For a little recreation, instead of following the news channels, I put on the Western movie channel and watched Outlaw Joey Wales. I’ve seen it several times before but it is always good for a little recreation and there is a certain amount of truth to it .It was a Western/Southern that Clint Eastwood made back in 1976, I think, and if I am correct, he never made another Western until 1985. I can recall thinking after watching it several years ago that I wonder if Hollyweird warned Eastwood about making anymore movies like it, lest his film career suffer for it. I read the book it was taken from by Forrest Carter. Needless to say the book wasn’t exactly like the movie–but then they seldom are.

A couple places in the movie often struck me as not all that far from the truth. One was after the Confederate guerillas surrendered when, after they had been fed, they were just massacred by the Union troops–or as Redleg Jim Lane said in the movie “They were decently fed and decently shot!” It reminded me of what happened when Jesse James answered the federal amnesty and came into surrender to the Yankee troops. Instead of taking his surrender they shot him! So it would seem that their pleas of amnesty to Southerners were, in many cases, little more than an excuse to get them in pistol range! After that incident Jesse James never surrendered again–and can you blame him?

Another place in the movie that was of interest was when the Cherokee, Lone Watie told Josey Wales about his trip to Washington where they were met by the Secretary of the Interior. The Cherokees in that instance complained about all the land the federal government had stolen off them, which was considerable in real life. In the movie the Interior Secretary’s reply to them was, and I never forgot this, was “Endeavor to persevere.!” Which was a polite way of saying “Don’t worry about what we stole from you because you ain’t ever getting it back again.!”

​This was one of the few movies I have seen over the years that didn’t seek to paint all Southern folks as inhuman, racist monsters, totally addicted to fighting to preserve slavery. In fact slavery was never even mentioned in the movie – and the Kansas Redlegs were actually pictured as what they were – murderers of folks in Missouri they disagree with! I can see why Hollyweird didn’t want too many movies like this that hinted at the truth of what the Kansas Redlegs, of whom Wild Bill Hickok and Buffalo Bill were both members, actually did. You are not supposed to know this, as it interferes with the leftist lies about what the War of Northern Aggression was really all about.

Another movie that made it into the theaters for only a brief time was the “Civil War” movie Ride With the Devil directed by Ang Lee, who was originally from Formosa I am told. That being the case, he didn’t have lots of politically correct swill to wade through about the War. He painted a fairly accurate picture of the Northern invasion of Missouri and how the Missourians tried to resist that. You have a hard time finding this movie anymore. It only made it into theaters for about three weeks before Hollyweird realized what they had on their hands and pulled it! They gave Ang Lee another movie to direct that he won an academy award for to pacify him for pulling Ride With The Devil. The movie showed a black man riding with the Confederate guerillas–a definite no-no for today’s movies! In truth, you had whites, blacks, American Indians and Mexicans who were all part of various Confederate units–but you are not supposed to know that! You are supposed to believe that it was only about all whites trying to enslave all blacks and nothing else was ever involved–and that is so much bovine fertilizer! The Deep State doesn’t want you to know the truth about that war and its causes anymore than they want you to know the truth about what happened on January 6, 2021! Mull that thought over for awhile. Government liars in the 1860s were no different than they are today, except today they are a bit more sophisticated.

According to a lady interviewed on Fox News recently, many parents are beginning to get fed up with “woke” indoctrination being perpetrated on their children. One place this occurs is in public schools across the country. One way to combat this satanic (and it is satanic) indoctrination is to get your kids out of public schools. While you may not get rid of all of it that way, as you will get some of it on television and in the movies, you will get rid of a large portion of it by getting the kids out of public school.

We have got to get out of our minds the concept that public schools are still institutions of learning. If ever they were, a premise that is doubtful, that time is long since gone by and it will never return. Way too much water under the bridge for that to happen. The public school system is a major indoctrination center for the New World Order and the United Nations–both of which America would be much better off without!

So, what does “woke” really mean? Dictionaries are already defining it as “socially aware of injustice.” Its “revealed truth” is that those who refuse to go along with it are sinners. Daring to question its revealed tenets is a heresy, and those that won’t convert to it must be destroyed. Sounds a lot like the Muslim religion–convert or die! In other words, wokeism is yet one more leftist theological construct. As such it constitutes a false political religion. 

