Civil War and State Nullification: Some Thoughts

In the vlog below, I will address two topics that have recently appeared in the socio-political discourse: the call for many in California to nullify parts of the Constitution (if not outright secede from the Union) and the possibility of a looming internal, military conflict.

I realize that this is not everybody’s cup of tea; most would rather I stick to religious topics and for the most part I do. However, this passivity is not Orthodox. In every liturgical service of the Church we pray for “the civil authorities, for the absence of the sword, for this city and for peaceful times”. These are not idle words. The Holy Spirit infused the liturgists to put them in there. For a reason.

While it is ridiculous to engage the State on its own terms, to ignore the civil realm is not Orthodox. The Church is the Bride of Christ. As long as it remains so then the secular sphere will be relatively prosperous and happy. One need only look to the civilization of the West –that is to say Christendom–since the time of Constantine to know that among all other cultures, it was ours which was the most enduring and made the most significant contributions to humanity.

Were there mistakes along the way? Of course. We are fallen men living in a fallen world. Thus every institution that exists and which has men and women in it will always come up short. Always. But it is not to Africa or Indonesia or the Middle East that tens of thousands of non-European, non-Christians are migrating to. Think on that before you accept any of the modern liberal arguments against Western Civilization when they are vomited out of the mouths of over-educated SJWs.

So those are the caveats. As for my thoughts on a possible Calexit, possible civil strife and everything in between, I will let the video speak for itself.


  1. Whether it was divine intervention or that some subsection of the creme of the elites decided that Hilary would be a disaster (and those two things are by no means mutually exclusive), Trump was elected. He is not going away of his own volition despite that they are doing everything in their power, legal and illegal, to oust him.

    It is a pleasure to watch, in a way, because the Left has dominated American moral politics for a number of decades, certainly during my lifetime.

    As to the War Between the States aka “The Great War of Northern Aggression Against the Humble Servants of God Almighty and His Son, Jesus Christ”, I take it for granted that the inferior argument won. Nothing in the Constitution prevents states from seceding and the 10th Amendment states explicitly that those rights not specifically allocated by the Constitution to the Federal government remain with the states or the people.

    Nonetheless, war tends to settle matters decisively regardless of the merits.

    Now, being a monarchist, it doesn’t get my back up anymore, even though I am a Southerner, etc. Orthodoxy has changed my mind on politics forever. Thus, I don’t see the current conflict in the legalistic terms that many on either side do but rather in a more Manichean light.

    IMHO, the Right is right. And by the Right I mean the right wing of the spectrum, the further to the right, the better. At the anchor, far end, of the right I do not see Nazis but rather monarchists – that is those who believe in the divine right of kings, autocracy. I fall in that category. It doesn’t get any more “right wing” than that if you understand where the spectrum originated in the French legislature.

    Nazis are a different breed in that they simply willfully choose to be racist and anti-Semitic. I choose to be neither. Now, I am skeptical of Israel and the Jewish political lobby here in America. I’m sure they have no ones interests but their own in mind and, not being Jewish, those interests might very well clash with those of the Church. In fact, they are likely to at some point and some degree because the Jews deny Christ.

    And, without being a racist, or at least a hard-core racist, one can say that the American experiment with the integration of Northern Europeans and Africans has been less than successful given the crime rates and cultural animosities still present 152 years after slavery was abolished and 53 years after Jim Crow. One can say that perhaps it would be better of European whites had their own societies and Africans had their own societies, with intermingling and inter-social movement to be sure, not a strict segregation or apartheid or any system designating either society as intrinsically superior or inferior.

    But I can dream on since that is no longer practicable, the ideology of Americanism having doomed us to limp on in racial unrest indefinitely. But let’s be clear, the continuing unrest has to do with an unjustified attitude of entitlement on the part of African Americans and a final decisive shedding of “liberal white guilt” by many white Americans in the face of incontrovertible evidence that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of criminal activity, particularly violent criminal activity, in our supposedly integrated society. In fact, classification of Latinos as “white” led some to conclude that the momentous gap was tightening since Latino crime rates are also higher than those for whites.

    However, if you actually try to flesh out the true numbers, separating out Northern European from Latino from African-American, you get truly shocking disparities between white and black rates of violent crime. Disparities which the Left would no doubt love to categorize as racist were it not for the fact that this is hard data of crimes and convictions “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

    So if you wonder why “whitey” is restless and thinks it time to “take the country back”, well, there you go . . .

    PS: No other society on earth that I am aware of is as self-destructively politically correct about race as American society is at this point. It is actually a dangerous precipice, IMHO.

    PPS: Were men exclusively in charge, it would never have descended to this depth. A prerequisite for this kind of decadence was the feminization of the political decision making process.

  2. Nate Trost says

    Never been a fan of the vlog format (and solo podcasts), since they tend to take what would be 30 seconds of reading a paragraph or two of material and blow it out to 10+ minutes of blabber, plus requiring time consuming note-taking to meaningfully respond to. So I’d more or less ignored them, but curiosity finally got the better of me and whoo boy. (holds nose, waves hand)

    I appreciate the dilemma George Michalopulos finds himself in due to the inconvenience of the previous president, whom he didn’t like, being a faithful husband of one wife for 25+ years and a devoted father. This in marked contrast to the current president, whom he likes, being a serial adulterer, on his third marriage, and one that lets his youngest son walk behind him in the rain while he keeps the umbrella for himself.

    I find it quite the indictment of George Michalopulos’s character (or lack thereof, basically) that he responds to that inconvenience by engaging in literal slander claiming Obama is a ‘closeted homosexual’. Of course, nobody should be surprised by this behavior, as for example, he has previously called Michelle Obama a man, referred to her by masculine nicknames, and when called out for this, basically confessed to scrutinizing photos of the First Lady of the United States looking for crotch bulges.

    This is pathetic behavior, and it’s like you are degrading in real-time along with the dignity of the Office of the President of the United States.

