Monday, October 22, 2018


BY A 15-year-old SCHOOL KID who got an A+ for this entry:
The Lord's Prayer Is not allowed in most US Public schools any more.
A kid in Minnesota, wrote the following.
NEW School Prayer:

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene..
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all..
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the State..
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks...
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong..
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles...
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!


Friday, October 19, 2018

2016: Solar and wind constituted 1.3 and 3.9 percent of the planet’s electricity, respectively

...we should be honest that such subsidies for solar and wind are policy sweeteners needed to win over powerful financial interests and not good climate policy.

What matters most is that we accept that there are real world physical obstacles to scaling solar and wind.

Monday, October 15, 2018

An American snowy winter: The ‘new normal”

8:00 - I made a snowman.

8:10 - A feminist passed by and asked me why I didn't make a snow woman.

8:15 - So, I made a snow woman.

8:17 - My feminist neighbor complained about the snow woman's voluptuous chest saying it objectified snow women everywhere.

8:20 - The gay couple living nearby threw a hissy fit and moaned it should have been two snow men instead.

8:22 - The transgender man.|.woman.|.person.| asked why I didn't just make one snow person with detachable parts.

8:25 - The vegans at the end of the lane complained about the carrot nose, as carrot veggies are food and are not to decorate snow figures with.

8:28 - I am being called a racist because the snow couple is white.

8:31 - The Muslim gent across the road demands the snow woman wear a burqa.

8:40 - The Police arrive saying someone has been offended.

8:42 - The feminist neighbor complained again that the broomstick of the snow woman needs to be removed because it depicted women in a domestic role.

8:43 - The council equality officer arrived and threatened me with eviction.

8:45 - TV news crew from ABC shows up. I am asked if I know the difference between snowmen and snow-women? I reply, "Snowballs" and am now called a sexist.

9:00 - I'm on the news as a suspected terrorist, racist, homophobic, sensibility offender, bent on stirring up trouble during difficult weather.

9:10 - I am asked if I have any accomplices. My children are taken by social services.

9:29 - Far-left protesters offended by everything are marching down the street demanding for me to be beheaded.

Moral: There is no moral to this story. It's just a view of the world in which we live today...and it's only getting worse!!

Sunday, October 14, 2018


This Australian documentary is about YOU!

Please, don't miss it.


Also on Netflix.

Friday, October 12, 2018

What is "Social Justice" really?

The term “social justice” was apparently coined by a catholic priest named Luigi Taparelli in the 19th century to describe a process by which justice is applied in society. In the 20th century, however, social justice became a relative term. It had entirely different definitions for different people. For instance, Adolf Hitler used the term to describe his motivations to liberate Aryan Germans from the disproportionately wealthy and–in his mind– oppressive Jews. However, his rival, Winston Churchill, used the term to describe his and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s motivation to liberate the world from Hitler.

Over time the term ‘social justice’ became associated with critical theorists and Neo-Marxists from the Frankfurt School in Germany. They rejected universal rights or human rights as a basis for justice. They essentially rejected liberty for individuals as the hallmark for justice in society. They believed, instead, that parity between groups were the mark of justice in society. They rejected individualism and embraced collectivism. They did not define justice as equality of opportunity; they defined justice as equality of outcome.

They agreed with Karl Marx that disparities between privileged and underprivileged members of society are indicative of injustice. They believed privileged members of society and underprivileged members of society make up the oppressor and the oppressed. Therefore for them, justice—social justice meant eliminating disparities between groups in society. They concluded that justice is when a society implements a system that produces equality of outcome for groups, instead of equality of opportunity for individuals.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

The fate of Khashoggi is the latest sign of what’s really happening inside Saudi Arabia

The Muslim Brotherhood, though, has always been at odds with the Wahhabi movement. Khashoggi and his fellow travellers believe in imposing Islamic rule by engaging in the democratic process. The Wahhabis loathe democracy as a western invention. Instead, they choose to live life as it supposedly existed during the time of the Muslim prophet. In the final analysis, though, they are different means to achieving the same goal: Islamist theocracy. This matters because, although bin Salman has rejected Wahhabism — to the delight of the West — he continues to view the Muslim Brotherhood as the main threat most likely to derail his vision for a new Saudi Arabia. Most of the Islamic clerics in Saudi Arabia who have been imprisoned over the past two years — Khashoggi’s friends — have historic ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Khashoggi had therefore emerged as a de facto leader of the Saudi branch. Due to his profile and influence, he was the biggest political threat to bin Salman’s rule outside of the royal family.

Worse, from the royals’ point of view, was that Khashoggi had dirt on Saudi links to al Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks. He had befriended Osama bin Laden in the 1980s and 1990s in Afghanistan and Sudan while championing his jihad against the Soviets in dispatches. At that same time, he was employed by the Saudi intelligence services to try to persuade bin Laden to make peace with the Saudi royal family. The result? Khashoggi was the only non-royal Saudi who had the beef on the royals’ intimate dealing with al Qaeda in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks. That would have been crucial if he had escalated his campaign to undermine the crown prince.

