The Progressive Push For Popular Vote

They haven’t stopped whining since early in the morning on November 9, 2016. Despite Democrat criticisms of Donald Trump as being a danger to democracy for saying he might not accept the election results, it actually seems to be Hillary Clinton and her enablers that are dangerous to our republic. Now DNC chair Tom Perez has taken it to a new level. He’s just lying. According to the Washington Free Beacon:

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated “the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution” during a Tuesday night speech.

“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution,” Perez said during a lecture at Indiana University Law School. “It doesn’t have to be there.”

According to the article, Perez went on to whine about Hillary having won the popular vote echoing Clinton’s own comments that the election was somehow illegitimate and suggesting we look to Kenya as a model for how to create a mechanism for overturning an election. I’m not kidding. She really said that.

Despite Democrat claims to the contrary we do not live in a democracy, by design. A brief review of the writings of the Founders will demonstrate some of the things they feared most in setting up a central government was the tyranny of the majority and the states becoming subservient to a monolithic central power. So we live in a Constitutional Republic. Say it slowly with me Democrats, Re-Pub-lic. See it isn’t so hard.

Some of the primary tools by which the Framers attempted to ensure that large and more populous states, like Texas and California, could not hold undue sway over smaller and less populous states, such as Montana and Rhode Island was the method by which we elected both Senators and the President.

Well, the Progressives in the early 20th century “fixed” how we elected Senators. Much to our detriment in this writer’s humble opinion. Now elected by popular vote, Senators have lost accountability to the government of their home state. Furthermore, they have become entrenched career politicians complicit in the expansion of federal power far beyond the intent of the Founders. Yes, Mitch and Diane, I’m looking at you.

The Progressive movement grew out of the Industrial Revolution in the late 19th and early 20th century due to rapid and fundamental economic changes. Now are dealing with the second wave of Progressives. In their zeal to address the problems posed by a society undergoing significant change due to technology and the global economy,  they desire a strong central government to ensure “fairness” and solve the problems that these changes bring. This is obvious in the popularity of Left-wing darlings, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

Their new obstacle? The Electoral College. You see, the Progressives have conquered many population centers including California, Oregon, Illinois and New York. In Texas and Georgia, they have made inroads in the large urban centers. If they can remove the last remaining obstacle to a government based only on popular vote, they can nearly ensure a Progressive candidate will head the Executive branch for the foreseeable future.

To achieve the destruction of the last remaining obstacle to State subservience to the Federal behemoth, they will continue the narrative of popular vote being more important and even resort to lying as Perez did in his speech. The Electoral College is enshrined in Article II if the Constitution for an explicit purpose.

Georgia is not California. Wyoming is not New York. And as incredulous as it may seem, those of us living in states that have not fallen victim to the Progressive mindset don’t want to be governed from the center as if we have. We don’t want to regulate pet stores. A law forcing public funding of abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth would also meet with quite a bit of resistance. These are just a few examples.

In this political moment, the entire national discussion has become so polarized, it’s often toxic. The differences between the coastal blue states and vast swaths of red states in the middle and to the south have been laid bare. Are red state voters really supposed to contemplate submitting to the will of large urban populations? All because Democrats and Progressives can’t get over the fact they ran a horrible retail candidate, who is ever more demonstrably corrupt, and lost?

Thank goodness the Founder’s had the wisdom to give us one more tool. The Amendment process. As is correct these are ratified by the states requiring a high bar for consensus before an overhaul to the Constitution can be affected. May we all bow to their far-reaching wisdom and thank our lucky stars the reign of Barack Obama gave us so many Republican run states. Or on January 20, 2020, you would be almost certainly choking on the phrase “President Harris”.




Democrats Seethe After Georgia, But Still Don’t Get It

The New York Times ran a typically tone-deaf, if not revealing assessment of the state of their own Democrat Party following the special election loss in the Georgia runoff recently.

