There has been much written about the Boy Scouts of America’s recent acceptance of openly homosexual scout masters. The organization has been raked over the coals by the right and accused of offering only a half-measure by the left. But few appreciate what the BSA has actually done — and the BSA has no idea what it has done to itself.
Scouting has never been just about tying knots and learning survival skills, but about instilling virtue and building character. And part of having character means standing up for what you believe is right.
Insofar as this goes, no boy will find the “reformed” BSA organization a good role model.
Whether or not you agree with the BSA’s recent policy change, this is indisputable. Note that when BSA president (and ex-defense secretary) Robert Gates defended the decision, he spoke of how the ban on homosexual adults was “unsustainable,” said that he had “fear” it would mean the BSA’s demise, and spoke about how one couldn’t ignore the changing legal landscape and culture (we can only imagine what kinds of policies he’d have felt compelled to adopt in 1936 Germany or the 1925 USSR). There wasn’t even a pretense at a moral argument. “Instead, he argues from organizational self-interest — never mind if it is right or wrong…. Duty to God and country? To heck with that — management always has its own priorities,” as National Review put it in a scathing editorial.
Of course, it isn’t hard to figure out that, much like the leper character in Braveheart, Gates is a perhaps proud compromiser; he wants to mollify the sexual fascists while tacitly saying to traditionalists, “I don’t want to do it, you see; we have to — to survive.” Well, there’s a new scout survival skill for you. Perhaps now they’ll have courses in political expediency and realpolitik and merit badges in waving white flags and lying prostrate.
It’s not that Gates is wrong about the culture’s trajectory, the legal challenges or what they portend for the BSA. But the organization was being sued six ways to Sunday 15 years ago and bravely held the line. What’s different today? Sure, the wider culture has degraded further — but so has the BSA’s internal culture.
Lost in this whole debate is that allowing openly homosexual BSA leaders is not movement toward equality — that notion is marketing — but away from it. After all, there have always been homosexual scout leaders, just as there have been those who were adulterers or fornicators. But they generally “kept up appearances,” which, while paling in comparison to actual virtue, is the next best thing. But while the last two groups are still presumably expected to keep it in the closet, the group that always feels compelled to wear its sexuality on its shirtsleeve will be out and “proud” in the bush.
And, really, it wouldn’t even matter now if adulterers and fornicators followed suit. It is certainly true that being “morally straight” (part of the BSA oath) involves more than just sexuality; it is also true that sexuality is an integral part of it. And, obviously, the BSA’s sexuality model was always Christendom’s traditional one: sexuality is to be confined to a married couple (man and woman, by definition), period. Some will now protest, saying that the BSA never dealt with sexuality at all. No, not explicitly, but it isn’t only what’s mentioned explicitly that matters. There’s no such thing as a value-neutral environment. “Values are caught more than they’re taught,” and it is what is assumed that is learned best. If an “out” adulterer, fornicator or homosexual is a scout leader, he’s teaching the legitimacy of the behavior in question in the most powerful way possible: by living it — as someone who is a role model. Moreover, that the BSA allows him to “serve openly” relates a message of organizational acceptance.
So the issue here is the validating of homosexuality in young boys’ minds? Actually, it’s worse than that. Question, how effective is the following message: adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, polygamy is a sin, but homosexuality? That’s just a lifestyle choice, junior, sorta’ like living on a houseboat.
It’s a what’s-wrong-with-this-picture scenario the dullest student could figure out in a second. Once Scout Master Ken can arrive in camp all joyous and gay talking about the new knot — the one he fancies he’s tied with his “significant other” Lloyd — it’s clear that basically anything goes sexually. Hey, if he can indulge his passions, why can’t I indulge mine? In other words, the acceptance of homosexuality means the complete collapse of the traditional sexual model.
What does this mean for being “morally straight” in general? C.S. Lewis once noted (I’m paraphrasing), “Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up.” And opening that stuffed closet messes everything else up. Similar to how you can’t compartmentalize accepted homosexuality and keep the traditionalist sexual model intact, it’s essentially impossible to compartmentalize widespread sexual vice and keep general virtue intact. It’s as how cancer metastasizing unfettered cannot be kept confined to one organ: vice corrupts the heart, weakens the mind, clouds judgment and creates desire for the justification of relativism (e.g., who’s to say what right and wrong is, anyway? Don’t impose your “values” on me!). This leads to more vice. This is not to say, lest I be misunderstood, that a sexually corrupt people can’t have its virtues. It is to say they can’t be virtuous.
And that is the issue. None of this would be happening if the BSA’s leadership, reflecting moderns in general, weren’t lacking in virtue themselves and hadn’t descended into vice-enabling relativism. Even years ago I fully expected their surrender because I understood that, as Lewis also said, you cannot “make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.” Robert Gates and most of the rest of the BSA leadership are men without chests; they have no heart for the fight because they have no principles, and they have no principles because they started believing not in principles but provisional values.
As far as the BSA’s mandate of creating boys with chests, the organization long had to fight the corruptive wider culture. But now it has collapsed, completely and likely irrevocably, its own internal culture. And for what? A slight reprieve? A stay of execution? Gates has said he didn’t foresee the rapid cultural changes (a tipping point, really) of the last several years. What he also doesn’t see is that he has merely “traded the Sudetenland for peace in our time.” And he will learn that this peace is fleeting with people whose “truth” changes with time, people who tolerate no dissent, honor no compromise and take no prisoners.
The BSA decided that it profited the organization to lose its soul so it could gain the world. Its punishment will be, I suspect, that it will end up without either.
“Truth and reason are eternal,” Thomas Jefferson wrote to Rev. Samuel Knox in 1810. “They have prevailed. And they will eternally prevail…” Jefferson was wrong. As the current media pack coverage of the 20th anniversary of the “Srebrenica massacre” indicates, his belief that “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it” was somewhat naive.
It is noteworthy that “Srebrenica” in the mainstream media discourse is no longer a geographic location that needs to be preceded by a noun (“the massacre in…”). It has been developed into a stand-alone term that denotes horror, on par with “Auschwitz,” “Katyn,” or “Hiroshima.” In reality, unlike those very real horrors, it is a postmodern myth based on a distortion of facts and their willful omission.
In a Jeffersonian paradigm, two decades later we would have a reasonable, factually based debate on what happened in and around Srebrenica in July 1995, how and why; but the very term “debate” is rejected by an elite class in the West that treats “Srebrenica” as a metaphysical concept. Its luminaries deny as a matter of principle that there is anything to debate. They claim that eight thousand prisoners were executed in cold blood and that a UN-established judicial forum of unquestioned authority has found it to constitute “genocide.”
As it happens, many authoritative and reasonable people with no ethnic, religious or personal axe to grind in the Balkan quagmire disagree. They have spoken and written as if a Jeffersonian debate existed, only to be dismissed as “genocide deniers.”
The fact beyond dispute is that during the Bosnian war thousands of Muslim men were killed in the region of Srebrenica. Most of them died in July of 1995 when the enclave fell almost without a fight to the Bosnian Serb Army and the Muslim garrison—the 28th division of the (Muslim) Bosnia-Herzegovina Army—attempted a breakthrough. A significant number reached safety at the Muslim-held town of Tuzla, 40 miles to the north; some found shelter in Serbia, across the Drina River to the east. An unknown were killed while fighting their way through; and many others—numbers remain disputed—were taken prisoner and executed by the Bosnian Serb army.
The numbers remain unknown and misrepresented. With “8,000 executed” and thousands more killed in the fighting while trying to reach the Muslim lines, the column attempting to break out should have counted 15,000 men—an impossibly large number. There should have been huge gravesites and satellite evidence of executions, burials, and body removals. The UN searches in the Srebrenica vicinity, breathlessly frantic at times, still falls far short of the sanctified figure of 8,000. The Islamic shrine at Potocari, where the supposed victims are buried, includes those of soldiers killed in action and civilians who died of natural causes, Muslim and Serb, between May 1992 and July 1995.
The Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague (ICTY) never came up with a conclusive breakdown of casualties. That a war crime did take place is undeniable: many Muslim prisoners were killed. The number of actual victims remains forensically and demographically unproven. According to the former BBC reporter Jonathan Rooper, “from the outset the numbers were used and abused” for political purposes. The number of likely casualties from all causes corresponds closely to the ‘missing’ list of 7,300 compiled by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Rooper says. But the early estimates were based on nothing more than the simple combination of an estimated 3,000 men last seen at the UN base at Potocari and an estimated 5,000 people reported “to have left the enclave before it fell,” Rooper says:
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the 7-8,000 figure is that it has always been represented as synonymous with the number of people executed. This was never a possibility: numerous contemporary accounts noted that UN and other independent observers had witnessed fierce fighting with significant casualties on both sides. It was also known that others had fled to Muslim-held territory around Tuzla and Zepa, that some had made their way westwards and northwards, and that some had fled into Serbia. It is therefore certain that nowhere near all the missing could have been executed.
The Red Cross reported at the time that some 3,000 Bosnian Army soldiers managed to reach Muslim lines near Tuzla and were redeployed by the Bosnian Army “without their families being informed.” The number of military survivors was also confirmed by Muslim General Enver Hadzihasanovic in his testimony at The Hague.
The last census results, from 1991, counted 37,211 inhabitants in Srebrenica and the surrounding villages, of which 27,118 were Muslims (72.8 percent) and 9,381 Serbs (25.2 percent). Displaced persons from Srebrenica registered with the World Health Organization and Bosnian government in early August 1995 totaled 35,632. With 3,000 Muslim men who reached Tuzla “without their families being informed” we come to the figure of over 38,000 survivors. The Hague Tribunal’s own estimates of the total population of the Srebrenica enclave before July 1995—notably that made by Judge Patricia Wald—give 40,000 as the maximum figure. It simply does not add up to support the sanctified figure of “8,000.”.
Having spent five days interviewing over 20,000 Srebrenica survivors at Tuzla a week after the fall of the enclave, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Henry Wieland declared urbi et orbi, “we have not found anyone who saw with their own eyes an atrocity taking place.” A decade later a Dutch field investigator, Dr Dick Schoonoord, confirmed Wieland’s verdict: “It has been impossible during our investigations in Bosnia to find any people who witnessed the mass murder or would talk about the fate of the missing men.”
A “PROTECTED ZONE”?—It is often pointed out that Srebrenica was an UN “protected zone,” but it is seldom noted that the enclave was simultaneously an armed camp used for attacks against Serb villages in the surrounding areas. Muslim General Sefer Halilovic confirmed in his testimony at the Hague Tribunal that there were at least 5,500 Bosnian Muslim Army soldiers in Srebrenica after it had obtained the “safe haven” status, and that he had personally arranged numerous deliveries of sophisticated weapons by helicopter.
French General Philippe Morillon, the UNPROFOR commander who first called international attention to the Srebrenica enclave, was adamant that the crimes committed by those Muslim soldiers made the Serbs’ desire for revenge inevitable. He testified at The Hague Tribunal on February 12, 2004, that the Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, “engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.” Asked by the ICTY prosecutor how Oric treated his Serb prisoners, General Morillon, who knew him well, replied that “Naser Oric was a warlord who reigned by terror in his area and over the population itself… he didn’t even look for an excuse… One can’t be bothered with prisoners.”
Cees Wiebes, who wrote the intelligence section of the Dutch Government report on Srebrenica, has noted that despite signing the demilitarization agreement, Bosnian Muslim forces in Srebrenica were heavily armed and engaged in provocations (“sabotage operations”) against Serbian forces. Professor Wiebes caused a storm with his book Intelligence and the War in Bosnia 1992-1995, detailing the role of the Clinton administration in allowing Iran to arm the Bosnian Muslims.
On 11 July, 1995, the Muslim garrison was ordered to evacuate the town which the Serbs entered unopposed. Local Deputy Director of UN Monitors, Carlos Martins Branco, wrote in 2004 a hugely important study based on his experiences and additional documents (“Was Srebrenica a Hoax?”). Branco asserts that Muslim forces did not even try to take advantage of their heavy artillery because “military resistance would jeopardize the image of ‘victim,’ which had been so carefully constructed, and which the Muslims considered vital to maintain.” His findings have been ignored by the mainstream media and the Western political class.
POLITICAL BACKGROUND—Two prominent local supporters of the late Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic, his Srebrenica SDA party chairman Ibran Mustafic and police commander Hakija Meholjic, have subsequently accused Izetbegovic of deliberately sacrificing the enclave in order to trigger NATO intervention. Meholjic is explicit: in his presence, Izetbegovic quoted President Bill Clinton as saying that 5,000 dead Muslims would be sufficient to provide the political basis for an American-led intervention on the side of the Muslims.
Testifying at The Hague Tribunal, Muslim Generals Halilovic and Hadzihasanovic confirmed this theory by describing how 18 top officers of the Srebrenica garrison were abruptly removed in May 1995. Ibran Mustafic, the former head of the Muslim SDA party in Srebrenica, is adamant that the scenario for the sacrifice of Srebrenica was carefully prepared:
Unfortunately, the Bosnian presidency and the Army command were involved in this business … Had I received orders to attack the Serb army from the demilitarized zone, I would have rejected to carry out that order. I would have asked the person who had issued that order to bring his family to Srebrenica, so that I can give him a gun let him stage attacks from the demilitarized zone. I knew that such shameful, calculated moves were leading my people to catastrophe. The order came from Sarajevo.
Military analyst Tim Ripley agrees that Srebrenica was deliberately sacrificed by the Muslim political leaders for more lucrative purposes. He noted that Dutch UN soldiers “saw Bosnian troops escaping from Srebrenica past their observation points, carrying brand new anti-tank weapons [which] made many UN officers and international journalists suspicious.”
