Private Prisons And The Enslavement Society

What more time-honored practice in the long history of state sponsored servitude than the institutionalization of prisoners? Incarceration for offenses against government laws is a cornerstone for power and survivability of any regime. Prisons may have been hellholes over the centuries, but seldom has the internment of convicted lawbreakers been a growth industry for private profit. It almost makes one wonder exactly who are the crooks. While most hard-pressed citizens want a safe and secure society, few ever give even a passing thought to the insatiable corporatist criminalization of the criminal justice system. Just how many Americans agree with the proposition, if you did the crime, you need to serve the time.

All loyal law and order proponents can take pride in the one area where the imperium of government discipline still ranks first among nations. A Global Research article - The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form of Slavery? – points out some staggering facts.

“There are approximately 2 million inmates in state, federal and private prisons throughout the country. According to California Prison Focus, “no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens.” The figures show that the United States has locked up more people than any other country: a half million more than China, which has a population five times greater than the U.S. Statistics reveal that the United States holds 25% of the world’s prison population, but only 5% of the world’s people. From less than 300,000 inmates in 1972, the jail population grew to 2 million by the year 2000. In 1990 it was one million. Ten years ago there were only five private prisons in the country, with a population of 2,000 inmates; now, there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. It is expected that by the coming decade, the number will hit 360,000, according to reports.”

Just imagine the hidden solution to the high unemployment economy is staring in our faces without even a hint of public reaction. The ultimate entrepreneurial partnership allows for corporate security firms to house government dissenters or rebellious non-conformers.

“Private prisons are the biggest business in the prison industry complex. About 18 corporations guard 10,000 prisoners in 27 states. The two largest are Correctional Corporation of America(CCA) and Wackenhut, which together control 75%. Private prisons receive a guaranteed amount of money for each prisoner, independent of what it costs to maintain each one. According to Russell Boraas, a private prison administrator in Virginia, “the secret to low operating costs is having a minimal number of guards for the maximum number of prisoners.” The CCA has an ultra-modern prison in Lawrenceville, Virginia, where five guards on dayshift and two at night watch over 750 prisoners. In these prisons, inmates may get their sentences reduced for “good behavior,” but for any infraction, they get 30 days added – which means more profits for CCA.”

The dramatic increases in prison population are not from violent convicts or rapists and killers. The majority of offense categories are property, drug and especially public-order related. The goal of social rehabilitation is a quaint concept of another era. The pretense of reclamation from a conviction of prosecutorial discretion is a standard that few DA’s or judges ever consider. Sentencing guidelines are based upon retribution and punishment, in order to keep the prisons filled with a growing number of new inmates. The supposition is that if you are charged with a crime, the suspect will plea bargain or the jury will follow the directions of the government and convict.

For 2011, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate. Such a record implies a culture of criminalization or a hard road for an innocent suspect to navigate. No wonder, the private company screws are such staunch supporters of the transgression and disorder society.

The video, Private prisons - the most profitable real estate in the US? – provides a distressing analysis of the consequences of incentivizing revenue return motivated companies as the jailer overseers.

From the report Prison Labor and Crime in the U.S. - Industry, Privatization, Inmate Facts and Stats – Prison Industries and Inmate Labor – section:

“Many companies are now directly involved in some form of profiting off of incarceration or the labor of inmates. Since 1980 when there was only one prison industry operating as a privatized entity, there are now thirty eight states and at least five county jails with privatized prison industry productions or factory operations. Together state and federal factories now number over three hundred nationwide with between six hundred thousand and one million inmates working in some form of manufacturing or services. Hundreds of companies using inmate labor for manufacturing, services and other duties are now partnered with these operations. This is done under the federal Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) under 18 USC 1761(c).

Clearly companies, businesses and corporations have become heavily invested in, and dependent upon incarceration for cheap labor and profit. In 2009 total sales of prisoner made products totaled $2.4 billion. Some research places that figure as high as $5 billion and this is in addition to the “prison industry” figure of $34 billion used previously.”

Another RT video details the Prison labor booms in US as low-cost inmates bring billions. Is society really safer from the dramatic increase in the prison population, or is this method of crowding a growing herd of cheap labor simply a strategy to enrich politically connected companies?

As the rapid implosion of the economy accelerates, the prospect of even greater numbers of government prosecutions will surely increase. How many Jean Valjean’s are there in Les Misérables penal confines baking bread?

Now if you are sympathy challenged and are as hard as the rocks that need to be broken, why is the political class virtually exempt from accountability. Remember the once popular bumper sticker; “I’ll Buckle Up When Ted Bundy Does”. Well, no compassion for a serial killer is certainly understandable and proper.

However, where is the justice when a professional bankster felon like Jon Corzine skates after his crimes in the MF Global theft? The rules for ex Goldman Sacks predators allows for financing publicly traded private jail companies, but are exempt of ever working on the assembly line making license plates. What is next: a hedge fund totally devoted to the management of a privatized infrastructure of FEMA camps.

Michael Snyder writes in The Economic Collapse article, Private Prisons: The More Americans They Put Behind Bars The More Money They Make.

“If you can believe it, three of the largest private prison companies have spent approximately $45,000,000 combined on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past decade.

Just look at what has happened to the U.S. prison population over the past several decades. Prior to 1980, there were virtually no private prisons in the United States. But since that time, we have seen the overall prison population and the private prison population absolutely explode.

For example, between 1990 and 2009 the number of Americans in private prisons grew by about 1600 percent.

Overall, the U.S. prison population more than quadrupled between 1980 and 2007.”

Hard core criminals that violate civic community standards and endanger public safety should pay a price for their transgressions. Conversely, political prisoners that challenge the crony corruption within the governmental hierarchy do not deserve a sentence in a sweatshop.

With the abandonment of a police ethic that was dedicated to keeping the peace for an apparatus of law enforcement for arbitrary and dishonest statutes, which only serve the privileged elites; our society is sentenced to a death penalty. Slavery was eliminated a century ago, right? Thus far, that message has not filtered down to the penal plantation. An inmate deserves the solitude of solitary confinement.

The most effective private prison is the one that interns the personal guilt of wicked deeds. If public officials would act upon the moral judgments of their conscience, the perversion within the laws that they pass, adjudicate or administer, would exempt or reduce the unequal application of legitimate legislation, now deemed as criminal acts.

