While the propaganda media and their friends in animal rights extremism are going bonkers over the apparent accidental harvesting of a lion in Zimbabwe, the video evidence of Planned Parenthood doctors selling aborted baby parts barely rates a mention. In this absolutely convoluted, confused, and crazy society in which we find ourselves, timeless, tested, and traditional values have been turned completely upside down.
It is no hyperbole to say that when a nation loses the moral conscience that serves to protect the lives of its own children, that nation cannot long endure. It has been over 42 years since the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand was rendered. Think of it: no American under the age of 42 can even remember a time when their country protected the lives of unborn babies. This has resulted in a society whose conscience has been seared and whose values have been skewed.
In the minds of multiplied millions of Americans (including many lawmakers, journalists, television pundits, college professors, high school teachers, judges, and even pastors and ministers), an animal’s life has more value than a baby’s. Truly, did the Apostle Paul warn, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” (Romans 1:22, 23)
Only human beings are made in the image of God. Only human beings have eternal souls that will live forever in either Heaven or Hell. Only human beings have a God-consciousness and moral makeup in their hearts. Only human beings live together under a moral code of conduct.
Find two people copulating in public and they will be summarily arrested. Find a man who kills his fellow man and he will be summarily taken by authorities to face a court of law. Find a maniacal murderer like Jeffrey Dahmer, who kills and then eats his victims, and the outrage of human justice will be swift. Yet, these behaviors are daily occurrences in the animal kingdom. What’s the difference? One group is comprised of people made in the image of their Creator; the other group is comprised of beasts.
In fact, both Natural and Revealed Law teaches us that our Creator intended that man have dominion over the animal kingdom. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26)
Animals have served the needs of mankind since man was first created. In the Garden of Eden, God killed animals for the purpose of clothing a spiritually-fallen Adam and Eve. Animals have been used to clothe man, feed man, prosper man, protect man, please man, sustain man, ad infinitum, ever since the dawn of human history.
Our grocery stores are filled with the flesh of animals, which are bought and sold for one man’s profit and another man’s sustenance. The furs of animals have both adorned and warmed the bodies of human beings from time immemorial. Animals (along with fish and fowl) have plowed our fields, provided our milk and eggs, eased our journeys, and assisted our medicinal needs ever since God created them. Indeed, they were created specifically for that very purpose.
Even hunting animals serves a meaningful purpose: not only does hunting bring self-sufficiency and sustenance to man, but it greatly helps to preserve the animal species being hunted. Every State in the Union has game management programs that allow citizens to harvest animals in such a way that preserves the animal species being hunted. If suddenly men were unable to hunt wildlife, many of those species would soon disappear. Hunting and harvesting animals is just one way in which mankind exercises his God-ordained dominion over the animal kingdom.
Would we condone or authorize men to hunt and kill their fellow man? Would we authorize men to take the skin off of slain human beings and sell them? Would we condone barbaric men who would kill their fellow man for the express purpose of harvesting and selling their organs? Such a thought is repulsive beyond description to any sane, rational human being. Yet, that is exactly what the abortion industry is doing to the most innocent and helpless human beings of all: unborn babies in the wombs of their mothers.
All of us are now aware of the videos showing Planned Parenthood abortion doctors bargaining over the sale of aborted baby parts–like an auctioneer would bargain over the sale of cattle. This is NOT a recent development. I remember talking about these-type news stories on my radio talk show during the Clinton years. How long before that it has been taking place, we can only guess. Probably from the inception of legalized abortion.
Currently a variety of products commonly consumed in the United States contain aborted fetal material, including spices and seasonings from the Ajinomoto Company; refrigerated coffee creamers from the Nestle Company; and Maggi brand instant soups, bouillon cubes, ketchups, sauces, seasoning, and instant noodles. The Neocutis Company uses aborted baby material in their anti-aging skin creams.
A host of vaccines contain aborted baby material, including MMR II for measles, mumps, and rubella (Merck); ProQuad: MMR plus Chickenpox (Merck); Varivax for Chickenpox (Merck); Havrix for Hepatitis A (Glaxo SmithKline); Twinrix for Hepatitis A and B combo (Glaxo); Zostavax for shingles (Merck); Imovax for rabies (Sanofi Pasteur); Acambis 1000 for Smallpox (Acambis); etc.
See the report here:
Also see this report:
Those who choose to donate their organs to medical science after their natural death are certainly morally justified. If a baby dies from natural causes and the parents decide to donate the baby’s organs to medical science, they, too, are morally justified–but to purposely murder a human being (born or unborn) for the intention of financial profit must be placed among the most evil and wicked of crimes.
The ancient pagan nations of the Canaanites, Ammonites, and Baalites would take their own children and burn them to death as sacrifices to the god Molech. Have you ever researched what a saline abortion does? Using this method of abortion, the unborn baby is chemically burned to death. And what is the god that these precious babies are being sacrificed to? The god of convenience, maybe? Oh, yes, and the god of money, for sure!
Dr. Joseph Mengele was the notorious Nazi doctor who is reputed to have superintended over the deaths of more than 400,000 people at Auschwitz. He also reportedly kept thousands of people alive so as to perform merciless and tortuous experiments on them. And all of this was done in the name of “medical research.” Eyewitnesses said that during his experiments, he would often cut living babies out of their mothers’ wombs and simply toss them into the oven.
To this, Matt Barber writes, “Cryin’ shame. Were he [Mengele] alive today and working for Planned Parenthood, Mengele’s abortion could have easily yielded an extra $300 for this ‘intact specimen.’”
See Matt’s column here:
But even after the video evidence of Planned Parenthood abortionists bargaining over the sale of aborted baby parts, our U.S. Senate cannot even muster enough votes to defund this sadistic organization. And the House of Representatives decided that taking a recess was more important than even voting on the matter. Yes, folks, your tax dollars and mine are supporting the abortion doctors at Planned Parenthood.
And lest my devout Republican friends immediately argue that the majority of senators that voted to not defund PP were Democrats, let me remind you that for half of G.W. Bush’s eight years in office, the Republican Party controlled the entire federal government: the White House and both houses of Congress. Yet, the GOP made absolutely NO ATTEMPT to defund Planned Parenthood. Republicans had plenty of opportunity to defund these baby killers, but they chose to do NOTHING. In truth, both parties in Washington, D.C., are dripping with the innocent blood of millions of innocent unborn babies.
Legalized abortion has seared the conscience of America. Is it any wonder that SCOTUS recently legalized same-sex marriage? Over four decades of the callous slaughter of unborn babies has warped our country’s entire value system.
Right after the verses in Romans chapter one that I quoted earlier come these verses: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (Vss. 26, 27)
The legalization and social promotion of sodomy is the direct judgment of God upon a people whose value system places the lives and worth of beasts above the lives and worth of human beings who are created in the image of God.
Certainly, no man filled with the love of God will deliberately and purposely mistreat a family pet or even a wild animal. “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.” (Proverbs 12:10)
Ethical hunters desire a clean kill. Follow-up shots on a downed, wounded animal are for the intent of ending its misery. I’m sure this was the case for the dentist who accidentally killed a protected lion in Zimbabwe.
In my mind, the doctor is telling the truth when he says he didn’t realize that the lion was protected. Remember, the man had paid over $50,000 for his lion hunt in Zimbabwe. Big game hunting is a major industry there. Remember, too, that he had a local guide. It was the guide’s responsibility to make sure that his hunter/guest followed all of the regulations and protocols relative to the animal he was hunting. If we are going to be outraged at the killing of this beast, we should be outraged with the Zimbabwean guide. On a guided hunt, no hunter takes a trophy without the express permission of his or her guide. To think that this dentist would pay that kind of money and submit himself to the instruction and supervision of a local guide and then turn around and deliberately defy his guide and harvest an illegal animal is ludicrous. Truly, if the American hunter failed to realize the animal was protected, it was positively the guide’s fault.
As it is, this dentist is in hiding for fear of his life and is the subject of just about every type of verbal, emotional, and personal abuse possible. At the same time, however, the baby killers at Planned Parenthood receive the approbation, and even federal funding, of the U.S. government, and enjoy the politically-correct protection of the mainstream media–as well as many celebrities, entertainers, college professors, and even State governors, legislators, and attorney generals.
Folks, we are watching a nation die in front of our very eyes. People who cannot tell the difference between human life and animal life, people who value animal life above human life, and people who are outraged over the accidental killing of a lion, but who, at the same time, condone the wanton and deliberate murder of innocent unborn babies, are people who are void of any semblance of a civilized mind.
America is following the path of condemned nations before us. Meanwhile, the churches of America continue their fun, frolicking, and frivolity. So, tell me again who is really to blame.
I love Russia’s vetoes. Sparse, strong, hard hits, they mark the limits of the Empire’s power. They said “No”, and Zimbabwe remained at peace, its old maverick Robert Mugabe still alive and kicking and proposing Obama his hand in marriage. They said “No”, and Burma could grow at its own pace. They said “No”, and Syria… well, Syria still suffers immensely, but it was not destroyed by the Sixth Fleet. All US vetoes are similar, – usually for Israel; Russia’s vetoes are fewer and evenly spread. The recent Russian veto (last week) stopped misuse of this terrible cliché “genocide”, and this is a good thing. It would be good to ban this word altogether.
‘Genocide’ is a nasty invention. Just think of it: mankind lived for thousands of years, through raids of Genghis Khan and Crusades, through extermination of Native Americans, slave trade and WWI, happily butchering each other in millions, without being encumbered by the G word. This term was invented (or updated from Jewish traditional thought) by a Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer, in the wake of Holocaust, in order to stress the difference between murdering Jews and killing lesser breeds. The word is quite meaningless otherwise.
The best flower of Europe, a million of the youngest and brightest were killed at Verdun – sad, but that’s not G. Young and old, women and men were incinerated in millions in the fiery furnaces of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima – sorry, old chum, that’s not G. Millions starved to death in the brutal siege of Leningrad – well, you understand by now, that’s not G. It goes without saying that killing of five million Vietnamese or a million Iraqis were just “war is hell” business as usual.
In Israel, killing of five Jews by Palestinians has been qualified as G: the poor soldiers were murdered just because they were Jews. But killing of Palestinians by Jews is collateral damage. They were in the wrong place, in the wrong time, bad luck!
If so, why should one bother with G? This term was, and is a chosen weapon of war propaganda. Not surprisingly, Lemkin was a Cold War warrior, and he accused the USSR of multiple genocides: by providing Russian language education to natives of the Baltic states or by serving alcohol in a Muslim republic. No American misdeed would amount to G according to Lemkin, and according to the US reading of the G Convention, unless in an unlikely case of the US agreeing that it is guilty. European states say the US is not a participant to the G convention, for its many caveats amount to non-participation. However, the US speaks of G more often than most participants, usually in order to justify its intervention. The Big G became a mighty stick to unseat rulers and undermine regimes.
The G word is likely to cause more bloodshed, for a sad, rarely stated reason. If a victim of the crime is a nation, a tribe or an ethnic group, so is the criminal. Germans killed Jews, Turks killed Armenians, Hutu killed Tutsi etc. The moment you recognise G, you encourage the G of revenge. As the Jews considered themselves being the victims of G (this is an idea deeply ingrained in the Jewish tradition, though quite foreign to Christian thought) they tried to take revenge by poisoningmillions of Germans. (They failed but never apologised).
Armenians provide another example of people seriously disturbed by G politics. Lemkin used the 1915 atrocities to dissimulate the purely Jewish idea of G, and the Armenians eventually embraced it. As the idea of G took its place in the law of the nations, the Armenian fighters began to seek and extract revenge from Turks – after fifty years at peace. G propaganda produced a terrible fruit in 1990-1992, when tens of thousands of Azeri (deemed “Turks” by their Armenian neighbours) were massacred and exiled “in revenge for the 1915 G”. A new generation of Armenians was poisoned by victimhood and revenge feelings, thanks to Lemkin and his followers.
A Genocide is not about past. It is about future. Innocent people will die, and die, and die, whenever this term is applied. Without the term, the Lethe will cover all. A good example is provided by Greeks. They suffered probably more than Armenians during the WWI, but as nobody applied the term G to “their” atrocities, they are not obsessed with revenge and live rather peaceably with their Turkish neighbours.
In Africa the concept of G was applied most vigorously by the Western neo-colonisers. You will not be surprised that no Westerner has ever been tried for G despite impressive results. Millions of chopped off hands and heads, but like in Raymond Chandler’s LA, “only darkies are tried.” Now Africa prepares to leave the ICC, the main dealer of the G politics. “Despite having received almost 9,000 formal complaints about alleged war crimes in at least 139 countries, the ICC has chosen to indict 36 black Africans in eight African countries.” – wrote David Hoille, a leading international lawyer.
No less authority than Christopher Black, the eminent international lawyer, proved beyond a shade of doubt that the familiar story of Ruanda genocide of Tutsi by Hutu was not only false, but had led to terrible revenge massacres of Hutu by Tutsi. And this story was utilised by Samantha Power and the interventionists of her ilk to bomb all over the world.
It is good that the nasty concept of genocide took a hit from the Russian veto. And now we can consider the particular case of Srebrenica.
The last thing I want and shall do it to tire you, my reader, with tedious Balkan stories of who slaughtered whom and where. If you want to know the gruesome details, read Diana Johnstone. I am sure they all tried their beastly best.
There is no reason to single out one party – that is, no good reason. The Yugoslav war, the war fought by Clinton against the Serbs, was a large social experiment: how do you sow discord among brothers (Proverbs, 6) and turn a multi-ethnic state into a warren of quarrelling communities. The result was satisfactory, for Clintons. The biggest US military base in Europe came into existence. A wealthy independent socialist state was broken into many miserable statelets; all of them applied for a place in the EU; Russia has lost its potential foothold on the Balkans.
The politics of genocide were played to its utmost extent in the Balkans, deligitimising one of the sides in the internal conflict. The Slavs were subjected to an international tribunal of total dishonesty and bias. Their leaders died in jail. No accusation of real genocide has ever been proven, but the West’s right to judge and decide has been affirmed.