The term “genocide” is even more contentious than the exact circumstances of Srebrenica’s fall. Local chief of UN Monitors, Carlos Martins Branco, noted that if there had been a premeditated plan of genocide, instead of attacking in only one direction, from the south to the north—which left open escape routes to the north and west, the Serbs would have established a siege in order to ensure that no one escaped:
The UN observation posts to the north of the enclave were never disturbed and remained in activity after the end of the military operations. There are obviously mass graves in the outskirts of Srebrenica as in the rest of ex-Yugoslavia where combat has occurred, but there are no grounds for the campaign which was mounted, nor the numbers advanced by CNN. The mass graves are filled by a limited number of corpses from both sides, the consequence of heated battle and combat and not the result of a premeditated plan of genocide, as occurred against the Serbian populations in Krajina, in the Summer of 1995, when the Croatian army implemented the mass murder of all Serbians found there.
The fact that The Hague Tribunal called the massacre in Srebrenica “genocide” does not make it so. How can a “genocide” happen within a single municipality? What plan for genocide includes offering safe passage to women and children? And if this was all part of a Serb plot to eliminate Muslims, what about hundreds of thousands of Muslims living peacefully in Serbia itself, including thousands of refugees who fled there from Srebrenica and other parts of Bosnia? Or the Muslims in the neighboring enclave of Žepa, who were unharmed when the Serbs captured that town a few days after capturing Srebrenica?
To get around these common sense obstacles, the ICTY prosecution came up with a sociologist who provided an “expert” opinion: the Srebrenica Muslims lived in a patriarchal society, therefore killing the men was enough to ensure that the widows would not remarry and there would be no more young Muslims in Srebrenica. Such psychobabble turns the term “genocide” into a gruesome joke. Yet it was on the basis of this definition that in August 2001, the Tribunal found Bosnian Serb General Radislav Krstic guilty of “complicity in genocide.”
Even if the unproven figure of “8,000” is assumed, it affected less than one-half of one percent of Bosnia’s Muslim population in a locality covering one percent of its territory. On such form, the term “genocide” loses all meaning and becomes a propaganda tool rather than a legal and historical concept. On that form, America’s NATO ally Turkey – a major regional player in today’s Balkans – committed genocide in northern Cyprus in 1974. On that form, no military conflict can be genocide-free.
As Diana Johnstone explained in a seminal article a decade ago, the ‘Srebrenica massacre’ is part of a dominant culture discourse that is highly relevant to a host of U.S.-led or supported interventions in the Greater Middle East:
We people in the advanced democracies have reached a new moral plateau, from which we are both able and have a duty both to judge others and to impose our ‘values’ when necessary. The others, on a lower moral plateau, must be watched carefully, because unlike us, they may commit ‘genocide.’ … The subliminal message in the official Srebrenica discourse is that because ‘we’ let that happen, ‘we’ mustn’t let ‘it’ happen again, ergo, the U.S. should preventively bomb potential perpetrators of ‘genocide’.
The accepted Srebrenica story, influenced by war propaganda and uncritical media reports, is neither historically correct nor morally satisfying. The relentless 1990’s Western campaign against the Serbs and in favor of their Muslim foes—which is what “Srebrenica” is really all about—is detrimental to the survival of our culture and civilization. It seeks to give further credence to the myth of Muslim blameless victimhood, Christian “Islamophobic” viciousness, and alleged Western indifference. The myth is calculated to weaken our resolve in the global struggle once euphemistically known as “war on terrorism.” The former is a crime; the latter, a mistake.
Maverick Republican, Donald Trump, has been under intense pressure from the GOP establishment for his off-the-cuff remark about Senator John McCain (R-Arizona). In a televised interview, Trump said, “[John McCain] is a hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
Predictably, establishment Republicans immediately called Trump just about every dirty name in the book. Lindsey Graham called him a “jackass.” Rick Perry said the comment made him “unfit” to be President. Mitt Romney said Trump “shot himself down.” (Not hardly! Trump is the clear front runner of all the GOP presidential candidates in most polls.) But, clearly, the Republican establishment is frustrated with Trump’s popularity–and for good reason.
Donald Trump is scorching the GOP for its support of illegal immigration, and he is scorching it for its support of incessant foreign wars. Trump said, “We spent $2 trillion in Iraq, $2 trillion. We lost thousands of lives, thousands in Iraq. We have wounded soldiers all over the place, thousands and thousands of wounded soldiers. And we have nothing. We can’t even go there. We have nothing. And every time we give Iraq equipment, the first time a bullet goes off in the air, they leave it.” Amen!
See the report here:
And he is scorching them BIG TIME by calling into question the GOP’s 2008 standard bearer. Specifically, he has dared to tell the truth about the miserable record of John McCain’s treatment of America’s veterans.
See this report:
In refusing to apologize for his remarks about Senator McCain, Trump rightly said, “The reality is that John McCain the politician has made America less safe, sent our brave soldiers into wrong-headed foreign adventures, covered up for President Obama with the VA scandal and has spent most of his time in the Senate pushing amnesty. He would rather protect the Iraqi border than Arizona’s.”
See the report here:
While most everyone has criticized the second part of Trump’s statement (“I like people who weren’t captured”), hardly anyone has dared to broach the first part of the statement: “[John McCain] is a hero because he was captured.” That statement is an absolute fact.
John McCain rose to become one of America’s most powerful senators and became the Republican Party’s nominee for President in 2008 mostly on his Prisoner of War (POW) status. Absent his POW history, McCain would no doubt have lived his entire life in relative obscurity. It usually takes more than simply being a veteran or being the son of a Navy admiral or even being a POW to make one obtain famous hero status. How many other POWs do you know that have achieved McCain’s political power and influence?
Alabama’s Jeremiah Denton was a POW who truly endured intense torture at the hands of the enemy and who became one of our finest U.S. senators. And there was never the first hint of dishonorable conduct or scandal or accusations that Denton used his war record for personal profit. I had the privilege of meeting Senator Denton a couple of times, and the thing that struck me most about the man was his deep and genuine humility. The same cannot be said of John McCain.
John McCain’s POW record has been shrouded in controversy from the very beginning. Many independent journalists and military veterans have accused McCain of being America’s version of “Tokyo Rose.” They offer convincing evidence (or at least credible postulations) that McCain was NEVER tortured, that he received special treatment by his captors, and that he actually willingly participated in anti-America propaganda, in much the same way that Tokyo Rose did in the Pacific during World War II.
One Vietnam veteran who was publicly critical of John McCain was my friend Jack McLamb. McLamb served nine years in secret operations in Cambodia and other nations before going on to become one of the most highly decorated police officers in Phoenix, Arizona history, winning Police Officer of the Year twice before taking a role as a hostage negotiator for the FBI.
McLamb said of McCain, “I know a lot of Vietnam veterans and a few POW’s and all the POW’s that I’ve talked to over the years say that John McCain is a lying skunk.
“He never was tortured–they were there in the camp with him and then when he came in….he immediately started spilling his guts about everything because he didn’t want to get tortured,” said McLamb, contradicting the official story that McCain only offered his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth.
“The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that’s his code name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and telling them everything they wanted to know.”
McLamb also said, “The POW’s said that McCain made 32 propaganda videos for the communist North Vietnamese in which he denounced America for what they were doing in Vietnam.
“They have these sealed now, our government has these sealed, we can’t get to it, they have it classified. In truth the POW’s hate John McCain.”
See the report here:
There are many similar reports about John McCain. I suspect that Donald Trump is familiar with these reports. Here are a few of them:
Reports note that former American POWs such as Col. Ted Guy and Gordon “Swede” Larson, who were held in the same communist prison as McCain, have gone on record saying that they are very skeptical about McCain’s claims of torture.
See this report:
Another former POW, Philip Butler, a man who was also imprisoned with McCain, is more sympathetic to the man, saying that he had probably been tortured early on in his captivity and made no reference to McCain’s alleged anti-America propaganda charges–but was emphatic that McCain was unqualified to be President. Butler firmly said that he would NOT vote for McCain because McCain was a hot-tempered man who had become a Bush-like warmonger and who had used his POW status for personal and political gain. Remember, this is from a fellow POW who actually likes McCain.
See the report here:
Regardless of McCain’s real war record (the U.S. government has sealed the record, so we will likely never know the truth about the matter), it is a fact that, as one of the most powerful senators in Washington, D.C., John McCain has done little to assist America’s veterans. In fact, McCain is commonly regarded as being one of the strongest opponents to the investigation and rescue of POWs left behind in Indochina following the Vietnam War.
While a member of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs (1991-1993), McCain referred to POW/MIA family members and activists as “whiners,” “vultures,” and “the lunatic fringe.” Although the committee concluded that there were indeed American POWs left behind in Indochina, McCain voted to normalize relations with Vietnam without any accountability for America’s missing servicemen. In so doing, McCain ignored a letter written by fellow POW Captain Eugene “Red” McDaniel and co-signed by 50 former POWs which asked him to not support normalized relations with Vietnam until the POW issue had been resolved.
In 1996, McCain opposed the Missing Service Personnel Act (MSPA) as being “unnecessary” and “burdensome.” He also helped to amend the MSPA to remove criminal liability, which POW/MIA families knew was a serious blow to obtaining meaningful accountability on behalf their loved ones still languishing in Southeast Asia.
See the report here:
And this report:
John McCain has spent most of his senatorial career promoting an open border with Mexico, a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, and incessant foreign wars; facilitating the miserable performance of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA); and covering up evidence of Americans left behind in Indochina. No wonder so many people have referred to McCain as “The Manchurian Candidate.”
Read this report:
By telling the truth about John McCain, Donald Trump has hit the rawest of nerves within the Washington establishment (and New World Order globalist elite). Without a doubt, John McCain is one of the globalist elite’s political darlings. A favored son of globalist puppet-masters such as Henry Kissinger, John McCain has been a water boy for the New World Order from the time he entered politics. Guilty of corruption as one of the infamous “Keating Five,” John McCain was given a mere “slap-on-the-wrist” and allowed to continue his pernicious ways.
See the report here:
And McCain’s “war hero” status has made him virtually untouchable–until now.
My mind is far from made up in regards to supporting Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. But, so far, Donald Trump has been willing to courageously confront the Washington establishment in an in-your-face, no-holds-barred manner that we have not seen in a long, long time. And if Trump accomplishes nothing else in his presidential bid except exposing establishment sycophants like John McCain, I, for one, am excited that he has entered the race.
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.
In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.
History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.
Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!
In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.
And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.
People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.
People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.
Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.
One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”
The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.
Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”
You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.
The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”
Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!
The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.
This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!
In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”
What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.
Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.
Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”
Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.
Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”
The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.
On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”
Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.
Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”
Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?
It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.
By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.
I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?
That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”
Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.
In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.
Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.
If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!
By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully–just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”
And look at what is happening now: in one instant–after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag–the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.
The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.
In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.
Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”
Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:
The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag
Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.
Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.
By now, everyone on the planet knows that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has rendered a decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. In a landmark 5-4 decision, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan ruled that states may not prohibit homosexual couples from getting “married.” The reasoning of their decision was based on the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process” clause.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy said, “Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.”
Obviously, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights specifically about the right of homosexuals to “marry.” But there is something in the Bill of Rights specifically about the right to keep and bear arms. Using the reasoning and conclusion of the Court’s homosexual “marriage” ruling, states have absolutely no authority to deny recognition of concealed carry permits that have been issued in other states. In other words, if the 14th Amendment protects an unspecified right (same-sex “marriage”), it certainly protects a specified right (the right to keep and bear arms). And since some states recognize the right of citizens to openly carry firearms, this right should also be determined to be protected by the 14th Amendment. If states must recognize driver’s licenses (and now same-sex “marriage” licenses) issued in other states, it is now clear that they must also be required to recognize concealed weapon licenses issued in other states.
See this report:
It should be obvious to any objective person that by providing 14th Amendment protection to homosexual “marriage,” SCOTUS has banned most gun control laws throughout the country. However, I seriously doubt that the five justices passing the same-sex “marriage” decision had gun control in mind. Nevertheless, that shouldn’t stop gun rights activists from taking advantage of the SCOTUS decision.
Many libertarian jurists are lauding the SCOTUS same-sex decision as a victory for the right of individuals to enter into contracts with one another. But marriage is more than a “contract.” It is an institution–an institution created by GOD. No human authority can redefine what our Creator has already defined in both revealed and Natural Law. Forevermore, true marriage can only be between a man and a woman–a SCOTUS decision notwithstanding.
Senator Rand Paul wisely noted, “While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.
“The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.
“I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.
“Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.
“Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.
“It seems some rights are more equal than others.
“Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.
“I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.
“Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.
“This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.
“Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: ‘In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.’
“The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.
“Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”
See the report here:
Note that Dr. Paul correctly recognized that the SCOTUS attempted to render a “redefinition” of marriage. That it did.
Since the beginning of human history (not to mention Western Civilization) marriage has been recognized as being between a man and a woman. Again, marriage is much more than a civil contract.
As I have noted several times, the right of civil contracts includes the right of homosexuals to enter into civil unions. But marriage is NOT a civil union. Nor is it merely a civil contract. In fact, real marriage is NOT a civil matter at all. It is a spiritual matter. Civil governments can recognize or not recognize all they want; it doesn’t change the definition of marriage one iota. Civil governments can no more redefine marriage than they can redefine worship or prayer. Marriage is a divine institution. Therefore, it is completely outside the scope and jurisdiction of SCOTUS or any other civil authority.
The problem is that many years ago the Church decided to allow civil government licensing authority over marriage. When they did this, they absconded divine authority over marriage and reduced it into nothing more than just another government-sanctioned civil contract. Now the chickens have come home to roost.
The problem is not SCOTUS; the problem is the CHURCH.
