The Lesson of the Screw

Why has the mainstream media NEVER told you this? The Democratic Socialists of America recently voted in support of completely DISMANTLING the American Republic and replacing it with a new system.

Their national political committee voted 12 to 11 in support of ABOLISHING the Presidency and the Supreme Court and making everything completely subordinate to Congress. Look at how many of them have run for Congress lately! What are the odds?

Over 51% of the DSA’s governing board members are now self-avowed communists. And they recently passed 120,000 members, making them the largest “socialist” organization in American history. Ten years ago, that number was only 6,000.

The mask is fully off. The radicals are actively infiltrating the Democratic system to execute this blueprint from the inside out. Look at Mamdani and the slate of radicals winning primaries and trying to seize real political power. They are systematically replacing traditional Democrats with radical collectivists who are openly telling you, in their own published platform documents, that they want to dismantle the American Republic and destroy the separation of powers. The facade is gone. This IS the communist blueprint for a silent takeover.

It is a dismantling of our great nation.   We must wakeup and turn back to the right, the righteous path.   Pastorwardclinton.com

Dark Ages?

The phrase is repeated so often it has hardened into certainty. The Dark Ages, we are told, began when the Roman Empire collapsed and Christianity smothered the light of classical civilization. Science vanished. Learning died. Europe stumbled blindly through a thousand years of superstition until the Renaissance finally rescued reason from the grip of priests.

It is a tidy story. It is also wrong.

When the Western Roman Empire collapsed in the fifth century, the disaster was not theological—it was civilizational. Cities emptied. Trade routes collapsed. Roads crumbled. Literacy declined. Political authority fractured into a patchwork of Germanic kingdoms that possessed neither the administrative machinery nor the cultural inheritance of Rome.

The darkness that followed did not descend because monks burned books. It descended because the world that produced those books had collapsed.

And yet, in the wreckage of that fallen order, something remarkable happened. In lonely valleys and along forested hillsides, small communities of Christian monks began doing something that no conquering army, no new king, and no collapsing city seemed interested in doing: they preserved the memory of the ancient world.

Inside monastic scriptoria, by candlelight and patient discipline, monks copied manuscripts—line by line, page by page. They copied the Scriptures, of course. But they also copied Virgil, Cicero, Ovid, Livy, and countless other works of classical antiquity. Without those quiet labors, much of what we know about Greece and Rome might simply have vanished.

The men doing this work were not secular humanists ahead of their time. They were Christians. They believed that truth, wherever it appeared, ultimately belonged to God. Preserving learning was not rebellion against faith. It was an act of devotion.

Monasteries became islands of stability in a turbulent world. They cultivated fields, organized communities, and preserved literacy at a moment when most of Europe had forgotten how to read. Their libraries became reservoirs of memory while kingdoms rose and fell around them.

Over time those small islands of learning began to connect. By the eleventh and twelfth centuries a new intellectual revival was underway. Cathedral schools evolved into institutions dedicated entirely to scholarship. These institutions would soon receive a new name—universities.

The University of Bologna, Paris, and Oxford did not emerge in defiance of the Church. They were born inside it. Theology stood beside law, medicine, and philosophy as part of a unified search for truth. Scholars argued fiercely over Aristotle, debated logic, experimented with natural philosophy, and tried to reconcile reason with revelation.

The medieval world was not anti-intellectual. It was intensely intellectual. Figures like Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, and Roger Bacon wrestled with the newly rediscovered works of Aristotle and the expanding body of knowledge flowing from the Islamic world. They did not treat faith and reason as enemies. They believed both ultimately pointed toward the same reality.

Even the foundations of what would later become modern science were quietly forming during these centuries. Medieval thinkers developed the idea that nature operated according to rational laws because it had been created by a rational God. If the universe was ordered rather than chaotic, then studying it was not impiety—it was a form of worship.

The irony is striking. The very civilization accused of plunging Europe into darkness built the intellectual institutions that would eventually illuminate it.

None of this means the medieval world was idyllic. It was violent, unequal, and often brutal. Wars were frequent. Plagues were devastating. Superstition and ignorance certainly existed. But these were not the unique failings of Christianity. They were the universal conditions of premodern life.

What Christianity provided was something different: continuity.

While political power fractured and empires dissolved, the Church preserved a transnational network of literacy, scholarship, and moral authority that stretched across Europe. Monasteries safeguarded texts. Universities trained scholars. Cathedrals became centers of art, architecture, and education.

The world that later produced the Renaissance did not emerge from a thousand years of darkness. It emerged from a civilization that had spent centuries preserving the light.

History rarely fits into the neat morality plays modern culture prefers. The medieval centuries were neither a golden age nor a pit of ignorance. They were something far more interesting: a long and difficult bridge between the ancient world and the modern one. And if we insist on calling them “dark,” we should remember who it was that kept the lamps burning.

