Sovereign Man: Don’t Forget to Vote for Yourself

Simon Black of Sovereign Man has few words for you in Don’t Forget to Vote for Yourself

The year 63 BC was an election year in ancient Rome, and an ambitious 37-year old was locked in a heated race for one of Rome’s most powerful offices: pontifex maximus.

The young politician, of course, was Julius Caesar. And he ran a cutthroat campaign against his opponents– two seasoned senators, both of whom Caesar publicly accused of corruption.

Caesar reputedly spent so much money on his campaign that, on election morning, he told his mother that he would either win, or he would have to leave Rome forever to flee his angry creditors.

The Romans didn’t invent elections; there’s evidence of voting that goes back nearly 1,000 years before Rome, to civilizations in ancient India and Mesopotamia.

And the Greeks, of course, developed the concept of democratic elections more than any other ancient culture.

(The Greeks even held ‘negative elections’ where they would vote on which former politicians should be banished for corruption and incompetence.)

But the Romans elevated elections to a full blown commercial enterprise. They were willing to spend big to win– a practice that continues to this day.

The Center for Responsive Politics recently estimated that the 2020 US Presidential election will cost a record $6.6 billion. That’s nearly THREE TIMES as much as the $2.3 billion spent in the 2016 campaign.

It’s not just the Presidency either. Even a ‘lowly’ Congressional seat costs big money these days, with a whopping $7.25 billion spent in the 2020 election. That’s double the amount from 10 years ago.

But the real cost of elections goes far beyond dollars and cents.

The biggest example is the emotional cost; I’m not sure many of us have ever witnessed such drama to the extent that has unfolded in this election.

The constant shouting and screaming, the media and celebrity shrieking, the Twitter rage… it never stops.

Countless people get behind their candidates as if their lives depend on it, with utter devotion and euphoria for their chosen one, and unmitigated hatred for the opposing side.

Things have become so crazy that couples even break up over politics.

A recent study by Wakefield Research found that 11% of couples in the United States have split up over political differences. And among Millennials, that number rises to 22%.

I find it remarkable that we allow extreme emotions for politicians (who we’ll most likely never meet) to cause a breakdown in relationships with some of the actual people who are in our daily lives.

These extreme emotions will be felt even more acutely today, and in the coming days (or weeks) as the results are announced.

Grown adults are going to break down and cry as if their dog just died. Others will hoot and cheer like they’ve just won the lottery.

And this happens every time. Every few years it’s the same cycle… the same drama. We’re told every single time that ‘this is the most important election of our lives.’

Naturally there’s an entire industry counting on us being emotional. The media sells more ads, the politicians get more votes. Billions of dollars at stake depend on us being in a total frenzy.

Look, I’m not being dismissive about elections. Obviously the people who come to power can and do have enormous influence on our lives.

They can wreck havoc and destruction, even when they’re well-meaning.

They can burden future generations with ever-increasing debts, debase the currency, regulate entrepreneurs out of business, embolden extremists, tax people’s prosperity away, and all sorts of other terrible things.

So, yes, to a degree, it’s always important.

But in the midst of all this drama is a central theme that’s almost always lost.

People tend to forget that WE have a much bigger impact on our own lives than any politicians or government.

Elections deceive us into pinning all the hopes and dreams for our future on some political candidate, like he or she is going to walk across the water and sprinkle prosperity everywhere.

But this is an absurd fantasy.

What we do matters far more– the plans we make, the actions we take, the things we do to improve our own lives.

This is like voting for yourself. And we have the opportunity to do this every single day.

Independent Sentinel: If the 40 million Christians who don’t vote did vote

The following is a guest post by Michael Neddermann at the Independent Sentinel – If the 40 million Christians who don’t vote did vote.

Every American who doesn’t want to see our beloved nation transformed into a godless, socialist, “workers’ paradise” must vote to stop the threat of the systemic Marxism that has infected our society through the efforts of today’s Democratic Party. Sadly, about 40 million Christians don’t take this threat seriously enough to vote (15 million Christians not registered; the total of non-voting adults, registered and not registered, was 102.7 million in 2016, or 44.4% of the 231.5 million eligible voters).

Those non-voting Christians are a huge percentage (44%) of the 90 million eligible Christians (all denominations). How is it possible that so many who aspire to Christian moral responsibility are so cavalier about such a consequential civic responsibility, one that has such grave moral significance? To comprehend this threat, please read the evidence at every link and compare the differences between party platforms on these subjects: abortion, marriage, free expression of religion, limited government, and preserving America’s Christian heritage.

