NC Renegades

As the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio catches the attention of the national press, two other train derailments in other parts of the country have also occurred, one of which includes hazardous material.

On Monday, officials in Enoree, North Carolina are responding to a train derailment, according to Fox Carolina.

Additionally, a train derailed in Splendora, Texas near Houston leading to the death of a truck driver and the derailment of several cars, according to Houston Public Media.

Entire Article…

“As the tunnel came closer, they saw, at the edge of the sky far to the south, in a void of space and rock, a spot of living fire twisting in the wind. They did not know what it was and did not care to learn.

It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them.

The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence, that individual effort is futile, that an individual conscience is a useless luxury, that there is no individual mind or character or achievement, that everything is achieved collectively, and that it’s masses that count, not men.

The man in Roomette 7, Car No. 2, was a journalist who wrote that it is proper and moral to use compulsion ‘for a good cause’ who believed that he had the right to unleash physical force upon others – to wreck lives, throttle ambitions, strangle desires, violate convictions, to imprison, to despoil, to murder – for the sake of whatever he chose to consider as his own idea of ‘a good cause’,which did not even have to be an idea, since he had never defined what he regarded as the good, but had merely stated that he went by ‘a feeling’ -a feeling unrestrained by any knowledge, since he considered emotion superior to knowledge and relied soley on his own ‘good intentions’ and on the power of a gun.

The woman in Roomette 10, Car No.3, was an elderly schoolteacher who had spent her life turning class after class of helpless children into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil, and that a majority may do anything it pleases, that they must not assert their own personalities, but must do as others were doing.

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No. 4, was a newspaper publisher who believed that mend are evil by nature and unfit for freedom, that their basic interests, if left unchecked, are to lie, to rob and murder one another – and, therefore, men must be ruled by means of lies, robbery and murder, which must be made the exclusive privilege of the rules, for the purpose of forcing men to work, teaching them to be moral and keeping them within the bounds of order and justice.

The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan, under the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.

The man in Drawing Room A, Car No 6, was a financier who had made a fortune by buying ‘frozen’ railway bonds and getting his friends in Washington to ‘defreeze’ them.

The man in Seat 5, Car No.7, was a worker who believed that he had “a right” to a job, whether his employer wanted him or not.

The woman in Roomette 6, Car no. 8, was a lecturer who believed that, as a consumer, she had “a right” to transportation, whether the railroad people wished to provide it or not.

The man in Roomette 2, Car No. 9, was a professor of economics who advocated the abolition of private property, explaining that intelligence plays no part in industrial production, that man’s mind is conditioned by material tools, that anybody can run a factory or a railroad and it’s only a matter of seizing the machinery.

The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, ‘I don’t care, it’s only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.’

The man in Roomette 3, Car No. 11, was a sniveling little neurotic who wrote cheap little plays into which, as a social message, he inserted cowardly little obscenities to the effect that all businessmen were scoundrels.

The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge.

The man in Bedroom F, Car No.13, was a lawyer who had said, ‘Me? I’ll find a way to get along under any political system.’

The man in Bedroom A, Car No.14, was a professor of philosophy who taught that there is no mind – how do you know that the tunnel is dangerous? – no reality – how can you prove that the tunnel exists? – no logic – why do you claim that trains cannot move without motive power? – no principles – why should you be bound by the laws of cause and effect? – no rights – why shouldn’t you attach men to their jobs by force? – no morality – what’s moral about running a railroad? – no absolutes – what difference does it make to you whether you live or die anyway?. He taught that we know nothing – why oppose the orders of your superiors? – that we can never be certain of anything – how do you know you’re right? – that we must act on the expediency of the moment – you don’t want to risk your job do you?

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No.15, was an heir who had inherited his fortune, and who had kept repeating, ‘Why should Rearden be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?’

The man in Bedroom A, Car no. 16, was a humanitarian who had said, ‘The men of ability? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned.’

These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas. As the train went into the tunnel, the flame of Wyatt’s Torch was the last thing they saw on earth.”
– Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged”, p566-568

Source…

Who is John Galt?