Woke is a collectivist ideology. Collectivist thinking must replace individual thinking. It herds people into “broad classes based on defined characteristics–race, sex, religion. In classic Marxism these groups are defined by economic status. Woke defines them by race and sorts them out by privilege. The color of your skin does indeed define your character–forever…collective thinking denies human’s basic dignity and treats them as mere numbers. Key: it also assigns collective guilt.”

Woke is authoritarian–and also Marxist. Woke defines the world as a mere power arena, where all are at war with all others. The name of the game is, basically, who will be “King of the hill?” Woke defines the dominant class as “white supremacy.” Everyone else is a victim of white supremacy! If something exists, it is ripe for destruction.

​Woke is totalitarian. Everything is political. No one is allowed to be neutral. Everything is either an instrument of oppression or an instrument of struggle for the victims of oppression. Anything goes! Like the Maoist Red Guards, the woke believers use their religion to empower themselves by pulling down anyone and anything that catches their attention. Students are allowed to destroy their teachers. Players to destroy their coaches. Colleges then pull down statues of their founders because some of those founders happened to be slaveowners in an era when that was not frowned on. Any of this sound familiar to you all? Woke means an intolerant, revolutionary, collectivist ideology of power that’s at war with all society, and, yes, it’s explicitly racist.” Of course it parades itself as being vehemently anti-racist, which is absolute fertilizer. Woke is not anti-racist–it is antiwhite! Just one more fake, leftist religion!

What do you do if you want to rewrite the history books to remove anything or anyone you disagree with? First, you brand those in opposition to you as traitors to your agenda. Having done that, you then take the next step, which is to totally remove them from the history books and shove them down George Orwell’s “Memory Hole.” Out of sight, out of mind, you reason. Future generations must not be aware of these people or the causes they stood for because, after all, you disagree with them, and so they need to disappear.

This is being done in this country to a large degree regarding the War of Northern Aggression aka the “Civil War.” Those that are doing this are the heirs of the French Revolution. That war was this country’s French Revolution–and we have yet to recover from it. If we continue in our present direction, we never will–and the radical socialists and communists will have won.

I received two letters from good friends who are Southern patriots this week. Interestingly, both were from Oklahoma, though I doubt these two know one another. One dealt with the expunging of all things Confederate from West Point–all memorabilia, statues, plaques, anything that honors or mentions anyone Confederate. That would have to include Robert E. Lee, who served as president of West Point for a period of time. So what do you do with the history of West Point while General Lee ran it? You just ignore that. As far as you are concerned that never happened. So the Deep State socialists, after branding Lee a traitor - which he wasn’t - will now attempt to remove any memory of him from West Point! Down the memory hole!

The other letter dealt with the same situation regarding Arlington National Cemetery removing the memory of anyone Confederate. That cemetery is on land once owned by Robert E. –well, you know– someone we can’t talk about anymore because the Deep State socialists don’t like him!

One has to wonder what will be substituted for real history when the removal of the memory of anything Confederate is completed. Who will the Northern armies have gone into combat with at Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, Manassas, Pittsburgh Landing, Elkhorn tavern, –phantom armies from a period of history that now exists only in the Memory Hole? This seems to be where we are headed.

​Our “history” if it can even be called such anymore, is being rewritten by radical socialists who are busily removing everything they don’t agree with. “Civil War” -  what Civil War? Robert E. Lee, who was he anyway??? Radical socialists and communists in the North, including many in Lincoln’s administration and his armies? Well, no way Jose, it just didn’t happen! Who told you that anyway? Must have been some “conspiracy theorist!” Older history books that mention all this, just pay them no mind. Toss them out and read one of the “new” history books that will give you the real scoop on all the stuff we say never happened.

That’s where we are at, folks. Down with the old - even though much of it is accurate – and up with the new–even though most of it is historical fertilizer! After all, the Deep State, via their public school system, has a generation to indoctrinate, but not to educate! At some point the truth will catch up with them. But they can’t see that far ahead. All truth is God’s truth and will be vindicated at some point – even if most of us will not live to see it.

