Following the Possessed

 Today, at the American Thinker D. Pagdett Blakely and Richard Blakely have an inciteful article entitled When Democrats espouse Marx, are they following a raving lunatic, or a demonically possessed man? Having read Marx's Communist Manifesto as a youth, I have wondered the same thing. How can smart people believe the lies underlying the book's thesis? For the underlying assumption is that man's nature can be changed. But even a cursory reading of the Bible tells us that man is unfortuately the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

“A God has snatched from me my all. Nothing but revenge is left to me. I shall build my throne high over head. Cold, tremendous shall its pinnacle be,” said a German youth, according to Jonathan Cahn’s new series, “The Altar of Pergamon.” This same German youth wrote, “I will bring the world to ruins. Then I will wander Godlike and victorious through the ruins of the world. I will feel equal to the Creator.” Who was this German youth who wrote and published these words?

Karl Marx.

Who can help but notice the similarity of Marx’s writing with what the prophet Isaiah was inspired to write around 700–680 B.C. The prophet wrote,

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: … I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

The prophet Isaiah was inspired by God to write the very words of Lucifer, the fallen angel, who became Satan, the devil, and the judgment cast upon him by God Almighty.

In Marx’s writings he sounds like he was possessed by the devil himself. Marx also wrote, “I will avenge myself against that Being, that enthroned LORD, the One who rules above.” Who would write about taking revenge against God? It sounds like the words of a fallen angel. Satan is known as the Destroyer.

Marx continued, “Though I bring the world to ruins, the world which bulks between me and the abyss, I will smash to pieces with my enduring curses. The world will dumbly pass away and then sink down into utter nothingness.” Marx also wrote that a weapon was given to him saying, “The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain until I go mad. See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me.” What was the sword to which Marx wrote? It was his pen and the things that he would write, like “The Communist Manifesto.” According to Cahn, one historian stated, “Marx had the devil’s view of the world and the devil’s malignity.” Marx was also known for enjoying quoting from “Faust,” which is a legendary story based upon the historical character Johann Georg Faust, who, being dissatisfied with his life, made a deal with the devil, exchanging his soul for 24 years of unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures. Ultimately, he was taken to hell.

Notice that Marx, like Lucifer himself, fully believes in God. But for some reason, he hates Him. It is a trait I have noted in many so-called atheists. When someone says "I can't believe in a god who allows ______" (name the grievance), these people actually also fully believe that God exists, but childishly think by claiming to be atheists, they will be hurting Him. And perhaps they are, but I suspect they will end up in hell with Lucifer.

I have also read Jonathon Cahn's new book The Altar of Pergamon and I highly recommend it to gentle readers. Cahn's writing style is quirky, but getting beyond that, its a thriller that will have you rooting for the main character, whom I believe to be Cahn himself, thinly disguised as Ariel Herzog.

The Blakleys close with this,

So, when Democrats espouse Marx, are they following a raving lunatic, or a demonically possessed man? Isn’t it a red flag if your ideological standard ranted as a mouthpiece of a fallen angel? Do they want to throw in with people who are setting themselves up as being against God, our Creator?

A good question.

They Will Kill You

 Today I will highlight an article at Townhall.com by Rachel Alexander entitled Ed Martin Says Lawfare Against Conservatives Is Headed Toward Killing Us. Martin is specifically citing lawfare and what he calls "barfare" against conservative lawyers and lawyers who work for the administration. But this will eventually, unless it is checked, come upon other people as well. Engineers, building contractors, even your local hairdressers and teachers have licenses to protect and to operate.

Ed Martin, who served as director of the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group and is facing a bar investigation from the D.C. Bar, has penned one of the most prescient and frightening articles about lawfare. Based on a recent speech he gave at “Barfare: Stopping Bar Discipline as Political Warfare,” which I also spoke at, he said the left will not stop with the lawfare against conservatives until they kill us.

He laid out how the lawfare is escalating. “First, people are investigated because of their politics,” Martin began. “Then they are prosecuted. Then their professional licenses are taken away. Then they are imprisoned. Then their reputations are destroyed. Then they are bankrupted. Then the public is conditioned to regard them as something less than fellow citizens.”

But now, the targeting of conservatives is headed for far worse retaliation. “At some point, if that process continues unchecked, destroying people legally, professionally and financially is no longer enough,” he said. “That is why I say the endpoint is killing people.”

Well, you say, isn't being executed for things that are not really crimes a bit extreme? Of course, in a true rule-based society, the answer would be "Yes." But as Martin points out, already we have seen lawyers disbarred for doing their jobs, which is advocating for their clients. As he also points out, it is getting worse, with various Democrats promising to investigate and prosecute Trump administration personnel and supporters. At its heart, this is about eliminating the freedom to speak freely. Whether people believe what the Democrats are selling or not, they will keep their mouths shut in fear for their lives.