Monday, October 08, 2018

The real issue here is the communist revolution to overthrow the Constitutional Republic of the United States.

The prophetic fall out from Kavanaugh
NOTEWhen writing about God and Jesus, The Daily Jot means YHVH as God and Yeshua Ha Mashiach as Jesus--the actual original names and the true nature and character of them.
Monday, October 8, 2018
The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation was the most vile, divisive, uncivil, immoral, unethical display of scorched-earth politics witnessed by Americans in recent history. No matter how much the Democratic Party tries to hang on its opponents for confirming Kavanaugh, there is nothing that excuses the shameful behavior of Democrats and their supporting cast of leftists, communists and anarchists. All the deeds they accused the conservatives of doing-lying, violence, harassment, bullying, victimization, hypocrisy-they themselves put on full display before the world. The poster child moment was crazed women clawing and banging on the Supreme Court doors during the swearing in ceremony.
What is this all about? Folks, we have to discern. It was not about abortion, race, religion, or LGBTQ rights. Those were only the fear issues that the puppeteers used to cobble together a coalition of useful pawns that could be whipped up into a frenzy or paid to act out on cue. The real issue here is the communist revolution to overthrow the Constitutional Republic of the United States. It had progressed quite well over the years with only a road bump during the Reagan years. Before that, and afterwards, it's been an easy and gradual slide into socialism. Socialists have embedded in all aspects of the government awaiting their complete takeover, which was supposed to be crowned with Hillary Clinton's coronation.
When that didn't happen, Americans had to pay the price. A "resistance" movement began. It became very aggressive, and at times, violent. We have not seen the peak yet. The Kavanaugh confirmation has only exposed it further. The prophetic fallout from Kavanaugh is this: Expect further division, more bullying, extraordinary legal actions, more outlandish claims from leftists in Hollywood and at so-called news organizations. Expect to be further disenfranchised and labeled if you challenge any part of the coup-makers' agenda. Everything they do and think will be projected onto those with whom they disagree. There will be further, even violent, condemnation of those who follow Christ.
These are of the seed of rebellion. It's not only rebellion against law and order, its root is rebellion against God. As Jude writes: "It was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ...Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." This is what is happening in our nation. As Christ followers, we must be a prophetic people to stand in the gap and shine the light of salvation and righteousness. We have a say here, and the freedom to say it. Let's use it so we don't lose it.
Have a Blessed and Powerful Day!
Bill Wilson

Thursday, October 04, 2018


...the FBI had good reason to suspect the dossier was connected to the DNC’s main law firm and was the product of a Democratic opposition-research effort to defeat Trump — yet failed to disclose that information to the FISA court in October 2016, when the bureau applied for a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

“This is a bombshell that unequivocally shows the real collusion was between the FBI and Donald Trump’s opposition — the DNC, Hillary and a Trump-hating British intel officer — to hijack the election, rather than some conspiracy between Putin and Trump,” a knowledgeable source told me.

Wednesday, October 03, 2018


a-dying-cultureThe Kavanaugh confirmation hearings and their endless sequelae have ended up as an epitaph for a spent culture for which its remedies are felt to be worse than its diseases. Think 338 B.C., A.D. 476, 1453, or 1939[i].
The coordinated effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court required the systematic refutation of the entire notion of Western jurisprudence by senators and much of the American legal establishment.
There was no hesitation in doing just that by Senate Democrats, the #MeToo movement, and the press.
I write this at a moment in which conservatives and Republicans still control the majority of governorships, state legislatures, the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court and the Presidency—a reminder that culture so often is far more powerful than politics.
So, here we are, left with a new legal and cultural standard in adjudicating future disagreements and disputes, an utterly anti-Western standard quite befitting for our new relativist age:
1. The veracity of accusations will hinge on the particular identity, emotions, and ideology of the accuser;
2. Evidence, or lack of it, will be tangential, given the supposed unimpeachable motives of the ideologically correct accuser;
3. The burden of proof and evidence will rest with the accused to disprove the preordained assumption of guilt;
4. Hearsay will be a valuable narrative and constitute legitimate evidence;
5. Truth is not universal, but individualized. Ford’s “truth” is as valid as the “Truth,” given that competing narratives are adjudicated only by access to power. Ford is a victim, therefore her truth trumps “their” truth based on evidence and testimony.
6. Questionable and inconsistent testimony are proof of trauma and therefore exactitude; recalling an accusation to someone is proof that the action in the accusation took place.
7. Statutes of limitations do not exist; any allegation of decades prior is as valid as any in the present. All of us are subject at any moment to unsubstantiated accusations from decades past that will destroy lives.
8. Assertion of an alleged crime is unimpeachable proof. Recall of where, when, why, and how it took place is irrelevant.
9. Individual accusations will always be subservient to cosmic causes; individuals are irrelevant if they do not serve ideological aims. All accusations fit universal stereotypes whose rules of finding guilt or innocence trump those of individual cases.
10. The accuser establishes the conditions under which charges are investigated; the accused nods assent.
Our cultural traditions are being insidiously rewritten in this New Dark Age.
We know now that Euripides’s Phaedra should have been believed, as a female accuser of rape that never happened.
Perhaps university presses can either reissue properly corrected editions or ban the Hippolytus entirely. No doubt we will ban Racine’s Phèdre as well.
Harper Lee’s Tom Robinson deserved his fate because his female accuser should have been believed—and perhaps To Kill a Mockingbird  should be rewritten as well.  (But what to do about the movie, with Gregory Peck’s Atticus, hailed as “the greatest movie hero of the 20th century,” who defended an innocent black man in the Jim Crow south from the lies of a white girl who said he raped her?)
In our time, we have finally and only now belatedly realized that Tawana Brawley’s voice was stifled.

