Their precious young minds and our precious young minds…
She was a redheaded rebel, the singer in the family, a trash-talking, tattooed 21-year-old wrapped up in a hip-hop dream of becoming Holland’s Eminem. Then Betsy found Allah. After her sudden conversion to Islam last summer, Betsy began dressing in full Muslim robes. By January, the once-agnostic Dutch woman, raised in a home where the only sign of religion was a dusty Bible on a shelf, began defending homegrown terrorists. … Denis Cuspert, a German hip-hop artist known as Deso Dogg who converted in 2010 and later joined The Islamic State [ISIS], delivers a rap-like chant portraying the path to jihad as a chance for empowerment, spiritual fulfillment, vengeance and adventure. … ‘The door to jihad is standing there waiting for you,’ says a Swedish convert to Islam in a video. ‘It is the fastest way to paradise.’ (1)
Tales told many times in recent years, all over Europe, at times in the United States. Parents and authorities are deeply distressed and perplexed. How can young people raised in the West – the freedom-obsessed, democratic, peace-loving, humanitarian, fun-filled West – join the Islamic State and support the public cutting off of the heads of breathing, living human beings? Each of us in our own way are lost souls searching for answers to the awful mysteries of life. But THIS? What life-quest does The Islamic State satisfy that our beloved West can’t satisfy? ISIS is unique in the world in making US foreign policy look good. The Defense Department and the State Department have special task forces studying the new enemy; the latter regularly puts out videos to counteract the many Islamic State videos.
I hope those researching the question look inwardly as well as at ISIS. How do young people raised in the West – the same West we know and love – coldly machine-gun to death more than a dozen Iraqis, men, women, children, reporters, absolutely in cold blood, in the video made famous by Chelsea Manning; but this of course is nothing compared to Fallujah with its two-headed babies, even three-headed, an eye in the middle of the forehead. The Islamic State has done nothing compared to what the United States did to the people of Fallujah. Can anyone name a horror in all of history more gruesome? Yes, there are some, but not many; and much of Fallujah was personally executed by nice, clean-cut, freedom-obsessed, democratic, peace-loving, humanitarian, fun-filled made-in America young men.
Here’s US Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, in his memoir, April 6, 2004, the time of Fallujah, in video teleconference with President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “We’ve got to smash somebody’s ass quickly,” said Powell. “There has to be a total victory somewhere. We must have a brute demonstration of power.” Then Bush spoke: “At the end of this campaign al-Sadr must be gone. At a minimum, he will be arrested. It is essential he be wiped out. Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can’t send that message. It’s an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal. … There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!” (2)
“Years from now when America looks out on a democratic Middle East, growing in freedom and prosperity, Americans will speak of the battles like Fallujah with the same awe and reverence that we now give to Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima” in World War II. – George W. Bush, 2006 (3)
Well, George, it’s either that or Fallujah was one of the key reasons for the rise of ISIS.
My point here is not that United States foreign policy is as barbaric and depraved as The Islamic State. It’s not. Most of the time. I simply hope to make it a bit easier to understand the enemy by seeing ourselves without the stars in our eyes. And I haven’t even mentioned what the United States has led the world in for over a century – torture.
The ever-fascinating and ever-revealing subject of ideology
Jeb Bush has gotten himself into trouble because, like all politicians running for office, he is unable to give simple honest answers to simple straightforward questions, for fear of offending one or another segment of the population. How refreshing it would be to have a politician say only what s/he actually believes, even if it’s as stupid as usual.
The brother of the previous president has been asked repeatedly: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” At first his answer was “yes”, then at times “I don’t know”, even “no” at least once, or he’s refused to answer at all. Clearly he’s been guessing about which reply would win him points with the most people, or which would lose him the least.
This caused a minor uproar, even among conservatives. Right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham was moved to make a rare rational remark: “You can’t still think that going into Iraq, now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to. If you do, there has to be something wrong with you.”
Such discussions always leave out a critical point. Why did millions of Americans, and even more millions abroad, march against the war in the fall of 2002 and early 2003, before it began? What did they know that the Bush brothers and countless other politicians didn’t know? It was clear to the protesters that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were habitual liars, that they couldn’t care less about the people of Iraq, that the defenseless people of that ancient civilization were going to be bombed to hell; most of the protesters knew something about the bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Yugoslavia, or Afghanistan; and they knew about napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, etc. Those who marched knew that the impending war was something a moral person could not support; and that it was totally illegal, a textbook case of a “war of aggression”; one didn’t have to be an expert in international law to know this.
Didn’t the Brothers Bush, Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war in the Senate), et al know about any of these things? Of course they did. They just didn’t care enough; supporting the empire’s domination and expansion was a given, and remains so; no US politician gets very far – certainly not to the White House – questioning the right of American Exceptionalism to impose itself upon humanity (for humanity’s sake of course).
Consider the darlings du jour of the American Left, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. They very seldom speak out critically about US foreign policy or even the military budget. The anti-war/anti-imperialist segment of the American left need to put proper pressure on the two senators.
Mr. Sanders should also be asked why he routinely refers to himself as a “democratic socialist”. Why not just “socialist”? It’s likely a legacy of the Cold War. I think that he and other political figures who use the term are, consciously or unconsciously, trying to disassociate themselves from communism, the Soviet Union, Marxism, etc., all those things that are not good for you. (The word “socialist” once connoted furtive men with European accents, sinister facial hair, and bombs.)
It would be delightful to hear Sanders openly declare that he is simply a “socialist”. Socialism can be democratic; indeed, a lot more so than capitalism, particularly concerning the distribution of wealth and all the ramifications of that. Presented here are some relevant thoughts on these issues, from myself and others:
It’s only the socialists who maintain as a bedrock principle: People before Profit, which can serve as a very concise definition of socialism, an ideology anathema to the Right and libertarians, who fervently believe, against all evidence, in the rationality of a free market. I personally favor the idea of a centralized, planned economy. (Oh my God, a damn Commie!) Modern society is much too complex and technical to leave its operation in the hands of libertarians, communitarians, or anarchists seeking to return to a “community” or “village” level.
“Washington has always regarded democratic socialism as a greater challenge than totalitarian Communism, which was easy to vilify and made for a handy enemy. In the 1960s and ’70s, the favored tactic for dealing with the inconvenient popularity of economic nationalism and democratic socialism was to try to equate them with Stalinism, deliberately blurring the clear differences between the world views.” – Naomi Klein
“If it is true, as often said, that most socialist regimes turn out to be dictatorships, that is largely because a dictatorship is much harder to overthrow or subvert than a democracy.” – Jean Bricmont, Belgian author of “Humanitarian Imperialism” (2006)
Without a proclaimed socialist vision, radical change becomes too many different things for too many different individuals and groups.
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.” – Martin Luther King
The United States is so fearful of the word “socialism” that it changed the “social sciences” to the “behavioral sciences”.
If for no other reason than to save the environment, the world needs to abandon the capitalist system. Every day, in every spot on earth, in a multitude of ways, corporations are faced with a choice: to optimize profits or to do what’s best for the planet.
The great majority of people in any society work for a salary. They don’t need to be motivated by the profit motive. It’s not in anyone’s genes. Virtually everybody, if given the choice, would prefer to work at jobs where the main motivations are to help others, improve the quality of life of society, and provide themselves with meaningful and satisfying work. It’s not natural to be primarily motivated by trying to win or steal “customers” from other people, no holds barred, survival of the fittest or the least honest.
And what about this thing called “democracy”, or “majority rule”? Many millions marched against the invasion of Iraq before it began. I don’t know of a single soul who marched in favor of it, although I’m sure there must have been someone somewhere. That lucky soul was the one they listened to.
Finally, the question being asked of Jeb Bush and others is not the best one. They’re asked: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” A more important question would be: “Knowing what we knew then, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” And the answer should be “no”, because we knew that Saddam Hussein had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction. This is very well documented, from diverse sources, international and Iraqi, including Saddam himself and his chief lieutenants.
The American Mainstream Media – A Classic Tale Of Propaganda
“When an American warplane accidentally struck the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 during the Kosovo campaign …”
These words appeared in the Washington Post on April 24, 2015 as part of a story about US drone warfare and how an American drone attack in Pakistan in January had accidentally killed two Western aid workers. The Post felt no need to document the Belgrade incident, or explain it any further. Almost anyone who follows international news halfway seriously knows about this famous “accident” of May 7, 1999. The only problem is that the story is pure propaganda.
Three people inside the Chinese embassy were killed and Washington apologized profusely to Beijing, blaming outdated maps among other problems. However, two well-documented and very convincing reports in The Observer of London in October and November of that year, based on NATO and US military and intelligence sources, revealed that the embassy had been purposely targeted after NATO discovered that it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications. The Chinese were doing this after NATO planes had successfully silenced the Yugoslav government’s own transmitters. (5) The story of how the US mainstream media covered up the real story behind the embassy bombing is absolutely embarrassing. (6)
Over and above the military need, there may have been a political purpose served. China, then as now, was clearly the principal barrier to US hegemony in Asia, if not elsewhere. The bombing of the embassy was perhaps Washington’s charming way of telling Beijing that this is only a small sample of what can happen to you if you have any ideas of resisting or competing with the American juggernaut. Since an American bombing campaign over Belgrade was already being carried out, Washington was able to have a much better than usual “plausible denial” for the embassy bombing. The opportunity may have been irresistible to American leaders. The chance might never come again.
All of US/NATO’s other bombing “mistakes” in Yugoslavia were typically followed by their spokesman telling the world: “We regret the loss of life.” These same words were used by the IRA in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions over the years following one of their bombings which appeared to have struck the wrong target. But their actions were invariably called “terrorist”.
Undoubtedly, the US media will be writing of the “accidental” American bombing of the Chinese embassy as long as the empire exists and China does not become a member of NATO.
1) Washington Post, May 7, 2015
2) Ricardo Sanchez, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier’s Story (2008), pages 349-350
3) Associated Press, November 11, 2006
4) William Blum, America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy, pp. 61-2
5) The Observer (London), October 17, 1999 (“Nato bombed Chinese deliberately”), and November 28, 1999 (“Truth behind America’s raid on Belgrade”)
6) Extra! Update (magazine of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR], New York), December 1999; appeared first as solitary article October 22, 1999 (“U.S. Media Overlook Expose on Chinese Embassy Bombing”)
How many times has the mainstream media mentioned the USA Freedom Act? Well, if you did hear of this legislation, you must have been watching C-SPAN or a foreign press channel. Read a report from NPR, that government funded broadcast, which never fails to present a known editorial viewpoint.
“The USA Freedom Act extends many parts of the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which expires June 1. The measure’s fate in the Senate is less likely.
The surveillance issue has sparked “rare bipartisan unity” in the House, NPR’s David Welna reports for today’s All Things Considered. He notes that the push to change the law comes from Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
“Despite changes to the NSA bulk telephone metadata program announced by President Obama last year,” Goodlatte says, “the bulk collection of the records has not ceased, and will not cease, unless and until Congress acts to shut it down.”
Wednesday’s vote comes nearly two years after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed the U.S. government’s secret program to collect and store huge amounts of data from millions of Americans’ phone records.”
Missing in the lack of “all things considered” press coverage is a comprehensive national debate on why Congress is renewing most of the components of the Patriot Act to begin with? The questionable support in the Senate for supporting this House measure, speaks to the nature of the “world’s greatest deliberative body”.
The Boston Herald provides the likely outcome from Senate leaders propose extending NSA phone records storage.
“Weeks before a key surveillance law expires, Senate Republicans have introduced a bill that would allow the National Security Agency to continue collecting the calling records of nearly every American.
The measure by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and intelligence committee Chairman Richard Burr would bypass Senate committees and reauthorize sections of the Patriot Act, including the provision under which the NSA is requiring phone companies to turn over the “to and from” records of most domestic landline calls.”
In order to understand the distinction in the House bill, read H.R.3361 – USA FREEDOM Act.
SEC. 103. PROHIBITION ON BULK COLLECTION OF TANGIBLE THINGS.
(a) Application.—Section 501(b)(2) (50 U.S.C. 1861(b)(2)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, is further amended by inserting before subparagraph (B), as redesignated by such section 101(a) of this Act, the following new subparagraph:
“(A) a specific selection term to be used as the basis for the production of the tangible things sought;”.