Rand Paul is right: “Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”
So far, the only State to have the correct response to the SCOTUS decision is the State of Alabama, led by my friend Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. The State of Alabama is encouraging county courthouses to not issue ANY marriage licenses. And this is exactly what many Alabama counties are doing. This strategy should be replicated by all fifty states and the counties within those states.
Furthermore, pastors across the country should stop performing ALL marriages that are licensed by the State. In other words, the Church should do what it did for some 1,800+ years of Church history: keep the State out of the marriage business.
But all of that doesn’t change the intention of the Court decision and the agenda of the radical secularists who are the impetus behind the decision and their attempt to expunge all semblances of Christianity (and morality) from America’s public life.
In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy attempted to throw people of faith a bone by stating, “Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”
However, notice that Kennedy said that religious people may “advocate” for traditional marriage, but he said nothing about non-compliance. What will happen to those pastors and churches that refuse to “marry” same-sex couples? If you think for one minute that radical homosexuals are going to be content with a Supreme Court decision that doesn’t have enforcement power, you are very mistaken.
Already, allies of the militant homosexual agenda are promoting public censorship and the loss of tax exempt status for those churches that refuse to submit to the Supreme Court decision.
My friend Cal Thomas got it right: “Given their political clout and antipathy to Christian doctrines, some gay activists are likely to go after the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges that prohibit cohabitation of unmarried students, or openly homosexual ones, as well as churches that refuse to marry them. As with legal challenges to the owners of bakeries that have been in the news for refusing to bake a cake for same-sex weddings, activists who demand total conformity to their agenda will seek to put out of business and silence anyone who believes differently.”
See Cal’s column here:
Cal is exactly right. The purge has already begun.
“CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that it wasn’t legal ‘to talk about gay people the way Justice Scalia used to talk about gay people’ while recounting Scalia’s prior dissent in Lawrence v. Texas on Friday’s ‘CNN Newsroom.’”
See the report here:
Again, this is from CNN’s SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST. “Beam me up, Mr. Speaker.” Anti-Christian purgers are already advocating the cancellation of the right of free speech in the wake of the SCOTUS decision.
Look at this: “A newspaper in Harrisburg, PA has announced henceforth it intends to censor certain views about marriage deemed no better than racism, sexism, anti-Semitism.
“John L. Micek, editorial page editor and formerly state capital reporter, made the announcement shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its imposition of gay marriage on the county. Micek wrote:
“‘As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same sex marriage.’ In a Tweet later in the day, Micek doubled down, ‘This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic letters. To that we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.’”
Here is the report:
You can take this to the bank: there will be hundreds of local and State laws reflecting the SCOTUS decision and hundreds of lawsuits forthcoming against people who seek to live by their religious convictions to not directly participate in homosexual “marriages.” And that means there will be hundreds of court decisions ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, hundreds of arrest warrants, civil fines, prison sentences, etc. Anyone who doesn’t see this coming is blind.
Then there is this column written by Mark Oppenheimer who writes for America’s flagship newspaper, The New York Times, calling for the elimination of tax-exempt status for churches on the heels of the SCOTUS gay “marriage” decision.
See Mark’s column here:
You can mark it down: his will not be the last such call.
So, this begs the question, what will all of these Romans 13 “obey-the-government-no-
All of this goes back to what I’ve been saying for years: the Church is to blame for this mess. Pastors are to blame for this mess.
For decades, pastors and churches allowed the state to supplant the authority of Christ over them. They volunteered to become creatures of the state by submitting to the IRS 501c3 non-profit, tax-exempt status. By doing so, they forfeited their independence and autonomy (not to mention their spiritual identity and authority) and became nothing more than a state-created non-profit organization. Again, now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Actually, I think it’s time for pastors and churches to decide once and for all to whom they belong and what they are. And if that means losing their precious tax-exempt status, SO BE IT.
For the sake of tax exemption, pastors and churches have stayed mostly silent on virtually every evil contrivance of civil government under the sun. Most of them said nothing when SCOTUS expunged prayer and Bible reading from our schools; most of them said nothing when the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which is almost copied word for word from Adolf Hitler’s gun control act) was passed; most of them said nothing when SCOTUS legalized the murder of unborn babies; most of them said nothing with the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, indefinite detention of American citizens under NDAA was passed, and just recently, when the Republican Congress collaborated with Barack Obama to cast America’s national sovereignty upon the altar of international “free trade” deals. For the sake of tax exemption, the vast, vast majority of today’s pastors and churches are totally silent about almost EVERYTHING.
So, what will America’s pastors and churches do now? What will they do when they must choose between “marrying” same-sex couples and losing tax exemption? If their track record is any indicator, we know what most of them will do: THEY WILL SUBMIT TO CAESAR.
Plus, the SCOTUS decision opens the door for a host of other possibilities. If every consenting adult has an absolute right to enter into civil contracts, how can a State prohibit polygamy? In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts said that the Court’s decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” made the future legalization of polygamy inevitable. Where does it end?
Popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh agrees with Justice Roberts. Read Rush’s analysis here:
And if a State must recognize polygamous “marriages,” what’s next? Where will it end?
And there is one more thing that almost no one is willing to talk about: what is at stake here is the national acceptance of sexual perversion. The SCOTUS decision lends national approbation to an act that our Creator has condemned with the strongest language. (See Romans chapter one.) It has lent national approbation to an act that Western Civilization has always (rightly) regarded as deviant.
Understand this: once any society universally embraces and promotes the sodomite lifestyle, there is no going back. One cannot find a single civilization in history that has survived once homosexuality has become a driving, dominant force over it. It is both a divine and Natural Law. There is a huge difference between recognizing the civil rights of individuals to live immorally (that is a personal matter between the individual and God) and forcing society as a whole to grant societal acceptance and recognition to the immoral act. To quote Rand Paul again: “The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.” Yet, that is exactly what the Supreme Court has done.
But, once again, the fault is the Church. The Church has refused to be the moral leader of the country. Things like homosexuality are too “controversial” for most pulpits. It is a forbidden subject. And too many churches that have been willing to address the issue have done so with such a lack of love and compassion as to do more harm than good. To not speak the truth is bad; to not speak the truth in love is worse.
And dare I say that many of our Christian churches, schools, colleges, and universities have become breeding grounds for homosexual behavior. The absence of male leadership is epidemic in the Church–and in the home, for that matter. And by leadership, I do not mean dictatorship. But true, godly, strong, kind, loving male leadership has eroded significantly from twentieth, and now twenty-first, century churches.
The Church is the moral rudder of a nation. The SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” is the result of the Church abandoning its moral leadership. The Church surrendered its spiritual and moral authority to the state. Why should it now be surprised when the state chooses to not recognize a moral authority that the Church, itself, refuses to recognize?
We just heard about the Miami high-school principal fired for soberly disagreeing on social media with the McKinney narrative. Now comes an even more outrageous story involving what’s usually called political correctness, but should really be labeled what it is: evil.
Sir Tim Hunt is a darn good scientist. So good, apparently, that he won the 2001 Nobel Prize in physiology. But none of this matters to the University College London, which just forced this esteemed mind to resign over a joke he made at a conference on women in science in South Korea. The quip has been called “sexist,” you see.
And what was his trespass? Did he take the podium drunken and make lewd comments about women’s anatomy? Was it a remark about wife-battery? It must be just awful, as the 39 words uttered have now ended his career. Here’s the joke he told attendees:
“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry.”
No, I’m not joking. That’s it. Nothing more. Yet it inspired social-media campaigners to hunt for Hunt, and the 72-year-old was ousted from his research position. Is this shell of Western civilization we’re living in for real?
Hunt’s wife, Professor Mary Collins, whom The Guardian describes as “one of Britain’s most senior immunologists,” was not immune to the fallout. She said that her “relations with University College have been badly tarnished”; I guess this was for the sin of marrying a man who’d one day make a joke to which the evil ones would take exception.
This could remind one of the babies born in North Korean prison camps, who remain in those camps, sometimes being tortured, for having the temerity to be born to a female political prisoner. And it didn’t matter that Hunt and Collins quite sincerely did the requisite groveling. Writes The Guardian, “‘I stood up and went mad,’ he [Hunt] admits. ‘I was very nervous and a bit confused but, yes, I made those remarks – which were inexcusable – but I made them in a totally jocular, ironic way.’ …Collins clutches her head as Hunt talks. ‘It was an unbelievably stupid thing to say,’ she says.”
Actually, no, we live in an unbelievably stupid civilization. That the couple is so sincerely contrite only proves again that great scientists are often social morons. After all, what reflected in Hunt’s joke is untrue? Men have, I understand, fallen in love with female co-workers; it has even been rumored that women sometimes fall in love with male co-workers. And everyone knows that, as a general rule, women are far more apt to cry than are men — including when being criticized. So what’s the problem?
It’s that we live in an age of cultural despots who subordinate Truth to the “party line.”
Note that one hallmark of tyranny is that it compels people to deny what they know is true.
The reality is that Hunt has been a good little liberal boy, but it didn’t save him. His wife proclaimed her feminism, and his, saying that he did all the cooking and chores around the house. Female scientists came forward and said he was “immensely supportive” of efforts at sexual equality and advanced the careers of both men and women researchers. But no deviation from the party line is allowed by leftist tyrannies. It’s no different from when Joseph Stalin said he would destroy even the Old Bolshevik, and “his kin, his family. Anyone who by his actions or thoughts encroaches on the unity of the socialist state, we shall destroy relentlessly.” You must be a new Bolshevik, comrade — and make sure that nothing you said yesterday was “old.”
But the “new school” people, as another great mind, Rachel Jeantel (remember her?), put it, are in like Flynn. Black Boston University professor Saida Grundy tweeted that white males are a “problem population” and viciously taunted a white rape victim on Facebook, and she will still be assuming her BU position July 1. Professor Jacqueline Warwick of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia said at a panel discussion that men should not be “allowed to speak first” in class, and she still has a job. Profane anti-Christian bigot and sex columnist Dan Savage once told high-school age kids to “ignore the bull[**]*t in the Bible” and called some of them “pansy-a**ed” when they took exception to his remarks, and he still gets paid to peddle perversion to students ($24,000 for one speech). But Hunt? He had to acknowledge, reports The Guardian, “I am finished. I had hoped to do a lot more to help promote science in this country and in Europe, but I cannot see how that can happen. I have become toxic.”
So let’s get this straight. While I’m not acquainted with Hunt’s work on cell division, I’m assuming that Nobel Prizes in science aren’t like the peace prizes, which can be awarded simply because you’re a “mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” as Joe Biden put it (Crazy Joe still has his job, too). This means that Western institutions will now choose ideological “purity” over a brilliant scientist. Is this not reminiscent of Marxist nations, which would often replace qualified doctors and researchers with goose-stepping incompetents?
The sad part of this submission to evil is that leftists are abject cowards and pack animals; stand up to them en masse, and they’ll scatter like the capons and clucking hens they are. Instead, legitimate freedom is being lost. Of course, there certainly are those in the hierarchy above Hunt who subscribe to the politically correct nonsense. But there no doubt are others who realize his joke was no big deal yet are making a calculation: “If I don’t fire the man, the guns could be turned on me and I’ll be next on the chopping block.” It could remind one of Ben Franklin’s words, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
And we are hanging separately, as sane people are picked off one by one and an iron muzzle descends across the West. It has already touched you, no doubt, as everyone is watching what he says. And barring a revolution, it’s only a matter of time before the effecting of oppression moves from the social to the governmental sphere, as we transition from the gag to the gulag.
Citizen contacts with police are becoming more and more frequent, and often more and more hostile. Sadly, the vast majority of the American people have absolutely NO IDEA how to lawfully and peacefully protect themselves against police overreach and abuse. And sadder still is the fact that the average police officer has but a rudimentary knowledge of the law. To a degree, police’ lack of knowledge on finer points of the Constitution is excusable since they are not constitutional scholars and jurists and not all situations are normal in every-day policing. Still, today’s problems with police go beyond these understandable mistakes because many police officers willingly ignore and violate the constitutional limitations concerning their conduct with the public.
If you are a Baby Boomer like me, you were probably taught that the policeman is ALWAYS your friend and can ALWAYS be trusted. You were taught that he or she is looking out for YOU. And if you were raised in church, you were probably taught that the police officer is ALWAYS right. Most of us were probably raised this way, even if we came along after the Baby Boomers. Most people are “law and order” folks, and, therefore, have nothing but positive thoughts about police officers. Plus, many of us have friends, neighbors, and relatives that are police officers or sheriff’s deputies, and we assume all policemen are as honest and well intentioned as are our friends and loved ones.
Without a doubt, many (if not most) police officers and sheriff’s deputies are truly honest, respectable, morally decent, well intentioned people. Most of them come from good homes. As youngsters, they stayed out of trouble. Most of them didn’t join the police force to become Storm Troopers. I readily understand all of that.
However, it is an absolute FACT that local policing is NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE. In the old days, policemen were almost universally taught to respect both the Constitution and the individual citizen. Most were trained by local officers. Most of them had lived their entire lives in the communities in which they served. And very few of them were former military. That is NOT the way it is today.
And since the Department of Homeland Security was invented, many police procedures, policies, philosophies, etc., come from this federal agency (along with the Department of Defense). The net result of the influence of DHS is that local police agencies have become more and more militaristic in methodology and antagonistic in attitude. This is especially true in America’s larger cities, but it happens in rural areas, too. And, that, folks, is a fact.
Plus, more and more police officers are coming out of the ranks of the military. This is not wrong in and of itself; but citizen policing is one hundred and eighty degrees opposite from military purposes, policies, and protocols. American citizens are NOT enemy combatants. And police officers are NOT soldiers. Combine the military mindset and an increasing militarization of domestic police training and the result is an emerging Police State. And that is EXACTLY what is happening in front of our very eyes.
