Techies Critical of Crypto?

Recently 1500 tech experts signed a letter to some leading Congressional officials regarding their concerns with crypto-currencies. They come from a wide range of industry leading tech firms and organizations - Apple, Microsoft, Google, MIT, Amazon, Mozilla, Cisco, Purdue, Columbia University to name a few. I have long considered crypto to be another fiat currency that doesn't solve the fundamental problems with fiat currencies, but I thought they might provide some privacy. However, after the Fed was able to recover most of the ransom money that Colonial Pipeline paid the ransom ware attackers, I realized it provides no privacy from those that matter most. Now it seems, tech experts are saying even the technology is not all it's cracked up to be.

They say:

• We strongly disagree with the narrative—peddled by those with a financial stake in the crypto-asset industry—that these technologies represent a positive financial innovation and are in any way suited to solving the financial problems facing ordinary Americans.


• Not all innovation is unqualifiedly good; not everything that we can build should be built. The history of technology is full of dead ends, false starts, and wrong turns. Append-only digital ledgers are not a new innovation. They have been known and used since 1980 for rather limited functions.


• As software engineers and technologists with deep expertise in our fields, we dispute the claims made in recent years about the novelty and potential of blockchain technology. Blockchain technology cannot, and will not, have transaction reversal or data privacy mechanisms because they are antithetical to its base design. Financial technologies that serve the public must always have mechanisms for fraud mitigation and allow a human-in-the-loop to reverse transactions; blockchain permits neither.

Read more - https://concerned.tech/

Did the RUD Voters Break the Law?

This case was also covered by the same author in Woodlands-RUD-voter-fraud-conviction
For an overview of this case, watch Dirty Judge Reiter and the Long Knives

Did the RUD voters break the law? Let's take a look at the law on residency and how it has been interpreted by Texas courts when they have been asked to do so.

The Texas election code specifies the following requirements for eligibility to vote:
    Sec. 11.001. ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, to be eligible to vote in an election in this state,
    a person must:

(1) be a qualified voter as defined by Section 11.002 on the day the person offers to vote;
(2) be a resident of the territory covered by the election for the office or measure on which the person desires to vote; and
(3) satisfy all other requirements for voting prescribed by law for the particular election.

In Sec 11.002 it further defines a qualified voter as:
   Sec. 11.002. QUALIFIED VOTER. (a) In this code, "qualified voter" means a person who:

(1) is 18 years of age or older;
(2) is a United States citizen;
(3) is not mentally incompetent
(4) has not been finally convicted of a felony
(5) is a resident of this state; and
(6) is a registered voter.

No one disputes that Adrian met all the requirements to be a “qualified voter’ as it is statutorily defined. The dispute centers over the second requirement of Sec 11.001 – that of being a resident of the territory covered by the election. So let’s look more closely at the statutory definition of residency. Residency is defined as follows in the election code:
   Sec. 1.015. RESIDENCE. (a) In this code, "residence" means domicile, that is, one's home and fixed place of habitation to which
   one intends to return after any temporary absence.

(b) Residence shall be determined in accordance with the common-law rules, as enunciated by the courts of this state, except as otherwise provided by this code.
(c) A person does not lose the person's residence by leaving the person's home to go to another place for temporary purposes only.
(d) A person does not acquire a residence in a place to which the person has come for temporary purposes only and without the intention of making that place the person's home.
(e) A person who is an inmate in a penal institution or who is an involuntary inmate in a hospital or eleemosynary institution does not, while an inmate, acquire residence at the place where the institution is located.

To define “residence” as one’s home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence sounds pretty straightforward – until one begins to think of all the possibilities that this definition must cover.

For example, what if I own two homes in the state and spend time in both of them? What if I rent two homes in different parts of the county and spend time in both of them? What if I rent one home and own another home in the same county and spend time in both of them with no intent to divest either? What about college students living in dorms during the school year but coming to their parent’s residence on weekends or holidays? What if someone doesn’t own or rent any home in the county (or anywhere else) but sleeps between the air conditioner and the building it conditions, as one man does where our church meets, and spends his days roaming downtown Conroe? What is his residence – where he sleeps or where he spends the day? Is the homeless man disenfranchised because he doesn’t own or rent any property? How does a resident determine between two or more homes which one is his residence for voting purposes? Is it the one at which he spends more time, on average? Is it the one at which he presently spends very little time, but to which he hopes to retire one day? Is it the house he recently bought right next to work and where he stays Monday through Thursday night or is it the one he has owned for a long time, where he spends Friday night through Sunday night, and to which he intends to live full time some time? Is it the one that is owned instead of rented? Is the college student’s residence the dorm or their parent’s house?

These sorts of questions are why the law goes on to provide further clarification on how one’s residence is to be determined. The second paragraph of the statutory definition of residence in Sec 1.015 states that “Residence shall be determined in accordance with the common-law rules, as enunciated by the courts of this state, except as otherwise provided by this code.”

Although most people quickly form opinions about what home should be the “residence” for voting purposes, the opinion of the “third party man on the street” is not a component of the statutory definition of residence. The meaning of residence is to be determined by the common law rules as enunciated by the courts of this state. What are the common law rules on residency as enunciated by this state?

One place to start is the formal legal opinion on this question issued by Gov. Abbot when he was Attorney General. He writes in Opinion No. GA-0141 issued February 4, 2004:

In the leading Texas Supreme Court case of Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. 1964), the court declared that the meaning of the term “residence” for voting purposes “depends upon the circumstances surrounding the person involved and largely depends upon the present intention of the individual. Volition, intention and action are all elements to be considered in determining where a person resides and such elements are equally pertinent in denoting the permanent residence or domicile. . . Neither bodily presence alone nor intention alone will suffice to create the residence, but when the two coincide at that moment the residence is fixed and determined.” There is no specific length of time for the bodily presence to continue.

The fact that, under Texas law, residence is determined by the coincidence of bodily presence and the voter’s intention seems absurd to most reasonably intelligent people. But that is how courts have consistently ruled when asked to define residence. Abbot summarizes this in his own words, saying:

Under current law, the determination regarding “residence” thus involves both physical presence and current intention of the applicant;
For example, let us assume that two students, Student A and Student B, live in the same college dormitory. Student A, who is living in the dormitory and is therefore physically present for purposes of voter registration yet intends his residence to remain the same as that of his parents, can permissibly register to vote in the county of his parent’s residence. … On the other hand, Student B, who is living in the same dormitory as Student A yet who intends that the dormitory be his residence for purposes of voter registration, can permissibly register to vote in the county where his dormitory is located.

Quoting from another court case , Abbot’s formal legal opinion goes on to acknowledge that while the Registrar of Voters does have statutory authority under the Election Code to make factual determinations of whether voter applicants are bona fide residents of the county, they were prohibited from determining applicants were not residents of the county for any of the following reasons:

A. That such person resides in a dormitory at Prairie View A&M University;
B. That such person owns no property in Waller County;
C. That such person is a student at Prairie View University;
D. That such applicant has no employment or promise of employment in Waller County;
E. That such applicant previously lived outside Waller County, or may live outside Waller County after his graduation;
F. That such person visits the home of his parents, or some other place during holidays and school vacations.

Gov. Abbot concludes his formal legal opinion with the statement that “The intention of the voter registration applicant is crucial to a proper determination of residence, and every person is strongly presumed to have ‘the right and privilege of fixing his residence according to his own desires.’”