Human nature being what it is; evil acts are instinctive within malevolent souls. Accepting a corrosive punitive system, that enriches private companies, is a horrible departure that prison is a valid tool that protects society. The most dangerous and violent forfeit their social freedom by their predatory actions. However, the sheer numbers of confined prisoners does not justify a structure that exploits a captured population for forced labor.

Do we really need to criminalize society as the price to coexist in the era of Guantanamo justice? America once strived to maintain a balance among competing factions. Today there are only Statists that absolve government transgressions as acceptable and the dissenters that are now in the sights for retribution and eventual arrest. The criminalization of citizens for capricious infractions is the sign of a doomed society. When the hacks patrol the halls to enforce proper public behavior, the entire country becomes a prison.

The Great Cyprus Bank Robbery

When does banksters’ extortion become outright theft? The latest example and escalation by the placing a levy fee on bank deposits in the tax haven of Cyprus illustrates the bold step of seizing private liquid saving accounts, under the guise of a government tax. The prospects of an all out run on the banking system have jumped tenfold. Essentially, a government is using the power of the state, to steal funds not because of the bankruptcy of a banking institution, but because of a failure of the entire EU financial system. The forbidding precedent of a seizure of individual wealth, by a stroke of a pen, runs contrary to the shrinking confidence in fiduciary trust of cash placed in banking accounts.

The risk of pronounced turmoil in financial markets has just elevated, as the harsh reality of surrendering your economy to the demands of an untenable debt burden dictatorship, is obvious to anyone with a bank account. The savings of a lifetime is now subject to confiscation. The pitiful explanation of Cypriots’ president defends bailout deal, clearly reveals that the globalist financial central bank system is determined to impoverish individual nest eggs.

“President Nicos Anastasiades said Cyprus had little option but to accept the bailout deal, which imposes a levy on the country’s bank deposits – an unprecedented step in the eurozone crisis. Without it, he said, Cyprus’ banking system would have collapsed on Tuesday.Anastasiades said that’s when the European Central Bank would have stopped providing emergency funding to Cyprus’ troubled banks. Such a collapse would have driven the country to bankruptcy and possibly out of the eurozone, he said.”

A departure from the eurozone is a preferable alternative to a bank burglary of your saving account. The interview in, ‘Europe’s Citizens Now Have to Fear for Their Money’ admits the worsening plight of added debt. “The euro-zone partner countries seeking to provide Cyprus with a bailout view the participation of small-scale depositors as a necessary evil. This is because any aid provided by the long-term euro rescue fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), would be added on top of Cyprus’s national debt.”Now the excuse used by the establishment press to soften the blow of systematic larceny points to the Russian Oligarchs Lose Friend In Cyprus Banks, as exoneration for tapping the pocketbooks of shady elements. “Cyprus is known as a hot bed of Russian money laundering.” Well, that justification surely does little to make whole the struggling Cyprus natives that can ill afford the hit.

 

The video, Cyprus savers- EU bailout prompts run on Cyprus banks, tells a sad tale of financial enslavement.

The article, Russian Ruble, Stocks Nosedive on Cyprus Debt Crisis outlines the initial response to the announcement. “Under the terms of the bailout deal, Cyprus will have to impose a levy of 6.75 percent on deposits of less than 100,000 euros and 9.9 percent on deposits with greater sums. Cypriots reacted with shock and rushed to cash machines to withdraw their savings, but many machines refused to pay out.”

Not long thereafter, The Telegraph newspaper reports on plan B, a feeble attempt to gain legislative support to pass the measures. “The Cypriot government has submitted a draft bill to parliament scrapping a controversial levy on bank deposits up to €20,000, amid calls from its central bank governor and eurozone finance ministers to ramp the exemption threshold up to €100,000.”

The perspective analysis from ZeroHedge warns of the unintentional consequences from this pompous scheme of outright larceny in the essay, Will Russia Kill The Cyprus Bailout?

“As Monument Securities’ Marc Ostwald notes “there’s a 50/50 chance Cypriot bailout fails because of the ‘massive danger’ a large amount of Russian cash flees Cyprus following deposit tax plans.” Russia has ~$60 billion exposure to Cyprus, including loans to companies registered in the country and after the haircut 90% of Russian deposits will still be free to leave the country if the levy is approved.

The critical point is that, should this occur (such a large outflow of Russian cash – dwarfing in fact the size of the bailout package itself) it is hard to see how the Cypriot banking system could survive (even with the assistance of the ECB’s ELA).”

Predictably, Forbes waters down the unprecedented destruction of banking confidence that is so indispensable for the megabanks to rape sovereign nations. The Bailout For Cyprus: A FAQ To The Latest European Financial Crisis, makes it sound that the panic is simply business as usual.

“And here’s the larger picture. Cyprus is badly indebted. Its debt-to-GDP ratio pushed to 127% in the third quarter of 2012, the latest period tabulated by European Union officials. Such high debt reflects Cyprus’ ill financial health. Only Greece (at 153%) has a higher level. The bailout would begin to reduce its debt, sending it back below 100% of GDP within the year.”

So what can be expected in future confiscation of depositor funds? Prepare for the ultimate run on the banks, before the formula from the great vampire squid -Goldman’s Cyprus Post-Post-Mortem: “A Depositor “Bail-In” – And/Or – A Wealth Tax”, is applied on all deposits.

“Despite Cyprus being small, and arguably unique, a depositor in a peripheral bank is likely to ask the obvious question: how likely is a deposit tax for me? The answer to this question, we believe, will differ, depending on the peripheral country where it is asked. But it should, in essence, boil down to two issues: (1) how likely are savings to be bailed-in in any future bank rescues; (2) how likely are savings to emerge as a tax-base for any future wealth taxes?”

The Cyprus banking holiday is the forerunner of an international overt robbery by banksters. The biblical relief of a Jubilee, that writes down and forgives debt, is desperately required to end the financial slavery to the shylock swindlers. The centralization of global banking has an inevitable financial collapse as the end game. Today Cyprus, Tomorrow the World.

The Cypriot vote to reject the savings tax gives a short breather to a situation that only a breakup of the EU can resolve.