And those police officers and sheriff’s deputies that are reading this column who still reverence the Constitution and personal liberty will find NOTHING I say offensive. In fact, honest policemen are more disturbed about the current militarization taking place in law enforcement than I am, because they still take pride in being a constitutional peace officer and love liberty as much as the rest of us.
I know police officers, who are former military, who are exemplary enforcers of the law. And I know some who are nothing more than would-be Brown Shirts. Unfortunately, the former group seems to be shrinking, and the latter group seems to be growing.
Regardless of the proclivities and character of the individual officers, the SYSTEM today is anything but friendly to law abiding citizens. For the most part, the system leans to the proposition that all men are guilty until proven innocent.
Folks, never forget this: when police stop people, they are constantly trying to find something (anything) to arrest you for. NEVER FORGET THAT. Every traffic stop, and every police contact is designed to discover something for which you can be arrested. Add the “us versus them” mindset that most police officers are trained under these days along with their endemic ignorance of the law, and you are susceptible to arrest every time you leave your house or place of business. Plus, many times a police officer’s advancement is directly determined by the number of arrests he makes. Some jurisdictions have quotas for tickets and arrests made. This reality makes you a potential “meal ticket.”
And should one have the attitude, “I have done nothing wrong; I have nothing to worry about,” please remember that “wrong” is a very subjective term. What you consider lawful and non-criminal, a police officer (and prosecutor) could construe to be felonious. There are thousands of people in prison today who considered their conduct innocent–and for many of them, it probably was.
As I said at the beginning of this column, most people have absolutely NO IDEA how to lawfully protect themselves from illegal police procedures (be those procedures well intentioned or not). By lawfully, I mean constitutionally. Like most police officers, most citizens are woefully ignorant of their rights and protections under the Constitution.
How many times have we heard the expression, “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law”? Well, folks, that is not just an expression; that is an absolute fact. Anything you say. Absolutely anything!
Not only can what you say be used against you, if you say anything to police, an officer can distort and twist what you say to sound incriminating. And if a judge is judging the credibility of an officer he or she sees in court on a regular basis, whose word do you think will prevail: yours or the officer’s? The truth is, there is an inherent danger that exists in every case where officers are investigating you for criminal activity–even if you are as innocent as can possibly be.
ANY CONTACT with a police officer or sheriff’s deputy or highway patrolman can result in the forfeiture of your freedom–and more and more frequently, your LIFE.
As much as I respect the office of policemen or sheriff’s deputy or highway patrolman (and I do), reality forces me to acknowledge that policemen today are not being trained to strictly adhere to the Constitution and cannot be trusted to always act within the boundaries of those protections. Therefore, it is incumbent upon ME to be sufficiently educated in my constitutional rights and obligations in order to insure that my liberties are not arbitrarily absconded by unlawful police procedures–be they well intentioned or otherwise. My liberties are too precious to be taken away because I have been too casual or lethargic to know how to protect them.
And, lest anyone misconstrue what I am saying at this point, I am NOT talking about acts of violence against police. I am talking about knowing my rights under the Constitution and knowing how to peacefully use those rights to defend myself against unlawful police behavior. And, folks, ignore this to your own peril: even the best and most sincere police officers sometimes use unlawful procedures and tactics. Again, they are NOT legal scholars.
In truth, a constitutionally knowledgeable citizenry is the very BEST defense against police abuse. If a majority of citizens truly understood their constitutional rights and faithfully acted upon them, our State and local police agencies would quickly learn what is proper and improper and would become much better peace officers. In other words, the deterioration of proper policing is not as much the policeman’s fault as it is OURS.
And please understand this: no matter what you hear and think, the court system can still very much be used to PROTECT our rights as much as it can be used to take them away. Despite what you hear from “conservative” pundits, there is still a plethora of attorneys who very much care about constitutional law and practice it every day to protect the public. Not every attorney is an enemy of freedom. Stop listening to people who say otherwise. I can promise you, if I am ever forced to defend myself in a court of law, I will hire the very best defense attorney that I can. And the truth is, there are public defenders across the nation who are some of the best attorneys around and stand as a formidable wall between overreaching police and prosecutors and civil liberty.
In fact, when it comes to Fourth Amendment (Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, etc.) protections, personal liberties, civil rights, etc., Democrat lawyers are often MUCH BETTER than Republican lawyers. We need to stop stereotyping all attorneys and judges. The issue is freedom, not politics!
I know of constitutional attorneys who often provide seminars in order to teach people the “do’s and don’ts” regarding police encounters. Most of these seminars are not cheap–and they are worth whatever the cost might be. (How much value do you place on your liberties?) But just recently, I asked my attorney son, Tim, if he would present a seminar on this subject to Liberty Fellowship. And he happily agreed to do so.
Therefore, I am pleased to announce to my readers that we have just produced an hour-long DVD wherein Attorney Tim Baldwin lectures (complete with instructional slides) on the topic: “Police Contact: How To Respond.”
Tim explains your rights and the law regarding police contacts in a variety of circumstances, such as traffic stops, etc. He explains the rights and protections you have under the Constitution. He presents a constitutional, legal analysis of what you should and shouldn’t do when brought into contact with a police officer, sheriff’s deputy, or highway patrolman.
Tim is a former felony prosecutor and is now a criminal defense attorney. He has seen both sides of the criminal justice system and is imminently qualified to discuss this subject. He knows that for an attorney to best protect his or her clients, his clients need to know how to protect themselves before and during the investigative and arrest procedures.
As his dad, I can tell you, he taught me a lot! Believe me, being informed of your legal rights and responsibilities under the law is very empowering, which is exactly what America’s Founding Fathers intended. True power, true authority rests with the People under God and the Constitution. Police officers are SERVANTS of the People and are as obligated to obey the Constitution as are each of us. Knowing these rights and protections will give you much CONFIDENCE when you are pulled over by a police officer.
Let me hasten to say that I am ALWAYS respectful to a police officer. And so should we always be. We must respect his position. But mostly, we must respect the law that he, the police officer, is sworn to uphold. But how can we respect the law if we don’t even know and understand the law? How can officers improve their law-enforcement practice unless citizens know when police are following the law? How is the legal system benefited if police can trample citizens’ constitutional rights with the consent of the people? Tim’s DVD will help tremendously in this regard.
In light of the climate that we all live in today, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we become familiar with our constitutional rights and responsibilities. If enough of the American people would learn these constitutional principles, they could stem the growing tide of unconstitutional conduct by our public servants, including, and especially, by those in law enforcement.
Here is where you can order the DVD, “Police Contact: How To Respond,” by Attorney Tim Baldwin.
And, folks, this DVD is a bargain at whatever price. Again, how much value do you place on your liberties?
A major investigative report by the Washington Post tells a chilling story: police killings nationwide are on a pace to eclipse 1,000 by year’s end. That’s more than double the national average in recent years. Even more disturbing is the fact that police shootings are largely underreported. Mind you, these statistics do not include police-inflicted deaths by means other than police bullets, such as stun guns and people in police custody.
The report states, “‘These shootings are grossly underreported,’ said Jim Bueermann, a former police chief and president of the Washington-based Police Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving law enforcement. ‘We are never going to reduce the number of police shootings if we don’t begin to accurately track this information.’”
“And in a high-rise apartment in Birmingham, Ala., police shot an elderly man after his son asked them to make sure he was okay. Douglas Harris, 77, answered the door with a gun.”
Mr. Harris is one of nearly 400 people who were shot and killed by police during the first five months of this year. This equates to more than two a day.
Eighty percent of the victims of police shootings were in possession of “potentially lethal objects.” However, this statistic is deceptive, in that it includes people such as Mr. Harris who was simply armed for his own protection and was shot and killed because he was armed. The remaining victims were completely unarmed; and many were actually running away.
The dead ranged in age from 16 to 83. About half of the calls were in response to some sort of domestic disturbance. Some involved homeless people behaving erratically or someone threatening suicide. Nearly 25% of the victims were identified as being “mentally ill.”
“In Miami Gardens, Fla., Catherine Daniels called 911 when she couldn’t persuade her son, Lavall Hall, a 25-year-old black man, to come in out of the cold early one morning in February. A diagnosed schizophrenic who stood 5-foot-4 and weighed barely 120 pounds, Hall was wearing boxer shorts and an undershirt and waving a broomstick when police arrived. They tried to stun him with a Taser gun and then shot him.”
Police are only authorized to use deadly force when they fear for their lives or the lives of others and there is an imminent threat to life. This is the same principle of law that governs the conduct of American citizens in general. However, nowadays, running away from a police officer could easily get one shot.
“Running is such a provocative act that police experts say there is a name for the injury officers inflict on suspects afterward: a ‘foot tax.’”
Of the nearly 400 police killings so far this year, only three have resulted in an officer being charged with a crime. That’s less than one percent.
“The low rate mirrors the findings of a Post investigation in April that found that of thousands of fatal police shootings over the past decade, only 54 had produced criminal charges. Typically, those cases involved layers of damning evidence challenging the officer’s account. Of the cases resolved, most officers were cleared or acquitted.”
According to FBI statistics, over the past several years, police have killed around 400 people each year. But this stat was achieved in just the first five months of this year. To be sure, many of these killings were completely justified–and sometimes even heroic.
The problem is, far too many chiefs of police, sheriffs, county prosecutors, judges, etc., are willing to either, 1) not properly and thoroughly investigate police killings or, 2) look the other way at questionable killings or, 3) actually cover-up wrongful deaths committed by police. Regardless, all of the above leads to a breakdown of justice and true law and order–and serious distrust on the part of the American citizenry regarding law enforcement agencies and the court system itself.
Just about everyone is predicting a long, hot summer of anti-police violence this year in many of America’s major cities–especially after the highly controversial episodes involving police killings in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland. But the problem is much deeper than these two events. A recent history of police abuse and killings has produced deep resentment against the police, especially within many minority communities. And it’s time that the American people (and especially America’s police agencies) began realizing that this resentment is not entirely unfounded.
The Post report notes that for most police departments and sheriff’s offices, a fatal shooting is a rare event (as it should be). However, 19 state and local police agencies have had at least three police killings so far this year including the police departments in Los Angeles, California, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Bakersfield, California.
“The most troubling cases began with a cry for help.
“About half the shootings occurred after family members, neighbors or strangers sought help from police because someone was suicidal, behaving erratically or threatening violence.
“Take Shane Watkins, a 39-year-old white man, who died in his mother’s driveway in Moulton, Ala.
“Watkins had never been violent, and family members were not afraid for their safety when they called Lawrence County sheriff’s deputies in March. But Watkins, who suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, was off his medication. Days earlier, he had declared himself the ‘god of the fifth element’ and demanded whiskey and beer so he could ‘cleanse the earth with it,’ said his sister, Yvonne Cote.
“Then he started threatening to shoot himself and his dog, Slayer. His mother called Cote, who called 911. Cote got back on the phone with her mother, who watched Watkins walk onto the driveway holding a box cutter to his chest. A patrol car pulled up, and Cote heard her mother yell: ‘Don’t shoot! He doesn’t have a gun!’
“‘Then I heard the gunshots,’ Cote said.
“Lawrence County sheriff’s officials declined to comment and have refused to release documents related to the case.”
“Catherine Daniels called police for the same reason. ‘I wanted to get my son help,’ she said. Instead, officers Peter Ehrlich and Eddo Trimino fired their stun guns after Hall hit them with the metal end of the broomstick, according to investigative documents.
“‘Please don’t hurt my child,’ Daniels pleaded, in a scene captured by a camera mounted on the dash of one of the patrol cars.
“‘Get on the f—ing ground or you’re dead!’ Trimino shouted. Then he fired five shots.
“Police spokesman Mike Wright declined to comment on the case. Daniels said no one from the city has contacted her. ‘I haven’t received anything. No apology, nothing.’
“But hours after her son was killed, Daniels said, officers investigating the shooting dropped off a six-pack of Coca-Cola.
“‘I regret calling them,’ Daniels said. ‘They took my son’s life.’”
See the Washington Post report here:
The Post report seems to suggest that the answer is for the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., to take a more active role in monitoring local and State policing. I strongly disagree!
One of the reasons why so many of our police officers and sheriff’s deputies have become so abusive and trigger-happy is due to the training they are receiving. The “us versus them” mentality is much the result of training indoctrination. And, since 9/11 and the advent of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the federal government is mostly responsible for training policies, procedures, philosophies, etc., within State and local police agencies. In fact, most of our local police SWAT teams are trained by U.S. military Special Forces troops. DHS has turned our State and local police agencies into quasi-military units. And it has turned the U.S. citizenry into enemy combatants. I argue that the problems we are having with our police agencies today is the result of the ubiquitous and draconian influence from Washington, D.C.
Plus, think about the manner in which the federal government “bribes” State and local police agencies with all kinds of funding for everything from personnel to tanks and armored carriers, to sophisticated eavesdropping equipment, to military arms and ammunition, to helicopters, ad infinitum. If anything, the American people should be demanding that their local police departments and sheriff’s offices STOP accepting federal funding OF ANY KIND for their agencies. The way it is now, our State and local law enforcement agencies are more beholden to Uncle Sam than they are to the people whom they are supposed to serve. To ask the federal Justice Department to become more involved in local policing is like asking the proverbial fox to guard the proverbial hen house. Do you really want to turn your local police department over to the people who massacred the Branch Davidians?