There was a nice extra profit. The West asserted that its will for justice is stronger than its religious solidarity with Christians, right? Now every Muslim should remember that the West will side with Muslims, if they are persecuted, right? Wrong. The Eastern Orthodox Christians (such as Serbs, Russians, Bulgarians, Greeks) do not belong to the Western civilisation. They are as foreign to the Westerners as the Muslims are. Indeed, when the Crusaders fought for the Holy Land, they killed the local Christians, too, saying: “Kill them all and let God sort them out.” So there was no hindrance to side with Muslims against Christians as long as they are Eastern Christians, but by sleigh of hand, the Muslims could be tricked into believing in the Western objectivity.
This feature has been used now. The vetoed draft was a clever and mischievous trap. Such drafts rarely get to the stage of a vote, as the powers (P5, the Big Five, or Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, choose the name) usually do not use the unique power of UNSC resolutions for propaganda purposes. Otherwise, they could vex the US with drafts calling for Gaza freedom. Being prudent, P5 avoid such brownie points. Now they did it, anyway. The result was predictable: Russia could not let the Christian Serbs being singled out in the “You are the Villain” competition. This Russian veto has been presented as “Russia is the enemy of Islam”, with the explicit intention to send the Daesh beasts down the Russian trail and undermine internal Russian cohesiveness.
Russia is not an enemy of Islam. Muslim steppe riders were the co-founders of Russia, together with Viking warriors, Slav ploughmen, Finn forest dwellers. The Muslim Kazan gave its title to the Russian crown. Tatars and Kazakhs are the mainstay of Russia. Russians proved themselves as benevolent rulers, good advisers, reliable friends to Muslims of Central Asia and Caucasus. They had build schools, educated native engineers, modernised these countries.
However, Russia considers its duty to protect the Eastern Christians. In a way, they inherited this responsibility from the Byzantines. For this reason Russia heavily invested in the Holy Land and in Greece, liberated Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia from the Turkish yoke.
In the terms of realpolitik, this policy has been extremely disappointing. Almost all the “liberated Eastern Christian” states eventually sided with Russia’s enemies, while the once-conquered Muslim states remained loyal to Moscow. Muslim Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and once-rebellious Chechnya are friends of Russians; so are Turkey and Iran.
The veto in the UNSC was supposed to protect Serbia from Western pressure, not to poke the Muslims. Remember that during the war, Russia was too weak to interfere and save Yugoslavia. Now Russia made its amends for 1999.
Hopefully, the Muslims will understand the Russian point. After all, the Turks and Azeris understood the Russian position on Armenia. In the recent commemoration of 1915 in Yerevan, Armenia, Putin was the only important guest – his French counterpart M Hollande made a brief appearance and flew away to Baku (to “Azeri Turks”, in Armenian parlance). Putin went there soon after an important and fruitful visit to Turkey, after an agreement with Erdogan. Visit to Armenia jeopardised this achievement, but Putin still did not shrink from the trip. Armenia for Russia is like Israel for the US. There is a very important Armenian diaspora in Russia, and the neighbours accept this reality like Israeli Arab neighbours accept the reality and inevitability of American support for Israel.
The Armenians and the Azeri soldiers marched together, one after another, on the Red Square on May 9 this year, approving the Russian position of the mediator and protector in the area. Perhaps it is a liability for Russia, but nobody promised them a rose garden.
ative of Novosibirsk, Siberia, a grandson of a professor of mathematics and a descendant of a Rabbi from Tiberias, Palestine, he studied at the prestigious School of the Academy of Sciences, and read Math and Law at Novosibirsk University. In 1969, he moved to Israel, served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war.
After his military service he resumed his study of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but abandoned the legal profession in pursuit of a career as a journalist and writer. He got his first taste of journalism with Israel Radio, and later went freelance. His varied assignments included covering Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the last stages of the war in South East Asia.
In 1975, Shamir joined the BBC and moved to London. In 1977-79 he wrote for the Israeli daily Maariv and other papers from Japan. While in Tokyo, he wrote Travels with My Son, his first book, and translated a number of Japanese classics.
Email at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Israel Shamir is a regular columnist for Veracity Voice
Many Bible believing Christians are members of the HFIB club. The acronym stands for hate, fear, ignorance and bigotry. To be inducted into HFIB all one has to do is oppose homosexual “marriage” or—gasp!—proclaim that homosexuality is a sin against a holy God.
For example, talk show host Montel Williams labeled social conservatives hateful bigots for disagreeing with the High Court’s broad interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding same-sex “marriage.” Montel has chosen sides, it seems – he’s taken the side of the totalitarian and intolerant left.
In a piece by ChristianExaminer columnist Michael Foust entitled Talk show host Montel Williams compares gay marriage opponents to ISIS, Taliban, Foust writes:
Williams made the comments Friday, hours after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. On Facebook he criticized those on the “uber-right,” which apparently is a synonym for most if not all social conservatives. In the same context he referenced Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Williams said that “hate, ignorance, fear and bigotry” had lost when the Supreme Court handed down its decision.
“In its typical fashion, the uber-right that so many of us on the center right find to be akin to the American version of ?#?ISIS or the Taliban, frezilly predicted the end of the world, including several members of Congress, who with all the style and hyperbole of an ISIS recruiting video, yes, let’s start with Louie Gohmert, proved they lacked the mental fortitude and emotional stability to hold elected office.
“Some members of this, the American Taliban known as the far-right, even threatened to move to Canada without realizing GAY MARRIAGE HAS BEEN LEGAL THERE FOR IONS. Frankly, I’d be happy to see them go, I just think it would be akin to an act of war to dump the uber-right on another country, sort of like dumping radioactive waste on a neighbor’s yard.”
Some of his fans were miffed by his remarks. One fan wrote: “Montel — the Taliban would whack the heads off of you and all gays. You have disgraced yourself in saying that any American who disagrees with YOUR opinion is the Taliban or ISIS.”
Good point. There are pictures circulating on the Internet of ISIS thugs in Raqqa throwing a man accused of being gay off a building while a crowd of people watched the atrocity. Many of them climbed buildings to get a better look.
Fouts also fills us in on Montel’s tantrum on Twitter:
“Those who went into full scale freak out today over #LoveWins threatening to leave USA ARE AMERICAN ISIS/TALIBAN,“ Williams wrote.
Later, he retweeted a Tweet from someone who agreed with him: “Montel, I agree with u completely They hate the same people ISIS hates 4 the most part & they ignore Christs words 2.”
One person, Mike McIntyre (@mcintyremike), wrote, “Montel, I have long respected you. You don’t think someone can like the outcome but hate the way it came to be?”
Another follower, TJ (@chinn_tj), replied, “WOW! I may be on the right but I’ve never threatened to blow somebody up!”
A third person, “Janilyn” (@Geckogal55), wrote, “So I see the persecution of #Christians has now started.”
Billy Hallowell of The Blaze wrote, “YOU CALLED ANGRY AMERICANS MAKING A SILLY COMMENT ISIS. I’m perplexed.” Williams retorted, “feel free to unfollow me then. Don’t let the door hit you.” (bold theirs)
When he railed against Louie Gohmert (R-Tx), what was it he said? Oh, I remember. Rep. Gohmert “proved [he] lacked … mental fortitude and emotional stability.” Is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
No matter what you may think of Louie Gohmert and Tony Perkins, to compare them to Islamic terrorists that line innocent people up and behead them for the crime of professing a belief in Jesus Christ goes beyond the pale. What Williams conveniently forgets is that words have power. Words can inflame unstable people to violence. I mean, think about it. What if a Christian media personality used the same words as Montel chose to describe the five Supreme Court Justices who shredded the U.S. Constitution because they’d like to see sexual deviants marry anyone they want to. The backlash would be horrific.
It’s too late for an apology from Montel Williams, not that one will be forthcoming. The damage has already been done.
A Slap In The Face To Conservatives
After the decision came down, that same night the White House was lit up like never before. Red, blue, green and yellow lights stood out against a dark backdrop, giving the appearance of a gigantic rainbow flag. It was impressive to be sure. But we all know that the rainbow is the LGBT symbol. This celebratory display at the people’s house no doubt offended the majority of those that pay the electricity bill. For President Obama to make this sort of statement is a slap in the face to traditional Americans who support Normal Marriage. The administration is well aware that a large number of people in this country oppose redefining marriage. What struck me is that the president chose not to use his high office to unite Americans; he chose to gloat over judicial activism that ushered in counterfeit marriage.
What some Americans may not be aware of is that back in 1996 when Barack Obama was running for Illinois state senate he said he was in favor of same-gender “marriage.” (Here’s a video of Anderson Cooper taking him to task on flip-flopping on gay “marriage.”) As it turns out he supposedly “evolved” on the issue and decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Let us not forget that during a 2008 debate held at Saddleback Church he looked Rick Warren squarely in the eye and said, “For me as a Christian it’s [marriage] a sacred union.” Sacred union is a religious term that describes a union between a man and a woman. Now he’s back where he started in 1996, supporting counterfeit marriage.
Mr. President, I have news for you. You have rejected the clear teaching of Scripture on homosexuality.
You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Mr. President, you’ve made a choice to reject God’s unambiguous command not to engage in homosexual acts. Bear in mind that anyone who rejects what God expressly says is in essence calling Him a liar.
Woe to you.
Mr. President, you can instruct your staff to light up all the monuments in Washington D.C. to celebrate the left’s victories over the “uber right” but that won’t change the fact that whatever victories they achieve will be short lived. I say this with confidence because I count on the FACT that in the end, God wins.
Homosexual Agenda—Berean Research
The US Supreme Court “gay marriage” ruling – how we got to this, and what do we do now?—MassResistance
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?
One of America’s most notorious bank robbers, Willie Sutton(1901-80), is said to have remarked that he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is.” In a strange twist, the banks themselves are now beginning literally to rob their own customers.
The theft occurs via the innovative practice of “paying” (i.e. “charging”) negative interest rates on savings and checking account balances combined with account maintenance fees. Cash strapped Greece is looking to go even further – charging customers for daring to withdraw cash! So what gives here?
Banking Policies Are Becoming Injurious to Your Financial Well-being
Since the global financial near-collapse of 2008, Central Banks, led by the U.S. Federal Reserve, have tried to solve the problem of faltering economies, excessive debt creation, government deficit spending and a deflationary landscape by flooding the system with fiat money, literally created out of thin air.
Their reasoning is that the problem of excessive, unpayable debt can be solved by creating still more debt!
If you had trouble paying off a $300,000 dollar home mortgage, would borrowing another $200,000 to continue making payments help you solve your dilemma? Of course not. You would simply owe a total of $500,000! Yet this is exactly what many of the world’s leading financial wizards have been doing to keep government budgets afloat for the last 7 years.
In an effort to stimulate the economy and encourage consumption, the Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates well below where they would be if allowed to fluctuate based on free-market forces like business and consumer demand.
This has taken us to a Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP), which by definition is theoretically the lowest rate that a central bank can impose as part of its strategic agenda. The closer rates get to zero, the fewer options monetary planners have at their disposal to attempt to stimulate economic demand.
Altering Your Behavior
The effect of excessive money creation has been compared to the liquid sloshing around in a giant punch bowl.
And since interest rates are so low, investors must take on more risk in the search get greater returns. Across the globe, this new money – in an uncontrolled manner – seeks out profitable venues for growth.
A great deal of the central bank-created paper/digital money thus ends up chasing finite amounts of art, real estate, collectibles, or financial assets like stocks or bonds. This has sparked the latest stock market bull runs in one country or another, leading to new and unsustainable bubbles.
Afterwards, the supposedly most-connected person on the planet – the U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman – always seems to be surprised.
The War against Cash
While investors are chased into higher risk assets in search of yield, we are witness to a simultaneous “war on cash.”
Governments around the globe have lowered the amount of cash a person can withdraw without attracting the attention of authorities, who snoop on you to make extra sure you aren’t dealing drugs or selling weapons to terrorists. France, Sweden, Denmark, Israel are just the most recent to have announced this change.
With the formation of groups like the Orwellian “Better Than Cash Alliance,” plans are underway to eliminate cash altogether and leave the public with little choice but to keep all their money in a digital account. While using only electronic money may seem to be more “efficient,” it makes it possible for authorities to track all of your financial dealings AND even allow banks to impose a Negative Interest Rate Policy (NIRP) upon you.
Without measures to prevent block them, account holders with cash balances might choose to withdraw and hoard paper currency. That would be the simplest way to escape negative interest rates.
But with funds trapped inside of bank accounts, bankers could simply deduct the negative rate charge from each customer’s balance. (Question: Would not such “digital cash balance robbery” be just a modernized version of what Willie Sutton was doing back in the day?)
Targeting You for Outright Theft through NIRP or Asset Forfeiture
And then there are the rising abuses of Civil Asset Forfeiture. If you’re stopped on the road and have a few thousand dollars on you – no matter that you might be going to buy a used car or plan to make some purchases during an extended vacation… the police can easily deprive you of the cash, without even charging you with a crime.
In recent years, Civil Asset Forfeitures have reached the scale of billions of dollars. And police departments come to depend on this tempting “revenue stream,” creating the perverse incentive to seize even more.
Following a lengthy investigation last year, The Washington Post reported,
“There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800.”
“Monetary thinkers” feel things would be so much more efficient — for the government — if we all went totally to digital accounts. No need to carry cash around or pay bills by mail. The authorities will know exactly how much money you have and what you spend it on, placing your balance under their control at the press of a button.
Coming Soon to a location near you?
The legend of the Greek craftsman Daedalus is relevant today. He learned how to fly and taught his son Icarus – cautioning him not to get too close to the sun at the risk of melting the wax on his wings.
Immensely powerful central bankers believe that they can safely “fly high” with their monetary policies. But like Icarus, who flew too close to the sun and plunged from the sky when his contraption fell apart, so too do our monetary authorities run the risk of similar demise – and taking the rest of us down with them.
