A half century ago the infamous and timeworn trope coming from the supporters of the Viet Nam War was all over the airwaves. “Love It or Leave It” was the standard retort from the gung-ho believers to the anti-war activists, who filled the streets with civil disobedience. An entire era of youth came under suspicion, from fathers of that “Greatest Generation” for questioning the purpose and wisdom of American leaders and the military policy that drafted dissenting objectors into coercive service.
Now with the undying “War on Terror” as the trumped up cornerstone of government survival, the same old party line of jingoism rises again to smear any opposition of the all mighty war machine.
The following is written by a student, Alex Bertsch, not back in the 1960’s but in this year.
“I can’t question the actions of the military without being anti-American. I can’t question events like the My Lai Massacre, in which U.S. Army soldiers killed between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in Vietnam, with virtually no punishment. I am barely allowed to question the Haditha Killings, in which U.S. Marines killed 24 civilians in 2006. Questioning these atrocities would be “un-American.”
As the public is being conditioned for the next round of conflicts, the mere idea of conducting an open and frank debate is too dangerous to allow. So when the hullabaloo over the Chris Kyle movie, “American Sniper” exploded, the NeoCons rushed in to prance out their ultranationalism for the NWO age. Just what kind of world has these super patriots of the internationalist imperium bestowed on humanity?
Start with a review of the violent history of our species and especially the involvements from our own country in its short existence.
In the lifetime of the eldest living Americans, the Major Military Operations Since World War II, gives a summary of the largest involvements.
For a more comprehensive analysis of American conflicts, “We’re at War!” — And We Have Been Since 1776: 214 Years of American War-Making, provides an exhausted list.
- Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
- No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”
- The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
- The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.
If the goal is to build a global empire, all these campaigns fit a pattern of design and intention. But is this the true purpose of our founding as a nation?
When John Milton Hay Secretary of State coined the phrase, “A Splendid Little War” – Whose War Is It?, he must have known that expansion to form an intercontinental realm was put irrepressibly in motion.
“This NeoConservative philosophy is pure Internationalism in its most raw form. It is the antithesis of traditional American policy, and attempts to foster a new imperialism that is totally out of step and discredited by civilized societies. The portrait of the ‘Ugly American’ is one that needs to be relegated to the scrap heap of embarrassed memories.”
Regretfully, the entire last hundred years, billed as the American century, just continued an imperialism that kicked off with the Spanish American War. This foreign policy never made the world safe for some mythical “Democracy”, but actually set forth a domination culture of rhetoric and force that fostered the economic corporatist interests, protected by garrison outposts scattered around the world.
So what slight of hand or mental hypnoses keeps the gullible public from facing up to the indisputable facts that all these oversea adventures actually destroy our country’s real security?
Libertarian Jacob G. Hornberger makes a striking argument in THE TROOPS ARE DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY that help answers this question. This viewpoint goes directly to de-constructing the silly blind faith that the pudden-head flag waivers keep following with every additional failed overseas venture.
“The mindset that is common to U.S. troops serving overseas is that they are all doing it for America, for us, for our rights and freedoms, for our safety and security. They’ll all tell you that they are doing it because they love their country.
There’s one big problem with that mindset, however. The truth is that the troops, through what they’re doing over there, are indirectly destroying our country, our rights and freedoms, our safety and security, and our economic well-being.
Once again, the justification is to “keep us safe.” Safe from what? From the people over there who are angry over what the troops are doing over there. The more people the troops kill and maim, the angrier people get, the greater the threat of terrorist retaliation, the greater the need to keep us safe, and the greater the infringements on our freedom and well-being.
The troops have convinced themselves that they’re over there killing the people who would otherwise be coming over here to kill us. That’s ridiculous. If people wanted to come over here to kill us, they could easily circumvent the troops and come over here and kill us.”
With the open border approach in effect, the long forgotten Monroe Doctrine exempts the refugees from our hemisphere from colonizing our own land. Such acts of aggression go unpunished, while deploying foreign legions around the rest of the globe is defended as necessary.
Wake up America! Where is the common sense to ignore the pontifications of government authorities and trained seal newspeak propagandists?
Celebrating the gallantry of a Navy Seal psychopath assassin like Chris Kyle defies the most rudimentary sense of moral scrutiny, even if one wants to argue the “just war” theorem. However, if you candidly research the covert connections in the creation, funding and training of the mythical terrorism threats, the conclusion will adopt the undeniable linkage to Western government’s hidden hand behind the scenes.
Ken O’Keefe, a former US Marine discusses Washington’s major role in either generating or aggravating most of the current crises across the world and allowing groups like the ISIL Takfiri terrorists to foster and grow in the video US can no longer deny its support for ISIL.
Much has been written about how the world has changed after 9-11. The three videos on 911 a saga of deceit and lies goes unanswered because the facts presented has no legitimate counter by the establishment warmongers.
Chicken hawks, like Senator Lindsay Graham that routinely spread their dribble on Faux News are reprehensible. When his patron oracle Senator John McCain spills his vile indignation, the pompous faithful of the permanent warfare society rally round his banner.
The Zero Hedge article asks important questions, 59% Of Americans Support Post-9/11 Torture – Propaganda, Cultural Sickness, Or Both? The way you answer directly reflects your attitude about the supposed “War on Terror”. Whatever it takes to keep the homeland safe never includes questioning the factual circumstances that reveal the false flag nature, used for the phony justification to build a domestic police state.
There is no place for the “Truth Movement” in the realm of the NeoCon right-thinking camp. One such Kool-Aid dispenser in the deadly disease of disinformation is Cliff Kincaid. His article, Lies of the 9/11 “Truth” Movement, published in Accuracy in Media is a classic in denial.
“The “inside job” theory of 9/11 is appealing to those holding a Marxist or anti-Semitic view that American foreign policy is secretly manipulated by “imperialist” or “Zionist” agents. On other occasions, the puppet-masters are “global elites” or members of secret clubs. These theories preclude serious thinking about why America is under attack and by whom. Facts and evidence don’t matter when a theory about sinister secret agents with no names makes more sense.”
Paleo-conservatives are the genuine voice of authentic conservatism. The Love It or Leave It crowds of paper mache sword waving jingoists, who purport to be patriots are committed internationalists in the advancement of an American Empire. Their bellicose and warmongering mindset is no formula for genuine patriotism.
More Liberty Now concludes and asks a question that few dare to confront.
“Love it or leave it” admits that the government is a monopoly that claims ownership of us all. This ultimatum is not compatible with free market beliefs. It advocates settling for mediocrity and a monopoly. Worst of all, it’s a false choice since the very government we are urged to love will not allow anyone to leave its jurisdiction. That doesn’t fit within any definition of ‘patriotic’ I’m aware of. Does it fit yours?”
People are so dumb down about true national security since 911 and gleefully boast and demonstrate their pride in stupidity. Hypocrites who refuse to face reality about their government and foreign policy wickedness, while pretending to be champions of American principles are mentally ill betrayers.
Amerika is in a death spiral because denial is the new national anthem, sung to the tune of THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC, for an American nation that no longer exists.
“If not for my faith, I would be barely human.” That was the answer English writer Evelyn Waugh gave when asked, as all Christians will be at some point, how he could call himself a Christian given his behavior. Often rhetorical, the question is sometimes a ploy used to gain leverage and discredit the target by painting him as a hypocrite or to discredit the faith through guilt by association. Yet it can also be sincere, and it is then, especially, that it warrants a response.
The first thing to note about those who honestly ask the question is that they must think very highly of Christianity; if they didn’t, they’d merely assume you were acting wholly in accordance with your faith. This is the only thing that would explain — again, when the question is sincere — the higher standard to which they hold Christians. Others may exhibit the frailties and character flaws plaguing man, but they never hear “Such licentious behavior! How can you lay claim to hedonism?!” or, upon a loss of temper, “You call yourself a communist?!” Yet this raises a question: If Christianity provides this superior model for life, why don’t these secularists embrace it?
Don’t ask me why I’m a terrible Christian. Maybe I’m just a lost soul. Virtues are caught more than taught; actions speak louder than words.
Walk the walk and show me how it’s done.
Otherwise, you’re simply a Monday-night quarterback condemning the players when your only accomplishment is creating a buttock-shaped impression in upholstery.
Yet certain secularists may honestly find many Christians lacking. One reason for this is simple:
Christians are lacking.
The second reason, which I’ll address right now, has to do with something called mirroring.
When secularists take the measure of Christians and find them wanting, they generally don’t apply the yardstick of Christianity. They often, in fact, don’t even know what it is. If they did, they would recognize that their glass house is hardly an edifice from which to hurl holy stones; these secular critics, after all, are generally people of libertine morality and loose mouths, and their creed may not extend far beyond “If it feels good, do it.” What they are applying in their judgment are their values. Their statement “You’re not a good Christian” is, logically translated, “You’re not a good secularist.”
When considering this, note that secularists don’t trouble much over most of the Seven Deadly Sins; they usually can’t even name them (and lust and envy are in style). Rather, what earns their reprobation is some sub-category of wrath, which they may identify as “hate,” “intolerance” (incorrectly understood) or as merely a fit of pique or perturbation. And being that serene water of life is the image they have of the holy man, who they’d never thus describe but might rather call “enlightened”; just think of Kung Fu’s Kwai Chang Caine.
Yet this is a secular ideal forged on a good dose of Hollywood entertainment and eastern mysticism. Jesus wept, forgave, healed, resurrected and rendered parables of divine perspicacity. But He also called people hypocrites, “a den of vipers,” said to the apostle Peter “Get behind me, Satan!” and turned over the tables in the temple. It should be emphasized that He who Christianity tells us was, paradoxically, fully God and fully man was fully man. Jesus was not some eastern TV monk with a bare head and bare personality; He experienced a range of human emotions, each one in the right moment and measure.
As for those merely fully human, it is entirely common to mirror, to ascribe your own values and understanding of matters to others. This is why modern films may portray Jesus as if He were a flower child, just as, at the spectrum’s other end, movies about Adolf Hitler often portray him as a gruff, raving lunatic. Lost on these secular artists is that Hitler was known for personal charm, and Jesus could chastise. The Devil doesn’t appear with a pitchfork and horns and the holy don’t always sport visible halos; the demagogue tells you what you want to hear, the deific what you need to know. But it is a sad fact of man’s nature that people are more tolerant of clever lies than harshly spoken truths.
The point? It seldom occurs to these secularists that God’s dictates may be far different from their values (mostly because they don’t believe in God). In fact, were they close to such understanding, they wouldn’t even call their values “values.” God does not have values — He prescribes virtues.
Yet where the secularists are right is in that Christians do not thoroughly follow that prescription. This is not, however, an indictment of either faith or followers. Secularists’ criticism of Christians always amounts to, in so many words, “You’re really a bunch of sinners!” This is rather comical considering that Christianity teaches we’re all a bunch of sinners, with its holy book telling us “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Eastern mysticism may concern “finding the god in you”; Christianity is about accepting that you’re not God.
Delving deeper, Christians “may” not walk their walk as well as secularists walk theirs. But to condemn the Christian for this is much like saying that the man who never stumbles when playing the toddler’s game of putting geometrically shaped pegs in the appropriate holes is superior to the professional golfer who sometimes stumbles on the course. And to condemn Christianity for its adherents’ deficiencies would be like saying that ideal golf swing production is not an ideal because no one can ever and always live up to it.
What would indict Christianity?
If people could live up to it.
Then it could not be the Truth.
For how could someone ever conform to perfection?
So ironically, if you can truly live up to your faith, it’s not a faith worth living up to. Thus is the Christian a bit like the devoted golfer: He strives for the ideal of never making a mistake while knowing he can never achieve it.
In contrast, secularists are, in a sense, still playing with their pegs and holes of values. Although it certainly appears that they at least match Christians in failure to live up to what they profess, even if they didn’t, would it be anything about which to boast?
The issue is that their values pegs and holes really are theirs. That is to say, someone who believes in Absolute Truth (God’s will) will use it as his yardstick when seeking an answer to a moral question. But what if someone is an atheist (or simply a relativistic person of “faith”) and doesn’t believe in anything outside of and above man that determines right and wrong, doesn’t believe in Truth? He will then take Protagoras’ view that “man is the measure of all things,” and it then follows that there is no “morality” — only man’s preferences for behavior. This should inform as to what his yardstick for behavior will be.
“Reason” is not the answer because reason is not an answer; it is a method by which answers can be found. Thus, if there is no Moral Truth, there are no answers to be found in the arena of conduct and hence no reason for reason. So blind to Truth and having obviated the reason that could discern it, the average secularist has only one logical yardstick to use: emotion. “If it feels good, do it” — everything then boils down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
Why is this relevant here? Because the average secularist will often have values that, being emotion-born, are simply a reflection of himself, of his likes and dislikes, passions and prejudices. So how, then, could consistency in application of preferences be a legitimate source of pride? How could you be out of conformity with yourself? A yardstick never fails at being three feet long.
In reality, secularists still do manage contradiction. But why shouldn’t they? In a relativistic universe, consistency is no better than hypocrisy, a lie no worse than Truth. And even when hearts are in the right place, being governed by feelings can’t yield consistency because emotion changes with the wind. Secularists would be their own measuring stick, one that can always judge them sinless because they are always the length they are — whatever that happens to be at the moment.
Of course, there are secularists who may, in absolute terms, be better people than a given Christian. But this just returns us to Evelyn Waugh’s sage admission. What are the person’s moral proclivities? We wouldn’t dismiss ideal golf instruction because an untalented, all-thumbs duffer who received it wasn’t as good as a natural who got the Devil’s guidance. And a wise person respects those who make the most of their relatively limited potential, moral or otherwise, more than one blessed with the most ethereal talents but who buries them in the ground. “To whom much is given, much will be expected.” Perhaps that “bad Christian” is just a far worse person with a far better faith. And if you can’t thank God, perhaps you should thank your lucky stars for it. It could be the reason why he just yelled at you and didn’t put you in a gulag, burn you in a pyre or chop your head off.
Most “NGOs” fomenting regime-changes and color-coded revolutions, promoting “pride marches” and similar “human rights issues,” are in reality Western (mostly U.S.) funded conspiracies pursuing the agenda of their paymasters. That much has been known for years, but in recent days we have witnessed a particularly egregious example of their politically-motivated duplicity.