Another remedy is the citizens of our respective counties should demand that the State legislatures and/or county commissions establish an independent Citizen Review Committee charged with the task of investigating EVERY incident of alleged police abuse and, especially, EVERY incident involving a police shooting. Quite frankly, we can no longer trust the internal affairs division of our respective police agencies to adequately police their own. This committee should have the financial ability to hire independent private investigators to examine these incidents. And the committee should be given teeth. It should be mandatory that the prosecutor’s office prosecute an officer if the committee investigation finds probable cause–in much the same way that a grand jury’s indictment is binding. It would be even better if an independent prosecutor was assigned to these type cases. In many counties, blatant cronyism between the prosecutor’s office and the city police departments and county sheriff’s office is way too common. The money should be taken from the annual budget appropriated for the actual police agencies. After all, providing accountability to the public is as much a part of a police department’s responsibility as providing a squad car or K-9 unit to police personnel. Without accountability and the respect of the public, all of the police personnel and equipment in the world is not sufficient to keep the peace.
Thirdly, the American people should demand that appropriate tax-dollars be allotted for the Office of Public Defender (OPD)–even if that means it is taken from funds allotted to police departments. In most states and districts, the OPD is one of the most underfunded entities of all. And the OPD is the one office at the courthouse that is constitutionally-mandated within our U.S. Constitution. Yet, most “law and order” conservatives look at the OPD with disdain–but somehow they still refer to themselves as “constitutionalists.”
Believe me, the last place you want to be forced to defend yourself in a court of law is in a mostly conservative, Christian, FOX News-type-Republican district. To many, if not to most of these good folks, you are guilty simply because you are arrested and you must PROVE YOURSELF INNOCENT. I know what I’m saying rubs many people the wrong way; but it is an absolute fact.
One of the bedrock principles of American law and justice is that a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. Tragically, this principle has been all but lost in the thinking of many of our citizens today–especially those who watch FOX News too much. It demonstrates a serious lack of understanding and appreciation for liberty itself. For a civil government–any civil government–to take away an individual’s liberty should require the strictest requirements. The old adage is still true: “It is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to go to jail.” Americans need to start defaulting to liberty in their thinking once again. This was the Spirit of ’76. For so-called “conservatives” and Christians to demonstrate a “prove your innocence” mentality reveals that they have lost all appreciation and respect for individual liberty and the due process of law.
The county prosecutor’s office has virtually unlimited monies to prosecute people. In fact, the prosecution and imprisonment of the American people has become a HUGELY PROFITABLE BUSINESS. The confiscation of properties and assets of accused (sometimes accusation is all that is required to confiscate a person’s wealth and property) and convicted persons often serves as a significant revenue stream for many cities and counties–as do traffic citations.
Anyone who thinks speed laws are mostly for “safety” is seriously naïve. It’s mostly about generating revenue for the various State and local police agencies, prosecutor’s offices, courts, etc. Most police agencies and prosecutor’s offices directly benefit from speeding tickets and from people being arrested and sent to jail. Not to mention, the incentives that come from Washington, D.C.
A properly constituted and funded OPD is the second to the last line of peaceful defense against government overreach, abuse, and tyranny. The last line of peaceful defense against government overreach and abuse is the citizen jury. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that a sizeable percentage of people serving time behind bars today are there unjustly. They were convicted by overzealous prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves (not to mention a pile of money), by circumstantial evidence, and by the lack of an adequate defense.
Public defenders are pressured to “go along with the system” and not backlog the court by rendering a thorough and vigorous defense of their clients. The weight of city hall often threatens to come down hard on honest public defenders who won’t roll over for the prosecutor’s office. Judges, likewise, pressure public defenders to “hurry up” with their defense procedures, as all of these myriad laws (especially drug laws) enacted over the years have resulted in most courts being seriously backlogged with cases. And in the minds of most of these “public servants,” the answer is for the public defenders to not bog down the system by being too detailed and thorough in the defense of their clients.
It’s a rigged system, folks! And it’s not rigged in favor of you and me; it’s rigged in favor of the police and prosecutors. This reality makes it far too easy for police to literally “get away with murder.” Fully authorized and functional Citizen Review Committees, and an adequately funded (and appreciated) Office of Public Defender, and police departments and sheriff’s offices that are NOT beholden to the federal government could make a tremendous difference in restoring accountability to our police agencies and public trust in our police departments and prosecutors’ offices.
As police killings rise–and as public distrust and anger rise along with it–a rational and reasoned response becomes obligatory. It begins with people, especially our conservative, Christian, Republican friends, recognizing the current holes in our justice system and returning to common-sense, constitutional principles. If this doesn’t happen soon, political agitators will create a climate of violence and lawlessness that will only produce more of the abuse and misuse of law that is already taking place. And this accomplishes nothing, except making it easier for Big-Government usurpers to justify themselves in their attempt to encroach upon more and more of our liberties.
The title of this column is taken from the Old Testament Book of Micah, chapter seven, verse six. Speaking to His disciples, the Lord Jesus sounded a very similar warning to that of Micah’s. He said, “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” (John 16:2 KJV)
Jesus’ prediction literally came true with the persecution and deaths of thousands of Christians by Romans and Jews in the Early Church and later with the persecution and deaths of thousands of Anabaptists, Protestants, Waldenses, etc., by Popes and Catholics during the Dark Ages.
Killing in the service of God is assuredly nothing new. How many wars throughout history have been (and are being) fought in the name of God? Nowadays, nearly all of the supporters of the current neocon “holy war” against Muslims love to tout the passages of the Koran that seem to condone waging “holy Jihad” against any and all non-Muslims. Of course, they conveniently ignore passages in the Koran that promote peace. They seem to ignore the peace passages in the Bible, too, by the way.
Are some extremist Muslims using their religion as cover for their hatred and violence? You bet. But you can also bet it’s more about politics and power than anything else, because Muslims kill Muslims more than any other group of people.
For the record, it never ceases to amaze me that the same Christians who love to use the words of the Koran as justification for a holy war against Muslims have either totally forgotten or never read the words of the Jewish Talmud. The Talmud was the law that the Pharisees held in highest regard–even above The Torah. It was the law they constantly accused Jesus of violating. Still today, the Talmud is regarded as God’s highest law by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and most of Israel’s leaders. In fact, just recently Bibi announce that it was his intention to enshrine the Jewish Talmud as the “official basis for Israeli state law.”
According to Israel National News: “Netanyahu also promised that ‘we will define in the law the Gemara as a basis for the Israeli legal system,’ referencing the Jewish legal text analyzing the Mishnah, a legal work of the Jewish sages, which together form the Talmud.”
See the report at:
So, have any of our Muslim-hating friends bothered to read the Talmud? Try these excerpts on for size:
“When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves.”
“That the Jewish nation is the only nation selected by God, while all the remaining ones are contemptible and hateful.”
“That all property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general.”
“Kill the Goyim [non-Jew] by any means possible.”
“Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious [non-Jews] is as acceptable to God as he who offers a sacrifice to God.”
“The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.”
“A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.”
So, when Bibi says he wants to make the Talmud the official law of Israel, does he plan to implement these Talmudic injunctions? And are we now going to hear Christians say, “There is no such thing as a peace-loving Jew”? Or is that moniker reserved exclusively for Muslims? If Christians are afraid of Sharia Law, why are they NOT afraid of Talmudic Law?
Can one imagine how Christians throughout America would have reacted had any Muslim nation attacked one of our Navy vessels that was peacefully patrolling international waters, killing dozens of our sailors and Marines? Yet, that is exactly what the government of Israel (not independent gangs of terrorists) did to the U.S.S. Liberty on June 8, 1967. The attack was completely unprovoked; and in fact, U.S. naval vessels that were in the vicinity were forbidden to assist. The attack lasted for hours, and the United States did absolutely NOTHING. And to this day, there has been NO JUSTICE for the families and loved ones of the victims of the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. The story has been swept from the pages of history like it never happened. Was this attack the result of Jewish belief in Talmudic Law? We will never know.
If one confronts Jewish apologists with the above quotes from the Talmud, they will say that the words are taken out of context and will point to other quotations that seem to support their position. And this is exactly what Muslim apologists will say when confronted about seemingly pro-violence passages in their holy book.
And how many so-called Christians have used verses from the Old Testament to justify all sorts of violent acts? Even some of Protestantism’s most celebrated names are quoted as promoting violence in the name of the Christian God.
For example, the “Lutheran towns of Lubeck, Bremen, Hamburg, Luneburg, Stralsund, Rostock and Wismar all voted to hang Anabaptists and flog and banish Catholics and Zwinglians from their homelands.
“Luther said of Roman Catholic leaders, ‘If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house, I would set fire to it . . . To the fire with them!’
“Luther (who in 1518 taught baptism by immersion) taught that dissenters (those who disagreed with him) should be banished and said that ‘The peasants (involved in the Peasants’ War) would not listen; they would not let anyone tell them anything; their ears must be unbuttoned with bullets, till their heads jump off their shoulders. … On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants, let no one have mercy, but let everyone, as he is able, hew, stab, slay, lay about him as though among mad dogs, . . . . so that peace and safety may be maintained….’ Note that he was speaking of German peasants!”
A man was arrested for writing on one of John Calvin’s tracts the words, “all rubbish,” and was put on the rack twice a day for a month. He was beheaded on July 26, 1547.
“The Spanish Reformer Servetus had dared to criticize Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and Calvin declared: ‘If he comes here and I have any authority, I will never let him leave the place alive.’
“Servetus , an anti-Trinitarian, had disagreed with Calvin via correspondence and when he visited Geneva on August 13, 1553, he went to hear Calvin preach. Calvin saw him in church and had him arrested. Calvin drew up forty charges against him including Servetus’ opposition to infant baptism and his attack upon the preaching of Calvin. On August 20, 1553, Calvin wrote: ‘I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death’ and in October the Geneva Council ordered that he be burned alive the next day.
“‘Heretics’ were hanged then burned in Zurich, Basil, and Geneva for disagreeing with Calvin’s teachings. During the first five years of Calvin’s rule in the small town of Geneva, 13 people were hanged, 10 were decapitated, and 35 were burned to death. A citizen could go to prison for smiling during a baptismal service or sleeping during a church service!
“In England, Henry VIII was head of the Church of England (that Henry formed after his break from Rome) and doctrinal disagreements now became high treason to be punished by disembowelment while still alive, hanging, and quartering. In the end, even failing to denounce anyone else who criticized these things became treason.”
See the report at:
Reformation Leaders Tortured And Killed Dissidents!
You see, it’s not just pagans who kill God’s people. As often as not, Christians are killed by other Christians–but all in the name of God, of course.
And, dear reader friend, I am persuaded that Christians persecuting and killing Christians is soon to be the experience of many of us in America. And I am absolutely certain that it will look very much like the experience of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Confessing Church during the days of Nazi Germany.
During the Nazi years in Germany, pastors and churches mis-taught Romans 13 to mean that Christians are commanded by God to submit to civil authority, no questions asked. This devilish indoctrination eventually led to the murder, persecution, and imprisonment of Christian men such as Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemoller, and thousands like them.
In like fashion, America’s pastors and churches are teaching their congregations to obey civil government, no questions asked. There is not a smidgen of difference between the way pastors and churches in Hitler’s Germany taught Romans 13 and the way pastors and churches in America are teaching it today. This can only culminate with the persecution against those who refuse to submit to such heresy–in much the same way that the German National Church persecuted the recalcitrant (but faithful) Confessing Church.
I recently became aware of the ominous signs of this potential eventuality from a story that came out of Grants Pass, Oregon.
Josephine County, Oregon (the county in which Grants Pass is located) had one of the finest constitutional sheriffs in the entire country. Gil Gilbertson was a sheriff’s sheriff. He was unafraid to stand against federal overreach. He knew the Constitution; and he faithfully defended it.
Therefore, it is not surprising that federal, state, and local pressure mounted strongly against Sheriff Gilbertson. Funds were denied his office to the point that it was next to impossible for his office to perform its duties. Of course, Sheriff Gilbertson was blamed for these problems by political leaders and the media. Subsequently, Sheriff Gilbertson was defeated for reelection by big-government toady Dave Daniels on May 20, 2014. Not long afterward, a tax-hike was put on the ballot for the “new” sheriff’s office. And guess who the biggest cheerleaders for the tax levy for the new big-government-bought-and-
In fact, these two pastors took to the air with the newly-elected big-government sheriff for a media campaign pitching the new tax. I hope you will take the time to watch both of these clips:
Pastor Mark Goens says, “It is painful that we don’t listen to authority.” He also said, “People go to school board meetings and question their every decision and trying to change everything they don’t like.” The good pastor also said that raising taxes was “a Biblical and a spiritual issue.”
So, in other words, parents, “If you don’t like the fact that your school system is teaching the academically and morally corrupt Common Core federal curriculum to your children, you are supposed to be good little Nazis and stay home and question nothing. After all, the authorities know better than you do about what to teach your children. The Bible tells you to submit: so sit down and shut up!”
And Pastor Dennis Webber says this to the sheriff and the chief of public safety, “We recognize that God gave you permission to be in that place and is giving you the authority to function there.”
Really, Pastor Webber? God has given these men authority to “function” in their positions? Under whose orders are they to function? Under whose laws are they to function? You failed to mention that. Do these men have authority from God to make up their own laws? Simply because they are elected or appointed to public office, does God give them “authority to function” as they see fit? You didn’t qualify your remarks at all.
These men swore an oath to the Constitution. They are required by the supreme law of the land to submit to the limits and constraints imposed upon them by the Bill of Rights–not to mention their duty to submit to our Creator’s Laws of Nature. They have NO approbation from Heaven to act outside the limits and boundaries of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Natural Law. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. And for these two pastors to act as if the citizens of Josephine County owe Sheriff Daniels and Chief of Public Safety Bill Landis their unlimited, unquestioned submission (which is exactly what they did) is the height of irresponsibility.