(b) Order.—Section 501(c) (50 U.S.C. 1861(c)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking the semicolon and inserting “, including each specific selection term to be used as the basis for the production;”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(3) No order issued under this subsection may authorize the collection of tangible things without the use of a specific selection term that meets the requirements of subsection (b)(2).”.
TITLE II—FISA PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICE REFORM
SEC. 201. PROHIBITION ON BULK COLLECTION.
(a) Prohibition.—Section 402(c) (50 U.S.C. 1842(c)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(3) a specific selection term to be used as the basis for selecting the telephone line or other facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or applied; and”.
(b) Definition.—Section 401 (50 U.S.C. 1841) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(4) The term ‘specific selection term’ has the meaning given the term in section 501.”.
Now these measures are being lauded as addressing the NSA domestic spying methods, which has caused such uproar among civil libertarians. However, placing your trust in such language misses the fundamental point why an outright repeal of the Patriot Act is not being passed.
The correct approach is outlined by Ron Paul: Don’t Be Fooled by Un-American ‘USA Freedom’ Act.
“The political group Paul founded, Campaign for Liberty, released a statement Tuesday criticizing the “inaptly named” USA Freedom Act.
Campaign for Liberty went on to encourage lawmakers to endorse the Surveillance State Repeal Act, which would fully repeal the Patriot Act and the equally controversial 2008 FISA Amendments Act.”
From this proposed alternative legislation:
“Surveillance State Repeal Act – Repeals the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (thereby restoring or reviving provisions amended or repealed by such Acts as if such Acts had not been enacted), except with respect to reports to Congress regarding court orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the acquisition of intelligence information concerning an entity not substantially composed of U.S. persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Requires orders approving certain electronic surveillance to direct that, upon request of the applicant, any person or entity must furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish such surveillance in a manner to protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is providing the target of such surveillance (thereby retaining the ability to conduct surveillance on such targets regardless of the type of communications methods or devices being used by the subject of the surveillance).
Prohibits the federal government from requiring manufacturers of electronic devices and related software to build in mechanisms allowing the federal government to bypass encryption or privacy technology.”
This shell game that passes for “good government” is discussed in the Inherent Autonomy essay, The Fourth Amendment, NSA and Metadata. The summary concludes:
“The snoops view you as an enemy of the state, unless you can prove differently, whereas the reality is that The Strange World of NSA Mind Control is the true foe of the liberty of people and a free nation.”
This is the essence of the motivation behind the original passage of the Patriot Act. Celebrating restriction on domestic surveillance, when the entire intent of the original legislation destroys the constitution is hardly a reason for jubilation. When the executive branch technocrats ignore any law, which conflicts with their intended tyrannical purpose of government dominance, Congress needs to defund any agency that refuses to protect the true public interest.
The absurdity that a total scrutiny society will make citizens safe is beyond intelligent debate. Yet the country has been willing to endure the prying eyes of Homeland Security, rationalized with a trumped up excuse that trashing the constitution is necessary to achieve a crusade against a phantom bogyman.
Jay Syrmopoulos writes in Why are People Celebrating? USA FREEDOM Act is a Big Win for the NSA- Not Civil Liberties about the USA Freedom Act.
“What no one wants to say out loud is that this is a big win for the NSA, and a huge nothing burger for the privacy community,” said a former senior intelligence office, while speaking to The Daily Beast.
The bill doesn’t actually end or suspend the phone records program, but simply requires phone companies to hold onto these records rather than the NSA.
Additionally, under this bill the NSA will now get cell phone records in addition to the landline call records. Under the current collection regime, only landline call records are kept.
“The NSA is coming out of this unscathed,” Joel Brenner, the NSA’s former inspector general, told The Daily Beast. “I think no one thought it was in the realm of the possible before this bill.”
The irony is that this is exactly what former NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander had wanted to implement previously, but the idea was shelved due to the extreme unlikeliness of Congress being willing to pass such legislation.
“The USA Freedom Act”—the supposed reining in of the NSA—“was literally born from Alexander,” the former official said.”
This assessment is not a surprise, because the District of Criminals generates every opportunity to create a false straw man in order to justify a more punitive response.
The Orwellian culture that has engulfed America goes unnoticed in the daily lives of a submissive populace. The courts only protect the despotism of the federal government. The few remaining civil libertarians are ignored or marginalized through the mass media propaganda that views any dissent to the established order as a threat to the entire Washington political class.
The NSA has proven that it operates above the law and no new legislation will curb the totalitarian appetites of the outlaw monitoring institution. Privacy has been destroyed in the United States intentionally to control the population.
Authoritarianism has replaced personal solitude in order to dissect every aspect of one’s life. If people are not angry over this reality, they deserve submissive enslavement. The Patriot Act has always been a national disgrace. Now the USA Freedom Act will be the next scorn.
“The Christian family is seen by many as the great roadblock, together with the church, to the new world order.” R. J. Rushdoony, “Deuteronomy” Pg. 332
The destruction of the family has been a relatively long process. The woman’s suffrage movement began in France in the late Eighteenth Century and is now coming to fruition in the Twenty-First Century with the advent of same sex marriage.
Suffrage did not destroy marriage, but it encoded potential conflict and undermined the role of the father whose singular vote represented a united family structure. More importantly, it was a distortion of the design of God’s creation; allowing woman to contend with their husbands whose duty was to cherish and protect them.
Born of rebellion, Feminism was not far behind suffrage. It struck at the heart of marriage by equating male and female and setting women in competition with men.
Feminism was a logical extension of suffrage. It was the next step in the progress of a satanic lie. Rushdoony says, “A lie moves a man from the real world into a world of fiction, and his life begins to rest on falsity.” (Pg. 334 “ Deuteronomy”) This detrimental fiction has culminated in the highest ranking officers in our armed forces assenting to the equality of women and men in defending our nation. It has set woman as equals in our fire departments and police forces and maintained this fiction while women without the cover of husbands complain of being raped by their fellow male workers. It is one of many humanistic cognitive dissonances that currently plague our culture.
Lies destroy freedom by making just determination impossible. We cannot have justice in regard to Blacks and Jews when the distorted anachronisms of slavery and the holocaust remain yokes around our necks.
Destruction of the role of the father was another key element in destroying the family.
Christians who are ignorant of the Character of the God of the Bible cannot understand the father’s role in the Christian family. When we claim that “God is love” we gain the assent of the vast majority of the world’s Christians. But, if we assert that His love requires that we obey, most of them flee.
Christians have not accepted the fact that love seeks the very best for its subjects and the best requires obedience. They have not been taught that obedience to God’s Law will give them life more abundantly. The Law is a practical example of the love God has for His chosen people. If we truly love one another we will urge everyone to obey.
Men were created to be the heads of families. Women are physically weaker and though they are sometimes smarter and more stable they were created to live under the protection of husbands. In return for that protection and support they are to obey and contribute comfort, stability, brilliance, hope and prayer to him and to the family.
The state attempts to replace the husband by passing laws that protect women and now they are competing with men who are being emasculated and hamstrung in the process. This gross distortion of the Biblical family is paid for by a loss of social stability which is explosively evident in Black communities.
Christian churches tell husbands they should be the head of their home but the media tells the family that husbands are untrustworthy wimps that should be corrected by wives and children. In spite of physical assaults that women endure they have been convinced that a career is preferable to managing a home and are now often doing both. Since they have accepted this role, their work is now often financially necessary to maintain a household and they are forced to continue whether they like it or not.
Our government is populated by men and women who live and work in a sea of false premises. Confronting these lies would result in a deluge of criticism and our elected officials do not have the character to endure it. Though evidence of a conspiracy is abundant it is never discussed. A multitude of discrepancies in the government story of 9/11 are met with silence while the entire nation is governed as if it is authentic – no one questions this glaring omission. Our skies have been full of chemtrails for several years – no one demands to know what they are spraying or why. We are governed by elected official who in order to be elected must support the state of neo-Israel. This inordinate support for a foreign government destroys free elections; mentioning this anomaly results in a deluge of vituperation.
My wife has a close friend whose husband is a minister. She and her husband provided a fine home and proper instruction to their children but her sixteen year old daughter got pregnant and broke her heart. In her Black society 70 percent of babies are born out of wedlock. Social pressure overcomes the will of the family.
Social pressure destroys the proper role of the father. Fathers cannot demand obedience. Obedience and respect must be offered and when the entire culture rejects the role of the father there is little chance he can fulfill it. The majority of contemporary parents seek their children’s favor not their obedience.
The father’s role in the home is similar to God’s role in the life of the father. He is both a lover and a disciplinarian. It is the latter role that requires both the understanding and the support of the family and the culture.
Americans no longer admire discipline. Children cleave to those who are never critical. Fathers who care enough for their children to correct them and punish them for disobedience are neither admired nor properly understood. This alienation of fathers is encouraged by society and the father’s role as a spiritual leader is replaced by a humanist school system that prepares children to ignore their fathers and obey the state.
If the church, the school, the media, and the culture would support the authority of fathers over their homes the entire family would begin to change; crime would decrease, school children would begin to learn, women would be happier, and the entire culture would be healthier.
Consider the inanity that grips our world. The White race is becoming extinct because it is failing to reproduce in quantities that preserve the race. In the midst of this inexorable tragedy we are encouraging women to enter the work force when they should be at home raising larger families. We are promoting barren homosexual and lesbian relationships when we should be encouraging traditional marriages, fertile females, and viral males. While claiming reason as their god, our intellectuals are championing practices that contribute to not only their own extinction but that of the entire race!
The leaders of our world are either insane or engaged in a diabolical Luciferian plot to destroy civilization.
In his book “Systematic Theology” R. J. Rushdoony devotes several pages to the Doctrine of Causality. Causality has to do with blessing and cursing. In response to Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 Rushdoony writes, “that decay is not a natural but a moral fact, and renewal is the outcome of covenant faithfulness. In fact, such faithfulness will lead to the regeneration of the earth, radically changed circumstances among animals, and a greatly increased life span for man (Isa. 65:17-25). All this is impossible in terms of naturalistic science, but it is one of the most basic premises of Scripture.” (Pg.829) He contends that “We become ‘the restorer of the paths to dwell in.’ (Isa 58:12) Covenant man is God’s appointed lord over the earth.”
A few drops of Chanel #5 will not sweeten a thousand gallon septic tank and the meager amount of sound Christian theology that seeps out of our churches is a worthless palliative. Thousands of Christian pastors mount their pulpits on Sunday mornings and preach a variety of winsome sermons that fail to identify the source of the increasingly stifling effluence. The congregants receive an hour or two of inappropriate tranquility (In the midst of a war!) before returning to the sewer. Covenant men will not become Lords over the earth until the leaders of God’s church begin to take back the ground they have lost by default.
When will Christians begin to understand that the cause of our present tyrannical dilemma is disobedience? When will they realize that the solution is obedience? We are living in rampant confusion that requires tyrannical control because we refuse to obey God’s order restoring commandments. Disobedient people cannot enjoy freedom!
Sending a single righteous man to Washington or even several will not change the course of our nation. We are in need of a sewage treatment plant that can preserve and clean the entire culture. It may be blasphemous to compare the Church of Jesus Christ to a sewage treatment plant but it is an apt simile. The Church has access to the Word of God which provides instruction for the proper conduct of the affairs of men. The Church must begin to use that Sword of the Spirit to bring righteousness back into our culture.
The Bramble men hate the church and have already made serious efforts to stifle its message. If God allows them to succeed the world will experience tribulation until God decides to hear their pleading.
Both the Republican and Democratic parties are tools of the Bramble men, the Tea Party makes some good points but has an obedience hole in its platform. Libertarians support of limited government is on track but their lack of the just overarching Biblical legal system is a fatal error.
Covenant Christian husbands are not only meant to be heads of their homes but also directors of the paths of nations. The insanity we are presently living through is a result of the abdication of responsibility of the Church of Jesus Christ. Biblical Christians provide realistic sanity to the Creation and when they are replaced by Humanists, chaos is a result.
Humanism in the Church has caused chaos in the Church. It is time for God’s Church to wake up and begin to properly represent the One and only Great God of all Creation.
Peace Is Impossible Without It…
“The life is in the blood, and the whole nation shall bleed to death, or it shall change its faith!” Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Antiochus in “Judas Maccabaeus”
Last July Brandon Smith wrote an article entitled “The Reasons We Fight the New World Order”. Read here.