Although the opinion of the “third party man on the street” is not a component of the statutory definition of residence, it does figure prominently in the jury box. As district attorneys like to remind us, they can indict a ham sandwich. They can do so by controlling the flow of information to the grand jury. In the same way, by preventing this information from effectively getting to the jury and depending on the natural inclination of the man-on-the-street to rely on their commonsense opinion of how “residence” is to be defined, prosecuting attorney Mr. Glickler, with the cooperation of the judge, was easily able to get a conviction.

A few weeks before the AG issued this legal opinion, the Texas Secretary of State had also delivered a legal opinion to the governor on this identical question (Election Law Opinion GSC –1, January 22, 2004). The Secretary of State (SOS) is authorized by statute to obtain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the election code. He is required to do this by preparing detailed and comprehensive written directives and instructions relating to this code. His written interpretation of election law carries statutory weight. Obviously he can’t contradict election law, but where there is ambiguity, his understanding is the operative understanding of the code and case law.

The question the SOS was asked by the governor was, “What is the proper interpretation and application of Section 1.015 of the Code in the context of voter registration by, and “residency” of college students, …” The SOS reached the same conclusion as the AG.

His short answer is, “The definition of residence for the purpose of voter registration is well settled in Texas.” He then goes on to provide the same answer as the AG gave, drawing from some of the same case laws and a number of additional ones. After noting that residency can’t be determined by any one factor, he states,

“The majority of Texas courts have consistently ruled that residency is a combination of intention and fact, and that the voter’s intention must be reviewed to make a final determination of residence.”

A couple of other relevant statements from that opinion are:

“…we caution other officials and those conducting voter registration drives against seeking to influence the voter’s choice of a residence address. The presumption is not in favor of the parents’ home or the college home; rather, the presumption is in favor of the voter’s own assessment of the facts and his or her intent.”
“In sum, when a student registers to vote and describes his or her permanent residence in Texas for voting purposes, the presumption is in favor of the voter’s factual statement on the face of the application.”
“We note that a common complaint about students and other voters who travel is the concern that these voters will not consider the residence location on the application to be their home in the future (e.g., five years from the application date). No applicant is required to assert such a future durational intention when registering to vote. … An applicant filling out a Texas voter registration form is not required to state that the residence will be his or her home forever, or for the next five years, or even the next year.”

According to both the SOS and the AG, it is well settled that there is no need for the voter to intend to remain at the residence for any specific duration into the future and there is no duration for which a prospective voter must have resided at the residence in the past in order for that residence to qualify as the voting residence. A residence becomes the voting residence once there is bodily presence coupled with an intent to return, if absent.

Mr. Glickler argued that these principles only applied to college students and RV'ers. But that is contrary to the explicit statements in the SOS’s legal opinion. The principles apply equally to all people. There isn’t a separate principle for determining residence for college students and RV'ers from any other prospective voter. In his formal opinion, the Texas Secretary of State wrote:

No more or less can be required of college students during the voter registration process than any other Texas voter. These principles apply equally to college students as well as other voters, and no more can be required of them in order for them to register and vote in the State of Texas.

But the evidence in support of Adrian doesn’t stop here.

Adrian had several discussions with Joseph Kulhavy, who at the time was the elections attorney for the SOS, about election law and the definition of voter residence. Adrian relied on what he learned in these conversation in acquiring a second residence inside the RUD and voting in the 2010 election. In a conversation a couple of years after the election and civil trial that overturned the election results because the voters who voted against the incumbents were “fraudulent voters”, Mr. Kulhavy characterized the whole affair as “Dirty judge, dirty developer, dirty everybody,…” In fuller context his comments were:

“The decision [i.e. P.K. Reiter decision in the civil case on the RUD election] was contrary to decades of court decisions about residency issues and was really an outlier.”

“The way I read it was, Developer is mad that their nose has been tweaked by some people who were protesting the profoundly undemocratic way that property taxes are imposed in Texas, and their embarrassment is such … that they call up their best buddy, someone who has close political ties to them and say, hey Judge, we need you to make an example of these people.”

“Utterly politically motivated, intellectually bankrupt decision that could not be reconciled with the way we generally view residence. What is it about you that they would say, “When he says that’s his residence he is just lying? Excuse me! To accuse someone of fraud goes beyond saying they just misunderstood or that there has been some confusion on the law. Most prosecutors won’t touch a residency dispute with a 10 foot pole because they know that they will lose.”

“So to go so far in a civil case …[in] throwing out the election, (and excuse me, isn’t there a presumption in favor of a valid election and upholding the election results)… there would need to be extraordinary facts…..”

“Voters [in the RUD] are presumptively not eligible unless they have been vetted by the developer, given the OK, the secret handshake. [That’s] the snotty arrogance of the decision that bothered me so much.”

“Dirty Judge, dirty developer, dirty everybody, If you’re that scared, if you create such a powerful incentive to run a dirty election, then you should ask why are you developing that land that way in the first place?”

So the RUD voters have Texas case law on their side, they have the then sitting election attorney for the Secretary of State at the time calling the civil ruling that found the voters were fraudulent “a politically driven, intellectually bankrupt ruling, that trampled decades of election case law” and calling the judge who made the ruling a “dirty judge,” and they have a number of upstanding citizens in the community (some 300 apparently) who signed a petition calling for his pardon and release.

But even if all these people are wrong, there is still one insurmountable fact of law in light of which Adrian should have been found not guilty. That fact is “mistake of law.”
Adrian believed he was a lawfully qualified voter in that 2010 RUD election because:

The Texas SOS attorney for elections thought he could do what he did.
The legal opinions of the AG and SOS assert he could do what he did.
The Woodlands developers did what he did - moved 3 people into the RUD to vote in the first RUD election in 1990.
Other developers routinely did and still do the same thing.
Dirk and Kate Laukien, the people who own the building in which the RUD board used to meet, did the exact same thing – changed their voting residence to a commercial building in the RUD (and it was not even built or intended to be used as a residence unlike the Residence Inn) to vote in the same RUD election.

I would submit that is more than enough evidence for someone to reasonably believe that what they are doing is lawful.
In reaching that opinion, Adrian relied on an interpretation of the law given by two agencies that are responsible for administering or enforcing the law and an attorney responsible for interpreting election law. That should qualify for a mistake of law defense by itself. But making the case even stronger is that knowledge of the law is an element of the crime itself. To commit the crime of illegal voting, the voter must vote in an election in which the voter knows he is not eligible to vote.

If Adrian sincerely believed he was eligible to vote in the election and had good basis for the belief he was eligible, e.g. such as seeking the advice of the Texas elections attorney, then even if he is wrong about his belief, he doesn’t meet the elements of the crime which requires knowingly voting in an election in which one is not entitled to vote. This is a significant element not present is many other common felonies. Felony theft does not require the thief to “know” that he committing burglary, he just has to intend to remove the property from the premises. That intent is proven by his action of removing the property from the premises.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t agree with this law and I don’t like this law. I think there should be a residency duration requirements to be eligible to vote and that one should have to own property in the district to be eligible to vote in that district. But that is not the law. The law says there is no duration of residency either before or after registration to be a qualified voter. I do believe in the rule of law. If the RUD board didn’t like the law, they should work to change it, not use the law to their own advantage and prosecute other people who use it to their (i.e. the RUD's) disadvantage.