Financial Repression Has One Logical Outcome…
In a recent article at mining.com, David Levenstein really nails it, saying:
“Financial repression has long been a driver of demand for physical precious metals. This demand will accelerate as measures become more draconian. Some bank customers… will decide that bullion is a better option than sitting on piles of depreciating paper currency or paying banks to hold deposits… Historically, only gold and silver have been trusted private stores of value as well as a hedge against political, financial, and economic turmoil. In such an insane environment, gold and silver will become the only real trusted alternative to fiat currencies. And, as more new capital flows into physical bullion, its price will soar.”
Got gold? Got silver? Got common sense?
Any [teaching] that is good is in the Word of God, and any that is not in the Word of God is not good. I am a Bible Christian and if an archangel with a wingspread as broad as a constellation shining like the sun were to come and offer me some new truth, I’d ask him for a reference. If he could not show me where it is found in the Bible, I would bow him out and say, “I’m awfully sorry, you don’t bring any references with you.” ~ A.W. Tozier
There’s an ongoing debate as to whether or not Bono, U2 front man and one of the world’s most recognized rock stars, is an authentic Christian, although he states that he is. Many Bible believing Christians have looked at the evidence and have come out and said that, although he professes Christ, he’s not a true Christian.
So let’s examine the evidence.
On his belief about Jesus Christ, Bono said this:
I believe that Jesus was, you know, the Son of God.
Does he mean the Jesus who’s the Second Person of the holy Trinity?
In 2005 after the release of his book “Grace Over Karma” he stated:
The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That’s the point. It should keep us humbled. It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.
He’s right. It’s not our own good works that gets us to heaven “for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” that saves us. (Eph. 2:8-9)
In 2014 Jim Daly, President of Focus on the Family, interviewed the rock star on his radio broadcast and said this:
[H]e’s known great success, both in his career as a musician, and in his work as a global advocate for the poorest of the poor. He’s also the co-founder of The ONE Campaign, and their motivation is to help people who are suffering.
All of this is true. But that means he’s a do-gooder. It does not make him regenerate.
Not surprisingly, when Daly invited him on the show conservative Christians who are aware of some of the controversial things he has said over the years thought it was a mistake. Many people wondered why a pro-family leader of Daly’s stature would pass him off as a Christian by saying, “he’s a believer in Jesus Christ, and professes Christ as his Savior. In fact, Bono’s spiritual journey has been greatly influenced by a mutual good friend — Eugene Peterson, who’s the author of The Message. And he’s also written a great book called Run With The Horses that has had a great influence on Bono and many of us.”
I don’t have the space to address my concerns with Eugene Peterson or The Message Bible he penned – it’s a parody of the Bible. So links are included below.
Looking at the things Bono has said (I’m coming to that) although he professes a belief in Christ clearly he doesn’t believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Moreover, his social views are decidedly “progressive.” In fact, his religious beliefs blend nicely with emergent gurus such as Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo. These men are leftists who are leading the Church away from Sola Scriptura into what Ken Silva referred to as the “emerging cult of the new liberal theology.” The controversial movement, called the Emerging/Emergent Church (EC), seeks to reach the unchurched with their unbiblical version of the Christian message. In so doing they have cooked up a cauldron ofsyncretism stew.
So – what’s important to know about EC leaders is that their aim is change and their plan, and they do have one, is to dismantle historic orthodox Christianity and bring forth a “new paradigm,” a “new kind of Christianity.” Be wary of words such as story (story of God, story of Jesus)… becoming… conversation… missional… reimagine… tribe… deconstruction… vision, etc. Emergents are “Christ followers,” they are “Social Justice Christians.”
Social Justice Christianity
The moniker liberals who profess Christ prefer is Social Justice Christian. One conservative blogger commented that Bono is “social justice, ecumenical, globalist, Agenda 21 promoting.”
He’s all of that for sure. Bono’s an activist and philanthropist with a stated goal to eliminate world poverty. Because he’s hugely popular people want to know what he thinks about this and that. So naturally he takes every opportunity to promote causes he cares about including HIV/AIDS infection in Africa and third-world debt relief. Tom De Weese of the American Policy Center once quipped that he “dogged political leaders around the world, using his rock star status to pressure them into accepting his brand of global guilt.”
So – should it matter to Bible believing Christians that Bono is a “progressive”? Should we be concerned that he’s spreading Social Justice Christianity around the globe? I mean, he’s telling people about Jesus, isn’t he?
Well, yes, it should matter to Christians that a person as famous as Bono is promoting an unbiblical version of Christianity and a “different Jesus.” Many people idolize celebrities. Adoring fans hang on their every word. And, sadly, many Christians don’t read their bibles so they not only are ignorant of its teaching, they lack spiritual discernment. In other words, they’re easily influenced by celebrity but not so much by the Bible.
When it comes to a LIE-celeb such as Bono, the question we must ask ourselves is this: What gospel is he sharing, the true Gospel of Jesus Christ or is he sharing another Jesus…another spirit…another gospel (2 Cor. 11:4)? If it’s the later then it makes him a false teacher.
The Apostle Paul spoke out against counterfeit Christians:
And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. (2 Cor. 12-15)
Elliott Nesch of The Waundering Path writes:
How many of those who have been saved from extreme poverty through Bono’s ONE Campaign are now saved from their sins through the same effort? Can social justice, debt relief, and elimination of the AIDS epidemic bring glory to God when it is completely unconnected to the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? (Source)
A very good question.
Can’t We All Just COEXIST?
Lighthouse Trails Research (LTR) has a piece entitled Focus on the Family Gives Bono a Platform – Another Example Where 2 +2 Don’t Add Up. LTR shares a quote by Christian researcher Berit Kjos from her book Protect Your Child From the New Age & Spiritual Deception:
U2’s 2005 tour was aimed at joining all religions into a unified global spirituality. To emphasize the coming solidarity, the word “COEXIST” was featured on a giant screen. The capital “C” pointed to the Islamic crescent, the “X” symbolized the Jewish Star of David, and the “T” was a reminder of the Christian cross. Bono led massive crowds in a vibrant chant: “Jesus, Jew, Mohammed—It’s True!
Not everyone approved. Singer/songwriter Tara Leigh Cobble said, “He repeated the words like a mantra, and some people even began to repeat it with him. I suddenly wanted to crawl out of my skin. . . . Was Bono, my supposed brother in Christ, preaching some kind of universalism?”
“I felt like I was witnessing an antichrist,” said her friend.
In one song, “God’s Country,” Bono belts out the words, “I stand with the sons of Cain,” The Bible tells us that Cain “was of that wicked one, and slew his brother” (1 John 3:12), not exactly someone who a Christian would want to be found standing in agreement with.
Kjos later says:
Are Christian leaders speaking up and warning others about Bono? No, on the contrary, reveals one Christian journalist:
“One of the leaders being promoted today by those purporting to be officiating the way for our young people—to include Bill Hybels, Brian McLaren, Rick Warren, and Rob Bell—is ‘Christian’ Rock star Bono of U2, whom many emergents view as their ‘prophet’ and the main icon of their movement. In Bono’s rendition of Psalm 23, he alters the entire thrust and message of this beautiful psalm to something that sounds nothing less than blasphemous. For example . . . he alters the wording to say ‘I have cursed thy rod and staff. They no longer comfort me.’” [This rendition of Psalm 23 is documented in The Submerging Church DVD.]
And in the summer of 2005, Rick Warren attended the Live 8 Concert with Bono where he was made the official pastor at the event. Rick Warren did not issue a warning at the event about Bono, leaving the impression on thousands of young people’s minds that Bono is OK. (from chapter 17, HPC)
Bono Helps Gay’s Win The Day
Bill Muehlenberg of Culture Watch is one Christian who isn’t standing up for Bono. And he isn’t concerned about issuing a warning either. Muehlenberg came out swinging after Bono threw his support to Bible torturing radical gay activists who were out to legalize same-sex “marriage” in Ireland. Homosexuals were ecstatic to have a rock star behind them in their effort to legalize same-sex “marriage.” Pink News reported:
Irish singer Bono, speaking ahead of the band’s latest world tour, said “Marriage is an idea that transcends religion.”
Bono, who is from a mixed Anglican and Catholic family, told the Irish Times:
“[Marriage] is owned by the people. They can decide. It is not a religious institution.
“As far as I know, Jesus wasn’t a married man and neither are most priests talking about it. It is not a religious idea.
“In my mind, commitment is one of the most impossibly great human traits. It is a hard thing to hold on to, and anything that brings that together is a totally wonderful thing.”
Gay-affirming Bono does not understand the implications of tossing aside God’s plan for marriage—one man one woman for life—so that men can marry men.
Muehlenberg had these harsh words for U2’s front man:
Another clear-cut acid test of Christian commitment has to do with the issue of homosexuality. If you get someone trying to tell you that homosexual marriage is just peachy and Jesus would be fully supportive of it, then you know you’ve got a religious fraud on your hands, and you should give him a very wide berth.
One so-called believer who has worried me greatly for years has in my eyes nailed his coffin completely by his recent support of sodomite marriage. Bono and U2 are going utterly brain-dead in supporting the Irish vote on homosexual marriage.
So if you think Bono is some sort of great Christian, you better think again. This comes from the U2 website:
On Friday Ireland votes in an historic referendum on legalizing same-sex marriage. Here’s what the band say: #voteYes.
“Commitment, love and devotion are some of the most impossibly great human traits. Trying to co-opt the word marriage is like trying to make love or devotion gender- or religion-specific. And that has to stop. Marriage is human-specific: a human commitment, one that transcends religion, transcends politics. It should be encouraged wherever, whenever and between whomever that love, that devotion and that commitment exists. #voteYES”
This has got to be one of the most idiotic things I have read in a long time. We expect atheists and militant homosexual activists to come up with sheer baloney like this, but someone who calls himself a Christian? This man is a fool, in the biblical sense of the word. (Source)
The bottom line is this: A person cannot profess a belief in Jesus Christ and live like the devil. Like so many so-called Christians, Bono takes Christianity cafeteria style – he picks and chooses what pleases him and avoids what doesn’t.
Christianity is serious business, brethren. Jesus requires much of His sheep. “If you love me you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15).
Do you love Him?
“Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105).
Do you get your guidance from the Bible?
Bono does but only when it suits his purpose.
The Homosexual Agenda—Berean Research
Does the Bible Really Say We’re Not to Judge—Marsha West
U2’s Bono, Unorthodox Superman—Elliott Nesch
Torture, pain, beheadings, the murder of children…. If God exists and is all good, how could He allow such suffering and evil? This is a common question, and a lament often an impediment to faith. It also was addressed recently on the Savage Nation radio show, where host Michael Savage — exhibiting his versatility and talk virility — will sometimes broach that certain thing we’re supposed to discuss even less than politics. His answer to the question was contained in his newsletter and is:
I actually believe that God has no effect on a moment-by-moment basis or a person-by-person basis.
If I did, then I’d have to stop believing in God.
If I were to believe that God controlled everything on earth, then I’d have to believe that God is evil.
I believe God is not omnipotent. He is omnipresent.
That’s what saved me from atheism.
It certainly is good to have an answer that saves one from atheism, but is the above the answer?
God undoubtedly doesn’t micromanage our lives, controlling matters on a moment-by-moment basis; this reality is called His “permitting will” in theological circles, as opposed to His “ordaining will.” But why is God, as some might say, so “permissive” (He isn’t, really)? There is an answer, but before addressing it let’s examine the matter of God’s omnipotence.
God is known as the “Creator” because the belief is that He created the whole Universe, the heavens and the Earth and all living creatures — out of nothing. He is the first cause. In this case, however, it would seem fanciful to suppose that He could create life but not control that life. After forging the wonders called the Universe and its denizens, controlling man would seem small potatoes.
To suggest otherwise is to say that God is not really “God” — by definition all-powerful and perfect — but a different kind of being entirely. For He then either created something He couldn’t control (which certainly can be a fault of man) or didn’t create it at all. If the latter, though, where does that leave us? We can’t say something else created the Universe, for that entity would then be above what would merely be but a cosmic middleman, and it would be God (the “Immovable Mover,” as Aristotle said). The only other possibility is that we believe in something and call it “God” even though it would just be some spirit being formed as a cosmic accident via some evolutionary process wholly unknown to us. But this would just bring us back to atheism and its inherent relativism and meaninglessness — with the twist that, for sure, we’re not the most powerful cosmic accidents in the Universe.
This is why philosophers have long explained God’s tolerance of evil by way of “free will.” Yes, I know it sounds clichéd now to some, but my explanation won’t be. So why is free will so important that God would allow profound evil in its name?
Imagine you could have a computer chip implanted in your child’s brain that would control his behavior (something perhaps possible in the foreseeable future). No more terrible twos or toddler tantrums, no disobedience, no crying, no frowns, no shirking of responsibility — just a perfectly agreeable Stepford Child. Would you implant away?
This would defeat the purpose of having a child. Sure, we want our kids to mature into moral beings, but that is impossible if you’re merely a controlled being. For being moral involves making moral choices, and this cannot happen if you have no choice. The chipped child would have been dehumanized, reduced to automaton status via the negation of his free will. You might as well just purchase a cute robot and be done with it.
Think about what is being said here, however: You’re willing to tolerate sinful acts in your child — and the possibility of truly horrible behavior — in the name of his being fully human.
God is no different with respect to us, His children. He could completely control us with the snap of divine fingers, but we are then reduced to mere organic robots; we are not then His children, but His things. Note, when it’s said we’re created in God’s image, this does not refer to our physical being but that, like God, we have intellect and free will. Remove either quality and we’re mere animals.
(Speaking of which, it’s hard to imagine even a pet owner chipping his dog; we’d likely feel that this would eliminate his “dogness” and wouldn’t want to use perverted science to accomplish what training should.)