Not once did Pastors Goens or Webber say a word about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not one time did they make mention of the sheriff’s responsibility to obey the law of the land, that his position is that of a servant of the people. Instead, the sheriff and chief of public safety were held up as ultimate authorities to whom Christians are commanded to always submit and support. And, ladies and gentlemen, this is the kind of rubbish that the vast majority of our Christian ministers are regurgitating every Sunday throughout the United States of America.
Oh, readers should know that despite the best efforts of Goens and Webber, the proposed tax levy FAILED. Here is a local Grants Pass reporter’s summary of this entire sordid episode:
Am I suggesting that pastors Goens and Webber have killing other Christians in mind? ABSOLUTELY NOT! But do I believe that the devilish doctrine of unlimited submission to civil authority that they are ignorantly teaching is paving the way for future persecution and killing? ABSOLUTELY, I DO.
I’m sure Calvin and Luther never anticipated the killing that would later ensue from their words; I’m sure good Anglicans never anticipated the killings that would later ensue from “their” king; I’m sure good Roman Catholics never anticipated the purging and inquisitions that would later ensue in the name of their Church; and I’m sure the good pastors and Christians in Germany never anticipated the slaughter that would ensue from their heretical teaching of Romans 13, either.
This kind of thing never happens overnight. It takes years and decades to sufficiently indoctrinate a population before such atrocities can take place. And, my friends, we are smack dab in the middle of this totalitarian indoctrination as we speak. And, wittingly or unwittingly, some of the biggest propagandists are pastors such as Mark Goens and Dennis Webber.
As a fellow pastor, I am outraged! I am sick to my stomach that my fellow ministers would allow themselves to be used in such a devilish fashion. And, while I know that this kind of heresy is being taught nationwide, we have the videos of these two pastors publically participating in this propaganda.
Since these are very public pastors who are unashamed of their unbiblical and tyrannical position, and as a fellow pastor with forty years seniority (as of next month), I feel I have “standing” to call them on the carpet for it. Therefore, I am including their contact information in this column should any of my readers want to express their personal feelings one way or another. (Readers already have my contact information.)
Pastor Mark Goens
River Valley Church
405 NE 6th Street
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Church phone number:
River Valley Church
Pastor Dennis Webber
Parkway Christian Center
229 NE Beacon Dr.
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Church phone number:
Parkway Christian Center
We are constantly seeing and hearing our American media use the word “Regime” these days. So exactly what is a “Regime”? Apparently it is whatever you want it to be.
Whenever Wall Street and/or War Street want to vilify a country that disagrees with their policies of occupation and exploitation, they always begin their vilification program by calling that country’s form of government a “Regime”.
Here are some examples: Syria is a “Regime” — even though it has a constitution, holds elections and almost all Syrians support its president, Bashar Assad. Gaddafi in Libya also operated a “Regime” — even though his government offered the kind of free education and healthcare benefits to its citizens that most Americans can only dream about. Cuba was (and still is) considered a “Regime” in the eyes of Wall Street and War Street. Putin also runs a “Regime” — even though most Russians today support him totally.
In reverse, Saudi Arabia is not a “Regime” — even though the House of Saud uses torture, suppresses decent, beheads people, treats women badly, brutally invades other countries and supports Al Qaeda and ISIS.
The House of Saud has spent over a trillion $$$$ of its enormous petro-dollar wealth over the last half-century on killing people and being despotic. Just imagine what the Middle East would look like right now if the Saudis had chosen butter instead of guns. What a waste. And yet Saudi Arabia is still not considered to be a “Regime” by American media.
Israel never gets called a “Regime” either — even though it supplied Iran with weapons back when Khomeini was holding Americans hostage and it kills Palestinian children with impunity, foments wars whenever possible, runs secret torture prisons, is a neo-colonialist in the worst sort of way, appears to even be anti-Jewish, uses 9-11 to its advantage and has notoriously corrupt leaders.
And now America seems to have become a “Regime” as well — even though nobody ever dares to call it by that name. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….
Here are at least ten reasons that cause me to suspect that Wall Street and War Street are running a “Regime” here in America too:
Reason No. 1: Torture. Black sites. Rendition. Indefinite detention of Americans. Stuff like that. Our tax dollars at work.
Reason No. 2: No one is ever allowed to examine (let alone question) election results or voting machines here in the USA. Remember GWB, for instance? Never legally won an election in his life! Or take those new voter restrictions that have suddenly become so popular in the Ol’ South. You would expect something like that in the old Soviet Union or in the bad old days of Jim Crow — but not here, not now. And yet here it is.
No one is ever allowed to examine (let alone question) election results or voting machines here in the USA. Remember GWB, for instance? Never legally won an election in his life! Or take those new voter restrictions that have suddenly become so popular in the Ol’ South. You would expect something like that in the old Soviet Union or in the bad old days of Jim Crow — but not here, not now. And yet here it is.
Reason No. 3: Spying on its citizens. NSA. The Patriot Act. Snowden and Manning are being persecuted for spying — while FaceBook, Google and NSA get a free pass.
Reason No. 4: Ferguson. Baltimore. Zuccotti Park. Oakland. Military tactics used to violently suppress the American underclass if they dare to complain that their jobs are all disappearing, their children’s education sucks eggs and their tax dollars are being spent on military adventurism in foreign lands instead of on infrastructure here at home.
Reason No. 5: Congress! Government for sale. Widespread corruption. The Koch brothers’ and K Street’s yard sale of our politicians — all bought on the cheap. A solder in Afghanistan once told me that, “The only difference between corrupt politicians in Afghanistan and corrupt politicians in America is that corrupt politicians in America pass laws to make their corruption legal and Afghan politicians do not.” (Also see Reason No. 9)
Reason No. 6: No daycare! I just threw that in because I’m now babysitting my wonderful three-month-old granddaughter so that my daughter can go back to work. Even Iraq under Saddam Hussein had free daycare! Even Cuba under Castro.
And when Sofia goes off to kindergarten in five years, then I’ll finally be able to go back to being a war correspondent again — knowing for certain that the American “Regime” will still be subsidizing despots and Endless War in the Middle East even five years from now. What a waste.
Reason No. 7: Media suppression. You think that you might have some good ideas about telling truth to power around here? Then don’t expect to get a job with the New York Times or the Washington Post any time soon. Shades of the old Pravda.
Reason No. 8: Cops and the military (again). Peaceful protests are suppressed here just like they are in Occupied Palestine. Rubber bullets and tear gas R Us! Our cops recently used tear gas on protesters even here in my own hometown. And then there are all those poor countries abroad that have been Blitzkriegged by our very own Luftwaffe and then invaded by our very own Storm Troopers. I could drone on and on about that!
Reason No. 9: Our Supreme Court. Scalia would feel right at home in Nigeria or Haiti. There’s not a single corrupt corporate take-over that he doesn’t like.
Reason No 10: Corporatism itself. Nazi Germany ran on “Corporatism”. Hitler just loved handing out corporate welfare. And so do our so-called leaders. Nazi Germany was a “Regime”. Perhaps America is too.
I rest my case.
Are you ready for a “Long Hot Summer”? The prospects for urban riots are hyped as a breach of domestic security. The mass propaganda media does not waste a moment to ratchet up the tension and fear that torching neighborhoods will come to a community in your area. If people were able to apply critical thinking, they would realize that local incidents are being managed to increase and spread discontent nationwide. That asphalt jungle is paved with assault vehicles moving into place before your own eyes. The purpose is to manage disorder with the imposition of military tactics. As urban fires burn, advocates of an authoritarian police state implement their master plan for the final destruction of America.
The latest episode in the ghettofication of urban slums into an armed camp for interment is playing out in Baltimore. Lock down was used in Boston after the Marathon Race false flag experiment, now the time tested urban unrest brings back the LA Rodney King riots as an excuse for mob rule. Ah, yes, the pandering media never misses an opportunity to blame racism as the cause for a dysfunctional society, while ignoring the essential consequences of abandoning Posse Comitatus.
The unequivocal voice of straight talk, Brother Nathaniel explains that the Baltimore Riots…Prelude to Urban War. If this video analysis is too disturbing because “PC” purity prevents facing up to fact that the “Great Society” has turned the country into an urban war zone, no serious debate on the fallout of race baiting can occur.
Set aside the Rev. “tax cheat” Sharpton divide and extort maneuvers or the “Whorealdo” Rivera injection of his own self into the FAUX news story and confront the nature of the federalization of urbanized cities.
The always reliable and insightful John W. Whitehead writes an important viewpoint in Turning America into a Battlefield: A Blueprint for Locking Down the Nation.
“The problem arises when you start to add Jade Helm onto the list of other troubling developments that have taken place over the past 30 years or more: the expansion of the military industrial complex and its influence in Washington DC, the rampant surveillance, the corporate-funded elections and revolving door between lobbyists and elected officials, the militarized police, the loss of our freedoms, the injustice of the courts, the privatized prisons, the school lockdowns, the roadside strip searches, the military drills on domestic soil, the fusion centers and the simultaneous fusing of every branch of law enforcement (federal, state and local), the stockpiling of ammunition by various government agencies, the active shooter drills that are indistinguishable from actual crises, the economy flirting with near collapse, etc.
Suddenly, the overall picture seems that much more sinister. Clearly, as I point out in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, there’s a larger agenda at work here.
Seven years ago, the U.S. Army War College issued a report calling on the military to be prepared should they need to put down civil unrest within the country. Summarizing the report, investigative journalist Chris Hedges declared, “The military must be prepared, the document warned, for a ‘violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,’ which could be provoked by ‘unforeseen economic collapse,’ ‘purposeful domestic resistance,’ ‘pervasive public health emergencies’ or ‘loss of functioning political and legal order.’ The ‘widespread civil violence,’ the document said, ‘would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.’”
In order to understand the profound transmutation from “Peace Keeping”, to “Law Enforcement” and now into a militarized Martial Law environment, the focus and apprehension on the ultimate game plan needs to be the basis of any dialogue. One aspect that reveals the hands of the federal connection is citied In 2008 Obama Revealed His Plan for Law Enforcement… and Now He Has the Perfect Excuse, which illustrates the transformation of law enforcement into a military command structure under Homeland Security.
“Coupling that with the consistent pattern of Obama injecting the feds into incidents like the one involving Brown, Eric Garner and now Freddie Gray in Baltimore, it seems as if Obama and his DOJ have the perfect excuse to begin implementation of their national police program, which could lead to a devastating impediment of the rights of American citizens.
It may have taken Obama most of his presidency to act on his sinister intentions to nationalize major police forces in order to bolster his liberal agenda, but make no mistake about it — it’s here.”
Sober and critical observers admit that the real danger comes from the federalization of local police powers. While media distractions report on the Black Lives Matter Movement, the crucial question absent to the “so called” aggrieved community is why “On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.”
Maturing beyond simple injection of propaganda is difficult for the diminished mental capacity of manipulated and confused residents. The outrage of thugs just does not rise to the same level of responsible citizens. While civil liberties extend to all people, not everyone has earned the respect of their fellow neighbors.
If folks want to better themselves, the first step is to perceive the nature of the deception that divides all people and should be our common cause for action.
The essay, Is the Federal Government Ready for War Against the American People?; sets the stage for the pertinent issue that should unite everyone.
“Hence, the tightening of the noose with fed up Americans sick and tired of being brutally victimized and betrayed by its crime cabal government that’s now out to kill us law abiding citizens using the excuse of martial law to go on the offensive to quell the very civil unrest that the federal government intentionally created and caused in the first place. Washington’s been not-so-covertly preparing for this day of reckoning ever since 9/11 to wage war against its own people. And through globalization what’s been tragically happening here in the US has also been taking place insidiously throughout the industrial world – in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Israel and most all of Europe. All these Western nations are controlled by the same oligarch globalists whose NWO agenda successfully fabricated and invented their war on terror in order to enact counterterrorism laws completely draconian in nature that effectively destroy our freedoms while enslaving us in the twenty-first century version of George Orwell’s totalitarian nightmare come true.”
The context of urban riots must be viewed from the perspective of the NWO global plan to herd the sheeple into metropolitan concentration camps. The intentional destruction of a black community has been successful. Other ethnic groups and people of all color will experience this same devastation because individuals refuse to confront that the “so called” benefits of the welfare society has dumbed down each person to the lowest level of the cumulative culture.
When the federal authorities dictate that the streets of urban America will look like a Fallujah war zone, don’t be surprised. It is deliberate. The New American reports in the article, Military and Police in Florida Practice Detaining Citizens.
“The “urban warfare” exercises had been announced earlier in the month without much fanfare by authorities and local media outlets. However, last week, a dramatic video of the dangerous drill, already viewed by hundreds of thousands of people, sparked widespread alarm about the true purpose of the exercises. A spokesman for the Tampa-based U.S. Special Operations Command cited in media reports downplayed the exercise as merely “routine” training for overseas missions. But more than a few critics say the Obama administration is actually up to no good — potentially even training to impose martial law and overt tyranny on the American people following some sort of crisis.”
With the direct involvement of the central military command, conditions foreshadow valid apprehension that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is ready for widespread rollout.
This trend goes unreported by the press because the narrative of race baiting is the official story that the establishment is ordered to publish. Diversion media is big business. Consolidation of state power is a step towards the eventual merger into a world government. Keeping a dependency population distracted from the core conspirators, who use the military-industrial-security complex as their enforcement arm, is the true story behind the Baltimore disturbance.
Unfortunately, the only script followed by gang members is to burn down their own neighborhoods. A half century of LBJ’s social welfare experiment, as a model for upward mobility, produced a plantation for all citizens. With the prospects of expanded martial law, The Psychotic Militarization of Law Enforcement has moved well beyond mere training exercises.
As the Home Land dictatorship tightens the noose on America, a sincere conversation about internal unrest must begin if there is any chance to reverse the lock down environment. More and direct military patrolling should never become normal. Wake up to the Global Gulag coming to a town you call home.