He begins by enumerating several fallacies that the citizens of the U. S. continue to regard as truth: That the election of Democrats or Republicans can change the fall of our nation; that Russia and the U. S. are actually enemies; and that central banks are individually controlled.
He describes the battle as between two forces: the people and those that seek to control them. Maintaining that people just want to be left alone he cites those who want to control others as,” self-appointed elite who fancy themselves grandly qualified to determine the destiny of every man, woman and child at the expense of individual freedom and self-determination.”
Pointing out a conflict in the reasoning of the elite controllers who believe they have the proper definition of the greater good while at the same time maintaining that “good” is relative, he goes on to claim that “The greater good is inherently and intuitively felt by most people. Whether one listens to this voice of conscience is up to the individual.”
He denounces collectivism and writes, “As long as men are stricken by bias, selfish desire and lack of awareness, they will never be able to determine what is best for other people.”
“I don’t claim to know what ideology would make a perfect society and I certainly don’t know the exact solutions needed to get there. What I do know, though, is that no one else knows either.” He then goes on to present “The Opposite View” which outlines a solution.
Smith has written an interesting article with several good insights. However, like most Libertarians he fails to note the inherent human characteristics that are at war with peace and freedom.
First, men are by nature selfish and biased; Christians call it sin. It is the platform that has given the world a history of constant theft, murder, and war.
Second, we are not created equal – some are strong, some are weak; some are smart, some are not; some are agile, some are not; etc. Everything in creation is unique; the only one of its kind.
Third, some individuals and races will attempt to control and tyrannize other weaker and less aggressive individuals and races.
Fourth, each human being thinking in a void will consider his opinion the best and when opinions collide, power will prevail and tyranny will result.
The idea that sinful humanity can exist in peace without the force of law is utopian and foolish. History is replete with war because powerful men are often bullies who delight in beating up and robbing their neighbors. Now, I know everyone does not want to be king of the mountain but enough do so if left unchecked, chaos will result.
Freedom and peace can exist together but only when the immutable legal system of the Creator hovers over and guides their actions. Each individual is responsible to the Creator for acting according to His mandates. The new world order seeks responsibility at the top; Christianity seeks responsibility at the bottom. Freedom and peace require the wisdom of the Creator. Humanity will not know real peace and freedom until they understand and seek to live under the mandates of the only One with the right to rule.
Proper individual government is essential to a free society. Individuals who fail to govern themselves must be restrained by a just legal code. The simple legal guidelines God has given us in His Law provide a blueprint for individual behavior – we need to know how we should behave and how those around us should behave. Since God’s Law is above the entire creation both citizens and leaders are subject to its mandates.
Severe penalties are necessary to insure the social order is not disrupted by rebellion or insurrection. These penalties when properly enforced provide a form of righteous eugenics designed over time to create a peaceful, productive society. God’s perfect law works toward allowing all peace loving people to live in harmony without fearing their neighbor. Germany’s eugenics program under Hitler (designed after a U. S. program in California) sought only humanistic results.
Twelve volumes with matched bindings have rested on one of our bookshelves for several decades. They were acquired almost forty years ago when Patty and I were newly married as filler for one of the bookcase shelves in our new home. They were purchased for appearance purposes not content.
Recently, in an adventurous moment, with the aid of a flashlight I knelt to read the inscriptions. Six volumes were by Makepeace Thackeray and six by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. I began to read Longfellow. The books were published in 1886 by Houghton Mifflin. The time worn pages were delicate; they cracked easily and the bookmaker’s cutter missed some which as I read needed to be cut apart with a sharp knife.
Longfellow was proficient in Latin and one of the volumes was entitled “Christus, A mystery”. I read through the volume finding particular interest in the latter pages “The Tragedy in New England” a critique of attempts to apply God’s Law concerning witches.
I have written many essays about the need for God’s Law in contemporary society. In response, critics invariably question the wisdom of allowing humans to administer law that requires the life of transgressors.
“The Tragedy in New England” affirms the need for extreme care in enforcing statutes involving mortality. Though three witnesses are considered a Biblical standard when they are not available and the requirement is discarded in favor of circumstantial evidence, egregious errors are common. DNA has now proven the frailty of not only this procedure but of the adversary court itself.
“The Tragedy in New England’ sets forth a powerful example of aggressive law enforcement untampered by the wisdom of justice. In poetic conversational prose Longfellow brings the injustice of the witch hunt to life along with its tragic result. Unusual circumstances used to prove the existence of evil spirits and innocent, law abiding people (often women) were convicted and executed. It was indeed a tragedy.
The lesson is not lost on our contemporary legal system which also fails to apply the law as a guideline to justice; sometimes creating an obvious injustice by blind enforcement.
Human beings need law. The question is what law and how is it to be administered. Humanistic law always involves the powerful controlling the powerless and will always end in tyranny. The Reformation brought resistance to the Divine right of kings and a movement to bring them under the rule of the One True God.
During the Seventeenth Century Scotsman Samuel Rutherford wrote a book entitles “The Law is King”. Its publication earned him a death sentence which was thwarted by his natural demise. Power in the hands of Bramble men is difficult to remove and those who seek to remove it put themselves in person jeopardy.
Human beings not only need law but if they desire to live in peace and freedom they need an immutable, overarching divine Law that will act as a shield to the anarchic opinions of powerful men.
Law must be enforced with compassion, mercy, sensitivity, and sometimes leniency. We must seek justice even at the sacrifice of the letter of the law. I shudder when a wife, physically and mentally abused by a sadistic husband, is given a long term in prison for killing him. The law is upheld but justice is destroyed. Society cannot allow wives to kill their husbands for trivial reasons but there are situations where it is the proper solution and in those situations the law should be sacrificed so justice can prevail.
We were not created to govern ourselves and when we attempt to rob God of His rightful dominion we produce chaos and end up under the thumb of the Bramble men.
“They word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path, I have sworn, and I will confirm it, that I will keep Thy righteous ordinances.” King David, Psalm 119:105-106
Under Whose Restraint Shall We Live?
“Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had.” “Roots of Reconstruction” R. J. Rushdoony
There are a number of Christians who walk under the Libertarian label, some of them are prominent. Some seem attracted by its intellectual qualities, others endorse individual freedom, some believe in non-aggression, many site R. J. Rushdoony’s favorable assessment, and others appreciate the big tent.
I am a lover of liberty and an opposer of license.
Libertarians do have a big tent: In the tent are atheists, agnostics, satanists, homosexuals, lesbians, revolutionaries, Democrats, Republicans, rebels, individualists, koinoniaists, free love lovers, same sex marriage supporters, prostitution condoners, etc. There is no particular moral standard the only evil is force.
Ayn Rand, often quoted by Libertarians, hated Christianity, Ludwig Von Mises was an agnostic, Fredrick Hayek was an accomplished economist but far from being a Christian. Individualism and intellectualism attract the scholarly set but do not provide a sound basis for an enduring state.
All Libertarians seem to dance around the light pole of individual freedom. But the definition of freedom and its extent remains arbitrary. The Libertarian big tent covers a vast philosophical spectrum and an array of quests for freedom running all the way to license.
At a recent Freedom Fest Nelson Hultberg made a presentation that attempted to put a new pair of shoes and the Libertarian philosophy. Hultberg is a fine writer and a cogent thinker. In his book “The Golden Mean” and his talk at Freedom Fest he promotes a Libertarian position in the middle of the spectrum between individual freedom and license.
Hultberg is on track; Libertarians need to find a core belief. At one end are the rabid anarchists who would support violent revolution along with retribution similar to the chaos of the French Revolution; and at the other end are Christians who support the restraint of God’s perfect legal system.
Hultberg strives for a righteous mean by recommending the “Judeo-Christian ethic”.
Libertarians are human with the same proclivity for sin that permeates the remainder of the social structure. A recent attempt to form a Libertarian community in Chile, South America, is a case in point. It was called “Galt’s Gulch Chile” from Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. Read here
Begun in 2012 by four wealth escapists, expat John Cobin residing in Chile, Jeff Berwick of The Dollar Vigilante, Cobin’s Chilean partner, and Ken Johnson a real estate and anti-aging guru, the project was quickly beset by problems that put its original partners at odds and marred the original plan. Lots were sold that defied Chilean law because authority to subdivide had not been granted before the sale. Investors found they could not build on the land they had purchased.
Libertarian investors in the Chilean property did not do enough homework to be sure what exactly they were buying. Doing such homework is difficult in the U. S. but it is even more difficult in foreign countries where language barriers and unknown prejudices can create enormous problems
In many foreign countries American citizens who are considered wealthy and are targets. My wife and I made several trips to Costa Rica and Argentina finding it very difficult to invest in property even when Christian ministers were involved. Read here.
Jeff Berwick was a strident vocal critic of Johnson but he has decided not to take legal action because of his Libertarian principles. Though that forebearance might seem laudatory, it is a serious error. Libertarians tend to avoid the word justice since it involves force but without justice peace cannot endure.
Nelson Hultberg’s well written and well planned speech at Freedom Fest (read here) contained some serious errors and erroneous contentions. It is not that truth is missing from Hultberg’s proposal but that the truth he purposes is just another humanistic attempt to conform society to a formula.
Man was not created to govern himself and because he has continued to ignore the Creator and attempted to make his own laws history is a continuous story of tyranny, war, poverty, and starvation.
Hultberg’s reference to the Judeo-Christian ethic has two problems: One Judaism is not Christianity and most of those who practice that religion harbor a vicious hate for Christians. Christianity was intended for the people of ancient Israel but was rejected, the Covenant was broken. An entirely new class of chosen people was created by the New Covenant; the new chosen people are Christians. Access to the Father is confined to the Son.
Now a word about extremism: Muslims are a terror to the world because they take their faith seriously. Christians and Jews are militant but are helpless to combat a religion that enforces its own legal system and understands that victory depends on changing law. Without an overarching, immutable legal system human beings cannot live in peace.
On too many days I read of some mislead minister who claims God’s legal standards are no longer in force and quotes Scripture to support the contention. These ministers of the Gospel are accusing the One True God of setting a harmful legal standard for His chosen people. Do not believe it! Obedience to Old Testament law, both criminal and civil, would bring back peace and prosperity to a social order that is utterly lost.
We are living in a society that accepts human torture and the murder of millions by war but balks at the killing of one human for blaspheming the Living God. In America, respect for the Creator of the Universe is less than respect for the state. It is no wonder that the state has become tyrannical.
The Sixties mantra “God is dead” is still in force across the United States. Humanism has so thoroughly permeated our churches that a true worshiper of the Living God is no longer welcome. The lack of action by most American Christians shouts to the world that they do not really believe what they say.
All over America, people are frightened by the prospect of Sharia law. Muslims are coming and they are bringing Sharia law! Sharia law requires the death penalty for adultery! It cuts off a hand for stealing, etc. etc. While all this is stirring up America’s so called Bible believing Christians they continue ignore the Book they profess to believe; a book that calls for the death penalty for murder, striking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, adultery, incest, bestiality, sodomy and homosexuality, rape of a betrothed virgin, witchcraft, offering human sacrifices, incorrigible delinquency or habitual criminality, blasphemy, Sabbath desecration, propagation of false doctrines, sacrificing to false gods, refusing to abide by a court decision (defying the law) and failing to restore the pledge or bailment. This is the Law that blesses us and pleases God when it is obeyed, the Law that Jesus, the Son, obeyed to perfection.
Biblical legal penalties are regularly scoffed at by arrogant pagans. They are anathema to the majority of America’s so called Christian leaders and their followers. There is some talk of obedience in Charismatic circles but to these Spirit minded Christians it is an ephemeral guidance that is always dubious. God writes His Law on the hearts of His chosen people but the heart is desperately wicked and untrustworthy.
Few Christians even understand that the main theme of the entire Bible is obedience! Ancient Israel was rejected for disobedience. God has not changed He still seeks an obedient people. We are saved and forgiven by the Blood of Christ but the standard for our behavior is still God’s Law.
While we live in a cesspool society so dangerous that we need guns for our protection we reject the antidote preferring the danger and chaos. We cringe at God’s corporal punishments which He provided as a benefit considering them a curse while our military kills millions of innocents in far off places. Now, gentle Christian, I am going to shock you again: God’s Law provides a righteous system of genocide which over a couple of generations would cull rebellious schemers from the social order and provide for a more peaceful and prosperous existence.
