are trustworthy. Whenever you’re expected to form a conclusion on any issue based on the authority of the source rather than the full and free presentation of the facts, including opposing opinions and interpretations, don’t trust it. This is especially true when an inherently controversial narrative is repeated consistently over time from only one perspective, such as “climate change,” the “born gay” assumption, or the theory of evolution.

4. Think For Yourself

Human beings are susceptible to jumping on bandwagons or joining teams to meet social needs, but this makes us vulnerable to manipulation by people who form or control teams to serve their own agenda (i.e, the Rs and Ds). Beware of any group, system or institution that requires or expects you to substitute their conclusions for your own, or to adopt a “team” position on a whole slate of issues, and shuns or denigrates you for disagreeing on one or more items. (E.g. many liberals recognize an essential natural order in the eco-systems of living things but are forbidden from acknowledging the natural family as humanity’s ecosystem because “gay rights” is a “must-embrace” leftist goal.)

5. See the good and bad on both sides

Remember that the devil works both sides of the street and it serves his goals if we evaluate people by the team they’re on, not their character or the rationality of their arguments. If truth is our standard and filter we’ll judge things and people fairly and thereby lessen the “us vs them” stupidity that makes us so easy to manipulate in elections and other cultural conflicts.

6. Restore critical thinking

The goal of the elites has always been to “dumb down” Americans to make us easier to deceive and control. Thus liberal terminology always avoids simple definitions and distinct boundaries, especially when used in social policy or laws. (E.g., “homophobia:” a nonsense word that implies all disapproval is an anxiety disorder.) We can defeat the elites by mastering critical thinking skills and restoring true literacy that employs only clearly defined words in unambiguous sentences conveying true and trustworthy knowledge.
7. Reclaim objectivity

The elites always obscure the distinction between objective truth and subjective opinion, and between hard science (which is never contradictory to Biblical truth, properly understood) and “soft science” (which can easily be manipulated to serve a hidden agenda). We must always promote and defend objective truth and contrast it with the subjective opinions and belief systems of the often-fraudulent “soft sciences” that have been driving our social policies for decades.

8. Challenge the know-it-alls

The elites on both sides invariably assume an attitude of moral and intellectual superiority. It’s easy to expose their errors by practicing the Socratic Method of interrogation. Just ask 1) “What do you mean by that?” (i.e., define your terms) and 2) “How do you know that’s true?” (I.e. what is your source of authority). You don’t have to be an expert on any given topic to take command of the discussion and expose liberal illogic and it’s lack of sound presuppositions.
9. Avoid the Tar-Babies

Remember that you can’t persuade a true-believer leftist with fact and logic. Intellectually, most of them embrace a closed-loop Cultural Marxist narrative similar to paranoid schizophrenia. If someone proves himself incapable of recognizing self-evident truths (such as denying the humanity of an unborn baby while looking at an advanced stage ultrasound image), disengage immediately. Conservative populists should largely ignore the left and their delusions and just focus on taking the seats of power away from them.
10. Be an Army of One

Paradoxically, populism is a movement of individualists whose common denominator is the US Constitution. Unlike our cultural opponents who hold the hive-mind mentality of big-government statists, our true strength isn’t in our numbers, but the rightness of our cause. We don’t need to wait for marching orders from Donald Trump or any other perceived leaders, we can act on our own or in small groups on the inherent authority granted to us by God and affirmed by the Founders. The quicker we all decide just to do that, the quicker we can restore this Republic. [I figure we’ve got about a two-year window.]

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Obama’s Desperate ‘War With Russia’ Gambit

Yesterday, WND published my article: Obama’s Hitlerian Departure, which compared Obama’s anti-Trump maneuvers in his final days in office to Hitler’s response to the American post-D-Day assault on Cherbourg, France (sabotage and tactical ineptitude being the common elements).

In it I said “I’m not terribly worried about Obama’s scorched-earth strategy, now that it’s clear the Russians will not be suckered into a hot war with the U.S.” I’d like to expand on that point.

Today, one of the most important articles yet published on the anti-Russian war propaganda campaign appeared on The Intercept, written by liberal Glenn Greenwald. It calls out the Washington Post, The New York Times, MSNBC and others for their highly unethical practice of hyping anti-Russian news stories, then failing to correct the record in any meaningful way when the stories proved to be fake news. (Welcome to my world as the chief target of LGBT propaganda! – but that’s an aside).

Here’s the link, followed by my comment posted on the site:

“Kudos Mr Greenwald. However, as brilliant and important as this analysis is, we wouldn’t be reading it if Putin had taken Obama’s bait and expelled American diplomats from Russia. Instead, we’d be at the next level of fear-mongering, dramatically showcased by news items like today’s announcement of US Special Forces being sent to the Lithuanian/Russian border, and perhaps an uptick in our DefCom threat level. The lies of the propaganda campaign you’ve exposed would go unchallenged (or unpublished) or even characterized as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” Obama wants a war to justify police state powers, if not necessarily for himself then for Merkel and the rest of the globalist team increasingly desperate to stop the erosion of its control of world affairs. That’s the one aspect of your excellent article left untouched: motive.” By which I mean motive of those creating the fake news [Obama’s CIA perhap?] that these outlets published.

This article is really must-reading, especially for conservatives who have been suckered into the Obama/McCain cold war mentality toward the Russian nation and people – people who would otherwise be our closest friends and allies if not for the steady campaign of lies since 2013 when Russia passed the ban on “gay” propaganda to children. That game-changing decision gave hope to conservative nations around the world that the globalists could be stopped from cramming their godless agenda down the world’s throat. Obama then staged the coup in Ukraine to revive the cold war, and force Russia to annex Crimea (to protect its centuries-old strategic interests there), or watch it be transformed into a NATO base under hostile US and EU control.

That devious chess move by Obama gave undeserved credibility to his subsequent propaganda campaign casting Russia as an aggressor nation seeking to rebuild the “Evil Communist Empire” of the Soviet Union. That cynical US and EU (always a US puppet) chest-beating was followed by regional war games and provocative military encirclement tactics by NATO (always a US puppet as well) which Russia or any other nation would have no choice but to counter, simply for the sake of prudence. Putin’s responses were reasonable and measured.

President Elect Trump, presumably being advised by the best and brightest military minds of the US (many of them high ranking officers fired by Obama for ideological incompatibility with his Socialist and LGBT agendas) saw through the Obama/McCain deceptions. He publicly reached out to Russia and proved to the nation that the war propaganda was false and allowed those willing to see it that Russia shares many of the same goals for the world that American conservatives and populists do.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Obama intended to launch a hot war with Russia. The now demonstrably fake news about Russian hacking of the election results [utterly baseless] was a transparent pretext to expel the Russian diplomats, which was intended to provoke retaliation in kind. That would be followed by a false flag attack on the US with Russia in the frame-up – exactly what occurred with the now demonstrably fake news of the Vermont power grid being shut down in the dead of winter. (Why Vermont? Because it’s home to some of the most vocal and dedicated anti-war activists in the nation, whose criticism of a sudden shift to a US war footing would be blunted).

On its heels would come some major sabre-rattling to give voice to US “outrage” such as today’s news that Obama is sending troops to the Lithuanian/Russian border. Next would be some sort of incident with shots fired and sudden, rapid escalation into war. That hasn’t happened yet, but still might.

Importantly, a conspiracy such as I have outlined would take time to set up, and once set in motion would be hard to abort. President Putin threw a monkey wrench into the works by not retaliating in kind by expelling American diplomats. That took the air out of the pre-planned Vermont “grid attack” story, and exposed the troop deployment tactic as an act of American aggression. The propaganda machine is still spinning it as justified but only those in the general public who still don’t realize that the fake news was debunked are going along with it.

In conclusion, then, I am retracting my statement of yesterday that implied we are out of the woods regarding an Obama war with Russia. I’m back to warning that these next three weeks are fraught with the risk of war because the elites are desperate, and I know I am by no means alone in this assessment. Perhaps by stating this suspicion openly and widely we can deter them. We should also be praying that Mr. Putin and the Russian people resist the natural inclination to retaliate militarily if Obama strikes first, understanding that Trump would make right any harms the Russians suffer in that last-ditch attempt to trigger war.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Obama’s Hitlerian Departure


Top: The Museum of Liberation, formerly the Fort du Roule, on the peak of the Montée des Résistants. Bottom: Cherbourg city and harbor as seen from Montée des Résistants .



Immediately after D-Day in World War II, the American forces of the Allied Coalition set their focus on the liberation of Cherbourg, France in Normandy. The City of Cherbourg, with it’s heavily fortified deep-water harbor became a key strategic foothold and transportation hub for America in Northern France, allowing supply ships to deliver a steady stream of troops and cargo directly to the continent for immediate deployment to the front lines.

However, when he realized that Germany would soon lose control of Cherbourg, Adolf Hitler ordered Rear Admiral Walter Hennecke to make the city and harbor unuseable. Hennecke so thoroughly demolished Cherbourg and filled the harbor with debris, sunken ships and mines that Hitler awarded him the Knight’s Cross for “a feat unprecedented in the annals of coastal defense” on the day after his surrender.

As I watch our current occupant of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, spend the final days of his disastrous presidency frantically working to make the Executive Branch unusable to President Elect Trump, I cannot help seeing the parallel.

In his article, “Whatever happened to that smooth presidential transition Obama vowed?,” McClatchy editorialist Andrew Malcolm (no Trump apologist he), asked the following rhetorical questions:

“Since Obama vowed to run a smooth presidential transition, what’s the real point of picking a tardy diplomatic scuffle with Putin? What’s the real point of setting Israel…adrift at the United Nations now? Why issue all these offshore drilling bans and new federal regulations? Why commute more federal prison sentences than a dozen past presidents combined? Why keep releasing Guantanamo terrorists when so many return to their homicidal careers? Might it be to plant political IEDs for his annoying successor…?”

Clearly, Obama’s vindictive strategy is repulsive even to many liberals, and reflects similar egomaniacal errors of judgment to Hitler’s. Like Obama, Hitler presumed himself to be a great strategic genius. After the fall of Cherbourg, while laudeding Hennecke, he ordered Cherbourg’s General Friedrich Dollmann to be court-martialed then micro-managed subsequent maneuvers, making tactical blunders that cost the Germans the entire peninsula, and eventually the war.

Like Hitler, Obama’s bad decisions invariably lose territory for his team: and each new bruise to his self-image requires a greater need for revenge, further clouding his judgment. During his administration, Democrats have lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 12 governorships domestically. Abroad, Obama has lost most of the Middle East, virtually destroyed our relationships with Israel and Russia, and squandered America’s formerly deep reservoir of goodwill with countless nations by forcing “gay marriage” and Soros’ “open borders” agenda on them. That’s the short list of harms from Obama’s abuse of power.

Based upon my observations in more than 25 countries, I am convinced it was Obama’s presumption that he could achieve global victory for the whole progressive agenda in just eight years that triggered the populist backlash. He used his power to fast-track leftist goals and force them upon every world leader who would submit (Merkle being the foremost willing patsy and Putin being the leading refusenik). Bad for the elites, good for the rest of us, because just as we would never have had Ronald Reagan without suffering Jimmy Carter, we would never have had Donald Trump without suffering Barack Obama (assuming Trump will emulate Reagan).

I happened to be in Cherbourg on Memorial Day 2016, a week before the D-Day anniversary. I celebrated America’s sacrifice for the cause of freedom by climbing Montée des Résistants (Mountain of the Resistance) to the Museum of Liberation at its peak. The panoramic view of Cherbourg city and harbor was spectacular. I was deeply sobered as I contemplated the cost of liberating it from my cliff-top perch on a gun emplacement of that once massively fortified mountain stronghold.