Democrat Terms

https://pastorwardclinton.com/2026/07/20/democrat-terms/

Democrat Terms

The creator of the illustration above got it pretty accurate with one little unintentional flaw.  I’m quite sure Inequality was supposed to be “Their money should be yours” in the liberal thought process. – A mere typo on that board, otherwise, they nailed it!

One man awake, awakens the rest…be that person. – pastorwardclinton.com

Media Bias

The cartoon says out loud what a lot of Americans already suspect. The anchor looks into the camera and says “without evidence,” while a mountain of it sits right there behind him.

Here is what actually happened this week. President Trump gave a primetime address on election security. He released newly declassified documents and pointed to China’s access to voter data, weaknesses in our voting systems, and names on the rolls that should not be there.

And how did three of the biggest networks respond? ABC, NBC, and CNN would not carry the speech live on their main networks. They streamed it off to the side, then came back later to tell you what to think about it.

Sit with that for a second. A sitting President addresses the nation on a national security matter, and the people who claim to be democracy’s last line of defense would rather run a game show.

You do not hide something from your audience when you are confident they will agree with you. You hide it when you are afraid of what they might conclude on their own.

The “without evidence” stamp has become a reflex. It gets slapped on a story before anyone in the newsroom has read a single page. That is not journalism, that is note-taking for one political party.

Meanwhile, what most voters actually want is simple. Poll after poll shows broad support for voter ID, across every group. The SAVE Act just asks for proof of citizenship to register. That is not extreme. In most of the world, that is called Tuesday.

So the real question is not whether every claim the President made is airtight. The real question is why the people paid to inform you worked so hard to keep you from hearing him at all.

Peace Through Strength

For the first time in roughly seven decades of the annual defense authorization process, every Senate Democrat present voted to block even beginning debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, according to Senate Republican leaders.

The procedural vote failed 50 to 46 because 60 votes were needed to advance the bill.

American troops are operating in the middle of a dangerous conflict with Iran. Commercial ships are under attack.

Missile and interceptor stockpiles are under pressure.

The military needs clear policy, steady support, and confidence that Congress is behind the men and women carrying out the mission.

Instead, Chuck Schumer and every Senate Democrat present voted to block debate on the annual defense bill.

Not defeat the final bill after amendments. Not demand a vote on a specific change.

They voted against allowing the Senate to begin debating it.

Schumer says Democrats are protesting an unauthorized war without a clear strategy or exit plan.

But the NDAA is where senators are supposed to debate strategy, demand oversight, offer amendments, shape military policy, authorize troop compensation, and address readiness.

Blocking debate does not strengthen congressional oversight, it prevents the Senate from doing its job.

This looks less like principled opposition and more like an attempt to use America’s military as leverage against President Trump.

Rather than root for Team America while our troops confront an Iranian regime that attacks ships, threatens allies, and destabilizes energy markets, Democrats appear determined to handicap the administration politically, even when that means weakening the message sent to Tehran.

Whatever their stated intent, the practical effect is to give Iran a propaganda victory.

The regime can now watch one entire American political party refuse to advance the legislation that sets defense policy while American forces are engaged.

Did Senate Democrats cross the line by blocking debate on the defense bill during an active conflict?

Defense Bill Obstructionists

https://pastorwardclinton.com/2026/07/17/defense-bill-obstructionists/

Defense Bill Obstructionists

For the first time in roughly seven decades of the annual defense authorization process, every Senate Democrat present voted to block even beginning debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, according to Senate Republican leaders.

The procedural vote failed 50 to 46 because 60 votes were needed to advance the bill.

American troops are operating in the middle of a dangerous conflict with Iran. Commercial ships are under attack.

Missile and interceptor stockpiles are under pressure.

The military needs clear policy, steady support, and confidence that Congress is behind the men and women carrying out the mission.

Instead, Chuck Schumer and every Senate Democrat present voted to block debate on the annual defense bill.

Not defeat the final bill after amendments. Not demand a vote on a specific change.

They voted against allowing the Senate to begin debating it.

Schumer says Democrats are protesting an unauthorized war without a clear strategy or exit plan.

But the NDAA is where senators are supposed to debate strategy, demand oversight, offer amendments, shape military policy, authorize troop compensation, and address readiness.

Blocking debate does not strengthen congressional oversight, it prevents the Senate from doing its job.

This looks less like principled opposition and more like an attempt to use America’s military as leverage against President Trump.

Rather than root for Team America while our troops confront an Iranian regime that attacks ships, threatens allies, and destabilizes energy markets, Democrats appear determined to handicap the administration politically, even when that means weakening the message sent to Tehran.

Whatever their stated intent, the practical effect is to give Iran a propaganda victory.

The regime can now watch one entire American political party refuse to advance the legislation that sets defense policy while American forces are engaged.

Did Senate Democrats cross the line by blocking debate on the defense bill during an active conflict?

Dirty Democrat politicians trying to protect their Islamofascist buddies; they don’t care about you.