Senator Rob Portman’s Homosexual Descent

In another case in the annals of conservative “adaptation” to yesterday’s liberal innovation, Ohio Republican senator Rob Portman has just announced that he now supports faux marriage. The change was motivated, he said, by his son having come out to him and his wife as a homosexual.

Well, it’s a good thing his son didn’t announce that he was involved in bestiality.

Talk about a pandering parent.

We can also talk here about letting your personal life influence your public policy. If I were a statesman and learned that a child of mine were hooked on cocaine or had joined the Taliban, I wouldn’t change my position on drug policy or terrorism. Of course, Portman has said that his son’s revelation inspired some soul searching, and, true, life events can spur thought and intellectual growth. But is his decision really the fruits of sound intellectual analysis?

In an interview on his Obamaesque evolution, Portman talked about his “Christian faith,” “love and compassion,” and the Golden Rule. As to the last thing, I would certainly want others to do unto me as they would have me do unto them (unless they happen to be masochists), and this would include leading me toward Truth and virtue — not away from them.

And while Jesus espoused the Golden Rule, He also said, “[H]e that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.” The fact is that God and His law come even before family; “Blood is not thicker than morality,” as Dr. Laura Schlessinger once put it. And while this may seem a harsh prescription, it is actually the only way to do right by your family. I’ll explain.

Portman cares about his son’s happiness, as any parent would. But what breeds happiness? Aristotle pointed out that virtue (good moral habits) is a prerequisite for a happy life, and this is where God’s law comes into play. To start with a simple example, it may seem to make a little child happy at the moment if you allow him to eat a quart of ice cream for dinner, play all day instead of tending to education, or steal a toy from a store. Yet we know that such indulgence wouldn’t breed the virtue of temperance, industriousness, or honesty and wouldn’t lead to happiness. Likewise, would we encourage a grown son to deal drugs or steal cars if the money realized thereby seemed to make him happy?

The point is that the loving thing isn’t always to give people what they want, but what they need. And this is where a person’s yardstick for decision-making matters. If we’re emotion-oriented, we’ll likely put too much stock in someone’s feelings and give him what he wants even when those feelings contradict moral law.

Unfortunately, this is common nowadays due to our descent into moral relativism. After all, we can’t use morality — which, properly understood, refers to rules for man’s behavior that originate outside of man — as a yardstick if we don’t believe it exists. And this is precisely relativism’s underlying message, with its claim that what we call “morality” is just a function of man’s collective preferences. And without this awareness of moral reality, emotion becomes the most compelling yardstick for behavior available.

And we live in the age of emotion. As American Thinker’s Rick Moran recently put it when discussing Portman’s situation, “As more and more Americans realize that they are related to, or work with, or live next to someone who is gay, it is inevitable that acceptance follows.” It’s absolutely true that this is how it works — among people detached from Truth — which is a good argument for why certain things should never be allowed out of the closet in the first place. But, again, it makes no sense and, furthermore, is a recipe for disaster. Why? Because it eliminates morality by reducing decisions about human behavior to popularity or “majority vote.” The Vikings stole for a living, the Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice on a massive scale, and for most of history slavery was a universal. And these things were accepted because they were common. But if a people wishes to become or remain civilized, their yardstick for behavior cannot be “Hey, everybody’s doing it.”

Mr. Moran also said in his commentary, “More and more sons and daughters are outing themselves [as homosexuals] to their parents who are then faced with the stark choice of disowning their children or embracing them.” But the second part of this is untrue. If a child is hooked on drugs, are the only two choices disowning or embracing? Between those two extremist errors is an enlightened position called “hating the sin but loving the sinner.”

Of course, it is true that more and more children are coming out as homosexuals. What is also true, however, is that more and more are getting into homosexuality in the first place. I know, the common response here is that people are “born that way.” Save it. Pederasty was institutionalized in ancient Spartan military camps, with 12-year-old boys being attached to older men who would become their mentors and lovers. But were the Spartans so different genetically? Were they all “born that way”?

Regardless of what genetic and intrauterine factors one may consider relevant (I treated this in-depth here), any sane person understands that there is an enormous psychological component to man’s sexuality. This is why it’s so destructive when, through the schools and popular culture, we send kids the message that sexual experimentation is okay. “Hey, try it; you may like it. It’s all genetic, anyway, so you need to discover what you really are.” The fact is that a young person’s sexuality can be twisted with relative ease, but, unfortunately, cannot be straightened out nearly as easily, which is why sexual problems can be so intractable. This is why Judeo-Christian sexual guide rails are so important and why C.S. Lewis once wrote, “Sexuality is not messed up because it was put in the closet. It was put in the closet because it was messed up.”

Mr. Moran concludes his commentary about the increasing acceptance of homosexuality with the line, “All we can be sure of is that the future will look different than the present.” No doubt. And it is clear how the future of the American republic looks.

Short.

The Law of Necessity

Most of us are taught from childhood to respect and obey the law. On the whole, Americans are law-abiding people. This is only fitting for a nation that was built on the principles of law. Remember, at our core, this is supposed to be a “nation of laws, not men.” This is one reason that our Founding Fathers bequeathed us a republic and not a democracy.

Unfortunately, it has been over one hundred years since America’s teachers (both secular and sacred) have taught the principles of Natural Law. This has created a vast ignorance that has blinded people (especially Christian people it seems) from being able to properly understand, evaluate, and judge the law.

Our Lord plainly said, “The Sabbath (law) was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (law).” (Mark 2:27 KJV) This was stated in response to the criticism and judgmentalism of the Pharisees against Jesus and His disciples, who had picked and eaten corn on the Sabbath Day.

During that same discussion, Jesus reminded the Pharisees that David and his men ate bread from the Table of Shewbread in the Temple, which was a violation of the Mosaic Law. (Others had been slain by Jehovah for a careless, cavalier attitude toward the Sabbath and the Temple.) He reminded them of the priests who sacrificed animals on the Sabbath Day, which was considered by many to be a violation of Sabbath law. Jesus healed on the Sabbath Day, which the Pharisees and legalists of the time judged to be unlawful.

After a blistering condemnation of the Pharisees, Jesus asked them, “Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life or destroy it?” (Luke 6:9 KJV) In other words, which was more important: doing good and saving life on the Sabbath, or strictly obeying the Law of the Sabbath and letting a man be harmed or even die?