In this video former Congressman and Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, attempts to explain Anarchism. He emphasizes the non-aggressive foundation of Libertarianism. Expecting energetic human beings to be placid in the face of disagreement is utopian, it will not happen. Aggression is an intrinsic part of every person, some more than others; if it is directed properly it is good, if wrongly it is bad. Galt’s Gulch in Chile provides a fine example and highlights the tragic error of failing to seek justice.
Hultberg writes, “Freedom requires rational, irrefutable thought to be won and maintained. If we have built our defense of freedom upon a false philosophy with faulty premises, then we are fighting in vain.” The statement is correct but the philosophy is faulty.
Human beings cannot enjoy liberty without just restraints. All of the fine sounding scenarios produced by the best logic and reason fall apart in the face of sinful men. The musings of pagans will never result in a peaceful society; requirements set forth by intellectual visionaries will quickly be breached and the beautiful picture will be marred by failure. Liberty is impossible without voluntary adherence to just restraint.
The Constitution of the United States of America was written to govern a virtuous people. Virtue and tyranny are inversely proportional – as virtue goes down tyranny goes up. Consider our current society; virtue is seriously diminished while tyranny has become a monster.
R. J. Rushdoony fancied Libertarian anti-statism. God’s Law is not intended to be imposed on any person. Obedience must be a voluntary matter of the heart. Christian Reconstruction does not seek to impose God’s Will on the social order. We simply seek to live under God’s mandates and worship Him as the Creator and King of the universe and to work to bring His creation and His people under the peace and prosperity His rule promises.
The question that must be answered is Under Whose Restraint Shall We Live? God’s or man’s?
P.S. Libertarians do a remarkable job of ferreting out and exposing government lies and tyranny. They are way ahead of the Christian Church in exposing evil in high places. Kudos!
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.
Centralization is dehumanizing the world! As the frightening specter of global governance looms like a dark cloud over the scant freedom our world has enjoyed the status of the individual and his options are under siege.
Recent decades have seen giant corporations gobble each other up reducing competition and eroding the diversity consumers formerly enjoyed. Decision makers are remote from the public making any kind of complaint extremely difficult. Retail business no longer considers the individual important. Their markets are vast and their concern is for segments.
Ten massive corporations now control the world food supply: Nestle, Pepsico, General Mills, Kelloggs, Associated British Foods, Mondelez (Formerly Kraft Foods), Mars, Danone, Unilever, and Coca Cola. See the Chart here. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/10-Corporations-Control-What-We-Eat.png
The concentration of power is frightening. Over 80 percent of Beef is controlled by four companies http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.5/cattlemen-struggle-against-giant-meatpackers-and-economic-squeezes/the-big-four-meatpackers-1 , four companies control over 60 percent of the Pork market, and chicken producers are similarly concentrated. Half of seed production is owned by four companies and Monsanto with over 85 percent has a lock on corn and soybeans. Read more here. http://www.chaionline.org/en/compassion/reality/reality_food_controls.htm
Trade Agreements have opened world food markets allowing producers to ship food around the world. The volume is so large and the types so diverse that proper inspection is almost impossible.
Bramble men of the new world order are not concerned with people. Their interest is in a Babelian Tower of power. As this power structure is being formed they control people with propaganda that includes lies, distortions, false flag attacks, sexual deviations, and ubiquitous competitive sports.
New enemies and new terrors are constantly being invented and as these new bogeymen are trotted out new incursions on individual freedoms are astride.
We are regaled with the idea that the world has shrunk and that world government is a necessity to control the world’s corporate behemoths. Transportation and communications have become faster and more efficient but the world’s nations are still distant from each other. World trade and world government has been planned and is being imposed on the world over the heads of the people.
The Bramble men are remote and mysterious. Like the tiny airplanes that spray unknown substances in our skies they are so far above the results of their decisions that they are never confronted.
When the traditional family is designated as the primary form of government wide spread tyranny is impossible. The preservation of freedom is a simple matter: De-centralize power by vesting it in fathers as heads of families and require obedience to God’s Law. Close all of the Socialistic government agencies rescind the volumes of federal law and begin anew. The solution is simple but it requires the hand of God in the affairs of men.
We need to produce powerful resistance to business mergers and buyouts with particular emphasis on the giant corporations. Multinational corporations that own numerous independent companies should be required to return them to independent status and future mergers and buyouts should be contested. De-centralization is a bitter enemy to tyranny.
Government power must be returned to states and towns with federal responsibilities restricted to the defense of the nation. International meddling should be stopped and our Founders recommendation to avoid such involvement obeyed.
Libertarians have produced some excellent rhetoric but they have failed to unite under a workable plan. Criticizing the progress of the Babelian state is only useful for educational purposes; it does nothing to stop its progress.
Decisions that affect local communities should be adjudicated by the heads of individual families. This is the ultimate de-centralization. Voting should be restricted to fathers. We must take back our cities and towns.
The family is now in shambles with arrogant humanists showcasing their inability to conduct their lives in a rational manner by supporting the cognitive dissonance of multi-culturalism, abortion and homosexual marriage. When anarchy is allowed to reign in our most brilliant minds insanity quickly overtakes the nation.
The Libertarian call for strictly limited government and maximum freedom is on target but libertarians have too much faith in human intellect and lack the righteous, immutable yardstick that sustains a free society. If the distorted intellects of human beings are the source of a new legal structure tyranny will again progress. God and His Law must be paramount. Men will always resort to tyrannical policies if left to their own devices.
The long standing premise that humanity must be ruled by an elite group of superior individuals is a fallacy that contains a molecule of truth. Humanity cannot rule itself. Democracy is a failed form of government. However, failed as it is, it cannot be corrected by imposing the will of gentry that is no better at ruling than the mob they intend to rule. Man was not created to govern himself and the ONLY way to enjoy maximum freedom is to live under the merciful rule of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
John Lennon’s song “Power to the People” is truer than its author realized. Power must be returned to the people but only when the people are restrained by the perfect commandments of the One True God; those that are not are as dangerous as our current tormentors
The Bramble men hate Christianity because Christianity encodes freedom for the individual. Their objective is control while God’s objective is individual freedom. Christianity de-centralizes while despots centralize. This is the core of the battle.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is unchanging. He did not alter His intentions when He sent His Son to die for the sins of His chosen people. He is a merciful God whose intention was to save His people in spite of their disobedience. When His mercy was rejected the original covenant was broken and a new covenant was made with Christians. Henceforth the ONLY path to God is through His son, our Savior, Jesus.
Christians, God’s saved and chosen people, are now vested with a responsibility to obey God’s Law and work to bring His creation under His dominion by obedience. When we point to sin we must provide God’s remedy. Sin is disobedience. The remedy is always obedience to His commandments.
Humans cannot create freedom on their own. Man’s proclivity to sin distorts his ability to find righteousness and truth. His redemption is in the Word of God which contains a description of the actions that will turn away His judgment and bring His blessing.
Work against centralization. Support de-centralization
In the ridiculous charade that passes for the foreign exchange currency markets, the ease upon which a 39% spike in the Swiss Franc to the EU has most financial journalist puzzled. A flagship of establishment journalism like the Washington Post provides a quaint explanation in Why Switzerland’s currency is going historically crazy. The Swiss intend to keep their exchange rate at 1.2 Swiss francs per euro caused unsustainable negative competiveness in Swiss exports to EU customers. How many times have you heard that same old song? Corporatist media consistently spins a yarn that suppressing one’s own currency is good for business.
Rely on viewpoints from reliable sources like The Economic Collapse. Their insight should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense left. “The euro is falling apart, and the Swiss did not want to be married to it any longer. Unfortunately, when any marriage ends the pain can be enormous.”
Peter Schiff, who is a major precious metal dealer, is getting a boost in this latest development. The article Switzerland Surrenders the Currency War, but America Still Racing to the Bottom published in the Libertarian and Austrian Economic site, Lewrockwell.com provides an expected response.
“The Swiss are going to be able to get a better deal on all the products that they import from Europe and from other countries, so they won’t have to export as much to pay for their imports. So that’s positive for the Swiss. I would be worried about the Europeans who are now going to have to spend more money to buy Swiss products. They’re the ones that hurt, as are Americans. Swiss products are now going to be more expensive for Americans, but American products… are going to be cheaper for the Swiss. So the Swiss win because they have a stronger currency, and Europeans and Americans lose because we have a weaker currency… “
These conclusions are so basic and correct that when mainline economists preach their financial orthodoxy, the idiocy of the “Free Trade” hoax screams out for a sense of monetary sanity.
Not to spoil the cheers for the Swiss, an important component must be factored in. When the Swiss Voters Reject Initiative on Central-Bank Gold, the hard money advocates expressed great disappointment.
“Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected an initiative on Sunday that would have forced the country’s central bank to hold one-fifth of its assets in gold, a move that would have eroded its ability to conduct monetary policy.
Critics of the initiative feared that the SNB’s commitment to the cap would have been challenged because the central bank would have been forced to buy gold every time it intervened in the currency market.”
This result seems to reinforce that the gnomes of central banking were once again in control of their gold hoards and refused to share any of its value with the holders of the Swiss Franc.
So how can one account, after rejecting the plebiscite on adopting making the Swiss Franc as a real hard money value currency that the exchange rates raise so sharply?
Fundamentals and measures that favor and protect the wealth of a national currency are not applied as standards, when central Banksters play the money float game. In order to understand why the Swiss Franc surged, one must examine the sickness within the EU and the extreme pressure on the EURO coming from desperate measures to keep the single European currency afloat.
The panic begins as the ECB Stimulation: The Trap Closes. Last week the EU Court of Justice advocate general ruled that the central bank could purchase sovereign debt.
“It referred to an existing ECB program called Outright Monetary Transactions — which isn’t quite QE but which does involve purchases of government bonds. The court won’t rule for another four to six months, but it’s likely to follow the advocate general’s guidance. That’s good enough for Draghi to act now.
Many in Europe, especially in Germany, remain opposed. They see QE as a ruse by which the richer members of the currency bloc will end up paying for the fiscal misadventures of their neighbors.”
Let the race begin and only the quickest will be left sitting tight, when the music stops playing. It seems that Steen Jakobsen writing in Endgame for central bankers agrees.
“Many central banks will envy the SNB (Swiss National Bank) for its move last week, as it at least tries to regain some control of its future, but the conclusion remains: central banks have as a group lost credibility and when the ECB starts QE this week the beginning of the end for central banks is completed. They are running out of time – that’s the real real bottom line: the SNB ran out of time, the ECB runs out of time this week, and the Fed, Bank of Japan and the Bank of England ran out of time in 2014.
What comes now is a new reality – the SNB move was true paradigm shift – we can no longer look at central banks, the markets and extend-and-pretend in the same light as we did last Wednesday (the day before the SNB pounced).”
Now for the kicker . . . When a solid financial adviser acknowledges in their financial letter, like Chris Hunter, Editor-in-Chief, Bonner & Partners – Did the Swiss Just Burst the “Central Bank Bubble”?, that the crown prince of collectivist economics condemns the Swiss; you know they were correct in ditching their peg ratio to the EURO.
“We usually don’t see eye to eye with economist Paul Krugman. But he’s hit the nail on the head about the “Swiss shock.” From his New York Times column: “The SNB’s wimp-out will make life harder for monetary policy in other countries, because it will leave markets skeptical about whether other supposed commitments to keep up unconventional policy will similarly prove time-limited.”
How evil those Swiss must be to actually defend their currency and their own wealth. As the EU implodes, the smart money will sit out the coming grand depression, provided by your friendly central banks, in the charm of the Swiss Alps.
“Another attack in the name of religion,” I heard someone say after the vicious and vile Wednesday assault on the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo. And there is a huge problem with “religion.” But it’s not what you think.
Question: when the Nazis, Stalinists, Khmer Rouge, the Shining Path or the Weathermen committed violence, did we lament, “Another attack in the name of ideology”? Did we hear “Ideology is the problem”? That would be about as helpful as going to a doctor with a dreadful illness and, upon asking him what the problem is, his responding “Your state of health.”