Lots of our congress critters have learned how to keep getting re-elected. Just fool their constituencies into believing they are something they really are not. And it must work because many of them get continually voted back into office by doing it.
I will give one example I have noted here in past years. A senator from one of our western states was returned to the Senate many times because he always voted against any new gun control bills that came up. On every other issue the guy was a raving socialist. I don’t bother calling them liberals anymore because a liberal is only a slow socialist who hasn’t made it all the way to socialism yet, but he’s working on it.

At any rate, this man knew that if he just voted right on gun control then he could vote left on any other issue and the folks back home would never know the difference because almost no one back there even looked at those other issues. Anyone who bothered to check out voting records would have known in five minutes or less that this man was a socialist pretending to be conservative. Unfortunately this man was far from the only phony to pull this scam on the folks back home.

Researcher Arthur R. Thompson has noted and written about the same thing. Mr. Thompson wrote in To the Victor go the Myths and Monuments that: “Another problem Americans have is that they cannot see through men who profess to be Christians selling them something that is anti-Christ. All throughout the history of America, including the present day, men will stand and profess Christianity and in the next instant promote some aspect of international socialism. It is usually subtle, a small step, but ultimately leads to the New World Order, the professed goal of international socialism. A modern example was a prominent governor who courted the pro-life movement at the same time he engaged in activities that would have led to the merger of North America into one nation, which would destroy the Constitution and independence of the American people. Likewise, he was known to have attended a Bilderberg meeting of internationalists who want more U.S. involvement and entanglements leading to a total subjugation of America to the United Nations…So a politician can make it appear that he is conservative to gain support, especially a social conservative, and still promote the New World Order, which in the long run would negate everything he professes to be for or against–and too many do this with intent.”

I recall yet another case right here in Louisiana where a man was running for the senate and making wide professions as to his Christianity. Someone who knew him once asked him “When did you become so religious?” To which he is said to have replied “When I needed the votes.”

Unfortunately, in our day, one of the main things missing from the “whole armor of God” for most Christians is discernment in political issues. Something we critically need to be able to do is to begin to check the voting records of those running for offices, especially at the national level. The New American magazine publishes, I can’t recall if its only twice a year or more often, in their excellent magazine, something called “The Conservative Index” which lists ten critical issues that both House and Senate have had to vote on recently and it tells you how all senators and representatives voted on all those ten issues and it grades them all on how they voted. Those with the highest scores are the most conservative while those with scores hovering in continuous low numbers are basically socialists. This is one thing I always check out when it appears because I want to know how all our legislators from Louisiana voted, but I check out other states also.

The important thing about this is that it gives you at a glance some idea of where all the elected representatives for the whole country are at - something we need to be aware of if we are to cast an intelligent vote. This is the kind of information the socialist Democrats and some socialist Republicans would like to see ignored as it shows them up for what they really are and they’d just as soon you didn’t know that. For those who can afford it the New American is $49 per year and a good investment to keep you up to snuff on what goes on in this country.

To secede or not to secede. The question often looms just in the background, just far enough off stage that you don’t quite see it, but it’s always there. And it has resurfaced in the state of Illinois–again. An article on The New American for August 25th deals with it. It notes that three counties will vote next November to try to split downstate Illinois from the Chicago area. And I don’t think that’s a bad idea. We lived in Illinois for several years and noted that the liberal vote from Chicago was often enough more than sufficient to outdo the vote from the entire rest of the state on certain issues that benefitted Chicago, even though the rest of the state voted against them.

The New American article stated: “Two counties in Illinois, along with a portion of a third county, will vote this November to consider a nonbinding resolution to split the state in two–essentially making the City of Chicago its own entity while the rest of the state follows another path. Brown County in western Illinois and Hardin County in southern Illinois, along with the northeast portion of Madison County in the southwest part of the state, will vote to consider joining 24 other counties who have already voted in the last five years to study the possibility of the rest of the state breaking away from Cook County and the Chicago area to form their own state. Or, put another way, the counties would like to kick out the Chicago area, which dominates state politics. The movement to separate downstate Illinois from Chicago is still alive,” And the mentality in Chicago is light years away from the mentality in Southern Illinois!