    Your analysis of the Brennan statement is unhinged, reading things into it that simply aren’t there, in belief of a Deep State apparatus in the US government that doesn’t exist.

    The sanctuary city issue is not state nullification of federal government sovereignty, this is a fundamentally incorrect and dishonest framing. A legal fight over sanctuary city policy doesn’t, at core, revolve around the integrity of federal immigration law, but whether or not the federal government can carrot/stick unrelated federal funds going to a state based on that state directing state and local resources on behalf of the federal government, according to the whims of the federal government in regards to federal immigration policy.

    Unfortunately for you, this means your giddy dreams of states being able to nullify ‘anal marriage’ (your words, not mine) and women’s lacrosse teams as a result of legal wrangling in this arena have no basis in reality whatsoever.

    Also, #Calexit was an agitprop campaign run by a guy who ended up living in Russia. Linking it to the sanctuary cities issue is ludicrous. There is no credible California secession movement.

    George Michalopulos said
    “My spider sense tingles when I hear white male, because usually it means he’s a moslem terrorist. Who technically are white. So we’re going to see how it plays out.”

    How it played out: It was a white male Christian terrorist who was homeschooled.

    George Michalopulos said
    “We’re going to be seeing more of this”

    White male Christian terrorists bombing racial and religious minorities? I actually agree with you on this! Broken clock George Michalopulos, broken clock.

    George Michalopulos closing his vlog
    “Lets try to love one another”

    Hahahahahahaha. What a way to change tone in the last few seconds, after having immersed myself in your squalid material, what sprang to mind was, is this how you do the forgiveness vespers service?

    “forgive me a sinner, you cuck”

    • George Michalopulos says

      Here’s your problem: I didn’t care about Bill Clinton’s proclivities. As for Obama, I very much regret so much of what he did and didn’t do.

      I believe it was Martin Luther who said ” it is better to be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.”

      I will get to your other points as time permits. In the meantime I see that Misha eviscerated your fanciful assertions regarding murder rates. For which I thank him.

      • Nate Trost says

        I never mentioned Bill Clinton, merely your slander of Obama. You merely bring up Bill Clinton in your response to evade the charge I actually made.

        Misha did not ‘eviscerate’ me, because he posted rubbish data. I already posted a reply in that thread. I guess you can thank him for further cementing your reputation for intellectual laziness by blindly presuming what he was asserting was accurate without verifying for yourself.

        • George Michalopulos says

          No slander. It’s long been an open secret that he’s a homosexual. In certain circles in Chicago he was known as Bathhouse Barry.

          That pales in comparison to the sheer immorality that when he was President he told the dept of justice to look the other way when it came to the banksters Who caused the housing collapse and thru when Hezbollah was allowed to sell cocaine in the US.

          Don’t get me started on Fast and Furious.

          Tell me in a straightforward way: does any of that sound moral to you?

          Honest question. I’d be fascinated yo hear your answer.

          • Nate Trost says

            No, it is not an “open secret”, it is baseless slander spread by hollow-chested men with no integrity.

            George Michalopulos wrote
            when he was President he told the dept of justice to look the other way when it came to the banksters Who caused the housing collapse

            This did not happen. Of course, it would have been equally inappropriate if Obama had given the DOJ orders of who to go after. Was there a disappointing level of accountability and consequence? Sure. But the power of the presidency has limits, and ironically you are complaining that he wasn’t the dictatorial tyrant you perpetually claimed him to be.

            George Michalopulos wrote
            when Hezbollah was allowed to sell cocaine in the US

            This, did not happen either. I read the Politico article and the extensive commentary that followed it. That is not even a remotely accurate summation.

            George Michalopulos wrote
            Don’t get me started on Fast and Furious.

            The gunwalking operations that included ‘Fast and Furious’ were certainly an BATF scandal, although pinning it on Obama is complicated by the fact that the gunwalking operations began in the Bush administration.

            George Michalopulos wrote
            Tell me in a straightforward way: does any of that sound moral to you?

            I could opine on the morality of explicitly labelled hypothetical situations, but I am not going to do so for things that were not real posited as if they were.

            Probably the worst moral failing of the Obama Administration that he deserves direct condemnation for would be the contributing to the situation in Yemen. Of course, since that involves a bunch of dead Muslims it doesn’t even make your radar. Instead you wish to dwell on right-wing fever dreams of supposed secret homosexuality.

            • George Michalopulos says

              OK, so let me get this straight: the DOJ did not prosecute the banksters but instead went after Martha Stewart, sending her to the pokey, and you see nothing suspicious of that?

              Here’s another: the DOJ runs a gun-running operation which arms the most violent cartels on earth and it results in the death of innocent Americans and you’re OK with that as well. Uh-huh.

              Then there was Obama/Clintons lynching of Khaddafi, who was anally raped by a bayonet. As if that’s not bad enough thanks to us black Africans are now being sold in open-air slave markets in Tripoli. Alrighty then.

              I forgot about Yemen. Thanks for bringing that up. I also didn’t mention Lois Lerner and how she weaponized the IRS. Bad stuff there.

              As for Obama’s homosexuality, there are men who have come forward in an open manner and stated in front of a camera and gave explicit details. Again, I could care less what he and Michael –I mean Michelle–do in their marriage. It ain’t my business. However it would make him subject to blackmail didn’t it? Let’s say he told the Attorney General to go after Lloyd Blankfein or Goldman-Sachs. (Remember my first point: why not? Isn’t Goldman-Sachs a richer target than Martha Stewart?) I imagine Obama would have been impeached within 6 months simply because the Deep State would make the allegations against him even more lurid.

              • Nate Trost says

                Martha Stewart was indicted in 2003, and her criminal convictions stem from essentially lying to the federal investigators. It’s not really relevant to link to the financial crisis any way, shape or form.

                While there are absolutely things to critique in the Obama Administration foreign policy and legacy, that is an entirely different sphere from “closeted homosexual”. And your critique in this realm would be complicated by the acknowledgment that the Trump Administration foreign policy so far has been “more of the same, but with more tolerance for civilian casualties”. I guess at least the Trump Administration hasn’t done anything too crazy, like make John Bolton NSA.