Like ideology, religion is a category, not a creed. As with states of health, which occupy a continuum from excellent to awful, they both contain the good, the bad and the ugly. But modern man, not wanting to place an onus on a faith or seem a “religious” chauvinist, is a bad physician who refuses to name the disease or the cure. So depending on how he is emotionally disposed, we may hear utterances such as “Children need some religion” or “Religion breeds violence.” Ancient Aztec children had “religion,” and they learned well how to sacrifice thousands of innocents a year to Quetzalcoatl on bloody altars. And Amish children have “religion,” and peace and charity define them.
Conservatives exhibit this problem as well. So many will say “Islam is not a religion; it’s a destructive all-encompassing ideology,” or some variation thereof. They treat “religion,” that broad category, as if it’s good by definition. Not that this isn’t understandable. Raised in a relativistic and pluralistic (and these two qualities have a bearing on one another) society, they want to get along with their neighbors; so they tacitly accept an unwritten agreement stating “I won’t say my religion is better than yours if you don’t say yours is better than mine. We’ll just be even-steven!” The trouble is that this solves nothing — and its implications are more dangerous than jihad.
Starting out simply, note that most of the “religions” man has known were more in the nature of the Aztecs’ bloody faith than what we generally embrace today. But many will assert that this is the point: can’t we say all our mainstream faiths are “good,” practically speaking? Can’t we just omit from their category any “religion” not considered good? Well, we can say and do many things, but ideas have consequences. And a civilization with a corrupted philosophical foundation will not long stand.
Consider another question: what makes some ideologies better than others? It’s that they espouse different values. But what of “religions”?
They also espouse different values.
(And not all values are virtues.)
Thus, not all “religions” can be morally equal unless all values are so. This is important to understand. Every time we treat “religions” as if they are all morally equal, every time we spread that idea explicitly or implicitly — no matter how good our intentions — we’re transmitting the notion that all values are equal. And consider what follows from this: if all values are equal, how can peace be better than jihad?
How could respect for life be better than disdain for it?
How could Western law be better than Sharia law?
How could the Sisters of Charity be better than ISIS?
Of course, this means all ideologies would have to be equal as well, from Nazism to Marxism to conservatism to liberalism to libertarianism. Upon embracing relativism, you have no sound intellectual foundation from which to critique or combat anything (though you can certainly fake one without blinking, as relativism deems deception no worse than sincerity).
Why does this matter? Because this relativism has robbed us of an intellectual argument for defending Western civilization (“How could it be better than any other?” asks Professor Larebil). It is the philosophical fifth column that has opened the door to destructive, unassimilable foreign elements via multiculturalism. As to this, multiculturalism states that all cultures are morally equal. But it’s as with “religion” and ideology: since different cultures espouse different values, not all cultures could be morally equal unless all values were so. It is pure and utter nonsense, a phenomenon of modern times, but, of course, moderns in the main believe it. In fact, the Barna Group research company reported in 2002 in “Americans Are Most Likely to Base Truth on Feelings” that only six percent of teenagers believe “moral truth is absolute.” But it’s an apple that has fallen not far from the burning tree and just a little closer to Perdition — only 22 percent of adults believe in moral absolutes, Barna found, and I think that figure is generous. And this baby philosophy of relativism, my friends, as I’ve been telling you for years and years and years, is why we’re collapsing.
Now let’s return to something mentioned earlier: the criticism of Islam for not being a “religion” but a whole system for living. This misses the point that your “religion,” if true, is supposed to be a whole system for living. And this also brings me to why I have religiously placed “religion” in quotation marks.
This distinction between “religious” and “secular” is largely a false one.
There is only one distinction that truly matters: the true and the untrue.
“Secular” and “religious,” especially in the sense we use them, are relatively modern terms. There was a time when beliefs were not “secular” or “religious” — or even liberal or conservative, or right or left — but simply true or untrue.
And this is the only perspective that makes sense. Think about it: if God exists, is it significant that we call recognition of this reality “religious” or that it’s true? If communism is essentially false, is it significant that we call recognition of that reality “secular” or that it’s untrue? There is only Truth and everything else — and everything else, no matter how you dress it up linguistically, is nothing at all.
In a way, pusillanimous moderns are much like pious Muslims. Muslim theology entertains the curious notion of “dual truth,” the idea that what may be true “religiously” may not be true in nature. This silliness was rejected by Western thinkers in the Middle Ages; now, however, something smacking of it has been embraced by their descendants, who may say things such as “A little ‘religion’ is okay, as long as you don’t go overboard.” Or they may compartmentalize faith, thinking it must be left outside the government-building door or even relegate it to one hour a week of “worship services,” as if it’s mere recreation or an unhealthful indulgence only to be taken in moderation. But if your faith is the Truth — if it reflects the will of the Creator of the Universe — you have an obligation to govern yourself, and infuse your every institution, with it. And if it be a lie, it belongs nowhere but the bowels of Hell.
Of course, if, like most Americans, we believe everything is relative, then none of this matters. Then tolerance and intolerance, multiculturalism and cultural chauvinism, charity and barbarity, the “religious” and the “secular” are all equal. And then those darkly clad men with AK-47s in Paris on Wednesday couldn’t really have been “wrong.” They just had a different perspective.
If we don’t really believe this, then it’s time to grow up. It’s time to understand that if everything is relative, then what we say is relative, too, and thus meaningless. So let’s talk about what is meaningful. We can start by accepting that culture isn’t bad, but there are better and worse cultures. “Religion” isn’t bad, but there is bad “religion.” And tolerance, correctly defined as the abiding of perceived negatives, isn’t bad — except when those perceived negatives are objectively negative and, instead of just being tolerated, could actually be wiped out. Willful tolerance of evil is evil itself.
The Muslims have bad “religion.” We have bad philosophy. Both our civilizations believe in things that are untrue. It’s the “tolerant” meeting the intolerable, a match made in Hell — and poised to create exactly that on Earth.
Counting the sellouts, sycophants, sissies and socialists (by whatever name they call themselves, including Republican) is certainly easier than counting the plucky, perspicacious, passionate patriots, that is for sure. For every one of the latter, there are thousands of the former. In fact, since God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah had he found a faithful ten (out of a population of around ten thousand), it may be that America is teetering around that same percentage. We might be looking at a similar one in a thousand preserving percentage in this country today.
On Capitol Hill, there are fewer than fifty House members and senators (out of 535) that could be categorized as faithful patriots. In certain State houses and senate chambers, the percentage would be considerably higher. In many states, however, the percentage would be much lower.
When it comes to America’s pulpits, the percentage of faithful patriots is almost certainly no more than five percent. That was the percentage of faithful pastors in Nazi Germany who boldly stood against Hitler’s Police State. And I’m confident the percentage of pastors in America today who are courageously standing against the modern-day Police State is about the same.
There are almost NO mainstream journalists in print or television who haven’t sold their souls to a paycheck. The same is true for the talking heads on the talk radio shows. Likewise, the vast majority of our judges seem completely ignorant of constitutional government and the Bill of Rights–or have complete contempt for the same. As for educators in the halls of higher learning, forget it!
From a futuristic perspective, the horizon of America can be put into three basic camps: 1) Jesus is going to come like the Seventh Cavalry and bail all of the good Christians to Heaven, and then destroy everything; but who cares? Only the “bad” people will be here, 2) There is no hope; it’s all over; it’s only going to get worse until the fiery end comes, and all one can hope for is to prepare his family and close friends to “survive,” 3) All of the trends point to a continuing demise of liberty, and, in all probability, the future will be very problematic for EVERYONE (Christians and unbelievers alike), but our Creator–who is the author of liberty–still has a providential plan for freedom in this land and is (and will continue) separating and calling out a courageous remnant for that purpose. Put me in the last camp.
With all due respect, I think the folks who align themselves in the first two camps are trying to escape reality and evade responsibility. One is as bad as the other. The one who sits back and does nothing because he believes God would never allow Christians in America to go through “tribulation,” and the person who believes tribulation is coming but the only option is to hide in a hole (figuratively speaking) are both abrogating their responsibility to be the “salt” of the earth and the protectors and defenders of liberty.
However, between the two, I feel more umbrage against my Christian brethren in the first group. They are supposed to have the Spirit of God in them. They are supposed to be students of the Scriptures. More than anyone, they should be the ones to take seriously their charge to “Occupy” till Christ comes.
Try selling the line that “Jesus won’t let us go through tribulation” to the Christians in Sudan. For the last twenty years, more than two million Christians have been persecuted, imprisoned, beheaded, disemboweled, dismembered, tortured, sold into slavery, hung on crosses, etc., in that war-torn land. I guess God doesn’t love those poor suffering souls as much as He loves us soft, self-righteous, comfort-crazy, entertainment-mad, feel-good Christians in America. What rubbish!
Try selling that line to the beleaguered Christians in Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Burma, China, India, even Israel, etc. These believers have been in tribulation for generations. Only in America could a theological position on eschatology result in a complete slave-mentality.
I can understand people who don’t believe in God losing hope and resorting to withdrawing from society. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand my Christian brethren using the doctrine of the Rapture as an excuse to remove themselves from the freedom fight. Personally, I think the doctrine of the Rapture is often nothing but a covering to mask the cowardice or indifference that grips their hearts.
Therefore, I regard patriots as possibly being from virtually any religion, church denomination, political affiliation, ethnicity, race, educational background, or social strata. I know Catholics who are patriots, Mormons who are patriots. I know Jews who are patriots. I even know Muslims who are patriots. Yes, you read it right, Muslims. There are patriots who are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc. There are self-proclaimed liberals who have more understanding of liberty than many professing conservatives. There are patriots counted among the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, The Reform Party, the Green Party, etc.
As Thomas Jefferson and John Adams stood side by side for the Declaration of Independence, as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin, did the same, so I will stand with any defender of liberty, regardless of race, religion, denomination–and even with those who have no faith.
Of course, my approach to liberty is God-centered. And my hope in the future is, likewise, God-centered. I do not believe that God is finished with liberty in America. And I am convinced that God is calling out a freedom-remnant even as we speak. I see this almost every week here in the redoubt of the Montana Flathead Valley. I am very much a realist; but I am very much NOT a pessimist. I guess I am a futurist: I believe there is a future for liberty-minded people in this country. The one in a thousand is still among us; I am convinced of that.
On Capitol Hill there are a faithful few: Justin Amash of Michigan, Mike Lee of Utah, Steve Stockman of Texas, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, for example. (I’m withholding judgment on Rand Paul, although among the current list of presidential hopefuls, I like him best so far. I think his foreign policy is far superior to that of Ted Cruz. But Ted’s stand on illegal immigration eclipses Rand’s so far. So, I’m reserving judgment. Jeb Bush is disaster!)
In many State legislatures, there are dynamic patriots fighting ferociously for our liberties. I’m talking about people such as Montana’s Jerry O’Neil, Washington State’s Matt Shea, and Nevada’s Michele Fiore.
Behind the pulpit, there are only a precious few numbered among the patriots. Those five pastors whom the Liberty Church Project just recently helped to withdraw from (or bypass altogether) the devilish 501c3 tax exempt organization status stand out. Warren Luke Campbell and his dad, Warren Campbell, in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, Tony McGhee in Wilmington, North Carolina, Eric Philpot and Nathan Kealer of Dallas,Texas, and Roy Magnuson and his son, Josiah, in Greenville, South Carolina.
Of course, Dr. Greg Dixon, Sr. has been in the freedom fight longer than most of us have been alive. And Dr. David Manning has been an indefatigable opponent of the New World Order as I have ever seen. He just might be the most politically incorrect and bravest pastor in America. And thank God for patriot-preachers such as David Schnittger, Paul Blair, Barry Byrd, Stevie Craft, Hal Curtis, Wiley Drake, Jay Grimstead, and Steve Wagner.
I appreciate the founder and editor of NewsWithViews.com. His website has grown to include a plethora of writers, not all of whom do I agree with, of course. But I know Paul Walter: in his core, he is a patriot. Tom DeWeese has been fighting Agenda 21 longer and more effectively than anyone I know. Christine Tobin over at “Fair And Equal” has done yeoman’s work for years to try and restore free and equal elections to America’s political process. Judge Andrew Napolitano has been a refreshing voice for individual liberty and constitutional government for years, as well. Dr. Tom Kendall stands extremely tall in the world of medicine, as does Dr. Curtis Caine, and the Flathead Valley’s very own Dr. Annie Bukacek.