Also in the interest of full disclosure, I know Adrian and some of the other 10 voters, two of whom were my sons. Further in the interest of full disclosure, the polical forces driving this prosecution should be noted. After the county district attorney declined to proseute on the grounds that no law had been broken, this case would never have been criminally prosecuted without Texas State Senator Tommy Williams' personal involvement advocating prosecution by the Texas Attorney General's office. As usual, just follow the money.

Christians Are Funding Their Own Demise by Handing Their Data Over to "Big Tech"

 This is copied from Andrew Tabula's blog:

Gab has been banned from three different banks over the course of the past three weeks. We operate a legal US business. We sell a software license to our GabPRO service along with hats, shirts, mugs, and other merchandise. The latest bank told us they are terminating our account because “the media has written bad things about your business.”

The digital and economic secession and segregation is already happening and Gab is proof of that. Gab is the test case for the oligarchs, they will soon start attacking churches and Christian organizations in the same way that Gab has been persecuted for nearly five years now. Perhaps this secession will become geographic next. Time will tell, but personally I’m mentally prepared for it.

We didn’t choose this, the psychopathic oligarchs in the American regime did. We will gladly embrace it and no longer associate with wickedness and their death cult of communism and critical theory. They can keep their drag queen story hours, 87 genders, degeneracy, moral depravity, and endless chaos.

We choose our humanity, freedom, order, and Jesus.

This is, of course, exactly why those in power are attacking Gab. Tens of millions of Christians are using Gab’s services every month to unite and access an uncensored free flow of information that can’t be found anywhere else on the internet. Many of them are waking up to the wickedness of the oligarch regime and once that happens it’s only a matter of time before their system is toppled.

It’s important to understand that it’s not just Gab under attack, it’s Christianity in general. Here are some recent examples from the press:

• The Republican embrace of white Christian nationalism and the decomposing trajectory of the GOP
  
  Christian nationalism and its role in insurrection and impeachment
• Christian nationalism is a threat, and not just from Capitol attackers invoking Jesus
• Christian Nationalism Is Worse Than You Think
• New Survey Shows 3 In 5 White Evangelicals Say Joe Biden Wasn’t Legitimately Elected
• The Rise of Christian Nationalism
• Christian nationalism poses a major threat to American democracy
• How the Christian Right Helped Foment Insurrection

As you can see brothers and sisters, Christianity is under an all out assault from the American oligarch regime, but why?

The answer is simple: they want us divided against one another by race, political parties, and more because if we unite together in Christ we will topple their wicked regime to take our country and culture back.

They push this hateful concept of “white Christians dying” to demoralize all Christians. The reality is Christians of all races are the absolute majority in the United States. Imagine if we united together in Christ against the demon of communism and the wicked American oligarch regime.

We can win this war without a single act of violence.

All we need to do is build our own economy and exit their wicked system. We need to realize that the most powerful weapon we have against these people in power is not voting or violence.

It’s our wallet, our data, and our time.

Christians are funding their own demise by spending their precious time watching immoral and degenerate critical theory indoctrination in their homes. Cut the cable cord. Stop watching “woke” sports and TV. Stop making money for the Enemy.

Christians are funding their own demise by spending their hard-earned money with “woke” corporate brands like Coke who want them to be “less white.” Stop buying these products and services. Stop making money for the Enemy.

Christians are funding their own demise by handing over all of their data to Big Tech platforms and services. If you are using Silicon Valley services you are the product being sold. You are the digital serf on their data mining plantation. Stop making money for the Enemy.

If Christians realize these three things and take immediate collective action the Enemy’s entire system would collapse without a single act of violence. This is why they are attacking Christ indirectly right now as evidenced by some of the links above.

Let me ask you a question: who does the Chinese Communist Party fear? Is it the American government? The European Union? Russia? No, the answer is Jesus Christ. There are now nearly more Christians in China than there are people in the United States. Praise the Lord!

Who do the oligarchs in the American regime fear? Jesus Christ.

Christ will take dominion over China, the United States, and the rest of the world. It’s not a question of if, but when. As God’s Chosen People Christians need to unite together now more than ever and take collective action against the Enemy by exiting the existing and corrupt system to build our own.

Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
February 25th, 2021
Jesus is King

 

Dr. Roger Hodkinson gives an Edmonton, Alberta City Counsel Committee the straight scoop on COVID-19

Listen to Dr. Roger Hodkinson, one of Canada’s top pathologists, tell an Edmonton, Alberta City Counsel Committee the COVID-19 pandemic is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public” Hodkinson also pointed out that PCR tests cannot cannot distinguish between an infectious virus and non-viable genetic material and therefore mass testing should cease immediately. He also slammed social distancing and universal mask wearing as useless "virtue signaling."
Click to Play

What is Cycle Threshold and Why Is It Important to correctly interpret COVID19 Tests?

This is one of the better explanations of how the PCR (polymerse chain reaction) process works including the significance of the number of amplification cycles that are used and the adverse impact that incorrect use of the test has on fighting COVID19 infections. Click to play

A Former Communist Military Doctor's Perspective on COVID19 Vaccines

This is a barn-burner talk about the COVD19 vaccine given by Dr. Igor Sherpherd, a former military doctor in Communist Russia. With his extensive background in Soviet military bio-warfare and vaccination he is a uniquely qualified and important witness regarding the significance of the frenzied and premature development and launch of COVID 19 vaccines.

  Stream
Dr. Igor Shepherd, M.D. is currently a Readiness and Countermeasures Program Manager at the Wyoming Department of Health Preparedness and Response Unit in Cheyenne, Wyoming and is on the Wyoming COVID Response team. In this role he works with the Center for Disease Control to prepare and review Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement applications, strategic plans, progress reports, data, and deliverables. He also provides monthly briefings for the State Essential Function Partners and Health and Human Services representatives. Before working for the state of Wyoming, he worked in various other emergency preparedness jobs and also at a Nevada Nuclear Test Site for Counter-terrorism Operations where he was involved in technical research and development on national domestic preparedness and nuclear security for Department of Justice, Office for Domestic Preparedness, DHS, DOE, NNSA, DOD, DTRA, FEMA, National Guard, Tactical SWAT teams, law enforcement, first responders, and medical professionals.

His academic credentials are also relevant to the role of vaccination in pubic health:

Education:

Ministry of Health College of Advanced Training of Medical Personnel #1
Suplement certifications to doctoral degree in medicine
Epidemiology, infectious diseases, HIV/AIDS (1991 – 1992)

Russian Ministry of Defense, Central Military Hospital/Internship # 62
Military Internist: Internal medicine, C-WMD, CBRNE, radiation injuires, contagious diseases/bio-containment 3 - 4 (1989 – 1991)
Activities and Societies: Radiological isolation units. Infection control team.,

• Medical countermeasures for CWMD
• MCM and radioprotective pharma for radiological injuries
• Vaccine profiling, IL profiling, isolation ward shift work.
• Disease control and prevention.
• Advance military PPE testing and review.
• Internal medicine patients care.

Ministry of Defense S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy/Russian Federation
Doctor in Medicine
Fields Of Study: Military medicine and epidemiology, C-WMD, CBRN proliferation, military trauma, infection control (1982-1988)
Activities and Societies: Military toxicology operational team. Radiological/Nuclear response team.
Strategic Rocket Force (Faculty # 2), military research: weapons-grade organo-phosphates toxicology, effects of alpha, gamma/beta emitters/radioisotopes on GI motility. Spore-forming vs.non-spore-forming bio-elements during global warfare.