Jesus made it clear that there are greater laws and lesser laws, that the Natural Law of saving life was a superior law to even the Law of the Sabbath. This law of nature can be called “The Law of Necessity.”

In the pursuit of liberty, and in the defense of life, David and his men sustained themselves with the bread from the Table of Shewbread. And not only did Jehovah not slay David and his men for doing this, the Lord Jesus praised them as an example of the greater law principle.

Here’s a question for you: as you walk along a lake, you notice a sign announcing a public statute that says, “No Swimming.” About that same time, you hear the screams of a little boy who had wandered in the lake and is now drowning. Do you obey the State statute that said, “No Swimming,” or do you violate the public law and swim out into the lake to save the little boy?

The Pharisees would say that you must obey the public law even if it means the little boy will drown. Jesus said the natural greater law principle prevails and you ignore the lesser law and go save the drowning lad. The greater law always defers to the provision and protection of human life. The lesser law ignores the divine principle of protecting life and demands unconditional compliance to human law–even if that law results in the death of innocent life.

Now, here is another question: would any of us condemn a man who ignored the law that said “No Swimming,” and swam into the lake to save the little boy? Think very carefully before you answer, because all over America, many people (including pastors and Christians) have developed a legalistic, Pharisaical philosophy regarding law that would indeed condemn the man who ignored the law that said “No Swimming,” and swam into the lake to save the little boy.

For example, all over America, certain states and local communities have enacted strict gun-control laws that would condemn a man for using a firearm in the defense of his home and family. There is more than one person sitting in jail today who was deemed a lawbreaker for doing just that. And now, there are legislators, senators, and a President and Vice President in Washington, D.C, who want to further deny everyone in America the right to self-defense by banning semi-automatic rifles.

Make no mistake about it: the semi-automatic rifle is the premier self-defense tool in the modern world. It is effective against the would-be felon, and even more effective against the would-be tyrant. To enact laws against the ownership and possession of semi-automatic rifles (yes, with large capacity magazines) is tantamount to condemning a man for ignoring the “No Swimming” ordinance in order to save the drowning boy. Plainly put: SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES SAVE LIVES–INCLUDING SAVING THE LIFE OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.

It is at this point that we must point out the jaded philosophy and understanding that so many Americans (especially Christians) have regarding law. So many people seem to be completely ignorant of the natural principle of the greater law, or The Law of Necessity.

When governments pass laws that infringe upon people’s natural right to self-defense, they have become tyrannical; and no one who understands the divine principle of The Law of Necessity is morally obligated to submit to such laws–no more than a man would submit to the “No Swimming” law that would let the little boy drown.

Beyond that, pastors who teach that Christians must submit to these lesser laws in order to please God are no better than the Pharisees of old. Jesus detested the Pharisees’ asinine interpretation of Biblical law and plainly told them so. Likewise, no Christian should tolerate for one minute any pastor or religious teacher who would demand that they submit to any lesser law that infringed upon the greater law of the protection and preservation of life. Not for one minute!

The “higher powers” of Romans 13 do not constitute the “highest” power. All the laws of men are subject to the greater laws of God: the natural laws that were innately given to man at creation. Think about it: if the Law of the Sabbath, a law that was instituted by God, Himself, was inferior to the greater Law of Necessity–the natural law protecting and preserving life–how much more inferior is any law made by man?! To suggest that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 13, was demanding that Christians submit to every man-made law, no matter how contrary it ran to the divine Law of Necessity borders on blasphemy. And the pastors who teach such an absurdity are nothing more than modern-day Pharisees.

As the Pharisees would rather see a man crippled, or even die, than be healed on the Sabbath, so these modern-day Pharisees demand that people submit to laws that infringe on their natural right of self-defense, even if that means that people die as a result.

And remember, according to experts, firearms (including semi-automatic rifles) protect life and avert a crime (including murder) more than 2.5 million times a year. That’s over 6,800 times A DAY. Take away the right to keep and bear arms (including semi-automatic rifles) and those are lives that will be seriously injured or killed.

See this report:

Guns Saves Lives

It’s time pastors and Christians understand that breaking a lesser law in order to keep a greater law is no crime–and no sin! Benjamin Franklin may not have been a Biblical scholar, but he demonstrated a greater knowledge and appreciation for The Law of Necessity than most pastors in America today. He said, “Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.” And he was exactly right.

Abram obeyed the greater law when he pursued and “slaughtered” (Hebrews 7:1) the kings who had attacked his family and took his nephew Lot prisoner. That is found in Genesis 14. It is no coincidence that he received the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 15. Moses obeyed the greater law when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew. The New Testament says, “For he [Moses] supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.” (Acts 7:24, 25)

Moses’ fellow Hebrews were so steeped in bondage, they “understood not” Moses’ actions and actually joined with the Egyptians in condemning him as a lawbreaker. As a result, they spent an additional forty years in slavery. And ladies and gentlemen, if America’s pastors and Christians do not snap out of their spirit of legalism and bondage, this country is also headed for slavery.

Unfortunately, many pastors and churches would condemn those of us who refuse to submit to these unjust, tyrannical laws that would require us to surrender our semi-automatic rifles. They would call us lawbreakers. So what? As Jesus accepted not the condemnation of the Pharisees, you and I should not accept the condemnation of these modern-day legalists.

It is never wrong to obey the greater law; and it is never right to obey the lesser law that contradicts the greater law! And it doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam what the legalists and Pharisees think about it! Simon Peter and the apostles employed the same understanding when they said, “We must obey God rather than men.”

When it comes to disobeying a State law that says “No Swimming” in order to preserve the life of a drowning boy, or when it comes to disobeying a federal law that says “surrender your semi-automatic rifles” in order to preserve the lives of our loved ones, not to mention our communities and our freedoms, we, too, must obey God rather than men.

Of course, we Americans respect the laws of men, but only when these lesser laws do not contradict or infringe upon the greater law. This was commonly understood from Abraham and Moses to Christ and the apostles. It was certainly understood by America’s Founding Fathers. And it had better be understood by each of us now!

