May 28, 2020

The Man Of Perdition Croaketh Like The Frog

Eugenics-environmentlaism-depopulation of direct drivers=people of no value according to the World Beast Worshiping Society.
Going along to get along – not daring to “rock the boat” unwilling to stand out from the crowd of conformity.
More than ‘conspiracy’ these are the reasons for silence in the face of the pathological system; Moral Cowardice. Fear of disenfranchisement, loss of status and livelihood.
The OBVIOUS threat to all life on earth is the totalitarian global government.        READ FIRST    READ SECOND

Caritas in veritate (June 29, 2009) | BENEDICT XVI   READ THIRD

Jun 29, 2009 … … Fathers of the Church, Populorum Progressio, development of every person, Caritas in veritate, Charity, Truth, Encyclical of Pope Benedict …

The 3rd. Encyclical the Pope delivered one day before the start of the G8 summit meeting in Italy coincides 100% with the very words used in “Project Vatican”  to such a degree proving AGAIN their proposed plan to devastate the Earth and HAVE NOW…(DECEIVED)  it’s inhabitants; further shedding light upon the grievous words against man the Jesuit Order is laying forth. I urge and encourage you to greatly consider these things. The Visa (666) issue also is placed there right in front of you… The theme: International Social Responsibility for the General Economic Welfare of all mankind.

Benedict stated: “the pernicious effects of sin are evident” in the world’s current Economic System. He  singled out: the desire to achieve profits above all else as a major problem in the global marketplace: “Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as it’s ultimate end (the end justifies the means) sound familiar? it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.”

He calls for the establishment of a “True World Political Authority” to oversee the world’s economy and work for the “common good” of all people instead of economic pursuits being determined largely by the interests of financiers and international big business. He wants to remove the state’s public authorities and to re-evaluate their role and their powers for they are directly involved with the errors that have taken place. His International Political Authority is one guided by a “theological dimension.”(R.C.)





Below, I have set before you just a small portion of “Project Vatican” for you to see, read and (hear) their words set forth long before this man was set up. The world empires (Heads) our Lord has told us about relating to the 7th. (Revived Rome) and 8th will be RomeriKa and the Son Of Perdition / the “MAN” Of Sin set up in Jerusalem. (Daniel 11:45)  I am assured you shall see these things brought forth VERY SOON.

The Pope’s “3rd Encyclical” demands a True
“World Political Authority”

CONtrolling the Economical, Political, Religious World System.

“comply by attrition”.

Core of Strategy 4

Since the fall of the Roman Empire, there has been the dream of a unified / UNIVERSAL Europe. We are seeing a brand new Roman Empire reconstructed. The European Community has utilized an identification mark in cooperation with VISA Corporation. VI is 6 in Roman numerals, S was 6 in ancient Egypt and A was 6 in Sanskrit; a “hide in plain sight” strategy has resulted in the choice by VISA Corporation and the ERE of the number 666 in the implementation of this citizen accounting system. “Project Vatican’s” complete document is located further into the site.
Pope Francis will give an address to their inaugural gathering of the world’s top 500 CEOs and Time magazine’s 100 most influential people. The unprecedented meeting will take place in Rome and the Vatican on December 2-3.
The announcer  identified as Pastor Allen Joyner, of Sweet Home Baptist Church in McKenzie : “If you don’t want to stand for the national anthem,
 you can line up over there by the fence and let our military personnel take
a few shots at you since they’re taking shots for you,” the announcer said at the game versus Houston County High School, according to Facebook poster Denise Crowley-Whitfield.

The Puppets And Their Earpiece Debates


Strong Delusion I’m Afraid to Go All Around

Learn what I mean here.

“If you own this gun, or you condone the ownership of this gun for private use, you may no longer enter either of my restaurants, because the only thing I want to teach my children is love.”<<<Read More>>>

Too bad she doesn’t want to teach her children “Love.”


Man’s Laws Will Forever Fail

Nothing that man does is guaranteed, nor does he have the authority to assure the right of liberty to anyone, for any reason. It is in man’s nature to be lawless. Only the perfect laws of our Creator, Yahuweh, can place us in an eternal state of liberty.