In 2019 two state representatives sent a bill to Congress that sought congressional approval that would allow the non-portion of Illinois to become its own state. It seems Congress freaked over that and it never got out of committee. As an aside, Judge Andrew Napolitano had an article on Lew Rockwell’s website for September 1 which noted that: “Nullification and secession as ideas were cast aside by the Supreme Court and by the outcome of the War Between the States. But the defeat of an idea–politically, legally or even militarily–cannot always bury the idea permanently. When an idea’s time has come, nothing can stop it.” The judge is right–when the time comes, nothing can stop it.

One of the men who sent the bill to Congress said that “My reason for signing on is that there are two different Illinois in the state. We have to have policies that allow both to compete nationwide. The idea of separating Chicago from the rest of the state isn’t new. It goes back as far as 1840. Many counties have longed for years to separate themselves from what goes on in Chicago. The New American articles notes: “In the 1970s, fourteen counties in west-central Illinois began referring to themselves as the Republic of Forgottonia as a way to protest how their needs and wishes were largely forgotten by the state legislators in Springfield…Downstate legislators as recently as 2011 asked that the rest of the state be separated from the Chicago area after Pat Quinn was elected as governor despite carrying only three counties outside the Chicago area. Downstate citizens don’t feel heard in a state government completely dominated by far-left Chicago.”

The article also notes that: “The Illinois movement to break away from liberal stronghold Chicago echoes other movements such as the Greater Idaho movement, which looks to move several Oregon counties to Idaho, a state they believe lines up with their more conservative values.” And, although it’s not mentioned much in our “history” books, one of the reasons for the South’s secession from the U.S. in 1861 was that the cultures of the two sections were very different and the theologies of the two sections had become different with the advent of Unitarianism and Transcendentalism in the North as opposed to orthodox Christianity in the South.
​
The New American article concludes: “While these movements don’t have what most consider to be a reasonable shot for succeeding, they are a gauge of how fed up many in rural America are feeling regarding their representation. People in rural America feel they are ignored by state and federal government–and they’re right.” Same here in north Louisiana. Liberal New Orleans gets all the action while those of us in the rest of the state get some splendid rhetoric and that’s all. It won’t stay this way forever. At some point something will have to give and those who laughed at secession will end up crying in their beer.

In his book Freedom On The Altar the late William Norman Grigg went into the theological background of the United Nations. Yes, for those who don’t know, the UN does have a theological background, as do all organizations. Some will admit it, some won’t, but it’s there.

Mr. Grigg gave us some background. He wrote: “Referred to derisively as a “spiritual swap-meet’ by one commentator, the 1993 Parliament of World Religions was in some ways a homage to the first such event, which took place as an adjunct to the Columbian Exposition of 1893. According to The Quest, a quarterly journal published by the Theosophical Society, the 1993 Parliament has facilitated a ‘Theosophical revival’ in part because the event reminded religious scholars that the Theosophical Society had been a major participant in the first Parliament a hundred years before…”

Mr. Grigg told us: “The Theosophical Society was represented at the 1893 event by Annie Besant, who went on to become president of the society in 1905. Both of the Theosophical Society’s objectives–the drive for religious syncretism and the propagation of eastern mysticism–were served by the 1893 parliament. The event signaled the introduction into America of eastern religions such as Hinduism, which was represented by Swami Vivikenanda, a fellow traveler of Madame Blavatsky’s society.” This character promoted religious assimilation as the way to promote “tolerance” and he went on to condemn “fundamentalism” as the fountainhead of all the world’s misery. You can already see where those people were going. (Just for the heck of it, look up Madame Blavatsky and Annie Besant on the internet.)

Grigg continued: “In the late 1980s a small group of Vivikenanda’s followers in Illinois and Wisconsin began preparations for an event to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Swami’s address. The leader of this group was a small, bespectacled man named Daniel Gomez-Ibanez, who is a trustee of the Millenium Institute, an Arlington, Virginia group that describes itself as ‘A non-profit organization promoting integrated global thinking.’ On January 25, 1993, Gomez-Ibaniz joined a colorful collection of religious leaders around the ‘Peace Altar’ at the UN’s Temple of Understanding to inaugurate the ‘Year of Inter-Religious Cooperation and Understanding.”