February 13, 2023 by David Codrea

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The raid on [Jason] Kloepfer’s home, a camper trailer on a 3-acre parcel along a winding road 20 minutes outside Murphy, was prompted by a 911 call from the next-door neighbor placed just before 11 p.m,” Smoky Mountain News reports.

“’My neighbor about an hour ago started shooting off fireworks, screaming yelling he’s going to kill the whole neighborhood, yada yada, he’s discharging a firearm,’ the neighbor told dispatch. ‘I’ve been videoing all of this, but I was just gonna let it go. But I just heard his wife screaming “stop it,” and then a bunch of shots went off and now I can’t hear her over there at all.’”

Thus began a series of flawed assumptions leading to the shooting of a disabled man by the Cherokee Indian Police Department SWAT team.

This produced a shocking video that was reported on in this column last month and followed up on with a look at additional unanswered questions in this more recent column.

As part of an ongoing investigation into what happened and how it happened, AmmoLand Shooting Sports News has obtained the Calls for Service (CFS) [aka:911] dispatch recording of events as they unfolded, along with the accompanying report, both embedded below.

The above-quoted excerpt, along with the recording and transcript, offers explanations for why law enforcement responded to the scene anticipating the worst. Actions on the part of Kloepfer, the man who was shot, explain the motivation for the neighbor calling the cops on him and for the first responder mindset throughout the series of events.

What these actions don’t mitigate or excuse is the police opening fire on him immediately after he emerged unarmed from his trailer with his hands raised and his wife directly behind him.

More…

To see congress wiped out in one fail swoop would be like a dream come true.

Most people do not know what public virtue is or why it is important to a Republic. As we saw over the weekend, people value their egos over fighting evil. Wes’s article today reflects my frustration as well. Does anyone think that arguing jots and tittles will win this war? What did the colonists need to win our War for Independence?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” –Alexis de Tocqueville”

Did we cease to be good? The evil in this country is not divided but the “good” side is splintered. If you consider yourself to be good, what is the purpose of sowing division? Are arguments and egos worth our children’s future Liberty? When was the last time that you considered virtue or being a virtuous man?

Consider:

John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”^[1] Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free. Virtue is an inner commitment and voluntary outward obedience to principles of truth and moral law. Private virtue is the character to govern oneself according to moral law at all times. Public virtue is the character to voluntarily sacrifice or subjugate personal wants for the greater good of other individuals or the community. Specific moral virtues include charity, justice, courage, temperance, reverence, prudence, and honesty. These virtues are the moral fiber and moving force to act in accordance with wisdom.

^[1] John Adams, “Letter from John Adams to Massachusetts Militia,” 11 October 1798.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is public virtue and why it is essential for a free Republic? Here is a good primer:

Modern Americans have long since forgotten the heated and sometimes violent debates which took place in the thirteen colonies between 1775 and 1776 over the issue of morality. For many thousands of Americans the big question of independence hung precariously on the single, slender thread of whether or not the people were sufficiently “virtuous and moral” to govern themselves. Self-government was generally referred to as “republicanism,” and it was universally acknowledged that a corrupt and selfish people could never make the principles of republicanism operate successfully. As Franklin wrote:

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What does it mean to be a virtuous people?

Public virtue is a very special quality of human maturity in character and service closely akin to the Golden Rule. It is agreeing to forego some personal advantage for the betterment of one’s neighbor and society. As a modern historian epitomized it:

“In a Republic, however, each man must somehow be persuaded to submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the whole. This willingness of the individual to sacrifice his private interest for the good of the community — such patriotism or love of country — the eighteenth century termed public virtue…. The eighteenth century mind was thoroughly convinced that a popularly based government ‘cannot be supported without virtue’.”

When the colonists passed the non-importation acts, it meant that some businessmen could lose their businesses because the very products they were selling could only be obtained from the British. However, they felt the sacrifice was necessary for the eventual good of the entire nation.  That is public virtue.