This talk was given on November 10,2020 in Loveland, CO. He has since been put on administrative leave and is under investigation. There is not one iota of anything improper in his talk that would cause any just or righteous employer to place him on administrative leave.

The Science Behind Vaccines

The problem with vaccine science which this article (linked in the title) conveniently overlooks is that there are no studies proving that vaccines are protective. While those who believe vaccines cause autism are accused of holding to an opinion contrary to science, the people making that accusation do the same thing when they believe that vaccines are protective. There are no studies done with a true placebo control group to prove that vaccines actually work – and that is an entirely separate question from whether vaccines can cause autism in some people. (Vaccine studies typically prove a vaccine is effective by measuring serum levels or by showing a better result than another vaccine. But that is not the same as proving a vaccine is protective.) The lack of data proving protection makes the traditional "risk vs. benefits" analysis, necessary to a well reasoned decision on whether or not to vaccinate, much more complex than this NT Times article would imply.

From an empirical perspective, one of the first questions that needs answered concerns the historical record of vaccine's protection. There is no question a number of diseases have been eradicated. The question is, “Are vaccines responsible for eradicating those diseases?” For example, even if one could prove global warming from temperature data, that doesn’t establish human activity as the cause of the temperature change. Correlation of two factors does not establish a cause and effect relationship between them. The same issue exists with respect to vaccination.

Leonard A. Sagan is a pro-vaccine, pro-evolution, government medicine physician who also happens to be an epidemiologist. One of his books is called Health of Nations: The True Causes of Sickness and Well-Being. It’s a fascinating book that proves a number of startling propositions drawn from his research of large scale studies regarding factors influencing health. For example:

“According to studies of the health of people belonging to an organization, ‘joiners’ show remarkably better health than ‘non-joiners.’”

Or, “the existence of a loving and supportive wife was sufficient to reduce the risk of angina pectoris by 50%.”

Since he’s an evolutionist and anti- Christian, he didn’t make the connection that those are the traits of a Christian lifestyle. He presents data showing that infant mortality is inversely proportional to the concentration of doctors. One of his more surprising conclusions is that

“The evidence suggests that improvements in the availability of medical care have played little role in reducing death rates from their historically high levels” and that “the benefits of improved sanitation have been oversold,” in “that improvements in health preceded rather than followed improvements in environmental sanitation.”

He goes on to note a number of other researchers who have reached similar conclusions.

In his discussion on the role of immunization he discusses smallpox concluding that it is unproven that the smallpox vaccine was responsible for eradicating smallpox. He said, "There is therefore reason to speculate that a decline in smallpox deaths may have occurred in parallel with the introduction of vaccination – not necessarily because of it.”

Commenting more broadly, he says later, “There is still another reason for reserving judgment regarding the contribution of vaccination to the decline in mortality.” He goes on to show that decreases in these diseases did not reduce the death rate. And in many cases the diseases were under control before the introduction of the vaccine. For example, see his data below regarding Whooping cough and measles.

Vaccines have never been proven to protect against getting infected. Twenty-five years ago I asked a doctor (a strong vaccine proponent) to show me data showing that vaccines prevent infection. His reply was that such studies would be “immoral” and therefore did not exist. That statement is backed up by “peer reviewed” articles.

Chickenpox vaccine:

“No data exists regarding post-exposure efficacy of the current varicella vaccine.” “Vaccinated persons have a less severe out break than unvaccinated” MMWR July 12, 1996/45(RR11); p. 12

Pertussis vaccine:

"The findings of efficacy studies have not demonstrated a direct correlation between antibody response and protection against pertussis disease.” MMWR March 28, 1997/Vol.46/No. RR-7, pg. 4.

Smallpox vaccine:

“Neutralizing antibodies are reported to reflect levels of protection, although this has not been validated in the field.” JAMA, June 9, 1999; Vol. 281, No. 22, p 2131

Before we can have a meaningful discussion about the risks vs benefits of vaccinations, we really need to understand what exactly the benefits actually are. But we are not even to first base on that front as we really don’t know very much about immunology, something even government medicine acknowledges:

“One of the greatest mysteries yet to be unraveled in biology is the mechanism by which the fetus… is able to survive the immunologic defenses of the mother without being rejected. That a successful pregnancy so often is the outcome seems even more remarkable since it defies the basic tenants of the field of transplant immunology.” JAMA (Nov 27, 1987), Vol 258, No 20, p2983.

Things don't seem to be much better today, at least according to Dr. Gary Fathman, MD:

“. . . the immune system remains a black box,” says Garry Fathman, MD, a professor of immunology and rheumatology and associate director of the Institute for Immunology, Transplantation and Infection . . . “It’s staggeringly complex, comprising at least 15 different interacting cell types that spew dozens of different molecules into the blood to communicate with one another and to do battle. Within each of those cells sit tens of thousands of genes whose activity can be altered by age, exercise, infection, vaccination status, diet, stress, you name it. . . . That’s an awful lot of moving parts. And we don’t really know what the vast majority of them do, or should be doing . . . , [B. Goldman, “The Bodyguard: Tapping the Immune System’s Secrets,” Stanford Medicine, summer 2011, as quoted in An Honest Look at the Historical Evidence that Vaccines Eliminated Diseases]

Government education gave us public schools- the biggest institution of atheism and false dogma in America. Government science gave us global warming - the biggest scientific hoax of the 20th century. Why should we expect anything better from government medicine? It has given us a nation of obesity, autism, and diabetes.

After all, would you trust an engineer to design a refrigerator if he couldn't explain the principles of science by which we can take heat from food at 35°F and put it into a room at 70°F? If government medicine can’t even explain, immunologically, a basic pregnancy, why should we believe their unproven immunological claims about vaccines? Maybe they are true, but as the vaccine supporters are so fond of saying, show us the data that proves it.

Some Thoughts on the Legitimacy of Conception Control [1]

Peter Allison
June 2011

---

When God created man he commanded him to fill the earth and subdue it. In other words man was to labor and to procreate. He was to be fruitful and multiply and he was to exercise dominion over the Creation. God gave Adam a helpmeet (i.e. suitable helper[2]) to help him fulfill this task. Man must take dominion in the way God ordained – through the help of a wife. Since there was no sin, there was no toil or weariness in this labor. Neither was there any pain or sorrow in conception.

But the fall brought a curse that changed this happy state of affairs. God cursed the ground for man’s sake and told Adam that he would have to toil with ground that was cursed. The labor of tending the garden to get food would not be the pure, toil-free joy that it had been. It would now involve back-breaking labor wrestling with weeds and thorns. He would eat through the sweat of his brow. The woman did not escape this judgment. God told Eve that he would multiply her sorrow and conception.

How does Christ’s work of redemption affect this judgment on men?

Christ came to reverse the curse – as far as it is found. He promised to undo and remove the curse[3]. That promise is found even as he pronounced the curse when he told the serpent that the woman’s Seed would bruise the head of the serpent. While the removal of the spiritual aspects of the curse is preeminent in scripture, the physical ways in which the curse is mitigated are also taught in scripture and should not be ignored. Physical death is conquered in Christ’s resurrection.