And now, we come to “sustainable development” which is currently “in vogue among globalists and environmentalists. ‘sustainability is measured by an individual’s or an institution’s willingness to submit to a global government.” Gerald Barney, a former director of the national program for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has told the religious leaders at the Religious Parliament to “make your religious traditions sustainable.”

That raises the question–what happens to religions that refuse to conform to the United Nations sustainability agenda? Mr. Grigg told us that, according to Barney “Christianity is not a sustainable faith ‘as it is understood and practiced now.’ Furthermore, he condemned ‘religious exceptionalism’ which is essentially the monotheistic belief in a universal, omniscient God. What is required of the world’s religious leaders, asserted Barney, is a ‘reinterpretation and even (a) rejection of ancient traditions and assumptions.”

​In other words, to be acceptable to the United Nations, Christians must be prepared to jettison their belief in the Holy Scripture and the God of Holy Scripture. That’s what they are asking for. I can’t think of a better reason for this country to get out of the United Nations than this. Christians should not throw away their faith to embrace UN “truth” rather they should reaffirm their faith in the Triune God of Scripture and tell the UN to go back to its father the devil.

Since all things are inescapably religious, it seems to reason that revolution is also religious. And by the term “religious” I don’t necessarily mean Christian. Revolution is the complete overturning of an old order and replacing it with something supposedly entirely different. Hence the anti-Christian revolutionary will seek to overthrow the Christian faith and its revealed truth with the tenets of his own religion, whatever that might be.

​Adam Zamoyski wrote an interesting book several years ago called Holy Madness. In it he gave some interesting insights into the mindset of revolutionaries. In describing some of what happened during the French Revolution, Zamoyski noted: “The nation had replaced the king as the sovereign and therefore as the validating element in the state. The dead king’s God had been superseded by ‘Our Lord Mankind’ to use the words of one prominent revolutionary.” He would have been telling us, in rather straightforward fashion, that the concept of nationhood, as we have it today, is a product of the French Revolution. And, if that be the truth, it is fraught with problems we have hardly begun to deal with in our day.

Zamoyski observed that: “The element of Christian teaching that aroused the particular ire of the eighteenth-century clerisy was the doctrine of original sin–that all men are born with the taint of Adam and need to redeem themselves…What men needed, in their view, was not salvation but education, which would liberate them from all the superstitions born of ignorance. They heaped, ridicule on the Christian belief in an afterlife and attacked the concept of abnegation and sacrifice leading to sanctity.” He noted Rousseau’s writings, which argued that man was born essentially good, but that civilization had corrupted him. Try explaining that one to a headhunter in the Amazon and see how far you get!

If we follow his criteria, then we must, in all honesty, conclude that the Unitarian and socialist founders of government schools in this country were, themselves, indeed revolutionaries, cut from the same mold as those in France who marched countless scores off to the guillotine in their feeble efforts to rid the world of “sin” as they saw it. The only difference between here and France is that our revolutionaries had not got to the guillotine–yet.

The founders of our government (public) school system, like Rousseau and the French revolutionaries, viewed man and his nature as essentially good. Since they mostly viewed orthodox Christianity as anathema, (they seemed to have a problem admitting they were sinners like the rest of us mere mortals) they felt that man could be perfected by changing the environment around him. And they began by trying to get men to recognize their own goodness by reaching out to reeducate their children. They felt if they could just get rid of the influence of those narrow, bigoted Calvinist church schools and get the children into proper (lacking in Christian doctrine) schools, then they could change the course of humanity. Children could then be taught (minus any real Christian influence) to develop their own potential, to express their own feelings, to subtly repudiate what their parents had taught them at home, and hence, to eventually pledge their troth to the new secular messiah–the state–“our Lord Mankind” as it were. If you listened to these anti-Christian visionaries, they were going to wipe out crime and poverty in a generation with their government-sponsored “education.” If you look at the schools and the country in our day–how has that worked out for you? Over 150 years later they are still piping the same tune. Their standard reply when you question them is “Well if we just had more of your money we could really provide the kids a ‘quality’ education.” That was hogwash 100 years ago and it still is today.