Source…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Every schoolboy knew the definition of public virtue in colonial times. It was stressed in primary schools in the early 1800s because it was essential in order to “keep the Republic”.

The real revolution was in the hearts of the people toward virtue

It is instructive to study the years immediately prior to the beginnings of the Revolutionary War. Historian Gordon Wood in his book, The Creation of the American Republic, explains:

In the eyes of the Whigs, the two or three years before the Declaration of Independence always appears to be the great period of the Revolution, the time of greatest denial and cohesion, when men ceased to extort and abuse one another, when families and communities seemed peculiarly united, when the courts were wonderfully free of that constant bickering over land and credit that had dominated their colonial life.

These voluntary acts of public virtue accelerated the movement toward independence. Many Americans became so impressed with the improvement in the quality of life as a result of the reform movement that they were afraid they might lose it if they did not hurriedly separate from the corrupting influence of British manners. Young James Madison gloried in the atmosphere of national purpose, saying that “a spirit of liberty and patriotism animates all degrees and denominations of men.”

Source…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The people who planned the overthrow of the Republic understood why public virtue had to be eliminated. This is why very few people have even heard of the concept. The comments on articles here show the complete lack of understanding of public virtue. They would rather argue over jots and tittles as the Republic’s ashes are transformed into a dystopian nightmare of evil.

Consider the comments on Wes’s article and compare them to the comments on Peace Be Upon Us and Question with Boldness. I spend too much time moderating comments but it is necessary to gather information on the people who monitor this site. And that is all I will say on the subject.

Let’s focus on where we are:

1. We are in a civil war.
2. This civil war is based on good vs. evil.
3. This will be a religious war as all such wars are.
4. If our faith and public virtue are not strong enough, we will lose.
5. If we lose, we lose everything: God, property, family, honor and Liberty.
6. If we do not stop fighting among ourselves, we will lose.
7. If we do not stand up and fight evil, we will lose.
8. Voting will not solve our problems: it is a crux to appease evil and enable our apathy.
9. If we do understand our own history, we will lose.
10. If we do a firm reliance on Divine Providence, we will lose.

If I had the appropriate words to convince people that our future is in peril from those who profess to be good, I would probably be a politician. And I would not wish that fate on any righteous man. We are a divided nation and that is due to being manipulated by evil and by good people without public virtue. Maybe the answer is as simple as “let’s agree to disagree” and then engage the real enemy.

David DeGerolamo

Here’s an Idea! Let’s keep fighting amongst ourselves about anything except the Evil we are faced with.

I am sick and tired of the comment section turning into a dumpster fire over who has the better religion. I am sick and tired of the comment section being used to prove who is the most intelligent person in the room.

I am tired of debating religion. Here’s a thought, how about we debate religion after we vanquish the evil we are faced with?

We are all on the same team here. I would venture to guess most people that visit this site agree on about 98% of things, yet all we do is bicker back and forth about stuff that honestly is not going to help us in this fight against evil. If we dedicated as much energy fighting evil as we do fighting against ourselves, we might get somewhere.

It seems people just want to fight each other over anything. It is much easier to transfer anger to something other than what needs to be addressed. I can write an article, not mention anything at all about religion and the comment section will erupt into a religious debate. It is frustrating. It seems we’d rather debate anything other than how to vanquish this evil we are faced with.

Most of our society is more concerned about professional Sportsball than anything else. It is sad how quickly people returned to watching the NFL after so many swore it off during the Obama era due to all their kneeling and BLM garbage. Seems people just want an escape from the real-world problems we are faced with. Bread and Circuses, instead of swinging politicians from lamppost.

Apathy will not defeat Evil. Voting will not defeat Evil. We have but one choice left to us and that is to Fight! But it seems the only fighting we are willing to do is against ourselves.

We outnumber these evil bastards who have stolen our country from us. If we would stand together, we could easily defeat them. But we’d rather debate whose God is the real God. We’d rather debate the proper spelling of God’s name than even consider fighting back against evil. We’d rather try and look smart by quoting every verse in the bible to prove a point than actually sit down and consider how we combat this Evil.

