HAPPY NEW YEAR FELLOW PATRIOTS!
As we prepare for change here at PAO, I want to thank each of you for your Patriotism, because that's the whole reason why PAO was created.
We will continue to discuss the events of the day, but at least through these last 10 years, we have put ourselves in position to defeat the globalists once and for all, and restore the country and the world to a peaceful place that we've never truly known in our lifetimes.
And in so doing, we will leave the world a better place for our children and grandchildren. So a big pat-on-the-back to each of us for collectively fighting for a better America.
And on a personal note, to my lovely wife who is still in the hospital since mid December, I will move HEAVEN AND EARTH to get you better and to bring you home, for you are the love of my life ♥️
MAY 2025 BE A GREAT YEAR FOR ALL OF US!!!
Episode 41 of the Commonweal Magazine podcast addresses the topic of “White Churches & White Supremacy”.
The discussion consists of this leftwing Catholic outfit interviewing Robert P. Jones, a Southern Baptist wracked with White guilt, about his book “White Too Long: The Legacy Of White Supremacy In Christian America".
In the discussion, it is revealed that the title is taken from a quote by writer James Baldwin.
Isn't that itself an act of cultural misappropriation?
If we are to buy into the premise that White Christians are guilty for deeds from the past deemed by Woketopians as racist on the part of organized religion, why shouldn't Baldwin and his contemporary acolytes be held responsible for the bloodshed, death, and destruction of property linked to the socialist ideology of which Baldwin was a proponent?
And if the correspondents at Commonweal and Robert P. Jones want to invoke admiration for James Baldwin in their crusade against “White Christians”, don't they owe it to their readers to explain why they are downplaying or even concealing the ultimate conclusion of Baldwin's ratiocination that the concept of God should be abandoned altogether?
If Christians are to derive their social philosophy from thinkers that deny the existence of God, why are we to side with those advocating revolutionary upheaval over those such as Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman that advocated a more individualistic approach to life?
After all, in a world without God, no set of ideas is ultimately superior to any other.
Could it be that, unlike Baldwin to the acclaim of critics, these propagandists do not have the creative wherewithal to continue their scam without what would be considered a crutch or opiate of the masses if they were being more philosophically honest about the worldview that it is that these alleged intellectuals actually profess?
By Frederick Meekins