Then there is the matter of love, which is represented in action: Loving attitudes beget loving acts. When someone serves us — whether it’s a spouse bringing home the bacon or serving it, or a child doing chores — we’re by far most pleased if it’s done in a spirit of love because the person wants to make us happy (yes, much to expect in a child!). It doesn’t touch us in the same way if the work is performed out of a mere sense of obligation; worse still is if the person is acting as a slave, compelled to labor against his will. Most of us wouldn’t even want to be served under those circumstances.
God is no different. He wants us to serve Him as a representation of our love (not because He needs our love and service, but because we need to love and serve Him), and trumping our free will would defeat that purpose. It would reduce us to not just slaves, but those organic robots.
Some may now say that this is all well and good, but aren’t there limits to free will’s abuse? When people are being burned alive and children massacred, don’t you draw a line? The answer is that God is far more logical and consistent than we are.
We talk about “freedom of speech” but then set limits on what can be said; we trumpet “freedom of religion” but then draw lines at certain practices (e.g., human sacrifice). I’m not implying that such lines aren’t sometimes necessary, mind you, only pointing out that once they’re drawn, it follows that we aren’t actually allowing true “freedom of religion.” But God means what He says and says what He means. Free will is just that: free will. It’s absolute. Besides, He makes the rules, but their application and enforcement are our business — in this world.
This brings us to the last point: worldliness. Too often we analyze faith-based propositions while coupling them with atheistic corollaries. We may wonder, for example, how a just and loving God could allow the deaths of large numbers of children in free will’s name. But He doesn’t.
He gave the children life, and upon leaving this fold they pass on to eternal life.
I know, this sounds like a handy rationalization to modernistic ears. But we are discussing matters within the context of the Judeo-Christian world view, no? In other words, people could question the data — that God and the afterlife are real, etc. — but that is a different question. The logic when operating within this data set, however, is unassailable. To wit: What is this temporal life as compared to eternity? It’s as a grain of sand in a desert or a drop of water in an ocean. It’s eternity that matters. And if slaughtered children pass on to a far, far better place, God has done them no disservice.
I don’t want to seem unfeeling; I react to worldly horrors much as does everyone else. And it’s understandable: This world is all we know firsthand. The hell we so often create on it we see and hear, as it accosts our senses; we feel it. Heaven is generally just something we try to apprehend intellectually. And the heart has seductions the mind cannot match.
There is something we can do, however. Even if we don’t feel certain truths on an emotional level, we can choose to believe them. That is a proper exercise of free will — one that lends much happiness and meaning to the life God gave us.
What is the goal of the NAR
loons leaders? To transform society into the kingdom of God on earth.
John Burton has written a piece entitled “Ancient and Emerging: 5 Major Changes Coming to the Church.” Before you get all excited, or maybe even concerned over those changes, you should know a bit more about Burton. As it turns out he’s a “prophet in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement. According to his blog, John Burton, he “has been developing and leading ministries for over 20 years and is a sought out teacher, prophetic messenger and revivalist. Burton has authored ten books, has appeared on Christian television and radio and directed one of the primary internships at the International House of Prayer (IHOP) in Kansas City.”
That Burton was associated with IHOP-KC could only mean that he has served under IHOP’s Pied Piper Mike Bickle. I spent quite a bit of time researching Bickle for a piece I wrote and discovered his strong ties to the NAR or what some refer to as Dominionism. Also identified was his involvement with the Kansas City Prophets (KCP). According toPastor Ken Silva, the KCP:
brought grandiose claims that a ‘new breed’ of super prophets were beginning to arrive on planet earth who would change the world forever. These so-called prophets were a group of men that coalesced around a church known as the Kansas City Fellowship, pastored by Mike Bickle, that attracted a following of other likeminded churches in that region. (More on the KCP here)
It gets worse. Mike Bickle believes that God speaks to him in an audible voice. But here’s the kicker. He has visited heaven – twice. On one visit he told false teacher Bob Jones:
I stood in this room and it had…clouds, it was a room only maybe 20 by 20 or 30. It was a little room. It had clouds in the bottom, on the top and the walls…I stood there, I was at the Lord’s left hand, and I stood there, this was not a dream, this was as real as life here…I know it wasn’t a dream or a vision… (There’s more to the story here)
I included Bickle’s background and a snippet of the tall tale he spun on his alleged visit to heaven to highlight the fact that he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
So here’s my question: why is John Burton proud of his association with a false prophet who’s the main man at IHOP-KC? IHOP –KC is viewed by many mainstream scholars as a cult because it is a “false, unorthodox, extremist” sect of Christianity (dictionary.com).
On his blog Burton calls himself a “prophetic messenger and revivalist.” Revival? What revival? There’s no sign of any sort of “revival” in America or any place else (except an occult revival), so the “revival” the so-called prophet refers to is……where?
Before I get to the 5 major changes “Prophet” John B predicts, those of you who are unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of the NAR should know what we’re dealing with. Over the years it has had many handles such as Kingdom Now; Latter Rain; Joel’s Army; Manifest Sons of God – they keep changing the name as if this will allow them to keep their heretical teachings hidden.
What is the goal of the NAR
loons leaders? To transform society into the kingdom of God on earth.
How do they hope to accomplish this lofty goal? By taking control of various aspects of society. (Here’s the plan)
Apologetics Index describes it as a:
Leading figures in this seemingly loosely organized movement claim that these prophets and apostles alone have the power and authority to execute God’s plans and purposes on earth. They believe they are laying the foundation for a global church, governed by them.
They place a greater emphasis on dreams, visions and extra-biblical revelation than they do on the Bible, claiming that their revealed teachings and reported experiences (e.g. trips to heaven, face-to-face conversations with Jesus, visits by angels) can not be proven by the ‘old’ Scripture. (emphasis added )
So, keeping John Burton’s background in mind—especially the part about his affiliation with IHOP-KC– here’s what this so-called prophetic messenger revealed about the future:
I call this the ancient and emerging church. Ancient because it’s rooted in scripture; emerging because the biblical structure has been largely forsaken. What will this ancient and emerging church look like? Here’s just a small peek into a grand shift in the structure of the church:
1. Services will become more like prayer meetings. One of the greatest indictments on the church today is that prayer is not the driving force. Today, people tend to choose churches based on the appeal of the teaching and the worship instead of the fervency of prayer. If the church was a house of teaching, or a house of worship, that would make sense, but it’s not. The church is a house of prayer for all nations. Every person in the church will function as a burning intercessor and the services will be marked by this unified groan of fiery prayer.
2. Personal need will give way to personal mission. Today, churches are often more like organic, socially driven hospitals. People tend to use the church as a way to meet their personal needs instead of serving it as a minister of God. This is going to change. Of course, there will still be personal ministry and true needs will be addressed.
However, instead of the church functioning as a hospital, it will once again function as a mission-driven military. The mission will take precedence. The saints will be equipped for service, not for personal survival. In this ancient and emerging model, their will be MASH units that will take very good care of the wounded with the primary purpose of getting the soldier back into battle. Apostles will again lead with governmental authority and pastors will be seen as the main leader less and less as they focus more on shepherding and less on primary leadership.
3. Teaching will be minimized while instruction is emphasized. Teaching is mostly for personal edification while instruction is mostly for corporate assignments. Today, most churches focus on teaching principles of scripture, providing truths that will help Believers navigate through their lives and giving nuggets of biblical info. While there will still be important Bible teaching, apostolic instruction will emerge as a necessary new ministry.
There is enough Bible teaching online, on CDs, in books and on video to turn every one of us into personal spiritual giants. We need to take it upon ourselves to grow. What is lacking, however, is apostolic leaders, military commanders who give instruction and assignments to a ready army. Teaching is personal growth-based while instruction is a call to corporate action for the sake of mission fulfillment.
An example of apostolic instruction is this: The apostolic leader gives a corporate assignment for everybody in the church to fast for a week and then show up together to prayer walk through the city streets. It’s a corporate call to action versus biblical study. It’s mission focused versus personal growth focused. Personal growth will be largely our responsibility between services so we can be ready to respond to the corporate instruction where we will receive our assignments.
4. We will gather together most days of the week. The 24/7 church will again emerge as the church drives culture instead of reacting to culture. Cares of life will lose their power as we simplify our lives and put corporate prayer and mission ahead of most everything else.
This may be the most challenging change for Christians. Today, Sundays are the days to set aside for corporate worship while we give precedence to our ‘normal lives.’ In The Coming Church, the very reason we live will be to pray on fire together every day, receive apostolic assignments and then move out into our lives as kingdom ambassadors. It wouldn’t be surprising if a tithe of our time is what became the standard. Two to three hours a day, whether it’s in the morning, afternoon or evening, or even in the late night hours, will be given by every believer to praying on site together with others, ministering and giving ourselves to intercession-fueled kingdom ministry. Of course, much of what we have been giving ourselves to will have to be eliminated so we have the time necessary to devote.
5. Worship will be supernaturally driven. There is a new sound coming to worship, and it’s not simply a new style. There is a supernatural, otherworldly groan of intercessory worship that will explode out of the entire body as a new breed of trembling worship leaders lead the way into the shock and awe of the glory of God. We will no longer simply sit in a pew or stand with a raised hand while a familiar worship song is sung.
The prophetic, groaning sounds of Holy Spirit facilitated worship will make it normal to shake and fall to our faces as we cry Holy! The natural, logical sing-a-longs will be no more. We will have a hard time standing as God’s Shekinah and Kabod glory resides in his church. Worship teams will practice less and pray in the Spirit with tears in their eyes more.
Of course, this is an extremely limited glance into the many, many changes that are coming. I wanted to share this to provoke you to preparation. There is much that you and I enjoy in the church, or that is comfortable to us, that we will have to let go. Again, the coming church will be troubling and shocking, but it will result in the power and life that we have been crying out for.
God is about to answer that cry.
This is…..nauseating. My head is spinning. Seems the Church is in for some BIG changes, at least according to “Prophet” John B. Notice that the changes he purports would empower a few and turn the rest of us into mere puppets. Sound familiar? The message he’s sending is that we mustn’t hold to God’s sacred Word as our final authority. No. We must abide in what those who are supposedly hearing from God tell us. I mean, really? Coming from someone with his decidedly unbiblical theology it’s pretty easy to figure out where this rubbish came from.
Hint: The Evil One
We are not to fear evil, brethren. We are not to back away from it. We are not to cower in the corner. We are commanded to:
Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Standtherefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel… Ephesians 6:10-19 (emphasis added)
I’ll close with this admonition: Stand against the schemes of the devil!
Dominionism and the Rise of Western Imperialism by Sarah Leslie
Dominionist are on the move…and they mean business by Marsha West
Leftists are upset about what they view as a double standard with respect to the Baltimore/Ferguson affair and the recent Waco gang shootout. They’re right, too — there sure is a double standard.
And, as usual, it’s their own.
Consider, for example, an Associated Press piece by one Jesse J. Holland titled “Differing perceptions of Waco, Baltimore bothering some.” Holland starts out writing that the “prevailing images of protests in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, over police killings of black men were of police in riot gear, handcuffed protesters, tear gas and mass arrests. The main images of a fatal gun battle between armed bikers and police in Waco, Texas, also showed mass arrests — carried out by nonchalant-looking officers sitting around calm bikers on cellphones.” The idea is that while the black thugs in Baltimore and Ferguson received harsh treatment and coverage, the primarily white thugs in Waco were, relatively speaking, handled with kid gloves.
But pardon my tongue, this brings us to another complaint. Holland cites people who say that while Barack Obama and other politicians called the Baltimore miscreants “thugs,” no such descriptive is applied to the white Waco punks. He mentions in particular radio and TV commentator Roland Martin, who tweeted, “So the mainstream media refuses to talk (hashtag)WacoThugs, huh?” And Martin has a point: While the black Baltimore rioters and looters were called thugs, no white Waco rioters and looters were thus characterized. I wonder, why might that be?
Oh, yeah, that’s right: there are no white rioters and looters in Waco.
Minor details such as this seem to escape the notice of two-brain-cell journalists in search of a story, but a prerequisite for having “police in riot gear” is actually having, you know, a riot. The incident in Waco was an unforeseen event, meaning, the cops had no time to don any kind of special gear.
Perhaps they don’t teach proper analogizing in journalism school, but the Waco biker thugs aren’t analogous to the Baltimore rioter thugs; rather, they’re analogous to the person the latter were rioting over: drug dealer Freddie Gray. And no one went out of his way to call Gray a thug.
Martin also lamented that we won’t have a “panel discussion on their [the bikers’] childhood” or on “fatherless homes”; no doubt, as the media will soon drop the story. This is largely because they don’t have a black-on-white racial angle to play up, but also for another reason:
Whites won’t be rallying to the defense of the biker thugs.
Matters are proceeding as they should. The police went to the scene of the crime, fired on the thugs when necessary (perhaps killing some), brought matters to a conclusion and they made arrests — 170 of them. Moreover, all people, including whites, want to see justice done. In fact, no small number of whites would no doubt say that more of the thugs should have been shot.
Oh, as for the adjectives, it’s self-evident that the Waco criminals are thugs. The reason why the point had to be made in Baltimore is that politicians, media propagandists and race-baiting activists had euphemized the rioters as “protesters” who cared about Freddie Gray (whom they would have knifed in a second for 50 bucks) and had legitimate grievances. So even Obama, in a rare and fleeting moment of lucidity, pointed out the obvious: get off it — they’re just thugs.
The irony of the Lamestream Media’s reporting on what’s a flawed conception of a double standard is that it was created by their own exercise of a true double standard. As black pundit Larry Elderreported, police shootings of black suspects are down 75 percent over the last several decades, but you wouldn’t know it from cherry-picked reportage that seems designed to incite racial unrest. Consider the following list of perspective-lending realities the media refuses to cover:
- As Elder also wrote, “In 2012, according to the CDC, 140 blacks were killed by police. That same year 386 whites were killed by police. Over the 13-year period from 1999 to 2011, the CDC reports that 2,151 whites were killed by cops — and 1,130 blacks were killed by cops.”