Fear is controlling our lives. It is a fear of the unknown that keep us from getting serious about how to fight this evil. We are too worried about what comes after. Will our lives be as comfortable should we win? How comfortable do you think they’ll be should we continue to do nothing? We have to quit being a slave to fear. Fear of losing our jobs, income, comfort, friends, home, personal freedom and yes, maybe even life itself. We have to quit holding these things more dear than Liberty itself. None of these things matter if we don’t have Freedom.

Look, I know I’m not the smartest person in the room. I freely and openly admit that. Most of you that visit here are way more knowledgeable on every subject I write about than I. But I have tried to fight this evil. I have been in the belly of the beast. I have done everything that people say should be done to reign in this tyrannical government. I am here to tell you we have only one option left. You know it. You’re just afraid to admit it. The average “reasonable” person goes far out of their way on every occasion to avoid violence. But this evil will not be vanquished without violence. You can’t vote at evil! All revolutions begin in the minds and hearts of so-called “outsiders” and you don’t get much more outsider than me. I don’t care if you agree with me or not on the usefulness of violence against evil, because it is coming regardless what you believe. Make no mistake, one day each and every one of us will be faced with a choice, either to fight, or to throw our hands in the air, surrender, and pray they don’t shoot us anyway.

But let’s ignore what I’ve said and debate Religion in the comment section.

Meanwhile Evil is laughing at us.

Wes

Did you know that there are four types of love found in the Bible? Over the years, scholars have broken down the text of the Bible and divided each example of love into one of our categories: Eros, Storge, Philia, and Agape. These four words are Greek for different kinds of love.

Eros in the Bible

Pronounced AIR-os, Eros is what we would call romantic love. This includes love found in Song of Solomon or even in unhealthy places mentioned where sex and sexual immorality become an idol for certain communities.

Storge in the Bible

Pronounced stor-JAY, Storge refers to love between family members. Think of how many examples of Storge you can find in the Bible between the many families mentioned: Noah and his children, fathers and mothers devoted to their children, Ruth and Naomi to name a few!

Philia in the Bible

Have you ever heard the city of Philadelphia referred to as the city of “Brotherly Love?” That’s because this form of love is Greek for the deep, emotional bonds that connect two people. Often this is exemplified in friendship, but really it is also extended to those who show love and care for others out of their love for their neighbor. We see examples of this kind of love between figures like David and Jonathan or even in John 13:35 — “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples if you love one another.”

Agape in the Bible

The highest and most noble form of love is reserved for the love that God has for us. Agape, pronounced uh-GAH-pay, is what Jesus demonstrated on the cross for us by sacrificing his life and taking on the entire burden of sin for all mankind so that we could have life everlasting with Him in Heaven.

More…

I wrote an article in 2015 concerning Matthew 5:43-48. These verses are often quoted to show love to everyone. Words have meaning and so do translations. We find ourselves in times of war where our enemies are both foreign and domestic. Our domestic enemies now control the government after usurping several elections.

What are their goals? They want to control every aspect of our lives: freedom, education, religion, health (death) care and lawfare. Let me make this simple: they want to replace God with government. They are the enemy and they are not to be loved; they are to be fought as all evil needs to be fought.

If your enemy is against God, they are not to be loved. Consider the following pin from Planned Parenthood:

This pin was worn by some Democrat Congressmen at the 2023 State of the Union address. What kind of evil would show love for destroying innocent unborn lives? These are not our neighbors who have temporarily gone astray from the village and will return to be a good neighbor in the future. They do not deserve our love or support.

We are in a civil war in this country. Once side is serious and is attacking everything and everybody based on whatever they decide. The other side is practicing insanity by doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results (voting). What happens when our side realizes that they want us dead? What happens when we realize they want our children enslaved, sterilized and indoctrinated?

What happens when we realize that we are losing because we allow them to divide us?