Saudi Arabia has been dominating the Middle Eastern news recently. Its bombing of the Shia Houthis in Yemen, supported by Washington, and its ambivalent stand on ISIS, concealed in Washington, should raise questions about the nature and long-term ambitions of the desert kingdom. On those key issues there is an apparent conspiracy of silence in the American mainstream media and the policy-making community.
Saudi Arabia, the most authentically Muslim country in the world, is a polity based on a set of religious, legal, and political assumptions rooted in mainstream Sunni Islam. To understand its pernicious role in the ongoing Middle Eastern crisis, and to grasp the magnitude of its ongoing threat to America’s long-term strategic interests and security, we should start with the early history of that strange and unpleasant place.
MUHAMMAD IBN ABD AL-WAHHAB was born in central Arabia over three centuries ago, but his legacy is alive and well. Wahhab was a zealous Muslim revivalist who lived in the period of the Ottoman Empire’s early decline. He felt that Islam in general, and Arabia in particular, needed to be spiritually and literally re-purified and returned to the true tenets of the faith. Like Islam’s prophet he married a wealthy woman much older than himself, whose inheritance enabled him to engage in theological and political pursuits. His Sharia training, combined with a brief encounter with suffism – which he rejected – produced a powerful mix. From the suffis he took the concept of a fraternal religious order, but rejected initiation rituals and music in any form. He also condemned the decorations of mosques, however non-representational, and sinful frivolities such as smoking tobacco. This Muslim anabaptist rejected veneration of saints and sites and objects connected with them, and gave rise to a movement that sees itself as the guardian of true Islamic values. His ideas were espoused in the Book of Unity which gave rise to the name of the movement, al-Muwahhidun, or Unitarians.
By the middle of the 18th century Wahhab, like Muhammad eleven centuries earlier, found a politically powerful backer for his cause. In 1744 he struck a partnership with Muhammad ibn-Saud, leader of a powerful clan in central Arabia, and moved to his “capital,” the semi-nomadic settlement of ad-Dir’yah (Riyadh). Since that time the fortunes of the Wahhabis and the Ibn Said family have been intertwined. Under ibn-Saud’s successor Abdul-Aziz, the Wahhabis struck out of their desert base at Najd with the fury unseen in a millennium. In what looked for a while like the repetition of Muhammad’s and the Four Caliphs’ phenomenal early success a millennium earlier, they temporarily captured Mecca and Medina, marched into Mesopotamia – forcing the Ottoman governor to negotiate humiliating terms – and invaded Syria.
This was an unacceptable challenge to the Sultan, the heir to the caliphate and “protector of the holy places.” In 1811 he obtained the agreement of Ali Pasha, Egypt’s de facto autonomous ruler following Napoleon’s withdrawal, to launch a campaign against the Wahhabis. After seven years they were routed. Later in the century, however, the sect revived under Faysal to provide the focus of Arab resistance to the Ottoman Empire, which they considered degenerate and corrupt.
In 1902 a daring and bellicose prince of the ibn-Saud family, named after Abdul-Aziz “the warrior,” returned from exile with 40 horsemen and took control of Riyadh. He exploited the terminal weakness of the Ottoman Empire, soon to be embroiled in revolution and beset by external threats to its crumbling empire in the Balkans and Libya. Fired by the spirit of Wahhabism, Abdul Aziz embarked on a campaign to recover control over the whole of Arabia. In 1912 the Wahhabi revival prompted the founding of a religious settlement at Artawiyah, 300 miles north of Riyadh, under the auspices of theIkhwan, the Brotherhood. This was a stern Arabian variety of Plymouth, a Muslim New Jerusalem in which people were dragged from their homes and whipped for failing to attend Friday prayers.
IN THE CHAOTIC YEARS after the demise of the Ottoman Empire the Ikhwan proved to be an able and fanatical fighting force, securing victory for Ibn Saud, their leader and the founder of the present royal dynasty. In 1925 they carried out Ibn Saud’s order that all revered burial sites in Mecca and Medina be destroyed, including the “heavenly orchard” in Medina, where relatives and many early companions of Muhammad were buried. In 1926 they proclaimed Abdul-Aziz the King of Hejaz. Within a decade he had united the rest of Arabia and imposed the Wahhabist view of the world, man, law, and Allah, on most of the peninsula.
It is incorrect to say that the Wahhabi movement is to Islam what Puritanism is to Christianity, however. While Puritans could be regarded as Christianity’s Islamicists sui generis with their desire to turn Christianity into a druly scriptural, literalist theocracy, Wahhabism is unmistakably “mainstream” in its demand for the return to the original glory of the early Islamic Ummah. Their iconoclastic zeal notwithstanding, the Wahhabis were no more extreme or violent than the models for Islam – the “prophet” and his companions – have been in all ages and to this day.
THE HEIRS OF ABDUL WAHHAB are still heading the Saudi religious establishment. They resisted the introduction of “heathen” contraptions such as radio, cars, and television, and relented only when the King promised to use those suspect mediums to promote the faith. They stopped the importation of all alcohol, previously sold to foreigners (1952), and banned women driving motor vehicles (1957). The Kuran and Sunna are formally the country’s constitution and the source of its legal code. The original sources of Islamic orthodoxy – the Kuran and Hadith – provide ample and detailed evidence that Saudi Arabia is as close as we can get to an Islamic state and society. The State Department report on human rights in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia published 15 years ago offers an accurate glimpse of that vision in action:
Freedom of religion does not exist. Islam is the official religion and all citizens must be Muslims. Neither the Government nor society in general accepts the concepts of separation of religion and state, and such separation does not exist. Under Shari’a conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy. Public apostasy is a crime punishable by death -if the accused does not recant. Islamic religious education is mandatory in public schools at all levels. All children receive religious instruction… Citizens do not have the right to change their government. The Council of Senior Islamic Scholars… reviews the Government’s public policies for compliance with Shari’a. The Government [views] Islamic law as the only necessary guide to protect human rights. There is legal and systemic discrimination based on sex and religion.
Nothing has changed since: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the most intolerant Islamic regime in the world. While the Saudis continue to build mosques all over the world, tens of thousands of Christians among the millions of foreign workers from Asia, Europe and America must worship in secret, if at all. They are arrested, lashed or deported for public display of their beliefs. The Saudi religious police, known as the Committee to Promote Virtue and Prevent Vice, continues to routinely intimidate, abuse, and detain citizens and foreigners. In 2002 they pushed girls escaping from burning school buildings back into the inferno and certain death because they did not have their heads properly covered. Its detainees are routinely subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation and torture. Punishments include flogging, amputation, and public execution by beheading, stoning, or firing squad – over 50 were performed so far this year.
Women are second class citizens: according to the CIA world factbook, 82.2% of females are literate, in comparison to 90.8% literacy rates in males. The testimony of one man equals that of two women, and female parties to court proceedings must deputize male relatives to speak on their behalf. Women are not admitted to a hospital for medical treatment (often for wounds resulting from domestic violence) without the consent of a male relative. In public a woman is expected to wear an abaya (a black garment that covers the entire body) and to cover her head and face. Daughters receive half the inheritance awarded to their brothers. Women must demonstrate Sharia-specified grounds for divorce, but men may divorce them without giving any cause. In addition women must not drive cars, must not be driven except by an employee, or husband, or a close relative, and even then must not occupy the front seat. Women may study abroad if accompanied by a spouse or an immediate male relative. Women may own a businesses, but they must deputize a male relative to represent it.
Political detainees commonly are held incommunicado in special prisons during the initial phase of an investigation, which may last weeks or months, without access to lawyers. Defendants usually appear without an attorney before a judge, who determines guilt or innocence in accordance with Shari’a standards. Most trials are closed, and crimes against Muslims receive harsher penalties than those against non-Muslims. A sentence may be changed at any stage of review, except for punishments stipulated by the Koran.
The only expanding industry in Saudi Arabia is that of Islamic obscurantism. Some examples are grotesque: in 1966 the Vice-President of the Islamic University of Medina complained that Copernican theory was being taught at Riyadh University; it has been banned ever since. Three hundred years after the Christian theologians had to concede that the Earth went around the Sun, the geocentric theory was reaffirmed in the centers of Saudi learning. Segregation of the sexes at schools is set at age nine, which is the age for girls to start to wear the veil.
The opinions of the ullema are the only internal check and balance on the ruling family. Five Saudi Islamic universities produce thousands of clerics, many more than will ever be hired to work in the country’s mosques. Thousands end up spreading and promoting Wahhabism abroad. The King of the Saudis remains their Imam. He and the Wahhabi religious establishment see it as their sacred duty and purpose to evangelize the world. The petro-dollar windfall has paid for the construction of some ten thousand mosques and “Islamic centers” in the United States and other parts of the world. All along, needless to say, no churches (let alone synagogues) can be built in Saudi Arabia, and all non-Muslim religious practice is strictly forbidden.
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
Does anyone in the country want to see another Bush vs. Clinton presidential race? If they do, they have a death wish for America.
It is not uncommon these days to hear people refer to Jeb and Hillary as the “royals.” And, while I’m glad that a lot of people seem to have a natural revulsion to having another Bush or Clinton in the White House, the fact is, the Bushes and Clintons are not two “royals.” They are one CRIME FAMILY.
One of the greatest hoaxes of modern times was the façade that the Bush and Clinton families were political adversaries, when the truth is, they have all been “best buds” for most (if not all) of their political careers. For anyone who wants to research the veracity of what I am saying (with an honest and open mind), it will take almost no time to be convinced. The recent reports about foreign influence and money that have poured into the Clinton coffers are nothing new and are just the tip of the iceberg.
While there is no way that we can know the totality of all that this international Crime Family is guilty of, there is enough evidence and eyewitness testimony out there to convince even the most stubborn skeptic that these people are among the most despicable trolls in the world. If we had a semblance of a free and independent national news media, the Bushes and Clintons would have already been exposed as the miscreants they are and would be serving life sentences in prison–which is where they all belong. (Of course, that could be said for a bunch of those criminals in Washington, D.C.)
We hear much talk about the “lesser of two evils.” Well, folks, I’m here to tell you that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are the worst of evils. Both of these people are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the international elite who are hell-bent on destroying capitalism, free enterprise, constitutional government, and yes, the sovereignty and independence of the United States. There is no substantial difference between them. They may have two different last names, and claim to represent two different political parties and ideologies, but, again, they are members of the same cabal of international gangsters. And between the two, Jeb is probably more dangerous.
Despite the best attempts by the propaganda press to keep Hillary’s crimes under wraps, the skeletons are starting to fall out of the closet. It will be virtually impossible to keep them from developing into full-fledged scandals in forthcoming months. Hillary is damaged goods. In fact, Hillary is NOT even electable. I repeat: Hillary is NOT electable. The only way that Hillary will even obtain the Democratic nomination is if the power elite want to offer her up as a political sacrifice so Jeb (or another controlled Republican) can be the next President. The fact that New York newspapers are already breaking the foreign-cash scandal against Hillary is illustrative of what I’m saying. But if it looks like they cannot cram Jeb Bush down the throat of the Republican Party, and there is too much popular resistance to Bush, they might decide to let so many skeletons out of the closet that Hillary would not be able to even win the nomination.
As for Jeb Bush, he is the quintessential neocon: he loves Big Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and, especially, Big Banks and the Federal Reserve. He loves perpetual war; he loves the military-industrial complex; he loves open borders; he loves the DHS, the Patriot Act, and a domestic Police State. And Jeb Bush knows where the bodies are buried. He knows virtually every skeleton in every closet in Washington, D.C.–and in foreign capitals.
Jeb and his fellow globalist robot, Benjamin Netanyahu, are international gangsters of the highest (or lowest, depending on how one looks at it) order. With the two of them in power at the same time, WATCH OUT! The Warfare State and Police State would grow exponentially. War in the Middle East would become as hot as hot can be. Jeb and Bibi would take the world to the precipice of, or into, World War III.
Skull & Bones, the Rothschilds, Bohemian Grove, CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs: Jeb is in the shadow of all of it. Jeb Bush is the Darth Vader of 2016. And with virtually unlimited money and a questionable voting system–not to mention the support of virtually the entire international banking system, military-industrial system, and corrupt foreign leaders in his pocket–he is going to be a most formidable candidate. The media is already skewing poll numbers to make it appear that Jeb Bush is popular with grassroots Republicans. Media manipulation of opinion in favor of Bush has only begun. It will proliferate tremendously in the months to come.
If Jeb Bush is elected President of the United States, he will make Barack Obama’s terms in office look downright benign by comparison.
However, the global elite do not always get their way. Jeb’s nomination is far from locked up. He is almost universally despised among grassroots conservatives. They know he is a Big Government neocon. His support for Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals, his support for Common Core, his support for Loretta Lynch, his infatuation with Lyndon Johnson, etc., have raised major red flags with genuine conservatives. It is yet to be seen if GOP grassroots conservatives can rise up against Bush in sufficient numbers to derail his candidacy–but they might.
Of course, the second scenario is that the power elite might use Bush as a smokescreen to pave the way for someone equally controlled. The field of GOP contenders is littered with neocons: Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Bob Sasse, etc. (Forget about Mike Pence; he killed any presidential aspirations he may have had with his embarrassing flip flop over the religious freedom issue in his home State of Indiana.) If conservatives derail Jeb Bush in the primaries–and if the media keeps Hillary Clinton in the race–you can know that this second scenario is the one the elites are using.