History as Melodrama
In an iconoclastic age, when statues are toppled, and when street names at Stanford University are renamed (but, mysteriously, not the politically incorrect name Stanford itself), the past is captive to the present. Realities are erased according to current ideological agendas.
Our pastime is to blame those of the technologically backward and impoverished past.
In most cases, they accomplished things that our present generation lacks the courage and resilience to do—whether navigating the Atlantic in a leaky boat without accurate navigation, homesteading on the prairie in an age without machines or modern medicine, or flying a B-17 without fighter escort over 1943 Germany.
Is it our envy of their courage or own self-hatred for our manifest inferiority that forces us to judge figures of the past in our modern courts on the basis of their purported race, class, and gender crimes?
So, history has become melodrama, not tragedy. Figures of the past who were human and not perfect, and who prove, according to today’s value systems, not good progressives are thus deserving of historical annihilation.
The affluence and leisure of the present creates the luxury of such pampered intellectual indulgence in a way the existential crises of Civil War, the Great Depression, and World War II did not.
In our own age, the disproven but still legendary tales of “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot,” the Duke Lacrosse fantasies, the Rolling Stone folktales, or Lena Dunham’s fictive memoir won out and became fact, inasmuch as such lies were not real lies given their service to progressive aims.
And that is where we are now headed—the world of the Socrates-murdering Athenian popular court, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Star Chamber, the cycles of the French Revolution—except that in all those cases, reason and sanity eventually returned. Perhaps not now.
We are entering a New Dark Ages.
If we to look to the universities for truth and courage we find increasingly medieval darkness, where in matters of alleged sexual harassment there is no due process for the accused.
Free speech on campus vanishes if minority views are dubbed “hate” speech or declared merely “hurtful.”
There is little diversity of opinion and even less tolerance of any dissent from majority dogma. Obsequiousness so often is redefined as courage; real courage condemned as a crime against the people. Campus segregation becomes desirable, if privileged by “safe spaces.”
Censorship is sensitivity and justified by “trigger warnings.” The apparent absence of bias becomes proof of bias if dubbed a “micro-aggression.” Racial discrimination in admissions affirms liberality.
The sensuality, personal indulgence, and even recklessness of the 1960s still continue, but become criminal, if post facto, one party finds his or her immoderation unfulfilling or in retrospect embarrassing. Woodstock is now married to the Victorian parlor, the common denominator for our self-absorbed generation seems to be to enjoy the refuge of shame and honor when gratification proves not gratifying.

Welcome to the Progressive Church
If we look to the media, there is an overarching dogma that governs the veracity of all other “truths.” “Fake News” is a misnomer, given that the general force of prejudicial media coverage is not just falsity, but the effort to substantiate progressive agendas.
The embryo of modern journalism is either progressive graduate schools or past progressive political campaigns and service, and so the media is an extension of the progressive movement.
The trivial to the substantial are all invented to advance narratives, whether a greedy U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley’s supposedly ordering self-indulgent $50,000 drapes or Mark Judge purportedly recalling, and thus de facto corroborating, Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations.
If we look to our brave, new technologies—social media, the Internet, the linked world of instant communication devices—they prove entirely missionary and ideological. Their reason to be is accelerating social and cultural change—albeit with the assumption that their the masters who run these technologies assume that their own privilege and vast wealth have insulated themselves from any unwelcomed ramifications following from their own ideology and advocacy.
So everything from Facebook and Twitter censorship to politically recalibrating the order of Google searches serves the larger collective “good.”
Even ancient ideas of wealth and poverty fade before our current ideology. If riches are used for social change, even if cynically and for careerist and self-interested reasons, then how they were obtained or otherwise used is irrelevant; if not, then they are proof of greed in their acquisition.
Multibillionaire George Soros might be a wanted felon in France or have attempted to break the Bank of England and thereby ruin small depositors. But his wealth is welcomed because he invests a small percentage of it in progressive causes and thereby purchases his own progressive insurance and protection.
As did the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages of yore, the Progressive Church now sells indulgences.
If we look to consensual government for hope, we see instead the courts and the permanent administrative class more often as the new governance. Their directives are to obstruct or overturn residual popular forces of tradition and custom, whether that consists of overriding bothersome federal immigration law, or advancing states’ rights ideas of nullification such as “sanctuary cities.”