On December 17 Egypt’s military-backed government filed additional criminal charges against former president Mohamed Morsi, accusing him of being a party to a major terrorist plot that involved killing demonstrators and leaking state secrets to Iran. The authorities described the case against Morsi and several of his close advisors as the biggest of its kind in Egyptian history. Prosecutors additionally accused the former Muslim Brotherhood leader of having made illegal arrangements with the Hezbollah in Iran, with Hamas in Gaza, and with extremists whose goal is to establish an Islamic emirate in Sinai. The scheme allegedly involved smuggling arms into the country and arranging for Brotherhood activists to obtain military training from Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Revolutionary Guards in Iran.
Human rights groups were quick to condemn the charges, calling them preposterous “because of their vast scale and complexity,” The New York Times reported a day later. “They are pretty fantastical, to say the least,” the NYT duly quoted one Sarah Leah Whitson, the North African Programs Director for Human Rights Watch, as saying of the accusations. “Through both legal processes and their control of the media, the government has been trying to generate this notion that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization carrying out violent acts, with the absence of any evidence, and these charges really underscore the extent to which the government is focused on exterminating the Muslim Brotherhood as a political opposition. It is an all-out campaign to destroy it.” Two weeks earlier, the same HRW official complained that the military in Egypt was illegally holding members of Morsi’s government in secret locations.
By contrast, the arrest, trial, and sentencing of hundreds of Turkish military officers on dozens of far more preposterous charges in recent years has passed almost unnoticed in the Western media, and was barely commented upon by the “human rights community.” They were accused of involvement in the Ergenekon and Sledgehammer plots, dating back to 2003-4. The result was the largest show trial ever in the non-Communist world. The charges, too, were worthy of Moscow 1937.
The Sledgehammer plot, the government alleged, was a military conspiracy which should have included bombings of historic mosques in Istanbul, an attack on a museum, and the provocation of military tensions with neighboring Greece, including air attacks on Greek islands by Turkish planes. Such acts of terrorism and outright military aggression were supposedly designed to plunge Turkey into utter chaos and provide an opportunity for the military to step in and remove the Islamist AKP government from power.
The Sledgehammer was connected to the earlier Ergenekon conspiracy, supposedly the Mother of All Plots, the mega-conspiracy in which the “Deep State”—a shadowy coalition of senior military officers, the intelligence services, the judiciary, and organized crime—allegedly planned terrorist attacks to foment unrest, also leading to a military takeover. Arch-secular nationalists, the prosecutors said, had been in bed with the Maoist PKK, the extreme-left Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party, the Islamist Hizbullah and Milli Görüþ, the ultranationalist Turkish Revenge Brigades, the Turkish Workers’ and Peasants’ Liberation Army, and the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Turkey.
Prime Minister Erdogan and other AKP leaders provided political support for the prosecutions. There were countless inconsistencies in the accusations, however. Dozens of entities—hospitals, NGOs, companies, and even military units—were referred to by names or acronyms which they acquired many years after the dates cited, in some cases as late as August 2009. The Ergenekon and Sledgehammer cases were no “cases” at all, but a brazen attempt by the AKP regime to neutralize Turkey’s once-powerful military once and for all. The government’s specific objective was to discredit the officer corps, and thus facilitate the abolition of the Army’s traditional role as the guardian of the country’s secular political system.
In 2012, after what amounted to a show trial, over 300 of the 365 “Sledgehammer” suspects were sentenced to prison terms, and 34 suspects were acquitted. (The case is being appealed.) On 5 August 2013, final verdicts were announced in the Ergenekon case. A dozen “consecutive” or “aggravated” life sentences were passed, as well as over two hundred lengthy prison sentences. Only 21 of the 275 defendants were acquitted. All told, 640 were charged, 55 acquitted—impressive even by Soviet standards.
In view of its concern for Morsi and his cohorts, the reaction from Human Rights Watch to the spectacle in Turkey could not have been more different. In 2009, with the trial just starting, it announced that the Ergenekon case “gives Turkey a chance to make clear that it will hold security forces accountable for abuse, but that can only happen if the investigation follows the evidence wherever—and to whomever—it leads.” It did not comment on the course of the trial or the sentences. Remarkably, it did not comment on the “Sledgehammer Case” charges, trial, or sentences at all.
As for The New York Times, last August 6 it commented that “the Ergenekon trial played an important role in efforts to lay to rest a history of military meddling in democratic politics. Much of Turkey’s modern history has been dominated by a secularist military-bureaucratic alliance that regularly derailed the democratic process when confronted with governments or political movements that threatened its political control.” “Some saw the trial as no more than a witch hunt by the governing A.K.P. against its political opponents,” it noted curtly, and added, in sorrow more than anger, that an opportunity was missed “to prove those critics wrong by ensuring a scrupulous commitment to fairness throughout the process.”
As it happens, the Open Society Foundation—belonging to that noted philanthropist George Soros—is the primary donor of the Human Rights Watch, contributing $100 million of $128 million of contributions and grants received by the HRW in the 2011 financial year. And The New York Times is the flagship of America’s journalism.
Sabeel’s 9th and 25 years of Christian LIBERATION Theology…
Multiple missions pulled me back to Israel and the Occupied State of Palestine for the 8th time [since 2005] the week before Thanksgiving.
However, it was only after I received the snail-mail invitation from Reverend and Mrs. Ateek to attend the kick off luncheon for Sabeel’s 9th International Conference and Celebration of 25 years of Christian Liberation Theology, did I know the time had come to take another heartbreak trip to that troubled piece of real estate that could NOT sustain without US Policies and Tax Payer Dollars that enable War Crimes ‘justified’ by bad religion and hypocrites in high places.
The good news [especially for those who must live with me] is I returned home without flaming anger—my rage this time just simmers on a low boil over America’s apathy and willful ignorance regarding our collusion in the misery of another indigenous people.
What fuels the arrogant notion of American exceptionalism is the same spirit of Zionism
One of Sabeel’s missions is to stick us with the truth as they remind us “the truth will set us free”.
Because it is US policies that aid and abet Israel’s Nuclear Deceptions, Humanitarian and War Crimes I FEEL stuck with having to run again for US HOUSE;
But NOT as an independent this time, I am offering myself to any party in any District in Florida who is ready to support an American for US HOUSE compelled by George Washington’s warning to US:
“Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all…and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave…a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils.”
Good and Evil run through every human heart and all Free Will means is we get to choose which rules.
During my intense 8 days in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, I met more than a few who had chosen the best way to transform the current reality is by transforming individual hearts:
The Tent of Nations driveway to Daher’s Vineyard and organic farm, in the hills southwest of Bethlehem, must be navigated by foot, which provides the settlers and Israeli Forces a visual witness of nonviolent solidarity seeking to End Israel’s Occupation of the State of Palestine.
Because of that visual witness, a curious settler once visited the farm and when he learned what was going on, he built The Tent of Nations three out-houses and moved out of the settlement [all are illegal under international law] to Tel Aviv.
“The long-term goal of The Tent of Nations is to prepare youth to make positive contributions to their future and society through the values of understanding, tolerance, and respectful coexistence. These goals are achieved through education-awareness campaigns, youth empowerment, and work camps.” ###
Keith Reynolds is a Canadian supporter of Sabeel who builds playgrounds for children in war-torn areas and is a long time friend of Mordechai Vanunu, Israel’s Nuclear Whistle Blower who attended Sabeel’s Conference sessions and ate meals with old friends and met many new ones.
“Playground Builders is dedicated to building hope and peace through the gift of play. Since our inception in 2007 we have built approximately 20 playgrounds per year supplying safe play for over 250,000 children. But this is just the beginning.
“We not only build playgrounds. We help societies in crisis by injecting money into the local economy and creating much-needed jobs. This helps to keep our costs low. Additionally, our board and volunteers underwrite administrative and travel costs so that virtually every dollar donated can go directly to building a new playground.
“Playgrounds are more than just physical places to play. They are spaces where kids can be kids, community members can feel connected and empowered, new possibilities find a strong foundation and peace and hope begins. Playground Builders builds hope, one playground at a time.”
I bought a copy of USA Today Weekend at the supermarket and wanted to gag. A front-page lead story showing a picture of Edward Snowden’s Russian permit was titled: “Welcome, Comrade Snowden” (Is John McCain now writing their headlines?). To read American mainstream news is to collide with an illusory but impenetrable wall of rigid propaganda (rah, rah, America #1; rah, rah, S&P 1700; rah, rah, Washington vs. a world of enemies). In short, the paper’s almost one-million readers were encouraged. In so many words, “Don’t worry about NSA. Congress has heard the American people and is now moving to reform it. Sleep well tonight, Senator Patrick Leahy is awake.”
The mood is critically nervous among those who have written for years about America’s war atrocities, descent into post-democracy, vulture economics, systemic corruption and international lawlessness; they might be seeing their worst nightmares – the ones they wished to prevent – occurring, and ones worse becoming more probable.
Why write for a people who appear to have done nothing to preempt their current security (police) state and growing despotism? Why write (or be a whistle-blower) to be demonized, criminalized and decapitated by the very people you are trying to warn? On one hand, writers might pay a heavy price for what they commit to print; on the other hand, they fulfill themselves and fulfill the First Amendment – they speak the truth as they see it. At this juncture, however, the time for using words freely, casually and directly might be changing.
And the time for sustaining the juvenile notion of a world jealous of America’s wealth and liberty needs be long buried.
Writer Paul Craig Roberts is correct this week in his vitriol:
“The schizophrenic denizens of Washington have made Americans a hated people. Those with the foresight to know to escape from the growing tyranny also know that wherever they might seek refuge, they will be seen as vermin from the most hated nation and subjected to being scapegoated as spies and evil influences, and at risk of being decimated in reprisals against Washington’s latest atrocity.
“Washington has destroyed the prospects of Americans both at home and abroad.”
Not one person wants “the People” to share blame or wants to apply the word “fascism” to the American security-state. Yet, it is the majority of people in America who, for one reason or another, are responsible for their predicament, as the majority of German people during WWII were responsible for theirs and the Japanese people theirs. A democracy thrives from awake, alert individuals; an unbiased press; a tolerance of diverse opinions; and laws (the Constitution and international treaties). As it stands today, Americans have chosen authoritarianism over democracy; consumerism over citizenship; censorship over free-thought; militancy over diplomacy; financial oppression over equity. When they should have they didn’t force President Obama to close Gitmo; end the wars; constrain the FBI, CIA, NSA and Gen. Keith B. Alexander; indict financial CEOs and officers. They didn’t rebel over airport body scanners; RFID chips in passports; indefinite detentions; torture; state-sponsored assassinations; death squads; military war crimes; drones; Wall Street and corporate pillage of Main Street; or, for that matter, they didn’t criminalize anyone except those who “blew the whistle” or dissented. Mr. Obama’s constituents are “waking up” (after five years) if comments left at The New York Times over Snowden revelations are any indication. But I place much blame on “Obama people” who, on the one hand, voted for the president to reverse the tide of war and international disgrace generated by former President George W. Bush (or so they claimed); and on the other enabled if not cheered Mr. Obama as he perpetuated the same and worse practices. These are hypocrites.
What destruction and death has been and is propagated by the United States armed forces against the world will now be visited on “the People”. What economic exploitation has been waged against the third world countries by American banks and investors will now be waged against “the People”. What civil wars the Pentagon and CIA have engineered in the Mid-East will now be applied at home. And if it takes a regime change in Washington, it too will be done. It will be madness in America from this point forward; the world is in its cross hairs and knows it.
Some Americans will cheer a military coup, an assassination, a civil war, a de facto war against most of the planet. The world believed in a president who was never his own man; who sold out early; who relied on stage managers and PR to conceal his identity and conceal the identities of controllers from finance, the Pentagon and intelligence community. Since Snowden, the world has a clearer idea of the untrustworthiness of America’s leadership, its corporations and military.
(I believe Mr. Obama might not continue as President, and believe a financial-military coup might have already occurred.)
In this week’s Asia Times, Pepe Escobar concludes:
“For the moment, what we have is an Orwellian/Panopticon complex that will persist with its unchecked powers; an aphasic populace; a quiet, invisible man in a Moscow multitude; and a POTUS consumed with boundless rage. Watch out. He may be tempted to wag the (war) dog.”
It will be madness in America soon, out of control.
Source: Market Oracle
Michael T Bucci is a retired public relations executive from New Jersey presently residing in New England. His essays have appeared at The Market Oracle (UK). He is the author of nine books on practical spirituality including White Book: Cerithous.
Hurrah, the worm has turned! Or has it? The corporatist controlled mass media love affair with the puppet spinmeister seems to be on the rocks. For progressive propagandists, the profession of journalism has long sunk into the sewer. Withal, the elitist snobbery of the self-appointed gatekeepers for the globalist power structure got a slap in the face and a wakeup call, from Associated Press spy-gate. The reporter darlings for the Obama “Chicago Outfit” protection racket just got a taste of unexpected payback appreciation. Slow on the uptake, Obama Lapdog Andrea Mitchell on IRS Scandal: “One of the most outrageous excesses I’ve seen in all my years in journalism” “Wait until this fossil finds out about AP records being seized.”
This sentiment typifies the insincere shock from the hypocrites that ignored the criminal pattern of governance for the last four plus years. Just listen to their temper tantrum in the YouTube video, Media turn on Obama in response to AP probe. Oh, woe is I, how can our esteemed profession be treated in such a way by our celebrity creation rock star? How could he betray us, after we covered for him at every turn?
Well, the fact that the “Chicago Gangster Organization” of the Obama crew targeted the electronic communications of the press should not be a shock in the age of the Patriot Act. The real bombshell is that the Justice Dept. Wiretapped the House of Representative’s Cloak Room. “California congressman Devin Nunes made the claim yesterday that the Justice Department wiretapped telephones in the House of Representative’s Cloak Room, an exclusive part of the Capitol where members are able to privately interact with one another.
“Will the newly invigorated and hardy souls of the “Fourth Estate” become bloodhounds and sniff out the ugly stories behind the headlines? Before the long beleaguered news consumer regains confidence that the muckraker tradition of theWashington Merry-Go-Round has returned, consider who really benefits from this miraculous turn of conscience.
Let’s get right down with the despicable truth that most mainstream news is simply a product of disinformation that benefits the shadowy forces that control the editorial content of the spin. Polite company is supposed to ignore that Zionism and the Mediahas an Israel-First agenda in reporting. The direct links of tribe ownership, editorial approval and journalists staffing is simply a fact within the industry.
The linkage of a systemic slanted viewpoint and sympathy for an ideology that conflicts with traditional Americanism is a reality that cannot be denied by any honest observer. Prodigious lies from politicians are expected, but repeating the prevarications, while professing a claim that objective journalism is their trade, is a primary reason whypresstitutes are so despised.
