Scott Lively Ministries

A tool I created in 2002 to help clarify the true meaning of tolerance. I am now rescinding our copyright and making this graphic public domain.

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

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

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

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

However, for all his smarmy pseudo-conservatism, Yianopouloos is a symbol of the “gay right” whose celebrity is not of his own making. He is a tool of hidden forces whose purpose is to normalize homosexuality in the right wing by people like billionaire Paul Singer, There’s the danger, because the real “gay Nazis” are salted through this society as they have been in every society – the same general ratio of masculine oriented male homosexuals to femmes here as in pre-Nazi Germany. Homosexuality is a bi-polar gender identity disorder with some manifesting a dysfunctional form of masculinity, others manifesting effeminacy – with a small percentage on each side going to polar extremes, like transsexuality. Most Femmes lean Communist/Socialist. Most Butches lean Fascist. My charts on this phenomenon can be seen here: http://www.scottlively.net/2016/02/20/understanding-sexual-disorientation/

Just as effeminate male homosexuality reflects a certain recognizable demonic spirit (a flamboyant hypersexalization of all aspects of life), so the masculine version has a common psycho-spiritual identifyer: a pathological conviction of it’s innate superiority and right to control the world by brute force. This is thoroughly documented in The Pink Swastika and has been more-or-less acknowledged by the “gay” movement itself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, there is no such thing as a “gay conservative” if words have any meaning. I wrote about this here: http://www.scottlively.net/2016/07/28/the-myth-of-the-gay-conservative/

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

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

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

“Right on cue, we’re seeing a populist anti-socialism uprising across the country in the form of Tea Parties and other gatherings. I’m all in favor of these, because at this stage the movement is largely Christian sponsored and manned. However, if the movement grows to the point that secularists outnumber Christian activists and begin to assume leadership roles, its tone and goals will likely shift hard to the right and away from Biblically-grounded moderating principles.” http://www.scottlively.net/2016/07/01/my-2009-prediction-of-the-trump-campaign/

That was 2009. This week the Trump administration made it’s first big mistake in shifting from Biblically-grounded moderating principles by deciding to continue some of Obama’s policies regarding LGBT issues. My friend Peter LaBarbera wrote about that here: http://americansfortruth.com/2017/01/31/trump-triangulates-on-homosexuality-vs-abortion-aftah-condemns-decision-to-keep-obamas-pro-lgbt-executive-order/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, government would no longer be allowed to promote the legitimacy of homosexual, bisexual and transgender conduct in public schools, but students could still form student clubs based on their personal choices. Activists could still hold public parades, but government officials would be restricted from marching in their official capacity. LGBT groups could establish community organizations, but no taxpayer money could be used to create or support them…In every way that Christianity is restricted in public life, the LGBT agenda should be restricted.” http://www.lively2014runforgov.com/issues.htm#lgbt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Tell the truth without hesitation or apology.

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

2. Keep it simple but not stupid.

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

3. Trust or not trust but always verify.

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

4. Think For Yourself

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

5. See the good and bad on both sides

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

6. Restore critical thinking

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

7. Reclaim objectivity

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

8. Challenge the know-it-alls

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

9. Avoid the Tar-Babies

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

10. Be an Army of One

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

Yesterday, WND published my article: Obama’s Hitlerian Departure, which compared Obama’s anti-Trump maneuvers in his final days in office to Hitler’s response to the American post-D-Day assault on Cherbourg, France (sabotage and tactical ineptitude being the common elements). http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/obamas-hitlerian-departure/

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

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

Here’s the link, followed by my comment posted on the site: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Since Obama vowed to run a smooth presidential transition, what’s the real point of picking a tardy diplomatic scuffle with Putin? What’s the real point of setting Israel…adrift at the United Nations now? Why issue all these offshore drilling bans and new federal regulations? Why commute more federal prison sentences than a dozen past presidents combined? Why keep releasing Guantanamo terrorists when so many return to their homicidal careers? Might it be to plant political IEDs for his annoying successor…?” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article124204569.html#storylink=cpy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s an example of how the propaganda works in the American version. I’m going to use as the example a normally trustworthy conservative-leaning source, The Washington Times. From the December 26th article “Death knell sounds for Obama doctrine as Aleppo falls to Assad loyalists:” http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/25/obama-doctrines-death-knell-sounds-as-aleppo-falls/

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

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

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

One of my favorite top “Fake News” sites is Zero Hedge which recently warned that Trump will probably not be able to stop the globalists: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-18/trump-cant-stop-it-people-who-have-been-orchestrating-collapse-have-not-halted-their . I don’t know if I entirely agree with this analysis, though I do know that assuming a Trump presidency represents anything more than a fighting chance will ensure our failure.

There’s another international news story that has overly encouraged conservatives: the report that Romania’s President has rejected the leftists nomination of a Moslem for Prime Minister. Yes, that’s hopeful on one hand, but credit in the article for bringing about this result was attributed to The Rise Project, a national journalist association funded by George Soros. The Rise Project is just one of the many non-profit journalism projects around the world funded by Soros, and that should be greatly concerning to every truth-loving person on the planet. http://gijn.org/member/rise-project-romania/. https://www.yahoo.com/news/romanian-president-rejects-lefts-pm-candidate-104746509.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following article makes that case

The Truest Test for Supreme Court Nominees

by Dr Scott Lively

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

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

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

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

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

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

In comments he made in support of the American Legion’s “Back to God” campaign in 1955, which was broadcast nationally over radio, President Eisenhower stated “Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first–the most basic–expression of Americanism. Thus the Founding Fathers saw it, and thus, with God’s help, it will continue to be.” http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10414

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.scottlively.net/2016/07/28/the-myth-of-the-gay-conservative/.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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