                George Michalopulos wrote
                I also didn’t mention Lois Lerner and how she weaponized the IRS. Bad stuff there.

                That was another supposed scandal which turned out, after investigation, to not actually exist.

                George Michalopulos wrote
                As for Obama’s homosexuality

                I will leave it at this: back in the Clinton-era, there was no shortage of conservative media outlets covering credible allegations related to Bill Clinton and sex. Of course, beyond those were crackpot outlets with even more lurid and non-credible allegations spanning all manner of subjects.

                Your supposed sources for Obama’s secret homosexual history are so non-credible, that not even right-wing outlets that excoriated Bill Clinton would touch them. Just the crackpots.

                The only sodomizing that’s happening is what you, George Michalopulos, are doing to the truth.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Saunca, if you won’t I’ll post YouTubes of one man in particular who gives his name and speaks publicly about his dalliances with Obama. That’s evidence. If it’s wrong, then Obama should sue him for slander. I would.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Saunca, here’s the video I was telling you about. The man is publicly stating his name, he is providing the dates and he is accepting questions. While this is not “proof”, it is evidence. If he is lying, it’s a slander and he could be subject to prosecution.

                    One thing it is not is innuendo. Wherein sexual peccadilloes are insinuated and hinted at. This guy is shouting it from the rooftops.


                  • Nate Trost says

                    If George Michalopulos wishes to link his public credibility with Larry Sinclair, then let him knock himself out with that.

                    I’d advise against it from stuff like the below, but that’s never stopped him before:

                    George Michalopulos wrote
                    If he is lying, it’s a slander and he could be subject to prosecution.

                    Nonsense, no he wouldn’t be.

                    George Michalopulos wrote
                    If it’s wrong, then Obama should sue him for slander. I would.

                    Also nonsense, someone who meets the definition of the ‘public figure’ bar is not going to sue an obviously non-credible nobody. It just gives attention. The only time you are going to see a public figure (specifically a politician) start litigation is for egregious libel or slander on the part of a major publication or high profile public figure. And not always even then.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Then I take it you also disbelieve Miss Stormy Daniels? Boy, if that interview wasn’t a Charlie Foxtrot nothing is!

                      Regardless, you’re missing the point. Mr Sinclair (like Miss Daniels and Juanita Broaddrick, et al) have come forward and put their names out in public. What they are presenting is evidence. Whether it’s credible or not is up for the courts to decide (and this includes the court of public opinion).

                      I don’t have a functioning gaydar. Obama doesn’t look “gay” to me personally. But then again I won’t actually believe a man is homosexual unless he is dress in full travestie and marching in a gay pride parade. I’m quite obtuse in that regards. For example, when it came out that Kevin Spacey was gay, I was shocked. My sister told me: “you mean you couldn’t tell? It was so obvious!” Seriously, I couldn’t tell.

                      In any event, leaving aside the homosexual allegation, there are many reasons to sling the arrow of moral turpitude at Obama. I for one am positively mortified that he has a half-brother in Kenya named George Hussain Obama who lives in a tin shack in Nairobi on one dollar (that’s one hundred pennies) a month. Last I heard he had never received any donation from his brother, who was then the Leader of the Free World, making $400K a year. What did St Paul say about those Christians who did not support their impoverished kin? “Let them be as unbelievers to you.”

                      Who, or with what Obama chooses to share his favors with is positively none of my beeswax. I am apathetic about the sex lives of individual adult persons. How apathetic you might ask? This much: the Grand Canyon cannot contain my apathy about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Turning your back on your brother however is beyond the pale.

                      As is letting tens of thousands of illegal aliens to flood our shores and make mayhem. As is turning a blind eye to Hezbollah selling cocaine in the US. As is selling assault weapons to the Mexican drug cartels.

                  • Antiochene Son says

                    The Left cares a great deal about children being killed with “weapons of war” … except when those children are Middle-Eastern and those weapons of war are drones under the command of one B. H. O.

                • Michael Bauman says

                  It is just that no one cares anymore about the sexual history of any politician unless it is alleged that it is against children. Even the allegations against Roy Moore were curious and even if true failed to take into account the culture and laws of the time in the south. Fourteen was the legal age and it was not uncommon for older men and much younger women to be paired.

                  “It does not matter if I rape and pillage in my private life. That does not effect my public life.” That is what the Democrats and Uncle Billy Bob Pres. Slick taught us. “All depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.”

                  Fully one third of all US Presidents were at least as sexually adventuresome as Pres. Trump and probably just as vulgar. They just hid it better. Since Clinton we know you do not even have to hide it.
                  “Don’t stop now baby, let it all hang out” is the new political anthem.

                  If any of that causes you not to vote for a political candidate, you will not be voting for very many especially for federal office. That may be a good thing. Do not forget one thing, in a representative government the public character of politicians is a trailing indicator of the private character of the citizens. Who is there to call anyone to account? Especially, as vulgar as Trump’s comments and behavior were/are, he is quite right. There are many women who freely and willingly offer themselves to men of power and wealth. Hillary is the best modern example.

                  The only reason I voted for Trump instead of “None of the Above” was simple: I was confident he would not used the power of the state to directly attack Christians and our faith. Mama Hill would have. Hey, now there is a reality show in the making: “Mama June and Mama Hill on the Prowl–The village in the making.” Who could resist?

                  • Antiochene Son says

                    It certainly is ironic to see the libertine Left as the political wing of moral panic. Who would have thought?

                    • Michael Bauman says

                      Atheists and hedonists have nothing if they don’t have a “moral code”. Morality alone will always lead to hypocrisy, in fact morality alone creates hypocrisy.

          • Constaninos says

            Open secret?? This is one of the reasons I can’t take Monomakhos seriously. The man has been married for over twenty years, and is the father of two daughters. He is not homosexual!!

            • Agreed. “Open secret” or not, I fail to see how any of this is helpful.