There are a number of lesser benefits in this life as well. By his grace, as His Kingdom has progressed throughout the earth (i.e. Daniel 2:44-45; Rev 21-22:5) a number of labor saving devices that help to remove the toil from labor have been developed. I used tractors to plow fields as a young boy. It was much less wearisome than using a horse drawn plow and infinitely less wearisome than doing it by hand. Such tools are a blessing from God that serve to reverse the effect of the curse. As Christians, we welcome and use labor saving devices. We don't say that "God commanded us to labor; therefore any attempt to remove the toil of labor is wrong." We separate labor, which God has commanded, from the toil of labor, which is the result of the fall. We use labor saving devices so that the same labor produces much more fruit and is much less toilsome. It would be sin to use labor saving devices to avoid taking dominion or to enable us to spend more of the day in idleness. But it is most proper to use them to increase our ability to take dominion for the glory of God.

What about the judgment God pronounced on the woman?

After the fall, God multiplied conception. Genesis 3:16a reads: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;” This is a significant point that few are discussing in dealing with conception control. God’s multiplication of conception wasn't a blessing, it was a judgment. Increased conception is the result of God's curse in the Garden of Eden. That's what the Bible says, not some planned barrenness zealot. But as the hymn Joy to the World says "Christ came to reverse the curse, Far as the curse is found." That includes removing the curse of multiplied conception for women. Thus conception control is actually a blessing from God in that it reduces conception. But in using conception control, we also have to remember that the command to be fruitful and multiply still stands. In other words, we must have a desire to obey God's command to be fruitful, a desire to have a quiver full, because children really are a blessing; but at the same time it is not wrong to limit conception when our quiver is full or to slow the pace of filling the quiver to lessen the sorrow associated with increased conception.

Even before the fall, Adam did not labor continuously. He labored and rested. That pattern continues after the fall. And, now that our labor has become wearisome, it isn't wrong to use labor saving devices that begin to roll back the curse in some small way. At the same time, we are commanded to labor. To use labor saving devices to enable us to spend more time lying in bed would be wrong. They are proper as long as they are not used to help us be lazy. The same caution applies to conception control. It is proper as long as it is not used to eliminate having children or escape the duty of married couples to render full obedience to being fruitful and multiplying, but only slow the pace or stop when our quiver is full.

Why Has Withdrawal Been Nearly Universally Considered Murder in Church History?

Now, what about all the spiritual giants of the past that have condemned conception control as tantamount to murder? Why was there such a universal prohibition of conception control among the reformers? For example, in his commentary on Gen 38:10, Calvin says “Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is ... to kill before he is born the hoped for offspring.” Theodore Laetsch says that in coitus interuptus, a human being is being murdered in its incipiency[4]. It is nearly impossible to find any support for contrary views on restricting conception.

A possible explanation is found in the medieval understanding of the physiology of conception. The prevalent theory of that time is sometimes called the "Garden Theory of Conception." They thought that during sexual intercourse the man implanted what today we would call a zygote in the woman[5]. In other words, they thought a living soul was transplanted from the man into the woman.

With this understanding it is easy to see why they thought conception control was murder. If a living person was being transplanted during intercourse, of course coitus interuptus would be murder. But this understanding is factually flawed. It is simply not true. What comes out of a man during intercourse is not a human life. It is only half of what is required. Conception happens inside the woman. If killing sperm was murder, then everyone that has intercourse of any kind would be committing murder because millions of sperm are killed with every union.

With this factual correction, it changes the decision one would arrive at. If I thought the Garden Theory of Conception was true, then I too would consider withdrawal murder. I think this answers the numerous Godly men of that age who said what they did.

Objections To Understanding Genesis 3:16 As Referring To An Increase In Conception

The phrase in Genesis 3:16 translated as “sorrow and conception” in the KJV is often understood as a hendiadys and translated “sorrow in conception” or “pain in childbearing.” One of the arguments commonly used against understanding “and conception” (והרנך) as referring to actual conception is that children were the fulfillment of the command to be fruitful and multiply, so therefore increased conception could not be part of the judgment. A variation of that argues that children were a blessing and therefore could not be part of the judgment for sin. This consideration seems to be the sole force moving people away from understanding this verse as referring to literal conception. I have included two samples of this line of thinking below, one from Keil & Delitzsch and the other from John Gill. Keil & Delitzsch, it should be noted, also do not buy into the hendiadys line of thinking.

Keil & Delitzsch write:

The woman, who had broken the divine command for the sake of earthly enjoyment, was punished in consequence with the sorrows and pains of pregnancy and childbirth. "I will greatly multiply (הרבּה is the inf. abs. for הרבּה, which had become an adverb: vid., Ewald, 240c, as in Genesis 16:10 and Genesis 22:17) thy sorrow and thy pregnancy: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children." As the increase of conceptions, regarded as the fulfillment of the blessing to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28), could be no punishment, והרנך must be understood as in apposition to עצּבונך thy sorrow (i.e., the sorrows peculiar to a woman's life), and indeed (or more especially) thy pregnancy (i.e., the sorrows attendant upon that condition). The sentence is not rendered more lucid by the assumption of a hendiadys. "That the woman should bear children was the original will of God; but it was a punishment that henceforth she was to bear them in sorrow, i.e., with pains which threatened her own life as well as that of the child" (Delitzsch). The punishment consisted in an enfeebling of nature, in consequence of sin, which disturbed the normal relation between body and soul. (Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament).

John Gill writes:

I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, or "thy sorrow of thy conception" (a), or rather "of thy pregnancy" (b); since not pain but pleasure is perceived in conception, and besides is a blessing; (John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)

But I don’t find either of these lines of thinking to be logically or Biblically consistent. In fact it seems just the opposite. Why wouldn’t God use as judgment what was given as a blessing? This sort of thing is seen many times in Scripture where God gives people what they want and then turns that very blessing into judgment (e.g. the quail). Labor existed before the fall and must therefore be considered as something good and wholesome. Yet this becomes a part of God’s judgment on Adam.

Rain for example is spoken of as both a blessing granted for obedience and withheld in times of disobedience and as a judgment in and of itself.

Rain in the proper season is presented as the fruit of obedience in Leviticus 26:4. "Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit."

• That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that you may gather in your corn, and your wine, and your oil. (Deuteronomy 11:14)


• The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. (Deuteronomy 28:12)

The withholding of rain is promised as chastisement for disobedience.

• And then the LORD'S wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you. (Deuteronomy 11:17)


• Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain, upon you, nor fields of offerings: for there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away, the shield of Saul, as though he had not been anointed with oil. (2 Samuel 1:21)


• When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou afflictest them. Then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk, and give rain upon thy land, which thou hast given to thy people for an inheritance. (1 Kings 8:35-36)


• And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word. (1 Kings 17:1)


• When the heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; yet if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou dost afflict them; Then hear thou from heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, when thou hast taught them the good way, wherein they should walk; and send rain upon thy land, which thou hast given unto thy people for an inheritance. (2 Chronicles 6:26-27)


• If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; (2 Chronicles 7:13)


• Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, whereby thou didst confirm thine inheritance, when it was weary. (Psalms 68:9)


• Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed.

But rain is also sent as a chastisement for disobedience by sending it out of season, such as during the harvest. (Jeremiah 3:3)

• Is it not wheat harvest to day? I will call unto the LORD, and he shall send thunder and rain; that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto the LORD; and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day: and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel. (1 Samuel 12:17-18)

Rain was both used as a judgment in the Noahic flood and it is held forth as a covenantal blessing of obedience. So to argue that hêrôn can’t be literal conception because this is also a blessing, just doesn’t pass Biblical muster.