Few Escape Routes Left
In this growing New Dark Age, nothing is at is was. We have only faint memories of what was normal just decades ago.
Professional sports become vehicles for promulgating progressive versions of social justice. Athletic excellence is increasingly adjudicated on the basis of ideology, despite the dark lessons of totalitarian societies that have done just that in the past.
Hollywood has run out of ideas, reduced either to making pale imitations of classic films or flat psychodramas about courageous, perpetually 30-something social justice warriors.
Late-night comedy, indeed all comedy, has disappeared and turned into boring regurgitation of progressive themes or safe situational banality—reminiscent of the decline of Old Comedy of Aristophanes to the psychodramas of Hellenistic New Comedy. Even left-wing comedians such as Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, or George Carlin could not now exist.
In science, we are back to the age of silencing Galileo.
Dare suggest that human efforts to address purported man-caused global warming are not cost-effective, and one’s academic career, his funding and status are imperiled.
Suggest that research shows not all the accusations of sexual harassment of females are to be believed without corroborating evidence, and one is damned as a retrograde sexist if not a closet assaulter himself.
Imply that the greatest health crisis facing black youth is the violence on the streets of a Baltimore or Chicago, and one is a supporter of police misconduct.
Hint that our sex is almost always innate and biologically determined and not usually socially constructed, and one becomes a “-phobe” of some sort.
Language is in service to the state and progressive agendas, either by the creation of new words or refining old ones.
“Homosexual” and “transvestism” are not any longer clinical vocabulary, but slurs. “White” is not descriptive so much as pejorative. “Liberty” and “freedom” are synonymous with selfishness, if not conspiracy.
To join “overseas contingency operations” to thwart “man-caused disasters” and “workplace violence” could mean almost anything and thus, by design, they mean nothing.
The result is that, in lieu of pushback, to escape the New Dark Age, tens of millions of Americans are increasingly dropping out in search of some sort of physical or mental monastery, an escape, a refuge from a vindictive state and from those who crafted and are invested in it.
Millions no longer watch the Emmys or Grammys or any sort of entertainment awards event. They do not go to the movies or even watch new Hollywood releases on their computers or televisions.
Popular music is skipped on the expectation that it is not just vulgar and foul, but incoherently politicalized. They more and more pass on professional sports, neither watching nor attending what has become condemnatory rituals or lectures on social justice from pampered multimillionaire athletes.
At work, they keep their thoughts to themselves and nod assent to received pieties.
Courtship resembles a careful script in which a wrong word, an unartful advance can spell career destruction. To be safe, would-be couples inquire firsthand about their respective politics and traditions. The amoral marketplace, in Brave New World fashion, answers with promises of inanimate and mechanical sex partners.
All scour their past—in fear that something 20, 30, or 50 years prior might resurface, immediately become mythologized and thus weaponized to destroy them, especially should they have achieved status, public recognition, affluence, or influence.
One’s personal privacy is kept hidden, not just in disgust with our generation’s therapeutic maladies in which others pour out their emotions and fragilities in lieu of an idea, but because any disclosure is expected later to be used against oneself.
An idea of retirement is not merely a house by the lake or a cottage on the coast to die in peace, but now a mental refuge in which we are at last free from 24/7 sermonizing and worry over thought crimes, both in person and electronically—a world in which a sermonizer on a computer screen or in a television set does not lecture us for perceived shortcomings without acknowledgment that he is more likely than not to also fail to meet his own standards of morality.
In other words, America is resembling the medieval Balkans, where spent traditionalists fled to the mountaintops, abandoned the plains of a dying culture to the new zealots who stormed in under the pretense of civilization.

Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
[i] 338 BC – The Battle of Chaeronea, at which Phillip II of Macedon (Alexander’s father) snuffed out the glory, liberty, and existence of Ancient Classical Athenian Greece forever.
476 AD – The Fall of the Roman Empire, when the last Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustus, is deposed by a German barbarian, Odoacer, and the Middle Ages of Western Europe begins.
1453 – The Sack of Constantinople by Moslem Ottoman Turks, whose rape and slaughter of countless Christians ended the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium.
1939 – The start of World War II, with Hitler invading Poland, and Britain, France and allies declaring war on Nazi Germany.

Monday, October 01, 2018

The Nine Major Flaws in Kavanaugh Accuser’s Testimony

Sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Kavanaugh accuser released a memo claiming no "reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges against the Supreme Court nominee.
The prosecutor who questioned Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, at last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing released a five-page memo on Sunday in which she concluded that no “reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against the Supreme Court nominee.