            • This really is unhinged — even the entertainment value has disappeared. Good luck to you. Thank God the Church is not as paranoid as the bunch here. And by the way, it’s μονομάχος, not μονόμαχος…

            • Joseph Lipper says

              Constaninos, if you’re having some difficulty believing this, then alternately there’s always the ‘open secret’ that Barack Obama might not be human:


              Have you ever seen the 1984 film, “The Brother From Another Planet”? Do notice the resemblance:


            • Peter A. Papoutsis says

              Yeah it actually is an open secret here in Chicago and has been an open secret for aong time.

              Plus a lot of men have gone on the record and have admitted it. Finally, sorry to burst your bubble even more but a lot of married men with kids are secretly gay. Do I like it or approve? Hell no, but it happens.


              • Constaninos says

                No Joseph, I haven’t seen the movie. I haven’t seen most movies. My extremely guilty and sinful pleasures are watching Dallas and The Sopranos on DVD.
                Peter: Would you care to back up your assertion that ” a lot of married men with kids are secretly gay?” By the way, I maintain that Barack Obama is absolutely not gay.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      So, Nate, from your perspective, is there something wrong with being a homosexual? I ask because you say George is guilty of “literal slander” and slander is reserved for making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation. How would being a homosexual damage Obama’s reputation? Most people would find nothing wrong with it.

      • George Michalopulos says


        Indeed, we live in an age in which a man being called a homosexual is a badge of honor. Maybe I should try it? It works for Milo Yiannapoulos and it insulates him from a lot of criticism.

        • I don’t think Milo’s homosexuality insulates him from the left. They hate him as when they tried to burn down one of the universities he was to give a speech at (I think Berkeley). To paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi, “Milo isn’t the homosexual the left is looking for.”

          On the other hand, I believe Milo’s nationalist views insulates his homosexual lifestyle, which he sometimes describes in sordid details, from many on the right.

      • Nate Trost says

        C’mon Gail, do I really need to point out the difference between acknowledging someone is a homosexual who identifies openly as such and claiming someone in a heterosexual marriage is a “closeted homosexual” with the inherent implication that they are unfaithful to their spouse?

        • Gail Sheppard says

          Nate, I see your point but with regard to George, he is entitled to his opinions and as far as I know, he is protected expressing them on his blog. IF Obama was homosexual, it would not necessarily follow that his reputation would be damaged or that he cheated on his wife.

          The term “closeted” is an interesting one. In some situations, people live a double life because they find the whole idea unpalatable. In others, they just don’t advertise it. In Obama’s case, IF he were homosexual, I think he would fit into the latter category. He’s not uncomfortable with the idea or he would not have come out in support of gay marriage.

          My point is that being gay isn’t the indictment that it once was. Most people see nothing wrong with it and if Obama were gay, I doubt people would care. Some might say, “I told you so” and others, “So what?” In either case, it would be over pretty quickly. Do you disagree?

          • George Michalopulos says

            Saunca, that’s not fair. Gail was just making a general observation. Nothing wrong with that. Plus, if it’s true, then it’s not a slander.

            Historically, there is sufficient evidence to believe that James Buchanan (the 15th president) was homosexual. There’s no shame in discussing that fact, especially if this might shed some light on his policies. Likewise, the common knowledge that JFK was a notorious womanizer. Clearly that helped shape some of his policies and/or may have led to his untimely death. Blackmail is a terrible weapon which can be used against a politician.

            Gail’s comment is not “passive-agressive” in anyway. To believe otherwise then all historians would have to divert their eyes from any unpleasantry they come across.

            But let’s put our cards on the table: whether homosexuality is a “sin” or not, whether it is viewed as a sin (or not) by people is completely beside the point. Most men (about 98%) throughout history have always felt a revulsion about men being erotically intimate with each other. Especially if the act involves anal penetration. Period. Full stop. This is not because of “homophobic” Church Fathers or the rabid bigotry of Jewish sages in the Old Testament. This is a universal. Homosexuality did not become accepted in ancient Greece until the end of its culture and only because of loss in the faith of the Greek gods and the historical assertiveness of the Greek people.

            Likewise this happened in Rome. Even during the spread of decadence of the later Roman Republic, Julius Caesar had to overcome the great stigma that was associated with him when in his youth, he was widely rumored to have been the “queen” of King Nicomedes of Bythinia. (Nicomedes willed the young Caesar his kingdom upon his death.) Even during the Empire, Emperor Hadrian was widely mocked for his adoration of the Greek youth Antino’os. It was such a scandal that Hadrian’s handlers quietly strangled the youth to prevent further embarrassment to the emperor. Then there was the emperor Elagabulus, who was so effeminate and like to go to the baths daily to “size up” his potential lovers that after four years he was likewise lynched by the Praetorian Guard.

            We’re talking about pagans here. Not “homophobic” Christians. What all this means of course is that it’s hard-wired in the DNA of men to look upon the act in disgust. I’m not making a moral judgment here.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            Saunca, George didn’t “out a man.” This information surfaced quite some time ago. People either didn’t believe it or didn’t care.

            Obama is a public figure. In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander), a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth. George clearly believes what he said is true. There was no malice here. So, no Saunca, slander does not apply.

            I wasn’t being passive aggressive. I was pointing out the irony of saying (paraphrasing, here): “How DARE you call our former president a HOMOSEXUAL when that will hurt him!” when the underlying belief in this country is that there is nothing wrong with it! There were no “little traps” in my comments. I made only one.

            Yes, I am “A-OK” with George saying whatever he wants on his own blog. Blogs are protected under the First Amendment.

            • M. Stankovich says

              So, In the seven years I have battled the extreme hatred, bias, and despicable rejection and attribution of the fall of western morality to homosexuality – and ironically, it has now been, according to some, properly attributed to women – I find out that if you actually hold such hatred in your heart and mind as accurate, it is no longer malicious nor malignant. And slander simply does not apply. WTF! Yours is a fascinating take on the law. And likewise, when and if, for example, it was the custom and opinion, as Mr. Michalopulos has described in detail, of the vast majority that the practice of male homosexuality was abhorrent, it certainly would have been considered deleterious to the reputation of President Obama; you have declared the “underlying belief in this country is that there is nothing wrong with it!” And will you also offer this forum as a prime example of the new-found “compassion?”

