9 Comments

There's no such thing as "bipartisan"; there's only the globalist-controlled, DC Socialist Uniparty, the elite crime syndicate. If there WERE two parties, there would be "noise", outrage and action against the treason resulting from election fraud. There's no outrage because not a single one of the DC Uniparty are legitimately elected. They are ALL installed, like toilets, by the same puppetmasters, to give the sheeple the ILLUSION of choice. All of DC works for their globalist masters. All compromised. All part of the agenda. All part of the theater.

Expand full comment

Once again, my two NC RINOs screw their constituents. Hopefully Burr will be replaced in November by a true conservative.

Expand full comment

Tillis, NC Dumpster fire. Really disappointed that he would betray his constituents on his way out.

Expand full comment

Another Consequence of the Second Amendment

America was sold down the river when the 18th-century founding fathers replaced Biblical responsibilities (based upon the moral law of God) for Enlightenment rights, and nothing demonstrates it better than the Second Amendment.

Think about it: The Amendment WITH the wording "shall not be infringed" is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altogether. This is inherent nature and danger of optional Enlightenment rights versus non-optional Biblical responsibilities, such as the following:

"Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword [or today's equivalent] in their hand ... this honor have all his saints. Praise ye Yah." (Psalm 149:6-9)

"But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house [beginning with spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5:8)

Which is more potent: 1) An optional right, or 2) A non-optional responsibility?

Which is more likely to be infringed, licensed, and ultimately abolished altogether?

Which did the pre-Second Amendment Americans look to for their authority to bear arms, with little or nor infringement?

For more, listen to "The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight," delivered at the Springfield, Missouri Firearms and Freedom Symposium, at Bible versus Constitution dot org. Go to our Video page and scroll down to title.

At this same location, you will also find a radio interview Larry Pratt (Executive Director of Gun Owners of America) conducted with me on this same subject. I think you'll find Mr. Pratt's remarks especially interesting. Go to our Audio Messages page and scroll down to T 952.

See also online Chapter 12 "Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on the top entry on our Online Book page and scroll down to Chapter 12.

Expand full comment

Can’t get your article or my post to go thru on Truth- guess they don’t like so much Truth after all.

CORRUPT- GREEDY - DO NOT DO WHAT THEIR VOTERS HIRED THEM TO DO!

This is why TRUMP is ruinous to Conservatives. He is creating more DEMGOPs. We need SUPERMAJORITY. 60 strong conservative Senators to put through solid bills and override Vetos!! Not one or two- 60 Senators!! Trump is screwing w his base of voters on purpose to keep us from 60.

Expand full comment

How did Rino Murkowski not make this list? Was she absent?

Expand full comment