In the field of law, I am very proud of the stand for freedom taken by my son, Tim. And attorneys Bill Olson and Herb Titus stand as pillars of their profession. And I also greatly admire other patriot-lawyers such as John Whitehead, Larry Klayman, Gene Garrison, Gary Kreep, Ed Vieira, and my dear friend, Danny Kepner.
And though not a majority, there are hundreds of patriot-sheriffs across the country who are relentless in their defense of the liberties of the people of their counties. I’m talking about sheriffs such as Shane Harrington, Joe Arpaio, Bruce Newman, John Hanlin, Gil Gilbertson, Denny Peyman, Larry Smith, and Richard Mack.
And patriots such as Scott Bradley, Sam Bushman, Larry Breazeale, Randy Brogdon, Joel Skousen, Alex Jones, LCDR Guy Cunningham, Aubyn Curtis, Coach Dave Daubenmire, author Thomas DiLorenzo, LCDR David Gillie, filmmaker James Jaeger, Brigadier General Charles Jones, Rick Jore, Roger Koopman, Gary Marbut, and Stewart Rhodes have been fighting the good fight for years. And, of course, Richard Viguerie has been our champion forever.
The numbers of patriots that we have lost over the past few years is too numerous to list. The hole in the freedom fight that they left is massive. God, please raise up freedom-loving Elishas to wear their mantles.
If my estimation is correct, and we still have that preserving-percentage of one in a thousand yet in this country, it means we have 325,000 patriots in America who have not bowed the knee to the New World Order and in whose hearts the love of liberty still beats strong. Ladies and gentlemen, this is an UNCONQUERABLE host.
To all of my fellow patriots: Kudos! Don’t quit! Stay strong! The battle is not over! Freedom still has a future in America!
Since the Western Press has directed their wrath at Vladimir Putin as their latest villain, while his approval rate soars to 88% in Russia, most Americans are not familiar with Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov, much less know his public statements. Lavrov is a thoughtful contrast to the rigid and contemptuous foreign policy spokesmen’s from the Soviet era. It is well worth the time to investigate the actual sentiments that Lavrov has expressed throughout his diplomatic career. An insight of the mindset that underpins his thinking is revealed over two years ago, in the Voltaire Network, which published Sergey Lavrov’s account, On the Right Side of History and provided the following assessment.
“Western propaganda continues to distort Russia’s position in respect of the Syrian crisis. It accuses Moscow of supporting Damascus for profit motives, or even criminal solidarity. In this piece, Sergey Lavrov does not expound on his country’s strategic choices, but rather on the principles that underpin his diplomacy. He responds imperturbably to the inanities spouted by Western media, underscoring Moscow’s commitment to international law and its pledge to support people. Lavrov counterpoints the massive popular support enjoyed by President al-Assad and the illegitimacy of the sectarian armed opposition, sponsored from abroad.”
Quoting from the Lavrov test:
“Back in the 1990s in his book The Clash of Civilisations, Samuel Huntington outlined the trend of the increasing importance of identity based on civilisation and religion in the age of globalization; he also convincingly demonstrated the relative reduction in the abilities of the historic West to spread its influence. It would definitely be an overstatement if we tried to build a model of the modern international relations solely on the basis of such assumptions. However, today it is impossible to ignore such a trend. It is caused by an array of different factors, including more transparent national borders, the information revolution which has highlighted blatant socio-economic inequality, and the growing desire of people to preserve their identity in such circumstances and to avoid falling into the endangered species list of history.”
From the official site of THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, read the entire remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the latest Council on Foreign and Defense Policy meeting. The information contained in these annotations requires a serious evaluation.
Watch the video, ‘Western sanctions aimed at regime change in Russia’ – Lavrov that supplements the text account. Interrupting the significance of this presentation, the blog – The Vineyard of the Saker writes an account of the Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the XXII Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Moscow, 22 November 2014.
I have bolded out what I consider to be the most important statements made by Lavrov that day. I would just like to add the following:
1) Lavrov is considered very much a “moderate” and his language has always been strictly diplomatic. So when you read Lavrov, just imagine what folks in other Russian ministries are thinking.
2) Lavrov makes no secret of his view of the USA and of his plans for the future of our planet. When you read his words, try to imagine what a US Neocon feels and thinks and you will immediately see why the US elites both hate and fear Russia.
3) Finally, Lavrov openly admits that Russia and China have forged a long-term strategic alliance (proving all the nay-sayers who predicted that China would backtstab Russian wrong). This is, I would argue, the single most important strategic development in the past decade.
4) Finally, notice the clear contempt which Lavrov has for a pseudo-Christian “West” which dares not speak in defense of persecuted Christians, denies its own roots, and does not even respect its own traditions.
Complimenting this viewpoint is the YouTube, Lavrov: West stuck with Cold War mentality (UN Gen Assembly Full Q&A). If Lavrov is correct that the NeoCon American foreign policy after the collapse of the Soviet empire has positioned itself to become the single dominating armed force on the planet, what other results but an unending warfare environment can one expect? Longing for an enemy to keep the military machine in high gear certainly is perceived by the rest of the world as threatening.
Blogger Nick Freiling presents an assessment in, What the others are saying, of the following Lavrov quotation.
“In attempting to establish their pre-eminence at a time when new economic, financial and political power centres are emerging, the Americans provoke counteraction in keeping with Newton’s third law and contribute to the emergence of structures, mechanisms, and movements that seek alternatives to the American recipes for solving the pressing problems. I am not referring to anti-Americanism, still less about forming coalitions spearheaded against the United States, but only about the natural wish of a growing number of countries to secure their vital interests and do it the way they think right, and not what they are told “from across the pond.”
Mr. Freiling writes his own comments.
“It’s worth noting that perspectives like these aren’t totally absent from mainstream punditry in the U.S. Libertarians, for one, have long warned about the dangers of stretching American resources too thin in pursuit of foreign policy initiatives that don’t have immediate national security implications. Politicians like Rand Paul have even brought hints of such sentiments into the mainstream.
But this is still a far cry from what most Americans consider an “orthodox” perspective on U.S. foreign policy, even if most people agree we’re overextended in many world arenas.”
The fourth point that the Vineyard of the Saker makes, is expanded upon in the Radical Reactionary essay, Western Secularism vs. Russian Christian Revival where the background and recent direction in Russia is traced.
If you expand your analysis beyond mere political and economic context, the Lavrov foreign policy initiative has a component of emphasizing a traditional and historic cultural motivation. While a religious factor may not have anything to do with forging a new Russia and China alliance, dismissing a spiritual and inward revival in Russia would be a profound error.
Radio Free Europe in the article, Orthodox Churches Fight Back As Eastern Europe Pushes To Modernize, Secularize, makes the case and linkage in Tradition of Religious Nationalism parallels Lavrov’s cultural autonomy.
“Geraldine Fagan, a Moscow-based correspondent for the religion-focused news agency Forum 18 and author of the new book “Believing in Russia: Religious Policy After Communism,” says that religious nationalism, although condemned as heresy in the 19th century, is a profound tradition in Orthodox cultures.
“In many cases, Orthodox churches were ministering to a single ethnic group, and this gave rise to nation-states,” Fagan told RFE/RL in an e-mail. “And there is a lingering sense in places across the Orthodox world that national security depends in a profound — even mystical – way on the nation remaining Orthodox.”
The difference of a nation state from an empire is crucial for comprehending the nature of a legitimate government. The fall of the Soviet empire was inevitable. The notion that an American empire will avoid the same fate is absurd.
This “Clash of Civilizations” is understandable not because either empire rode the high moral road, but because both abandoned the fundamental principles that create a viable society and nation.
Civilization is fragile and requires a deep commitment to institutions that practice and administer legal justice, traditional social values and high moral standards. Maintaining governments that earn the rightful consent of its citizens is difficult and usually breaks down over time.
International affairs are even more delicate than internal equilibrium. Countries do not have permanent allies, they only have interests. Russia has a litany of problems and is no more a friend than any other regime that is exerting its own national self-interest.
The intrepid Brother Nathanael Kapner points the finger at THE ZIONIST HATE CAMPAIGN AGAINST RUSSIA, for an explanation why the pressitute media wants to suppress Russian nationalism. The orthodox cleric is echoing Sergey Lavrov when he cites “For it is NATO that Moscow is opposing owing to its creeping encroachment upon Russia’s borders.”
Americans need to oppose foreign policy adventures and certainly one that risks a global holocaust. Ready for World War III with China?, essay is just as valid when Russia is substituted. What effect would a Russian and Chinese strategic alliance have as the NWO juggernaut continues on it current path to destruction?
Transnational Opposition to Russian Sanctions illustrates why Western countries are playing a dangerous game. Lavrov’s latest address provides a road map for what Russia is embarking on and what the international community should do to lower the tensions and restore constructive economic and political stability.
It is not too far fetch to imagine a current day, Western version for pounding of shoes, with the message “We Will Bury You” reverberating from the halls of the UN. If this seems ridiculous, ask why pushing a Clash of Civilizations is any different?
How is your life going under the Global Empire? If you answer honestly, for non billionaires, the response must reflect disappointment if not immense distress. Middle America stands on the precipice of oblivion. While the recent past decades have shown steep declines in financial security and net wealth, the future looks much more ominous. The link between the shift to an internationalist de-industrialization economy and open border immigration has hit the United States hard. This harsh reality is routinely denied in the financial press, but the social chaos that engulfs society is largely caused by this betrayal mindset. Corporatists are waging war against the American public.
Summing up the battle lines is the quintessential voice of an America First philosophy. Pat Buchanan on Free Trade is a collection of quotations and references that should be a must read for every displaced citizen. And that group includes virtually everyone.
“Good for global business” isn’t necessarily good for US
“Global capitalists have become acolytes of global governance. They wish to see national sovereignty diminished and sanctions abolished. Where yesterday American businesses suffered damage to their good name for selling scrap iron to Japan before Pearl Harbor, today [war materiel is routinely exported] to potentially hostile nations. Once it was true that what was good the Fortune 500 was good for America. That is no longer true, and what is good for America must take precedence.”
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.349 , Oct 9, 1999
The most puzzling malady that penetrates the “PC” culture is a fear of confronting the direct consequences of encouraging an invasion of illegal’s into the country. The disconnect that sweeps across national borders is not isolated just to the United States. Western Europe is not only in decay but is on the verge of social and economic collapse.
Demetrios Papademetriou, PhD, Director of the Migration Policy Institute, wrote in his Sep. 2005 Migration Policy Institute essay “The Global Struggle with Illegal Migration: No End in Sight”: How Are Illegal Immigration and Globalization Related?
“For nearly two decades now, capital and the market for goods, services, and workers of many types have weaved an ever more intricate web of global economic and social interdependence… No aspect of this interdependence seems to be more visible to the public of advanced industrial societies than the movement of people. And no part of that movement is proving pricklier to manage effectively, or more difficult for publics to come to terms with, than irregular (also known as unauthorized, undocumented, or illegal) migration…”
Dr. Papademetriou’s assumption that interdependency is the new normal may be supported with the procession of the Trilateral Commission’s “New International Economic Order”. Nonetheless, the destruction of national sovereignty is a price that no country can afford to adopt, much less pay and remain a nation. Interdependency is the death knell of traditional values, autonomous commerce and individual civil liberties. With the ringing of the bell at the NY Stock exchange, the sound of prosperity goes deaf for the populist, while globalist elites extract the last pound of flesh from an intentionally designed consolidation of a Corporatocracy economy.
The fate of the world is at stake if the forces of globalization are left to complete their total domination of monetary and financial control. It is just as important to prevent the next bipartisan arrangement to grant effective amnesty to millions of illegal foreigners, who have shown little interest to assimilate or adopt the heritage and values of our founding principles.
Warren Mass wrote over a year ago in Permanent Amnesty, Temporary Border.
“An important part of regulating legal immigration, in addition to evaluating each prospective immigrant’s ability to become a productive, law-abiding citizen, is to determine how many immigrants the United States is capable of absorbing each year, taking into consideration the impact on our nation’s economy and culture.”
If this standard needs to apply to those who apply for citizenship, by what absurd twist of logic or sanity pertains to President Obama’s intentions of issuing executive orders that are clearly unconstitutional? How insulting it is to hard press citizens, relegated to enduring impoverishment from off shoring livable wage jobs, while awarding effective amnesty to illegals.