- Of course, blacks are only 13 percent of the population. So far more significantly and as this recent Washington State University study shows, police are actually more willing to shoot white than black suspects. Why? Because police know that, as Ferguson officer Darren Wilson’s experience illustrates, shooting a black criminal can mean media crucifixion, career destruction, death threats and, basically, the end of your life as you know it.
- Black suspects are as likely to shoot at police as to be shot at.
- Relative to whites, blacks are shot by police at a lower rate than their involvement in crime would suggest. As sociologist and ex-cop Professor Peter Moskos writes, “Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks [to] die at the hands of police. Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”
- According to FBI statistics, 46 percent of those who’ve murdered police officers during the last decade have been black.
- Blacks commit more than half of all murders nationwide. And 93 percent of all black homicide victims are murdered by other blacks.
- Stories of generally “unarmed” white suspects being shot by minority police abound but are never reported nationally. There was 20-year old white man Dillon Taylor, who was shot by a Hispanic cop last year; Iraq military veteran James Whitehead, shot by off-duty black police officer Robert Arnold in Texas in 2011 after a verbal altercation; white teen Gil Collar, shot by a black officer at the University of Alabama in 2012; and 46-year-old white man John Geer, shot with his hands up (according to four police officers on the scene) by a Hispanic cop with “anger issues.”
This isn’t to imply that all the above shootings were unjust, but such a standard is hardly necessary for the media to play the race card when reporting the rare white-on-black shootings. In fact, the media will trumpet the causes of obvious thugs, such as Ferguson’s Michael Brown, Baltimore’s Freddie Gray and Trayvon Martin, even in the face of evidence that thugs are precisely what they are.
Speaking of which, what do you think about the coverage of that unarmed 17-year-old shot by that grown man?
No, not cute little Trayvon.
Seventeen-year-old white kid Chris Cervini, shot by black martial artist Roderick Scott in Greece, NY, in 2009. Scott is built like a brick outhouse and admits Cervini never laid a hand on him, but says he thought his life could be in danger. He was acquitted by a mostly white jury, and I don’t question the verdict. But the verdict on the media is clear:
Guilty of using lies that have evoked hatred, fomented racial unrest, sparked riots, caused property destruction and led to innocent people’s deaths.
Guilty of gross malpractice and, by proxy, murder.
Guilty of being destroyers of civilization that have no moral right to exist.
Their precious young minds and our precious young minds…
She was a redheaded rebel, the singer in the family, a trash-talking, tattooed 21-year-old wrapped up in a hip-hop dream of becoming Holland’s Eminem. Then Betsy found Allah. After her sudden conversion to Islam last summer, Betsy began dressing in full Muslim robes. By January, the once-agnostic Dutch woman, raised in a home where the only sign of religion was a dusty Bible on a shelf, began defending homegrown terrorists. … Denis Cuspert, a German hip-hop artist known as Deso Dogg who converted in 2010 and later joined The Islamic State [ISIS], delivers a rap-like chant portraying the path to jihad as a chance for empowerment, spiritual fulfillment, vengeance and adventure. … ‘The door to jihad is standing there waiting for you,’ says a Swedish convert to Islam in a video. ‘It is the fastest way to paradise.’ (1)
Tales told many times in recent years, all over Europe, at times in the United States. Parents and authorities are deeply distressed and perplexed. How can young people raised in the West – the freedom-obsessed, democratic, peace-loving, humanitarian, fun-filled West – join the Islamic State and support the public cutting off of the heads of breathing, living human beings? Each of us in our own way are lost souls searching for answers to the awful mysteries of life. But THIS? What life-quest does The Islamic State satisfy that our beloved West can’t satisfy? ISIS is unique in the world in making US foreign policy look good. The Defense Department and the State Department have special task forces studying the new enemy; the latter regularly puts out videos to counteract the many Islamic State videos.
I hope those researching the question look inwardly as well as at ISIS. How do young people raised in the West – the same West we know and love – coldly machine-gun to death more than a dozen Iraqis, men, women, children, reporters, absolutely in cold blood, in the video made famous by Chelsea Manning; but this of course is nothing compared to Fallujah with its two-headed babies, even three-headed, an eye in the middle of the forehead. The Islamic State has done nothing compared to what the United States did to the people of Fallujah. Can anyone name a horror in all of history more gruesome? Yes, there are some, but not many; and much of Fallujah was personally executed by nice, clean-cut, freedom-obsessed, democratic, peace-loving, humanitarian, fun-filled made-in America young men.
Here’s US Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, in his memoir, April 6, 2004, the time of Fallujah, in video teleconference with President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “We’ve got to smash somebody’s ass quickly,” said Powell. “There has to be a total victory somewhere. We must have a brute demonstration of power.” Then Bush spoke: “At the end of this campaign al-Sadr must be gone. At a minimum, he will be arrested. It is essential he be wiped out. Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can’t send that message. It’s an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal. … There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!” (2)
“Years from now when America looks out on a democratic Middle East, growing in freedom and prosperity, Americans will speak of the battles like Fallujah with the same awe and reverence that we now give to Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima” in World War II. – George W. Bush, 2006 (3)
Well, George, it’s either that or Fallujah was one of the key reasons for the rise of ISIS.
My point here is not that United States foreign policy is as barbaric and depraved as The Islamic State. It’s not. Most of the time. I simply hope to make it a bit easier to understand the enemy by seeing ourselves without the stars in our eyes. And I haven’t even mentioned what the United States has led the world in for over a century – torture.
The ever-fascinating and ever-revealing subject of ideology
Jeb Bush has gotten himself into trouble because, like all politicians running for office, he is unable to give simple honest answers to simple straightforward questions, for fear of offending one or another segment of the population. How refreshing it would be to have a politician say only what s/he actually believes, even if it’s as stupid as usual.
The brother of the previous president has been asked repeatedly: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” At first his answer was “yes”, then at times “I don’t know”, even “no” at least once, or he’s refused to answer at all. Clearly he’s been guessing about which reply would win him points with the most people, or which would lose him the least.
This caused a minor uproar, even among conservatives. Right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham was moved to make a rare rational remark: “You can’t still think that going into Iraq, now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to. If you do, there has to be something wrong with you.”
Such discussions always leave out a critical point. Why did millions of Americans, and even more millions abroad, march against the war in the fall of 2002 and early 2003, before it began? What did they know that the Bush brothers and countless other politicians didn’t know? It was clear to the protesters that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were habitual liars, that they couldn’t care less about the people of Iraq, that the defenseless people of that ancient civilization were going to be bombed to hell; most of the protesters knew something about the bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Yugoslavia, or Afghanistan; and they knew about napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, etc. Those who marched knew that the impending war was something a moral person could not support; and that it was totally illegal, a textbook case of a “war of aggression”; one didn’t have to be an expert in international law to know this.
Didn’t the Brothers Bush, Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war in the Senate), et al know about any of these things? Of course they did. They just didn’t care enough; supporting the empire’s domination and expansion was a given, and remains so; no US politician gets very far – certainly not to the White House – questioning the right of American Exceptionalism to impose itself upon humanity (for humanity’s sake of course).
Consider the darlings du jour of the American Left, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. They very seldom speak out critically about US foreign policy or even the military budget. The anti-war/anti-imperialist segment of the American left need to put proper pressure on the two senators.
Mr. Sanders should also be asked why he routinely refers to himself as a “democratic socialist”. Why not just “socialist”? It’s likely a legacy of the Cold War. I think that he and other political figures who use the term are, consciously or unconsciously, trying to disassociate themselves from communism, the Soviet Union, Marxism, etc., all those things that are not good for you. (The word “socialist” once connoted furtive men with European accents, sinister facial hair, and bombs.)
It would be delightful to hear Sanders openly declare that he is simply a “socialist”. Socialism can be democratic; indeed, a lot more so than capitalism, particularly concerning the distribution of wealth and all the ramifications of that. Presented here are some relevant thoughts on these issues, from myself and others:
It’s only the socialists who maintain as a bedrock principle: People before Profit, which can serve as a very concise definition of socialism, an ideology anathema to the Right and libertarians, who fervently believe, against all evidence, in the rationality of a free market. I personally favor the idea of a centralized, planned economy. (Oh my God, a damn Commie!) Modern society is much too complex and technical to leave its operation in the hands of libertarians, communitarians, or anarchists seeking to return to a “community” or “village” level.
“Washington has always regarded democratic socialism as a greater challenge than totalitarian Communism, which was easy to vilify and made for a handy enemy. In the 1960s and ’70s, the favored tactic for dealing with the inconvenient popularity of economic nationalism and democratic socialism was to try to equate them with Stalinism, deliberately blurring the clear differences between the world views.” – Naomi Klein
“If it is true, as often said, that most socialist regimes turn out to be dictatorships, that is largely because a dictatorship is much harder to overthrow or subvert than a democracy.” – Jean Bricmont, Belgian author of “Humanitarian Imperialism” (2006)
Without a proclaimed socialist vision, radical change becomes too many different things for too many different individuals and groups.
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.” – Martin Luther King
The United States is so fearful of the word “socialism” that it changed the “social sciences” to the “behavioral sciences”.
If for no other reason than to save the environment, the world needs to abandon the capitalist system. Every day, in every spot on earth, in a multitude of ways, corporations are faced with a choice: to optimize profits or to do what’s best for the planet.
The great majority of people in any society work for a salary. They don’t need to be motivated by the profit motive. It’s not in anyone’s genes. Virtually everybody, if given the choice, would prefer to work at jobs where the main motivations are to help others, improve the quality of life of society, and provide themselves with meaningful and satisfying work. It’s not natural to be primarily motivated by trying to win or steal “customers” from other people, no holds barred, survival of the fittest or the least honest.
And what about this thing called “democracy”, or “majority rule”? Many millions marched against the invasion of Iraq before it began. I don’t know of a single soul who marched in favor of it, although I’m sure there must have been someone somewhere. That lucky soul was the one they listened to.
Finally, the question being asked of Jeb Bush and others is not the best one. They’re asked: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” A more important question would be: “Knowing what we knew then, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” And the answer should be “no”, because we knew that Saddam Hussein had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction. This is very well documented, from diverse sources, international and Iraqi, including Saddam himself and his chief lieutenants.
The American Mainstream Media – A Classic Tale Of Propaganda
“When an American warplane accidentally struck the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 during the Kosovo campaign …”
These words appeared in the Washington Post on April 24, 2015 as part of a story about US drone warfare and how an American drone attack in Pakistan in January had accidentally killed two Western aid workers. The Post felt no need to document the Belgrade incident, or explain it any further. Almost anyone who follows international news halfway seriously knows about this famous “accident” of May 7, 1999. The only problem is that the story is pure propaganda.
Three people inside the Chinese embassy were killed and Washington apologized profusely to Beijing, blaming outdated maps among other problems. However, two well-documented and very convincing reports in The Observer of London in October and November of that year, based on NATO and US military and intelligence sources, revealed that the embassy had been purposely targeted after NATO discovered that it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications. The Chinese were doing this after NATO planes had successfully silenced the Yugoslav government’s own transmitters. (5) The story of how the US mainstream media covered up the real story behind the embassy bombing is absolutely embarrassing. (6)
Over and above the military need, there may have been a political purpose served. China, then as now, was clearly the principal barrier to US hegemony in Asia, if not elsewhere. The bombing of the embassy was perhaps Washington’s charming way of telling Beijing that this is only a small sample of what can happen to you if you have any ideas of resisting or competing with the American juggernaut. Since an American bombing campaign over Belgrade was already being carried out, Washington was able to have a much better than usual “plausible denial” for the embassy bombing. The opportunity may have been irresistible to American leaders. The chance might never come again.
All of US/NATO’s other bombing “mistakes” in Yugoslavia were typically followed by their spokesman telling the world: “We regret the loss of life.” These same words were used by the IRA in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions over the years following one of their bombings which appeared to have struck the wrong target. But their actions were invariably called “terrorist”.
Undoubtedly, the US media will be writing of the “accidental” American bombing of the Chinese embassy as long as the empire exists and China does not become a member of NATO.
1) Washington Post, May 7, 2015
2) Ricardo Sanchez, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier’s Story (2008), pages 349-350
3) Associated Press, November 11, 2006
4) William Blum, America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy, pp. 61-2
5) The Observer (London), October 17, 1999 (“Nato bombed Chinese deliberately”), and November 28, 1999 (“Truth behind America’s raid on Belgrade”)
6) Extra! Update (magazine of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR], New York), December 1999; appeared first as solitary article October 22, 1999 (“U.S. Media Overlook Expose on Chinese Embassy Bombing”)
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.
Chuck Pierce claims he’s a “prophet” in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) or what many refer to as Dominionism. Because of Pierce’s elevated status, he recently bestowed a “new mantle for the future” on Glenn Beck, popular TV/radio host, author and speaker. “Prophet” Pierce presented the mantle to Beck at Global Spheres Center in Corinth, Texas as Mrs. Beck looked on.
Beck’s fans often hear him boast that he’s a Christian. But let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Substantiation for this statement, if for no other reason, lies in the fact that he’s a proud member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). When former Mormon Ed Decker of Saints Alive got wind of Beck’s mantle ceremony, he remarked:
For Chuck Pierce to claim that he was instructed of God to lay hands and [bestow] a holy mantle … for a man who claims a false priesthood, who sits under an exalted man-god who lives on a planet near the great star Kolob with his many goddess wives—that claim is of the father of lies, coming from the mouth of a very false prophet.
This is Mormon theology in a nutshell, brethren. And no true Mormon will deny it. (I don’t have the space to address specific concerns on Mormon theology so I’m providing alink for those who wish to learn more.) My point is that by choosing someone who’s not a Christian, Chuck Pierce had to have received his “mantle bestowing instructions” from someone other than God, if he got them at all. In his books, Beck clearly lays out his beliefs. He’s not a cookie cutter Mormon by any stretch. In fact, the beliefs he holds are a blend of Mormonism, New Age, New Thought, and occult! Which begs the question: If Chuck Pierce is a true prophet of God, how could he have missed this?