In order to understand the current media scorn towards the Obama regime needs a shot of bold courage for analysis of the geo-political influence that dictates the perspective that goes into print. Since the mass media is a top down cabal of groupthink, it is entirely explicable that some political objective is at the core of the “so called” fabricated media outrage.
The Obama administration has demonstrated a reluctance to do the bidding of the most bellicose pro Zionists. The significance that an illegal preempted strike on Iran, a priority for Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, has not received approval from Barry Soetoro means that the string is running out on Obama usefulness. Interminable media speculation has been registered about Barack Hussein Muslim sympathies. Leaving the extent of such motivations aside, the critical question is whether a teleprompt reader, tutored by the CIA to become an asset for the agency, is really making foreign policy decisions.Consider that the red line has passed for Obama, and that operations for false flag distractions are firmly in the hands of his controllers. Stripping the imposter in chief of his political capital and placing blame on his inept and gonzo behavior is a natural for the skilled character blackwash of media assassins.
The most reasonable conclusion from an analysis of the sudden turn by a uniform media is that the order, from on high, went forth that ignoring greater Israel interests, has consequences. From none other than the oracle of Zionist supremacy, the New York Times editorial board Spying on The Associated Press, expresses their new found denigration.
“For more than 30 years, the news media and the government have used a well-honed system to balance the government’s need to pursue criminals or national security breaches with the media’s constitutional right to inform the public. This action against The A.P., as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press outlined in a letter to Mr. Holder, “calls into question the very integrity” of the administration’s policy toward the press.”
The mere mention of the Attorney General from the Department of Injustice, mildly stated is just a little late. “Fast And Furious” Eric Holder is the poster boy for careerist corruption going back to the Oklahoma City Bombing. Why now is the media turning on an AG that makes one longing for the resurrection to office of John Mitchell?
The POTUS proclaims, I Have ‘Complete Confidence’ In Holder.
“President Barack Obama continues to back Attorney General Eric Holder following the fallout over the Justice Department secretly obtaining two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press.
During a Rose Garden press conference, the president stated that he has “complete confidence” in the job Holder is doing.”
And why would Obama not back his buffoon sibling in law-breaking? Know NothingHolder is either the minister of incompetence or the sheriff of selective memory.
“Attorney General Eric Holder used the phrase “I don’t know” or some variation, at least 57 times during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today as House Republicans grilled him over controversies including the IRS’ targeting of Tea Partiers, the Justice Department’s seizure of journalist phone records, and the security lapses surrounding the Boston bombing.
Holder, who says he has recused himself from an intelligence leak probe in which the Department of Justice subpoenaed phone records from Associated Press reporters, repeatedly dodged questions about the growing scandal.
When asked whether the DOJ attempted to work with the AP before seizing the phone records, Holder said, “I don’t know what happened. I was recused from the case.”
The Daily Mail expands in the article, Eric Holder points finger at his DEPUTY, “Holder said that he recused himself from the making the controversial decision to subpoena the phone records of Associated Press journalists, saying that it was made by Deputy Attorney General James Cole.”For all those remaining Obama supporters, why isn’t Eric Holder indicted for obstruction of justice as a prelude to impeachment of his boss?
Already we are hearing that many more disclosures are about to break. One such disgrace, coming out of a broadcaster, notable for their ESPN coverage, is the account of the IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office.
“Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.”
The sport of network political coverage has been more about entertainment than accountability coverage. The application of investigative inquiry and objective criteria is mostly absent from the half-truths and feel good treatment of favored political causes and personalities. Quality investigatory reporting of a Robert Novak, Seymour Hersh or a Jack Anderson is very rare today. The standards that they practiced need to be applied by the Washington press corps.
Will the media demonstrate the same intensity of scrutiny, when querying Press Secretary Jay (Ron Ziegler, Jr) Carney as they did during Watergate? Dream on folks, the asymptomatic embellishment in reporting by the progressive media is embedded in their genes. Their function is to enable the collectivist cover-up that has a primal goal of dismantling our constitutional republic.
Independent news organizations need to get down to veracity and confront the power structure with the same vigor and intensity of John Peter Zenger. The publishing trade honed by Benjamin Franklin is dishonored by the journalists that grovel for career recognition from media conglomerates that write deliberate falsehoods.
Journalists know that their editor can strip out any item that does not conform to the “PC” policy of the publisher. The real Associated Press scandal is that the moguls of media stories are in the business of serving the political agenda of their ownership masters.
The reason that alternative news sites are dangerous to the establishment version of information is that the internet readers obtain none filtered content and are able to assess their own conclusions. The rightful contempt due for government political propaganda also applies to the slick talking heads that mouth the scripts of their internationalist overlords. Whom do you trust? The globalist adaptation of reality has no credibility.
With the Easter message fresh on my mind, I am again reminded of what the Jewish leaders said to Pilate when they tried to coerce him to crucify Jesus. They said, “We have no king but Caesar.” Remember, these were the Jewish Pharisees, scribes, elders, priests, and high priests. They prided themselves in being scholars of the Torah. They believed themselves to be the sole interpreters of the Mosaic Law. Yet, the very First Commandment of the Decalogue handed down to Moses is, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” But in order to stay in the good graces of the Roman government, they emphatically proclaimed that they recognized no king but Caesar.
Remember, Caesar insisted that everyone recognize him to be, not only king, but God. To be loyal to Rome, one had to acknowledge the deity of Caesar. One could worship any other god that one wanted to, as long as Caesar was acknowledged as Sovereign. Historians famously say that there were as many gods in Rome as people. Rome prided itself in being religiously pluralistic and tolerant. First Century Christians were not persecuted because they worshipped Jesus; they were persecuted because they refused to worship Caesar; they refused to acknowledge the sovereignty of Caesar. It was for this reason that early Christians were fed to lions and made sport of in the amphitheaters.
In their desire to use the Roman government to advance their own agenda (crucifying Christ and later His disciples and apostles), the Jewish leaders were quite willing to acknowledge the deity and sovereignty of Caesar–even though doing so was a blatant violation of the First Commandment given by Jehovah to Moses. Is it a little more than interesting that after conducting a secret, illegal trial of Jesus and blaspheming God in declaring Caesar king that they immediately afterward sat down to observe the Passover? No wonder Jesus called them “Hypocrites.”
“What does all of this have to do with modern America?” you ask. Everything!
Anytime a pastor or church uses Romans 13 to teach that Christians should submit to government “no matter what,” they are joining the First Century Jewish leaders in saying, “We have no king but Caesar.” Wittingly or unwittingly, they have made a god out of government. And by doing so, they have violated the First Commandment and blasphemed the God they claim to serve. They are like the Jewish leaders who declared unlimited submission to Caesar then sat down to observe the Passover. These modern pastors and church leaders do the same thing: they declare unlimited submission to government and then go through the exercise of conducting a Christian worship service, complete with songs of praise, recitations of scripture, and collecting tithes and offerings. Are they not as guilty of blasphemy and hypocrisy as were the First Century Jewish leaders?
Another statement that leaped out at me as I rehearsed the Easter story last Sunday was spoken by the Lord Jesus. When questioned by Pilate, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36 KJV)
How many times have I heard some We-have-no-king-but-Caesar-
Yet, the vast majority of these same Christian leaders who say “don’t resist government” are the first ones to lead the cheer for foreign wars of aggression. They are the loudest and most vocal supporters of military action against governments all over the world. They proudly extol and laud acts of war by our nation’s military. They brag about the young men of their churches joining the military and going off to war. And just what is it that military troops do? They commit acts of violence and resistance against foreign governments.
Am I a pacifist? Am I promoting pacifism? Absolutely not! I am a staunch believer in the Natural, God-given right of self-defense. I believe men have an inalienable right to resist and fight against evil government–even if it sometimes means using violence–such as when America’s founders fought our country’s War for Independence. I’m merely trying to point out the hypocrisy of these modern-day preachers and Christians who try to justify their own refusal to even peacefully resist evil government at home but who then turn around and blatantly justify violent acts of resistance against government overseas.
At least the conscientious pacifist is consistent. A true pacifist would refuse to resist any and all government–regardless of how evil that government is. Of course, this would require that such people refuse to join the military, refuse to become a policeman or sheriff’s deputy, and refuse to defend themselves against any act of criminality committed against them or their family. I have known a small handful of such people. And I always encourage them to pray for those of us in America who are not pacifists–and who believe in defending the liberties of all Americans–so that they will have the freedom to practice their pacifism.
And interestingly enough, as the federal government in Washington, D.C., becomes more and more oppressive, more and more Christian leaders are preaching the doctrine of nonresistance. And when they do, they almost always justify themselves by using Jesus’ words referenced above.
However, Jesus’ words actually teach the opposite of nonresistance. Notice He said, “Then would my servants FIGHT.” That Jesus refused to resist His arrest and crucifixion is not to be construed as Him teaching nonresistance as a duty for Christians of all time.
Remember that Jesus is God’s only begotten Son who came to give His life a sacrifice for man’s sin. No other man, before or since, shares Christ’s nature, character, and mission. There is ONE mediator between God and men: the man Christ Jesus. He was born to die; He came to be crucified. No man took His life from Him: He gave it. None of us can claim such a mission or destiny. None of us!
We Christians might not be “of” this world, but we are most certainly “in” it. And Jesus prayed to keep us “in” this world. (John 17:15) We go to work in this world; we pay our bills in this world; we lock our doors at night in this world; we instruct our children to avoid certain locations and situations in this world; we sit on juries in this world; our taxes support policemen and sheriff’s deputies who arrest criminals and protect society in this world; we join “neighborhood watch” groups in this world; and we install burglar alarms in this world. Jesus did none of that. He didn’t even own a home. Are all of these pious-talking non-resistors going to give up their homes and properties because Jesus didn’t own any? Jesus didn’t marry either. So, should Christians not marry because Jesus didn’t? Again, Jesus’ life and mission were unique; no Christian can claim such a duty or purpose.
Furthermore, Jesus plainly instructed His disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). The Roman sword was the most effective and efficient self-defense tool in the world at the time. The Roman sword was the First Century equivalent of the modern-day AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Realize, too, that when Jesus uttered this command, it was against the law for Hebrews to possess a sword of this type. Yes, Jesus commanded His disciples to break the law of man in order to obey the higher Natural Law of God. So much for the argument that Jesus would endorse Obama’s universal background check proposal.
For Franklin Graham and Richard Land–and other evangelical leaders–to support Barack Obama’s attempt to register and restrict the arms of the American people, is not only blatantly unconstitutional, it is blatantly unscriptural. Here is my column regarding the asinine support of universal background checks by Graham and Land:
Recall, too, that at the time of His arrest in the garden, Jesus protected Simon Peter’s right to keep and bear arms when He literally knocked the soldiers off their feet with the power of His voice, which allowed Simon and the other armed disciple to leave the garden unmolested and fully armed. Yes, Jesus fully protected the disciples’ right to keep and bear arms in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Readers should also be aware that my new book, co-authored by my constitutional attorney son, Tim, entitled, “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” is at the printers now and will be delivered in the next few weeks. To pre-order this very relevant and powerful book, go to:
Remember, too, that it was Jesus who violently resisted the money changers in the temple, driving them out with the force of whip and fist. This is hardly an act of nonresistance. And it is this same Jesus who will come again in power and glory subduing His enemies with the violence and force of the sword.
Furthermore, if Christ is divine (and all true Christians believe He is), Jehovah of the Old Testament and Jesus of the New Testament are One. There is absolutely no doubt that Jehovah approved of, authorized, and directly ordered the use of violent resistance against myriads of oppressors, dictators, and despots of all kinds. To preach the doctrine of nonresistance, one must ignore the entire Old Testament, not to mention a host of New Testament passages–including Hebrews 11.
At some point, every person on earth has to determine in his or her own mind who is king. Is Christ king, or is Caesar king? This is the spiritual battle that is raging in America’s churches today. And, unfortunately, as did the Jewish leaders at the crucifixion of Jesus, many pastors and church leaders are saying, “We have no king but Caesar.”
As for me and my house, we cast our lots with America’s founders whose battle cry of the Revolutionary War was “No King but Jesus.”
Christian, make up your mind.
God’s Role In The World…
In an interview about his book “Suicide of a Superpower” Dr. Kevin Barrett confronted Pat Buchanan with evidence of a manipulation involving the tragedy of 9/11. Buchanan said he would never consider a false flag operation involving his friend former Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of? Isaiah 2:22.
Quoting this scripture, R. J. Rushdoony writes, “It is God the Lord who alone is infallible, omnipotent, and all wise. He alone should command our trust and our faith. The generations of old looked to Him, and they were strengthened and made blessed, God has not grown old since the days of Moses and David, nor has His arm grown short with the years. As far as our feet will stretch and as far as our feet will carry us, He is there.” R. J. Rushdoony, “A Word in Season”
“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” – Psalm 146:3
Using this scripture in a Blog entitled “The Fallibility of All Men” Christine Smith writes, “There is turmoil among some Catholics due to the announced resignation of Pope Benedict. It reminds me of the sadness, dismay, disappointment and sometimes shock I saw in many a Christian following the 2012 presidential election. Yet both reactions, from those who profess a faith in God, demonstrates not the strength of God within them but the weakness of men who, though claiming God as almighty, actually behave as if man on earth is the most powerful.” (Emphasis mine)
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 Timothy 3:5
America is being prepared for a system of control that will make feudalism look like freedom. We watch helplessly as our government uses questionable events to destroy our freedom under the aegis of protecting us from terrorism Over eight years ago I wrote an article comparing our government with the government of Nazi Germany, “America – The Fatherland”. Today there are many comparisons being made between the rise of the Third Reich and Twenty First Century United States of America. Technology that was not available in Hitler’s Germany is now commonplace and offers tyrants the ability to impose ever more frightening controls.
My Merriam Webster dictionary defines “religion” as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. That definition describes religion but does not define religious practice. There is a link to “Rely” which is defined as “to be dependent”,” to have confidence based on experience” a better definition of religion as it is practiced.
For many years I believed that people who said they were atheists or agnostics had rejected religion by denying or rejecting the existence of god. I thought of them as devoid of religion. I also believed that the First Amendment to our constitution created a religiously neutral government. This was my belief until in the latter third of my life I was disabused from the Charismatic Movement and confronted with R. J. Rushdoony’s “Institutes of Biblical Law”, a book that matured my theology and filled the gaping hole that had plagued my Christian outlook from the beginning.