Less than a month later, after a speaking and fact-finding tour of the populist revolution in Eastern Europe, I was in Central London for Brexit, and after further missionary travels returned to the U.S. on November 7th to vote the next day in the most important election of our lifetime.

I’m not terribly worried about Obama’s scorched-earth strategy, now that it’s clear the Russians will not be suckered into a hot-war with the US. Now largely impotent, Obama’s increasing nastiness will do nothing but enhance President Trump’s mandate, alienate average Americans and further marginalize Obama’s core base of Cultural Marxist zealots.

I believe 2016 was the turning point in the global culture war. The astounding, earthshaking Brexit vote in England was D-Day. Trump election was the taking of Cherbourg. What comes next is clearing the harbor and rebuilding the city, in this case Washington. Once that has been accomplished, and the populist/conservative movement has its stronghold, an advance can begin across the battlefield that unites all the various allied armies scattered across the map, and the long-enduring “French Resistance” of pro-Bible, pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitution partisans.

There is one concern on the near horizon, however, that we all should be mindful of. As the Americans were securing Cherbourg they also worked to join with the D-Day forces. In taking the Town of Carentan in costly house-to-house fighting (what we’re likely to see in political form in Congress and at the UN over the coming weeks) they formed one contiguous Normandy front. But the Germans counter-attacked to try to break that line and nearly succeeded in the legendary Battle of Bloody Gulch.

Andrew Malcom reports “…as Democrats seek to restore their party….For the first time in nearly a century a former president decided to reside in Washington. Obama has rented a mansion and office space.” I have no doubt that Obama is planning his own Battle of Bloody Gulch but one which he assumes he will win. Megalomaniacs cannot surrender graciously. Backed by armies of social justice warriors on the streets and in the hardened leftist bunkers of media, academia and big-money foundations, Obama will fight like a cornered rat to protect his legacy and it’s underlying ideology. Be certain of it, and never stop fighting until freedom has been restored.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

The Fat Lady is Not Yet Singing in the Global Culture War: A Note of Sobriety Amidst the Jubilation

The glory days for population control by the elites was when they held all the key information sources of the people in their own hands — such as the “Big Three” television networks. That all began to change with the proliferation of the Internet when people could access primary sources and other pre-processed information for themselves. This sea change culminated in the elites’ partial loss of control in 2016. This is the reason for the entirely fabricated “Fake News” crisis and the sudden emergence of information-control laws across the globe. The US, UK and Germany (i.e. the Soros/Obama core of elite power) are in the process of establishing what can rightly be defined as a global “Ministry of Truth” straight out of the pages of reformed Socialist George Orwell’s 1984.

It must be acknowledged that Orwell, who wrote this blood-chilling classic as a satire against Socialism, has become in retrospect a prophet. His dystopian future of a society defined by perpetual war and thought control through propaganda is close to becoming our reality – despite the populist revolution. This stage-play has by no means reached it’s final act.

We Americans consider ourselves the freest people from thought control, and point to the Soviet model as the polar opposite of our system of “free press” and unfiltered information sources. We mock and disrespect the Mainstream Media (MSM) while at the same time assuming that we are not being influenced by them – or that the elites who run them aren’t smart enough to have deployed alternative media that creates the illusion of “fair and balanced” news coverage. How often do even the most cynical conservatives give credence to these same media in matters that dominate the news cycle that fall outside our areas of particular interest. We blast them for pro-abortion propaganda, for example, yet assume their reporting on things like US military activity in Syria is objective and accurate.

The Syrian situation is representative of a much larger problem of information control by the elites that too many Americans still don’t recognize, and how much the American press today not only doesn’t differ from the old Soviet model but improves upon it.

Here’s an example of how the propaganda works in the American version. I’m going to use as the example a normally trustworthy conservative-leaning source, The Washington Times. From the December 26th article “Death knell sounds for Obama doctrine as Aleppo falls to Assad loyalists:”

— “There is no doubt [President Obama] will be hammered in historical terms. The question will be why he didn’t do more,” Aaron David Miller, a former presidential adviser on Middle East affairs, told Reuters. Mr. Obama’s infamous “red line” warning in 2012 against Syria’s use of chemical weapons against rebel forces pushed Washington and Damascus onto a collision course….The Obama administration’s approach to the ripple effects of the Arab Spring, which irrevocably changed the political landscape of the Middle East and North Africa, was tantamount to “a policy of calculated dithering,” said one top regional analyst. —

This article is, of course, red meat for conservatives, but notice how it unquestioningly assumes that Obama’s fault was in not taking more military action in Syria, and subtly invokes the “red line” that Assad supposedly crossed, which supposedly should have triggered direct U.S. military intervention, which in turn supposedly proves Obama’s weakness as a leader. That’s “the narrative” for the conservatives. The elites have a narrative for every interest group, it’s not just a leftist thing.

Obama is a weak leader, but not because he didn’t go to war with Russia. And everyone seems to have forgotten that Syria’s alleged violation of the “red line” was one of the most obvious set-ups in the history of “black ops.”

One of my favorite top “Fake News” sites is Zero Hedge which recently warned that Trump will probably not be able to stop the globalists: . I don’t know if I entirely agree with this analysis, though I do know that assuming a Trump presidency represents anything more than a fighting chance will ensure our failure.

There’s another international news story that has overly encouraged conservatives: the report that Romania’s President has rejected the leftists nomination of a Moslem for Prime Minister. Yes, that’s hopeful on one hand, but credit in the article for bringing about this result was attributed to The Rise Project, a national journalist association funded by George Soros. The Rise Project is just one of the many non-profit journalism projects around the world funded by Soros, and that should be greatly concerning to every truth-loving person on the planet.

It used to be a fundamental tenet of journalism that every news report should offer more than one perspective on the news, and that every perspective in dispute should be presented in a balanced way with opposing views honestly represented. Personal bias by individual journalists and editors had always tested that standard, but so long as it was in place and respected, the ethic of fair and balanced coverage uplifted the profession and justified the public’s trust. Today, “advocacy journalism” (i.e. propaganda) is the norm, and omissions, misrepresentations and hidden false assumptions are ubiquitous.

Today the pretense of journalistic ethics by the MSM is laughable and respect for the industry is in the toilet – a metaphor never so perfectly epitomized. Yet public scorn has not and will not bring necessary change. The public must demand – and enforce by pressure – the adoption of clearly and publicly stated standards for ensuring journalistic objectivity and the imposition of ideological balance in the newsrooms and editorial boards.

If the populists and conservatives do not force this change, we will never break our society free from the grip of the elites.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

The Truest Test for Vetting Supreme Court Nominees

One of the greatest blessings of my career was studying constitutional law under “God’s Lawyer,”* David Llewellyn, then Dean of Simon Greenleaf University which is now Trinity Law School. (*So designated on the cover of the California Bar Association’s magazine, California Lawyer, in the late 1990s.)

In one of my first classes with Dean Llewellyn I learned about the landmark case of Everson v Board of Education, which officially dethroned the God of the Bible in the United States and triggered the slow-motion implosion of our society and culture that continues to this very day. My ministry has ever since been shaped and directed by that knowledge.

Most politically-aware Christians know that the so-called culture war we’ve been steadily losing for over half a century began with the removal of prayer from the public schools in 1963. Very few realize that the legal basis for de-Christianizing our country, including the ban on school prayer, began with the Everson ruling. Our fight can never be won and American returned to its former greatness so long as Everson’s unconstitutional rejection of God’s authority over America is allowed to stand as the law of our land.

Fifty years before Everson, the Biblical foundations of American law were squarely addressed in a unanimous ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892). The proof of the Biblical roots of America’s legal system was so extensive that it took the court five full pages in the ruling just to summarize them, but can here be represented by the one sentence conclusion of the court: “These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION” (Emphasis mine).

The following article makes that case

The Truest Test for Supreme Court Nominees

by Dr Scott Lively

President Elect Donald Trump earned the loyal support of Christian voters because of his promise to appoint only constitutional originalists to the Supreme Court. We stuck with him through one of the nastiest political smear campaigns in modern history and 81% of us turned out on election night to hand him the stunning victory that took the entire world by surprise.

It will soon be time for Mr. Trump to begin to keep his promise to us, and that means he should put forward nominees whose view of “original intent” go back to the actual origins of the republic and the Biblical worldview of the Founding Fathers. In other words, the most important case on which the Trump Administration must vet candidates for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is not Roe v Wade (1973), it is Roe’s juridical progenitor Everson v Board of Education (1947).

Everson is the case in which Franklin Roosevelt’s key ally on the court and former Klansman of the KKK, Justice Hugo Black, elevated Jefferson’s “Separation of Church and State” metaphor to the status of constitutional law, contradicting over a century and a half of court precedent recognizing America’s essential Judeo-Christian roots. That earth-shattering ruling, and the court’s failure to quickly rectify it, was the fruit of twenty years of absolute control of the United States government by the Democrat Party (from the election of FDR in 1932 until the election of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952). The Dems held the presidency and both houses of Congress that entire period except for two years of Republican congressional control under Democrat President Harry Truman.

All of the nine justices in the Everson decision were nominated by Democrat presidents (four by Roosevelt, three by Truman and one by Wilson), and all were Democrats themselves except Independent Felix Frankfurter (a founder of the ACLU), and the lone Republican, Harold Burton, a personal friend of Harry Truman from their days together in the U.S. Senate. Shamefully, all agreed with Black’s revisionist definition of the “Separation of Church and State” (though four dissented as to its application to the plaintiff’s case at issue).

In 1961, Black weaponized the Everson ruling in Torcaso v Watkins, which declared Atheism to be a religion equal to belief in God, empowering the hard left to expunge Christianity from public life as a violation of the Atheists’ new right to equal religious status under the constitution. In Engle v Vitale (1962), Black again took his axe to our Biblical roots, writing that a mere reference to “Almighty God” in a public school prayer rendered it illegal under his new radical interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Thus armed, the first wave of attack on Christianity by the armies of the political left eliminated all prayer from the public schools in 1963. Their campaign then rolled forward across the American cultural landscape like the Nazi blitzkrieg into Poland, systematically laying waste our marriage and family based social infrastructure and the highly evolved Bible-based moral and ethical consensus that once defined American exceptionalism.

Between 1947 and 1961, a battle to preserve America’s Biblical heritage raged in the other two branches of government. During Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration (1953-1961), the 84th Congress managed to place the national motto “In God We Trust” on our paper currency, and Eisenhower himself worked to strengthen the Biblical worldview through various initiatives of the Executive Branch. For example, the official 1957 guidelines for the U.S. Navy and Marines defined the Ten Commandments as “the codified moral law” to which every person is bound as the highest form of law (p.7). .

In comments he made in support of the American Legion’s “Back to God” campaign in 1955, which was broadcast nationally over radio, President Eisenhower stated “Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first–the most basic–expression of Americanism. Thus the Founding Fathers saw it, and thus, with God’s help, it will continue to be.”

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan led another Christian counter-revolution, backed by the Republican-controlled Senate of the 97th Congress from 1981 to 1983 (the first Republican majority in either house since Eisenhower). Reagan declared the Year of the Bible in 1983, and presided over the largest build-up of Christian political strength in modern history. One of the surviving fruits of that season is the still vibrant pro-life movement with which Mr. Trump strongly allied himself in this election.

However, due to the Supreme Court’s unique role as arbiter of the meaning and legal requirements of the U.S. Constitution, the radical new paradigm of the Everson case, expanded and hardened in Torcaso and Engel, rendered such efforts in support of the Biblical worldview largely moot, while lending the weight of presumed constitutional law to anti-Christian agitators.