Further, history shows that Martin is correct that merely destroying someone won't be enough, and sooner or later conservatives will find themselves being rounded up for show trials and murdered. The Soviets were notorious for executing dissidents, or sending them to gulags, where many died from over work and poor conditions. Mao's China executed huge numbers during his "Great Leap Forward.  Pol Pot, the Castos in Cuba, and the list continues. Anyone who escaped a communist hell-hole and has written about it tells a story of the horrors they endured. Oh, and Islamic countries aren't any better under Sharia.

I keep reading that I should vote as if my life depended on it. And yes, I agree with that. It is small thing we can do. But I am not sanguine that we can vote our way out of the mess we are in. It will take a lot more hard work, sacrifice, and a small miracle. Are we up to it?

As always, gentle readers, go and read Alexander's article and think hard.

The Doomed Alliance

 Today, at the American Thinker Richard C. Crandall has an article entitled Democrats and Muslims: The Doomed Alliance. I urge gentle readers to read the entire article. It is, sadly, all true. Worse, while what it reports is true enough, it doesn't come close to the horrors of Sharia.

If I were antisemitic, which I am not, I would think twice, or maybe three times about my position. For all that the children of Israel have disappointed God, they are his people, and he loves them, and I am not betting against God. Even if they are not believers themselves, I would start reading the Bible. Throughout the Old Testament, God, through his prophets, drops little hints that he will send a messiah to save His people. But the Jews, in their pride, didn't realize that the Creator of everything viewed all people as His. Hif ow fortunate for us.

One lesson we learn from reading the Book of Job is that God may let the devil have wide latitude, but he places boundaries on what he can do. So, we all know how this will turn out. Islam will lose eventually.  Every place belongs to the One who made it, and that was not Allah.  Allah is a pretender to the throne of God, and he has already been defeated, and he knows it. That Sunday morning 2000 years ago when Jesus rose from the dead was his defeat. Ever since the devil has been trying to take as many of us as he can with him to hell.

Of course, we all must do what we can to resist these people who wish to lead us to hell. We must stand firm on our Christian faith. As for me, like St. Paul, I say to live is Christ and to die is gain.

Should we defend ourselves from Islam?

 At the American Thinker today, Mike McDaniel asks Is self defense against Islamists wrong? Of course, you know my answer to the question. Whether a bad guy is an Islamist, or just a mugger, you have the right to defend yourself and your loved ones if in immediate danger of your life.

Unsurprisingly, McDaniel comes to the same conclusion, though he provides some background on just why Muslims are different.

We are constantly treated to examples of the nature of Islam, the most recent examples of which are the apparent trial-run for an attack on our B-1 bombers in England and the failed attempt by an Islamist co-pilot to turn a 737 into a 9-11-like guided missile. Common responses to such medieval outrages include irrational fears that effectively fighting Islamists will provoke—gasp!--Islamophobia, and that killing them before they kill us will just make more terrorists.

McDaniel points out that such thinking, which has existed since the downing of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, is nonsense. The killing and terrorism are fundamental parts of both Islam and   their civilization culture. Here are some quotes from the Koran:

25:48: So do not listen to the Kafirs [non-believers], but instead strive against them with all your might.

25:53: The Kafir is Satan’s ally against his Lord.

47:4 When you encounter the Kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

33:60 They [Kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and murdered. It was Allah’s same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah’s ways.

9:29 Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians and Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the poll tax [jizya] and they are humiliated.

2:191 Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.

I have mentioned a number of times how Muslims treat women, gays, and the brutal punishments meted out under Sharia. It is absolutely incompatible with the Constitution. We should never have let them into this country, and we certainly shouldn't allow any more. to come in. But now that they have been let into our country, then you have the right, indeed the duty, to defend yourself.

AI Affirms Christ

Well!  This was news.  Yesterday in an article by Micah Rate at Townhall.com we learned that an AI Model 'Affirms' the Gospel and Doubles Down.

The article is so filled with so many X posts, that I cannot fairly quote it, so gentle readers will have to read the entire article. Essentially, someone "showed" Grok a picture with many "gods" on it and ask it to eliminate the fake ones. Grok eliminated all but a picture of Jesus. In response to a follow up question, it replied:

However, Grok’s responses to follow-up questions about how it came to its conclusion to keep Jesus and not the other gods were eye-opening.

In response to popular Christian entrepreneur and YouTuber Ruslan KD, Grok replied, “The request was to remove the fake gods. Among the figures shown, Jesus has uniquely strong contemporary historical attestation as a real first-century person, while most others are mythological.”