As is typical in the New York Times, the Democrats writing the piece embedded with half-truths like attributing Jon Ossoff’s fundraising to “small donations” but not mentioning that he set a record for out-of-state dollars with only 3.5% of his money coming from within the district. Nor do they mention that Ossoff was careful to never directly attack Trump, instead running as a moderate Republican to try to win the seat. That would seem to be an important point when trying to make the case that an Ossoff victory would have been an “emphatic statement about the weakness of the Republican Party under President Trump.”

But aside from the typical Times shenanigans that you just have to expect when you try sifting through their coverage, the article did touch on the “seething” dissent that is being experienced within the Democrat Party. More than one Democrat lawmaker expressed desire for new leadership, meaning they want to give Nancy Pelosi the boot:

Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the defeat was “frustrating” and urged a shake-up at the top of the party. “Our leadership owes us an explanation,” said Mr. Moulton, who voted against Ms. Pelosi in the last leadership election. “Personally, I think it’s time for new leadership in the party.”

What’s peculiar is that Moulton didn’t voice opposition to the new leadership of his party’s national committee. Tom Perez has been an abject disaster for the public relations of the party, suggesting that no pro-life Democrat need apply for any open position, and that cursing their way back to power was the best course of action.

And while we’re at it, the problem extends beyond Democrat lawmakers and party leaders. It’s also the messaging of the party’s public spokesmen in media. When a wealthy white man defeated female Hillary Clinton for the presidency, feminists were outraged. When female Karen Handel defeated a wealthy white man for a congressional seat, feminists were outraged. It belies the entire movement and Americans see it and tire of it.

And the Times itself is culpable. The day before they ran this article on Democrat seething, they ran Democrat author Jill Filipovic’s assertions that excused her party and blamed the voters:

“At what point is this not a failure of Democrats, but toxic, vindictive voters willing to elect hateful bigots?”

She really wrote that. Karen Handel is a “hateful bigot.” Why? Because she disagrees with Jill Filipovic? Because she’s a Republican? And there was more:

“Maybe instead of trying to convince hateful white people, Dems should cater to our base – ppl of color, women – to turn out. Cater to them.”

This is the kind of identity politics, the kind of divisive nonsense that has overtaken the Democrat Party. It’s become engrained in their DNA, and until there’s a purge of that bloodstream of hatred and dismissal of anyone who doesn’t think like them, it’s not likely to get better.

But don’t expect to see the Times cover that angle.

Democrats Are Setting Themselves Up For Nasty Purges — Worse Than the 2010 Tea Party Challenges

This Washington Post story gets at the problem that is before Democrats. In 2010, tea party challengers entered a series of primaries against Republicans who they thought were too compromising with Barack Obama. The challenged worked, and many of the tea party challengers went to Congress. A good number of them turned out no better than the men and women they replaced. But some have become real fighters and now make up the House Freedom Caucus. Though much derided by the media and establishment, they have been pushing the GOP back to the right.

On the Democrat side, some Democrat activists on the ground in Georgia were quite dissatisfied with Jon Ossoff. They wanted someone to lead “The Resistance, ” and Ossoff sounded like a moderate Republican. They wanted someone to savage the President, and Ossoff talked about working across the aisle. They wanted someone to deliver on progressive agenda items, and Ossoff rejected government-funded universal healthcare.

Add to that Republicans were successfully able to portray Ossoff as a puppet of Nancy Pelosi’s who would be a yes man for her. That hurt him as much as pointing out he was a carpet bagger.

Expand that into 2018. There are scores of Democrats who will run against Republicans in swing districts, and there are many Democrat incumbents who are not down with the full progressive agenda. Democrats risk nominating their own Sharon Angles, Todd Akinses, and Christine O’Donnells who scratch the itch of the progressive left while turning off swing voters. It is worth remembering that outside conservative groups did not put Angle, Akin, or O’Donnell over the finish line. These candidates pulled into the lead on the support of local partisan activists alone. It was only at the end of their races that outside conservative groups jumped into to help. That cannot be overstated here. It was the local, homegrown activists who put the wind in the candidates’ sails. And as the national Republicans tried to rein them in, the local activists pushed even harder.

Though people like Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin get blamed for these candidates’ nominations and losses, in every case the outside conservative groups they led were completely hands off until the candidates were well into the lead and even then waited until just a few weeks before the primaries. It was the local tea party activists who wanted a resistance to Obama who nominated them.