Until the churches in this country begin to wake up to the fact that government schools do, indeed, sponsor a competing anti-Christian religion, our culture and heritage will continue to spin their wheels and to seek out political solutions when we should be looking for spiritual ones. If “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” then those who teach our young people otherwise are not giving them true wisdom but folly. If Christians as a whole begin to wake up to this, we may begin to make progress, but until then…

Those who have formed definite worldviews in any area will, at some point, realize that the promotion of their worldview requires a certain amount of action. The communists realize this and labor long and hard to promote their leftist worldview. Most Christians have yet to grasp this. The worldview of many Christians has been to trust the Lord to do it all, therefore, they have to do nothing except go along for the ride. It doesn’t work that way. We have yet to emerge from what I could call “flabby fundamentalism” where the believers have been conditioned to expect the Lord to do it all, relieving them of any responsibility whatever. I don’t refer to all fundamentalist believers when I say that, but to many of them. And you could say the same thing for evangelicals. It seems to me that if you believe something strongly enough you act on it and don’t sit around waiting for the Lord to do it all. I realize that, ultimately, the Lord is doing it all, but He seeks to use His people to accomplish His objectives in many cases.
​
Anyway, regarding the textbook controversy in Kanawha County, West Virginia, my wife and I were finally able to get the name of someone in West Virginia so we could really find out what was going on there and not have to depend on the “news” reports. The upshot of that was that, within a year, my family and I were in West Virginia, where we spent the next two years.

In spite of media attempts to suppress the story it did get out and, in fact, made newspapers in many parts of the world. The American “news” media, finally forced to acknowledge the existence of the textbook protest, was almost unanimously on the side of the public school system. Are you really surprised? The next problem for them was how to put the right (or shall I say left) spin on the story to make the public school establishment look good and to paint the protesters as a bunch of ignorant rednecks who didn’t have enough sense to let the educational “experts” indoctrinate their children. Well, the educational “experts” even today are still indoctrinating your children if they are in public school. How is that working out for you? Judging by the jump in numbers of people who are now homeschooling, it ain't working out real well.

That was the situation when we got to West Virginia. By this time our son was five years old and ready for school. We were able to get him into a Christian school, and he stayed in one, along with our daughter, until they were both in their teens, at which point we saw the need to homeschool them. At no point was the public school ever an option for them.

We could not, in good conscience, subject our children to a public school system that was covertly, if not overtly at that time, anti-Christian. In this day we have long since reached the point where public schools are overtly anti-Christian–and that bias on their part is becoming more and more apparent to more people–and still, most Christians are sitting it out!

When it comes to educating their children, they are “mental mugwumps.” They assiduously sit on the fence with their wumps on one side and their mugs on the other.

Years ago now Dr. Clyde Wilson wrote an article called The Yankee Problem In America* if I recall the title of it correctly. He dealt with the Yankee mindset and pointed to the fact that Hillary Clinton was the quintessential example of a Yankee. I couldn’t agree more. St. Hillary embodies all those qualities that make up what I call the Yankee/Marxist because the two types are so very similar.

Please note here that when I use the term “Yankee” I am not referring to all Northern folks. I grew up in the North and I knew lots of good, solid Northern folks that would never qualify for the term “Yankee” because they did not and do not think like Yankees. I had to be educated to understand this and it took a Southerner to do it.

Years ago I lived in Indiana. At some point while there I began reading the Southern Partisan magazine and noted all the comments about Yankees. At that point, still thinking I was one, even though I was strongly sympathetic to the South, I took offense. When it came time to renew my subscription to that good magazine, I wrote to the editor telling him how much I enjoyed the magazine but that I was not resubscribing due to his comments about Yankees, which I felt even included those Yankees that had strong Southern leanings. Surprisingly, I got an answer back from him. His answer resolved my dilemma. He explained to me that, contrary to my opinion, I was not a Yankee and he told me that his use of that term did not include all folks born in the North. He explained that being a Yankee was referring to a particular mindset rather than where you were born and that “We’ve got plenty of them (Yankees) here in the South too with Southern accents” or something to that effect. It’ has been something over 30 years ago now so I don’t recall his exact words.