Arizona sex crimes prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, wrote in her memo that the case is “even weaker” than a ‘he said, she said’ case. “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” she wrote. “But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Mitchell then outlined nine major flaws in Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony during last week’s hearing:

Sunday, September 30, 2018


Derek Hunter is a husband, father, and author of the book, “Outrage, INC.: How the Liberal Mob Ruined Science, Journalism, and Hollywood”, which examines the ways, both obvious and subtle, liberals use emotional manipulation to override rational thought and influence the American people: Dear Senators Flake, Collins, and Murkowski

From Amazon:
There are three institutions in American life run by gatekeepers who have stopped letting in anyone who questions their liberal script: academia, journalism, and pop culture. They use their cult-like groupthink consensus as "proof" that science, reporting, and entertainment will always back up the Democrats. They give their most political members awards, and then say the awards make their liberal beliefs true. Worse, they are using that consensus to pull the country even further to the left, by bullying and silencing dissent from even those they've allowed in.

Saturday, September 29, 2018

Questions that must be asked of Ford, and her lawyers, and Democrats -- under oath.

September 28, 2018
If The FBI Is Investigating These Allegations, They Absolutely Must Investigate Ford's Credibility

Questions that must be asked of Ford, and her lawyers, and Democrats -- under oath.

Make sure you read #10...


Friday, September 28, 2018







Sunday, September 16, 2018

John Hinderacker over at Powerline straightens out this ridiculous Puerto Rico vs. Trump controversy on which far too many people are wasting time!

This “issue” was not on my radar until one of my kids texted in a family chat: “Is trump off his rocker with this Puerto Rico death toll stuff?” That caused me to look into it. As so often happens, Trump is right.

Tuesday, September 11, 2018




Chicago homosexual community shocked he could keep it secret

A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.
“It was preposterous to the people I knew then to think Obama was going to keep his gay life secret,” said Kevin DuJan, who was a gossip columnist in Chicago for various blogs when Obama was living in the city as a community organizer and later a state senator.
“Nobody who knew Obama in the gay bar scene thought he could possibly be president,” said DuJan.


Monday, September 10, 2018

Red Heifer advances Prophecy Clock

Red Heifer advances Prophecy Clock
NOTEWhen writing about God and Jesus, The Daily Jot means YHVH as God and Yeshua Ha Mashiach as Jesus--the actual original names and the true nature and character of them.
Monday, September 10, 2018
The prophecy clock advanced on August 28 when a red heifer was born in Israel. The heifer was bred, examined, and is being raised under the guidance of the Temple Institute's Raise a Red Heifer program. The red heifer is important to prophecy because its ashes are needed to cleanse the Temple and its instruments. In explaining to his disciples the chronology of events of the last days in Matthew 24:15-16, Christ warns, "When you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains." This means that there is a fully operational Jewish Temple in Jerusalem prior to the Messiah's return.
The ordinance of the red heifer is found in Numbers 19 where the Lord commands Moses to bring a "red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke" to be slayed outside the camp, and burned with cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet. A clean man is to gather up the ashes of the heifer "...and store them outside the camp in a clean place. They are to be kept for the community of the people of Israel to prepare water for purification of sin (verse 9)." Anyone who touches the heifer in the process is rendered unclean. This ordinance is considered a "chok" by the Jews, a statute decreed by God that cannot be understood by human reasoning, because the true meaning is beyond our intellect.
Daniel 11:31 prophesies that In the end of years the armed forces of the king of the north (beast/antichrist) "shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that makes desolation." This is what Christ is referring to in Matthew 24. Therefore, prior to the Messiah returning there are daily sacrifices taking place in the Temple in Jerusalem. According to Jewish tradition, there can be no official Temple in Jerusalem without the red heifer's blood being sprinkled on the temple and the temple's instruments cleansed according to God's instruction in Numbers. This is why the red heifer is so important to end time prophecy. No red heifer, no Temple.
The "chok" of the red heifer is that it is used for cleansing and purification, yet those who touch it become unclean. Think about the symbolism. The red heifer, examined by the priests to have no blemish, is slayed outside the camp and Its blood and ashes are used for purification of sin. Christ, examined by the priests to have no blemish, was crucified outside the camp and risen for the propitiation of sin. Those priests were most certainly unclean. But even the blood of Christ could cleanse them from their sin. Hebrews 9:13-14 concludes: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
Have a Blessed and Powerful Day!
Bill Wilson

Saturday, September 08, 2018

The Constitution

Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the approval for ratification of treaties.

For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments. More a concise statement of national principles than a detailed plan of governmental operation, the Constitution has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived. To date, the Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992. The first ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights.