In Vattel’s Law of Nations, a compilation of documents many believe were the cornerstone in devising the U.S. Constitution and ruling guidelines over much of the world…once upon a time, it is stated that liberty cannot be achieved without laws. The largest problem with this statement is that these are the words of man and the laws of man. They always fail.

In our struggle to “render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s, and unto Yahuweh, that which is Yahuweh’s,” we are left dealing with man’s laws and whether those laws directly contradict the Laws of Yahuweh. Regardless of how great and wonderful you think the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are, they are not the inspired words of our Creator. They are man’s words. Because they are man’s words, they are guaranteed to be broken.

In Maine’s debate about Question 3, a proposal crafted by reprobate minds, we see that one man, his billions of dollars and his many blind followers, think of themselves as gods of this world – and as such they probably are. Michael Bloomberg wants to dictate to Maine people, and of course ultimately the world, how, where and when they will be able to adequately, or equitably, defend themselves against the darkness of evil from those who have deliberately turned or been turned into continued lawlessness. Why should he or any other man be allowed to do that by anyone?

In the second paragraph of the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence, it states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Life” in part: The interval between birth and death.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Happiness” in part: Comfort, consolation, contentment, ease, enjoyment, pleasure, satisfaction. The constitutional right of men to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity, or develop the faculties, so as to give to them the highest enjoyment.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, contributes four columns, on two pages, defining Liberty. Of particular importance, to me anyway, are the following:

Liberty. Freedom: exemption from extraneous control. Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others… The absence of arbitrary restraint…

The word “liberty” includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment….It also embraces right of self-defense against unlawful violence.

For whatever man’s laws are worth to you, our own Founders acknowledged, if only for themselves, that “their Creator” (to me that would be Yahuweh) gave to us unquestioned rights – unalienable – among which are Life, Liberty and Happiness. When you examine Black’s Law Dictionary, how and why, then, have we allowed man to limit and destroy unalienable rights, including the right of a creation of Yahuweh to choose how they will defend themselves, their families and their property? What right does Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barrack Obama or any other man have to pretend to be “their creator” and limit an unquestioned right – one as important as being able to choose the necessary and proper way to defend oneself?

In the debate about Question 3, I have yet to read anybody’s suggestions, opinions or ideas that even come close to expressing the desire to migrate more closely to the unblemished Second Amendment, which must have been founded under the principal that all men are created equal, that they they are endowed by Yahuweh with unquestioned rights, including self-defense.

A Maine representative says that Question 3 is “too broadly written.” He also says everybody he knows will “begrudgingly cough up the cash” in order to “transfer” a gun in the state. That’s nice, but what about the thousands of people who don’t have any cash to begrudgingly give up to a man’s law? Are they now eliminated from, i.e. no longer created equal, the unalienable rights described above. Whoa to the delusional person who also stated that this “inconvenience” (spending money to be subjected to a government spying routine) levied onto law-abiding citizens should be no problem. Inconvenience? This is the value-weighted nonsense that dominates the mindless – even those possessing billions of dollars.

Another says that Question 3 would be a violation of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives law. Maybe, maybe not. To think that one man’s law, of which pays no mind to the foundation of “there can be no liberty without law,” would somehow have meaning to another man’s laws, of which the people did not participate in creating, is a practice in futility – it’s also a bit of insanity.

We can also read an opinion piece about the killing of people, real or staged, in Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, extolling the benefits of having lawful armed citizens in places where more reprobate minds are running loose looking for people to kill. Of the reference here is that places like malls and far too many other places are “gun-free zones.”

If I, as a creation of Yahuweh, as acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, have an unquestioned right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, how then, even when defined in Black’s Law Dictionary that rights are distributed equally among all, is it an equal distribution and opportunity for me to be able to choose how to defend myself against crazies, when man establishes “zones” where I give up my right to choose? And these “zones” are growing rapidly. Bloomberg’s intent is to turn Maine into a gun-free zone. What good is any item for protection if there is no place to lawfully use it?