For example, Everson’s reasoning served as wind beneath the sails of then Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson’s 1954 amendment to the US Tax Code that forbade churches from advocating or opposing political candidates, the so-called Johnson Amendment that President-Elect Trump has vowed to repeal. It seems significant that just a few years earlier in 1948, Democrat Johnson’s presumptive senatorial victory was clouded by serious allegations of voter fraud until none other than Justice Hugo Black (himself a former Democrat Senator from Alabama), issued an order barring a federal district court in Texas from further investigation of that fraud, effectively sealing LBJ’s victory over former Texas Governor Coke Stevenson, a Republican. (Apparently some things never change.)

Everson’s anti-Christian premise is the foundation for every subsequent Supreme Court ruling contradicting the Biblical values of the Founding Fathers. This includes but is by no means limited to Roe v. Wade and each of sitting Justice Anthony Kennedy’s five cataclysmic opinions establishing “gay” cultural supremacy over Biblical values, the most recent being Obergefell v Hodges (the “Gay Marriage” case).

Pro-Christian Eisenhower may have appreciated the significance of Everson but made four of his five nominations for the court while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress (making it impossible to appoint constitutional originalists). The fifth (the first in order of nomination) was leftist California Governor Earl Warren – who dropped out of the Republican presidential primary against Eisenhower on the promise of a seat on the court. Thus, all five of the Eisenhower nominated justices concurred with Hugo Black in the Atheist-empowering Torcaso case.

President Reagan tried to restore a Biblically-minded court in the 80s, and his champion, Justice Antonin Scalia, quickly became the court’s conservative anchor man and most reliable defender of Biblical Christianity of the 20th Century. However, when Reagan attempted to put a second “Scalia” on the court, in the form of Robert Bork, the Democrat-controlled Senate led by Ted Kennedy launched all-out war against his nomination. The ensuing unprecedented campaign of slander and vitriol inspired the creation of the verb “Bork,” defined in as “to discredit a candidate for some position by savaging his or her career and beliefs.” In other words, Reagan’s heroic effort was thwarted by the Democrats. Greatly weakened, he was then forced into making the greatest mistake of his presidency in nominating Anthony Kennedy.

In contrast to both of these men, Donald Trump is assuming the presidency with the backing of a Republican House and Senate, a Democrat opposition in smoldering ruin, and an unprecedented mantle of authority in having overcome incredible odds against all expectations by following his own unique insights and strategy. He is the first conservative President since the Everson ruling with the actual political capital to restore America to its Biblical foundations.

Donald Trump could very well be the man to restore America’s constitutional heritage. If, as they say, “personnel is policy,” Mr. Trump’s cabinet and staff positions he has filled so far indicate that he intends to keep his campaign promises in whole or in large part, and that’s very encouraging. It therefore falls to the Christians in his circle of influence, and the masses of Christian voters who put him into office to remind our new president that “original intent” is the intent of the Founders, and that means Everson v Board of Education must be reversed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Trump and the LGBT Agenda

According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s leading champion of “gay” supremacy, I am public enemy #1 of their global agenda. It is a badge of high honor. When Donald Trump granted openly homosexual Peter Thiel a prime spot at the Republican convention to proclaim his pride in being a Sodomite, I responded with an article titled The Myth of the “Gay” Conservative, in which I also criticized Fox News and Breitbart media for promoting that myth.

My greatest concern about the Trump presidency is his obvious lack of support for the pro-family side of the Christian vs LGBT cultural showdown, and I expect that some aspects of the “gay cause” may even advance under his administration, especially in the short term. However, I voted for Mr. Trump and am reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the pro-family movement will benefit from his presidency in the long run. To preserve my own peace of mind through the coming short term disappointments I’m rehearsing the mantra, “What would Hillary have done?” because whatever Trump may do that we don’t like, Hillary would most certainly have done ten thousand times worse.

If President Trump keeps his promise to repeal the Johnson Amendment (LBJ’s infamous change to the U.S. tax code in 1954 which prohibited churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates), and to appoint pro-life constitutionalists to the Supreme Court, the two biggest barriers to effective Christian stewardship of the culture will be eliminated. And, as the eminent Dr. Michael Brown has just reminded us, the future state of the culture is the responsibility of the church, not the Trump administration. (Cite) As I’ve said repeatedly, if Mr. Trump simply emulates Mr. Putin and defers to the church to repair the damage caused by long-term Marxist rule, we’ll be able clean up the mess in relatively short order.

Trump and the Republican majority in both houses of Congress have every reason to quickly repeal the Johnson Amendment since it was the historic 81% Evangelical Christian vote that put Trump in the White House, and will continue his revolution into the mid-term elections in 2018 if Christian voters are convinced that Mr. Trump recognizes America’s Christian foundations as the key to her former greatness. Conversely, if he tosses us aside like yesterday’s newspaper in the tradition of Republican leadership since Reagan, then the Trump revolution will die faster than Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America.”

As for SCOTUS and its role in the culture war, it must be remembered that on the so-called “gay rights” issue, Christians essentially won that war twice only to be robbed of victory by the pro-“gay” cheating of “swing vote” Justice Anthony Kennedy and the four hard leftists on the court.

The first time was in 1992 when Colorado adopted the citizens’ ballot initiative known as Amendment 2, the No Special Rights Act. That Act barred civil rights minority status based on sexual orientation and spelled the effective end of the “gay” agenda because the Supreme Court had already ruled that minority status required “immutable characteristics” such as skin color. Checkmate! But then, in the first of his five landmark rulings in support of “gay” supremacy, Kennedy declared in Romer v Evans (1996) that SCOTUS needn’t submit Amendment 2 to the established constitutional test because Colorado had “no legitimate state interest” in passing the law, but was motivated solely by “animus” (hatred). It was an utterly lawless ruling that robbed the people of their decade-long, hard won victory through the legitimate democratic process and spawned the now ubiquitous LGBT strategy of defining all disapproval of their agenda as “hate.”

The second time, Kennedy again ruled to neutralize a slam-dunk victory for Christians in the culture war, represented by 35 state DOMA laws (by often overwhelming large popular majorities), defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. In his majority opinion in Obergefell v Hodges, the so-called “gay marriage” case, Kennedy simply declared “gay marriage” constitutional by judicial fiat. It was another legal opinion devoid of constitutional authority, and made all the more offensive to the peoples’ rights by the refusal of Justices Ginsberg and Kagan to recuse themselves from the vote of the court, after having both presided over same-sex “wedding” ceremonies during the pendency of the case — the most egregious and blatant abuse of judicial ethics in the court’s history.

President Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will only restore a conservative to the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and Kennedy will remain the swing vote, but Mr. Trump is very likely to make a second, and perhaps a third or more appointment to the court during his term. If after filling Scalia’s seat he appoints only one additional true conservative to a seat formerly held by a liberal, Kennedy and his homosexualist fellow travelers will presumably never again be able to repeat their past acts of violence to the constitution and its Biblical foundations.

The most hopeful outcome of the Trump/Clinton election for pro-family conservatives is the revelation to the world that the “Emperor” of elite liberalism has no clothes. The vaunted power of the elites was revealed to be an illusion created to manipulate public opinion by a relatively small number of Cultural Marxist co-conspirators who occupy key seats of power in government, academia, entertainment and especially media. The conspiracy of these ideological zealots to create a false reality consistent with their social justice narrative was finally exposed.

The greatest beneficiary of the false reality conspiracy has always been the LGBT movement, which even now seems to be protected from the cleansing spotlight of public scrutiny. President Obama’s highest priority was to establish “gay” supremacy in every country of the world but strangely his entire agenda is under examination EXCEPT so-called “gay rights.” No one is even mentioning that the global uprising against the elites tracks the ramrodding of “gay marriage” down the throats of the international community just as closely as it tracks the Third World “immigrant” invasion of the US and EU.

Both the liberal and GOP-aligned “conservative” media are ignoring the LGBT factor as if it had no effect. Why? Because, in my view, the “gays” have infiltrated Fox, Brietbart and other otherwise conservative media and are actively shielding the “gay” movement from negative attention. They are quietly protecting the social justice narrative regarding the LGBT agenda and shifting all focus to the fiscal issues, immigration and abortion, with the willing cooperation of the Republican Party.

However, if it is true that the people have been awakened to their populist power, and haven’t simply fallen under the sway of a new class of puppet-masters, the smoke and mirrors protecting the LGBT community from its (gigantic) share of blame for the ruin of the culture will not survive the populist swamp-draining that has only just begun.

While I publicly criticized Mr. Trump for allowing Peter Thiel in the GOP tent, I recognized that politically he really didn’t have much choice – even if he was personally opposed to the LGBT agenda. In the pre-election false reality being perpetuated by the leftist media and elites, the recent Obergefell decision represented the (apparent) defeat of the Christian value-voters and the “gays” were riding a powerful wave of perceived momentum (thanks to Kennedy’s treason against the U.S. Constitution).

If Trump had taken a strong pro-family stand on LGBT issues, he would have opened up a huge new battle-front in the war for the presidency with virtually no support from conservative GOP leaders (nearly all of whom have retreated from that fight due to the ferocity of the leftist cartel on “gay rights”). And he would have energized the Bernie Sanders bloc of the Democratic base, especially the young people, the most thoroughly brainwashed portion of the US electorate on LGBT issues due to nearly monopolistic “gay” influence in public education and the entertainment media.

However, by embracing renegade Thiel and saying Obergefell was settled law, Trump neutralized the “gay” card and kicked the can past the election. I didn’t support that tactic but I understood it. Now, while the leftist cartel is reeling from the Trump pummeling, Christian conservatives have perhaps their last opportunity to take back some ground on marriage and family values – irrespective of Mr. Trump’s personal views on the issue and the GOP’s willingness to throw the pro-family cause under the bus. The fact is that support for the sodomy lobby is driven almost entirely by fear of the Great and Powerful OZ of Political Correctness backed by media thuggery. But the curtain has been pulled back and guess what? The Wizard is as naked and impotent as the Emperor, so there is no good reason to let political correctness about homosexuality continue to trump family values in our public policy.

Back in 1992 I had the opportunity to challenge then-candidate Bill Clinton on the “gay” issue on a live “Town Hall”-style television program. In a strategic follow-up to my approved question (that I was required to submit to the hosts in advance), I mentioned the then-current effort by the LGBT movement to force the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuality and asked Mr. Clinton which side he was on in that dispute. He tried to dodge it, but I pressed in and Bill Clinton, cornered, publicly sided with the Boy Scouts – a fact mentioned the next day by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show.

I’ve mentioned this to showcase what we all know about politicians. They largely take positions based on public perceptions of the issues, which is why the “false reality” conspiracy of the leftist gatekeepers has been the most potent weapon of the elites. And why the Trump campaign’s exposure of the “false reality” to public scrutiny is so momentous.

I’ve been a Bible-based front-lines Christian social activist for more than 25 years — after having been a long-haired, pot-smoking leftist through my teens and most of my 20s (the sort who would gladly have joined Occupy, Black Lives Matter and the Soros street-activist army just for the party-atmosphere of that crowd). I can testify that the opportunity we Christians have before us today is absolutely unprecedented. But knowing how the establishment on both sides of the two-party system works to coopt every populist wave (remember initial promise of the Tea Party movement), our window of opportunity will not last forever. Indeed, it may not last past the mid-term elections.