Friday, September 07, 2018

How what happened in 2005 explains the coup in Washington

Mueller, Comey, and the Deep State Rescue of Sandy Berger
By Jack Cashill
September 4, 2018

In many ways, 2005 was a dress rehearsal for 2016. Mueller and Comey had learned how to play their parts. The media had learned how to play theirs. Indeed, the show would have been another huge hit if only Trump had stuck to the “good Republican” script the way Bush had.


Thursday, September 06, 2018

Another Arizona rancher lays it on the line

Arizona rancher John Chilton’s 50,000-acre spread along the U.S.-Mexico border is allegedly ground zero for human smugglers, drug cartel members and illegal immigrants, and he has videos showing trespassers sneaking through his property.

A fifth-generation cattleman, the 79-year-old Chilton has long warned the government about the dangers of leaving lengthy stretches of the southwest border secured by nothing more than a barbed wire fence. To prove his point, he set up surveillance cameras throughout his property to document the comings and goings of trespassers from south of the border.

Chilton shared hours of video footage with Daily Caller News Foundation reporters, who are in Arizona to document life and crime in the southwest borderlands. Tim Foley, the founder of Arizona Border Recon, also shared his group’s surveillance footage with TheDCNF.

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

The coffee is brewing, but does anyone smell it?

Do NOT miss the last paragraph:

The coffee is brewing, but does anyone smell it?
NOTEWhen writing about God and Jesus, The Daily Jot means YHVH as God and Yeshua Ha Mashiach as Jesus--the actual original names and the true nature and character of them.
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
There is a socio-political revolution occurring in America. The news media is complicit in giving this revolution a platform. We see it with the revolutionaries' visceral attacks on anyone who disagrees with their positions and the media's amplification of these assaults. These revolutionaries believe that their moral opinions justify breaking the law, fomenting violence, lying and bullying. These actions are seeded in political intolerance and ideological bigotry, and they are not going to go away any time soon. These are the days of great deception and unrest in America because a major political party is become the haven of unrest and revolution. A recent Gallup poll confirms the direction of this civil unrest.
For the first time since Gallup began polling the question in 2010, the Democratic Party favors socialism over capitalism by a significant margin. Gallup reports that 57% of Democrats surveyed had a positive view of socialism, while only 47% had a positive view of capitalism. This is the first time since this question has been asked that a majority of those associated with the Democratic Party did not favor capitalism over socialism. Contrast this with those who associate with the Republican Party where only 16% have a positive view of socialism and 71% have a positive view of capitalism. Gallup statistics confirm that the Democratic Party is turned toward socialism. 
Moreover, the youth of this country are steaming toward socialism irrespective of party affiliation. Gallup reports: "Americans aged 18 to 29 are as positive about socialism (51%) as they are about capitalism (45%). This represents a 12-point decline in young adults' positive views of capitalism in just the past two years and a marked shift since 2010, when 68% viewed it positively." The brand of socialism these people support is undoubtedly deeper than an economic debate over socialism vs. capitalism. This trend is particularly dangerous to religious freedom and freedom of speech. The ideological bigotry practiced by America's vocal socialists is targeted at anyone who suggests a Biblical moral code for society. 
Progressivism, socialism, communism will end religious freedom in America because these forms of tyranny are based in the Communist Manifesto, which states: "Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis." Christians who believe socialism is true Christianity cite Acts 2:44, "And all that believed were together and had (shared) all things in common," as Biblical justification. Early Christians lovingly had all things in common-they were not forced to do so by a government. The very nature of communism is against God. We'd better wake up and smell the coffee, starting with ongoing conversations with our families, children and grandchildren. 
Have a Blessed and Powerful Day!
Bill Wilson

Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Mueller's Weaponized Justice System Should Scare All Americans

Cohen, Flynn, and Manafort were targeted for political reasons, and that should scare the hell out of every American in our country, no matter what color you are, how you vote, or how wealthy you are, and something must be done to stop it.

It’s time for the U.S. Attorney General to stop this madness, and create internal policies to prevent it from happening in the future, and if for some reason, he cannot get the job done, that the president must find someone that can.

As New York City’s 40th Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik was in command of the NYPD on September 11, 2001, and responsible for the city’s response, rescue, recovery, and the investigative efforts of the most substantial terror attack in world history. His 35-year career has been recognized in more than 100 awards for meritorious and heroic service, including a presidential commendation for heroism by President Ronald Reagan, two Distinguished Service Awards from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The Ellis Island Medal of Honor, and an appointment as Honorary Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Read Newsmax: Mueller's Weaponized Justice System Should Scare All Americans |

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Just watch soon what the Left has birthed...