Dr. Rushdoony’s Institutes begins by establishing all law as religious because it sets the meaning of justice and righteousness in society. The source of law is the god of a society. Any change in law is a change of religion. He writes that, “—no disestablishment of religion as such is possible in any society. A church can be disestablished, and a particular religion can be supplanted by another, but the change is simply to another religion. Since the foundations of law are inescapably religious, no society exists without a religious foundation or without a law system that codifies the morality of its religion.”
There cannot be a religious void! Every person and every society places ultimate confidence in someone or something.
A nation that wishes to be Christian must zealously guard its legal codes. Reverend Rushdoony writes, “—there cannot be tolerance in a law system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance.
The United States began with at least a passing regard for Biblical Law. For several decades the Puritans and Pilgrims lived under Biblical mandates. Blackstone’s Commentaries retained a modified dependence on the Laws God gave to Moses. For instance the description of marriage made a husband and wife one and suspended a woman’s legal existence during marriage. He modified the parent child relationship but retained some obligation of a child to a parent. His writings are still used but have been replaced in the classroom with Black’s Law Dictionary a more secular document. .
Up into the 1930s some states still enforced the Blue Laws which among other sinful practices prohibited fornication, adultery, and sodomy. Blasphemy against God was also listed as a crime as was defiling the Sabbath. These laws provided our country with a palpable Christian flavor. They are now forgotten. A list of these statues is difficult to find on the internet; any reference to them is filled with mocking and jeering. Many of these Biblical standards remained in state statutes long after they were ignored.
Now, we are witnessing the accelerated introduction of a new legal system. President Obama is following in the steps of President George W. Bush in writing Executive orders that allow the state to exert divine control over citizens. Feminism successfully defied Biblical law and now homosexuality is being imposed. States have murdered millions of their own citizens but Christians become more aroused at the idea that a single reprobate should be stoned to death than they do over the cruel and useless deaths of millions of innocent civilians by their own governments.
Our President is urging California to approve homosexual marriage which would amount to a state sanction of sodomy a practice condemned by the God of the Bible. We are being returned to the days of Rex Lex with Obama, whose religious affiliation is as cloudy as his background, as the king.
Pat Buchanan’s needs to revise his priorities; esteem for Dick Cheney makes it impossible for him to entertain the possibility Cheney might be involved in nefarious activities. Friendship and loyalty are important virtues but they should never hold truth and righteousness hostage. The tendency of people to think well of their friends and of their government is often used for evil purposes. Human beings are fragile, sinful, and unreliable, placing ultimate faith in their performance and behavior will end in regret.
Christine Smith points to a pivotal flaw: Christians talk the talk but fail to walk the walk. While claiming God is still on His throne and in control of His creation they behave as if man is more powerful than God.
As our government becomes more aberrant and dangerous to its citizens Christians, not noticing their continual failure, continue to work as if the government is outside God’s control.
The State has become a major idol that draws the primary dependence of the majority of American Christians and their leaders. We attribute tyrannical laws and dissolute government to political parties instead of realizing that a sovereign God is allowing these evils to come upon us in response to our own evil actions..
Yesterday I listened to a YouTube video of a well-known leader of the truth telling movement interviewing a highly intelligent, Christian, women with a Doctor’s degree from our highest rated Ivy League school. She claimed that the end times are coming and there is nothing we can do about it. She could be right; but I don’t think she is. Such talk is anathema to proper role of God’s people in these evil times. This influential lady is nullifying her effectiveness by promoting a theology that paralyzes Christians and defies God’s exclusive right to such actions.
Arminianism and Dispensationalism are not only heretical theologies but they are insidious forces against the effectiveness of the Christian religion. Arminianism injects humanism into Christianity and Dispensationalism created an entirely new system of theology that distorts the Biblical narrative and promotes heretical doctrines.
By predicting the end times this influential Christian lady usurps God’s sovereignty and attempts to occupy His throne. Because Dispensationalism has robbed her of her God given Christian mission her entire testimony consists of her healing and warning about the end times. What if she is entirely wrong? What if it is not the end times but God’s judgment? What if our sins have found us out? What if there are numerous other grievous sins besides the millions of babies that we have murdered? What if these sins involve our people, our fathers, and our nation? What is we have distorted the Christian religion so that we are no different than the Pharisees? What if the same judgment that Jesus made toward the Pharisees He has made toward us as Christians? What if we are hypocrites? What if?
Instead of urging repentance which is the Biblical antidote to captivity she commits the disastrous error of blaming it on the end times leaving Christians helpless in the face of Satanic darkness. We are often urged to pray for our leaders. Over the years I have often prayed for our nation and its leaders. Those prayers and the prayers of thousands of other Christians have gone unanswered, God answers prayers that conform to His Will but He ignores those that do not. We are missing the mark!
It is time for Christians to stop using religion and allow religion to use them. God is not our servant! We are His servants and it is our role to obey His Commandments and work to bring about His peace and order in His creation. Instead of blaming our present dilemma on the end times we need to understand that these events might be God’s response to our sins and what is needed is repentance and proper behavior. We need to scrutinize our lives and the actions of our nation and repent from our sins so that if He does come again soon we will be ready.
God will not be mocked. We cannot ignore His Law, falsely profess His Will, destroy His creation, murder His creatures, elect and obey a pagan government, and arrogantly claim His blessing on our sin. When we do these things we can expect to suffer His wrath.
There is a line from the movie Tombstone (one of my favorite westerns, by the way) in which Val Kilmer’s character, Doc Holliday, says to Wyatt Earp, “My hypocrisy knows no bounds.” (For the record, Kilmer should have won an Oscar for his performance of Doc Holliday in that movie.) Well, my friends, what Doc Holliday said in Tombstone could be said by virtually every prominent gun grabber in the country, because they are the biggest hypocrites the world has ever seen!
Paul Joseph Watson wrote a very enlightening report relative to the way that proponents of gun control are themselves heavily protected BY GUNS. Watson writes:
“The fact that Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill exempts government officials from the planned semi-auto assault weapons ban illustrates the astounding hypocrisy of gun control advocates who, while working feverishly to disarm the American people, own firearms and surround themselves with armed men.
“As the Washington Times reported last week, ‘Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and WEAPONS USED BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.’ (Emphasis in original)
“Back in 1995, while carrying a concealed weapon for her own protection, Feinstein simultaneously called for Mr. and Mrs. America to ‘turn em all in.’
“Feinstein’s hypocrisy has been matched or surpassed by virtually every other public figure now pushing for the second amendment to be eviscerated.”
The report continued saying:
“-While Obama claims that semi-automatic assault rifles should only be in the hands of members of the military, the Department of Homeland Security has purchased no less than 7,000 fully automatic assault weapons for the purpose of ‘personal defense,’ in addition to more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last 10 months alone.
[Notice that when DHS purchases FULLY AUTOMATIC submachine guns, they are called “personal defense weapons,” but when you and I purchase SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles, they are called “assault weapons.”]
“-While refusing to even consider the idea of arming teachers and school officials to prevent school shootings, Obama recently signed a law that would give him and all past and future presidents armed Secret Service protection for life.
“-During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26 yet recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability ‘to have men with guns around at all times,’ in order to protect his daughters. In addition, the school attended by Obama’s daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times.”
The report also said, “Michael Moore, another vehement proponent for gun control, also has armed bodyguards.” And Moore is not the only gun control hypocrite. Watson notes that “Prominent gun control advocates like Piers Morgan, who base their argument on reducing gun violence, routinely threaten violence against ideological adversaries. Morgan once spoke of his desire to use machine guns to ‘take out’ his critics, while also making jokes with his guests about murdering second amendment advocate Alex Jones with a semi-automatic assault rifle during his CNN show on January 8.”
Watson concludes his report saying, “The agenda-driven and factually bankrupt political arguments of gun control advocates may be somewhat easier to stomach if the people making them were not rampant hypocrites who–while calling for the American people to be stripped of their right to bear arms–are precluding themselves from being subjected to the same treatment.”
See Watson’s report at:
The examples of gun control fanatics who either use guns for personal protection or hire guns for their own protection are ubiquitous. Not long ago, a gun-grabbing State senator from North Carolina used his own firearm to shoot intruders. FOX NEWS covers the story:
“Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles (D-NC), 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician’s home county said.”
The report continued saying, “The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.
“In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the ‘Do as I say and not as I do’ Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask?
“It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.”
See the report at:
Virtually every major proponent of the banning of semi-automatic rifles, from Bob Costas to Joe Scarborough to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, all enjoy varying degrees of ARMED SECURITY–often including semi-automatic, or even fully automatic, rifles. Yet, these same people want to deny you and me the liberty of defending ourselves with a semi-automatic rifle.
And is there anyone reading this so naïve as to think that if they succeed in banning semi-automatic rifles that they would stop there? It has never happened. Disarmament is always accomplished one step at a time. Big-Government toadies will never be content until a population is, for all intents and purposes, totally disarmed. If gun-grabbers get their way, only the privileged few (including them) would be allowed to own their own firearms. The rest of us would be turned into helpless, hapless sheep: unable and incapable of defending ourselves, our homes, or our communities.
Among the thousands of emails I have received over the last few weeks was one written by a professing Christian who rebuked me saying, “The only guns anyone needs to own is a short-barreled shotgun and a large-caliber revolver.”
Does this man truly believe that if the gun-grabbers succeed in banning our semi-automatic rifles that it will stop there? If he does, he is positively delusional! Then, my next question to the gentlemen is, so what will you do when they ban your short-barreled shotgun and large caliber revolver?
The problem with this misguided Christian is that he suffers from the same sickness that many people suffer from: they truly do not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment. It was never about hunting or target shooting or anything of the sort. It was about the ability of the citizenry to be able to withstand government tyranny.
If you don’t think that the government fears an armed citizenry, pay attention to the way virtually any police agency reacts to almost any “dangerous” situation today. With full military garb, military hardware and ordinance, and almost battalion-size numbers, one would think that soldiers were headed to war against an invading army.
And as to the argument that the American people have “no chance” against the US military should the federal government decide to use it to enslave us, one must understand that a significant percentage (if not a majority) of our combat troops love freedom and liberty as much as we do and would use their skills and equipment to fight alongside of their fellow citizens in opposition to a tyrannical government. The hundreds and thousands of combat troops that have written me expressing this exact sentiment is too overwhelming to dismiss. Plus, the sheer number of armed citizens in the U.S. amounts to the largest fighting force in the world. An armed citizenry is anything but helpless.
But the reason so many people today have lost sight of the historical meaning of the Second Amendment is somewhat understandable. In the first place, it has been a long time since the American people have had to use their guns in the defense of their liberties on their own soil. It’s been several generations since the tree of liberty has been watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants (Thomas Jefferson).
In the next place, far, far too many people suffer from the affliction known as the “It Can’t Happen Here” syndrome. Americans today (especially Christians, it seems) are way too trusting of their government. Way too trusting! They seem to have lost all awareness of history–and all rational thought to boot. It is no hyperbole to say that many of today’s Americans are every bit as gullible as were the Germans who rejoiced over the rise of Adolf Hitler, or the Russians and Chinese who still revere the memories of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung. They seem incapable of believing that there could be wicked people in Washington, D.C., who would, if possible, put the shackles of slavery over our necks. In fact, these would-be tyrants attempt to do just that every day with their onerous and burdensome laws, ordinances, and regulations, which are literally strangling the life out of our liberties piece-by-piece.
I dare say if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, and Patrick Henry lived today, they would have hoisted the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag a long time ago!
In the third place, pacifist preachers are literally killing America! All over the country, local church pastors and radio and TV preachers keep telling their audiences to “trust the government,” “the government is good,” “don’t resist the government,” “Romans 13 says obey the government no matter what,” ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
But what is so incredible with these “don’t resist the government” preachers is that they are the first ones to lead the cheer for America fighting unlimited undeclared, unprovoked, preemptive wars of aggression against governments all over the world. It is okay for Barack Obama to order the killings of hundreds of people (including American citizens and innocents) with no congressional authorization or oversight; it is okay for America to attack and invade sovereign states without moral or legal justification; it is okay to distrust any and all government leaders throughout the world–but never distrust our own leaders; it is okay to send other people to pick up all kinds of guns and go fight and die in hundreds of nations all around the globe in order to “preserve freedom.” But when it comes to fighting for freedom in our own country, when it comes to distrusting our own government when it proves itself to be dishonest and untrustworthy, when it comes to defending our own lives, homes, and communities with our own guns, we have no right to do so? Hogwash! Balderdash! Poppycock!
At this point, let me remind readers that my constitutional attorney son and I are right now in the process of publishing a brand new book entitled, “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” This book thoroughly and completely researches both the Old and New Testaments to conclusively show that the right of armed resistance is cemented in both Natural and Revealed Law. The book should be released in a matter of just a few weeks. We are now taking pre-orders for the book. To pre-order “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” go to:
There seems to be no doubt that these pacifist preachers and gun-grabbing gasbags could say along with Doc Holliday in the movie Tombstone, “My hypocrisy knows no bounds.”
During the 2012 election, the New Religious Right (NRR) held prayer vigils all throughout the United States. Their rallying cry: “If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14
There is nothing wrong with Christians gathering together to pray for a common cause. There is nothing wrong with asking God to return our country to biblical principles for the simple reason that those of us who profess Christ believe that there’s something diabolical going on, and our country is in the grip of evil. The way we see it, spiritual forces of wickedness have invaded virtually every aspect of society. And this reality is what drives us to our knees to plead with God to intervene on our behalf. As the election drew close, we appealed to the Creator to spare us from an administration that aims to transform America into a socialist utopia.
Even though large groups of conservatives from many religious systems joined together and prayed their brains out, God did not spare America.
What struck me as odd is that many professing Christians met in large groups to pray with people that reject the God of the Bible even knowing that those from other religious faiths do not pray to the God of Christianity. So the purpose for praying with unbelievers is….?
Now consider this. The Bible teaches that anyone who is not born again is not indwelled by the Holy Spirit. I tackled this subject in “Are you praying to the only true God”:
Scripture speaks of God the Holy Spirit residing within all who believe in the Son of God. The Spirit guides, instructs and empowers believers. (John 14:16-17) As well, the “Spirit of truth” confirms everything about Jesus. (John 15:26) The unregenerate (unsaved) person is not Spirit filled. God does not hear anyone’s prayer unless it is put into words by the Holy Spirit. So if we want our prayers to be heard and answered we must pray to the right God. (Source)
Paul drives home the point in 1 Timothy 2:5:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
As mediator, Jesus Christ stands between God and men to reconcile man to God. According to Scripture, God does not hear the prayers of the unrepentant sinner. “Sin had made a quarrel between us and God; Jesus Christ is the Mediator who makes peace.”