Now is the time to drain the swamp, while the passion for change is burning so fiercely in the hearts of American patriots. If we wait for the Trump administration to do it, the work might never actually get done due to the nature of Washington, especially regarding the pro-family issues. The real power of this movement is not at the top, it is the grassroots, which the only truly trustworthy force capable of breaking the leftist cartel – and preventing it from morphing into a new, GOP version of the “false reality.” Part of our task is holding the feet of the Trump administration to the fire, but the bigger part is replacing every entrenched leftist interest at every level with people devoted to faith, family and freedom.

The true litmus test for whether this movement actually remains one of, by and for the people and not the elites, is whether the many problems caused by the destructive and self-serving LGBT community are addressed and rectified. That will not occur without the activists and advocates of the Biblical worldview taking responsibility for making it happen through prayer and action.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

World War ‘D’ : Part 2

Battlefield Tactics for American Patriots

by Dr. Scott Lively

The hard left across the globe is gearing up for a campaign of international “resistance” to the world-wide populist/nationalist/conservative revolution, represented by Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. It has already started in some US cities in the form of riots, but those actions and the planned mega-protest of the Trump inauguration on January 20th are only to prime the pump for a much larger and more sophisticated counter-revolution. The key leaders and financiers of the left have just met with Chief Puppetmaster George Soros behind closed doors to plan the implementation of the American version of his “Color Revolutions” which have been successful at taking down the governments of several foreign countries:

Tellingly, given the association of the color with the LGBT movement and agenda, it has already been designated the “Purple Revolution:”

The New Battlefield

I more-or-less predicted the Trump candidacy back in 2009:

And in May 2016 I predicted Mr. Trump’s election if Christians could broaden our “values voter” mentality to embrace populist issues (which we did in historic numbers).

I also more-or-less predicted the Purple Revolution in my October 2016 articles “The Borking of Donald Trump” Part 1: , and Part 2:

Now I’d like to make a few predictions about the Purple Revolution before offering my suggestions for how to counter it.

First, the leftist campaign will have both domestic and global components. I will address the global components in a future article, but discuss the domestic component here. That domestic campaign will be multifaceted and involve:

1) An army of faceless anarchists engaged in civil disobedience and property destruction on an “anti-fascism” theme (imagine the explosion of street violence in the late 1960s but employing “social justice” rather than anti-war rhetoric – like Black Lives Matter but bigger and broader). This is designed to terrorize the public but also to deliberately provoke police reactions that can be documented on film and edited to misrepresent the police as Brownshirt-style fascists.

2) A coordinated propaganda campaign by all the usual suspects on the left in media, academia, Hollywood, and the non-profit/foundations sector, branding the Trump administration as a fascist regime akin to the Third Reich. This will build slowly but inexorably as the left gathers and weaves together its case like a crooked prosecutor in the courtroom of international opinion.

3) Obstruction of conservative policy through guerrilla litigation tactics by groups such as the Center for Constitutional Rights and Southern Poverty Law Center, and their silent partners in the federal judiciary.

How to Beat the Left at Their Own Game

In my previous article,, I explained how the delusional left is entirely defined and driven by its social justice narrative and follows long-standing formulas for implementing it. This makes them highly predictable and thus as vulnerable as British Redcoats at the hands of the American Colonists – IF we’re willing to use guerrilla tactics. I suggest three tactics that correspond to the three threats:

1) Defeat the social justice narrative by exposing and ridiculing the criminal conduct, dirty tricks and hypocrisy of the street activists. The model is James O’Keefe’s brilliant Project Veritas which could easily spawn ten thousand copy-cats overnight. All it takes is a conservative truth-seeker with some spare time, a button-hole camera, and the ability to play the role of a liberal (just act stoned). Every leftist demonstration from this day forward should be infiltrated by conservative activists either individually or in small groups gathering intelligence and posting it online. Every bus convoy of Soros goons should be filmed and exposed. Every professional street agitator should be identified and cataloged online. Every evidence of criminal conduct should be reported to the police in an attachment to an anonymous open letter to the authorities in the appropriate jurisdiction.

2) The traditional media is the weak link and key linchpin of the leftist institutional coalition. Now is the time for a boycott of the companies that advertise in the leftist print media. They’re already struggling to survive. A populist campaign to punish companies that support leftist rags such as the Washington Post and The New York Times could be highly effective. These two leviathans might need a seasoned boycott group like the American Family Association (AFA) to force a change, but it wouldn’t take a very large group (Tea Party anyone?) to run a boycott of a local lying newspaper until it agrees to formally require ideological balance in its newsroom and editorial board subject to review by a citizens watchdog committee. Every media misrepresentation should earn a picket in front of its most vulnerable advertisers.

3) If President Trump keeps his promise to appoint constitutional originalists to the Supreme Court, the leftist litigation strategy will eventually run into a brick wall in years to come, but in the short term, the best way to deal with groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center is mockery. Their goal is to strike fear into anyone who opposes the leftist agenda but they really are just a bunch of self-important boobs that imagine Nazis and the KKK lurking behind every flower pot. The SPLC should be exposed as the laughingstock of the far left, especially to the law enforcement community on which they rely for so much of their public credibility. I’d also love to see a comic book about the buffoonery of the SPLC for distribution at the same public schools that receive SPLC hate propaganda every year.

Turnabout is fair play, the saying goes, and the leftist institutions that have been running and ruining the country should get a taste of the tactics that their own activists perfected in the 1960 to force social change and get their people into the seats of power. It’s time for the newly awakened populists to read a few books like Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” and employ some of those methods against the institutional left, such as the Universities, the Foundations, and the Public Employee Unions.

What beats the George Soros narrative-driven leftist culture-war machine? The simple truth, boldly proclaimed, by people not afraid of name-calling by the leftist bullies they’re exposing.

We needed Donald Trump to serve as a rallying point for American patriots, but we don’t need him to single-handedly drain the swamp. We can do a large part of that work for ourselves, and we should all roll up our sleeves and start today.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

World War ‘D’


Nothing New Under the Sun: This Marxist image was ubiquitous in Vienna in the summer of 2016 where the street-fighting between Hard Left Socialists and Right-wing Nationalists raged over the Austrian Presidential election. The narrow victory of the leftist candidate in May was thrown out for “voting irregularities” (of course) on July 1st and a new election is set for Dec. 4th. Trump’s victory in the US is part of a much larger global counter-revolution against the leftist elites and likewise, the street-activist army of the hard left is also global.


The Hard Left’s Dystopian Future Has Arrived…And Only THEY Can Save the Planet!

The rioting of leftist street activists in response to the election of Donald Trump is entirely predictable and will quickly morph into a very large and highly destructive international “resistance” movement if is not effectively countered. To respond appropriately, we must first understand that the political left is delusional and implacable, but easily defeatable if we act quickly and don’t waste our time trying to bargain or compromise with them.

The top tier of the leftist elite is not populated by the self-righteous know-it-alls of academia, nor the Stalinist autocrats of the Democratic Party, nor the utopianist manipulators of the foundations and “non-profit” sector: it is ruled by the story-tellers and dream-weavers of Hollywood. That is because the core of the Cultural Marxist worldview – what defines its purpose and drives its zealots – is “The Narrative.”

According to this narrative “the world is enslaved to a ancient and deep-rooted system of institutional bigotry of various forms to which the masses are largely blind, but thankfully there exists a growing network of enlightened social justice warriors. It is the role and duty of these brave and selfless champions of the oppressed to replace the evil established order with an egalitarian Socialist utopia which only they are privileged to envision and implement. The urgency of this need, and righteousness of their goal, justifies whatever means are necessary to achieve it.”

This is roughly the same narrative introduced by Karl Marx in the 19th Century, refined by the Frankfort School of Cultural Marxism in the 1920s and 30s, and embraced with religious fervor by American liberals since the 1960s. It is what drives every aspect of the leftist political agenda.
If you’ve ever tried to debate a true-believer liberal on any aspect of that agenda, you know that facts, reason and logic are frustratingly unpersuasive. That’s because their “reality” is the closed universe of the social justice narrative. Like the schizophrenic, the leftist ideologue interprets all facts, reason and logic as confirmation of their delusion or disregards them as if they don’t exist.

However, while the fantasy of the schizophrenic is uniquely personal to him, the leftist narrative is a common, shared mass-delusion that is continually being both self and mutually reinforced. It is Hitler’s “Big Lie” phenomenon on a massive scale, and it’s impact on the society as a whole is dramatically compounded by mutual reinforcement across multiple spheres of social influence.

For example, when Donald Trump recommenced a temporary moratorium on immigration from Moslem countries conditional on proper vetting procedures for applicants, the left (some disingenuously, some delusionally) instantly began misrepresenting that as a “Ban on Moslems.” In a truth-oriented culture that claim would have been quickly dismissed, but in our leftist-dominated culture the lie was then continually repeated by leftist media organs, Democrat and Establishment Republicans, leftist college professors, and street activist organizations. The chorus of multiple false witnesses created a “false reality” in the general public that persists to this day. It is one of many such misrepresentations fueling the hysterical moral outrage and street violence of the anti-Trump rioters whose narrative-driven sense of purpose and identity blinds them to actual reality.

I have also been and am currently a victim of the leftist “narrative. A sub-plot of it holds that all disapproval of homosexuality leads inevitably to hatred, violence and murder of homosexuals. It is a paranoid delusion within a delusion, but when the Ugandan government put forward a bill proposing severe criminal penalties for homosexuality and pederasty following my visit there in 2009, and later, David Kato, a leader of Ugandan’s “gay” movement was murdered in his home, the global leftist media named me as the evil mastermind of a campaign of genocide against homosexuals. It never mattered to them that I opposed the Ugandan bill as written from the beginning, and had advocated for rehabilitation and prevention during my visit. Nor did they care that the confessed and convicted murderer of David Kato was his own “gay” lover whom he had bailed out of jail to be his live-in boyfriend. All that mattered was the narrative – and so the whole truth was suppressed in favor of only those facts that fit the false reality.

I’ve endured four years of intensive litigation charging me with “Crimes Against Humanity” as a direct consequence of the leftist commitment to their narrative. As US President, Donald Trump, and what’s left of normal society in this nation, is facing (at least) four years of similar leftist hatred and delusion but on a much, much larger scale.

To paraphrase a famous Hollywood movie, “That army of social justice warriors is out there! It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!” The hard left is the Terminator of the cultural/political sphere. It’s mission is conquest, supremacy and elimination of Judeo-Christian civilization. Any attempt at compromise with it is just perceived as weakness to exploit. In the end either the truth or the leftist narrative will prevail.

It is highly significant that despite its Utopian rhetoric, Hollywood’s vision of the future as portrayed in nearly every forward-looking film is so dark and dystopian. Subconsciously, the leftist writers, actors and directors know that their world-view produces chaos and disaster, but their fanatical loyalty to the social justice narrative blinds them to the truth, even at the top of the Marxist food chain.

The only effective response to the leftist narrative is the continual reaffirmation of the plain truth without apology or compromise. No spin. No waffling. No pandering to political correctness.  I believe this plain-spoken approach on policy matters by Donald Trump was by far the single most important factor in his victory over the unified leftist lie-machine. It will define him as one of the greatest American Presidents if he continues on that track. He, and we must resist the pressure of the GOP establishment and the “experts” on cultural and political matters to trade plainly spoken truth for manipulative “messaging” and public-relations strategies, no matter how well-intentioned.