Before I expand on the mantle presentation and its significance, I must point out that many people believe that the NAR is a theological cult even though its movers and shakers (I mean this quite literally) insist that it’s not.
So, what exactly is a cult? Noted Bible scholar and founder of the Christian Research Institute, Walter Martin, described the cult of liberalism thusly:
It is a cult because it follows every outlined structure of cultism; its own revelations; its own gurus, and its denial–systematically–of all sound systematic Christian theology. It is a cult because it passes its leadership on to the next group that takes over–either modifying, expanding or contracting–the same heresies; dressing them up in different language, and passing them on. It is theologically corrupt because it is bibliologically corrupt; it denies the authority of Scripture, it ruins its own theology. And it ends in immorality; because the only way you could have gotten to this homosexual, morally relativistic garbage–which is today in our denominational structures–is if the leadership of those denominations denied the authority of the Scriptures and Jesus Christ as Lord. (Walter Martin, The Cult of Liberalism, CD Rom, 1985)
Dr. Martin had strong opinions on the cults and the occult. In the above discussion he expressed his concern over liberalism, which had infiltrated the visible Church. Some of the NAR’s teaching fits Dr. Martin’s definition. Besides denying the authority of Scripture and relying on new revelations, NAR promotes Dominionism. Three quick examples: 1) Satan usurped man’s dominion over the earth through the temptation of Adam and Eve; 2) The Church is God’s instrument to take dominion back from Satan; 3) Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has taken dominion by gaining control of the earth’s governmental and social institutions. (Source)
Other unbiblical beliefs are:
Leading figures in this seemingly loosely organized movement claim that these prophets and apostles alone have the power and authority to execute God’s plans and purposes on earth. They believe they are laying the foundation for a global church, governed by them. (Source)
So now that you understand a bit about the NAR, I’ll move on to the mantle ceremony.
It’s not often we’re given the opportunity to witness a couple of high ranking false prophets, one NAR the other LDS, sharing a stage together …except at the “Reclaim America” events. Because Beck was involved, the ceremony caught the attention of the press and the news quickly spread throughout the blogosphere. Not surprisingly, there were NAR folk who were not happy when they learned that their second in command (for now C. Peter Wagner is the self-professed “Presiding Apostle”) had mantled a Mormon. What’s the significance of receiving a “mantle”?:
Anyone who is deeply involved in the NAR understands what it means when a prophet presents a “mantle” to someone. This practice is an allusion to a story in 1 Kings 19:19, when the prophet Elijah gives to the prophet Elisha his cloak–or “mantle,” as the word is rendered in the King James Version. This biblical story is interpreted by people in the NAR as a symbolic action, showing that the prophet Elijah was naming the prophet Elisha as his prophetic successor.
So when Pierce presented a mantle to Beck, people in the audience–who regard Pierce as a prophet–understood that their prophet was conferring some type of prophetic status on Beck. This should trouble Christians. Why? Because a leading prophet in the NAR is recognizing a member of the Mormon church–a cult of Christianity, which rejects essential doctrines of the Christian faith– as a true messenger of God. A true prophet of God would do no such thing.
Pierce apparently felt the need to offer a further justification for his action. Yesterday he posted a lengthier comment in which he acknowledged that Beck is a Mormon–though he also hinted that Beck may be on the path to becoming fully Christian. (And take notice that he referred to Beck as a specific individual’s “son in the Lord”–language that is typically used by Christians to describe a true Christian believer.) Certainly, many of Pierce’s followers have interpreted Pierce’s action to mean that he recognizes Beck as a fellow Christian. (Source)
First off, when Glenn Beck repents of his sins and puts his faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible and leaves his church, we’ll know he’s sincere. But at the moment he has placed his faith in the Jesus Mormon founder and “prophet” Joseph Smith dreamed up, the Jesus who, according to Smith’s writings, is the spirit brother of Lucifer.
What’s so amusing about what went on at the Global Spheres Center is that both of these men are false prophets. Since there’s no denying this, we can safely say that neither one of them is saved. All we need do is look at the fruit. Their fruit’s so rotten that Smuckers would reject it.
Who do we have to thank for mainstreaming the NAR? Pro-family leaders! They’ve made a concerted effort to team up with apostates in their all out effort to “save America.” As a result, a whole host of undiscerning Christians, who trust evangelical leaders, think that anyone involved in pro-family causes are true believers. No doubt some of them are. But many are false converts. The Fact is, anyone who buys into NAR’s unscriptural beliefs is extremely weak in discerning truth from fiction.
Unbeknownst to many people in the Church, the religious and/or Christian Right (CR) and other leaders in the evangelical community have joined together with NAR and LDS folks in order to fight the culture war. Ecumenicism, anyone? And until recently very few Christians even realized this was going on. I reported on the CR’s penchant for joining forces with apostates here.
“The NAR is powerful,” says author and speaker John Lanagan, “and thankfully does not rule the entire Body of Christ. But what have NAR leaders brought us? False eschatology, false visions, contemplative prayer (IHOP-KC and Bethel Redding), twisted doctrine, introduction to quantum mysticism (Bill Johnson, Mark Chironna), occult Kabbalah (Pierce), and mantles to nowhere.” (Source)
Lanagan’s reference to “Kabbalah” caught my attention. So I decided to investigate. Although I don’t always agree with The Berean Call, I’m going to include an excerpt from a piece they wrote on Pierce’s infatuation with Kabbalah:
Chuck Pierce, along with his partner, Robert Heidler, teaches much more than keeping the Old Testament feasts. Indeed, they have gone far beyond keeping such celebrations as Passover and have delved into “Christianized” forms of astrology, numerology, etc., and the kabbalah(embraced by celebrities Rosie O’Donnell, Madonna, et al.)
An infatuation with mysticism will always take one away from the Scriptures and now takes Pierce and Heidler into Jewishmysticism. For example, consider the following statement from Kabbalah 365, “Daily Fruit from the Tree of Life,” Day 131: “Although the air of the earthly atmosphere is thick in volume and mass, the mystery wisdom of the spirit realm still manages to enter this world because of the birds. For when the birds are in flight, their flapping wings cut through the thickness of the atmosphere, enabling in the moment for the mystery wisdom of the spirit realm to come through to our world.”
On May 2, 2008, Pierce issued what he calls “A Key Prophetic Word!” that parallels the kaballah: “I have come to make room for you to ascend to a new height. Extend your wings. Then extend them again. Stretch them to the left and the right. It is time for you to take flight!” (http://www.glory-of-zion.org/outmail/5-2-08_EuropeTripLetterOnline.htm).
Here’s another example: “I am sorting out those situations that are presently confining you. I am coming in with a sorting instrument to begin to sort that which has kept evil in your midst, working against My best purpose for your life. I will sort out the confusion that is around you. I am sending help now. What you need will be sorted out and your path will be rearranged. I AM coming down and cutting through the atmosphere that has been too thick for your vision to progress” (Ibid.).
That’s another parallel to kabbalah: “Your mind serves as a mail sorting room, where thousands of pieces of mail flow in to be sorted. The items that cannot be ‘sorted’ are swept into a pile, which we call the subconscious. Kabbalah gives you ten slots (Sephiroth) to sort the incoming mind processes in to, and making things manageable!” (http://www.thelivinglightfoundation.com/classesKabbalah.php).
(Links are BC’s — Source)
First of all, doesn’t God tell His people in no uncertain terms to stay away from occult practices? (Leviticus 18:1-5) Jewish mysticism is all about the occult. And besides that, Kabbalah’s considered a cult! Obviously Prophet Pierce is aware of this fact and has chosen to disobey God by immersing himself in occult practices. And the sheep follow the wolf into the woods…
Even though I found nothing to link Glenn Beck to Jewish mysticism, John Lanagan pointed me to a Youtube video produced by discerners over at Psalm 86 that links Mormonism to the Kabbalah. View the video here.
So – if NAR and LDS are truly Christian, as they claim, how can they possibly be involved in Jewish mysticism? Moreover, if NAR and LDS are truly Christian, as they claim, which of them is the real deal? Inquiring minds want to know.
Anyone who wishes to know the truth must go to the scriptures to find it. “The best way to guard yourself against falsehood and false teachers,” says Charles Ryrie, “is to know the truth. To spot a counterfeit, study the real thing. Any believer who “correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) and who makes a careful study of the Bible can identify false doctrine. For example, a believer who has read the activities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 3:16-17 will immediately question any doctrine that denies the Trinity. Therefore, step one is to study the Bible and judge all teaching by what the Scripture says.” (Source)
If a professing Christian holds fast to what the Bible teaches, the conclusion he will come to is that NAR and LDS theology is decidedlyunbiblical. And if their beliefs don’t line up with Scripture (reject what God expressly says in His Word) then it matters not that they’re “good people” or “good deed doers,” or really good looking, in reality they’re the enemy of God. In other words, they’re not with Him, they’re in cahoots with Satan. “Whoever is not with me is against me…” (Matthew 12:30)
There’s a stark divide between historic orthodox Christianity and the New Apostolic Reformation, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Kabbalah, Word of Faith,Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hebrew Roots, and a whole host of equally dangerous counterfeits that spread a false gospel that saves no one. (1 Cor. 15:1-6)
I’ll close with a reminder from Peter:
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8)
Controversy Stirs as ‘Prophet’ Chuck Pierce Bestows ‘Mantle’ on Mormon Glenn Beck—Christian News Network
What is Kabbalah?—Got Questions
Grave sucking, prayers/baptism of the dead, and Kabbalah—video produced by Psalm 86 lays out “connection of modern heresy to Kabbalah. Via the adoration of the dead from NAR (hyper-charismatics) to Mormons to Catholics. It all stems from Jewish Mysticism thus Kabbalah”
For those who have concerns about the NAR, Diana Lesperance of Narrow Way Apologetics offers her advice:
keep an eye on two organizations: the International Coalition of Apostolic Leaders, led by “Convening Apostle” John P. Kelly, and its daughter structure, the European Coalition of Apostolic Leaders, led by “convener” Jan-Aage Torp. These two networks are energetically working “to build apostolic government in all cities and regions.” You may be surprised to learn just how extensively apostles in many nations are networking to promote NAR teachings. Here are links to their websites.
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.
Today many intellectuals and modern theologians slavishly follow after whatever passes for current trends in scientific and evolutionary theory, thus they believe the Genesis account ex nihilo, the supernatural, the fall, miracles, the Resurrection of Christ, hell, angels, demons and possession are out dated concepts. Despite this, in 1967 Mortimer J. Adler, the guiding genius behind The Encyclopedia Britannica and Great Books of the Western World, predicted that belief in a spiritual reality would not only return but be considered orthodox science. His prediction has come true, for today, Eastern-oriented occult pantheism (evolutionary New Age cosmic humanism (1) and esoteric neo-pagan materialism (evolutionary secular humanism) have nearly merged, making it difficult to distinguish one from the other.
Over the past three hundred years, the Western Christian tradition has slowly but steadily been eclipsed, first by scientific evolutionary materialism, now by Eastern-oriented scientific cosmic humanism which has infused and spiritualized the former, transforming it into an agency for the transmission of the naturalistic structure of the evolving universe of matter and psychic energy and other revelations from fallen angels and evil spirits. This legion of disembodied beings call themselves everything from Transcended Masters to Maitreya, Semjase, the Council of Nine, Space Brothers and ancient Ennead of Egypt together with evil spirits going by such names as god, christ and jesus. All of this has led Martin Lloyd-Jones to declare:
“The modern world, and especially the history of the present century, can only be understood in terms of the unusual activity of the devil and the “principalities and powers” of darkness…In a world of collapsing institutions, moral chaos, and increasing violence, never was it more important to trace the hand of the “prince of the power of the air.” If we cannot discern the chief cause of our ills, how can we hope to cure them?” The Christian Warfare
In the space of a few short decades occult New Age spirituality (2) has made profound inroads. Its upsurge manifests itself in the form of everything from obsession with the paranormal, channeling cults, ghost-hunting, necromancy, light-bearers, spirit guides (3), goddess worship, shamanism, transcendental meditation and visualization (4), ‘new’ contemplative or centering prayer (5), the enneagram (6), labyrinth walking (7), yoga (8), Wicca (9), revitalized Norse paganism, transformational festivals (10), vampires (11), Ouija boards (12), poltergeists (13), the proliferation of ‘new’ religions and Lucifer as the Angel of Light:
“Medium and psychic Sylvia Browne admits there are dark entities that choose from the beginning to be this way, but she denies the devil. According to Browne, God sent Lucifer down to watch over people when God saw they had chosen “the dark side.” According to Browne, “Lucifer is neither dark nor fallen. He wasn’t rejected by God or banished from the light.” (The Dark Side: Beyond Good and Evil, Marcia Montenegro, Christian Answers for the New Age)
The hugely popular “new” contemplative or centering prayer (5) is a hybrid drawn from prayer practices of the Christian contemplative heritage fused with Eastern mysticism. The hybrid version,
“…originated in St Joseph’s Abbey, a Trappist monastery in Spencer, Massachusetts. During the twenty years (1961-1981) when Keating was abbot, St Joseph’s held dialogues with Buddhist and Hindu representatives, and a Zen master gave a week-long retreat to the monks. A former Trappist monk who had become a Transcendental Meditation teacher also gave a session to the monks. ….Centering prayer is essentially a form of self-hypnosis. It makes use of a “mantra,” a word repeated over and over to focus the mind while striving by one’s will to go deep within oneself. The effects are a hypnotic-like state…” (The Danger of Centering Prayer, Rev. John D. Dreher, Catholic Education Resource Center)
In the foreword to Philip St. Romains book, “Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality,” Keating acknowledges that kundalini energy is the focus of the “new” Christian contemplative prayer. He states:
“Since this energy [kundalini] is also at work today in numerous persons who are devoting themselves to contemplative prayer, this book is an important contribution to the renewal of the Christian contemplative tradition. It will be a great consolation to those who have experienced physical symptoms arising from the awakening of kundalini in the course of their spiritual journey … Most spiritual disciplines world-wide insist on some kind of serious discipline before techniques of awakening kundalini are communicated. In Christian tradition … the regular practice of the stages of Christian prayer … contemplation are the essential disciplines…” (Kundalini Energy (Serpent Power) Same as Contemplative Silence, lighthousetrailsresearch)
Psychical researcher J.D. Pearce-Higgins, vice chairman of the Churches Fellowship for Psychical and Spiritual Studies (Great Britain) writes of the hazards of Ouija board (11) use and automatic writing:
“These apparently simple methods of attempting contact…are extremely dangerous. (People will become) obsessed or possessed by some…damaging spirit who has got control of them and won’t let go. They are compelled to go on with automatic writing—at all hours of day and night (and) may begin to hear…voices telling them to do stupid and filthy things; they are no longer master in the house of their own minds and souls.” (ibid, pp. 129-130)
From England to Australia and New Zealand, from South America to E. Europe, Canada and the United States, occult spirituality is quickly becoming the West’s dominant orthodoxy, leading America’s mainstream media to report:
“Neopaganism Growing Quickly: Numbers Roughly Double Every 18 Months in United States, Canada, and Europe.” (Denver Post, June 26, 2008; How Evil Works, David Kupelian, p. 115)
“Sorcery Sells, and the Young are Buying” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 10, 2007 (ibid)
“Wicca is Believed to be One of the Fastest-Growing Religions Among High School and College Students” National Public Radio, May 13, 2004 (ibid)
In his book, “America’s Schools: The Battleground for Freedom,” Allen Quist warns:
“New Age religion is now aggressively being taught in our nation’s public schools.” A model curriculum has been developed that “is clearly centered on pantheism.” “Much of what passes for environmental education and multiculturalism is really indoctrination in pantheistic/New Age theology. The ACLU and other similar organizations have no objections to (pantheistic indoctrination). It is only Christianity that these organizations object to.” (p. 51)
Today millions of Westerners are risking everything to seek the occult world and its’ alluring power. In “One or Two?” Dr. Peter Jones, Director of truthXchange and Adjunct Professor of New Testament at Westminster Seminary California writes that a wide variety of occult spirituality is now available.