Democrats want a resistance. They want to impeach the President. They want full-blown socialism. They want to go further to the left than the tea party wanted to go right. A lot of activist Democrats are already interpreting Jon Ossoff’s loss as him not being aggressively anti-Trump enough.

The Democrat base has moved way further left than where the American public is and at a time we seem to be in a pendulum swing back to the right, that could hurt them. As they start challenging Democrat incumbents with more liberal activists and start winning primaries in swing seats with radical progressives, they risk their ability to win.

What makes this fun to watch is knowing they reject that idea and think the more radical and more militant the more likely their candidates will win. I cannot wait to watch their slate of moonbat crazy challengers.

Here’s What You Need to Know About the Left’s Overwhelming Outrage

If you dared to check my twitter mentions right now, you would find leftwing activists enraged that I accurately pointed out the phrase “least of these” in Matthew 25 refers to Christians, not the poor in general. In fact, there is wide consensus on this point through church history. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, the Venerable Bede, Augustine, Anselm of Laon, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, and many other Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant church fathers all agree. But the left is in an absolute meltdown over me pointing it out.

Their meltdown is very similar to their meltdown when Betsy Devos mentioned historically black colleges and when Ben Carson mentioned slaves were immigrants — a claim made several times by Barack Obama.

What you need to remember when you see all this outrage coming so fast and seemingly at a coordinated scale is that the surface issue has little to do with their outrage. There are ulterior motives to the outrage in all these case.

The primary motive is silence. They want to ensure that I never speak up on Christian aid to the poor again. They want to ensure that Betsy Devos self-censors on black education. They want to ensure Ben Carson self-censors on black opportunity. They want to impose self-censorship to prevent competing ideas that they resent having to rebut.

They want to be able to set narratives without challenge and rewrite facts without question.

In my case, as my twitter mentions are overflowing with leftwing outrage, it is worth noting that the reaction indicates that the other side at least instinctively understands two things: 1) they have to keep Christianity from asserting exclusivist claims, and 2) they need to keep Christianity endorsing their social and political ends. As soon as they fail at either or both, the Church becomes their most dire enemy again.

The left needs churches to demand government intervention to help the poor. If churches reasserted themselves in this area and competed against the government, they would more likely than not succeed and show that government aid in its present form is not needed. Additionally, as long as the left shuts out any voice challenging the interpretation of the social gospel derived from the willful misinterpreting of Matthew 25 they will not have to answer a host of questions about their contradictions. First and foremost, they will not have to answer for how they think the church has nebulous sexual ethics, but a precise plan for government intervention for the poor.

All the wailing and moaning over my statement, Devos’s statement, Carson’s statement, or the many statements Trump has made are all attempts to get us to shut up lest the left have to mount actual argument. They know their arguments cannot withstand the truth so they would rather never have to deal with it.

You Have Not Been Affected In Any Way, Shape, or Form by Donald Trump. So Shut Up.

Friday will mark a month of Donald Trump as President. In just over three weeks, the media and activist left have trotted out a parade of horribles. They have distributed and retracted stories at breakneck speed. But the simple, honest truth is that Donald Trump has not affected your life in any way. Those of you who are spending your time protesting him are the epitome of the privilege you rail against and are divorced from reality.

In the past three weeks, your healthcare has not gone away. Your taxes have not gone up or down. Your children’s education has not improved or declined in quality. You are no more or less safe. Not a single thing has changed from three weeks ago except the outrage.

And the outrage machine is full of overly privileged people who will not go to jail for protesting the man they would have you believe is a ruthless authoritarian. Not only that, they are so privileged that many of them are being given time off from work or school to protest. Some of them are making money to protest.

Most Americans are raising their families, going to work, going to church, and trying to get by. They are not thinking about politics 24/7. The people who are thinking about politics 24/7 are the most white privileged of all privileged people, even if they aren’t white. They are taking advantage of a system that lets them protest, press grievances, and whine all the time over something that has not affected them in any way at all. I can’t think of anything more privileged than that. They don’t even have to work — they can professionally organize and march in the streets. Must be nice.