Who should better understand the urgency of this existential threat, with its eternal consequences, than liberty-loving Christians who see the true nature of what the Democratic Party advocates as anti-family, anti-Christian culture, increasingly anti-American and anti-God (the party’s policies, not individual Democrats), and anti-civilization (pro-abortion, and tacitly approving rioting/looting/burning, often fomenting police-hatred, advocating abolishing/defunding police, etc.)? The Democratic Party is promoting Marxism.

If the threat of the Democratic Party’s systemically Marxist policies/practices and promises doesn’t motivate those non-voting Christians by itself, perhaps they will be persuaded by understanding the dire consequences of supporting that danger within the context of both of Jesus’ pledge, first, to bless those who acknowledge him publicly (in this regard, politically) and, second, to condemn those who publicly deny him:

“… everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father …; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father. …” – Matthew 10:32-33

The Democratic Party, which actually booed God at its 2012 convention, will certainly deny Jesus “before men” if its candidates control the government.

People who boo God deny that the founders actually dedicated the nation to Jesus Christ by officially, perpetually, and gratefully “acknowledg[ing] [him] before men” (“before a candid world” in the Declaration of Independence) when they referenced him four times in the document, one being an undisguised prayer (see below). That acknowledgment obligated Jesus to acknowledge our nation “before [his] Father,” thus, explaining America’s massive blessings.

The founders acknowledged Jesus as:

    1. the moral authority for independence in the Declaration’s first sentence;
    2. the beneficent source of our unalienable rights and individual political sovereignty in the Declaration’s second sentence; and
    3. when offering an undisguised prayer to Jesus (see below) for protection and guidance in that document’s concluding paragraph – yes, the Constitution (which outlaws socialism) is one answer to those prayers;
    4. all of the above is the “American Theory of Government”;
    5. therefore, we are truly “one nation under [and dedicated to that] God.”

This work is derived from my ebook, “America’s Primal Prayer: Is Jesus Christ the God of the Declaration; Did the Founders Dedicate the Nation to Him; is the Constitution Woven From Christian Fabric; and Why it Matters.” That ebook explains that we are “one nation under [and blessed by that] God” because America officially and perpetually acknowledges Jesus Christ “before men” in many ways, but specifically in the Declaration of Independence.

The reference to the “Supreme Judge of the world” in the concluding paragraph of the Declaration is a clear reference to Jesus Christ inserted into Jefferson’s draft as an undisguised prayer by the Christians in Congress, the Declaration’s actual author (because deists deny that God judges, they don’t pray). That prayer to Jesus Christ clarifies Jefferson’s less specific references to “Nature’s God” and “Creator” (in the first and second sentences) and to Congress’ prayer for “the protection of divine Providence” (in the Declaration’s last sentence), with an explicit identification that Jesus Christ is the God to whom the nation perpetually prays for righteousness using his well-known biblical title:

“appealing [praying] to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude [righteousness] of our intentions. …” [Emphasis on Jesus’ title, bracketed comments added.]

While the phrase “one nation under God” wasn’t added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, it’s an explicit reference to the historical fact of the Declaration’s Christ-based “Chain of Delegated Authority” (God>man>servants in limited government), and of that Chain’s manifestation in the symbiotically-linked Constitution as the unamendable “Liberty Equation” inherent in the American form of government—that our rights are a gift from God—which has a 240-year history of not being the theocracy the secular (godless) left falsely alleges.

Such an understanding desperately needs the political support of those non-voting, and Democratic voting, Christians. Voting would be an important way for them (and you?) to “acknowledge [Jesus] before men” and, thus, revitalize the founders’ official and perpetual acknowledgment of Jesus “before men” while also claiming Jesus’ promise for themselves by politically opposing the Democratic Party’s attack on the God-acknowledging American Theory of Government.

Consider these questions:

    • Does failing to vote at all constitute tacit support for the Democratic Party’s naked attempt to transform the United States of America fundamentally, and is that failure to vote a denial of “America’s Christian acknowledgment of Jesus” “before men” in the Declaration of Independence?
    • Will an actual vote for Democrats constitute an overt denial of Jesus “before men” such that it will mean that Jesus must deny “before [his] Father” all those who vote Democratic, including denying the nation if Democrats nationalize their denial of Jesus?
    • Will Jesus’ denial “before [his] Father,” if Democrats take us down that Marxist “path,” means that the blessing of our liberty-enhancing, a limited form of government will be changed into their Orwellian “Democratic Socialism” (aka, Marxism)?
    • What are the personal consequences for each voter or non-voter of such a denial of Jesus “before men”?

Each person must decide and vote accordingly after reviewing this information.