Since that time, I have had opportunity to study the Yankee mindset and have come up with some conclusions regarding it. The Yankee, like the Marxist, is a thoroughgoing control freak. He believes that everyone should think like he does and he has small use for those that don’t or won’t. But, even for that, he is not above trying to force them to change their minds. In his eyes thinking differently than he does is a blasphemous act that needs to be corrected, and he will use whatever means are at his disposal to correct that–public education, the mainstream “news” media, or congressional action if necessary.

You see, to the Yankee it is vitally important that you learn to “love Big Brother” and he will leave no stone unturned to make sure you learn to do that. After all, it’s all for “the salvation of the state” and to the Yankee, like the Marxist, the state is the new secular god. It must be worshipped at all costs and the Yankee is there to make sure you understand that–or else!

The Yankee’s theology does not allow for worship of any other “god” but national authority and though he cannot, at this point, force you to stop attending church, not to worry, he is working on ways to discourage that outmoded activity, one of which is forbidding church services during so-called “pandemics.” Then he gets to arrest preachers who will not kowtow to this infringement on their rights. That’s been happening in Canada. Look for it to make its debut here when the time is right.

Like the Marxist, the Yankee believes solidly that “the ends justify the means.” For the Yankee that means that he has complete authority to lie, cheat, steal and do whatever else it takes to bring you non-Yankees into total compliance with his edixcts and he is not above using any and all of these things to “help” you to comply with his most devout wishes–all of which he assures you are “for your own good and protection.”

As you may have guessed by now, the current Biden/Obama Regime in Washington is the epitome of classical Yankeedom in living action. They mean to totally rule us with the iron fist or ruin the country trying, which may have been their plan all along. One thing the Yankee does not appreciate is opposition–and that may well be one reason to give him as much of it as possible. After all, in the final analysis, with what he has planned, he deserves nothing less than our total resistance to his anti-Christ objectives!

Yesterday, April 19th, was the 247th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord that began our War of Independence. The leader at Lexington was Rev. Jonas Clark. Pastor Clark had given shelter to Sam Adams and John Hancock when they fled the British in Boston. Adams and Hancock wanted to know if the local militia would stand against the British regulars. Pastor Clark assured them they would because he had trained them in “the scriptural principles of liberty.”
​
As I read that I wondered–how many pastors in our day have been trained in the “scriptural principles of liberty.” I am afraid there haven’t been many. Many pastors today seem to major at staying out of the way–and out of the fray–so they don’t offend anyone or rock the boat in any way.

They seem to forget that the Lord Jesus not only procured our freedom on the cross but He also offended the religious establishment in Israel. The gospel He preached was “Jesus is Lord” over all. That was the last thing they wanted to hear because it lessened their influence–and whatever did that had to be dealt with. So they tried to silence Him. They thought the cross would do it. It didn’t work out for them. The first Easter morning proved that. Their descendants are still trying today and it isn’t working any better for them.

Over the years I have been privileged to know some pastors who gave people critical truth in several areas–the truth about communism and its evil designs; the truth about the trash that was in their kids’ public school textbooks; the truth about the crying need for real Christian education and several other important areas.

We fight today in a different way than Pastor Clark and his militia did. However, the battle is still the same–good vs. evil and light against darkness. We need to know enough truth in critical areas to fight this battle and that means doing the homework to find out. Even then, many people will not believe what we tell them–including some pastors who would rather not know because knowing obligates them to do something and they’d rather not.
​
Some of us have fought this battle for many years. Often we wish there were more of us to fight and we often wonder if we are making any progress. But we do it anyway because, ultimately, the Lord is in control and those efforts to promote His truth will not fail. As for those who refuse to contend for the faith in many areas, what will the Lord say to them at the final judgment? In that day the price of apathy will come due and will they be prepared to pay it?