Returning to the election, Albert Mohler believes it was a “catastrophe” and a “disaster” for evangelicals. He said in a New York Times interview:
It’s not that our message—we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong—didn’t get out. It did get out. It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed. An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.
Perhaps the NRR leaders should put their priorities in order and do what the Bible commands. First and foremost followers of Jesus Christ must share the Good News of the Gospel with the lost. (1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Mark 16:15) We may defeat the evils of our day through political means and we may change laws. But unless man’s sinful heart is changed, evil will persist.
We must also oppose the evolutionary secularist worldview. Many pro-family groups have been in the trenches for decades, fighting to “take back America for God.” It has been an up-hill battle — and expensive to boot. But let’s be honest; in spite of all our efforts and the money we’ve poured into winning the culture war, liberals are winning!
After months of pleading with God to oust Obama, we’re now asking, “Why did God allow his re-election?”
In a word: Judgment.
So with that in mind, the question we should be asking ourselves is, “Why is God judging America?”
Again, in a word: Sin.
When I was a child and disobeyed my parents I got a spanking. But before the boom was lowered I’d cry out, “Don’t spank me! I’ll be good, I promise!” All the pleading in the world did not work with my parents. They’d give me a licking because I deserved one.
Well, America is getting a licking because we deserve one. It would seem that God has closed his ears to our pleas and stale promises. We the Peeps have not repented of our sins and turned from our wicked ways. In fact, most Americans could care less what God thinks of their lascivious behavior. So for now, at least, God will allow us to continue wallowing in filth.
I believe one of the reasons God has turned us over to a reprobate mind, to do what should not be done (Rom. 1:28) is that, like the world, the visible Church is awash in sin. A whole host of self-professed Christians are deep in sin simply because they have no clear understanding of what God deems sinful — and they have no desire to find out!
Satan uses syncretism to separate God from His people. Religious syncretism is the blending of differing systems of belief. “Syncretism relies on the whim of man, not the standard of Scripture.” Syncretism in Protestantism occurred when elements of other religious beliefs were integrated into mainstream denominations. So, what’s the big deal?
The big deal is blending historic Christianity with other philosophies! Listen to Deuteronomy 12:29-31:
When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
The LORD was not kidding around.
Syncretism slithered into the Church through liberalism. But well intended evangelical conservatives who make up a large part of pro-family groups are also responsible. In their desperation to “bring America back to God” groups such as the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Americans for Working Families, Wall Builders, Traditional Values Coalition, Liberty Council and Concerned Women for America reached out to a slew of controversial Christians (false teachers), including men and women in theological cults! And they’re routinely invited to participate in spiritual and political endeavors — even prayer rallies!
Over the years religious renegades have shared the platform with GOP candidates, congressmen, entertainers, heads of pro-family groups, and other conservative superstars. Now, I’m not saying that people on stage with renegades share their beliefs; what I’m saying is that when highly regarded leaders unite with heretics and cultists, the public sees it as an endorsement!
“If the New Religious Right were truly committed first and foremost to sound biblical theology and doctrine,” says Brannon Howse, “they would not be involved in spiritual enterprises with those who participate in the New Age Movement, the New Apostolic Reformation, ecumenicalism, globalism, communitarianism, the Church of Rome, the Word of Faith movement, social justice, and the social gospel.”
As Brannon rightly pointed out, the Word of Faith movement is not committed to sound biblical doctrine. What they teach is heretical!
Here CRI exposes word-faith teaching:
God created man in “God’s class,” as “little gods,” with the potential to exercise what they refer to as the “God-kind of faith” in calling things into existence and living in prosperity and success as sovereign beings. Of course, we forfeited this opportunity by rebelling against God in the Garden and taking upon ourselves Satan’s nature. To correct this situation, Jesus Christ became a man, died spiritually (thus taking upon Himself Satan’s nature), went to hell, was “born again,” rose from the dead with God’s nature again, and then sent the Holy Spirit so that the incarnation could be duplicated in believers, thus fulfilling their calling to be what they call “little gods.” Since we’re called to experience this kind of life now, we should be successful in virtually every area of our lives. To be in debt, then, or be sick, or (as is even taught by the faith teachers) to be left by one’s spouse, simply means that you don’t have enough faith — or you have some secret sin in your life, because if you didn’t, you would be able to handle all of these problems.
In every instance, the “Word-Faith” teaching is guilty of presenting an inflated view of man and a deflated view of God, thereby compromising God’s message as revealed in the Bible. This fast-growing movement has disastrous implications and, in fact, reduces Jesus Christ to a means to an end — when in fact he is the end. If the New Age Movement is the greatest threat to the church from without, “positive confession” may well be its greatest threat from within. (Online source)
Another movement mentioned by Brannon Howse is the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). The NAR, aka dominionists, hold that God is restoring the lost offices of church governance, namely the offices of Prophet and Apostle. The leaders fancy themselves modern-day apostles and prophets and believe they have the same gifts as the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles. In a piece I wrote entitled “Dominionists are on the move…and they mean business” I brought to light some of their unbiblical beliefs:
The NAR/dominionist’s goal is to transform society into the kingdom of God on earth. How? By controlling various aspects of society. The term they use is the “Seven Mountains,” or “Seven Spheres” of society. The Seven Mountains are: 1) Arts and Entertainment; 2) Business/Economy; 3) Education; 4) Family; 5) Government; 6) Media; 7) Religion. The NAR holds that as they accomplish ridding the world of evil, things will get better and better and then Jesus Christ will return to set up His kingdom.
The goals of the CR [Christian Right] and the NAR seem like a good idea, right? I mean, who could argue with wanting to influence the seven spheres of society that are dominated by secular humanists. Christians are not wrong in desiring to have a society based on Judeo-Christian principles. But here’s the problem. This “mandate” the NAR mob subscribes to did not come from the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 18:36 Jesus made it clear: “My kingdom is not of this world.”
However, dominionists never let a little thing like what Jesus said get in the way of their lofty goals. One of the most troubling aspects of their “theology” is the unbiblical teaching on spiritual warfare. They believe they have a kingdom mandate to do “strategic-level spiritual warfare” which is “a popular charismatic method of casting out demons from geographical locations or territories. It identifies three levels of demonic control on earth. Firstly, are “Ground-Level” demons, which possess people. Secondly, “Occult-Level” demons empower witches, shamans, magicians. Finally, “Strategic-Level” demons which are the most powerful of the three, are said to rule over certain regions or territories. Their main purpose is to hinder people from coming to Christ.”
Hence, dominionists go hither and yon to do strategic-level spiritual warfare to tear down demonic strongholds established by Satan and his demons. This is not local; it’s global. (Source)
The fact of the matter is that the word-faith/positive confession movement and the NAR have many of the same heretical beliefs. In Matthew 7:15-17, Jesus warned:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. … Therefore by their fruits you shall know them.
In Ephesians 5:11 Paul tells us to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” We are not only to expose them, we are to call them what they are – evil! We have many examples in the Bible of name calling. For example, in Matthew 23 Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites and “whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones.” He called these same men serpents and a brood of vipers, looked them squarely in the face and said, “how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?”
But instead of exposing unfruitful works of darkness as we are commanded to do, New Religious Right leaders, many of whom profess Christ, organize prayer events with them!
So – did God hear those prayers? Consider who He hears according to Scripture and draw your own conclusion.
New Apostolic Reformation articles—On Solid Rock Resources
Televangelists & Word of Faith Movement—On Solid Rock Resources
Are you praying to the only true God? By Marsha West
Liberals created the culture of evil and death, part 2 By Marsha West
How the Religious Right Assisted in the Re-Election of President Obama And Are Hastening God’s Judgment of America By Brannon Howse
As everybody on the planet knows now, Barack Obama was re-elected President of the United States. Democrats retained control of the US Senate, while Republicans retained control of the US House of Representatives. In other words, the national elections produced no change. But, in reality, we haven’t had any significant change in a national election in many years.
The last significant national election that produced dramatic change (at least temporarily) was the congressional elections of 1994, when Republicans swept both houses of Congress and denied President Bill Clinton’s Democrats control of the legislature. It was dubbed the “Conservative Revolution.” The other election that could be regarded as a national coup against the established political order was the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
However, within a year of the 1994 congressional elections, Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott had successfully fought off attempts of rank and file GOP congressmen to truly reduce the size and scope of the federal government, and by 1995, it was business as usual once again. And after Mr. Reagan was shot just a little over a year after taking office, much of the conservative agenda that he had campaigned on seemed to quickly fade away.
But ever since Reagan, republicans have routinely rejected legitimate freedomists and have nominated pseudo-conservatives. The result has always led to a resounding defeat for republicans at the polls. Since the defeat of George H.W. Bush after one term in 1992, due to his blatant big-government and globalist policies, Democrats have dominated the White House. The lone exception was the election of G.W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. But, Bush, Jr., ran as a Reagan-conservative. He wasn’t, of course, but he was perceived as one. But it was Bush, the Big-Spending-Warmonger, that doomed the GOP’s future failures. Bush’s out-of-control deficit spending, coupled with his preemptive wars of aggression, and the implementation of a burgeoning police state/surveillance society made the name “Republican” something dirty to the American electorate. As a result, the GOP is in complete disarray and without principled leadership.
Mitt Romney was just the latest attempt by the GOP establishment to force a big-government “moderate” upon party faithful. The true freedomist Ron Paul was treated in much the same way that Pat Buchanan was treated back in 1996. By hook or by crook, the GOP was not going to let a principled freedomist win the Presidential nomination. They wanted a controlled big-government toadie. They got what they wanted, and they lost! In fact, every time the GOP nominates a “moderate” as their Presidential nominee, he loses. Every time! One could almost get the feeling that the party establishment would rather lose with a moderate than win with a conservative. After all, why would the American people want a Wall Street moderate who will implement 85% of the Democrat agenda when they can elect a blue-collar Democrat and have the real deal? At least the Democrats are perceived as being compassionate. The GOP’s refusal to listen to their grassroots, to advance populist causes, and to disconnect themselves from Wall Street continues to cost them elections. In short, the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., is completely out of touch with average Americans.
The same scenario played out here in the State of Montana. The GOP candidates for Governor and US Senator (both pseudo-conservatives) lost to Democrats. (At the time of this writing, the race for governor is very close with only 7000 votes separating them; but the Democrat has held the lead all yesterday and today, and it is doubtful that the Republican can overtake him.) This is actually a good thing for the Montana Republican Party, as it removes from leadership the two most powerful neocons. These are men who had steered and manipulated the State party away from freedomist principles in much the same way that both Bush I and Bush II had done nationally. Now, true freedomists within the State GOP have an opportunity to rise to positions of leadership and begin steering the party back to its conservative roots.
But as I predicted earlier, the Presidential election did not provide long coattails. In DC, Republicans ended where they started, with control of the House of Representatives. Neither did Democrats increase their advantage on Capitol Hill at all. So, let’s not forget that the GOP controls the US House of Representatives. This means that the GOP controls the purse strings for ALL federal spending. If the Republican Party is serious about reducing spending, they have the power to do it. All monies appropriated for federal expenditures must be authorized by the House of Representatives. So, Republicans should quit crying in their milk and start demanding that House Speaker John Boehner and the rest of the House Republican leadership start growing some man-stuff and stop funding all of these big-government, unconstitutional expenditures-including all of these foreign wars that are sapping both our freedom and our prosperity.
Here in Montana, Republicans maintained a significant majority in the State House of Representatives (my son, Tim, ran as a Republican in a predominantly Democrat district, and appears to have lost a close race) and picked up the attorney general’s office. Furthermore, there were five ballot initiatives, all of which had to be regarded as Republican issues. All five passed overwhelmingly.
Republican propagandists can complain all day long about principled freedomists who choose to vote for a third party or not vote at all for a given race. But they shouldn’t blame the voters; they should cast blame where it rightly belongs: at the feet of the GOP leadership. I no more owe allegiance to a political party than I would owe allegiance to a retail store. If the business does not convince me by its product, service, and price to shop there, I am under no obligation to do so. I will go down the street. It’s laughable to think that I owe my business to one store. What a joke!
It is equally laughable to suggest that I owe my vote to one political party. Each candidate has an obligation to convince me that he or she is worthy of my vote. When he or she does, my vote is given them. But when a candidate doesn’t earn my vote, they are not getting it–regardless of party label. That’s the way most Americans vote. Oh sure, you have the party loyalists who would vote for their party’s candidate if a baboon was nominated. Thankfully, the numbers of these types of voters are quickly shrinking.
And in truth even the party loyalists who condemn people who won’t vote for the “lesser of two evils” (meaning someone from their party) are blatant hypocrites, because they won’t do it either. The only difference is whether the “lesser of two evils” is defined by either principle or party. Let me explain.
Here in Montana there was a two man race for Clerk of the Supreme Court. One was a Democrat; the other was a Libertarian. There was no Republican in the race. The Democrat won by 14 percentage points. Pray tell, why didn’t all the Republicans vote for the “lesser of two evils” and give the Libertarian the victory? Why? Because party loyalists refuse to vote for anyone who is not a Republican, meaning the “lesser of two evils.” In other words, they behave in exactly the same way that many freedomists behave: they refuse to vote for the “lesser of two evils.” The only difference is the definition of “evil.” To freedomists, “evil” is the abandonment of constitutional, freedom principles; to party loyalists, “evil” is the abandonment of the Republican Party.
Here is the bottom line: Republicans don’t win elections when they nominate pseudo-conservatives. They crash and burn. And they have been crashing and burning for decades now. If Romney had any coattails, it was to taint true Republican conservative candidates with his brand of neoconism. When will they ever wake up and realize that they are perceived as being an out-of-touch, elitist, money-driven party that doesn’t give a darn about average people? Furthermore, when will they stop treating principled freedomists like toilet paper?
All over America, in State after State, the GOP leadership bullied, harangued, and stomped on Ron Paul and his supporters. The way Ron and his followers were treated in many State GOP conventions and in the national GOP convention was nothing short of criminal. Had Mitt Romney behaved as a gentleman and not like a vengeful tyrant, had the GOP leadership treated Ron and his supporters with the respect and dignity that they had earned, this election might have turned out differently.