We can also read the words of a Maine man, former chief counsel of Maine Gov. Paul LePage, explain about how Bloomberg’s proposal “misses the target.” The author states, “if we need to do something, let’s first identify the problem,” and then suggests crafting more laws for specific problems. Are there problems? Who decides what’s a problem. There are no laws that stop criminals from killing somebody that they have a mind to kill. Why is it then we keep pouring on of more and more useless laws? Don’t you get it……YET?

In addition to this political double-speak, the same author says that in answer to hypothetical responses to those who ask, “so, what, we should do nothing?” – his only answer, again, political double-speak, “No one is saying that.”

Well then what are they saying? What are they offering for “solutions” to the “problem?” You’ll never get them because all responses that make the media outlets come only from politicians or people brainwashed by the politicians. It is insanity and we must worship it because it’s everywhere and promoted everywhere.

We hear a lot of mumbo-jumbo, rants and diatribes from both sides – one pitted against the other in attempts to out-rhetoric the other. What a laugh. Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome of the vote on Question 3 in November, I still have lost my right to choose how to defend myself and what defense is left is limited in geographical scope. I will soon live in one giant gun-free zone. Where are any of these limits found in our explanations of unalienable rights?

As insane as the world and the people in it have become, rational thought would be that as a people we would be looking first at what caused the world’s insanity and secondly, how can we further insure that people have the right to decide for themselves? But that is NEVER going to happen.

In Scripture, in Mark 7: 6-7, we read: “This people honoreth me with lips, but their heart is far away from me.

7 But they worship me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Also in Collosians 2: 8 -“Beware lest there be any man that spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not after Yahushua.”

We see that man pretends to honor Yahuweh with lip service, but outwardly they cling to the laws and traditions of men, even to a point where those traditions and laws directly oppose “that which is Yahuweh’s.” People have come to know nothing but the fake, commandments (lies) of men and willingly find trust and faith in them. It is the focus of their lives and many don’t know it – they are incapable of recognizing it.

I have many times asked why are people all around me so blinded by the lies of men – how could they not see what seems obvious? However, in 2 Thessalonians 2, we read that for those who have not sought to honor Yahuweh through salvation and the keeping of His Commandments, “And therefore Yahuweh shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies,

That all they might be damned which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

These things were foretold by Yahushua as what it would be like in the Last Days. Surely we are in the last days as the “strong delusion” appears in too many people.

Here’s an example of someone, no doubt, operating under “strong delusion.”



Environmental Clique Eugenics Agenda Wears NO Clothes

They and their false earth salvation paradigm cannot hide from the fact that they are eugenics advocacy groups not environmentalists..Promoting economic strife, scarcity, is advocating for depopulation of people. many of them openly admitting they want their opposition, us, who use the resources for life, removed, exterminated. And their WLNs cohorts never condemn such outbursts.







The Iron Mountain Report is logical, if unwelcome, examination of the desirability of world peace. The conclusion is certainly debatable, but the logic is very clear and thorough. Conclusion: world peace is not in the best interests of a stable society, even if (doubtful) it could somehow be attained. And of course is connected to the UNEP Limits To Growth Our Global Neighborhood Earth Summit Agenda 2100 The First “Global” Revolution Agenda in play. Because Worldwide Peace through these means is the extermination of mankind. So these groups advocating for these principles are advocating for their own demise. And of course their neighbors. The nature can be at peace once mankind has been extinguished. Of course those implementing this think they get to stick around and observe their return to Genesis, or Eden..



Endless war.



We Are They And They Are Us And We Are Not Together

We are not good enough for them so they struggle to remake us into what they themselves have become. They are unhappy and I am happy. Part of my greaat pleasure is showing them their many hypocrisies.  I am not a leftist nor am I a Rightist because those are false yet identical identities. They are one and they do not even know this. Both of them want to force me to be one with them. Why would I do this when they are one with another yet do not see that? They are very confused. They have become the culture erasers. It is the evolution of European manifest destiny and genocide turning inwards upon itself. They are eating themselves. They steal our children’s minds and turn them against us. They laugh and say we will not get you RR but we have your children, and you are dying out. They have stolen the children and made them into them, they are bloodline erasers. Brain washing them with University double speak. The religion of Universalism.