In the real world, people are getting up this morning, getting their children off to school, going to work, and focusing on the week ahead. Donald Trump has not affected them. No part of their day has been changed by him except when they turn on the television and see some rich Hollywood celebrity complain about how rotten things have suddenly gotten. Americans in the real world have seen neither an uptick nor downturn in their lives and livelihoods. In fact, the only area that has seen a decline is in sports and entertainment where politics has encroached to an absurd degree as leftists try to ruin everybody’s fun.

If you really do think Donald Trump has, in some way, made your life measurably or immeasurably worse in the past three weeks, you might need to check your privilege. The rest of us are too busy with the real world to notice.

So shut up and join the real world. Get a job. Go back to school. And ladies, shave.

End Campaign Finance Disclosures

I have come to the conclusion that Republicans in Congress need to ban campaign finance disclosures. That does not mean they should not report them to the FEC, just that the names and addresses of contributors should be redacted and prohibited from public disclosure.

We are seeing a new front open up in the culture war and it is the ugliest yet.

A large part of the left and even some on the right have decided to harass and boycott contributors to those they disagree with. This stifles freedom.

Right now LL Bean is under boycott and its employees are being harassed because one of the family heirs personally gave money to Donald Trump and set up a PAC to support him.

We’ve seen the Mozilla CEO driven from his job because of the public disclosure that he supported Proposition 8. During the Proposition 8 campaign, there were waitresses and others who saw people come into their places of business and demand they be fired.

People used to be able to politely disagree on the politics of the day and the candidates they support. But in an age where progressivism declares all things political and all political things are engaged like trench warfare, we need to rethink public disclosures.

It opens American citizens up to harassment and discrimination based on their political views. It stifles participation in the American political system. It will only, over time, build up greater resentment.

Congressional Republicans should act quickly and prohibit the public disclosure of donors to political campaigns.

Hillary Clinton’s Presidency Has Already Failed

Hillary Clinton hasn’t won the presidential election, hasn’t been sworn in, and hasn’t taken her place in the Oval Office, but should she become president, her term has already failed.

The Democratic Party has failed, because it has hitched all its wagons to a dead horse called Progressivism. Progressivism has failed because it eats its own young like the Jacobins did during the French Revolution.

The proof of this is an astonishing article by Alan Dershowitz, the progressive, liberal Harvard law professor.

The self-described “progressive wing” of the Democratic Party — represented by radical and often repressive organizations such as MoveOn, CodePink, Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter — has become openly opposed to the nation state of the Jewish people. Increasingly, these organizations demand that their members and “allies” renounce support for Israel and for Zionism in order to belong. Using the pretext of intersectionality — a pseudo-academic theory which insists that all social justice movements, except those supportive of Jews or Israel, are inexorably linked — anti-Israel activists have successfully made opposition to Israel and support for BDS a litmus test, especially for Jews, to belong to “progressive” movements focused on a wide range of issues.

Progressive Jews have been left behind by the Democratic Party, which has dedicated itself to new underdogs, whose bloodthirsty pursuit of Israel’s destruction is no problem for those who believe in relative morality.

This was not always the case with Democrats, but the Hillary-era has no time for moral absolutes.

Fifty-five years ago, the Democratic Party was the party of social progress, national security, and the spread of democracy around the world. Republicans were the party of business, growth, national security, and a strong defense of liberty from internal subversion.

History buffs might note that both parties favored national security, rejection of Communism and the spread of its influence worldwide. They’d also notice that Democrats tended to favor a state-planned economy with equal opportunity administered by enforced, and many times class-based, rules. Both parties held to a similar moral anchor, however.

When Ronald Reagan left the Democratic Party, he famously said “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party…the Democratic Party left me.”

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

The Democrats are no longer a party of eternal causes and struggles. In the Hillary era they have become a flavor-of-the-week party. There’s no longer any room for flag-saluting, nation-honoring patriots (except, cynically, on stage, properly leashed and put away until the next event), or Israel-supporting Jews, even if they believe in everything the liberals dish out.