              In the Gospels and the liturgical material this week, we hear that Lazarus, the friend of Jesus, is sick. The significance of this event is seemingly lost on the Lord’s disciples, who simply cannot imagine – having seen the miracles and wonders – that something “bad” will actually happen to His friend. Until they are shocked by His very blunt announcement: “Lazarus is dead.” Apparently, many of you have missed something that has enabled you, in the final week of the Great and Holy Fast, in the very Week of the Palms, as the Lord quietly proceeds to His inevitable confrontation with the prince of this world in the form of Lazarus, four days dead, to relish this bout of discussion. St. John Climacus spoke about “gossip,” but he warned us about “murderous gossip,” the intent of which is to kill the spirit of a man still living, and purposely those around him. And I emphasize the word “relish,” because it is demonstrated in the immediate knowledge of where to locate the murderous accusations against a man and his family, when instead we should be crying with the prophet:

              O LORD, how long shall I cry, and You will not hear! even cry out to You of violence, and You will not save! Why do You show me iniquity, and cause me to behold grievance? for spoiling and violence are before me: and there are they that raise up strife and contention. Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment does never go forth: for the wicked does compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceeds. (Hab. 1:2-4) (cf. Ps. 13:1-6)

              This is truly one of the saddest exchanges recorded on this site, if only for the timing, and it is shameful.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Dr S, what I describe is not hatred. It’s a simple, instinctive revulsion that straight men feel on an instinctual basis. It’s not different than the instinctive violence that erupts when one man finds his wife and family being attacked or his home burgled. We all operate on an instinctual level to one or another extent.

                • Michael Bauman says

                  But George don’t you know, human beings have no instincts. We are all operantly conditioned. What you are talking about is simply toxic masculinity that needs to be trained out of men. Then the would be beauty queens would have to come up with some other longing besides world peace. (sarcasm off).

              • “…saddest exchanges recorded on this site, if only for the timing, and it is shameful.”-M. Stankovich

                If I may suggest, and remind you, brother Stankovich? During mid Lent, George was going thru a rough patch trying to quit smoking. I told him that getting rid of smoking paraphernalia would help rid him of that nasty habit.

                So, when you write, “WTF!”, regardless if abbreviated, the actual words are read, and said in all the readers minds. Need help with this habit? Try this! Spell the entire phrase out! Why? Simple!

                I believe you will censor yourself of such language, when the phrase is spelled out. Especially, if the urge comes three days away from Saturday of Lazarus, which begins our Holy Week. By doing so you might be cured of a nasty habit, like George’s, both of which stinks ones mouth. Hence the phrase Potty Mouth, of which we are both guilty of! A Blessed Lent my beloved brother!

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Thank you, Dino. Going on five weeks now. I intend to light one up at the Agape Vespers picnic however.

                  • Congratulations George at least you know you can quit if you want to. Most importantly you did it for the right reasons.

                • M. Stankovich says

                  I would suggest to you, brother Dino, that I am very careful and selective in the words that I use, and there remain so few ways to convey shock and disgust when both the fear of God and the admonition of the Fathers are rationlized. The trite buzzwords of our day have literally become, “I am outraged…” I chose my words carefully to capture attention to murderous gossip – the killing of a man’s spirit, and the disquieting of those around him, while he is still alive. It caught your attention and I make no apology. If you can reasonably convince me that the entire dialog regarding President Obama was not intended to malign him and his wife, I will repent. Make ready, Bethany, for the Lord is near.

                  • Michael S,
                    Your posts are the most anticipated on this blog. You always have the attention of all readers when you post. I disagree that you need to use “F” bombs to “capture attention”, especially during Lent, as most readers are at least attempting to not be vulgar in many ways, not just by fasting. Matthew 15:11, comes to mind.

                    While I never wanted or expected an apology from you. I agree the dialog was intended to malign the Obamas. No one on this blog really know the Obamas. They may be the most kind, evil, or everyday middle of the road people on the planet. Don’t know. The ex-President might be bi-sexual, but that’s his business to work out. Michelle of course is a woman, and I told George I did not approve of that type of talk, in the past.

                    This I do know. When one becomes President, it bring the ugly, out of most who oppose the agenda of said President. President Obama agenda really offended(s) a good majority of traditional Americans. This is what your seeing from George and friends.

                    BUT! And this is a BIG BUT. Nowhere have I seen the murderous hate, and gossip, and not just for one’s spirit, but for ones head literally on a platter, as I have seen for President Trump. We are way past dropping “F” bombs by the treatment President Trump has received in only one year in office. Where is your outrage for the murderous gossip, of our current President whether true or not, or your disdain in the manner the media malign the current first lady? There was a time when some lines where not crossed with Presidents. That line disappeared with Bill Clinton.

                    It’s a new world, and Obama’s world view in the end, has brought us Trump. What really scares me is what Trump will bring us, in opposition to him, as our next President.

                    Changing course, I believe you understand I have nothing but compassion for our gay brothers and sisters. Nothing like the passion you have to defend them, but I do. Your reason are Christ-like I believe. As hard as you seem, I feel your heart is pure, by your faith.

                    My reasons are selfish, as I see my salvation depends in part by, how I view and treat my gay brothers and sisters. I really do not see myself as any less sinful than them. If fact, in my youth growing up in San Francisco I was probably much worse than most. Gay or straight. Never gay, but I was really sinful, in many ways. Probably also more immune to the all the repulsive gay stuff since I grew up around it, unlike one growing up in Tulsa, Kansas, Kentucky,etc.

                    This is why I give George and friends a pass most of the time.