Again, if the elites plan on a Democrat taking the White House next year, they will remove Hillary from the race. Otherwise, they plan to play the same old “throw-the-bums-out” game and replace a controlled establishment Democrat with a controlled establishment Republican in 2016. In like manner, they replaced a controlled establishment Republican with a controlled establishment Democrat in 2008. In that race, John McCain was the sacrificial lamb. If this is the same game plan for 2016, Hillary Clinton will be the sacrificial lamb. This two party charade has been going on forever. One would think that sooner or later the American people would catch on; but they seem to never do.
Thus far, the only two Republican candidates who are outside the blessing of the global elite are Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. So, you can mark this down and take it to the bank: the Republican establishment and propaganda media will do everything in their power (which is substantial) to make sure that neither of these men obtain the nomination.
I have written preliminary reviews of both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.
My review of Ted Cruz is here:
My review of Rand Paul is here:
Without a doubt, New World Order globalists have been active in many presidential administrations, beginning with the man who started it all: Abraham Lincoln. Of course, some administrations have been worse than others: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, for example. But in the modern era, George H.W. Bush introduced America to the neocon agenda–complete with perpetual war and a burgeoning Police State. And every single presidential administration since Bush I (Clinton, Bush II, and Obama) has merely continued and escalated this agenda. For all intents and purposes, America has had only one continuous presidential administration since Bush I. And the globalists will do their very best to insure that this agenda continues unabated into the next presidential administration, be it Republican or Democrat.
But Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton represent the very pinnacle of the ideal globalist-controlled candidate. If you value your liberties at all, you better pray to God that neither of these people is elected President next year. As I said, anyone who would want to see a Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton presidential race in 2016 has a death wish for America.
His last name was Bushnell, and if his voice had not been raised during jury deliberations in 1670 William Penn, who had defied the Crown and preached his Quaker faith, would not have lived to found Pennsylvania. Many in Ashtabula have roots in the former colony east of here, which he named.
Bushnell and his fellow jurors were confined and fined for their temerity when they defied the royal mandate to find Penn guilty. The lives of Penn and his friend, Mead, hung by two dissenting votes.
The judge sent the jury back three times to reconsider their verdict saying, “a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco….We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it.”
It took a writ of Habeas Corpus to free the jurors, Penn and Mead. Penn came to the colonies and so was Pennsylvania founded.
The English tradition for the Common Law and the rights of the people to defy the dictates of authority again influenced the writing in 1735 during the trial of John Peter Zenger, who had defied the Royal Governor of New York and published the truth about him.
Zenger languished in prison for eight months before standing trial. But the publication of his newspaper continued, overseen by his wife.
Words, the truth, are the first defense against oppression. Disinformation and the suppression of truth destroy freedom. The Founders, who were certainly aware of both precedents, Penn and Zenger. They understood the nasty tendencies of government to use its power to stifle dissent and the truth.
The ratification of the Constitution hung in the balance as Mason traded with Madison and the deciding factor was the inclusion of the Bill of Rights that secured to each of us guarantees for the limitation of government power.
It is the ideas thus enshrined that connect us to the truth of America’s Mission Statement. America is made up of people who are, themselves, the government. The truth matters.
Today, it is the suppression of the truth by authorities by redaction, evasion and deceit again threaten the essential freedoms won for us by our ancestors. We need the facts because truth is the foundation of freedom.
April 18th marks the 260th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Get the truth, it matters to each of us.
On a recent trip to Germany I took a day off to visit Sigmaringen, on the upper Danube some 20 miles north of Lake Constance. This town of ten thousand with a massive castle towering over it – or, more precisely, this castle with a town attached – interested me as the site of a little known, eight-month long melodrama at the end of Second World War.
It was here that Marshal Philippe Pétain, Chef de l’État Français, and several hundred Vichy government officials and prominent German sympathizers and collaborators of different hues, were brought by the Wehrmacht on 8 September 1944, as the Allies advanced across France. The leaders were installed in the castle, other ranks in the town below. They were followed by their wives, hangers-on, and mistresses. By the end of September a veritable French enclave was in place, some two thousand strong, which survived until the long-dreaded arrival of de Gaulle’s First French Army on 24 April 1945.
The initial impression is operetic: pure Leharian pastiche, an unreal world in which France’s prominent collabos are but a parody of their former selves. There is also a more sinister image, however: Sigmaringen as a trap, an open prison in which the principals go on with their performance, but at the same time watch helplessly as the end of the show – and for many the end of their lives – is approaching steadily, relentlessly.
This town and those bizarre eight months are erased from France’s collective memory. They belong to the past which many older Frenchmen would rather forget, while the young neither know that past nor care for it. “Fench Sigmaringen” is relegated to the margins of memory. The Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family are back home. The castle’s magnificent halls and about a tenth of its 300 rooms are open to guided tours, but there are no Petainist mementos of any kind. A richly appointed color book about the castle disposes of the French episode matter-of-factly in a single sentence.
That episode started on the night of 17-18 August 1944, when the Germans evacuated Vichy. The first stop was Belfort, in French Alsace, but after only two weeks the Allies’ rapid advance made the move to Germany necessary. The 88-year-old “Lion of Verdun,” Marshal Pétain, did not want to go. He claimed he’d rather stay on France’s soil and defend his record, come what may; but the Germans decided otherwise. From that moment he declared that he regarded himself as a German prisoner, and cut off all formal contacts with German officials. He communicated with the outside world through Dr. Bernard Ménétrel, his personal physician and confidant, the widely detested “Cerberus of the Seventh Floor.”
Sigmaringen was a far cry from the summer of 1940, when Pétain offered France “the gift of his person” in the aftermath of the military collapse of the French army – and the political and moral collapse of the Third Republic. The old soldier embarked on a “national revolution,” a belated attempt to purge the defeated country not only of its party-political intrigues, leftist radicalism, masonry and corruption, but also – more ambitiously – of the legacy of 1789 and the subsequent “anti-France” (in the memorable phrase of Charles Maurras). He became part-monrach, part-father of the nation. His image was everywhere. Maréchal, nous voilà! became the de facto anthem of the French State (no longer la République). Liberté, égalité, fraternité were replaced by the distinctly anti-Jacobin sloganTravail, Famille, Patrie. Marianne was gone, replaced (informally) by the saintly image of the Maid of Orleans. The countryside was celebrated as the source of national strength, and the Catholic Church was brought back into public life. The ancient Francisca became the official coat of arms.
Pétain’s problem was that the proponents of outright collaboration with Germany had no time for such romantic pursuits. They accused Pétain of attentisme which could deny France her rightful place in the New European Order. They were divided into two camps: the more moderate collaborateurs – embodied in the opportunistic figure of Pierre Laval, who was appointed prime minister in early 1942 – and an array of fanatical collaborationistes, based in Paris, who wanted a clean break with Pétain’s “reactionary paternalism” and an outright alliance with Hitler. With the Wehrmacht occupying France’szone libre in November 1942 they became more powerful. The Germans – ever mistrustful of the French – were nevertheless careful to keep all three groups evenly balanced in an elaborate cadrille, conducted by the Reich’s ambassador in Paris (and self-avowed Francophile) Leo Abetz.
The members of these three factions, Pétainists, collaborateurs and collaborationistes, hated each others’ guts. Suddenly, at Sigmaringen, they found themselves sharing the same quarters and facing a similar, unpleasant future. The maréchal, occupying the palatial seventh floor of the castle, would pretend not to see Laval (the sixth floor occupant) if he passed him in the courtyard on the way to his car which was taking him out of town, every day after lunch, for walks in the countryside.
Those walks were elaborate affairs. Alone among the exiles Pétain had a Citroen and a driver, but he was not allowed far from town. Followed by his Gestapo detail in two black Opels, he would stop 5-6 miles outside Sigmaringen and start a brisk walk through the woods accompanied by one of his military orderlies. The Germans would follow at a respectful distance. After an hour and a half he’d be back, in time to return to the castle for the afternoon radio news.
Laval, “L’Auvergnat,” suddenly forced into inactivity, busied himself preparing his defense for the trial in Paris which he knew awaited him sooner or later. The former Socialist practiced speeches to the imaginary jury in front of his wife Jeanne and a young private secretary. (All his documents and notes were taken away when he was eventually arrested, as he repeatedly complained at the trial.) He had created too many enemies during his long political career, and especially during the 28 months as prime minister at Vichy. Hardly anyone talked to him.
On the third floor are the quarters of the Government Commission, the five-member cabinet in exile formally known as the Commission gouvernementale française pour la défense des intérêts nationaux. It can do little and does even less, but its members are jealous of their theoretical turfs and prerogatives. Like in earlier years back home they continue to denounce their political and personal enemies to the Germans, less to score some points, more out of pure spite.
The Commission’s chairman, the devious Marquis de Brinon, succeeds in having Dr. Ménétrel arrested by the Gestapo in November 1944 on the false accusation of contact with the Allied intelligence services. (Ménétrel survived the war, but was promptly arrested on his return to France in May 1945.) Brinon cracks jokes about Pétain, refers to him as “notre poster girl” (in English). “France is a country of disasters and lunches,” he quips one day after a less than satisfactory meal ofKartofels. “There are no more lunches now, only the disasters remain…”
Joseph Darnand, an ultracollabo, is the Commission’s Secretary of Interior Affairs (“except there’s no interior and no affairs,” Brinon comments). Decorated World War I hero, far right activist in the 1930’s (Action Française, then Croix-de-feu, and a Cagoulard to boot), and an SS Sturmbannführer, in 1942 he founded the volunteer Service d’ordre légionnaire (SOL). It became the dreaded Milice française– directly subordinated to him – in January 1943. He has brought some 10,000 faithful Milice members to the barracks in nearby Ulm, and plans to use them for a last stand. “Brave but obtuse,” according to Brinon.
Marcel Déat, the “minister of labor,” is for some reason the only member of the Commission with the rank of ministre. A Great War veteran and officer of the Légion d’honneur, a socialist until 1933 and a far right activist thereafter, he founded the pro-Nazi Rassemblement national populaire (RNP) in occupied Paris in 1941, and the French Legion of Volunteers (Légion des volontaires français, LVF) a year later. In 1944 it was incorporated into the French SS division Charlemagne.
Journalist Jean Luchaire, commissar for propaganda and information, is more polished than these two gentlemen but ideologically close to them. He starts a local radio station (somewhat ironically called Ici la France!), and a daily newspaper, predictably called La France, which was published until April 1945.
Freiherr Cécil von Renthe-Fink, Ribbentrop‘s envoy to Vichy, was also there, with little to do. The Ambassador is no longer welcome at Pétain’s table. M-me Laval, an open Germanophobe, does not allow him to the sixth floor either. He nevertheless soldiers on, busying himself with the procurement of provisions for the enclave amidst the looming collapse of the Reich.
In the town below there are several well known names from the world of French arts and letters. Actor Robert Le Vigan, openly homosexual and a drug addict, is the chief announcer for Ici la France. Poet Abel Bonnard, with similar proclivities (hence his nickname, “la Gestapette”) and the only member of the Academie to be expelled from its ranks, is a famous wit. On the account of frequent moves, he calls the Germans “notre agence Thomas Cook.” Laval is for him l’Auvergnat de Danube, Pétain “our dethroned monarch.”
Famous writer and virulent antisemite Louis-Ferdinand Céline is also there. After the war he wrote a hallucinatory novel about Sigmaringen, Castle to Castle (D’un château l’autre). Céline’s Sigmaringen is a dramatic stage and a paranoid anteroom for De Gaulle’s épuration légale trials which are already under way. The atmosphere of quiet desperation was briefly interrupted by a week of hope at Christmas 1944, during the initial stage of the German offensive in the Ardennes. Only Pétain maintains calm dignity in his self-imposed isolation, eating well and sleeping soundly. For Céline, Sigmaringen was the perfect backdrop for a romantic German tragedy or a Wagnerian musical drama, with a touch of Hollywood.
Commission officials and their wives eat together in the sumptuous dining hall. The fare is mediocre, even though they have menus based on four ration cards each. The atmosphere is morbid. In the evening they gather at the salon des dammes, not because they cherish each other’s company (quite the contrary) but because it is warm. Their cavernous rooms are not. Déat obsessively plays the lexicon, a version of scrabble, for hours on end. Darnand smokes his pipe in silence and reads papers. The ladies play cards. In the evening they listen to Radio Paris, and the news is grim. On 9 November they learn that journalist and Pétain’s biographer Georges Suarez was executed. On 6 February it was the turn of Robert Brasillach, whose last, sarcastic words were “Long live France, anyway!” (Vive la France, quand meme!) They had no command responsibility and no official functions. If they were shot on the account of their writing, the denizens of the castle could expect no mercy.
And so their lives went on, for eight long months, until a few days before the arrival of de Gaulle’s First Army on 24 April 1945. Only Pétain returns to France voluntarily, where a trial and a death sentence await him, commuted to life in view of his extreme old age and Great War record. Céline, his wife and cat manage to reach Denmark, where he lays low for some years after the war. No such luck for Brinon, who fails to get a Swiss visa and ends up before a firing squad in 1947. Laval managed to reach Spain on the very last German plane out, but Franco – pressured by de Gaulle – sends him back for a quick, brutal trial and execution on 7 October 1945. Darnand is captured in northern Italy in June, tried, and executed three days after Laval. Luchaire is recognized quite by accident in Innsbruck on 18 May 1945 by a French officer who had been a Gestapo agent in Paris until July 1944. “Haven’t you been shot?” asks Luchaire. “No, but you will be!” is the answer. Of the leading castle denizens only Déat and Bonnard, both sentenced to death in absentia, evade the firing squad. The former lived under an assumed name in Italy, the latter under his own in Spain.
Schloss Sigmaringen, like the Alcazar of Toledo, is one of those places which have a physical presence and a metaphysical quality. The French enclave of Sigmaringen was no longer life, not yet death. As such it is an apt metaphor for all of us, here, today.