Trump’s campaign exposed the whole network hard leftists across the entire culture and every sphere of public influence, including the media. They knew that if Hillary won, they would be vindicated by the elevation of their narrative to the status of officially accepted “reality,” allowing them to lie and spin forever after with impunity. So they came out of hiding, thinking a Clinton presidency was inevitable. Thus, Trump’s victory has made the job of “draining the swamp” all the easier. It is now incumbent upon all of us who love truth and the former truth-based culture we once enjoyed as a nation, to work quickly and vigorously to take back all of the seats of power, and use them proactively to affirm truth, like water cannons dousing street anarchists’ fires. If one truth-teller rises up for every leftist liar, their “uprising” will quickly fail.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Never Trump Equals Clinton Forever

This is it. When we awake on November 9th we will know whether We the People were successful in snatching our government from the clutches of the multi-tentacled Clinton Crime Family and the global elite it represents. Ironically, the outcome may rest with a portion of the electorate who have decided, “on principle,” that Donald Trump must never become president because of his moral flaws. It is this small but important group of voters who represent Hillary Clinton’s best hope of victory – and perhaps with it the death of hope for effective principled resistance to the elites.

A principle is a precept that defines a paradigm. The principle at stake in the Trump/Clinton election, in the freshly jeopardized BREXIT vote, in the newly rekindled “Cold War” with Russia, and all of the many battles around the world pitting the LGBT agenda and Open Borders against national sovereignty, is the principle of Self Rule Under God as opposed to control by human masters.

In each of these contests Hillary Clinton and her two-term surrogate and placeholder Barack Obama represent control by the humanist elites. Donald Trump, as did Ronald Reagan before him, and the American Founding Father long before both of them, represents an imperfect but workable attempt at establishing government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Even the Never Trump camp is split along this same divide. There are Hillary’s political kindred spirits in the GOP (i.e., the Paul Ryan/Jeb Bush types) who stand for the Neo-Con agenda of establishment control and its enrichment through perpetual war. (These types are the enemies of freedom and must be uprooted and replaced if Trump wins or we’ll forever be fighting a “fifth column” in our midst.)

Then there are the well-intended but misguided Christian moralists who think they’re standing on principle by concluding that people with moral flaws are unfit to serve in government. That’s not principled, just irrational since it logically disqualifies EVERY candidate as a greater or lesser “evil.”

Self Rule Under God was Our Creator’s preferred system for human self government in the Old Testament period of the Judges (before the people demanded to be ruled by a monarchy instead), and it was the essence of the American experiment started with the Mayflower Compact of the Pilgrims, and reaffirmed in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. It is the system we used to call the “Rule of Law” back when “law” was aligned with the principles of the Bible, and the system undergirding our “Constitutional Republic” back when our judges actually followed the constitution.

Trump has promised us a Supreme Court that will follow the doctrine of “original intent” and that alone (if God allows) could save the world from the globalists.

Like many of the Never Trump folks, I took a “Never RINO” stand when the choices were Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. NOT because they were the “lesser evils” and thus disqualified on moral grounds, but because they were shills for the elites – being forced on us by the GOP establishment. (I voted for “W” because I thought he was a Christian conservative – though he turned out to be a puppet of the Neo-Cons).

The REAL question in those elections was never “Which candidate is less evil, Blank or Blank?” It was “Who gets to decide America’s future, the People or the Elites?” The “lesser evil” framework was and is nothing more than a devious rhetorical and psychological trap of the elites to push us into moral compromise as a way of life. Indeed, keeping the people continually floundering in the sea of ethical dilemma – and fighting amongst ourselves about it — was and is far more important to the elites than the choice we ultimately made on election day – so long as THEY choose the candidates.

But this time, as was true with morally flawed Ronald Reagan, we have a candidate who allows us to vote, not for a man, but for the principle of Self Rule Under God.

The other day, Barack Obama said that the fate of the world hangs on this election. As a constitutional attorney, historian and Christian social activist who has spent the past year touring over 20 countries to assess and assist the populist/conservative movement, I absolutely agree. This is the most momentous election in my lifetime and will decide whether America can be restored to a Constitutional Republic or be permanently morphed into a global version of ClintonWorld, a world-wide leftist totalitarian dictatorship under Ahab and Jezebel Clinton.

November 8th is the point of no return. If you still insist on “Never Trump,” you may give us Clinton Forever.

PS. Caveat. Make no mistake, I am not telling anyone how they should vote. In fact, I think there is an argument even for affirmatively voting for Clinton, IF you’re of the camp that believes America is under judgment and Trump represents nothing more than a delay in the inevitable punishment of our nation for the innocent blood of millions of unborn babies that we have shed. I’m only arguing against the false logic of the “lesser evil” debate as a basis for the Never Trump position. Frankly, if Clinton wins, I will take that as proof that God intends no delay in His judgment of America. He is sovereign and perfect in His rulings. But He is also long-suffering and merciful and I am hoping for a reprieve for my country.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Trump and Reagan: The Borking of Donald Trump, Part 2

Many of the people announcing an intention to vote for Donald Trump are adding a disclaimer to distance themselves from his unsavory comments or actions of the past. I’m not going to do that. In my view Donald Trump is today a far different and better man than the one who threw his hat in the ring at the start of this election cycle. I credit that to the unprecedented level of public vilification – the “Borking” of Donald Trump – that he has endured and appears to have been transformed by.

Whatever his worldview and the context of his past experience might have been, and regardless of the level of his sincerity at the beginning of his campaign, this man has made himself the spokesman for numerous positions and values that Christian conservatives (at great personal cost) have advocated for years. He hasn’t just pandered to us, he has walked in our shoes these past months, going far beyond the minimum necessary to align himself with us, and learned firsthand what we have endured at the hands of the Marxist elites. And through it all he hasn’t been intimidated into caving and pandering to the left like every other champion we’ve put our hopes in — including the otherwise stalwart Mike Pence in the Indiana RFRA debacle. Trump’s transformation is the best example of personal growth and maturity in a public figure that I’ve seen in my lifetime.

What more could Christian conservatives hope for than to watch a man of Trump’s wealth, power, acumen and courage discover the truth of the culture war and the utter corruption of the left by personal experience on his path to the White House?

At the risk of committing political sacrilege here, I’m going to suggest that Trump is at this stage of the process a better candidate than Ronald Reagan was in terms of his potential to advance conservatism. To be sure, Trump isn’t in the same ballpark when it comes to articulating conservative views, but in terms of his freedom from control by the globalists the asymmetrical relationship is reversed. It is Trump who is in a league all his own. If Reagan was Teflon, Trump is Kevlar.

While Reagan beat the elites in 1980, he was nonetheless forced to accept George H.W. Bush as VP (while Trump has the vastly superior Mike Pence at his side). With Reagan the globalists simply bided their time, content to let him pursue the common goal of rebuilding the US military and taking down their geo-political competitors in the Soviet Union, and only stepped out of the shadows when it looked like Reagan would put a lasting barrier in the path of their One-World agenda in the form of a Robert Bork seat at the Supreme Court (compounding the threat already posed by the venerable Reagan nominee, Justice Antonin Scalia). Reagan was then forced to accept the Quisling Anthony Kennedy, author of all five of the landmark LGBT Supreme Court opinions from 1996 to 2015 that systematically purged Biblical values from constitutional law.

With Bork dispatched, H.W. Bush then succeeded Reagan and happily transformed Reagan’s authentic American Exceptionalism into an excuse and tool for global bullying backed by shiny new tanks, jets and aircraft carriers, all the while gradually undermining cultural conservatism on the domestic front, setting the course for the Neo-Cons from that time forward.

In contrast, Trump would step into the presidency not just unbeholden to the GOP elites, but empowered to dismantle their elitist infrastructure by a mandate of newly educated and highly energized populist masses. And Trump’s list of potential candidates for the Supreme Court – pro-life constitutionalists all — have been pre-vetted by the entire conservative movement and the GOP establishment.

Reagan’s highly beneficial relationship with the USSR’s Mikhail Gorbachev took years to develop, but the even more critical relationship of Trump and Putin – perhaps the only path to avoid the Neo-Con’s imminent global war — is already pre-primed by a publicly acknowledged mutual respect and a shared realpolitik worldview.

Since Reagan, the Bushs and Clintons have served the globalist interests faithfully, trading power between the two dynasties just often enough to preserve the illusion of democracy, while ensuring a steady cultural drift toward global socialism. There was never any realistic chance of preservation or expansion of Reagan’s conservative legacy with the likes of Dole, Snake-in-the-Grass McCain, or Romney. And I believe the Bush/Clinton agreement for 2016 was always a Hillary presidency, with Jeb Bush playing the part of the amiable loser (ala Bob Dole) who would then hold the post of “heir apparent” for four or eight years.

But something happened on the way to the Hillary coronation: a world-wide rebellion against the globalist agenda which Donald Trump inherited by sheer providential timing. Trump’s candidacy represents just the current skirmish in the populist vs globalist struggle, but his victory, if it occurs, would mark the turning point in the war. And in addition to the presidency, he would assume the de-facto leadership of a transcendent global populist movement.

It is certainly possible that after the flame and fury of this election has subsided, a President Trump could drift back into his old ways of thinking and acting, but I doubt it. For those who face it with courage and fortitude, persecution is the “refiners fire” of character. This has been true of Christians throughout history and appears to be true of rapidly maturing Donald Trump, who has openly and unashamedly claimed Christ. In the great tide of American history it might eventually be recognized that the “Borking” of Donald Trump – intended for evil by Crooked Hillary and the elites – was the very thing that made the former New York libertine deserving of the presidency of the United States and a place of honor alongside Ronald Reagan.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Experiment in Kyrgyzstan: The Natural Life Movement

Dr. Lively posing with Almaz Azunov, leader of the Nomadic Cultural Revival Movement in Kyrgyzstan.

Dr. Lively posing with Almaz Azunov, leader of the Nomadic Cultural Revival Movement in Kyrgyzstan.

Anne and I have just left Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan where I launched an entirely new and non-confrontational strategy for protecting the marriage and the natural family: The Natural Life Movement.

As you know, I have been a soldier in the so-called culture war since the late 1980s and my response to the attack on marriage-based society has been consistent with that warfare paradigm. It was and is an accurate metaphor, because the political left been waging all-out war against Biblical family values since the Stonewall Riots of June 28, 1969 (Gay Pride Day). That’s when the LGBT movement abandoned its pursuit of “tolerance” for a new goal of “gay” supremacy. It adopted Herbert Marcuse’s Culural Marxist Strategy to end what he called “the repressive order of procreative sexuality” through “elimination…of the patriarchal and monogamic family.”

However, after Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s lawless declaration of a constitutional right to “gay marriage” by judicial fiat in the Obergefell case, and Barack Obama’s eight-year transformation of the federal government into an arm of the LGBT movement, the culture war from the pro-family side looks a lot more like a military occupation. Surveying the current battlefield I see skirmishes over transgenderism that look like “mop up” by the “gays” and looming on the horizon an enormous new threat called “transhumanism.”

The “culture war” was always a war against the natural order of human sexuality, family, community and civilization which all spring from the root of “one flesh” male/female complimentarity. Now that the left has all but won that war, the transformation of all other aspects of human society and the material world around us from natural to artificial will escalate rapidly. While I believe continued resistance to the LGBT agenda is essential, we must also plan for the coming transhuman dystopia in which many of the people who fought against us in the culture war will switch sides as the terrible consequences of their displacement of the natural order become increasingly more obvious. Virtual reality is already supplanting actual reality in many ways, but the emergence of AI, robotics, genetic and cybernetic augmentation of all types of living organisms, and other artificial alternatives to natural life has only just begun – and that should trigger a back-to-nature reaction similar to what followed the start of the Industrial Revolution.

I believe it is time for a part of the pro-family movement to shift focus to a new paradigm that emphasizes conservation of the natural family and other aspects of the natural order in the face of an increasingly artificial world. If we can’t preserve the primacy of the family as a cultural norm, perhaps we can at least protect the natural family and natural living model from extinction in the way we protect forests and wetlands. And perhaps in the process of presenting this paradigm, we can wake up some of the environmentally-conscious progressives to the fact that the natural family is the essential ecosystem of humanity.