Christian: It’s Time To Vote With Your Feet

I confess right out of the gate that this column is not going to be enjoyable for me to write. It may not be enjoyable for some to read. But the time has come that it has to be said. If Christians truly have any intentions of helping to preserve liberty for their children and grandchildren, they must put rhetoric, tradition, friendship, and personal feelings aside and take action. Christian: it is time to vote with your feet.

And while many people who never darken the doors of a church love to cast stones at preachers and churches, I have been in the Gospel ministry all of my adult life. I have pastored for over 37 years. I know the inner workings of church work; I personally know hundreds of preachers; I understand how preachers think; I have attended hundreds of church meetings and fellowships, and hundreds of pastors’ conferences and seminars. I know what it’s like to balance a church budget, counsel families in need, stand with a congregation in good times and bad. There isn’t an area of church work with which I am not very familiar. And I can also say that for over 37 years, I have never desired or attempted to harm another man’s ministry. And that is not the intention of this column.

However, the time has come in America to tell it like it is. These are not ordinary times. Our country is on the precipice of tyranny and oppression like we have not seen since the days of Colonial America before our War for Independence. It is no hyperbole to say that what we do–or don’t do–now will determine the state of freedom in America for the next 50 years or more. To make no decision is to decide for tyranny. We can no longer pretend that what we do doesn’t matter.

One of the most glaring differences between Colonial and modern America is the attitude of our pastors.

In 1770-1776 (and actually for many years previous to this period), Colonial pastors (of all denominations) lit the fire of freedom in the hearts of their congregants like no generation has ever seen–before or since. The British Crown was so frustrated with these patriot-pastors that they coined a moniker for them. They were called, “The Black (or Black-Robed) Regiment.” In truth, Colonial pastors were more influential in the “holy cause of liberty” (Patrick Henry) from their pulpits than any military regiment on the battlefield. And, yes, many pastors in Colonial America also fought on the battlefields in our War for Independence.

Today’s pastors, on the other hand, are mostly noted for saying absolutely NOTHING about the attacks that are currently being waged against our liberties. And when I say NOTHING, I mean absolutely NOTHING. About the only thing they seem to be able to do is pass out some slanted “voter guides” every Presidential election. But most don’t even do that. A few (a very few) will encourage their congregations to protest abortion; some (again, a very small number) will preach a “pro-life” sermon on “Sanctity of Life” Sunday each January. But most deliberately and stubbornly refuse to take a public position on any subject that has the air of being “political.”

Should we really wonder why our country is teetering on the precipice of oppression and slavery?

When Bible stories such as Daniel And The Lion’s Den, The Three Hebrew Children And The Burning Fiery Furnace, or the stories of Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson are told, they are taught simply as allegories or explained away as being for “another time.” The practical application of myriads of Bible examples of resistance to tyranny is NEVER TAUGHT in the vast majority of most churches today. NEVER!

I preached a message last Sunday to the people of Liberty Fellowship entitled, “Shepherd Or Hireling?” The text was John 10. To watch the video of this message, go to:

“Shepherd Or Hireling?”

In this chapter, Jesus said, “But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.” (John 10:12, 13 KJV)

Jesus made it clear that the central difference between a true shepherd and a hireling (hired hand) was that the shepherd was willing to fight and die for the protection of the sheep, while the hired hand was not willing to risk his life for the sheep.

Pastors are depicted as being shepherds. Is it not then the central duty of the pastor to be willing to fight and die for the protection of his people? When he sees the wolves approaching, does he run away and leave the sheep to the slaughter or does he confront the wolves and fight to the death to protect them?

Ladies and gentlemen, the wolves are attacking the flock! Those mangy, mad, maniacal monsters are attacking the lives and liberties of the American people (including the Christian people in our churches) with a vengeance. When they attempt to strip us of our right to defend ourselves with arms, they are attacking the very lives and liberties of our homes and families. Life is a precious gift of Almighty God, and anyone who would make our children and families vulnerable to death and destruction by wicked and evil men is tantamount to a mad wolf that attacks the life of a little lamb.

How dare our shepherds (pastors) stand silent and mute in the face of such evil? How dare they refuse to sound the alarm? How dare they piously proclaim that God “has not called” them to perform this most fundamental duty of a shepherd? Does not their refusal to fight, does not their silence, does not their fear and inaction prove that they are not really shepherds at all, but merely hirelings? I believe so.

And knowing that what I am about to say will be misinterpreted by some, I say it still: preaching the Gospel, by itself, will NOT save America. And these preachers who hide behind the mantra that the only thing God has called them to do is preach the Gospel, and that only preaching the Gospel will save America, are either themselves seriously deluded or are despicable cowards hiding behind the veil of pretended spirituality.

America has had more Gospel preaching during the last 50 years than any nation in history. There are more churches, more Christian schools, more Gospel radio and television programs, more missionary endeavors, more inner-city missions and shelters, more Bible publications, and more Gospel influence in America during the last 50 years than in any country in the history of the world.

And what has happened to America over the last 50 years? Our historic Christian culture has been turned into rank hedonism and licentiousness; legal abortion has taken the lives of over 60 million innocent unborn babies; a blatant police-state is proliferating; more babies are being born out of wedlock than at any time in history; and now we are facing the tyrannical attempt to ban and confiscate America’s premier self-defense tool: the semi-automatic rifle. And all of this happened, and is happening, while hundreds of thousands of pastors and churches across the land “preach the Gospel.”

Again I say, preaching the Gospel, by itself, will not save America. Christians have to be taught how to understand; how to discern the difference between good and evil; the principles of law and justice; jurisdictional authority; and the principles of Christian resistance. As long as pastors refrain from teaching these essential and necessary truths, our nation will continue its slide into tyranny and oppression–all the Gospel preaching going forth notwithstanding.

I ask you: if the only thing God expected us to do was preach the Gospel, why did He give us a voluminous Bible, which is filled with examples, principles, teachings, and truths relating to virtually every important area of life? If one takes only those Scriptures that deal specifically with the Gospel, he or she is going to have a very small Bible, my friends. The stories of the Old Testament, for example, were written for “our learning.” (Romans 15:4) Hebrews 11 challenges us with the examples of Old Testament men and women who were “not afraid of the king’s commandment,” who did not fear “the wrath of the king,” who “subdued kingdoms,” “waxed valiant in fight,” and who “turned to flight the armies of the aliens.”