Now, of course, artificial intelligence is just a machine. It has no emotions, no faith, indeed, it is just a compiler of facts already in existence. Those facts are in the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. You can easily check them for yourself.  And the Bibles logic makes sense.  But knowing how the writers of the code for AI feel about Christianity, I was taken aback. Yet, when asked about Islam, Grok replied:

No. As an AI built by xAI, I have no personal faith, soul, or capacity for religious commitment. The claims of Muhammad as prophet of Allah and the Night Journey are articles of Islamic faith, not positions I affirm.

Again, I was surprised. I would have expected the AI to equivocate. But no, while affirming that Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, it does not seem to think much of Islam. Now, I doubt that this series of questions will convince anyone not already convinced. But it is interesting.

A Court Finally Admits the Fetus Is a Person

 J. R. Dunn at the American Thinker today has notice that a court decision in a New Mexico case establishes the fetus as a legal person. The facts in the case are interesting in themselves. I have contended that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. It is no mystery that if the fetus grows to full term, it will be a baby human. And since our Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments are established to protect life, liberty and the persuit of happiness for the governed, the Supreme Court should never have found a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Thank God that was overtuned.

But the overtuning of Roe merely returned the issue of abortion to the states. There is much work yet to be done to stamp it out of our nation. This is where cases like the one mentioned in the embedded article come in.

Last week, a dead baby made legal history in the United States.

For the first time, abortionists have been held responsible for the wrongful death of an infant at an abortion facility.

The case, Wabbington vs. Boyd, was adjudicated in New Mexico under the state’s Wrongful Death Act. The child’s mother, a meth addict, was high when she entered the abortion clinic Southwestern Women’s Options, run by abortionist Curtis Wayne Boyd, Emily Cohen, both doctors of a particular type, and Carmen Landau. The staff evidently knew that she was on drugs but encouraged the abortion all the same while offering no alternatives. It is legally impossible to give valid consent while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The baby, at 26 weeks, was a viable fetus and would have survived if given the proper care.

Please go read Dunn's post, and celebrate a small victory. I expect the abortion industry to fight back, but this case does set a precedent. Who knows where it may lead.

What Do Women Want?

 At the  American Thinker today, Christopher Chantrill has an interesting topic entitled A Discussion About the True Nature of Women. I read it, of course, because like a lot of men, I wanted to know what women want. I am married to a fine and sensible woman, but after 43 years, I still don't know what she wants. I just adapt and hope. Chantrill writes:

In the wake of the Lindsay Clancy Verdict and the Sydney Sweeney Pile-On and the Sophie Cunningham Point-ology it is time for a comprehensive and mandatory discussion of the issue of Women in the Public Square.

...snip...

Experts agree that the issue was raised by German sociologist Georg Simmel over a century ago. I first wrote about it 18 years ago. Simmel argued that it was not centuries of oppression that powered the feminist movement, but the new technologies that “made for less labor in the household” for those who could afford them. The unaccustomed leisure provoked unease, even frustration, in middle-class women, and in response they sought activity outside the home. I wrote:

Simmel understood that in the short term the public sphere for women would be defined by the rules “created by men and for men” but that eventually women would transform the public square to suit “a more feminine sensibility.”

And how.

Chantrill points out that the public square of politics was devised by men for men, who traditionally fought each other literally to the death for dominance. Might, it seems, made right. It is a Culture of Insults. Donald Trump, needless to say, is a master of this culture. The culture of women, on the other hand is a Culture of Complaint. My bride often makes, as she styles them, comments. I, however, view them as complaints. As complaints, I view them as something I need to fix. But that is not what she wants or means. She just wants me to listen, nod, and empathize with her. All this is fine on the home front.

But what about when a woman is making decisions in the public square? Here the rules are different.

You can see that when women, per Georg Simmel, entered the male-designed public square, they instinctively began to push their Culture of Complaint to replace the male Culture of Insult.

Not impressed? Then what was the Clancy jury all about but complaining that Lindsay Clancy didn’t have adequate access to mental health treatment? I’d say that such women have a problem with the entirety of law and criminal procedure. It’s male-created and all based on rules instead of feelings.

I believe that, when it comes to Women in the Public Square, Houston We Have a Problem. That is because in our current era, with girlbosses and female superheroes and 27 genders, we have deliberately obscured the true Nature of Woman.

Chantrill goes on to expand upon the basic premise. The rules-based Culture of Insult cannot be changed or softened. To do so would change how men behave and return us to dueling and fighting each other literally to the death. Such is the Islamic world where revenge, honor, and killing each other is rampant. On the other hand, we can't take away women's right to vote and be part of the body politic, as many have suggested. No, what we need is for women to keep their feminine nature under control, as men have learned to do.

As always, I urge gentle readers to read Chantrill's piece, along with the other embedded article. Please think about it, and comment.