There is something for everyone:
“A Course in Miracles, Alchemy, American Indian Quest, Ancient Mythology, Arkashic Record, Aryuvedic Medicine, Astrology, Bahai’i Unity, Buddhism, Buddhist/Christian Dialogue, Chakras, Channeling, Christian Monastic Mysticism, Crystals, Divination, Dream work, Druidism, Eastern Meditation, Eckankar (soul travel), Ecofeminism, Enneagram, EST, Feng Shui, Gnosticism (ancient and modern), Goddess worship, Hare Krishna, Hermeticism, Higher Self, Hinduism, Holism, Human Potential Movement, Hypnosis, I Ching, Iridology, Jungian Transpersonal Psychology, Kabbalah, Karma, Mandalas, Mantras, Mind-altering drugs, Parapsychology, Past Life Regressions, Reiki, Re-incarnation, Religious syncretism, Rolfing, Sacred Technologies, Santeria, Scientology, Shamanism, Sufism, T’ai Chi, Tantrism, Tarot Cards, Teilhardism, Therapeutic Touch, Tikkun, Transcendental Meditation, Ufology, Urantia Book, Visualization, Wicca, Yoga, Zen.” (pp. 40-41)
It is well documented that perversions, murder, possession and other evils, including human sacrifice, occur in Western witchcraft, Satanism and Eastern mysticism (e.g., tantric yoga) as well as pagan and pantheist occult religion in general. In his “Occultism, Witchcraft and Cultural Fashions,” the noted cultural anthropologist Mircea Eliade of the University of Chicago refers to the interconnections between European witchcraft and Hindu Tantric yoga. He argues that “even a rapid perusal of the Hindu and Tibetan documents” reveals the connection:
“As a matter of fact, all the features associated with European witches are—with the exception of Satan and the Sabbath—claimed also by Indo-Tibetan yogis and magicians. They too are supposed to fly through the air, render themselves invisible, kill at a distance, master demons and ghosts, and so on. Moreover, some of(them) boast that they break all the religious taboos and social rules; that they practice human sacrifice, cannibalism, and all manner of orgies, including incestuous intercourse, and that they eat excrement, nauseating animals, and devour human corpses. In other words, they proudly claim all the crimes and horrible ceremonies cited ad nauseum in the western European witch trials.” (Psychic Forces, Chapter 22, “The Occult History of Parapsychology,” Clifford Wilson and John Weldon, pp. 341-49)
The very popular Tantra Kundalini yoga is based on the occultic chakra system which teaches that a universal evolutionary energy (Kundalini Shakti, the Supreme Power; serpent power) coiled at the base of the spine flows through human beings and through all of creation, uniting everything above and everything below, thus acknowledging divinity in all things and all people. Through strenuous yoga and other occult techniques outlined in ancient and modern texts, Kundalini Shakti uncoils and rises through seven “chakras” or power centers within the human body. During so-called kundalini arousal, which may last for months or even years, protracted insanity and/or demonization must be endured. In the words of power yogi Muktananda:
“I was assailed by all sorts of perverse and defiling emotions….my breathing (became) disturbed…my abdomen would swell with air…my mind was sick with fear (my)thoughts became confused, meaningless. My limbs and body got hotter and hotter….Then I felt a searing pain…I wanted to run away, but my legs were locked tight in the lotus posture…..Then…a moonlike sphere…came floating in (it) struck against my eyes and…passed inside me…I was terrified (but) still locked in the lotus posture(with) my head forced down and glued to the ground….I started to make a sound like a camel, which alternated with the roaring of a tiger (I went) completely insane(and jumped and hopped) like a frog (while) my limbs (shook) violently. (Later) I learned that this was a Hatha Yoga process effected by the Goddess Kundalini in order for Her to move up through the spinal column into the sahasrana (upper psychic center.)” (Play of Consciousness, Swami Muktananda, pp. 75-81, 84-85, 88-89)
With continued practice, surrender, and preparation, one day the kundalini current will reach full voltage and there will no longer be ‘anybody home’ but an unholy spirit residing in an empty shell of a body:
“The moment of power transfer had come….Muktananda (adept of Nityananda) was about to make the timeless journey….of the power yogi (the Siddha), but it required the catalytic power of the master guru, Nityananda…who was God to Muktananda, therefore worthy of worship as the supreme Deity. The voyage of consciousness, prized by the ancients, would split Muktananda into fragments…Sometimes (his) body would writhe and twist like a snake’s while a hissing sound would come from inside (him).” Finally it happened—explosion, the point of no return where Muktananda “as an individual would be obliterated. Superconscious states would take control of him, and his consciousness would be kicked out to more and more remote levels.” “In place of the former person was the walking void, the Unself, the hollow shell filled with the soul of the universe…” (Riders of the Cosmic Circuit, Tal Brooke, pp. 36-45)
Like “new” contemplative prayer and other occultisms, yoga does not liberate; it enslaves and binds. It does not enlighten but brings confusion and insanity. It makes people immune to redemption through Christ,
“Yoga does not open the door for the Holy Spirit, but for spiritist spirits.” (Occult ABC: Exposing Occult Practices and Ideologies, Kurt E. Koch, p. 259)
Occult (Demonic) Bondage
According to Dr. Kurt Koch (1913-1987), a noted German theologian and minister with extensive personal experience in counseling and delivering thousands of people held in occult bondage, modern theologians who follow current scientific trends would be shocked by how many of the so-called scientists and intellectuals they slavishly follow have turned to occultism and spiritism (sorcery) and become demonized as a result. Be they scientist or otherwise, all who trespass into Satan’s domain by committing sins of sorcery will be harassed by the powers of darkness, irrespective of whether they take the step consciously or unconsciously. Every sin of sorcery (occultism) cuts a person off from the Holy God and opens the door to demonic bondage. Any person who serves the devil (occult), will receive the devil’s wages (Exod. 7:11-12; Lev. 19: 26, 32; Zech. 12:2; Mal. 3:5; Acts 8:16; Acts 16:16; 1 Sam. 28; 2 Chron. 10:13-14; Isaiah 2:6; 8:19; Jer. 27:9, 10; Gal. 5:20; 2 Tim. 3:8; Rev. 21:8; Rev. 22:15). Thus when a person abandons the Holy Triune God through sins of sorcery, he abandons his inner person (mind, will, conscience) at the same time as seen in relation to psychological disturbances having the following predominant characteristics:
(1) Warped, distorted character: hard-edged egoism; uncongenial, dark nature.
(2) Extreme passions: hard-edged egoism, abnormal sexuality (sodomy, lesbianism, sadomasochism, bestiality, pedophilia, pederasty, zoophiles); violent temper, belligerence; tendencies to addiction; meanness and kleptomania; compulsive lying.
(3) Emotional disturbances; compulsive thoughts of murder and suicide, anxiety states.
(4) Possession with destructive urges, fits of mania; tendency to violent acts and crime
(6) Bigoted attitude against Christ and God; conscious atheism; simulated piety; indifference to God’s word and to prayer; blasphemous thoughts; religious delusions.
The ultimate goal of fallen angels and evil spirits is degradation and desecration of mans’ inner person, the spiritual part of him created in the image of the Holy God. So what are systematically defaced and desecrated are the mind, will, conscience and sense of good and evil.
Demonic Darkness: America’s Invisible Wave of Evil
Carl A. Raschke is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Denver specializing in Continental philosophy and the philosophy and theory of religion. He is also America’s leading authority on subcultures of demonic darkness. In his fully-documented work, “Painted Black” he puts together a terrifying puzzle to reveal the chilling facts and cases behind an invisible wave of evil working through the minds of children and adults and subsequently sweeping over and across our nation outwardly manifest in an alarming epidemic of violence and madness that Western therapeutic science explains away as hallucinations, genetic influences and chemical disturbances. Such a posture, said Raschke, hinges on the most incredible delusion that the “symbol of the Devil does not at all mean what the symbol of the Devil has always meant…” (Painted Black, p.404).
According to Rashcke, demonic bondage does not always manifest itself in a will to do evil:
“Many of today’s young satanists (are characterized) by a metaphysics of exhaustion and despair. A culture of despair becomes ever easier pickings for the…child pornographers (and the) professional (satanic) terrorists themselves. Satanism has already yielded a climate of fear in middle-class quarters where fear had never flourished before.” (p. 406)
A culture of “exhaustion and despair” also welcomes demonized perverse ‘sex-educators’ (14) and professional satanic terrorists like the 9/11 murderers and ISIS.
Where occult bondage manifests itself in a will to do evil it is seen in the recent Dark Knight movie murders (15) and in the following chilling account:
“In a chilling 911 call, Texas teen Jake Evans spent 20 minutes calmly recounting how he shot and killed his mother and sister, calling himself “evil.” (Texas Teen Tells 911 It Was Weird to Kill His Mother and Sister, abcnews, Oct. 5, 2012)
“It’s weird,” an even-voiced Evans told the 911 dispatcher. “I wasn’t even really angry with them. It just kind of happened. I’ve been kind of planning on killing for a while now.” “I’ll never forget this. My sister, she came down the stairs and she was screaming and I was telling her that I’m sorry but to just hold still–that, you know, I was just going to make it go away,” he said. “But she just kept on freaking out, but finally she fell down, and I got her in the head about, probably, three times.” “Just to let you know, I hate the feeling of killing someone. I’m going to be messed up,” he told the operator.” “I’m really worried about nightmares and stuff like that. Are there any type of medications for that and stuff?”
America’s secularized culture is a spiritual vacuum into which innumerable dark psychic forces have flooded. Most of the present destructive generation is sick, lawless, narcissistic, and undisciplined. America, the dying leader of the world, bleeds from thousands of self-inflicted wounds as she marches toward her own destruction to the beat of unseen drummers.
The clearest answer to the evil conditions of our times is found in the Bible. We are living in the Last Days. The final pages of history are now being read. Our time,
“…can only be understood aright in the light of the prophetic word. Satan is mobilizing all his forces for an all-out attack. The demonic world has entered the final lap….To fail, therefore, to take our stand at the foot of the cross, to fail to build our house upon the Rock, is to be swept away by the turmoil of the End-Times. We are living in days of a demonic nature!” (Demonology Past and Present, Kurt E. Koch, p. 37)
- The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes, Adler, p. 294
- The New Age. What is it? Marcia Montenegro, Christian Answers for the New Age
- SPIRIT CONTACT: WHO IS ON THE OTHER SIDE? ibid
- OUT OF YOUR MIND: MEDITATION AND VISUALIZATION, ibid
- Centering Prayer, Matt Slick, CARM; The Danger of Centering Prayer, Rev. John D. Dreher, Catholic Education Resource Center; Contemplating Contemplative Prayer: Is It Really Prayer? Montenegro
- The enneagram gps: gnostic path to self, Montenegro; National Pastor’s Convention Using Occultic Enneagram, lighthousetrailsresearch.com, Dec. 12, 2006
- THE LABYRINTH: A WALK BY FAITH? Montenegro
- Christian yoga: an oxymoron? Marcia Montenegro
- WITCHCRAFT, WICCA AND NEOPAGANISM, ibid
- Transformational Festivals, The Freedom Report
- THE VAMPYRE UNDERGROUND, Montenegro
- THE OUIJA BOARD — JUST A GAME???, ibid
- Poltergeists—An Evaluation of a Demonic Phenomenon, inplainsite.org
- The Little Black Book http://www.article8.net/downloads/LittleBlackBook.pdf
- James Holmes Charged With 24 Counts of Murder in Dark Knight Rises Massacre, usmagazine.com
Eleven years ago I wrote a column for the print edition of Chronicles under this title. Tom Piatak’s grim reminder of the continued destructive presence of this cabal in what passes for the commentariat in today’s America has prompted me to dig into my old files and recap for our readers the historical and ideological roots of neoconservatism. The 2004 diagnosis, reproduced here in an abbreviated form, still stands.