Frankly, Mitt Romney deserved to lose, not only due to his big-government, liberal track record, which is out of step with rank and file freedomists, but also due to the shameful treatment of Ron Paul and his supporters, which he either knowingly tolerated or may have even orchestrated.
Furthermore, for the Republican Party to ask principled conservatives to support candidates who routinely trample constitutional government, who routinely support bigger and bigger government, who routinely aid and abet a growing police state, who routinely finance more and more unconstitutional wars of aggression, who routinely vote to bankrupt America with deficit spending, who routinely provide bailouts for their banker-buddies, and who routinely treat honest, hardworking freedomists like doormats, is to ask for more and more disaster at the polls.
So, the net result of the 2012 elections was NO CHANGE. And the reason there was no change in the elections is because there was no change in the Republican Party. What was the definition of insanity again?
Everywhere I look these days, I see hypocrisy and double standards being usedby Americans — locally, nationally and internationally.
Locally, for instance, a neighbor of mine recently intimidated and bullied her landlord into giving her all kinds of favors and perks. However, when this same landlord attempted to do something that would have benefited all of his tenants, she suddenly threatened to take him to court. “More stuff for me, less stuff for you,” seemed to be the argument that she plans to present to the judge.
And another neighbor of mine claims to be a devout Christian yet supports war (any war!) bigtime. Jesus would never do that.
And our city’s current mayor, a developer himself, always seems to favor other developers and to go out of his way to twist, bend and chew up city procedures if this could possibly get yet another unnecessary highrise built downtown by his developer friends. And yet our mayor screams bloody murder when city procedures might actually benefit just some Average Joe like you and me.
On the national level, Willard “Mitt” Romney wants to take from the poor and give to the rich — and he’s really really good at this too. Fine. He’s rich. This policy benefits him. I understand that. But then he talks to the rest of us poor schmucks like he’s gonna be our savior too — when this is actually the farthest thing from his mind? Hypocrisy? Absolutely.
Obama claims to represent America’s grassroots community. But who gets the most benefits from his largess? Wall Street. And War Street. And “health insurance” companies. Of course he’s better at benefiting you and me than Mitt is — but not by all that much. Saint Obama he is not.
And during this current election cycle, Americans all seem to be bitching and moaning about the direction that their country is going in — yet no one will vote for a viable candidate with good ideas such as Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party (who just got arrested for having the gall to ask for her rightful place at the last presidential debate). Or even Roseanne Barr. Trust me. Roseanne Barr has a lot more good ideas than Romney and Obama combined. But Americans would rather just bitch and whine and “vote for the lesser of two evils”. Hypocrisy.
There are two excellent films out right now, entitled “We’re Not Broke” and “Story of Broke” . Both movies clearly demonstrate that we have more than enough money in our treasury to benefit the 99% wonderfully — but are benefiting the greedy 1% instead. That’s just wrong.
And here is a link to a film about Monsanto — how it is systematically killing off as many human beings as possible for fun and profit, both in America and abroad. Perhaps Monsanto has mistaken us humans for weeds?
And on the international scene, we can see the most hypocrisy of all. Global corporate interests with American ties have caused the deaths of over ten million people in the Congo in the last three decades — and then these same enormous conglomerates actually have the NERVE to say they are just representing free enterprise. Since when did Adam Smith ever tell us that capitalists need to take their market advantages from the barrel of a gun? Or from welfare subsidies from the USA, the IMF and the UN?
America’s corporate-owned government bleats constantly that it is representing democracy abroad — despite all the election fraud, jailing of demonstrators, free speech suppression, media control, indefinite detention and phone-tapping going on here — which makes our “democratic” leaders on the international level the biggest hypocrites of all.
For instance, just look what happened recently regarding that low-rent porno flick, “Innocence of Muslims”. It has been vigorously protected as supposedly representing “free speech”. But when the Jenin Freedom Theater in Palestine puts on plays that highlight the brutal and insane injustice of the corporate-owned Israeli occupation and land-grab, the theater’s artistic director is jailed. Jailed. And tortured. How protective of free speech is that?
And then there’s Al Qaeda — bad guys when you need a boogieman in America, but good guys when you need boogiemen in Libya and Syria. And Israel? It’s a heroic Jewish state when War Street needs to propagandize it — but an anti-Semite down-and-dirty commandment-breaker and disrespecter of Torah in real life whenever War Street needs a land-grab in the Middle East .
So. Selfishness and hypocrisy have become the new American morality — both locally and nationally. And internationally too. Everyone in America seems to expect everyone else to play by the rules — except for themselves. ‘What’s mine is mine — and what’s yours in mine too!” should be solemnly engraved on every single American coin and should definitely replace “E Pluribus Unum” on all dollars.
Either that, or Americans might actually consider going back to attempting to do things cooperatively so that everyone benefits — not just for benefiting you at a very high price to me.
Nah. That will never happen. Too late.
By far the biggest obstacle the Church faces is the infiltration of ubiquitous, aggressive liberals, many of whom are renowned pastors, authors, conference speakers, missionaries, televangelists, radio hosts, and CEOs of Christian organizations. As of late, even some of our most beloved evangelical leaders appear to be morphing into theological liberals. The extent of movement to liberal ideology varies with each individual, but in certain cases they have gone completely off the rails. False doctrine abounds in books, Bible studies and Bibles authored by notable Christians and promoted by so-called Christian publishers and book sellers. We have been duly warned about this sort of thing happening:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (1 Tim. 4:1).
That, brothers and sisters, is a pretty severe warning!
To give readers a sense of what kind of person to be on the lookout for let me introduce one of the most dangerous wolves in Christendom, the Rev. Jim Wallis. This man wears many hats. He is the founder of Sojourner’s Magazine, speaker, author and activist. He’s also President Obama’s “spiritual advisor.” This alone speaks volumes. Rev. Wallis insists that he’s an evangelical Christian even though he has abandoned thebiblical gospel for the “social gospel.” He believes he’s on a mission from God to assist the poor and oppressed to bring forth the Kingdom of God on earth.
David Noebel sheds light on some of the good reverend’s activities:
Wallis’ Sojourners enterprise has been a radical, socialistic undertaking from the start. Frontpage Magazine (March 17, 2009) says, “As one of its first acts, Sojourners formed a commune in the Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Southern Columbia Heights, where members shared their finances and participated in various activist campaigns that centered on attacking the U.S. foreign policy, denouncing American ‘imperialism,’ and extolling Marxist revolutionary movements in the Third World.”(Source)
Jim Wallis is also a champion of unbiblical movements such as the Emergent Church, Spiritual Formation (contemplative prayer/mysticism) and what he refers to as “spirituality.” Here is his view of prayer:
I pray, but there are many understandings about prayer. For many, prayer is talking to God, sometimes a great list of requests and needs—sort of like a child’s Christmas list mailed to Santa Claus. But at least for me, prayer is becoming a time of listening rather than talking. There is so much noise in our world and our lives (much of our own making); prayer becomes a quiet space that enables us to stop talking long enough to see what God might be trying to say to us.
The disciplines of prayer, silence, and contemplation as practiced by the monastics and mystics are precisely that—stopping the noise, slowing down, and becoming still so that God can break through all our activity and noise to speak to us. Prayer serves to put all parts of our lives in God’s presence, reminding us how holy our humanity really is. (The Great Awakening: Seven Ways To Change The World, 290) (Source)
Wallis is promoting unbiblical contemplative/centering prayer.
On homosexuality he believes:
[T]he major differences of theology and biblical interpretation in the church with regard to issues such as the nature of homosexuality, gay marriage, and ordination are not issues that should be allowed to divide the churches – that local churches should lead the way here, and that an honest, open, respectful, and, hopefully, loving dialogue should characterize the church on these very controversial questions.(Source)
Issues which are clearly unbiblical, such as the sin of homosexuality, should not be allowed to divide us? Really?
Are professing followers of Jesus Christ supposed to ignore the Bible’s explicit teaching on marriage, one man and one woman for life, so that men can marry men? Should we really go against what God says in His Word regarding His plan for sexuality and marriage and adopt a “pro-gay” theology to accommodate a small group of gays and lesbians? The answer is “May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, ‘That Thou mightiest be justified in Thy words, And mightiest prevail when Thou art judged.’” (Romans 3:4)
Going against God is folly! (For the biblical view of homosexuality read Answering the Gay Christian Position)
Even though Wallis is a Red-Letter Christian and a Wild Goose chaser, he poses as an evangelical. Sadly, he and his ilk have many starry-eyed, misguided followers who, like most liberals, wish to farm out their obligations to the tax payers.
Liberals such as Jim Wallis dub themselves “progressive Christians” and more recently “social justice Christians” (SJC). Social justice has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? But hold your horses! SJC has its roots in communism and has the same aim: The common good.
Sounds magnanimous, doesn’t it? Don’t be fooled! What these people are striving for is government transfer of wealth from one group of citizens to another to level the playing field. Some liberals use Genesis 4:9 “I am my brother’s keeper” to make their case. Leftist hypocrites have no problem quoting Scripture to defend wealth redistribution, but when conservative Christians quote Scripture to defend their opposition to abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and so forth they cry foul!
In an essay entitled “A Biblical View of Social Justice,” John Wheaton writes:
[I]t is essential that Christians clearly define what social justice entails. On its face, the term has a positive connotation that conveys a seemingly strong sense of virtue and morality. Basing a claim on an appeal to “social justice” provides the claim holder with a degree of persuasive advantage – a kind of moral blessing on his or her political, theological, or social ideas. However, social justice involves much more than a superficial label or feelings of compassion. It must involve a clear understanding and delineation of each social problem, the root cause of the problem, and the best solution for the problem. In short, “Good justice requires good judgment.”(Source)
For SJCs, Christianity is a lifestyle. Their morality comes, not from Scripture, but from popular opinion. Although they believe that some things in the scriptures are true, the Bible doesn’t hold a place of authority in their lives. As one blogger put it, “the emphasis is more on growth thru the process of work and serving others.” In other words, a person must have faith plus he/she must do good “works” in order to be saved. This teaching is demonstrably unbiblical. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph. 2:8, 9) (Bold added)
Many SJCs are Darwinian evolutionists, environmental extremists (save the planet, not souls), and they think nothing of co-mingling Christianity with paganism gleaned largely from Eastern mysticism. They are supposedly Christians, yet many of them support abortion, the normalization of homosexuality, and same-sex “marriage.” What is most telling is their denial of basic biblical doctrines such as the inerrancy of Scripture; the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ as God’s judgment for sin; Hell; and Jesus Christ as the only way to God and instead hold to collective salvation – all roads lead to God (religious pluralism).
What it all boils down to is that many SJCs are cultural Christians. They are not regenerate (born again) believers. In fact, they are hostile to the true gospel. Moreover, their goal is the redefinition of traditional Christianity.
Liberal wolves are spreading a false gospel or what Peter called “damnable heresies.” (2 Peter 2:1–2) In a word, evil.
WOLVES IN THE HEN HOUSE
Purpose-Driven aka Seeker Sensitive/Seeker-driven/Radicalis (Pragmatism)
Some of the most prominent players are Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Perry Nobel, Steven Furtick, Ed Young, Jr., Ed Stetzer, Craig Groeschel, and Kerry Shook.
Individuals like Brian McLaren, Marcus Borg, Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, Leonard Sweet, Brennon Manning, Eugene Peterson, Donald Miller, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Ken Wilbur, Tony Campolo, Andy Stanley, John Ortberg, Frank Viola, Laurie Beth Jones, Ruth Haley Barton, Shane Claiborn, Shane Hipps, Spencer Burke, and Jay Bakker hang their hats here. The Leadership Network has played a pivotal role in the Emerging Church movement. So have Catholic mystics. Be aware of Meister Eckhart, Ignatius of Loyola, St. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Thomas Merton, Thomas Keating, Henri Nouwen, William Meninger and Basil Pennington.
New Apostolic Reformation aka Kingdom Now/Latter Rain/Elijah’s List/Joel’s Army/International House of Prayer (Gnosticism)
Some of the movers and shakers are Kenneth Hagin, William Branham, C. Peter Wagner, Doris Wagner, Cindy Jacobs, Chuck Pierce, Rick Joyner, Dutch Sheets, John Arnott, Mike Bickle, Paul Cain, Bill Hamon, John Eckhardt, Lew Engle, Che Ahn, John Benefiel, Bill Johnson, Jack Deere, Ed Silvoso, Lance Wallnau, Todd Bentley, Samuel Rodriguez, Harry Jackson, Steve Shultz, Patricia King, Alice Smith, Kim Clement and Reinhard Bonnke.
Word of Faith aka Prosperity/Health and Wealth/Name-it-and-claim-it (What you believe you can achieve)
Leaders in this heretical movement are Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, James Robison, Paula White, Jan and Paul Crouch, Ken and Gloria Copeland, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Rod Parsley, Robert Morris, Creflo Dollar, Fred Price, John Avanzini, Eddie Long, Jim Bakker, Robert Tilton, Jentezen Franklin, and Jesse Duplantis.
Off the reservation
In this group are luminaries such as “possibility thinker” Robert Schuller, so-called Christian historian David Barton, Southern Baptist Bible teacher Beth Moore, influential pastors like James MacDonald, Tim Keller,Max Lucado, Jim Garlow, David Jeremiah and formerly Emergent now Reformed Pastor Mark Driscoll.
Become A Better You by Joel Osteen
The Shack by William P. Young
The Harbinger by Jonathan Cahn
Love Wins by Rob Bell
Sun Stand Still by Steven Furtick
A New Kind of Christianity by Brian McLaren
Prayer of Jabez by Bruce Wilkinson
SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT…ON THE WANE
Spiritual discernment is almost becoming nonexistent in the visible Church. So – what exactly is spiritual discernment? Pastor and Bible expositor John MacArthur defines it thusly:
In its simplest definition, discernment is nothing more than the ability to decide between truth and error, right and wrong. Discernment is the process of making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth. In other words, the ability to think with discernment is synonymous with an ability to think biblically.
First Thessalonians 5:21-22 teaches that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be discerning: “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.” The apostle John issues a similar warning when he says, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer-it is required.
The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one’s ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life. For example, failure to distinguish between truth and error leaves the Christian subject to all manner of false teaching. False teaching then leads to an unbiblical mindset, which results in unfruitful and disobedient living-a certain recipe for compromise. (Source)
In an article entitled Got Meat? I offered some advice on how to avoid the pitfalls of compromise:
[It is] important to learn what someone really believes about God. A discerning Christian will pick up on the deception. Always find out what a professing Christian believes about Jesus. Is He the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, as orthodox Christians believe? Is He the Son of God? The Savior of the world? If someone’s view of God is radically different from what the Bible teaches, that person is not a Christian!