David DeGerolamo

In a well written article concerning the Trinity, the comments were divided between being respectful, antagonistic and divisive. I was waiting for someone to point out that the concept of the Trinity was debated by our founding fathers:

Faith of the Founders #8: Jefferson, the Trinity, Faith, and the Occult

In a letter to his fellow revolutionary and former President, John Adams, dated August 22, 1813, Thomas Jefferson made clear that he rejected the Trinity, and the Christian concept of Faith, and thereby the very idea of revelation itself.

The historical background of Jefferson’s letter is the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, which, in laymen’s terms, defined that Jesus Christ was the Son of God from all eternity. This was done to refute a new heresy called Arianism, named after the Egyptian priest, Arius, who taught that Jesus Christ was not the Son from all eternity, but had been endowed with “divinity” at a point after his creation. In other words, he had become the Son of God. He was not the Son of God by nature. Arius’ teaching thus contradicted the Christian belief in the Trinity—that there is one God in three Persons from all eternity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

More…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While I encourage you to read the entire letter, here is the portion to which the above referenced:

I remember to have heard Dr. Priestley say that if all England would candidly examine themselves, & confess, they would find that Unitarianism was really the religion of all: and I observe a bill is now depending in parliament for the relief of Anti-Trinitarians. it is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, & one is three; & yet the one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by a single letter into ὁμοουςιans, and ὁμοιουςιans. but this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies. we should all then, like the quakers, live without an order of priests, moralise for ourselves, follow the oracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is easy to pick verses from the Bible to provide “evidence” of your viewpoint. I wonder how many people actually read Malachi’s article and did more research on the Trinity? How many people thought about why asking a question would have the consequences that resulted in the termination of his ordination?

Here is another article to consider:

Ten Ways the Bible Disproves the Trinity

1. God does not change.

A key element of the Trinity is the incarnation. This teaches that the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, took on human flesh in the bodily form of Jesus. Thus when Mary gave birth to Jesus, God entered into the creation as a human being:

However such beliefs contradict what the Bible teaches about God’s nature:

Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting. [Psalm 93:2]

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. [James 1:17]

The Bible defines God’s nature as eternal and unchanging; indeed, God cannot change, because He transcends time. So the claim that God became flesh is a contradiction.

Trinitarians try to get around this problem by arguing that when God became man, a human nature was merely added to God’s existing divine nature. Since the two natures did not mix, the divine nature did not change at all and so God remained the same.

Can this be considered valid reasoning? Well, if God ‘added’ a new nature to Himself, then that is a change in state. Was God always a man? He was not. Did God become a man? According to Trinitarians, he did. So to claim that God did not change is nothing more than philosophical wordplay.

To illustrate this, let’s take the example of a man called John. Consider a situation where God grants John a divine nature. Even if John’s original nature, humanity, remains unchanged and separate from his divinity, would you ever conclude that John has not changed at all?

Would any reasonable person argue, “well, John hasn’t really changed in nature, his original finite human nature is only being complemented by an additional infinite nature”. To claim that John, going from mere mortal to master of the universe, has undergone no change would be absurd.

Clearly, John has changed from one state, not being God, to another, being God. This mirrors the Trinitarian claim that God became flesh, which also entails a change from one state, not being human, to another, being human. The end result for Jesus and John is the same; they’ve both become God-men.

We must conclude that the doctrine of the Trinity involves a change in the nature of God. This directly contradicts the Bible’s statements that God is eternal and unchanging.

More…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This article’s purpose is to show that the Trinity is a controversial subject. So controversial that many people will not discuss or debate it. What do I believe? Or I should say what I know:

The topic of the Trinity is a good example of how Men of God should get together and discuss the Bible. In that discussion, I would ask why churches have a difficult time defining the Holy Spirit. Most churches today concentrate on the New Testament and Jesus. I believe the entire Bible is the Word of God. I believe the Lord wants us to debate the Word so that we can temper and refine our faith. I believe that task cannot be completed in a lifetime: the point is to always question, debate and grow spiritually.

David DeGerolamo