I call this paradigm the Natural Life Movement and have framed the prototype in the form of a declaration which is posted below.

I have chosen to launch this model in Kyrgyzstan because upon my arrival there I discovered that it seems uniquely well suited to the Natural Life paradigm. Though the country is ostensibly Moslem, it’s primary cultural influence is its nomadic heritage and in fact many Kyrgyz people still live in Yurts. There is a sense of harmony with the land, extraordinarily similar to that of “Native” Americans (who actually share native roots with the Kyrgyz in Siberia). Indeed, my hosts with whom we lived closely for a week in Bishkek are Moslems, but in exploring the Natural Life model as a possible direction for the Kyrgyzstan pro-family movement, we enjoyed a harmony of purpose that transcended both our theological and cultural differences. We have planted the first seed in their soil, and will watch to see how it develops.

It is hoped that even the misguided supporters of the LGBT agenda will appreciate this positive and non-confrontational approach as an alternative to the culture war.

The Bishkek experiment has been launched. I will continue to develop and promote the Natural Life Movement elsewhere.

Dr. Scott Lively

Bishkek Declaration on the Establishment of a Natural Life Movement in Kyrgyzstan

1. The universal values of all humanity are grounded in the natural order of Creation.

2. The foundation of civilization is the natural family: a man and a woman created to join together as one flesh to bear and raise children together with mutual love and nurturing.

3. The true strength of a healthy nation is a network of natural families organized into natural communities which create stability and economic independence through mutual cooperation.

4. The community which sets the best interest of its children as its highest priority guarantees the highest level of security, prosperity and happiness for everyone.

5. A child’s best interest is to be raised in harmony with the natural world and respect for the God who created it.

6. The natural-life society allows for beliefs and practices that do not conform to majority views, and practices tolerance for those who respect the mainstream culture but choose to live outside of it. It also recognizes the value of technology that compliments the natural order without doing harm to it.

7. The natural lifestyle simply prefers the natural to the artificial as a general, flexible principle:

  • Natural foods as contrasted to artificial, genetically modified, or pesticide tainted foods,
  • Natural healing as contrasted with artificial chemicals and processes,
    Natural persons as contrasted with “legal persons” such as corporations, robots, and “transhumans.”
  • Natural families as contrasted with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or polyamorous groupings,
  • Natural communities made of independent, self-sufficient families as contrasted with forced urbanization and dependence on government, and
  • Natural practices in all aspects of life, as exemplified by the historic nomadic lifestyle of the Kyrgyz people.

It is the goal and purpose of the Natural Life Movement in Kyrgyzstan to improve the lives of all the people by promoting this Natural Life perspective as model for our society, its government and our neighbors across the world.

With our host family in Bishkek

With our host family in Bishkek


Posted in Pro-Family Advocacy, Uncategorized | Comments Off

The Borking of Donald Trump

Borking: to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification. Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

At the peak of his presidential power, the populist conservative Ronald Reagan moved to solidify his legacy through the nomination of legal scholar Robert Bork to the United States Supreme Court. A staunch constitutional originalist and defender of natural law, Judge Bork represented the greatest threat to the global leftist elites since Reagan himself had snatched the GOP presidential nomination from their man George H.W. Bush. The globalist campaign to block Bork’s confirmation by the U.S. Senate through a massive blitzkrieg of public vilification (i.e., “borking”) has ever since defined the phenomenon of “total war” in the political context.

While there have been numerous examples of candidate “borking” by the global elites since the Reagan years, none has surpassed the campaign against Robert Bork himself – until Donald Trump snatched the GOP presidential nomination from their man Jeb “low energy” Bush in 2016. Since then the vilification of Mr. Trump has reached at least two levels of magnitude higher on the political Richter Scale than the earthquake that toppled Bork, though Trump remains standing and retains a realistic chance of winning the presidency.

Trump’s astonishing survival in the face of unprecedented assault has struck terror into the hearts of the elites, as evidenced by their current level of desperation. Pat Buchanan correctly noted recently that “Big Media is the power that sustains the forces of globalism.” I will go further and say that Big Media is the Praetorian Guard of the New World Order whose greatest weapon against populist rebellion has been its pretense of neutrality in the fulfilment of its self-defined role as interpreter of reality for the public. Yet fear of a Trump victory (compounded by Wikileaks’ daily release of evidence impeaching Clinton and her surrogates) has produced such frantic and open collusion with the Clinton campaign that Big Media has morphed into Big Hillary in full view of the American public and the world.

This all might seem like good news to populists and conservatives around the world if we focus only on the fact that the puppet-masters are being exposed. But what is also exposed is the extent to which these dark-hearted elites crave power over the rest of us, and a glimpse at the extremes they will go to preserve it.

The hyper-“borking” of Donald Trump has implications far beyond the American presidency. In my view it is evidence that the globalists have gone to DEFCON 1 and the next step could be actual war. In my opinion it is not mere coincidence that America and British war drums are building an ever louder case for war with Russia in parallel with the Trump v Clinton election. The ostensible rationale for their chest-beating is Syria but I believe the real reason is BREXIT, compounded by the shocking durability of the Trump candidacy and its enboldenment of populists worldwide, portending a future total meltdown of globalist control under a Trump administration.

The last resort of the puppet-masters is likely to be orchestrated global chaos, probably through war, economic collapse, or both, providing a justification for the implementation of police-state strategies and tactics. This was my prediction at a Christian Conservative debriefing session in Central London the day after the BREXIT vote and I reiterate it today. Frankly, I think that result is virtually inevitable, regardless of who wins the presidency, because the Genie of anti-globalist rebellion is now out of the bottle. What can we do about it? Keep fighting!

The all-important difference between the campaign to destroy Robert Bork and the campaign to destroy Donald Trump is that the people making the final decision are not the members of the U.S. Senate, but the American voters. Are we really going to allow the puppet-masters and the corrupt leftist media manipulate us into letting Hillary Clinton have control of not just the White House, but the Supreme Court, the US military, NATO, and the United Nations? Are we going to vindicate the “borking” of Donald Trump by the same people who have destroyed so many Christian lives, careers, and ministry efforts through the same despicable tactics? Are we really going to come this close to overthrowing the GOP establishment, the mainstream media, the European Union interlopers, the demons of the Democratic Party machine, and the iron grip of the globalists and just surrender because (unlike you and me) Donald Trump has moral flaws?

Looking at the big picture, our choice is really not between Trump and Clinton. It is between freedom and slavery. As someone who himself has suffered more than my share of “borking,” I choose freedom.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Report from Kyrgyzstan

Dear Friends,
Greetings from Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Anne and I arrived yesterday
morning as sunrise was breaking over the rugged Tien Shan mountains,
along which runs one of the major arteries of the famous “Silk Road.”
It was a magnificent start to our most exotic missionary journey yet.

Kyrgyzstan is a land-locked country south of Russia and Kazakhstan,
west of China, east of Uzbekistan, and directly north of the Kashmir
region of Pakistan (with Tajikistan in between). It is the home of
ancient nomadic peoples whose roots trace back to ancient Siberia.
Even in this remote corner of central Asia the Obama and EU
governments, along with the NGOs (“non-governmental organizations”) of
the leftist elites, are attempting cultural “regime change” to force
the global LGBT agenda on an overwhelmingly morally conservative

Although the nation is 85% Moslem and 12% Russian Orthodox Christian,
my hosts tell me the people here are largely afraid to stand up to the
“gays” because doing so could bring reprisals. Homofascism has truly
gone global, and it is following the same pattern– building on the
foundation of false “human rights” and a “sexual orientation”
anti-discrimination law — but moving much faster, because they have
perfected the strategy.

In about an hour I will hold a press conference to advise the
Kyrgyzstani people to reject the LGBT campaign (being pushed very
aggressively by the US Embassy) and instead to 1) define marriage as
between a man and a woman in the constitution (which has been formally
proposed and is currently under consideration) and 2 to ban LGBT
propaganda to children as the Russians have done.

Tomorrow we will hold a pro-family conference where I will explain the
LGBT strategies and tactics and their consequences in America and

My press statement is posted below. Please be in prayer for us.

Blessings to you,

Dr. Scott Lively

Press Statement

I am Dr. Scott Lively, President of Defend the Family International
and author of the Riga Declaration on Religious Freedom, Family Values
and Human Rights. I have come to Kyrgyzstan at the request of a group
of citizens concerned about the promotion of the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender political agenda by the United States and
European governments and various NGOs. I have come to reassure the
people of Kyrgyzstan that many Americans and Europeans oppose the LGBT
agenda as strongly as you do, and to explain how that agenda has
harmed my country and how you can stand against it. Tomorrow, I will
address these topics fully in a seminar titled “Healthy Families and
the Struggle Against Extremism.”

In my brief comments today I want to say that I am a Christian pastor
who cares deeply about my faith and the values taught in the Bible.
However, the international pro-family movement that I represent is
shared by all faiths and by good people from every nation, tongue and
tribe. I stand today in solidarity with Kyrgyzstan’s majority Moslem
population, Russian Orthodox Christians, and people from many other
confessions to affirm that marriage between a man and a woman who then
bear and raise children under their love and protection is the
foundation of all civilizations. The right of a child to be born into
a natural family is the first and highest human right — a universal
right shared by all people everywhere.

As an attorney and human rights consultant I have traveled to more
than 50 countries and studied the so-called “sexual revolution” and
its effect on human rights. What I have seen is that every country
that has accepted the concept of human rights based upon abnormal
sexual conduct has suffered a rapid collapse of respect and protection
for the true human rights of religious freedom and natural family. In
a very short time the laws and courts begin to protect LGBT rights at
the expense of religious freedom and family values.

This process always begins with the promotion of social fragmentation
by foreign governments and NGOs so that a person’s rights are seen as
a function of their identity in a group, such as race, disability or
ethnicity. This process allows the concepts of “sexual orientation”
and “gender identity or expression” to be introduced as a category
deserving of special rights, even though these categories are a recent
invention of the LGBT movement with no roots in the four thousand year
history of human rights laws.

After the people and their government leaders accept the concept of
group rights, then a law is enacted prohibiting discrimination against
people based upon their group identity, including “sexual orientation”
and “gender identity or expression.” Importantly, an
anti-discrimination law based upon “sexual orientation” is the seed
that contains the entire tree of the LGBT agenda, including “gay
marriage,” “gay adoption,” promotion of LGBT teachings to children in
public schools, and the criminalization of beliefs and policies that
disagree with LGBT teachings.

I urge the people of Kyrgyzstan to have tolerance for people who
suffer from LGBT disfunctions, but not to grant them any special
rights in law. Don’t let foreign powers rob you of the treasure of
true marriage and natural families by creating special protections for
the LGBT group.

Instead, your laws should strengthen family values by passing a law
defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, and by following
the Russian example of prohibiting LGBT propaganda to children.

If you do not take quick action to protect true human rights, you will
suffer the same destructive social consequences that Americans and
Europeans face today under the crushing fascism of LGBT special

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Whole-Bible Christianity Part II: The Law Under the New Covenant or “Ethical Situationalism.”

Jesus said “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matthew 23:2-3), but under the Lord’s inspiration Paul said “For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14). Within the Biblical worldview we know there are no contradictions in Scripture, only limitations on our perspective, so how do we reconcile these teachings? It’s simple: we shift our focus from the letter to the spirit of the law.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” said the Lord, and in that sublime utterance gave us the key to the law under the New Covenant: the law remains the law but now in Christ, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, we can see that the law is not our master, but our servant. It exists to free us, not to bind us, to the extent we can attune our minds to His and recognize the purpose and intent of the various statutes.