The neoconservatives are often depicted as former Trotskyites who have morphed into a new, closely related life form. It is pointed out that many early neocons—including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert Wohlstetter—belonged to the anti-Stalinist far left in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and that their successors, including Joshua Muravchik and Carl Gershman, came to neoconservatism through the Socialist Party at a time when it was Trotskyite in outlook and politics. As early as 1963 Richard Hofstadter commented on the progression of many ex-Communists from the paranoid left to the paranoid right, clinging all the while to the fundamentally Manichean psychology that underlies both. [Half a century] later the dominant strain of neoconservatism is declared to be a mixture of geopolitical militarism and “inverted socialist internationalism.”
Blanket depictions of neoconservatives as redesigned Trotskyites need to be corrected in favor of a more nuanced analysis. In several important respects the neoconservative world outlook has diverged from the Trotskyite one and acquired some striking similarities with Stalinism and German National Socialism. Today’s neoconservatives share with Stalin and Hitler an ideology of nationalist socialism and internationalist imperialism. The similarities deserve closer scrutiny and may contribute to a better understanding of the most influential group in the U.S. foreign policy-making community.
Certain important differences remain, notably the neoconservatives’ hostility not only to Nazi race-theory but even to the most benign understanding of national or ethnic coherence. On the surface, there are also glaring differences in economics. However, the neoconservative glorification of the free market is mere rhetoric, designed to placate the businessmen who fund them, than reality. In fact, the neoconservatives favor not free enterprise but a kind of state capitalism—within the context of the global apparatus of the World Bank and the IMF—that Hitler would have appreciated.
Some form of gradual but irreversible and desirable withering away of the state is a key tenet of the Trotskyite theoretical outlook. The neoconservatives, by contrast, are statists par excellence. Their core belief—that society can be managed by the state in both its political and economic life—is equally at odds with the traditional conservative outlook and with the non-Stalinist Left. In this important respect the neoconservatives are much closer to Stalinism and National Socialism.
They do not want to abolish the state; they want to control it—especially if the state they control is capable of controlling all others. They are not “patriotic” in any conventional sense of the term and do not identify themselves with the real and historic America but see the United States merely as the host organism for the exercise of their Will to Power. Whereas the American political tradition has been fixated on the dangers of centralized state power, on the desirability of limited government and non-intervention in foreign affairs, the neoconservatives exalt and worship state power, and want America to become a hyper-state in order to be an effective global hegemon. Even when they support local government it is on the grounds that it is more efficient and responsive to the demands of the Empire, not on constitutional grounds.
The neoconservative view of America as a hybrid, “imagined” nation had an ardent supporter eight decades ago: in Mein Kampf Adolf Hitler argued for a new, tightly centralized Germany by invoking the example of the United States and the triumph of the Union over states’ rights. He concluded that “National Socialism, as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries.”
Hitler was going to make a new Germany the way he imagined it, or else destroy it. In the same vein the Weekly Standard writers are “patriots” only insofar as the America they imagine is a pliable tool of their global design. Their relentless pursuit of an American Empire overseas is coupled by their deliberate domestic transformation of the United States’ federal government into a Leviathan unbound by constitutional restraints. The lines they inserted into President Bush’s State of the Union address [in January 2004] aptly summarized their Messianic obsessions: the call of history has come to the right country, we exercise power without conquest, and sacrifice for the liberty of strangers, we know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation: “The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.”
Such megalomania is light years away from a patriotic appreciation of one’s nation. A psychotic quest for power and dominance is the driving force, and the “nationalist” discourse its justification. The reality is visible in ultimate distress: Towards the end of the Second World War Josef Goebbels welcomed the Allied bombing for its destruction of the old bourgeois cuckoo-clock and marzipan Germany of the feudal principalities. Driven by the same impulse, Bill Kristol’s “national greatness” psychosis seeks to sweep away the old localized, decentralized America of bingo parlors and little league games.
Most heirs of the Trotskyite Left are internationalists and one-world globalists, whereas all neoconservatives are unabashed imperialists. The former advocate “multilateralism,” in the form of an emerging “international community” controlled by the United Nations or through a gradual transfer of sovereign prerogatives to regional groupings exemplified by the European Union. By contrast the neoconservative urge for uninhibited physical control of other lands and peoples bears resemblance to the New European Order of [the early 1940’s], or to the “Socialist Community” that succeeded it in Eastern Europe. Even when they demand wars to export democracy, the term “democracy” is used as an ideological concept. It does not signify broad participation of informed citizens in the business of governance, but it denotes the desirable social and political content of ostensibly popular decisions . . .
Whereas the Trotskyite Left is predominantly anti-militarist, the neoconservatives are enthusiastically militarist in a manner reminiscent of German and Soviet totalitarianism. Their strategic doctrine, promulgated into official policy [in September 2002], calls for an indefinite and massive military build-up unconnected to any identifiable military threat to the United States. Their scribes demand ‘citizen involvement,’ in effect, militarization of the populace, but the traditional ‘citizen soldier’ concept is reversed . . .
The neoconservative mindset is apocalyptic (which is a Nazi and Stalinist trait), rather than utopian (which characterizes the Trotskyite Left). The replacement of the Soviet threat with the more amorphous “terrorism” reflects the doomsday revolutionary mentality that can never rest. New missions and new wars will have to be engineered, and pretexts manufactured, with the same subtlety that characterized the “attack” on the German radio station at Gleiwitz on August 31, 1939. Even the tools for the enforcement of domestic acquiescence are not dissimilar: the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the Reichstag fire. Echoing the revolutionary dynamism and the historicist Messianism equally common to fascists and communists, Michael Ledeen wrote that “creative destruction” is America’s eternal mission, both at home and abroad, and the reason America’s “enemies” hate it: “They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
The neoconservatives’ mendacity apparent in the misrepresentation of the Iraqi crisis to the American people recalls the Goebbelsian “hypodermic needle approach” to communication, in which the communicator’s objective was to “inject” his ideas into the minds of the target population . . . [which] is echoed in our time by the Straussian dictum that perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is necessary because they need to be led, and they need to be told what is good for them. On this, at least, Trotsky, Stalin, and Hitler would all agree. (As Hitler had said, “The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble.”) In the Straussian-neoconservative mindset, those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.
That mindset is America’s enemy. It is the greatest threat to the constitutional order, identity, and way of life of the United States, in existence today. Its adherents have only modified the paradigm of dialectical materialism in order to continue pursuing the same eschatological dream, the End of History devoid of God. They are in pursuit of Power for its own sake—thus sinning against God and man—and the end of that insane quest will be the same as the end of the Soviet empire and of the Thousand-Year Reich.
It was supposed to be a phone call for Obama administration ears only. But hear it the radio host did, she says. And what she heard should make your blood run cold — and perhaps your rage hot. Obama’s amnesty plan is to use illegal aliens as “seedlings,” said the federal officials. They will “navigate, not assimilate,” as they “take over the host,” create a “country within a country” and start “pushing the citizens into the shadows.”
Welcome to the “fundamental transformation” of America.
The above was alleged by WCBM radio co-host Sue Payne in an interview with talk giant Mark Levin last Thursday. Payne says that while at an immigration rally, she became privy to three conference calls in which 16 Obama administration officials — including Cecilia Muñoz, director of Obama’s White House Domestic Policy Council — discussed plans for what could only be called the final destruction of traditional America and the cementing of leftist hegemony. Muñoz, by the way, is perfectly suited to this task; she was once a senior vice president for the anti-American Hispanic lobbying organization the National Council of La Raza.
Oh, la raza means “the race” (I guess the whole “‘Hispanic’ is an ethnicity” thing doesn’t cut much ice with them).
Payne opened the interview by explaining that what Obama actually did on November 21 — the day he signed his supposed executive amnesty — was create the “Task Force on New Americans” (TFNA) for the purposes of implementing his legalization scheme. And it won’t be applied to just 5 million illegals, but “13 to 15 million to give protection [to] and move…on to citizenship,” reports Payne.
Payne then said that the illegals, labeled “seedlings,” would eventually “take over the host.” She continued, “And the immigrants will come out of the shadows, and what I got from the meetings was that they would be pushing the citizens into the shadows. They would be taking over the country; in fact, one of the members of the task force actually said that we would be developing a country within a country.”
To this nefarious end, the goal of the TFNA is to create a “welcoming feeling” in illegal-seeded localities, which would be redesignated “receiving communities.” They’d subsequently be transformed (fundamentally, I suppose) into what are labeled “emerging immigrant communities” — or as some would say, México Norte.
The officials also said, reports Payne, that for the seedlings to “grow” they needed “fertile soil” (a.k.a. your tax money). The officials stated that the legalized aliens needed to be redesignated as “refugees” and be given cash, medical care, credit cards for purchasing documents and — since many illegals will be older — Social Security so they can “age successfully within their country within a country,” to quote Payne. As she then put it, it’s “as if we were funding our own destruction here.”
Some may point out that Payne has no smoking gun (that we know of) in the form of, let’s say, a recording of the calls. But Levin vetted her and found her credible, calling the scheme “stunning” and reflective of “Mao’s China.” I believe her as well, but it doesn’t even matter. She simply confirms what I’ve been warning of for years and years over and over again: The Left is importing their voters, engaging indemographic warfare and authoring the death of the republic.
Mind you, legal immigration itself is a sufficient vehicle for this. Ever since the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia, thus growing leftist constituencies that vote for socialistic Democrats by approximately a four-to-one margin; in contrast and as Pat Buchanan pointed out, “[N]early 90 percent of all Republican votes in presidential elections are provided by Americans of European descent.” This, along with hatred and bigotry, is a major reason why Obama and his ilk want to destroy white America.
But liberals crave immediate gratification, and amnesty greatly accelerates this process. Legalize 15 million socialist voters clamoring for handouts, have them bring in relatives via chain migration — give them Social Security numbers which they can use to vote (as is Obama’s plan) — and tomorrow’s leftist dystopia is today. I predicted this in 2008, by the way, writing:
The coup de grace Obama will use against rightist opposition is mostly embodied in one word: amnesty. This, along with some other measures, will both grow the Hispanic voting block and ingratiate Obama to it. This will enable him to create a powerful coalition of blacks, young voters and Hispanics that, along with the older whites he will be able to retain, will constitute an insurmountable electoral force. And this is why amnesty has long been a dream of the Democrats. Even easier than brainwashing new voters (which the media and academia specialize in) is importing them.
Admittedly, I can be criticized since the above article is titled “How Obama Will Ensure His Victory in 2012.” But titles are hooks as much as anything else. And since I don’t have a crystal ball, just a not yet crystallized brain, I’d never claim to be able to perfectly predict timing. It also turned out that Obama and the 2009 to 2011Democrat House and Senate were preoccupied with instituting ObamaCare, and that the liberal legislators were perhaps too cowardly to face re-election having passed amnesty. Regardless, I have another prediction, one I hope you’ll take seriously:
The chances are slim to nil that Obama’s amnesty will be stopped legislatively.
Obama against John Boehner is the Beltway Brawler vs. the Beltway Bawler. Moreover, I suspect establishment Republicans — who just refused to defund Obama’s scheme — want executive amnesty. Why? Because the issue has been an albatross around their necks. And while they don’t have the guts or desire to really stand against Invasion USA, they also know voting for amnesty would mean electoral disaster. So, let Obama act unilaterally, huff and puff a bit with a wink and a nod while doing nothing of substance, and “Voila!” The issue is off the table with plausible deniability of complicity.
And the courts? They may uphold the recent injunction against Obamnesty, but there’s no saying Obama won’t ignore the courts (he assuredly understands that judicial review is a jurist invention). And, anyway, amnesty was always only a matter of time with today’s cultural trajectory. Yet this cloud does have a silver lining.
The Left was very successful boiling the frog slowly with the legal importation of socialist voters and the gradual transformation of our culture via entertainment, the media and academia. But liberals’ childish haste may have led to a tactical error. By going all in on executive orders and amnesty — by transitioning from evolutionary to revolutionary change and turning the burner up high — the Left risks rousing that frog from his pan. And how should it jump?
Obama said after the November Republican victory that it was his “profound preference and interest to see Congress act on a comprehensive immigration reform bill” (emphasis added), but otherwise he’ll work via executive orders. He also offered the GOP a deal: “You send me a bill that I can sign, and those executive actions go away.”
Translation: My preference is to follow the Constitution.
But my will be done — one way or the other.
How to respond? Question: what do you do when someone says “My preference is to follow the game’s rules, but if I can’t win that way, I’ll have to cheat”? You can:
- Continue losing; be a Charlie Brown sucker who keeps thinking that this time Lucy won’t pull the football away.
- Cheat right back (hard to do without judges in your pocket).
- Stop playing the game.
Now, conservatives, consummate ladies and gentlemen that they are, consistently choose option one. Far be it from them to violate the “law” even when it’s unconstitutional and therefore lawless. But I prefer option three.
This means nullification. Note that the Constitution is the contract Americans have with each other. And what happens when one party subject to a contract continually violates it in order to advantage itself, aided and abetted by corrupt judges?
The contract is rendered null and void.
Remember, cheaters don’t stop cheating until forced to. Governors and their legislatures need to man-up and tell the feds, “You like acting unilaterally and unconstitutionally? Two can play that game.” And this means not just ignoring Obama’s amnesty dictates, but nullifying a multitude of other things as well.
The other option is demographic and cultural genocide and the politics attending that. The Left knows this, too. Obama noted that growing “diversity hinders conservative priorities,” wrote the DC last month. Congressman Kurt Schrader (D-OR) said recently that amnesty “will decide who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years.” And an ex-advisor to former Prime Minister Tony Blair confessed in 2009 that the goal of the British Labour Party’s massive culture-rending immigration was to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
Do you get it yet?
Defy and Nullify.
The alternative is to walk legally and quietly into that good night, going out not with a bang but a whimper, muttering something about 2016, the Supreme Court and pixie dust.