Progressive Regression By Victor Davis Hanson| July 30th, 2018
Donald Trump has certainly changed the rules of presidential behavior, through his nonstop campaign rallies, tweets, and press conferences. What his critics call lowering the bar of presidential decorum by unfettered and often crude invective, Trump dubs the “new presidential.”
His style has become a sort of “don’t-tread-on-me” combativeness. In truth, Trump at home and abroad is mostly retaliatory. His theory seems to be that no slight should go unanswered. When Trump retorts in kind or trumps the original attack, he believes he adds yet another brick to his wall of deterrence—and exposes the sometimes dormant and disguised irrational hatred of the Left.
But what the Left loses in its slugfests with Trump are some once-supposed cherished leftist principles, justified by the short-term advantage of nullifying the Trump agenda.
Indeed, it is eerie that almost all the canons of progressive orthodoxy no longer apply. And they will no longer be taken seriously after Trump is long gone. Certainly, those lost principles will be impossible to reassert when Democrats return to power and seek sanctuary in the very ideas they have now so utterly trashed.
Liberals, who now warn of Trump’s “war on the press” long ago excused Eric Holder’s monitoring of the Associated Press reporters and Fox News’s James Rosen
And they had no problem with John Brennan lying under oath when he claimed the Obama CIA had not monitored the computers of Senate staffers (he would lie brazenly again under oath about drone collateral damage and his role in seeding the Steele dossier).
Likewise, they snoozed after Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress in his denial of government surveillance of U.S. citizens. Both were seen at the time to be useful liars. Their partisanship and exemption from any consequences for past lying under oath led to lucrative cable news gigs—proof, as it were, of their innate Trump hatred. Their legacy is that lying under oath now is not a sin, much less illegal.
So Much for Civil Liberties
When Trump appeared on the national scene, an all-out assault on civil liberties followed, in a manner that is now irrevocable. The Left destroyed for good the idea that progressives are the protectors of constitutional freedoms.
If fear of Trump, some connected with the National Security Council under Obama helped to surveil American citizens, unmasked them, and leaked their names to the press. The press, hand-in-glove, complied in spreading such unsubstantiated dirt.
Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice flat out lied in her denial about her involvement in unmasking. The Obama FBI and Justice Department officials deliberately misled FISA courts, on the premise that spying on American citizens even with flimsy or fabricated evidence was OK—if it at least neutered the Trump candidacy and presidency. Had they just told justices something like, “We present, as justification for these warrants of surveillance, opposition research compiled on candidate Donald Trump, and paid for by Hillary Clinton during the present campaign,” they likely would never have been able to spy on American citizens.
No one again will have much confidence either in the FISA courts or any rationale for spying on any American citizen. They will logically assume FISA requests are political efforts to spread dirt on the opposition—in the fashion that we now have no idea, in the era after Lois Lerner, what prompts an IRS letter in our mail. The legacy of the Obama Administration is that if one is not progressive and loud in the public sphere, he may well be monitored, audited, or investigated.
Reputations Stained Beyond Repair
The FBI may not recover its reputation. Certainly, the brand of its Washington office is shredded. Watching new Director Christopher Wray stumble about to reassure us about his reforms inspires about as much credulity as a pre-war French general touting the invincibility provided by the Maginot Line.
The Left more or less has canonized a parade of disreputable FBI officials. Peter Strzok violated almost every canon of professional conduct, in his personal comportment, in his blatant prevarication about his own text messages, and in his dogged pride in his conflicts of interest in using his authority to pursue a political agenda. His superior Andrew McCabe, according to the inspector general, likewise lied on several occasions.
So did former Director James Comey when he denied under oath the prominent role of the Steele dossier in FISA warrant applications. Leaking a classified government memo with the expressed intent of prompting a special counsel investigation is not what FBI directors do. Nor do they deliberately set up a president by not informing him that base accusations against him are the result of opposition campaign hit pieces, subsidized in part by the FBI.
FBI directors do not politicize investigations, in the manner Comey warped his conduct toward Hillary Clinton on the rationale she would be elected. Comey alone has pretty much destroyed any idea that in the near future the FBI Washington office can again be trusted to be disinterested.
Add in the conduct of Lisa Page and various other FBI officials—James Baker especially—who have either resigned or been reassigned. FBI apologists on the Left are excusing the very weaponizing behavior that they used to rant about in the days of J. Edgar Hoover—who, we think at least, never sought to alter the outcome of a U.S. election.
The Left is fine with the idea that the FBI, with a wink and nod from the CIA, can insert spies into an ongoing presidential campaign, on the rationale that embarrassing information might be collated, leaked, and thus useful to “insure” that a supposedly dangerous man would not be president. Should a right-wing FBI do the same with a candidate Bernie Sanders, reminding us that Sanders went to Moscow on his honeymoon and therefore was under suspicion, what would the Left say?
Any notions of conflict of interest are gone. The Obama Justice Department, FBI, and CIA destroyed that concept entirely. When Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton on the tarmac in the course of investigations about his wife’s likely illegal behavior or the Justice Department and FBI gave immunity to Clinton’s top aides after making false statements, all credibility was shot.