Like a child who comes of age under the tutelage of a benign custodian, and enters into the status of “heir of the estate” with all of its attendant rights and privileges, our relationship to the law changes with our emergence into the spiritual maturity of the New Covenant of Christ. The Sabbath remains the Sabbath, the perpetual “appointed time” established by the Father (Leviticus 23), but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit we can now recognize that God’s primary focus is not on the terms or timing of the rituals (Colossians 2:16), but on His desire to bless us by setting a time for us to meet with Him on a regular schedule.

The essence and intention of the Law remains constant. When, for example, God said “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5) there was no expiration clause. But we miss the point of the statute if think like black-letter legalists and assume the law’s purpose is to regulate clothing rather than preserve gender distinctions. With the help of the Holy Spirit we can see past the letter of the law to its spirit and recognize its eternal principle: men must be men and women, women and the distinctions between them must not be blurred. That principle has never changed, nor will it “till heaven and earth pass away” (Matthew 5:18).

So we are not bound to the letter of the law – but we remain subject to it’s spirit. We do not need the circumcision of the flesh – so long as we are circumcised in our hearts (Romans 2:29). And while we are technically free in God’s permissive will under the New Covenant not to comply with the spirit of the law, we only do harm to ourselves by that decision – because every statute of God was “made for man” to bless us (Deuteronomy 28, 30).

When I was first learning Christian apologetics in law school and seminary, the favorite example of secularists error was “situational ethics,” meaning ethics and morality with no grounding in absolute truth, so one could basically rationalize sin based on the particulars of a given situation. For example, abortion might be wrong, but if the baby was the product of rape, that situation changed the ethical equation to allow its murder.

Situational ethics is completely unscriptural. However, the reverse of this, viewing the needs of a given situation through the lens of eternally constant legal principles, is exactly what Jesus wanted to teach us in His maxim about the Sabbath: “ethical situationalism,” if you will.

Departing from what the letter of the law prescribes is permissible — IF you are keeping true to the spirit of the law. But conversely, you remain within its reach if you comply rigidly to the letter but violate the spirit. “You’ve heard it said you must not commit adultery, but I tell you this….”

Pentecost, which the Old Testament calls the Feast of Weeks or Shavuat (Leviticus 23:15-22), celebrates the giving of the Torah to the Hebrews when God appeared as a pillar of fire on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 20-32). When Moses came down from the mountaintop bearing the stone tablets of the law and found the people worshiping a golden calf, he smashed the tablets and instructed the Levites to slaughter the idolotors. “And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And that day about three thousand men of the people fell. And Moses said, ‘Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, so that he might bestow a blessing upon you this day’” (Exodus 32:28-29). That was the birth of the Levitical priesthood.

At the Christian Pentecost in Jerusalem, surrounded by Jews from many nations who were making pilgrimage to keep the Feast of Weeks, God again appeared, displaying “tongues of fire” on the heads of the disciples, to bring the Holy Spirit to all who abide in Christ. And on that same day, in response to a sermon by the Apostle Peter, “those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). That was the birth of the church.

Thus in the juxtaposition of these two seminal moments in the history of mankind is the stark contrast between “the ministry of condemnation”… “in letters engraved on stones” and “the ministry of righteousness,” so succinctly summarized by Paul: “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6-8).

But in this contrast we also see the constancy of God’s underlying legal principles producing very different results in two different situations, making clear by the parallels that the feasts He decreed to Moses have never been abolished. Neither have any other of His laws. He is sovereign. His law is perfect. And in His omniscience, His application of its principles is perfectly tailored to the situation of the moment.

Following His example, it is our responsibility to seek out how those same legal principles may apply in whatever situation we are in, and to act accordingly. We have no authority or justification to act as if the intent and purpose of the law has been invalidated, even as we celebrate our freedom from obligation to the letter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Whole-Bible Christianity


I love the Living Word of God, the Bible. Of course, God also speaks to us through His wondrous Creation, and in the still, small voice of His Holy Spirit, who literally dwells in those who have accepted Christ as Savior. But His Bible is our complete, detailed instruction manual in all things that pertain to this life and the one to come. It is a resource of inestimable value whose counsel and decrees overwhelmingly trump every competing authority on every possible question. To believe that and act accordingly is the essence of what it means to have a “Biblical worldview.”

Much of the church of the modern western world has lost that Biblical worldview. Biblical literacy has plummeted, worldly “wisdom” has supplanted Biblical authority in the minds of “average” Christians on any number of issues, and most disturbingly, the church as a whole has developed what I characterize as New Testament myopia. The Old Testament is regarded as “Jewish stuff,” largely irrelevant to Christianity except in small doses to illustrate some point of New Testament doctrine.

However, when Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” he meant ALL Scripture, certainly including the existing New Testament writings, but he used the Greek word graphe, meaning the Old Testament. In fact, when Paul wrote 2 Timothy the “New Testament” had not yet been assembled, and 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, Revelation and the Gospel and letters of John had not even been written. Jesus Himself told His disciples in Matthew 23:2-3: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” When was the last time you heard THAT preached in a Christian church?

It’s one thing to affirm the New Testament truth that Christians are not bound to the letter of the law or the rituals. It’s an entirely different and unscriptural matter to treat the law, the rituals, the feasts, the history and the prophecies of the Old Testament as discarded relics of the past and to supplant them with human-created alternatives. As Jesus taught in the Beatitudes, Christians are actually held to a higher standard than the written law, in being subject to it’s underlying spirit and intention (e.g hate is murder, lust is adultery). So while in His grace we can exercise freedom in HOW we keep the law, and we are assured that the penalty for our sins was paid by His blood, we nevertheless remain subject to its underlying principles, and not granted a license to sin in any aspect of it. The Olive Tree into which we are grafted is still rooted in Old Testament soil (Romans 11).

God gave Christians the whole Bible, and all 66 of its books are His Living Word. Jesus didn’t bring the New Covenant to “correct the mistakes” of the Father or apologize for His “excesses.” He said “I and the Father are One,” and built directly upon the foundation of the Old Covenant, teaching emphatically that “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” His teachings augment and elevate the Old Testament, but as He Himself made clear, they don’t abolish it (Matthew 5:17-19).

New Testament myopia is a relatively recent phenomenon and seems to track the rise of Secular Humanism (the “religion” of Marxism) that arose in America in the late 1800s. Prior to that time the Bible was America’s favorite public school textbook and we followed the Common Law, which is based almost entirely on the Bible, predominantly the Old Testament. Our government was designed on principles drawn largely from the Old Testament. For example, Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us” was (and is) the basis for our tripartite governmental structure and constitutional separation of powers. From the time of the Pilgrim’s landing till just a few decades ago Christians read, trusted and followed the whole Bible, and not just the New Testament.

What changed? It certainly wasn’t God or His Word. WE changed, to our detriment, and so today’s public schools train America’s children in Secular Humanism instead of the Bible and our laws condemn Biblical values as “hateful” and unconstitutional.

If I had to point to just one factor that had led the American church to its current state of cultural and political weakness relative to our Cultural Marxist opponents, it is the increasing over-emphasis on New Testament doctrines as a guide to Christian interaction with the world.

The New Testament is a priceless and irreplaceable resource, but devoted almost entirely to the government of the church and the moral and behavioral standards of its members. There is some limited, practical guidance regarding the interaction of the early church with the Roman military dictatorship of the time, but literally no examples of Christian participation in or stewardship of civil government. Providing that guidance is one of the purposes of the Old Testament, as was well understood by prior generations of believers going all the way back to the dawn of the church, the proof of which is the existence (warts and all) of “Christian civilization.” And clearly Christians are expected to understand the principles and practicalities of governance since we are scheduled to “rule and reign with Him” in the Millennial Kingdom (2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 20:4).

The Old Testament has many examples of real human beings whom God chose for public service, despite their often serious flaws. I don’t think any of them would pass muster with the church today. By misapplying New Testament teachings on church governance to candidates for civil government, we’ve created an unrealistic and self-defeating standard of moral perfection no honest person can meet. Anyone running openly as a Christian must pretend to be morally flawless (which includes publicly stating they aren’t perfect – so as not to seem prideful — while revealing no examples of moral weakness past or present). Ironically, this standard has discouraged or disqualified many Christians of relatively good character while favoring opponents who downplay or outright disavow Biblical values except to pander to Christians based on the results of opinion polling.

Without the anchor and balance of the Whole Bible perspective, Christianity is susceptible to this sort of pietism in every area of public life, not just politics. But ironically, it is also susceptible to the opposite extreme: licence. New Testament myopia in the so-called mainstream churches has led not just to disregard of Old Testament authority but outright hostility to its teachings, producing such rank doctrinal heresies as “gay theology” and endorsement of child-killing through “abortion.”

If any path remains to restore America to its Christian foundations, it must begin with regaining our Biblical worldview and that in turn means renewing our love and respect for the whole Bible.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Lively Attorneys Expose ‘Smoking Gun’ of SMUG Fraud

305 Reply Memo of Law in Support of Lively’s Motion for SJ (as filed) (1)

Read Introduction and Especially p. 73-90


Below is a short excerpt, with legal citations removed for ease of reading.



The upshot of SMUG’s conspiracy theory is this: Beginning in 2002, Lively bewitched the nation of Uganda by implanting in the Ugandan psyche the previously unknown concepts of homosexual “recruitment of children,” criminalizing the “promotion of homosexuality,” and equating homosexuality with pedophilic rape. So powerful were Lively’s incantations, the story goes—even “compelling” the persecution of LGBTI Ugandans—that “his reliant co-conspirators” dutifully carried out his “script” and “program” of persecution through the fourteen persecutory acts allegedly perpetrated by the office of the Ministry of Ethics and Integrity. …

SMUG’s conspiracy theory, such as it is, was fraudulent ab initio. SMUG’s Opposition dogmatically doubles down on SMUG’s supposition that every Ugandan who utters the concepts
of “recruitment” or “promotion of homosexuality” in Uganda since 2002 is necessarily “parroting” Lively and proving Lively’s “significant impact and ‘success’” in “the persecution of the LGBTI community.” This is so, SMUG claims, even though every single one of its witnesses, including its 30(b)(6) designee could not name one connection between Lively and numerous alleged injustices and persecution happening in Uganda between 2002 and 2007…

Be that as it may, SMUG has been sitting on a little black box, containing a historical record which lays waste to the Lively origin story.

In 2007, SMUG published its own book on the homosexuality debate in Uganda, titled Homosexuality: Perspectives from Uganda (hereinafter, “Perspectives”).

The editor of Perspectives was SMUG’s co-founder, advisor and summary judgment declarant, Dr. Sylvia Tamale, a Professor of Law and former dean of Makerere University School of Law in
Kampala, Uganda. Tamale described Perspectives as “a historical record of the debate” regarding homosexuality in Uganda for the period 1997 to 2007, from the “two biggest English dailies.” (Perspectives at ix-x.) In addition to the full text articles curated by Tamale for the book… Perspectives includes a “compendium of all newspaper titles printed on this subject over the said period,” and promises to “give readers a fair sense and flavour of the contemporary debate.” (Id. at x, back cover.)

Thus, according to SMUG’s own “fair” publication of the “historical record,” Ugandan society was already debating the topics of homosexual recruitment of youth, banning promotion
of homosexuality, adult-child homosexual rape, and the jailing of homosexuals, well before Lively first stepped foot in Uganda, as reported and featured by Uganda’s leading daily papers. These facts, though published in a book by SMUG, are omitted from SMUG’s narrative that Lively planted the ideas in the Ugandan consciousness beginning in 2002. The reason, of course, is obvious: The foundation of SMUG’s conspiracy theory crumbles under the weight of the truth.