They’re all universalists now. Just like G.W. Bush said a few years ago.. We’re all Roman Catholics now. And the masses don’t even know it. My culture, my way of life, my choices to be what I am and have become are not welcome in your Universalism. I protest. I protest because we cannot be who we are anymore, according to you universalists. You say that we need to be you. We must become oppressors like you and erase any who are different.

You cannot take my rejection. I do not want to be you. I am myself. I do not want to be you. But you keep coming. You are destroying who I am. You are the intolerant ones. It is not good enough for you to be you so you fight to make me you. NO! I am never going to be what you tell me to be. Never. So your only accomplishment is forcing me to be nobody. Just call me nobody living here in your no where country. Because you people trying to make all of us be you are going no where. I will finish my time here on my terms.

I will not become you. You’re just repeating what the Europeans did here to yourselves. You have turned on yourselves. Maybe it is true that their can be no happiness in a stolen land. A land stolen from the original inhabitants and then stolen from all of you by your gods. You are the landless people. I will not be one of you because none of you know who you yourselves are. You are lost within your own minds. If you cannot recognize who and what you have become why should I even expect you to recognize me. If you do not first and foremost respect yourselves how could you ever respect me? You cannot. You cannot see therefore I will not become one with you. You are deceived and have become deceivers.

You live a deception and that in and of itself is self disrespect for yourselves. I am a man and you are out to erase all men. Only men permuted transformed into humans, altered unoriginal counterfeits are to be allowed here. Fake copies of man. At least you will only remain in your lost minds sickness only until HE THAT SAID I AM THAT I AM RETURNS and ends your madness.  No I do not want to be fake like you. NO! I prefer to be Nobody sitting here in your no where land watching you all go no where.  That is where your leaders are taking you. To no place where there will be nothing for anyone. We can never be together in such a place as that. Fighting over nothing on your way to the ultimate place of  complete destruction of all life which is no where.


Johnny Allah Seed


The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the “agentur” of the “Illuminati” between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.”


Confederate General, 33rd degree Shriner, KKK leader. Albert Pike’s Statue in Washington D.C., in what is becoming known as Unjust “Judicial” Square.





Nike Ducks Civil Rights Question

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

“Today, Nike Showed Zero Respect for Its Shareholders, Zero Respect for the Rule of Law and Zero Integrity.”

Nike Signed Amicus Brief Defending Obama DOJ’s Position that Federal Law Requires Mixing the Biological Sexes in Public School Locker Rooms and Other Public Facilities in Litigation over North Carolina’s HB2

Obama’s DOJ Claims the Executive Branch Can Re-Write the Civil Rights Act to Allow People to Self-Determine Their Sex

National Center for Public Policy Research Asks Nation’s Largest Sports Apparel Brand To Explain How the 1964 Civil Rights Act Can Be Re-Written Without the Involvement of Congress

Despite Being Given the Question in Advance of Today’s Meeting, Nike Executives Refused to Answer the Question

Shareholder National Center for Public Policy Research Also Asked if the Sports Apparel Giant Will Put its Money Where its Mouth is and Withdraw from the Tar Heel State Like the NBA and NCAA; Nike Ducked that Question Also

Beaverton, OR/Washington, D.C.  At today’s annual meeting of Nike shareholders in Beaverton, Oregon, National Center for Public Policy Research General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. asked the sports apparel company if Nike believes the president of the United States has the power to re-write the 1964 Civil Rights Act without the involvement of Congress.

Nike, breaking from corporate best practices, did not accept direct questions. The company required Danhof to surrender the question in advance. Then, during the meeting, Nike CEO Mark Parker took the question, changed it radically, and asked one of his subordinates, chief sustainability officer Hannah Jones, to answer it for him.

Like a state-run media outfit, Nike rephrased the question to not only place the company in a favorable light, but to eliminate its entire purpose.