Had followers of Jesus Christ exercised spiritual discernment, perhaps what my friend Ken Silva refers to as the apostasy-palooza would never have gotten a foothold in the Church — and the wolves in sheep’s clothing would be considerably less threatening to the Body of Christ than they are today.
I’ll close with this reminder:
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts 20: 31)
Religious Trojan Horse—By Brannon Howse
Worldview Weekend Training—Brannon HowseJim Wallis: Obama’s “Red” Spiritual Adviser—By David NoebelLiberals changing word meanings with intent to deceive—By Marsha West
“The raging monster upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is but a fragile theoretical construct. To say, as many do, that the difficulties of nations are not due to people, but to poor ideology and land-use management is sophistic.” Harvard scholar and biologist Dr. E.O. Wilson
For over 30 years, I have written, spoken and stood up to discuss, debate and move the human overpopulation issue forward in America. I have run into a brick wall constructed by the Catholic Church, the immigration open border lobbies and the Congress of the United States. It appears that any discussion in America or Canada provides our two countries with the last taboo: no discussion of population for fear of hurting someone else’s feelings.
Whose feelings? How about the 13.4 million American children living below the poverty line? What about the 100,000 children in Somalia starving to death in the past several months and future months? How about the 18 million humans that starve to death around the planet annually this year and every year?
Why is the population equation the last taboo? Answer: religion, culture and human denial. I call upon the Catholic Church, the Protestant Churches, Islam, Buddha, Hindu and all other ancient religions to come to the table to get a handle on relentless human population growth that they all support. Why? Because it’s killing not only millions of human beings; it’s killing millions of fellow creatures and it’s killing our planet.
My long time Canadian friend Tim Murray brings it in this interview. He makes no bones about who is stifling, strangling and suppressing the population equation.
“I am not, by nature, a conspiracy theorist,” said Murray. “As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But when people of my ilk consistently see our interviews, op-eds, and lecture invitations abruptly cancelled with feeble excuses given—if given at all—then random events suddenly take on a pattern. If we examine it, I think only one conclusion emerges as most plausible. We have been witnessing a slow strangulation of debate about overpopulation. It represents a mass die-off of open discussion of arguably the most important topic of our time by those upon whom our society most depends. Our scientists.”
An Excuse That Just Doesn’t Add Up
“CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) was to have a booth set up at the Vancouver Convention Centre for the science fair held by the American Association for the Advancement of Science this winter,” said Murray. “But guess what. After making the arrangements and paying a fee of $2500, CAPS was told that the deal was off. They could not have a booth at the fair after all. Why? It seems that somebody got to them. Of course, alternative explanations can be entertained. AAAS explained that it is “a non-profit, non-partisan, scientific association, and unfortunately, CAPS does not align with AAAS”. Funny how they took the rent and then made the discovery that CAPS didn’t have as legitimate a right to have a booth as did other organizations less focused on education.
“In response to further inquiry, they added that “We do not provide booth space to organizations with as direct a political and lobbying intent as CAPS on issues that go beyond the interests of our multidisciplinary membership and meeting audience.” Keep in mind, this is the same AAAS whose journal “Science” published Dr. Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons”, an article that attracted more reprint requests than any other paper Science had ever published. Ironically, Dr. Hardin was a founder of CAPS, which AAAS now wants to exclude from its upcoming Vancouver conference.”
Once upon a time overpopulation was considered a legitimate subject for scientific research
“How times have changed,” said Murray. “In 1976, Canada’s then most prestigious and august scientific body, the Science Council of Canada, issued a report (Number 25) that concluded that the country faced a future of severe resource constraints, and that it would be prudent for us to slow the population rate down so as not to exceed 30 million people by century’s end. “Only by keeping population growth low, while at the same time implementing conservation measures on all fronts….”, would it be possible to meet future energy demands. And if we did that, they predicted, our population would “stabilize within a generation”. (p. 10, SC Report #25) They added that “annual net immigration of about 50,000 per annum would achieve that growth.” (p. 61)
“Net immigration is now more than six times that number and according to the 2007 census Canada had the fastest growing population in the G8 group, with all major parties wanting to increase the pace! By the beginning of this year, Canada stood at more than 34 million people—and still growing, as resource shortages loom. No one can say that, as far back as 1976, our top scientists did not try to warn us about the consequences. And the warnings continued.
“In May of 1991 scientists in the “Intelligence Advisory Committee” submitted a report to the Privy Council of Canada that emphasized that “Controlling population growth is crucial to addressing most environmental problems, including global warming.” Six years later, a team of 63 scientists, academics and graduate students led by Dr. Michael Healey of UBC completed a $2.4 million federally-commissioned study of the Fraser Eco-Basin that argued for the development of a Population Plan for the country, as it was apparent that many other farming regions outside Canada’s major urban centers would suffer the same ecological damage that Greater Vancouver’s burgeoning population had inflicted upon the region.”
“Their verdict was that “…population is central to the problem of sustainability. The government cannot pursue sustainability and at the same time ignore population…The federal government should adopt a population policy for Canada that is consistent with the principles of sustainability (of which) immigration is one facet.” (Executive Summary, Prospects for Sustainability, p.6)
“In all three cases then, scientists had identified rampant human population growth as very much a legitimate subject of scientific research and felt compelled to recommend curbs to that growth,” said Murray. “Their reports obviously evidenced “lobbying intent”. But now, in 2011, the zeitgeist has shifted to the point that apparently “science” must stand by in silent witness to a mugging of nature, and pretend that this “non-involvement” is something other than what is it—collusion by default. Scientists have become “silent partners in crime”. Surely Dr. Stuart Hurlbert of SDSU was correct.”
“Suppression of fact and opinion highly relevant to a topic under discussion (eg. Sustainability, population growth , effects of immigration controls) is one of the strongest, most devious , and most irresponsible forms of advocacy possible.” It seems that the editorial gatekeepers of scientific debate are even more reluctant to debate population issues than are politicians. As Professor Fred Meyerson of URI once remarked, “If we were discussing the population and growth and migration of any other species, no one would shy away from it.”
I smell a rat
My long time Canadian friend Tim Murray brings it in this interview. He makes no bones about who is stifling, strangling and suppressing the population equation.
“Here is my suspicion. I smell the odour of two smear organizations in this incident. The Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) and the Center for New Community (CNC), who have made a habit of vetting upcoming events and notifying the hosts that some of the invited guests are “un-American”. No doubt, the AAAS have been told that CAPs is “anti-immigrant” and “racist”. This is what has been happening all over the continent the past few years, and with increasing frequency. Here goes the pattern. Someone in our movement is invited to a convention, or to an interview or to submit an op-ed piece, and suddenly, it is cancelled—with no reason given.
“It seems that nearly everyone in my circle has had an experience like that—including me. It is like really hitting it off with someone and then, inexplicably, finding her cold upon meeting her the second time. Or being engaged and being inexplicably left at the altar. If it happens once, or even twice, you can find reasons to dismiss it. But when it becomes the norm, you know the fix is in.
“Environmentalist Frosty Wooldridge had an interview slated for the Thom Hartmann show on NPR. Then suddenly it was cancelled. Environmentalist Leah Durant had an interview scheduled on the Lou Dobbs Show, and suddenly it was cancelled. She had a regular column on Huffington Post, and then it too was suddenly cancelled. No explanation given. But guess who took her place? Carl Pope, the former Executive Director of the Sierra Club, the man who called in the SPLC to a launch a smear campaign against Sierrans who attempted to restore its policy of immigration reduction to the policy books. It seems that all media is been sanitized and cleansed of those elements who would challenge the orthodoxy of “progressive growthism”, a perverse hybrid of left-wing social policy and right-wing economics.
“Now I have learned that Madeline Weld, president of the Population Institute of Canada, was invited in late September, 2011, to speak at an event that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) was organizing for October 31, to mark the occasion of the world population reaching 7 billion. The event was to last 3 hours and include a roundtable discussion. But, on October 13, Ms. Weld was advised by CIDA that the entire event had been cancelled due to “unforeseeable circumstances.”
“I have an idea what those unforeseeable circumstances might have been. I suspect that the person who invited Ms. Weld had no idea who she was. But others at CIDA did–and when they saw (too late) who had been invited to speak at the 7 billion event, they were no doubt horrified. Ms. Weld has challenged the neglect of family planning by CIDA and their flawed development model which ignores population. The powers that be figured it was best to cancel the event.”
The Tentacles of the Smear Network Have A Continental Reach
“There are Canadian groups plugged into the SPLC “Hatewatch” network too,” said Murray. “The SPLC sends out frequent bulletins advising supporters where ‘racists’ are about to speak. No sooner was the first press conference for the fledging “Canadians for Immigration Policy Reform” convened when it was under attack in a Eco-Marxist online magazine for its ‘racist’ agenda. If you think this is paranoia then perform a test. Set up a phoney lecture date by someone on the SPLC hate-list and schedule it at a local college or auditorium. Advertise it widely and then wait for the rent-a-crowd rag-bag protesters to show up with placards and blow horns to shout the phantom lecturer down. Make it a cold winter night so we can greet them with fire hoses.”
The New McCarthyism
“We talk about the Sixth Extinction, the fact that we are in the midst of human-caused species loss on a massive scale,” said Murray. “But what we don’t seem to fathom is that we are also witnessing the Seventh Extinction event—- a wave of Neo-McCarthyism that is sweeping over the land and causing a mass die-off of discussion about the consequences of runaway immigration-driven population growth in North America. People are being silenced, excluded and dropped. They are losing their columns, their radio shows and their foundation money. And the people who are doing it to them are the same kind of people who wrung their hands when told about how badly treated “the Hollywood Ten” were, or how ‘un-American’ the House on Un-American Activities was in the 50s. And the Civil Liberties Union has nothing to say about it. Hypocrites.”
It’s time to call off our unrequited love affair with the soft green-left
“What can we do about it?” asked Murray. “For starters we can refuse support or cooperation with any who work with the smear network. Stop working with Avaaz.org or Commondreams.org. Stop supporting green NGOs and left wing think tanks that repeat their lies and exclude our voice. Stop pretending that environmentalists, feminists and ‘progressives’ are friends who have lost their way, friends who share our goals but don’t yet understand our perspectives. These people are our enemies. They aim to destroy us. All of them. The McKibbens, the Monbiots, the Brunes, the Hartmans. THEY are the sectarians, not us. They are the ones who deserted the IPAT equation, not us. We have tried to work with them but they will not work with us.
“In fact, they work very hard behind the scenes against us—using their friends at Hampshire College, the SPLC, the CNC and the other smear merchants as their hit men. Their objective is not ours. They are not authentic environmentalists. They want to manage the environment to accommodate endless population growth, but we want to end population growth to accommodate the environment. There can be no fellowship between us. We must end our unrequited love for this so-called environmental ‘justice’ coalition. Wake up. This is war.”
“The Shen Beet, you know, like your FBI and the Mossad, like your CIA.” – Mordechai Vanunu
Last October and just before the publication of BEYOND NUCLEAR: Mordechai Vanunu’s FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial and My Life as a Muckraker: 2005-2010 a supporter of Vanunu’s who had become a friend of mine three years prior told me about another dissident Israeli and former military officer who had also converted to Christianity and been involved in high-level scientific programs.
A major difference between Vanunu and Roy Tov is that Tov left Israel for South East Asia and wrote his insights of the Zionist state in The Cross of Bethlehem
A major similarity is that, to this very day, both brothers remain in the cross hairs of the Mossad.
Tov added, “but most readers would probably not be aware I had been formally recognized by Bolivia as a political refugee in 2005. This would put things in a clearer perspective, especially the Bolivian treason against me. They accepted me and then sold me out to my persecutors.”
The latest in Vanunu’s saga is that for the second time, on 13 November, the Israeli Supreme Court failed again to meet the announced deadline to respond to Vanunu’s appeal to revoke his citizenship. Follow that story at Vanunu’s You Tube Channel:
The only way I can bear the waiting for Vanunu’s freedom from Israel is by imagining the delay is because SECURITY [Shen Beet and Mossad] are searching for a graceful way out of the wall they backed themselves up against by failing to imagine a little muckraker like me would expose their Vendetta against Vanunu and send it to them:
I just ordered my copy of The Cross of Bethlehem and a book review will follow, but this begins what I hope and intend will be a series of Internet conversations with Tov.
It begins with Tov’s response to my inquiry for an Internet interview:
“Eileen, my fierce urgency is for real. I can’t tell you if I’ll be able to breath tomorrow. I can’t tell you if another criminal Bolivian hired by Israel will attack me again this night.”
Roy also wrote:
“Seldom do I publish day after day, but yesterday something happened. After I published Rabbinical Fake: 6000 Differences I was attacked, as it often happens after I write on religious items condemning Judaism. It’s not the first time it happens or that I report it on this website, but this time it was a viciously hard hit.
“My food was poisoned and I barely managed to arrive at the guesthouse where I was staying. After several aspirins and coffees, I was able to reach the nearest internet kiosk and send a few update emails including one to a leading American human rights lawyer who is trying to help in my case.
“Back in the guesthouse I collapsed.
“Today I decided to make this public, despite the negative impact (literally so) it may have on me. I fear another violent attack by the Bolivian authorities. Let me be clear: the attack was organized and performed by Bolivian authorities and funded by Israel.
“In The Cross of Bethlehem I describe a Bolivian intelligence officer who admitted openly that Israel asked to ‘keep an eye on me.’
“That was in March 2007. Since then I have no peace. A wide variety of harassment methods are routinely used against me; from time to time I describe them in the website. I was forced to move out of the church. I was forced to live in cheap guesthouses, all the time in the move.
“At the Internet kiosks my memory cards are a favorite target. I am harassed while eating and while walking. Israel cannot logically answer me, thus it physically attacks me.
“In July 2009 I was savagely attacked by a Bolivian – Israeli team, which was performed with the help of the local police (to say the very minimum). I was left with nothing. Copies of my documents mysteriously disappeared at the same time from the refugees’ agency and from the immigrations authorities. No explanation was ever offered for this last event. As a result, I have been illegitimately made into a prisoner of the Bolivian state, unable to leave the country that gave me refuge in order to sell me out to my persecutors.