Columnist Glenn R. Jackson review of author Kenneth Buchdahl’s book, Dismantling The American Dream: Globalization, Free Trade, immigration, Unemployment, Poverty, Debt, Foreign Dependency hits the mark.
“First and foremost it is good to see the recognition by Buchdahl of American culture as critical to the building of the American Dream. As Buchdahl writes the development of a culture is grounded in a unique American personality and intricate system of values and beliefs that is responsible for America’s enviable situation. And it is that enviable situation that has contributed to creating the forces that are working rapidly, knowingly or not, to dismantle the American Dream.
Dismantling the American Dream chronicles the unintended impact of America’s pop culture belief in globalization as a force for good in our economy and the failure of leadership to recognize that belief gone awry. America’s political leaders continued belief in free trade and give-away trade deals, in the face of the near deathblow of NAFTA to American manufacturing is but one of the delusions of globalization that Buchdahl lays bare.”
The interjection of cultural aspects may well be the missing link that escapes most chronicles on current events. Documenting the actual results from Free Trade Treaties, should in and of itself win the intellectual argument that economic destruction of Middle America has already happened. Add in the deliberate call for mass migration and social incentives to cross the border has created the latest flood in undocumented aliens.
When Democracy Now asks, Obama & McConnell Pledge Cooperation; Will Fast-Tracking Secretive TPP Trade Deal Top Their Agenda?, and presents Ralph Nader on TPP and the “Unstoppable” Left-Right Anti-Corporate Movement, one has hope that the Buchanan Brigades message is being heard.
With the celebrity coronation that the Democrats are showering on their new favorite daughter, the “Pocahontas Princess”, Elizabeth Warren’s Crusade Against Disastrous “Free Trade” Agreements, is welcomed.
An inquiry was made to NY Senator Charles E. Schumer on the TPA, Trade Priorities Act of 2014 (S.1900). His reply can be read on this link.
An alliance among anti-free trade factions from all ideological camps is necessary to stop the globalist juggernaut. Even if such a coalition could be grown, the likelihood that linkage to the need to stop illegal immigration and opposition to amnesty, would be frosty.
This brings up the opportunity to interject the appeal, WE MUST NOT SURRENDER TO IMMIGRATION AMNESTY, by Frosty Wooldridge. ““Why would any member of Congress who opposes executive amnesty provide President Obama the funds to carry it out? A Republican majority must force congressional Democrats to answer this question through their votes”.
Likewise, why would as covered in the New American essay, Republicans to Obama: We Will Give You Trade Promotion Authority, patriots want to grant “fast track” authority to a President, who is defiant to congressional constitutional separation of powers?
“Fast track authority eventually expired on April 16, 1994, and was not reauthorized by Congress until the passage of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act (BPTAA) of 2002. BPTAA reinstated fast track authority renamed as “trade promotion authority” (TPA), which expired in 2007. In 2012, President Obama requested renewal of TPA/fast track authority to complete negotiations for the TPP and TTIP.”
The answer should be apparent that any support of “fast track” or for TPP is a vote bought with globalist control. If it is so obvious that such influence is at play in trade deals, why are so many confused activists not able to see through the “Open Border” fraud and act upon the best interests for American workers and families?
That taboo culture factor, covered in the Buchdahl book explains the blind spot from the Loony Left. A review of a pro immigration site, Open Borders will demonstrate a systemic disconnect from reality. Often Libertarian purists, also fall under the spell of a transcendental fantasy. To their credit, Open Borders presents the concept of CITIZENISM and provides the following its key features.
Citizenism places substantially greater weight on the rights and interests of citizens than non-citizens, though it operates within moral side-constraints.
Citizenism is about current citizens, not about the people who may become citizens as a result of immigration or deportation policy.
Citizenism, as conceived by its original proponent Sailer, is both about the individual ethics of voters and about the responsibilities of elected representatives.
Citizenism is about loyalty, not admiration, toward one’s fellow citizens.
If you understand the destructive nature of corporatist trade agreements that only benefit transnational conglomerates, while poisoning economic commerce for Middle Americans, why would you not oppose the lunacy of unrestrictive mass migration? The imperative moral directive is to protect and defend your own nation, its traditional culture and responsible citizens.
Saving the world is a concept that resides in the sick minds of the Save the Planet Kill Yourself mindset. If they are so devoted to a globalist utopia, the influx of trespassers must be leaving their own homeland in better shape. Just how well is life south of the border doing?
Both Good Guys and Bad Guys…
During my four score and five years I have witnessed a series of boggy men created by our elite masters that have horrified the population, allowed the deterioration of our freedom, and destroyed our Constitution. The terrifying phantoms they trotted out were often contrived and bogus.
Communism filled the bill for several decades; then the Russian atomic threat became so real that many citizens constructed shelters. Recently the Muslims have been used to create mainstream fear and hate. As I write this Russian has returned to the demon category and is being castigated by our devious press and media.
A feared enemy is a necessary element for the progression of tyranny and the American people are easily fooled.
Fooling the public is not confined to the government. Dissident truth tellers are guilty a well.
When I began writing regularly a number of years ago I wrote about the power grabs that were becoming regular fare in government circles. These essays were popular and were widely reproduced. As it became apparent that educating the populace was useless; that the problem was not entirely centered in our government; that ample responsibility rested with our citizens; indicting our foolish populace was not popular and my readership and popularity plummeted.
The bogus prophecies that beguile Charismatic Christian circles are eerily similar to many of the fear mongering prognostication written by talented and ambitious truth tellers in patriotic groups; both tend toward dramatic predictions that do not materialize and in the process destroy integrity.
Sensationalism is scintillating and sensational revelations and predictions are broadly popular. Truth is profound to a small number of readers and onerous to the majority. R. J. Rushdoony declares that “—the ability to investigate, denounce, and condemn evil is no guarantee of righteousness”. He compares the deterioration of the Roman Empire to a similar decline in the United States:
“The Romans of old, like Americans today, loved to see evil exposed. They loved to talk about national scandals. Evil is interesting to most people, whereas righteousness is not. At a dinner party, a suddenly disgusted host said, ‘Let’s stop all this talk about scandals and let’s talk about something good for a change!’ The result was a painful silence. No one was interested in talking about righteousness. But freedom rests on righteousness (or justice). Without righteousness freedom perishes.”
I recall the Y2K threat that was almost universally considered serious. Various commentators predicted all kinds of breakdowns but on January 2, 2000 things were mostly normal. For several decades we have been regaled with notices of a stock market crash; hyperinflation; death of the dollar; bank failures, or a depression; nothing really serious has occurred. We have been told that Martial Law was Imminent, that body bags had been purchased, burial vaults stock piled, and that Mexican soldiers or Russians soldiers were active in the United States.
Following are some of the titles of articles published by a popular Libertarian writer and radio host with the year they were published.
The Draft is Coming 2006
By 2010, you and I will no longer be Americans 2008
The Beginning of the End 2008
Pentagon Planning Deployment of Troops in Support of Nationwide Vaccination 2009
Depopulation by Inoculation 2009
The Economic Collapse of 2009
Freedom Loving Americans Headed for FEMA Camps 2012
More False Flags Coming! 2012
Mega Banks Stealing Customer Savings and Homes Prior to Collapse 2012
FEMA Trains with Human Shackles are Real! 2012
The DHS Plan to Convert Malls and Stadiums to FEMA Camps — 2012
Manufactured Presidential Assassination Attempt Expected to Justify Martial Law 2012
The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming 2012
WWW III is Right Around the Corner 2012
Nowhere to Run or to Hide From the New Killer Robots 2012
Will Your Family Survive the Coming Tyranny? 2013
The Eight Unfolding Stages of the Great American Genocide 2013
The Government Theft of Retirement Accounts Has Begun 2013
Five Months From the Biggest Depopulation Event in US History 2013
Where Will FEMA Take Your Children? 2013
A Military Coup Will Remove Obama 2013
The Mother of All Conspiracies Aimed At Our Children 2013
The Murdering of Our Daughters 2013
Game Over; Total Collapse is Imminent 2013
They Are Coming for Our Water 2013
The Chinese Military Will Be Knocking On Your Door 2013
The Sides are Forming for the Coming Civil War 2013
These are startling titles that are popular and get the attention of readers. There is often an element of truth but many of the events predicted never materialized and some of them were contrived lies. These titles provide an easy target but there are scores of other writers that use questionable statements to gain readership and popularity. He is not alone.
Charismatic Christian Churches entertain similar startling predictions made by modern day prophets who give the impression that their message comes from God. I have received numerous emails containing warnings given by these Christian oracles that are sent by people who take their words as gospel.
It is a deplorable mendacity to purposely lie to the public as a means of gaining popularity.
Both Christian and secular society should understand that our love for sensation and prurience is a result of our own sinful natures and that the perpetrator needs our cooperation to continue supplying us with evil fantasy. If we are serious about changing our government we must first change ourselves.
The Roman Empire lasted for over 500 years but it slowly deteriorated. Like the United States of America, the Empire began with a love of virtue but ended with a love of evil. Roman citizens, like present day Americans, thought that it was righteous to expose sin and malfeasance in high places. And, like present day Americans, they never understood that righteousness must start with the individual citizen’s obedience to the Law of the Creator; that exposing the sins in government and church would never produce righteous citizens.
Now, gentle reader, the above does not mean that exposing sin in high places is evil. It is not. Freedom is under siege and if we are to win the battle we must know and understand the enemy while realizing that exposing sin in high places will not by itself change our society. Societal change must come with each individual citizen and as individuals seek justice from the Only Source of Justice society will change and so will our government.
‘Wag the Dog’ is an expression which denotes, “to purposely divert attention from what would otherwise be of greater importance, to something else of lesser significance. By doing so, the lesser-significant event is catapulted into the limelight, drowning proper attention to what was originally the more important issue.”
Now, the Dog has been Wagged. Feel better? If you were voting for someone with an R beside their name you probably feel good. If you went for the big D, you are sad. No matter. The present trajectory is not going to change unless or until we take control of our own lives and our own communities.
What you just witnessed was a cast change of no real significance. One team of professional liars ‘D,’ is just giving liars team ‘R’ their turn. This is intended to distract us so we remain passive where it matters, here, where we live.
I understand why it happens. When we are hungry for hope, any hope, elections are very seductive. The fiery speeches and promises make things seem possible. But in the end nothing changes except the names of the rascals who are taking and spending your money and transferring more of your personal life to their direct control. Solving problems in our own community, ourselves, recedes into the distance again.
Several months ago I interviewed the candidate for Ohio’s 14th Congressional District. A classical Conservative was running. He answered every question asked just as President William Howard Taft or Senator Barry Goldwater would have done. He loved Barry’s line on gays in the military. “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.” He and Barry shared the same view on abortion, too, and on preserving the environment.
You had a chance to vote for him last Tuesday. No, it was not the Libertarian. The candidate was Michael Wager. He sounded shocked when I told him.
William Howard Taft, the president who went down to defeat in 1912, would have stopped the FED, nixed the IRS and made sure the Hetch Hetchy was not converted into a water supply for San Francisco. His views were known. He was a Conservative.
Oh. And the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist whose goal was to stop the study of our founding documents in schools.
Direct governance by the people was the original form of government intended by our founders. We still need it.
Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), was on a conference call this past Monday evening, which was sponsored by TheTeaParty.net and attended by hundreds of Tea Party activists. During the conference call, a Tea Party activist asked him about President Barack Obama’s plans for executive amnesty. Priebus replied, “It’s unconstitutional, illegal, and we don’t support it.”
Breitbart.com covered the story. “‘While I can’t speak for the legislature, I’m very confident we will stop that,’ Priebus said. ‘We will do everything we can to make sure it doesn’t happen: Defunding, going to court, injunction. You name it. It’s wrong. It’s illegal. And for so many reasons, and just the basic fabric of this country, we can’t allow it to happen and we won’t let it happen. I don’t know how to be any stronger than that. I’m telling you, everything we can do to stop it we will.’”