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul spent about as much time in jail as he did out of jail. And, of course, he was thrown in jail for breaking the unjust, evil laws of men. Every apostle except John was killed by tyrannical governments because they refused to submit to unjust laws. How First Century Christians chose to resist versus how free men and women in Colonial America chose to resist is material for another day. The point is, THEY ALL CHOSE TO RESIST.

The story of God’s people, from the beginning of time, is the story of people who refused to submit to tyrannical, unjust laws and chose to “obey God rather than men.” Yet, modern American pastors refuse to resist. They choose to sheepishly comply with the unjust laws of evil, wicked men. And they refuse to be the courageous shepherds for their people. It’s time to say it: any pastor who will not warn his church of the impending tyranny that is sweeping our land, any pastor who refuses to take a stand for the right of the people in his congregation to keep and bear arms–and, therefore, be able to protect the precious gift of life that has been given by God–and any pastor who stands silent while evil men trample the God-given liberties that were purchased at so awful a cost by our Christian forebears must be regarded, not as a shepherd, but as a hireling. It really doesn’t matter how nice he is, or how educated he is, or how charming he is, or how inspirational his sermons are, or how sincere he is: if he refuses to stand and fight the wolves, he is a hireling, not a shepherd.

By the way, to see the list of pastors around the country who have vowed to fight for the right of their flocks to keep and bear arms, go to:

Second Amendment Pastors

It’s time to speak plainly. The time for politeness and timidity is behind us. Any pastor who refuses to take a stand of resistance to the evil forces of tyranny that are now sweeping as a horde of locusts upon us is as guilty of the loss of our nation’s freedoms and liberties as are the evil despots who perpetrate these atrocities. He is as guilty of the death and destruction of his people as the hireling who flees in the face of the wolf is guilty of the death and destruction of the sheep.

Let me ask you a question: would you vote for a legislator or senator who would strip you of your right to keep and bear arms? Would you passively and indifferently continue to support such a one simply because of his or her political party or nice personality or inspirational speeches? Would you not determine such a one to be a dangerous threat to your liberties, and to the safety and security of your children, and reject him or her with your vote? Sure you would. So, why would you continue to support a pastor who facilitates these ravenous beasts?

Christian, it’s time to vote with your feet and leave these silent, sheepish pastors and find a shepherd-pastor who will fight for the lives and liberties of your homes and children.

It’s time for a reality check: if your pastor is not warning the flock, alerting the flock, and fighting for the life and freedom of the flock, he is helping to put the chains of slavery and oppression upon the necks of your children and grandchildren. If he is not engaged in the fight to preserve the liberties of our nation, he is helping to put the chains of slavery and oppression upon the necks of your children and grandchildren. If your pastor refuses to publicly take a stand against the wolves of our land, he is facilitating and enabling those wolves to tear and shred the life and flesh of our country.

As I studied what God said about His shepherds in the Old Testament, I came upon this fascinating passage from the book of Amos: “Thus saith the LORD; As the shepherd taketh out of the mouth of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear; so shall the children of Israel be taken out that dwell in Samaria in the corner of a bed, and in Damascus in a couch.” (Amos 3:12 KJV)

Do you see the picture of the shepherd God paints in this passage? The shepherd fights for his sheep so fiercely and ferociously that he fights the lion even when the sheep is half-devoured. If he is only able to save two legs or an ear, he fights like a wild man for every part of the sheep. This is how a true shepherd is supposed to fight.

We need pastors to stand up and fight for the lives and liberties of their flock like wild men (figuratively speaking). We need pastors to scratch and claw and bite for every last little bit of life and liberty of our country. Anything less is to wear the mark of a hireling for all eternity.

Christian, cast your vote! Choose a side! The line in the sand is being drawn between liberty and tyranny. Your pastor cannot be neutral, and neither can you!

I dare say that if every Christian across America who, in his or her heart, truly believes in liberty were to flee these say-nothing hirelings and run to shepherds who are genuinely standing for truth and liberty in our land, we could turn the ship of state around almost overnight. This is more important than the “youth program” or “children’s ministry” or “senior-saints program” or “music program,” or nice buildings or “my friends are there,” or any number of other things that so many people seem to think is so important about which church they attend.

Ladies and gentlemen, the survival of our republic is at stake! For God’s sake, and for the sake of your children, don’t just complain, VOTE WITH YOUR FEET!

P.S. Remember, too, that my attorney son and I are now in the process of publishing a blockbuster new book entitled, “To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” This book conclusively shows that nowhere does the Bible teach that God’s people are supposed to sheepishly give up their arms in the face of tyranny. In fact, the Bible teaches just the opposite. This book is absolutely must-reading for every Christian (or non-Christian) who desires to know the truth about what the Bible teaches relative to the right of people to keep and bear arms. We are taking pre-orders now. It’s possible that the first printing of this book will be sold out even before it is printed. Orders are coming in feverishly. If you want a first edition copy of this new book, go to:

Keep Your Arms

Spielberg v. Tarantino

Hollywood And The Past…

History is commonly regarded as an attempt to produce a structured account of the past. It proclaims to tell us what really happened, but in most cases it fails to do that. Instead it is set to conceal our shame, to hide those various elements, events, incidents and occurrences in our past which we cannot cope with. History, therefore, can be regarded as a system of concealment. Accordingly, the role of the true historian is similar to that of the psychoanalyst: both aim to unveil the repressed. For the psychoanalyst, it is the unconscious mind. For the historian, it is our collective shame.

Yet, one may wonder, how many historians really engage in such a task? How many historians are courageous enough to open the Pandora Box? How many historians are brave enough to challenge Jewish History for real? How many historians dare to ask why Jews? Why do Jews suffer time after time? Is it really the Goyim who are inherently murderous, or is there something unsettling in Jewish culture or collectivism?  But Jewish history is obviously far from being alone here: every people’s past is, in fact, as problematic. Can Palestinians really explain to themselves how is it that after more than a century of struggle, they wake up to find out that their current capital has become a NGO haven largely funded by George Soros’ Open Society? Can the Brits once and for all look in the mirror and explain to themselves why, in their Imperial Wars Museum, they erected a Holocaust exhibition dedicated to the destruction of the Jews? Shouldn’t the Brits be slightly more courageous and look into one of the many Shoas they themselves inflicted on others? Clearly they have an impressive back catalogue to choose from.