Here is the full text of the National Center’s question as provided to Nike today:

Despite the media headlines, HB2 is about much more than bathrooms; it is about the fundamental way the federal government operates. Nike’s support for the Justice Department means one of three things:

• Nike’s management believes that Congress, when it voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1972 Education Act Amendments, intended “sex” to be a mental state or belief about one’s sex not related to biology.

• Nike’s management believes that Congress, when referring to sex in 1964 and 1972, meant the term to refer to biological males and females, and that the definition of “sex” in federal law has simply changed over the years. Yet, if the definition of “sex” has changed, how did it change in federal law without Congress voting to change it and no federal court ruling redefining it?

• Or, finally, Nike believes that the executive branch can change the core meaning of federal laws all by itself.

My first question is: which of these does Nike believe?  Secondly, if Nike so opposed to HB2, would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is and pull your business out of the state? Like the NBA pulled its All-star game from Charlotte and the NCAA pulled numerous championship events from North Carolina sites, Nike could end its affiliation with Tar Heel State schools such as Duke, the University of North Carolina and Wake Forest and stop selling all related apparel. Would you be willing to do that?

Instead of asking – or answering – that question, CEO Parker simply asked Jones what Nike’s position is on discrimination and how that relates to its involvement with HB2 and North Carolina.

In response, Jones blankly stated that Nike doesn’t support discrimination and that’s why it was proud to partner with the Human Rights Campaign’s legal brief in support of the Justice Department.

“The behavior of Nike’s executives today would have been a joke, except it wasn’t funny,” said Danhof. “We posed a very serious question about why a corporation would support the Obama Administration’s effort to rewrite federal law in a way that could establish a very dangerous legal precedent, but the company clearly does not take these issues seriously. If it did, one of its executives would have had the courage to answer our question, but none did. Furthermore, the company’s restated question was an effort to claim that the National Center supports discrimination, while the company is some sort of defender of the downtrodden and discriminated. Now, that’s a joke.”

The conduct at Nike’s meeting should also be of great concern to all the company’s investors. Shareholders have one opportunity a year to voice concern and ask questions of key company executives. To neuter that process by rewriting questions and giving prepared answers is extremely disrespectful to those who invest their money with a publicly-traded company,” said Danhof. “Today, Nike showed zero respect for its shareholders, zero respect for the rule of law and zero integrity.”

“It’s easy to sit on the sidelines, but if Parker and Nike’s leadership are really so opposed to North Carolina’s public accommodation law, the company should sever all financial ties with the Tar Heel State, including its lucrative contracts with major universities such as Duke and the University of North Carolina,” added Danhof.

“I’m not surprised that Nike has jumped on this liberal bandwagon,” said Danhof. “The company, famous for its swoosh, has recently taken on many far-left social causes. For example, last year Nike CEO Mark Parker spoke out against state-level religious freedom laws. Nike also funds America’s largest abortion mill, Planned Parenthood. It appears that Nike has become a go-to corporation for liberal politicians and policy groups when they need support for leftist causes. That should alarm all Nike investors. We are a nation that is deeply divided politically. To pick one side over the other is to snub tens of millions of potential consumers.”

“Perhaps Nike’s executives remain blind to what the real legal issues are in the HB2 litigation. The Obama Administration’s Justice Department is pulling a classic bait and switch. The DOJ is using the siren song of discrimination over the use of public restrooms in North Carolina to try to wrest power away from Congress. What the DOJ is really seeking is executive authority to rewrite federal law. Viewed through the correct legal lens, companies such as Nike aren’t combating discrimination, they are supporting the Obama Administration’s goal of expanding executive branch power,” said Danhof.

Nike signed an amicus brief in the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against North Carolina claiming that North Carolina’s HB2 law, which assigns restrooms, showers and locker rooms in public facilities based on biological sex, is illegal “sex discrimination,” citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s ban on sex discrimination.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was written to ban discrimination based on race, color, religion, biological sex or national origin. It contained no provision establishing an individual’s legal right to claim a sex at odds with biology.