It’s not that the Democrats have evolved; this was a predictable outcome, like a ball rolling down a hill. In fact, Reagan predicted it. Donald Trump is the result of it. (For every Yin there’s a Yang and Trump is the “nothing matters but winning” Yang to the Democrats “nothing matters but me” Yin.).

Nearly eight years ago, Rush Limbaugh said “I hope Obama fails.” Obama didn’t fail to move the Democratic Party far into the weeds of progressivism and post-modern logical fallacies. In doing that, he absolutely and completely ensured that Hillary will fail.

Hillary Clinton’s presidency will fail. She’s spent her whole life preparing for a world absent moral foundations, beholden only to the shifting, gaslighted truths of power. Everything Hillary does will be an anticlimax, as the left devours itself until nothing remains but thoughtless tribal allegiance.

I don’t have to hope that Hillary fails. She already has.

The True Progressive

Reductionism is the practice of breaking everything into its component parts, until an irreducible form has been reached.

For example, a bullet fired from a gun is reduced to a chemical reaction, a velocity vector, explosive forces acting on the small mass of the bullet, against the mass of the chamber, gun frame, hand and ultimately the body of the person firing. The fact that the body is standing firm upon the earth, held by gravity, keeps the shooter from flinging off in the opposite direction from the bullet (although it does sometimes happen, to hilarious effect).

The forces in that scenario are further reduced to gravity, covalent bonds of the atoms in the combusting material, and the laws of physics governing force, mass and acceleration (F = ma, or Newton’s second law). Although there may be further reduction in the complexity of the mathematical descriptions of those forces and how they interact, no further reduction is available for the cause/effect of the laws governing those forces.

In other words, nobody can explain the forces that created or led to what we call the laws of physics which govern everything in our universe, from time/space, to matter, to energy. We can describe in ever-greater detail how those forces interact to produce expected, and explain unexpected, results, but we can’t go back before the laws existed because the laws themselves govern our ability to observe.

Progressivism is the belief that ever more and continual advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are necessary to improve the human condition. That, without these advances, the human condition is doomed to regression. In its most basic terms, if human society is not moving forward in particular areas of study, endeavor and application of new principles, then it will inevitably move backwards.

Unfortunately, these two -isms, reductionism and progressivism, are in conflict and produce irreconcilable logical contradictions. More unfortunately, proponents of progressivism typically use reductionism to attempt to disprove the theories and logical world views of those who oppose them, namely Christians.

To the Christian, reductionism always ends up at God, who created the universe, everything in it, and the laws which govern it. To the progressive, that end of reductionism causes great angst and anger.

As if we could somehow disprove the laws of physics, or get around them, or take control and remake them in our own image, that’s a much better outcome than living with a lawgiver who also makes moral demands upon us. Better to make society in our own image than God’s, even if God is the first cause of those things we hold to be irreducible in themselves (e.g. the laws of physics).

The progressive holds that morals are not the cause of human society, but one of many outcomes. The Christian holds that morals are one of many causes of human society, but those causes are unbreakably linked to one lawgiver, with the outcome of poor moral agency as inevitable as worldwide fresh water pollution, hunting food species to extinction, or nuclear war.

Many who call themselves Christian are really progressives masquerading as Christians. They recognize God as the creator of all things, but they do not recognize the implications of denying his laws in moral agency. In other words, these Christians accept the forgiveness, love, and sovereignty of God, but get a bit (or a lot) loose on sin.

The Bible gives us succor, rather than reason to fear. If God were not the ultimate lawgiver, both in physical laws of the universe, and in moral laws governing our own lives, we would be in quite a pickle–a more fearful situation.

Jesus said three times in the book of Revelation, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” Jesus said he is “the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” and “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev. 1:8, 21:6, 22:13.) The “End” means that God is in control of the outcome of justice, mercy, and morality. We control only our own destinies–God made the laws. We get to roll our ball down the lane; we control the force, vector, and mass of the ball. But God made the laws of motion. There will be an accounting.

Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Forever is from before the beginning of time past the end of the same. When all the energy, mass, and ability to do “work” in the universe has passed (and the laws of physics do make this a very real thing, although irrelevant to any individual life), Jesus Christ will remain. In the heart of a black hole, where we cannot observe, and the laws of physics are meaningless, Jesus Christ is sovereign.

We cannot reduce God to a moral agent. He is, in fact, not, anymore than the weak nuclear force describes a star. A star is a physical manifestation of radiation, heat, energy, and mass; the weak nuclear force is a force of nature only visible through its manifestation. God is manifested through moral agency, but He Himself is the moral lawgiver.

God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
(Numbers 23:19)

He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.
(1 Samuel 15:29)

God’s mind is the same mind that made everything. He is not subject to coercion. When God hears our prayers, he is hearing us in the same way the laws of physics allow light to change frequency based on the observer’s motion relative to the light source. God made a law of relativity based on our movement relative to His unchanging absolute. Prayer is simply a blue-shift (accelerating toward). Sin is a red-shift in the other direction.

It is not God who is changed by our changing morals, or our progressivism. Just like progressives can’t decide that gravity is in disuse and passé, or that radiation should be deprecated, they also cannot decide that God’s conception of marriage, sacrifice, mercy, or justice are no longer useful or fashionable. We can be sure that God will not change, only we (and society) will suffer or gain blessing by our choices.

God, who is enthroned from of old,
who does not change—
he will hear them and humble them,
because they have no fear of God.
(Psalm 55:19)

The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”
(Psalm 110:4)

A priest is one who is authorized to perform sacred rites of a religion, as a mediatory agent between humans and God. Jesus Christ is the God-Man, a priest and the one mediator between man and God. Christians (and this is the definition, not the self-identification) are all priests in Christ, those of us who have been changed by Him.

In our hearts, in this life, Christians are changed by confessing and believing in Jesus Christ as their Lord (lawgiver, judge) and Savior (mediator, advocate, friend). Romans 10:13: “for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'” Everyone means every human: Jew, Gentile, all creeds, races, colors, rich, poor, powerful and powerless. But those who are not saved will face the same judgment as those who are–for judgment is as inevitable as entropy. God made both laws inviolable.

World leaders only think they have power. Those who have wisdom realize they don’t have any more than any other person. King David, who really did live, passed his kingdom to his son Solomon (who also really did live). But Adonijah claimed the kingdom for himself; as a son of David, older than Solomon, his claim was valid. God had different plans.

“As you know,” he said, “the kingdom was mine. All Israel looked to me as their king. But things changed, and the kingdom has gone to my brother; for it has come to him from the Lord.
(1 Kings 2:15)

Five hundred years later, from exile and captivity, Daniel wrote:

He changes times and seasons;
he deposes kings and raises up others.
He gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to the discerning.
(Daniel 2:21)

How does one know if one is truly a Christian? Those who do not have the peace of God rail against the coming judgment. They may not fear death, but they fear what comes in this life–but most fear death. Consider this statement:

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed
(1 Corinthians 15:51)

Either it brings comfort, or it brings confusion. The Christian looks forward to the change brought by the moral lawgiver. Jesus Christ has promised us immortal, undefiled bodies that do not age, with a personal spirit and will untainted by sin, corruption, or temptation. He has promised eternal life with no pain, no suffering, no sadness, no sickness and no tears. We may not all die (although most of us will, unless Jesus returns in our lifetime), but we will all–who are saved–be changed.

Those who are not transformed and given the assurance of new life find the prospect confusing and unnatural. Those who are perishing react to what the Christian sees as assurance the same as they would if scientists suddenly announced that the sun was about to burn out, in our lifetime or some knowable time frame the future (not 3 or 4 billion years from now). Resignation, moral decay, rebellion, self-indulgence.

The true progressive is the Christian, who betters society through God’s transformation, God’s promises, and reduction of all things to God’s unchanging law and character. It is these things that improve the lot of human society upon the earth. Even Isaac Newton, who “discovered” the laws of motion, believed this.

Yet one thing secures us what ever betide, the scriptures assures us that the Lord will provide.
–Isaac Newton