Another argument for the hendiadys position is based on the fact that “’Conception,’ …, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception”[6]. But I find that line of argumentation somewhat circular. It’s only a valid conclusion if one first accepts (or assumes) the hendiadys position where the two terms are referring to the same thing. If the phrase is understood as two distinct entities (i.e. sorrow and conception) that will both be increased, then the fact that there is no pain in conception presents no logical bind of any sort. The judgment is not in the pain of conception but in the increase of conception. Rain is a blessing when it comes in season and in the right quantity. Rain becomes a judgment when it comes out of season or in overwhelming quantities.

This is also seen as a synecdoche representing the entire process of childrearing from conception onward[7], something which I do agree with. But that is a logically distinct question from the translation question of whether sorrow and conception are the compound objects of multiply or not.

Dr. Krabbendam (Professor at Covenant College) is an example of someone who rejects the NASB translation on this verse. He writes:

After it has become evident that in the husband there is an irrepressible tendency to be irresponsible and in the wife there is an irrepressible tendency to dominate, the question may well arise why these tendencies are not contained but so often break out into the open.

Generally speaking, reference may be made to Paul's teaching on indwelling sin in Rom. 7:14-25. Paul states in this chapter that indwelling sin of the flesh is so strong that it always and by definition will prevent the regenerate heart, with its delight in the law of God, from acting obediently as long as the latter takes on indwelling sin in its own strength. More specifically, however, reference may be made to Gen. 3:16-19. God teaches in this passage that the lives of both wives and husbands are characterized by sorrow. To the woman God said, "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception." This should not be changed, as the New American Standard Version does, in "multiply your sorrow in your conception." God wishes to say that sorrow will pervade all of the life of the woman. The force of this may not be broken. Symbolic of this all-pervasive sorrow will be the sorrow of childbirth. But this latter sorrow is not the central issue.

It serves to underscore the pervasiveness of the sorrow. This is indeed apparent in the life of the woman, in the rearing of children, in doing the menial tasks, etc. To the man God said, "In sorrow you shall eat of it (the ground) all the days of your life." Symbolic of this sorrow is the sorrow of the daily labor. But again, this latter sorrow is not the central issue. It serves to accentuate the all-pervasive sorrow in the life of the man that finds its culmination point in death.

Sorrow upon sorrow in the life of both wife and husband. Who shall deny this? It is in this context that the irrepressible tendencies of both husband and wife come out into the open. The man wishes to escape his sorrow by his irresponsibility. He has had enough for the day. So he is going to read his paper. Never mind his wife, who seeks relief after having spent a long day with the children. The woman wishes to escape her sorrow by her domination. If she only had the final say, then her circumstances would change drastically. The man escapes his sorrow in his irresponsibility. At least he thinks he can. The woman escapes sorrow in her domination. At least she thinks she can.[8]

In a later, greatly expanded edition, he writes along a similar line:

Scripture indicates that the judicial effects of sin profoundly impact the man and the woman as well, and therefore, also the marriage relationship. These judicial effects consist of a pervasive sorrow that enters the fabric of the total existence of both the man and the woman.
God begins by addressing the woman, "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your childbirth" (Gen. 3:16). The meaning of this statement appears puzzling to many, including translators of the Bible. This is evident from the NASV and the NIV. Both change the coordinating conjunction "and" into the preposition "in," "I will . . . multiply your sorrow in your conception." This supposedly removes the seeming awkwardness of having "sorrow" and "childbirth" as a compound object of "multiply," and gives the sentence an unambiguous, straightforward and understandable meaning.
However, neither the original Hebrew, admitted by the NASV in the margin, nor any rule of grammar, syntax or semantics, when properly applied, supports such a change. On the contrary, it totally obscures a much needed, vitally important, and incisive truth from view. God informs the woman bluntly and in no uncertain terms that sorrow will be part of the warp and woof of her life. It will be her ever-present companion that cannot be dismissed or ignored. The pain of childbirth, subsequently, functions as a persuasive symbol, and a constant reminder, that the sorrow will be pervasive, inescapable and at times seemingly unbearable. This interpretation appears preferable on three counts.

First, it cannot lead to the unacceptable conclusion that a woman without children thereby would escape the judicial effect of sin.

Second, it does not allow for the implication that the judicial effect is merely a slap on the wrist in view of the relative infrequency of childbirth in the individual woman.

Third, it paves the way for the much more natural explanation of the next sentence, “In sorrow you shall bring forth children,” as not merely a repetition of what has just been said, but as a further elaboration of the reality of the sorrow symbolized in childbirth. While after all each woman experiences the symbol of sorrow as a relatively infrequent occurrence, the substance of sorrow has a prevailing presence!

The judicial effect of sorrow, in short, is not a peripheral, intermittent, problem. It has a place in the very center of a woman's life. It colors the totality of her existence. And it persists throughout her life span.[9]

Another example of someone who does not accept the hendiadys position is John MacArther. I grant that just because experts believe something doesn’t make it right and neither am I arguing that I believe it because they do. However it does indicate that other teachers are thinking along similar lines.

Conclusion

In saying that increased conception is part of the curse, I am not saying that having a large number of children is a curse. Rather it is the process of conceiving and raising children which constitutes the judgment. It is a process that is attended with travail as any nursing mother who has been up all night knows. The mother who has had 5 children in 5 years, or 5 children at once (quintuplets) knows how trying the first few years are. But it passes. God works even these trials out for our good. He blesses those women who are faithful in that toil. (2 Tim 2:15). Those same mothers reap a great reward for their labor.

The blessing of a godly man according to Psalm 128 is that not only would his children be as olive plants around his table, but he would see his children’s children. An increase in conception does not necessarily translate into seeing more of your children’s children; it could simply produce a greater number of untimely deaths. Such deaths are not a blessing, although God works through such tragedies to bring good for those who love him.

Clearly, children are a blessing; a large number of children is a great blessing. But just as clearly, children, be they many or few, can also be a great sorrow if they are not raised in the fear of the Lord. For example, children who kill their parents are ultimately not a blessing to those parents.[10] There is nothing in this world that the Lord is not able to turn to dust in the hands of those who disobey. Likewise for those who repent, he can also redeem the years the locust have eaten and bring joy from the ashes.

Lastly, I do not speak often on this point. Not only do I highly respect the opposite view and believe the Lord is graciously bringing a period of increased fertility to replenish several generations of planned barrenness, but also we usually need to be encouraged to have more children, not fewer. Our tendency in this area is to laziness and avoidance of procreation. Just like people usually don’t need to be encouraged not to work too hard, neither do they need to be encouraged not to have so many children. Those families who are temporarily overwhelmed with young children, need to be encouraged, supported, and loved. I reserve the discussion presented here for those who specifically ask or to defend those who are being rebuked for sinning in not having as many children as they could possibly have.