                    Michael, sincerely, you are the most misunderstood brother on this site at times, but your goals/message, always seems in lined with Christ, no mater how hard the edges. It is rare to find a learned and true bleeding heart in Christ, but you are, IMHO. You have helped me, many ways in my journey with Jesus Christ.I Thank you again, my beloved Brother. You deserve a most blessed Lent!

                  • I always wonder about the disconnect involved in the notion that some things are especially inappropriate “during Lent.”

                    The only things that are appropriate at other periods of our calendar that are not appropriate during Lent are meat and cheese. If it is sinful it is always inappropriate.

                  • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                    I would only bring up Obama’s homosexual trist and past to say they never interviewed his alleged lover, but 60 minutes sure put out Stormy Daniel’s to malign President Trump. So who exactly was maligning who? Obama got a pass while President Trump did not. Food for thought guys. Lets not get out moral high horses too much. It’s kinda STORMY up there.


                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Good point, Peter. Still when all is said and done Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal didn’t hurt the Golden Don a whit, did they? In fact, his approval numbers went up (which, btw, I predicted last week in private conversations with at least three people).

                  • M. Stankovich says

                    S’Praznikom, Joy of the Feast to all!


                    Two things: There was no “disconnect” by me. It was the context that was so shocking to me. Enough said. Secondly, I had out-patient surgery on my wrist this week, which led me to inquire of the docs & nurses of their perception of the shortages in a dedicated out-patient surgical center. They tended to be nonchalant about the matter, expressing a “we always get by” attitude, but a charge nurse did tell me the import of saline has helped considerably. Interestingly, however, was the comment of the anesthesiologist who told me, “You will notice immediately that because of the shortage of fentanyl, I am forced to titrate propofol (Diprivan), and most people end up asleep, but easily aroused” which is what happened to me. Last year when I needed floriscopically-guided antibiotics and drains for staph and C. dif., it was fentanyl and midazolam (Versed); I was awake but stoofed. I never would have expected propofol.

                  • Michael S.,

                    That sounds about right. In many cases, especially larger institutions, the providers themselves are somewhat insulated from the shortages – unless something is completely unavailable. For many, all they know is that they have been told to limit usage of certain items to cases that specifically require that exact drug so as to extend what limited supplies there are.

      • Constaninos says

        Are you serious? One of the definitions of slander is to lie about someone. When a person claims that Obama is a homosexual, they are saying his whole life is based on fraud, deceit and lies. George called Mrs. Obama Michael before he “corrected” himself. To say someone is something he is not is calumny.
        You said most people would find nothing wrong with it. No one chooses to be a gay or lesbian. Some people feel compassion toward gays and lesbians, and, obviously some do not. These scurrilous accusations against Barack are hurtful to him, his wife, and his children. How would you like it if people said your son is a homosexual?

        • George Michalopulos says

          Costa, Obama himself accidentally called his wife “Michael”.

          • Constaninos says

            I have a very close gay relative who also happens to be an alcoholic. It has caused his mother untold grief, heartache, embarrassment, sorrow, and pain. It literally broke her heart. Am I going to add to her pain by telling her how sinful he is? No! I’m as loving and supportive as I can be up to and including breaking bread with this extremely close family member and his boyfriend. I don’t judge him. What good would it do? His mother is afraid he will commit suicide.
            I actually heard some evangelical “pastor” say that all gays should kill themselves. What would Jesus do? I also have a lesbian cousin whose kindness would put the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Christians to shame. Like it or not, they are our brothers and sisters; they are precious in God’s eyes.

            • George Michalopulos says

              Costa, I’ve said nothing about an individual’s sinfulness. It is not my position. You will search in vain for any condemnation from my lips for people who are broken. Of course you should not heap coals upon your relatives. My one and only concern has been that among all sexual sins, male homosexuality is the most damaging to society and needs to be restrained, or at the very least not celebrated. Period.

              • Joseph Lipper says

                The acceptance of sexual licentiousness is certainly quite damaging to society. However, there is a great spiritual danger in placing most of the blame for our society’s licentiousness on a minority group of homosexuals. The danger is that the far more commonplace sexual sin of heterosexual adultery is given a free pass or “Mulligan”. We need to point our finger at ourselves and not others.

                And I wouldn’t classify abortion as a sexual sin, but it is often related to heterosexual adultery.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Joseph, there are no sexual liberation movements dedicated to solemnifying any other sexual fetish, or demanding that civilization be reconfigured and laws recodified to sanction them.

                  In time though, with the growing acceptance of Islam, polygamy will be accepted.

                  • Joseph Lipper says

                    George, how about divorce? I would count that as a sexual liberation movement often dedicated to solemnifying a sexual fetish, and demanding that families and civilization be reconfigured with laws recodified to sanction it. How prevalent is divorce?

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Joseph, what do you propose we do about it? To overturn the divorce laws would require several unpalatable things, including: the end of no-fault divorce, the return of coverture, the disenfranchisement of women, the use of coercion to keep women “in their place”, the banning of women in the workforce, etc.

                      Do you think that any of this is going to fly? Only when pigs do.

                      According to the most recent statistics I’ve seen, the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. The sexual liberation we are speaking of –i.e. feminism–has empowered most women just enough to be able (along with govt assistance) to provide for themselves. It’s a win for women in that they don’t have to “put up with” a husband.

                    • Joseph Lipper says

                      George, I am not interested in political solutions to divorce. I can only offer what the wisdom of the Church gives us: limiting the number of allowed marriages for a person, and admonishing husbands to love their wives as they would love their own body, and for wives to reverence their husbands.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      I’m not either. I was just making observations.

                    • Michael Bauman says

                      Joseph, I agree with you. The wholesale destruction of marriage was a precursor to the homosexual revolution. That was possible because marriage had long ceased to have any meaning other than a sexual contract. The Protestant anti-sacramentalism and RC legalism along with our weakness destroyed the root.

                      It is bloody difficult to get back. To change the laws requires a different common understanding first.