Nike’s position is that the Obama Administration can re-define the terms within the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If Nike’s position is upheld, a future President Trump or Clinton, and his or her successors, would have the legal precedent to also re-write any of the Act’s provisions, including those dealing with race and religion.

The National Center also asked if Nike is willing to “put its money where its mouth is” and withdraw business from North Carolina, as other sports, entertainment and corporate interests have done to protest HB2.

The DOJ is arguing that under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1972 Education Act Amendments and the 2013 Violence Against Women Act, assigning a person a sex based on their physiology constitutes illegal sex discrimination.

The National Center for Public Policy Research believes Congressional approval is necessary if the federal government is to extend the Civil Rights Act to cover individuals who identify as transgender, but choose not to actually change their gender medically or legally. Otherwise, it says, any part of the Civil Rights Act could be redefined at the whim of any president, for any reason.

In July, the National Center issued a press release criticizing the 68 companies, including Nike, that are working with the Obama Administration to give the executive branch more power in rewriting federal laws. In that release, Danhof noted:

Besides offending the sensibilities of millions of Americans and North Carolinians who don’t wish to have grown men and young girls in states of undress in the same public facility, the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeks to fundamentally alter the rule of law. Obama’s Justice Department has long sought to include self-identified transgender individuals as a protected class under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Education Act Amendments of 1972. Since the DOJ doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to rewrite laws, it is trying to seek the same result by establishing precedent with this court case. Such a result would irreparably damage America’s unique separation of powers and open the floodgates for increased executive branch control over state and local matters.

If the government is going to extend the Civil Rights Act to cover individuals who merely identify as transgender – but choose not to actually change their gender medically or legally – then that’s up to the U.S. Congress. Members of Congress are elected and accountable to the American people. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her lackeys at the Department of Justice are not. However, publicly-held companies are accountable to their investors and customers. Corporations that want to undermine the American people need to hear from these stakeholders. Every time a corporation even hints at taking a perceived conservative action or position, the liberal activist machine kicks into high gear and attacks that corporation. Conservative and free enterprise-minded folks need to start using the same tactics to go after companies that limit freedom.

And last month, Danhof questioned the executives of Red Hat – another signatory to the amicus brief – regarding the software company’s support for the DOJ’s overreach.

For more information on that meeting, see here and here.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. In 2014-15, National Center representatives participated in 69 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Nike meeting marks its 20th shareholder meeting of 2016.

Just this year, the Free Enterprise Project has been featured in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, Fox News “Cavuto,” the Drudge Report, the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the Quad City Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Chicago Tribune among many others.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a Nike shareholder.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is also prominently featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel’s new book, “The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech,” published by the Hachette Book Group.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.


Oh, Go Blow It Out Your Ass

“The state’s Air Resources Board can also now regulate bovine flatulence, as long as there are practical ways to reduce the cows’ belching and breaking wind.”<<<Read More>>>



But remember, Kalifornia is the testing ground for the rest of the country. Do nothing and soon you’ll be paying taxes on your own farts.


Redeemed By The Blood of the Lamb

Oh, Hillary. You murdering Satan worshiper. In your eyes, I am “deplorable” and “irredeemable” to your evil, lowly standards of sub-human existence. But I don’t care. All that matters to me is that I am REDEEMED by the Blood of the Lamb – that is the Son of the Creator of living things, the One who died for my redemption.

So, Hillary. Go to Hell. Go directly to Hell. But be warned, Satan doesn’t like anyone who is competition to his evil ways. Be Vewy, Vewy scared!

“Who is the judge of whether another human being is redeemable or not?

You may have seen Hillary Clinton’s ‘basket of deplorables’ comments on the news or your social media feeds in recent days.

The full quote goes, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.”

After Hillary Clinton made her “basket of deplorables” comment, she went on to describe this same group of people as “irredeemable.” Her exact quote went, “Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

Irredeemable, according to Merriam-Webster, means “not able to be saved, helped, or made better” – these people are “irredeemable” yet, Hillary Clinton wants to govern over them.”<<<Read More>>>