Breitbart goes on to quote Priebus, “‘I have said repeatedly on immigration that the first thing is border security and the second thing is upholding the law that’s in place today. What ever happened to the border fence that was promised by Congress in 2006? It never happened. What about these sanctuary cities out there that take federal money and they’re not even upholding the law that we have in place? So somehow or another what can’t get lost in any of this conversation is the importance of border security and making sure that any sort of immigration reform talk doesn’t even begin without taking that first step.’”
As Ronald Reagan said to President Jimmy Carter, “There you go again.” There the GOP goes again: making a promise they have absolutely no intention of keeping.
Priebus’ promise that, should the GOP capture the U.S. Senate, they will stop Obama’s executive amnesty is just so much hot air. I guess he thinks that we have all forgotten then Speaker of The House Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America.”
During the congressional elections of 1994, Gingrich promised the American people that if they put Republicans in charge of the Congress, they would pass legislation to eliminate five federal departments (Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development), 95 federal domestic programs, and slash federal spending across the board. The GOP promises made during the ’94 elections became known as the “Contract With America.”
GOP promises during that election cycle proved extremely successful. In the House of Representatives there was a 54-seat swing to the Republicans, which gave them a majority of seats for the first time since 1954. In the U.S. Senate there was an eight-seat swing, which allowed the GOP to capture both houses of Congress.
During the succeeding congressional session, many of the elements of the Contract were indeed passed by the Republican-led House of Representatives. It was quite another story in the GOP-led Senate. In the Senate, most of the promised bills were either killed altogether or seriously compromised through a variety of watered-down amendments. A few bills–and I mean a precious few bills–made it somewhat intact out of the Senate. At the end of the session, very little of the Contract survived. In fact, during that time, Republican senators reminded everyone that the Contract With America was only the promise of the GOP House, that the GOP Senate never joined in that promise. (Politicians are the slickest liars in the world, are they not?)
While there were several positive results of that “Republican Revolution” of 1994, including a balanced budget in 1998 and surpluses in the federal budgets from 1999-2001–all of these budgets being proposed by Democratic President Bill Clinton–Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott quickly began to compromise away most of the principles of the 1994 Contract. This led to Gingrich being ousted as Speaker of the House.
Of course, none of the five federal departments targeted were eliminated–neither were any of the 95 targeted federal programs. In fact, not only were these departments and programs not eliminated, funding for all of these departments and programs actually INCREASED under the GOP-led Congress. In 2000, Edward Crane, president of the Cato Institute, noted that “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract With America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” And, in case Republicans want to try and blame the Democrat Bill Clinton for these budgetary backslidings, the facts just don’t support it.
Consider the fact that from 2001 through 2006, the GOP controlled the entire federal government: the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate. Plus, Republican-appointed justices comprised a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. (That has been the case since the early 1970s). During those long six years, the GOP-dominated federal government NEVER revisited the principles of the Contract With America. In fact, the Bush years are on record as seeing the most explosive growth in federal spending and overreach in U.S. history to that time. There has been absolutely NOTHING fiscally conservative about the Twenty-First Century GOP. And that’s a fact.
Again, even though the GOP controlled the entire federal government for the first six years of this century, there was no attention given to the promises of the 1994 Contract With America. In addition, no attention was given to overturning Roe v. Wade and ending legalized abortion-on-demand, and no attention was given to overturning Bill Clinton’s egregiously unconstitutional Executive Orders. In fact, no attention was given to G.W. Bush’s campaign promises of fiscal restraint and no-nation building, non-aggressive foreign policy promises, or his vow to honor the Constitution by curbing the usurpations of Washington, D.C., of individual liberties and civil rights. What a joke that turned out to be!
Now we have a Democratic President, Barack Obama, who is one of the most unpopular presidents of our entire history, and the GOP is struggling to energize its own base. How pathetic is that? That’s why RNC Chairman Reince Priebus took to the air with a live conference call with Tea Party activists. The national GOP has so alienated Tea Party conservatives that it is concerned that even with a despised Democrat President, disenfranchised conservatives within the GOP could stay home in large numbers next Tuesday.
Priebus’ concern is warranted.
So, Priebus makes a Contract With America-type promise: give us the Senate and we will stop Obama’s executive amnesty. And even though it was a conference call, I assume he said it with a straight face. The problem is, it is a lie, and Priebus knows it.
Obama is going to sign his executive amnesty order soon after the elections and before the Senate convenes next year. And there are about as many Republicans in the Senate that favor amnesty as there are Democrats. Does anyone really think that John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, et al. are going to get exercised over amnesty? The Chamber of Commerce establishment Republicans are salivating over amnesty for illegals. Some of them are trying to hide an amnesty amendment in the upcoming NDAA even as we speak. Plus, just exactly what is the Senate going to do to overturn an executive amnesty order? I can already hear it. After the GOP wins the Senate, they will say, “Well, as the U.S. Senate, we can’t really do anything; we need a Republican President in 2016. Then we will do something about it.” And the beat goes on.
It’s not about stopping amnesty; it’s about political posturing for a November election. House Speaker John Boehner has promised Big Business Republicans an amnesty deal. Does anyone in their right mind believe the GOP is going to overturn an Obama amnesty order? It’s a campaign bluff. I know it; and so does Barack Obama. (I would love to be proven wrong; but the GOP track record says I am 100% right.)
The Breitbart report goes on to say, “Priebus said at the end of the town hall that he thinks it’s important for Tea Partiers and the grassroots to hold Republicans accountable.
“‘I think it’s important to build our party through addition and make sure that we don’t subtract people out of our party,’ he said. ‘It’s also important for the Tea Party to hold the Republican Party accountable. I get that. It’s not always a cheerleading opportunity. It’s both that we’re going to be with you and help you, but we have to hold you accountable once in a while. And I understand that and respect it.’”
See the report here:
No, Priebus doesn’t understand that; neither does he respect it. This is pure partisan party electioneering.
The GOP leadership has not allowed itself to be held accountable to ANYBODY. They wouldn’t let Ross Perot do it; they wouldn’t let Pat Buchanan do it; they wouldn’t let Ron Paul do it; and they aren’t letting the Tea Party Republicans do it. They think themselves above their own platform, above their conservative base, and even above the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, they have been subtracting numbers from their own ranks for a long, long time. Where do you think the Libertarian and Constitution parties came from? Where do you think so many of the registered independent voters came from?
In any given national election the numbers of people who stay home and don’t vote always outnumber the ones who do vote. Why is that? It’s because both the Democrat and Republican parties have been ignoring so much of their grassroots base that people from both parties have been drifting away by the millions. People by the millions have given up on both major parties. Neither party in Washington, D.C., respects the people of the United States or the U.S. Constitution. Both parties grovel before Big Money. That’s why so many people have removed themselves from the two major parties.
If the Republican leadership in Washington, D.C., had been listening to its base over the past several years, Barack Obama would not be President today and the GOP would not be biting its fingernails as to whether they can take back the Senate. This should be a slam-dunk election for the GOP. And, despite the stiff-necked, Big Business, Big Brother leadership of the national Republican Party, I think the GOP will take the Senate. But if you think for one minute that a GOP-led Senate and House will do diddly squat to stop Obama’s amnesty order or to close our Southern Border, there is this bridge in the Mojave Desert you need to look at. The GOP is famous for doing NOTHING after elections are won.
Reince Priebus lamented over the failure of Congress to honor its promise to close the Southern Border back in 2006. Well, Mr. Priebus, it was the Republican Party that controlled the federal government from 2001-2006, and despite their promises to close the Southern Border, did NOTHING to actually do it. And you think a GOP-led Congress is going to do something about it now? What a joke! Most of the anti-amnesty Republicans are in the House, and they are not even a majority within their own caucus there. Try to name the anti-amnesty senators. The only ones I can recall who have been outspoken against amnesty are Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee. Even Rand Paul has softened on the subject.
I wasn’t on the Tea Party conference call last Monday evening with Mr. Priebus when he said what he said, but I’m hoping someone on the call hollered, “There you go again.”
There is this notion, one we hear more and more, that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. “Social issues are not the business of government!” says thoroughly modern millennial. It’s a seductive cry, one repeated this past Tuesday in an article about how some young libertarians dubbed the “Liberty Kids” are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh, wouldn’t the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.
If you would claim to be purely fiscal, or assert that “social issues” should never be government’s domain, I’d ask a simple question: would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?
Some responses here won’t go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First, the way to determine if one’s principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance, if someone claims he never judges others, it’s legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.
Second, there is no never-land in reality. People in the ’50s would have said that homosexuality will “never” be accepted in the US. And Bill O’Reilly said as recently as 15 or 16 years ago that faux marriage (I don’t use the term “gay marriage”) would “never” be accepted in America. Sometimes “never” lasts only a decade or two.
Third, my question is no longer just theoretical. As I predicted years ago and wrote about here, there now is a movement afoot — one that has received “unbiased” mainstream-media news coverage — to legitimize pedophilia. Moreover, it has co-opted the language of the homosexual lobby, with doctors suggesting that pedophiles are “born that way” and have a “deep-rooted predisposition that does not change,” a film reviewer characterizing pedophilia as “the love that dare not speak its name” and activists saying that lust for children is “normative” and those acting on it are unjustly “demonized.” Why, oneLos Angeles Times article quoted a featured pedophile as saying, “These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed. But it’s as intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality.” My, where have we heard that before?
So, modern millie, as we venture further down the rabbit hole, know that one day you may be among “these people,” these intolerant folks who just can’t understand why “social issues” should be kept out of politics and government out of the bedroom.
Of course, I’m sure that many libertarians have no problem with legalized bestiality; hey, my goat, my choice, right? And there may even be a rare few who would shrug off pedophilia, saying that, well, if a child agrees, who am I to get in the way of a consensual relationship? But these issues, as revolting and emotionally charged as they are, are just examples. There are a multitude of others, and this becomes clear if we delve a bit more deeply.
After all, what are “social issues”? What are we actually talking about? We’re speaking of moral issues, which, again, thoroughly modern millie would say should be kept out of politics. But this is impossible. For the truth is that every just law is an imposition of morality or a corollary thereof — every one.
Eyes may be rolling again, but let’s analyze it logically. By definition a law is a removal of a freedom, stating that there is something we must or must not do. Now, stripping freedom away is no small matter. Why would we do it? Unless we’re sociopathic, like Aleister Crowley believe “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” and are willing to impose our will simply because it feels right, there could be only one reason: we see the need to enforce an element of a conception of right and wrong. We prohibit an act because we believe it’s wrong or mandate something because we believe it’s a moral imperative. This is indisputable. After all, would you forcibly prevent someone from doing something that wasn’t wrong? Would you force someone to do something that wasn’t a moral imperative? That would be truly outrageous — genuine tyranny.
There are laws where this is obvious and unquestioned, such as the prohibition against murder. But the same holds true even when the connection to morality isn’t so obvious, such as with speed laws: they’re justified by the idea that it is wrong to endanger others.
Then there is legislation such as ObamaCare. The wind beneath its wings was the idea that it was wrong to leave people without medical care; this case was consistently made, and, were it not for this belief, the bill could never have gotten off the ground. Or consider the contraception mandate and the supposed “war on women”: the issue would have been moot if we believed there was nothing wrong with waging a war on women.
Some will now protest, saying that there is nothing moral about ObamaCare and the contraception mandate. I agree, but this just proves my point. Note that my initial assertion was not that every law is the imposition of morality — it was that every just law is so. Some legislation is based on a mistaken conception of right and wrong, in which case it is merely the imposition of values, which are not good by definition (Mother Teresa had values, but so did Hitler). It is only when the law has a basis in morality, in Moral Truth, which is objective, that it can be just. Hence the inextricable link between law and morality. For a law that isn’t the imposition of morality is one of two other things: the legislation of nonsense or, worse still, the imposition of immorality.
So this is the fatal flaw behind the attack on social conservatives. It would be one thing if the only case made were that their conception of morality was flawed; instead, as with those who sloppily bemoan all “judgment,” they’re attacked with a flawed argument, the notion that their voices should be ignored because they would “impose morality.” But what we call “social conservatives” aren’t distinguished by concern for social issues; the only difference between them and you, modern millie, is that they care about the social issues that society, often tendentiously, currently defines as social issues and which we happen to be fighting about at the moment. This is seldom realized because most people are creatures of the moment. But rest assured that, one day, the moment and “never” will meet. And then you very well may look in the mirror and recognize that most unfashionable of things: a social-issues voter.