                      George much of what you say is not necessary for a righeteous practice of marriage. Two things only: men to be Godly men instead of selfish, sniveling cowards demanding our rights over women and dominance over others. Then women might find it reasonable and safe to submit to God through us. Given how pusillanimous most men are it is rather amazing any marriages last.

                      In Ephesians St. Paul instructs men much more strictly and in depth than he does women. Eph 5:25-33 are the key. Verses 22-24 are impossible without them.

                      Feminism exists because of our collective failure to practice what St. Paul tells us. We wholesale fell for the fake promise of more sex without strings.

                      To summarize: The first shall be last–Love your wife, raise her up to God in Thanksgiving so that He may transform her; sacrifice yourself for her as Christ gave Himself for the Church. Then and only then do we have the right to headship. If it is given to us by a loving Godly wife in spite of our failings — that is pure grace that leads us to repentance.

                      None of that requires changes in laws.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      I agree

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    George, I have to disagree. There is a great cultural movement to make marriage obsolete and to “get the state out of marriage”. No fault divorce was the beginning. Why should there be any laws governing sexuality and coupling at all?

                    “Stranger in a Strange Land”** is the new play book. Let’s “Grok”.

                    **A 1961 Sci-Fi novel by Robert Heinlein which the Library of Congress has listed as one of the 88 books to mold modern culture. From a Christian point of view it is a blasphemous and disgusting book. Nevertheless it was built on the premise that laws and taboos against sexual acts was the foundation of all that is wrong with society including wars.

          • Deep Steak (DO NOT CONGRATULATE) says

            obama also accidentally revealed the existence of the 7 secret states only true americans know about

          • George Michalopulos says
        • Gail Sheppard says

          Costa, we don’t know that anyone is lying. That would have to be proven in court and what George said would never get that far for a number of reasons.

          I said most people today do not find homosexuality problematic. I did NOT say people choose or don’t choose it or that homosexuals aren’t worthy of love and respect. We are all broken in different ways, yet every one of us was created in the image of God. I’m guessing we ALL know people who are gay and further, that everyone on this blog treats these people kindly and with compassion.

          You have a way of taking something and turning it into something else based on how you feel about the person on a given day. One minute you’re quoting the Song of Solomon to me and the next you’re bringing my deceased son into the discussion.

          • Constaninos says

            I’m really sorry that I forgot your son is deceased. Believe me, If I had remembered( actually, I was wondering about that after my opportunity to edit had expired), I would never knowingly mention him in those terms. If someone did that to me, I would be totally offended by that person’s extreme insensitivity. All I can say is that I am really sorry for mentioning your deceased son. It’s all on me. Again, my sincerest apologies. I need to make certain my brain is in gear before I speak.

          • Constaninos says

            I was getting the impression that you were a conservative Republican, and that we were in disagreement on many issues. I was challenging you to see if my impressions were correct. Whether my assessment is right or wrong, I’m not going to be challenging anymore. Any mother who has lost one of her children always gets a complete pass from me. I can only imagine the agony and sorrow that a mother has experienced. I have absolutely no interest in adding to your burden. I really do have compassion and sympathy for your devastating loss.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Constaninos, while we typically do not “choose” our besetting sins, we do choose to fight them or indulge them. Even in that case be careful of the word “choice”. A multitude of sins are in that box. In modern parlance it is a key word in a violently wrong anthropology that leads to a great distortion of the proper understanding of our interrelationships with fellow human beings and with God.

          At least one person I know, now probably dead, spent a whole year “choosing” to be an active homosexual. I watched him, he talked to me about the process and why he was doing it (girls kept dumping him and he was hurt). He quite literally talked himself into it while immersing himself in homosexual pornography. Still, it took him a full year of getting up every morning, looking into a mirror and proclaiming: “I am a homosexual.” Why? He thought it was the only way for him to get sex.

          That was 45 years ago just before the AIDS epidemic hit. That is why I say he is probably dead. In any case I pray that God grant Ted mercy and healing.

          NOTE: My story is not evidence as it is only anecdotal hearsay and we know such stories are highly suspect but it is a fact. At the very least it seems to indicate that your bold statement that no one chooses to be a homosexual might need some qualification.

          What do you think?

          Also, your whole reasoning in this comment is suggestive of how dominant the prevailing worldly mind has infected your thinking as it does all of us to some degree. All the more important then to guard our hearts.

          • Constaninos says

            Mr. Bauman,
            Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting comments. All I know is the Yankees are going to win the World Series this year. By the way, I’m really cheering for Loyola Chicago. I’ve always loved Cinderella sports stories.

            • Michael Bauman says

              Since Loyola only got to the dance because Wichita State left the Missouri Valley this year (and ingloriously flamed out in the tournament), I have been rooting for them since day one. They were a good team last year, but not quite there yet. I think they were under ranked and under seeded to begin with so I am not sure they are a Cinderella except they don’t have any soon to be millionaires in college for a year because they have to be. They actually have student athletes. I do hope Villinova crushes Kansas because they refuse to play Wichita State because they might get beaten.

              The Yankees are always the favorite to win the World Series–they own it and only rent it out occasionally to the peons so that not everyone gets bored. This year however, the Astros are champs until someone beats them and they did not stand pat and the Yankees have already lost their first basement (again) to injury. Do not forget the Indians. Pitching still really strong and healthy to start the season. The Royals were supposed to have a youth movement but instead they went old and slow. I just hope they are competitive enough to be able to use some of the old guys as trade bait come the trade deadline to get some prospects. Jay, Duda, Moose, Whit and even Salvy could bring in a haul if they are playing decently. We’ll see if the pitching can keep them at the water line or not. Next year will see the youth invasion at all positions possible. Duffy, Karns, Hammel, Herrera and Kennedy will go from the pitching staff and Escobar will not be resigned. Gordon will be a Royal until he runs into a wall and blows up (figuratively) but it will be a glorious explosion. I predict not one Royal who starts this season will start on opening day 2019. Salvy being the only possible exception.