Justice Department official Bruce Ohr communicated with a political campaign’s opposition research team that had hired his own wife. The deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe oversaw the Hillary Clinton email investigation shortly after his wife had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Clinton-related political action committees. Rod Rosenstein was knee-deep in the Uranium One investigation, the Clinton email investigation, the FISA warrant applications, and the Trump-collusion mythologies. He should have been recused long ago. If Rosenstein was not recused, there is now no such thing as an idea of recusal at all.
Liberals do not care much whether Bill Clinton received a $500,000 honorarium in Moscow or that Russian interests gave millions to the Clinton foundation shortly before Hillary Clinton urged the government to approve the sale to them of 20 percent of U.S. uranium.
If there is someday a special counsel appointed to monitor the possible illegality of the Obama FBI, Justice Department, CIA and NSC, and many of its legal team proves to be Trump donors, and a few of them are found out to be veteran counsels for Trump-related defendants, or two members are caught texting their hatred for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and bragging how they had schemed to stop such a 16-year envisioned Obama-Clinton continuum, apparently no one is going to complain of any “bias” or conflict of interests.
More Norms AnnihilatedIs there still any notion of a confidential lawyer-client special relationship or disdain for stealthily taping private conversations of a client? Apparently not. Former Clintonite Lanny Davis knows the Left saw nothing wrong when the FBI seized legal records from Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen or that lawyer Cohen taped the phone calls of his own unknowing client Trump. Instead, the Left’s shrug is that if Trump was stupid enough to hire such a creepy rake, then he deserves what he gets—legal precedent and civil liberties be damned.
It used to be a progressive truism that “words matter”—as in the warning not to give voice to violent things because they may happen just because you said them. Actually, words today no longer matter at all. If they did, Madonna, Johnny Depp, Kathy Griffin, Robert De Niro, or Peter Fonda would all be socially ostracized for their threats of bodily violence to the president of the United States or his family. God forbid that such eliminationism rhetoric will spill over to the next Democratic presidency. But if it should, the Left has now lost all moral authority to condemn it.
By the same token, there is no longer any accepted limitation on presidential hate speech. No one will have a problem with calling any president a Nazi, the new Hitler, an abject traitor, treasonous, or his conduct tantamount to the mass death of Pearl Harbor, 9/11 or the Holocaust. Those who compare Trump to the worst monsters of history regularly appear on cable news and enjoy vast Twitter and social media audiences. I fear theirs will be the new standard: For every Trump Hitler who killed 6 million, we will one day hear of a new anti-Trump Stalin who killed 20 million. All one now needs to say is “President X or President Y is a threat to the United States, and so deserves what he gets.”
Security Clearances-as-First Amendment Right
We have also established a new code of behavior for ex-security and intelligence officers.
From now on, they will really never leave office. Instead, their opposition to the new administration begins the moment they become private citizens—while drawing on and sometimes monetizing their vestigial security clearances to enhance their invective against the sitting president.
Imagine the following: that as soon as Trump leaves office, a paid Fox News contributor Mike Pompeo or Dan Coates begins trashing nightly newly inaugurated President Elizabeth Warren as despicable, treasonous, or the worst something in the history of America—while still privy to some of top-secret communications of her administration. And they will wink and nod at their clearances as proof of their seriousness and of direct conduits to “sources tell me” gossip. To question why they would do so or expect security clearances at all will earn cries from Republicans of “enemies list!”
There is no longer any sense of public and private first families. If Barron Trump can be smeared and ridiculed in print and cartoons, if the president can be accused of incest with his daughter by mainstream reporters, if the first lady can be demonized as everything from an illegal alien to a former call girl, no first family is off limits. The next time a Democratic president takes office, any call for “restraint” or “have you no decency” to recreate the bubble that once protected the Obama family would be laughed at—and understandably so.
Endless Unchecked and Unaccountable Investigations
Special counsels will have no restraints. They will be sacrosanct Roman tribunes about whom any criticism will be tantamount to unpatriotic behavior. They can ignore their original mandate and wander wherever they wish on the principle that they have found their criminal and need only find the crimes by which to destroy him.
The special counsel will stock his team with partisans who hate the object of his investigation, with law firm cronies who share his views. If he fires one or two of them, he will hide the reasons for their departures and stagger their severance to avoid the appearance that they were connected—in the style of belatedly and separately disclosing the career ends of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
From now on, the accusation that a president is a traitor, a colluder, a lackey, a pimp, a whatever of the Russians, or a dupe of the Chinese, or of who knows what else, will be an accepted way to help stall an opposition administration, to smear it as unpatriotic, to use any low means necessary to achieve a supposed high end of destroying it.
Just watch soon what the Left has birthed. Thucydides, writing more than 2,400 years ago about the civil strife on the island of Corcyra, observed that “men too often take upon themselves in the prosecution of their revenge to set the example of doing away with those general laws to which all alike can look for salvation in adversity, instead of allowing them to subsist against the day of danger when their aid may be required.” They are not going to like the results when in their “day of danger” they cry foul and no one listens.