“Since then, my throat – badly hurt during the coward attack – keeps deteriorating. I can’t neither teach nor preach. Interviews are impossible; after speaking for a while I fold in pain.-Bolivian Refugee 461/2005 Betrayed by those who gave refuge 
Roy explains that “as of now I barely speak, have difficulties eating and constantly suffer from pain” in his throat.
Previously he wrote:
“On the morning of July 23, 2009, I was forced to leave the church building where I was living very early, a few minutes before 7 AM. The noise was impossible and I knew that complaining to the brothers would be useless; I’d tried that too many times. I left the building and headed downwards, towards La Paz downtown…twice in my way down suspicious 4×4 trucks crossed my way. They advanced too slowly, as if in a reconnaissance mission, and were out of place. At that hour I never met even one. I chose to advance faster and eventually reached the Santa Cruz and Illampu corner a few minutes later; this is where “El Lobo” – an Israeli owned restaurant which apparently doubles as a Mossad substation.
“Somewhat down that street, four Israeli men were waiting. Probably following their expectations, I moved away from them as fast as possible, meaning I entered the Linares Alley. This is the center of the backpackers’ area in La Paz, featuring many souvenir stores half hidden in a maze of narrow alleys. Fearing they would follow me, I immediately turned left and began descending a steep and unnamed alley leading to Murillo Street and to what I thought would be safety. Halfway down, I heard some muffled steps behind me. I turned around exactly when a small, stocky Bolivian man reached me, bypassed me, and stopped about a yard ahead of me, blocking my escape route. “Roy” he said.
“That was impossible; I use a Spanish name with Bolivians. Feeling what was going on, I turned backward just in time to see one of the Israelis that I had seen instants before on the Santa Cruz Street. Another man was out of sight, and jumped on me from behind; his arm wrapped my throat. He had a solid piece of metal on the inner part of his elbow; he pressed it on the lower part of my neck. He pulled backwards and I fell, another man picked up my feet at that moment and pushed them away from me. That increased the pressure on my neck. I felt the neck making a funny noise and everything turned black.
“I was awake. Nobody was near me. My backpack and all my documents have been taken away. I stood up. Nothing seemed broken, tough my neck felt funny. I headed down to Murillo Street. Unsurprisingly, there were two policemen waiting there. Crime in Bolivia pays dividends to the police; seldom a crime is committed without the police knowing or even helping it. This is not secret; it’s all over the Bolivian media. I approached them and shouted “I’ve been attacked.” Standing next to me, the policemen barely herd the weak whisper that came out of my broken throat. I repeated that and pointed at the alley…afterwards I was at the emergency room of a Catholic hospital, which cooperates with the refugees’ office.
“I had no intentions of letting them perform intrusive tests or to let them inject we with drugs. Local hospitals are famous for causing infections that demand additional treatments (and create bonus incomes for the hospital). After a physician examined my throat, he wanted to give me cortisone to avoid the inflammation. I refused. They refused to let me go. “You’ll suffocate to death otherwise,” a nurse told me.
“They brought a new syringe and show me the cortisone ampoule. Eventually, after some thirty minutes, I began experiencing difficulties in my breathing and agreed to the injection.
“In the early afternoon, I returned for the forensic examination. While waiting in the large inner yard of the building, R.G. appeared. He is the Bolivian intelligence officer described in The Cross of Bethlehem. In March 2007 he admitted ‘Israel asked to put an eye on you.’
“His son is one of the Bolivians working in a joint false-missionaries program with the CIA; Bolivian missionaries can enter where Americans cannot. I ignored him. Then, the physician told me my throat had been badly crashed. Later that year permanent damage to my throat was diagnosed; since then it is slowly and steadily deteriorating. I won’t describe here the subsequent contacts with official bodies here, but nobody doubts the Israelis and the local police carried out a joint crime; apparently the Bolivian intelligence had also had a profitable role. Thirty coins of tin for a Bolivian Judas…..Meir Dagan slept well that night.” 
Meir Dagan stepped down as the head of Mossad in early 2010 and went “on the offensive in a series of briefings with journalists and public appearances because he feels that Israel’s security is being mismanaged by Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, and Ehud Barak, the defence minister.” 
Dagan said, “I decided to speak because when I was in office, Diskin [the head of Sin Bet/internal security agency], Ashkenazi [the head of the army] and I could block any dangerous adventure. Now I am afraid that there is no one to stop Bibi [Netanyahu] and Barak” who have all been replaced by men chosen by the current government. [Ibid]
Dagan has publicly warned against Israel attacking Iran to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons stating “if Israel attacks Iran, it will find itself at the centre of a regional war that would endanger the state’s existence. Dagan’s intervention is dangerous for Netanyahu because it comes from the right wing of Israeli opinion rather than the left, where the prime minister would expect criticism.” [Ibid]
Dagan had once been in charge of aggressive Israeli actions abroad and in recent years his ‘accomplishments’ included connections to assassinations in Lebanon, Syria, Dubai and an air attack on a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria.
Ben Caspit of the Maariv newspaper wrote: “He is one of the most rightwing militant people ever born here…who ate Arabs for breakfast, lunch and dinner. When this man says that the leadership has no vision and is irresponsible, we should stop sleeping soundly at night.” [Ibid]
The best and only way I know to disturb the sleep of willfully ignorant hypocrites in high places is to give voice to the voiceless and those at risk of loosing theirs- as Tov literally is!
If all goes as planned this article is the first in a series of Internet conversations with Tov whose expose can be ordered here:
The Cross of Bethlehem | The Memoirs of a Refugee
The movement that began as Occupy Wall Street in New York has spread to other cities across America as well as countries. In Italy, the Occupiers instigated a riot in Rome, torching cars and smashing windows, which required armed police to be brought in.
In the name of equity, the Occupiers say they are the 99% opposed to the top 1%, the filthy rich. So who are America’s Top 1%?
To begin, we need to define “income” vs. “wealth or net worth.”
Income is what people earn — from salaries, wages, dividends, interest, royalties, and rents from properties they own. U.C. Santa Cruz Sociology Professor William Domhoff claims that most of the income of “the rich” does not come from “working”: In 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries.
Wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns in marketable assets (such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, but not including cars and household items), minus any debts or liabilities (such as home mortgages, credit card debts and auto loans). In effect, wealth is assets minus debts, or W = A-D. That is why a better term for “wealth” is “net worth.”
High income (HI) may or may not mean great wealth because a high-income person or household may simply spend everything they make — and more, by going into debt. At the same time, an individual or household with moderate or even low income (MI/LI) may actually become wealthy by being frugal and investing their savings wisely.
Thus, HI ≠ W; whereas it is highly possible that MI/LI = W. Remember that when you decide to condemn “the wealthy.”
Wikipedia says the current per capita (per person) median income in the United States is roughly $32,000 (for those employed full-time between the ages of 25 and 64, it’s $39,000). By “median” income is meant that the figure $32,000 divides the American population into two equal halves — half (50%) of Americans make more than $32,000, and the other half make less than $32,000.
The U.S. Census Bureau offers income data by household and individual. 42% of U.S. households have two income earners; thus making households’ income levels higher than personal income levels. According to a 2008 article on the investment website My Budget 360, the median U.S. household income was $46,326. Dual earner households had a higher median income at $67,348.
Currently marketing corporations and investment houses classify those with household incomes exceeding $75,000 as “mass affluent,” while sociologistLeonard Beeghley identifies all those with a net worth of $1 million or more as “rich.” The upper class is most commonly defined as the top 1% with household incomes commonly exceeding $250,000 annually.
In a recent Census report there are 110 million households in the United States.Here’s the distribution of U.S. households’ income in 2006:
- Top third (34.73%) of households had annual gross income of $65,000or more.
- Top quarter (25.60%) of households had annual gross income of$80,000 or more.
- Top quintile (20%) of households had annual gross income of $91,202or more.
- Top 15% (17.80%) of households had annual gross income of $100,000or more.
- Top 10% of households had annual gross income of $118,200 or more.
- Top 5% of households (3/4s of whom had 2 income earners) had annual gross income of $166,200 or more.
- Top 3% (2.67%) had annual gross income of $200,000 or more.
- Top 1.5% had annual gross income of $250,000 or more.
- Top 0.1% (0.12% or 146,000 households) had annual gross income of$1,600,000 or more.
The 2008 article on My Budget 360 further breaks down that Top 0.1%. At its apex are:
- The top 0.01% (11,000 households) with annual incomes of $5.5 million or more.
- The top 400 highest tax payers in America had annual incomes of $87 million or more.
Notice how the incomes gradually go up from the Top Third’s $65,000 to the Top 1.5%’s $250,000, but between the Top 1.5%’s $250,000 and the Top 0.1%’s $1.6 million) is a huge gap of $1.35 million!
While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top 0.01% of households. One can therefore conclude that almost any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are poor when compared to the top 0.1%, who in turn are poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households.
According to the Federal Reserve Board, here’s the distribution of U.S. households’ networths in 2001:
- 6.9% of U.S. households had a negative networth of <$0 (i.e., those who not only have zero assets but are in debt).
- 5.4% of households had a networth of $0-$999.
- 2.4% of households had a networth of $1,000-$2,499.
- 3.5% of households had a networth of $2,500-$4,999.
- 4.7% of households had a networth of $5,000-$9,999.
- 8.1% of households had a networth of $10,000-$24,999.
- 9.2% of households had a networth of $25,000-$49,999.
- 12.8% of households had a networth of $50,000-$99,999.
- 19.2% of households had a networth of $100,000-$249,999.
- 13% of households had a networth of $250,000-$499,999.
- 7.8% of households had a networth of $500,000-$999,999.
- 7% of households had a networth of $1 million or more.
Alas, the Federal Reserve Board did not break that top 7% down, so we don’t know what’s the networth of the Top 1% of U.S. households, other than that the Top 1% own 32.7% of Americans’ total networth in 2001. In contrast, 50% of U.S. households own just 2.8% of Americans’ total networth.
Here are some interesting tidbits about the above distribution of U.S. households’ networths:
- 58% of households with negative networth were young, i.e., under 35 years old (which makes sense because many college students are poor).
- Those with negative networth are more likely to have a less-than-high-school education.
- Among those with negative networth, the percentage who are unemployed (but not retired) is more than twice they are in the larger population.
- Households with negative networth are concentrated in the South and in the West.
- 10.1% of households with networth of $1 million or more are Boomers (aged 46-55).
- 28.2% of the Top 1% households in networth are Boomers.
The Top 1%
Leonard Beeghley called the top 0.9% the “Super Rich”, whom he described as “Multi-millionaires whose incomes commonly exceed $350,000; includes celebrities and powerful executives/politicians.” The OWS Movement say they are against the Top 1%. Here are some members of the Top 1% who are or should be targets:
Barack Obama: (supports OWS)
- Annual POTUS salary (not total income): $400,000
- Net worth in 2010: $10.5 million
The 25 richest members of Congress (in Roll Call’s 2009 annual survey that gives only their estimated net worth. Under federal law, members of Congress must disclose their personal investments and liabilities, but only in broad categories, thereby shielding the exact value of any asset or debt):
- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass): $188.37 million
- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca): $160.05 million
- Rep. Jane Harman (D-Ca): $152.62 million
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va): $81.50 million
- Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas): $73.75 million
- Sen. Mark Warner (D- W.Va): $70.19 million
- Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo): $56.49 million
- Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla): 55.47 million
- Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): $49.70 million
- Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca): $46.07 million
- Sen. Alan Grayson (D-Fla): $31.41 million
- Rep. Harry Teague (D-NM): $25.52 million
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca): $21.74 million (supports OWS)
- Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NY): $19.90 million
- Sen. James Riche (R-Idaho) : $19.69 million
- Rep. Gary Miller (R-Ca): $19.37 million
- Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Tx): $18.41 million
- Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn): $18.21 million
- Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo): $15.73 million
- Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY): $14.90 million
- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine): $12.52 million
- Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn): $12.12 million
- Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont): $10.90 million
- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz): $10.52 million
- Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa): $10.45 million
Non-elected political figures:
- Louis Farrakhan (leader of Nation of Islam): $3 million
- Ralph Nader: $4.2 million
- Chelsea Clinton: $5 million
- Al Sharpton: $5 million
- Joy Behar: $8 million
- Ann Coulter: $8.5 million
- Rev. Jesse Jackson: $10 million (supports OWS)
- Henry Kissinger: $10 million
- Eric Holder (U.S. attorney general): $11.5 million
- Sarah Palin: $12 million (networth); $1 million (annual salary)
- Hillary Clinton: $21.5 million
- Arianna Huffington: $35 million
- John Edwards: $55.5 million
- Al Gore: $100 million (supports OWS)
- Mitt Romney: $250 million
- Matt Drudge: $15 million
- Brian Williams: $30 million (networth); $13 million (annual salary)
- Sean Hannity: $35 million
- Diane Sawyer: $40 million (networth); $12 million (annual salary)
- Katie Couric: $55 million (networth); $15 million (annual salary)
- Glenn Beck: $85 million
- Barbara Walters: $150 million
- Rush Limbaugh: $300 million (est. networth); $40 million (annual salary).
Celebrities who’ve spoken out in support of Occupy Wall Street:
- Yoko Ono: $500 million
- Russell Simmons: $325 million
- Roseanne Barr: $80 million
- Deepak Chopra: $80 million
- Kanye West: $70 million
- Alec Baldwin: $65 million
- Susan Sarandon: $50 million
- Tim Robbins: $50 million
- Michael Moore: $50 million
Here are the networths of some of the Super-Rich, the Top 0.01% (from Forbes’ richest 400 in America list):
- Steve Jobs: $8.3 Billion
- Carl Icahn (leveraged buyouts): $12 Billion
- Sergey Brin (Google): $15.9 Billion
- Charles Koch (manufacturing, energy): $19 Billion
- Michael Bloomberg (NY mayor): $20 Billion
- George Soros: $22 Billion
- Jim Walton (of Wal-Mart): $23.4 Billion
- Lawrence Ellison (of Oracle): $27 Billion
- Warren Buffet: $50 Billion
- Bill Gates (Microsoft): $57 Billion
The Occupy protesters reportedly are armed with iPhones and laptops and are active in social media — the very gadgets and communications technology invented by Jobs, Brin, Ellison, and Gates. Reportedly, Soros is funding the Occupy movement.
Will irony ever end?
By the way, raging socialist and President-for-life of Venezuela Hugo Chavez has an estimated networth of $1 Billion (!) — the same as Prince Albert II of Monaco. Another raging socialist, Fidel Castro of Cuba, has an estimated networth of $900 million.
Adios for now. See you at the Revolution!
Source: Fellowship of the Minds