              Dark horse in the National League: Brewers just because they have a great outfield who will run down almost anything hit out there that is not crushed or dinked. Dodgers and Nationals most likely to play for the NL Championship.

              Wichita State has unexpectedly returned to the top 25 in college baseball. Unless the wheels fall off doing conference play, they just might win the conference or be strong enough to get a wild-card bid to NCAA Baseball Tournament Regionals. First time in years since 2009. Won it all in 1989.

              • Constaninos says

                Mr. Bauman,
                Would you join hands with me and say Amen to the statement,” Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?” Pete Rose never cheated as a baseball player.

                • Michael Bauman says

                  Shoeless Joe yes, enthusiastically. The man who should have gotten banned from baseball was Charles Comisky. So glad the White Sox no longer play in Comisky Park.

                  Pete Rose, never. He cheated the game every moment he was in it. He bet on baseball while he was a manager (and likely as a player being a compulsive gambler) then lied about it consistently for years. No contrition or acknowledgement of his error. Besides that, he ruined Ray Fosse’s career by unnecessarily running into Fosse at the plate during a All Star game just to prove he was a ‘tough’ baseball player. He abused his wife. He was a showboat and he is still an ugly, mindless, obnoxious little twerp who appears as dumb as a stump and acts like he is on meth most of the time. He could hit because there was nothing else cluttering his head to distract his concentration on the baseball. In the dictionary the definition of the word looser should say, “See Pete Rose”.

                  He made me sick every time I watched him play. It was all about him. Because he played in it, I have an unpleasant memory of the game in San Francisco where I started to fall in love with my late wife. An otherwise wonderful night but there is always this little pocket of vinegar in the sweetness.

                  I would rather see Bonds and Clemmons in the HOF than Rose. I am a never Rose guy. I would not care if he had 8000 hits, 1200 home runs and 9000 RBI plus 600 wins as a pitcher along with 500 saves and 3000 stolen bases and never committed an error in the field. He offends me in every possible way except he has yet to kill anyone. An utter disgrace to baseball.

                  I pity his son, Pete Rose, Jr, who is trying to get managerial jobs in baseball. So far the only one he has gotten is the independent team here in Wichita where he has done a good job. But we are going affliated again soon. Which reminds me. If you have not seen this:, you ought to. I think it is on Netflix still. Pete Rose does not deserve to do the laundry for the guys who played on the Portland Mavericks.

                  Well, at least now I can empathize with the never Trumpers. God is good.

                  • Constaninos says

                    Mr. Bauman,
                    Speaking of Kurt Russell, I love his speech in Miracle On Ice.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      It was a great speech. Right up there with Al Pacino’s in Any Given Sunday.

                    • Michael Bauman says

                      Ah, but this movie about the Portland Mavericks is a love poem to both baseball and his father. Love it.

                      Oh and I hope I was not too opaque concerning Pete Rose.

                    • Constaninos says

                      Mr. Bauman,
                      That’s funny about being too opaque about Pete Rose.

      • Richard Simmons had his defamation case dismissed for similar reasons. It had been reported that he had transitioned. Judge decided it wasn’t actionable. He’s been ordered to pay the defendants.

  3. I’d love to see California try secession. They’d lose their federal representatives. I doubt that any military groups would support California, so no war required to bring them to heel. Then reconstruction would start.

    As deranged as the leadership of California is, I don’t think they’re stupid enough to do it.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Well, this is where it gets especially delicious: many localities in California are openly defying Gov Moonbeam by revolting against his sanctuary state policy. That’s one thing.

      Two: many counties are engaged in a secessionist movement of their own; either the New California movement and/or the State of Jefferson (which would be in the north and may or may not include parts of southern Oregon).

      Three: those wacko mayors like the one in Sacramento are finding out that their moral preening is having negative political consequences. Moral smugness might get you good press in Salon or Huffpo but it often enrages your constituents, especially when your city breaks down because of “muh principles”.

      All three are a recipe for internal chaos. All Trump has to do is wait them out. As much as I wouldn’t mind California seceding, there is no way that the Fed govt is going to allow it. Remember, Lincoln was forced to fight a sanguinary war (in which he and his generals committed war crimes) not because of slavery but because Northern manufacturing interests could not afford the creation of a free-trade Republic to their south as it would undercut their profits as well as bankrupt the Fed govt. (The reason for the latter fear was because the Fed govt was funded solely by tariffs at that time.)

      Along these lines, an independent California Republic would cease providing income taxes to the Fed govt.

    • cynthia curran says

      Orange County cities opposed Brown on santracy cities. Like Los Alamitos, Huntington Beach, and Buena park. In fact Orange County is still to right of places in Texas like Austin. Why doesn’t George support Austin, Dallas, Houston seceding from Texas and Orange County and Riverside from California.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Good question, Cynthia. Because Texas was given the right to secede from the Union in the original documents regarding its entry as the 28th State. It was also given the right to subdivide itself into five separate States should it so desire. This was mainly because of its tremendous size. If it did so, then its Senatorial delegation would go from two to ten (although some of those Senators might become liberal, especially if they hailed from Houston or Austin).

        Anyway, Gov Moonbeam has just unleashed several unintended consequences upon his State which will make its secession (and even continued existence as presently constituted) untenable. I actually foresee a situation in which things get really bad for California and then even the Democratic majority in the Assembly will have to do several unpalatable (for them) things to return some normalcy to the situation.

        This often happens in revolutionary and/or radical polities. Consider the French Revolution, which was radical and anti-monarchical in every sense of the word. At the end of the day what happened? For one thing all of the major revolutionaries (Danton, Roberspierre, etc.) were beheaded on the same guillotine that decapitated King Louis XVI and his queen. That was first. Then a new king –Bonaparte–took over and restored order.

        What I’m trying to say is that eventually, some successor to Gov Brown will have to come in and put down the illegal immigration, cut taxes and regulations (in order to stop the outflow of the productive people), enforce the integrity of the border and so on. If this doesn’t happen, then it’s Katy-bar-the-door.