America needs a revival of Christian Patriotism by those who vote and who know the 40 million Christians who don’t vote (or the millions of Christians who vote Democratic) to motivate them to do their civic and Christian moral duty to vote and restore America’s historical acknowledgment of Jesus “before men” (“before a candid world”) and, thus, preserve his blessings on America, and save the nation from the godless, America-hating Marxism systemically infecting “before a candid world” today’s Democratic Party.

This knowledge will be decisive in the 2020 election and beyond if those reading this pass it on to their pastors, fellow parishioners/congregants, and family/friends, as well as to as many media personalities as possible.

Black Man With a Gun: Who Are You?

David Cole, writing at Black Man With a Gun, writes this article about letting minor irritations affect your vote – Who Are You? Unlike many others, I don’t believe that voting for a third party candidate is a waste. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. That said, a person needs to try to get to the core of what they get with any given candidate. A well-spoken, charismatic person who promises the world and looks oh-so-Presidential, but reneges on all the promises and kicks you in the face is probably not someone for whom you should vote. On the other hand, someone who comes across as an uneducated hillbilly but fights for your rights and liberty may be a good candidate.

While catching up on a podcast of Tom Gresham’s “Gun Talk,” I heard Tom say this in the last minute of Hour 3: “You don’t like his tweets?…You’re going to give up your gun rights over tweets? That says a lot about YOU.” It’s a great point, and worth discussing.

So what exactly does that say about you? What I heard was Tom suggesting that it says you’re the kind of person who would sacrifice the Second Amendment over something as unimportant as some rude comments and tweets. It says you’re the kind of person who is so sensitive to the President’s commentary that you are willing to either vote for Joe Biden, vote third party, or sit out the election (kind of the same as voting third party). It says that that you are the kind of person who values a president who “acts presidential” even more than you value protecting the Second Amendment. I think he’s absolutely right. I also think it might say something much worse.

Because to steal a phrase from the opposition, “here’s the deal”: Either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will be the next president. (Sorry, Jo Jorgensen supporters. In case no one told you yet, she is not going to win.)

So let’s do Donald Trump first. Gun people who are reluctant to vote for Trump will point to two reasons (other than rude tweets). Their first objection is that he outlawed bump stocks. We can argue the merits and demerits of that another day, but in my opinion that was never a hill worth dying on. If you think it is…well, let’s just say I understand why the President’s tweets upset you so much. Next, they’ll point out that he made comments which indicated that he supported red flag laws. He also didn’t act on it. That’s it. Those are the two anti-gun arguments commonly leveled at the President.

Now, gun folks who latch onto that last one also like to insist that statements in support of gun control are no different from actual gun control. (You know, sort of like how a certain segment of the population equates words to actual violence. But I digress.) Still, if we’re going to hold the President’s words against him, then it’s only fair that we hold Candidate Biden to the same standard, and hold his words against him. If you are unaware of his stance on guns, I suggest you click on over to and review his plan to “end gun violence.” And how is he going to end it? By enacting the most comprehensive and draconian agenda of gun control ever. Again, if you want the particulars, head on over to his gun control page and read for yourself. I’m not going to list it all out here, but it is safe to say that any gun control measure you can think of is in there. In fact, if Biden’s gun control ambitions are realized, you’ll be referring to the time when Trump took away bump stocks as “the good old days.” No one serious about gun rights can be serious about Joe Biden.

“But Dave,” some of you might say, “it isn’t really just an either/or choice. We can not vote for Trump because we don’t like him, and then if Biden comes for our guns we’ll fight!”

If you could avoid this by voting, would you?

OK, I get it. Molon labe, cold dead hands, Wolverines!…blah, blah, blah. But what that tells me is that you’re the kind of person who would rather go to war to defend gun rights than to vote to save them. That you’re the kind of person who finds the prospect of spilling the blood of your countrymen preferable to voting for Donald Trump…because of tweets, bump stocks, and and some poorly considered comments which have never been acted upon. (Also…I can’t help but notice that none of you have actually gone to war over any of those things yet. Just saying.)

If you could avoid this by voting, would you?

But if you truly favor the prospect of allowing things to slide to the point of possible bloodshed; if you can’t bring yourself to vote for rude, tweeting Trump even if it could save the nation from violent clashes over gun rights…what does that say about you? I think what it says about you…at best…is that you’ll throw the Second Amendment overboard because of some tweets and rude comments. And what it says about you…at worst…is that even though you understand a Biden gun control presidency could cost lives in defense of the Second Amendment, you still won’t vote Trump to stop it.

Is that who you are? Are you a person who would embrace and exhaust every peaceful option to defend the Second Amendment before resorting to violence? Or are you a person who would sit back and willingly let things slide until there is no non-violent option left? Who are you?

If you could avoid this by voting, would you?