SMUG Should Be Severely Sanctioned, Up To And Including
Dismissal, For Willfully Withholding Critical Evidence From Lively.

Because it is so devastating to its causation theory, SMUG withheld its out-of-print Perspectives book from Lively in discovery, hoping that Lively would not find it. SMUG was obviously aware of the book, since it was edited by its co-founder and published by SMUG itself.
(Perspectives at inside cover and ii). SMUG’s 30(b)(6) designee confirmed at SMUG’s deposition that he had a copy of the book within his custody possession and control. SMUG’s counsel confirmed that the book had not been produced, and proffered the untenable excuse that the book was not in SMUG’s custody, possession or control, even though it was admittedly in the custody, possession or control of one of SMUG’s chief officers and 30(b)(6) designee. This kind of discovery gamesmanship finds no support in the law, and has been repeatedly rejected in this district.22 Even after SMUG’s deposition, SMUG never produced its book, to this day, notwithstanding SMUG’s clear duty to supplement its discovery responses and document production under Rule 26(e)(1)(A).

That SMUG’s improper and deliberate withholding of this critical piece of evidence prejudiced Lively is self-evident. Lively was unable to question any of SMUG’s witnesses about the book and its findings that so completely dismantle SMUG’s theory. Lively was also unable to seek authenticated copies of the hundreds of referenced articles. Nor was Lively apprised of the importance of deposing Tamale, SMUG’s co-founder, and thus Lively did not seek to depose her.
Finally, Lively did not have SMUG’s book available to him when drafting his dispositive motion.

He was only able to obtain a copy recently, after the damage calculated by SMUG had been done.  The Court should not countenance SMUG’s discovery games. SMUG’s deliberate
withholding of this critical evidence deserves severe sanctions, up to and including dismissal.

…Not aware that Lively has been able to obtain SMUG’s out-of-print book, and perhaps gambling that the book would not make it into evidence, SMUG tries to paint a deceptively calm picture of pre-2002 Uganda, to support its narrative that Lively’s 2002 visit turned the country upside down in previously unknown anti-gay furor.

SMUG tells the Court [that] Prior to 2002 … Apart from a statement by the Ugandan President in 1999 that LGBTI people should be sent to prison, LGBTI Ugandans primarily suffered discrimination during private interactions such as with family members, colleagues, and health care professionals when seeking medical assistance tailored to their needs as sexual minorities. LGBTI Ugandans gathered together without intrusion by public institutions, such as government agencies, the police, and the media.

Since Lively had already identified President Museveni’s 1999 statement, SMUG attempts to cast it aside as a one-off happenstance (“apart from a statement …”) in an otherwise calm atmosphere, where homosexuals might have encountered occasional “discrimination during private interactions,” but certainly not the “intrusion” and constant bombardment by the “police” and “public institutions” and the “media” that became prevalent after Lively’s visit. (Id.) But the headlines in SMUG’s own book reveal SMUG’s deception, because President Museveni had not made “a statement” against homosexuals, but rather numerous statements over multiple years (pre-2002), each more incendiary than the next. (E.g., Museveni charges police “to look for homosexuals, lock them up and charge them”; “Museveni warns off homosexuals”; “Museveni opens war on gay men”; “Arrest homos, says Museveni”; “Museveni gets real on homosexuals”; “Museveni’s anti-homo talk angers Swedish parliament”; “Museveni attack on homos worries US”; “Museveni still tough on homos”) (See pp. 77-80, supra).

SMUG’s book is also replete with headline after headline showing that, prior to 2002, “public institutions,” “police” and “the media” – all of the entities which SMUG now claims left homosexuals alone – in fact routinely called for the investigation, arrest, prosecution and
punishment of homosexuals, and acted on those calls with actual arrests and criminal penalties. (E.g., Museveni told parliamentarians, to deafening applause, that he instructed police to “look for homosexuals [and] lock them up”; the Ugandan Minister of State for Security likened gays to “beasts” and “warned that security will promptly arrest homosexuals”; “Minister warns of  homosexuals”; “Man arrested posing as a woman”; “Brazilian homosexual suspect held”; “Expresident gets 10 years for homo-sex”; “Police quiz suspected homosexuals”; “MP [Member of Parliament] warns on homosexuality”; “Uganda should notify visiting homos about impending arrest”; “Yes, homosexuals deserve no living here”; “Homo held”; “Gay war must go on”; and “If you are gay in Uganda, the law will catch up with you”). (See pp. 77-80, supra).

None of this is new or unknown to SMUG, because SMUG literally wrote the book on it, and SMUG’s counsel are aware of that book. In light of this, SMUG’s deceptive portrayal of pre-2002 Uganda casts a long shadow of doubt over everything else SMUG says to support its claims.

But the deception does not end there, unfortunately. SMUG needs record facts to support its exceptionally rosy picture (compared to reality) of Uganda “Prior to 2002,” and, lacking such facts altogether, SMUG resorts to creating them out of whole cloth. Not a single one of the deposition citations in SMUG’s PSOF ¶ 22 (block quoted on the previous page) actually refers to pre-2002 Uganda, even though SMUG expressly advances them as descriptive of
Uganda “Prior to 2002.” For example:

“Sullivan Decl. Ex. 34 at pp. 18:19-23:9” – refers to the deposition of Samuel Ganafa, SMUG’s Chairman of the Board. SMUG did not actually include the cited pages in its Sullivan Exhibit 34, for reasons that will become obvious shortly. The Court can find them, however, at dkt. 250-1 (filed by Lively). In the cited pages, Ganafa is talking about the situation in Uganda between 2002 and 2004, not “Prior
to 2002,” as SMUG misrepresents.

“Sullivan Decl. Ex. 28 at pp. 40:8-41:3” – refers to the deposition of Frank Mugisha, SMUG’s Executive Director. In the cited portion, Mugisha’s description of Uganda appears to match SMUG’s “Prior to 2002” picture. (E.g., Mugisha relates that homosexuals attending Ice Breakers group meetings were not reporting being persecuted or harassed, and were mostly concerned with “rejection” by
friends and family) (Mugisha 40:8-41:3). So far so good. However, the preceding page, in a portion not cited by SMUG, plainly reveals that Mugisha is describing Uganda in 2005 (three years after Lively supposedly turned it upside down against homosexuals), and not “Prior to 2002,” as SMUG grossly misrepresents:

…Thus, Mugisha’s account directly contradicts SMUG’s pre-2002 vs. post-2002 narrative, and stands for the exact opposite of what SMUG purports.

“Sullivan Decl. Ex. 28 at pp. 51:6-21” – this is another Mugisha deposition excerpt advanced by SMUG to prove its assertion that homosexuals were largely left alone in Uganda “Prior to 2002.” In the cited testimony, Mugisha indeed says that, when he joined SMUG, it was not being prevented at all from accomplishing its mission and objectives. The problem for SMUG, again, is that Mugisha is talking about 2006, four years after Lively supposedly bewitched Ugandans:

…SMUG’s reliance on testimony about 2006 Uganda to prove its false narrative about pre-2002 Uganda eviscerates that narrative and impugns SMUG’s credibility.

“Sullivan Decl. Ex. 34 at pp. 24:20-22; 28:9-18” – the last of SMUG’s citations is also from the Ganafa deposition, and also refers to a portion of that deposition which SMUG does not actually include in Sullivan Exhibit 34, for equally obvious reasons. Examining the cited testimony in the full transcript filed by Lively reveals that SMUG saved its biggest whopper for last. Ganafa does indeed testify that “we’re able to run smoothly without interference until these outings started coming.”

The problem is, however, that Ganafa is once again talking about Uganda between 2002 to 2004, after Lively’s visit, and not “Prior to 2002” as SMUG misrepresents. The Court can easily determine this by looking at the previous and subsequent questions asked of Ganafa, which refer to 2002 and 2004, respectively.

Ganafa also says in the very same response (of which SMUG cites only two lines), that the reason his advocacy group was “run[ning] smoothly without interference” was because it was purposefully concealing its work with homosexuals, and not because pre-Lively
Uganda was leaving gays alone, as SMUG claims. (Ganafa 24:10-22).

Perhaps one or two flatly false citations could be written off as sloppiness, and could be forgiven in a gigantic brief. But when every single citation for a critical proposition is false, and actually demonstrates exactly the opposite of what SMUG claims, the Court can have no confidence in anything SMUG says. Will SMUG at least withdraw its PSOF, and the entire fraudulent theory it has built upon it, now that its deception has been laid bare?

Lastly, without any support in the record for its “Prior to 2002” narrative of Uganda, SMUG resorts to the rank hearsay of Onziema, who says, in a self-serving declaration, that, based on his “conversations with LGBTI community members” he believes that the pre-2002 “discrimination suffered by LGBTI Ugandans was largely limited to private interactions, such as among family members and colleagues.”

Rank hearsay aside, this is the same witness who admitted that he has SMUG’s Perspectives book in his possession. (Onziema 221:10-20). Perhaps he has never read it. Perhaps he has. Either way, his inadmissible hearsay statement does nothing to contradict the overwhelming evidence collected by SMUG in its own book, and cannot resuscitate SMUG’s fraudulent causation theory.”

Posted in Homosexual Agenda, Legal Issues | Comments Off

New England Biblical Values Summit Meeting

Printable PDF of the Flyer: new-england-biblical-values-summit-meeting

New England Biblical Values Summit Meeting

Tuesday, October 4th, 7-9PM
Bethany Assembly of God, 580 Main St, Agawam, MA, (Fireplace Room)

The Theme: How can we steer the New England states back toward the values of the Founding Fathers?

An interactive Town Hall style discussion group featuring a panel of Conservative Christian and Jewish leaders from the New England states. The fast-moving format will feature a series of 5 questions posed to all attendees in which panel members will each respond, before opening the discussion to members of the audience. The meeting will be followed by a time of open fellowship and networking. Coffee and snacks provided. The event is free but an offering will be received to cover costs.

These are the questions:

1. What is the biggest challenge to Biblical values in New England today?

2. What is the best way to meet the challenge?

3. How can we improve cooperation among conservatives in New England?

4. How can we influence young people to take on these challenges?

5. What is one thing everybody in the room can do this week to move the ball toward our goals?

The Panel:

Dr. C.S. Cooley, Redemption Gate Mission (confirmed) (MA)
Brian Camenker, MassResistance (confirmed) (MA)
Michael and Paulie Heath, Helping Hands Ministries (confirmed) (ME)
Dr. Steven Craft (confirmed) (NJ)
Pastor David Levandusky, Living Waters AG (confirmed) (MA)
Pastor Renzo Ventrice, The Black Robed Regiment, (tentative yes) (MA)
Dr. John Rankin, Founder, Theological Education Institute (confirmed) (CT)
Harold Shurtleff, Founder, Camp Constitution (confirmed) (NH)
David Ayers, Businessman (confirmed) (VT)
Rabbi Noson Leiter, Torah Jews for Morality (invited) (NY)
Andrew Beckwith, Masssachusetts Family Institute (confirmed) (MA)
Rico Cahon, New Hampshire Cornerstone (invited) (NH)
Peter Wolfgang, Family Institute of Connecticut (confirmed) (CT)
Dr. David Berman (confirmed) (NH)
Pastor Juan Feliciano, Calvary’s Love Church (invited) (MA)
Dr. Scott Lively, Defend the Family International (confirmed) (MA)

For more information contact Denise at 413-885-5777

“Will You not Yourself revive us again,
That Your people may rejoice in You?” (Psalm 85:6).

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off