The Guardian vs. Athens

The past is dangerous territory; it can induce inconvenient stories. This fact alone may explain why the true Historian is often presented as a public enemy. However, the Left has invented an academic method to tackle the issue. The ‘progressive’ historian functions to produce a ‘politically correct’, ‘inoffensive’ tale of the past. By means of zigzagging, it navigates its way, while paying its dues to the concealed and producing endless ad-hoc deviations that leave the ‘repressed’ untouched. The progressive subject is there to produce a ‘non- essentialist’ and ‘unoffending’ account of the past on the expense of the so-called ‘reactionary’. The Guardian is an emblem of such an approach, it would, for instance, ban any criticism of Jewish culture or Jewishness, yet it provides a televised platform for two rabid Zionist so they can discuss Arab culture and Islamism.  The Guardian wouldn’t mind  offending ‘Islamists’ or British ‘nationalists’  but it would be very careful not to hurt any Jewish sensitivities. Such version of politics or the past is impervious to truthfulness, coherence, consistency or integrity. In fact, the progressive discourse is far from being ‘the guardian of the truth’, it is actually set as  ‘the guardian of the discourse’ and I am referring here to Left discourse in particular.

But surely there is an alternative to the ‘progressive’ attitude to the past. The true historian is actually a philosopher – an essentialist – a thinker who posits the question ‘what does it mean to be in the world and what does it take to live amongst others’? The true historian transcends beyond the singular, the particular and the personal. He or she is searching for the condition of the possibility of that which drives our past, present and future. The true historian dwells on Being and Time, he or she is searching for a humanist lesson and an ethical insight while looking into the poem, the art, the beauty, the reason but also into the fear. The true historian is an essentialist who digs out the concealed, for he or she knows that the repressed is the kernel of the truth.

Leo Strauss provides us with a very useful insight in that regard. Western civilization, he contends, oscillates between two intellectual and spiritual poles – Athens and Jerusalem.  Athens — the birthplace of democracy, home for reason, philosophy, art and science. Jerusalem — the city of God where God’s law prevails. The philosopher, the true historian,  or the essentialist, for that matter, is obviously the Athenian. The Jerusalemite, in that regard, is ‘the guardian of the discourse’, the one who keeps the gate, just to maintain law and order on the expense of ecstasies, poesis, beauty, reason and truth.

Spielberg vs. Tarantino

Hollywood provides us with an insight into this oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem: between the Jerusalemite ‘guardian of the discourse’ and the Athenian contender – the ‘essentialist’  public enemy.  On the Left side of the map we find Steven Spielberg, the ‘progressive’ genius. On his Right we meet peosis itself, Quentin Tarantino, the  ‘essentialist’.

Spielberg, provides us with the ultimate sanitized historical epic. The facts are cherry picked just to produce a pre meditated pseudo ethical tale that maintains the righteous discourse, law and order but, most importantly, the primacy of Jewish suffering (Schindler’s List and Munich). Spielberg brings to life a grand epic with a clear retrospective take on the past. Spielberg tactic is, in most cases, pretty simple. He would juxtapose a vivid transparent binary opposition: Nazis vs. Jews, Israeli vs. Palestinians , North vs. South, Righteousness vs. Slavery. Somehow, we always know, in advance who are the baddies and who are the goodies. We clearly know who to side with.

Binary opposition is indeed a safe route. It provides a clear distinction between the ‘Kosher’ and the ‘forbidden’.  But Spielberg is far from being a banal mind. He also allows a highly calculated and carefully meditated oscillation. In a universalist gesture of courtesy he would let a single Nazi into the family of the kind. He would allow the odd Palestinian to be a victim. It can all happen as long as the main frame of the discourse remains intact.  Spielberg is clearly an arch guardian of discourse – being a master of his art-form, he will certainly maintain your attention for at least 90 minutes of a historic cinematic cocktail made of factual mishmash. All you have to do is to follow the plot to the end. By then the pre-digested ethical message is safely replanted at the hub of your self-loving narcissistic universe.

Unlike Spielberg, Tarantino is not concerned with factuality; he may even repel historicity. Tarantino may as well believe that the notion of ‘the message’ or morality are over rated.  Tarantino is an essentialist, he is interested in human nature, in Being and he seems to be fascinated in particular in vengeance and its universality. For the obvious reasons, his totally farfetched Inglorious Bastards throws light on present Israeli collective blood thirstiness as being detected at the time of Operation Cast lead. The fictional cinematic creation of a revengeful murderous WWII Jewish commando unit is there to throw the light on the devastating contemporary reality of Jewish lobbies’ lust for violence in their relentless push for a world war against Iran and beyond. But Inglorious Bastards may as well have a universal appeal because the Old Testament’s ‘eye for and eye’ has become the Anglo American political driving force in the aftermath of 9/11.

Abe’le vs. Django

What may seem as a spiritual clash between Jerusalemite Spielberg and Athenian Tarantino is more than apparent in their recent works.

The history of slavery in America is indeed a problematic topic and, for obvious reasons, many aspects of this chapter are still kept deeply within the domain of the concealed. Once again Spielberg and Tarantino have produced a distinctively different accounts of this chapter.

In his recent historical epic Lincoln, Spielberg, made Abraham Lincoln into a Neocon ‘moral interventionist’ who against all (political) odds, abolished slavery. I guess that Spielberg knows enough American history to gather that his cinematic account is a crude Zigzag attempt, for the anti slavery political campaign was a mere pretext for a bloody war driven by clear economical objectives.

http://youtu.be/KJVuqYkI2jQ

As one may expect, Spielberg peppers his tale with more than a few genuine historical anecdotes. He is certainly paying the necessary dues just to keep the shame shoved deep under the carpet.  His Lincoln is cherished as a morally driven hero of human brotherhood. And the entire plot carries all the symptoms of contemporary AIPAC lobby assault within the Capitol.  Being one of the arch guardians of the discourse, Spielberg has successfully fulfilled his task. He added a substantial cinematic layer to ensure that America’s true shame remains deeply repressed or shall we say, untouched.