---

Footnotes

[1] It is not my intention to deal here with the numerous theological fallacies present in many “full quiver” arguments. For example, one of the frequent claims is that God is Sovereign and has control of the womb, therefore it is wrong for us to limit conception because that would impinge, limit, or challenge God’s sovereignty. Obviously, if our actions could impinge or limit God’s actions, then he would not be sovereign, we would be the sovereign. That God is sovereign means that nothing we do can alter God’s decree one iota. For a fuller discussion of the sovereignty of God in the actions of men, see the article, The Free Offer Defended. Our failure to obey does absolutely nothing to abrogate God’s sovereignty. Our obligation is to obey God’s commands. The question we should be asking is, “What has God commanded us to do or forbidden us from doing?” See Dr. Phil Kayser’s unpublished Discussion Notes Relative to the Debate on Birth Control for a more detailed treatment of the “full quiver” arguments. [May 2017] This paper was recently published as Conception Control: Avoiding Antinomianism and Legalism. This work comprehensively covers every major topic regarding conception control,  graciously brings scriptural clarity to a lot of fuzzy areas, and is an excellent scientific resource for the thorny medical ethics around conception.

[2] Some change this to helpmate. But that is not quite what this word means. It means a helper that is meet in the sense of suitable for him. John the Baptist told the Pharisees to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, meaning fruits that were fit or suited for repentance.

[3] The new heavens and the new earth are described in Revelation 22:3 as having no more curse. “And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:”

[4] Arguments Against Birth Control, Quoted in Provan, Charles D., The Bible and Birth Control, (Zimmer Books, 1989)

[5] See for example The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second and Revised Edition, 1920. Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

“This active force which is in the semen, and which is derived from the soul of the generator, is, as it were, a certain movement of this soul itself: nor is it the soul or a part of the soul, save virtually; thus the form of a bed is not in the saw or the axe, but a certain movement towards that form. Consequently there is no need for this active force to have an actual organ; but it is based on the (vital) spirit in the semen which is frothy, as is attested by its whiteness. In which spirit, moreover, there is a certain heat derived from the power of the heavenly bodies, by virtue of which the inferior bodies also act towards the production of the species as stated above (115, 3, ad 2). And since in this (vital) spirit the power of the soul is concurrent with the power of a heavenly body, it has been said that "man and the sun generate man." Moreover, elemental heat is employed instrumentally by the soul's power, as also by the nutritive power, as stated (De Anima ii, 4).” Question 118, Art 1, Reply to Objection 3.

“In perfect animals, generated by coition, the active force is in the semen of the male, as the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. ii, 3); but the foetal matter is provided by the female. In this matter, the vegetative soul exists from the very beginning, not as to the second act, but as to the first act, as the sensitive soul is in one who sleeps. But as soon as it begins to attract nourishment, then it already operates in act. This matter therefore is transmuted by the power which is in the semen of the male, until it is actually informed by the sensitive soul; not as though the force itself which was in the semen becomes the sensitive soul; for thus, indeed, the generator and generated would be identical; moreover, this would be more like nourishment and growth than generation, as the Philosopher says. And after the sensitive soul, by the power of the active principle in the semen, has been produced in one of the principal parts of the thing generated, then it is that the sensitive soul of the offspring begins to work towards the perfection of its own body, by nourishment and growth. As to the active power which was in the semen, it ceases to exist, when the semen is dissolved and the (vital) spirit thereof vanishes. Nor is there anything unreasonable in this, because this force is not the principal but the instrumental agent; and the movement of an instrument ceases when once the effect has been produced. Question 118, Art 1, Reply to Objection 4.

[6] New English Translation, Note 47 on Genesis 3:16. From http://bible.org/netbible/.

[7] Ibid.

[8] A Biblical Pattern of Preparation for Marriage, Dr. Henry Krabbendam, 1974.

[9] Krabbendam, 2003. Unpublished text.

[10] Children murdering their parents is a great tragedy that happens with some regularity. Kathleen M. Heide  in Understanding Parricide: When Sons and Daughters Kill Parents Paperback claims 2% of murders in the US are patricide or matricide.

Some Thoughts On Senator Cruz

Senator Ted Cruz is undeniably a charismatic and gifted campaigner. But who's side is he really on? To whom is he married? What has he done politically and for whom has be worked?

Ted worked on the Bush 2000 campaign, was a key legal adviser for Bush in the Florida recount, recruiting John Roberts (later appointed Chief Justice) to the legal team, and then received a spoils role in his White House. While this indicates a close connection to the "establishment", it was his Senate record that confirmed to me he is truly an agent for the globalist agenda.

Voting records are very slippery things. Bills are created and tagged as pro-life or pro-gun so that members can vote the right way to get high marks on a particular scorecard. But often such bills have no meaningful effect on anything or can even have a detrimental effect. The meaningful votes are often the procedural votes that set up the highly publicized and reported votes or amendment votes that gut good bills. Unless one digs deeply into the congressional record, these finer points can go unnoticed.

For example, in Texas the bill that made it legal to murder unborn babies (SB319) was highly touted as a "pro-life" bill, so much so that some pro-life organizations gave a vote in favor of making it legal to murder unborn babies double credit on their scorecards. The law was passed by a supposedly pro-life, republican controlled legislature and signed by a pro-life Republican governor. Unless you actually read the bill, you would think all those dutiful pro-life members were doing the duty they were elected to do and fighting for life. Sadly it was just the opposite. Prior to the bill it was illegal to murder unborn babies in Texas. After the bill, Sec 19.006 was added to the murder statute to allow mothers and doctors to murder unborn individuals.

Cruz's record in the Senate is composed of similar tactics. Along with 30 other senators, he co-sponsored Senator Rand Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve, dubbed the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2015. Ron Paul had been introducing similar legislation into the house for a number of years. It recently started passing. However, it wasn’t until Rand got to the Senate and the Republicans took back control of the Senate that it stood a chance of passing there as well. Cruz said all the right things about auditing the Fed. For example, at a recent debate he said, “I’ve got deep concerns about the Federal Reserve. The first thing that I think we need to do is audit the Fed and I am an original co-sponsor of Congressman Ron Paul’s (R-TX), “Audit the Fed” legislation.” (video here.)

Not surprisingly, the Democrats blocked the bill and thus a 60% majority vote was needed to advance the legislation. But on the day of the vote, Cruz was absent. Yes, it is true he was busy campaigning. But Rubio (another co-sponsor) voted, and Rand voted. Both of those men were also campaigning for president but were still able to get back for this very important vote. Senator Cruz was conveniently absent for the most important vote he could make to dismantle the new world order and make good on his anti-establishment rhetoric.

He played the same sort of game with the secret TPP free trade bill. He was for it until a few days before the scheduled vote when it had enough votes to pass comfortably, then he switched and was against it. That way he could say he voted against it, while he had been promoting it all along. This is the way the game is played. Unless one is paying close attention, it is easy to miss these troubling details. People typically allow a politician a couple of deviations from their “promised” position without removing their support. But when those few votes turn out to be key legislative cornerstones for the new world order, one has to wonder.

Now what about Heidi Cruz? Her resume includes the following:

• Member, Council on Foreign Relations – if you’re not familiar with this organization, a good place to start is Shadows of Power by James Pearloff.
• Investment banker for J.P. Morgan in New York City. (JP Morgan was represented at Jeckyll Island.)
• 2000 - Worked on the George W. Bush presidential campaign.
• 2001 - Served in the Bush administration under Condoleezza Rice as Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council, as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department, and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative.
• 2004 – Member of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America whose main output was a report titled, Building a North American Community. (see for more information http://blog.dollarnoncents.com/2011/08/whats-wrong-with-trans-texas-corridor.html)
• On leave of absence as the managing partner of Goldman, Sachs & Co. Houston office for Ted’s campaign. Goldman Sachs is a primary dealer with the US Fed– one of only about 20 dealers.

She’s about as tied to the establishment as one could possibly be.

So what do we make of these facts? Who is working for the new world order (i.e. one world government and dissolution of US) and who's not is much like asking who's a Christian and who's not. No Christian acts as a Christian should in every circumstance. But just because no Christian is without sin doesn't make it impossible to discern who is for the Lord and who is not. All those not for Christ are against him. Conversely, there are many people against Christ who at times can be very gracious and giving people.

In an analogous way, many agents for the new world order can say and do good things at times. Unlike the Christian faith, the god of the new world order faith is neither sovereign nor omnipotent and there are no promises or assurance regarding their children. Converts are wooed gradually through the influence of mentors and the environment. Antony Sutton, the Hoover Institute scholar, has written a very helpful book using numerous historical examples illustrating this process of association and influence in recruiting the next generation (America's Secret Establishment, see "Chain of Influence" starting on p41). Servando Gonzalez, in his book Psychological Warfare and the New World Order, analyzes open sources using standard intelligence methods to name the handlers for every US president since WW1. This influence is indirect. No President has always done what their handlers wanted them to do in every situation. But that doesn't negate the very real impact, nor the fact that every American presidency (Reagan included) has basically followed the same agenda. This new world order influence is the key that best explains the course of American history over the past 100 years. The conservative / liberal paradigm utterly fails to account for the overall trajectory of so called "conservative" and "liberal" administrations which have typically contradicted the campaign rhetoric. The ideological liberals were as upset with Obama as the constitutionalists were with Bush.

Not everyone that works for a global, CFR connected company like JP Morgan is a supporter of the new world order. However employment at these places provides exposure to the right people and can serve as a point of entrance. It's from there that she got connected with Secretary Rice (CFR member) and served in the Bush white house. I saw this happen from the inside while a student at the US Naval Academy. The top 10-15 students in the class were invited to join an elite study group that met Saturday morning under the tutelage of a senior professor to prepare them for a Rhodes Scholarship. This is where they were exposed to these ideas. Over the course of their sophomore and junior year their thinking was influenced. While some were more influenced than others, none of the students I personally knew was really aware of the process (including myself at the time). Those that best articulated the new world order philosophy were chosen as Rhodes Scholars. Later there are opportunities for internships at the White House, Langley, or the Pratt house where thinking is influenced further.

I consider the most significant data points in Heidi Cruz's biography to be her membership on the CFR task force on the Future of North America, her senior leadership position in Goldman Sachs, and her close connection to CFR leaders in the White House. A true constitutionalist will never be invited onto a CFR task force, even as a dissenting voice. If one ever did, they, like Admiral Chester Ward, would resign in protest. Likewise, no one will ever become a senior vice president (managing director) in a CFR connected multi-national company without being ideologically supportive of the new world order. The scrutiny of the vetting process that is done for the top positions in those companies far exceeds anything I experienced for TS SBI clearances in the DOD. The White House service in 3 departments under a very senior CFR member was the ticket that got her invited to the task force. If Secretary Rice had not deemed her suitably favorable to the new world order objectives, she would have never received the invitation to serve on the task force.

Don't think the CFR tells the state department what to do? This video has the words from the horse's mouth.

In the words of former CFR member, Admiral Ward:
“Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.” (Admiral Chester Ward, Kissinger on the Couch, p. 151. 1975)

This video ties it all together.

Four Reasons Kim Davis is Not Wrong

If I had a penny every time I heard a Christian say about Kim Davis' situation something to the effect of:

"When we make laws, we will expect them to be followed. Supporting those who break the law is setting up a spiral in which breaking the law becomes accepted. Then the law has no force and is not good for anything. We can make all the laws we want if half the people refuse to follow them at any given time and it will not do any good. Laws become meaningless."

This is half correct and all wrong at the same time.
The only standard of right and wrong is the scripture. Romans 13:1 is quite clear that the only authority which civil magistrates (e.g. county clerks, senators, governors, judges, and presidents) have is what God has given them. Where God has not given them authority, they have no authority. When they speak without authority to do so, no one is obliged to hear or obey them. Romans 13 gives no exceptions.

(John 19:9-11 - And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

No Kim Davis cannot make her own law. But neither can the governor or the AG can make law. Only the legislature can enact laws. Until the legislature changes the law, she is duty bound to obey the law. SCOTUS can not make federal law and they most definitely cannot make state law. They can only apply the law to cases that properly come before them. Their rulings, such as their Obergafell decision, only apply to the specific parties in a case. Even if they rule that a person is innocent of breaking the law because the body making the law did not have constitutional authority to make that particular law, that doesn't change the law.
So what about the arguments in the linked article?

LOGIC–Imagine you worked at a restaurant, and you believed that God thought drinking alcohol was a sin.

This is not analogous. She is not an employee working for a business or boss. She is an elected official responsible to carry out the statutory duties of her office in accordance with the law. She took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of Kentucky, and all the laws created in accordance with it. Those laws forbid her from issuing marriage licenses to same gender couples. Secondly, even if the KY constitution is changed and the legislature changes the law to require clerks to grant marriage licenses to people of the same sex, ALL clerks are still duty bound to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). No government can impose a duty which God has forbidden. No government can impose a duty to obey a law which they have no authority to make. While a godly civil servant may resign when ordered to break the law of God, they are not obligated to do so.
Daniel is an example of a civil magistrate who refused to obey the law of the land and refused to resign his office as second in command next to the king. He also refused to privatize his obedience of God and disobedience of the king's decree, praying by an open window in full view of people. God honored Daniel for his disobedience of the pagan king's civil command and his example of obedience to God has been honored by the Christian church ever since. Kim Davis' case in terms of facts and law is even stronger than Daniel's situation. Daniel disobeyed the clear law of the land - a law which the King had no authority to make and which imposed no moral obligation of obedience on Daniel. Kim Davis has broken no laws - she has only defied the order of a judge commanding her to break state law. Since she was not a party to any SCOTUS case, she is therefore not legally bound to comply with the SCOTUS opinion.

HYPOCRISY–Refusing to issue a marriage license to a couple because you believe the Bible condemns their union is a difficult position for a County Clerk to take without turning into a giant hypocrite. The Bible actually says nothing whatsoever about same-sex marriage. It does say quite a bit about the issue of divorce.

Actually the Bible has a lot to say about marriage. God made mankind male and female and instituted marriage with one man and one woman. He commands married people to engage in regular sexual intercourse ( 1 Cor 7) but he condemns men laying with men and women laying with women. The Bible does allow some divorced people to remarry so it is not wrong for her to issue marriage licenses to divorced people.

CONFUSION–Kim Davis and her supporters are arguing that forcing her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples amounts to “Religious Persecution.”

I disagree somewhat with Kim Davis' position here, but forcing her to break God's law and Kentucky state law and Constitution is certainly persecution. People that attempt to force others to break the law are called tyrants and their actions, tyranny.

INTEGRITY–Staying on in a position for which you are refusing to perform the duties you were hired to perform–all while continuing to take a salary–is far from a “Christian” thing to do.

This is generally true, but doesn't apply to Kim Davis. She is doing the duties she took an oath to perform according to the laws she swore to uphold. It is the federal judge ordering her to do something unlawful who has the integrity problem. Remember Daniel's example we alluded to earlier?
I appreciate Kim Davis' stand but regret the grandstanding of some people associating themselves with her and leveraging her plight to promote themselves.