Needles to mention that Spielberg’s take on Lincoln has been cheered by the Jewish press. They called the president Avraham Lincoln Avinu (our father, Hebrew) in The Tablet Magazine.  ‘Avraham’, according to the Tablet, is the definitive good Jew. “As imagined by Spielberg and Kushner, Lincoln’s Lincoln is the ultimate mensch. He is a skilled natural psychologist, an interpreter of dreams, and a man blessed with an extraordinarily clever and subtle legal mind.”  In short, Spielberg’s Lincoln is Abe’le who combines the skills, the gift and the traits of Moses, Freud as well as Alan Dershowitz. However, some Jews complain about the film.   “As an American Jewish historian, writes Lance J. Sussman, “I’m afraid I have to say I am somewhat disappointed with the latest Spielberg film. So much of it is so good, but it would have been even better if he had put at least one Jew in the movie, somewhere.”

I guess that Spielberg may find it hard to please the entire tribe. Quentin Tarantino, however, doesn’t even try. Tarantino is, in fact, doing the complete opposite. Through a phantasmic epic that confesses zero interest in any form of historicity or factuality whatsoever, he manages, in his latest masterpiece Django Unchained, to dig out the darkest secrets of Slavery. He scratches the concealed and judging by the reaction of another cinematic genius Spike Lee, he has clearly managed to get pretty deep.

http://youtu.be/ztD3mRMdqSw

By putting into play a stylistic spectacle within the Western genre Tarantino manages to dwell on every aspect we are advised to leave untouched. He deals with biological determinism, White supremacy and cruelty. But he also turns his lens onto slaves’ passivity, subservience and collaboration. The Athenian director builds here a set of Greek mythological God like characters; Django (Jamie Fox), is the unruly king of revenge and Schultz (Christoph Waltz) the German dentist turned bounty hunter is the master of wit, kindness and humanity with a giant wisdom tooth shining over his caravan. Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the Hegelian (racist) Master and Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) is the Hegelian Slave, emerging as the personification of social transformation. To a certain extent, the relationships between Candie and Stephen could be seen as one of the most profound yet subversive cinematic takes on Hegel’s master-slave dialectic.

In Hegel’s dialectic two self-consciousness’ are constituted via a process of mirroring. In Django Unchained, Stephen the slave, seems to convey the ultimate form of subservience, yet this is merely on the surface.  In reality Stephen is way more sophisticated and observant than his master Candie. He is on his way up. It is hard to determine whether Stephen is a collaborator or if he really runs the entire show. And yet in Tarantino’s latest, Hegel’s dialectic is, somehow, compartmentalized.  Django, once unchained, is clearly impervious to the Hegelian dialectic spiel. His incidental liberation induces in him a true spirit of relentless resilience. When it comes to it, he kills the Master, the Slave and everyone else who happens to be around, he bends every rule including the ‘rules of nature’ (biological determinism). By the time the epic is over, Django leaves behind a wreckage of the Candie’s plantation, the cinematic symbol of the dying old South and the ‘Master Slave Dialectic’.  Yet, as Django rides on a horse towards the rising sun together with his free wife Broomhilda von Shaft (Kerry Washington), we are awakened to the far fetched cinematic fantasy. In reality, I mean the world out of the cinema, the Candie’s plantation would, in all likelihood, remain intact and Django would probably be chained up again. In practice, Tarantino cynically juxtaposes the dream (the cinematic reality) and reality (as we know it).  By doing so he manages to illuminate the depth of misery that is entangled with the human condition and in Black reality in America in particular.

Tarantino is certainly not a ‘guardian of the discourse.’ Quite the opposite, he is the bitterest enemy of stagnation. As in his previous works, his latest spectacle is an essentialist assault on correctness and ‘self-love’. Tarantino indeed turns over many stones and unleashes many vipers into the room. Yet being a devout Athenian he doesn’t intend to produce a single answer or a moral lesson. He leaves us perplexed yet cheerful. For Tarantino, I guess, dilemma is the existential essence.  Spielberg, on, the other hand, provides all the necessary answers. After all, within the ‘progressive’ politically-correct discourse, it is the answers that determine, in retrospective, what questions we are entitled to raise.

If Leo Strauss is correct and Western civilization should be seen as an oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem, truth must be said – we can really do with many more Athenians and their essentialist reflections. In short, we are in a desperate need of many more Tarantinos to counter Jerusalem and its ambassadors.

Gun Confiscation For Us; Gun Protection For Them

There is a line from the movie Tombstone (one of my favorite westerns, by the way) in which Val Kilmer’s character, Doc Holliday, says to Wyatt Earp, “My hypocrisy knows no bounds.” (For the record, Kilmer should have won an Oscar for his performance of Doc Holliday in that movie.) Well, my friends, what Doc Holliday said in Tombstone could be said by virtually every prominent gun grabber in the country, because they are the biggest hypocrites the world has ever seen!

Paul Joseph Watson wrote a very enlightening report relative to the way that proponents of gun control are themselves heavily protected BY GUNS. Watson writes:

“The fact that Senator Dianne Feinstein’s gun control bill exempts government officials from the planned semi-auto assault weapons ban illustrates the astounding hypocrisy of gun control advocates who, while working feverishly to disarm the American people, own firearms and surround themselves with armed men.

“As the Washington Times reported last week, ‘Mrs. Feinstein’s measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and WEAPONS USED BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.’ (Emphasis in original)

“Back in 1995, while carrying a concealed weapon for her own protection, Feinstein simultaneously called for Mr. and Mrs. America to ‘turn em all in.’

“Feinstein’s hypocrisy has been matched or surpassed by virtually every other public figure now pushing for the second amendment to be eviscerated.”

The report continued saying:

“-While Obama claims that semi-automatic assault rifles should only be in the hands of members of the military, the Department of Homeland Security has purchased no less than 7,000 fully automatic assault weapons for the purpose of ‘personal defense,’ in addition to more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last 10 months alone.

[Notice that when DHS purchases FULLY AUTOMATIC submachine guns, they are called “personal defense weapons,” but when you and I purchase SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles, they are called “assault weapons.”]

“-While refusing to even consider the idea of arming teachers and school officials to prevent school shootings, Obama recently signed a law that would give him and all past and future presidents armed Secret Service protection for life.

“-During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26 yet recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability ‘to have men with guns around at all times,’ in order to protect his daughters. In addition, the school attended by Obama’s daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times.”

The report also said, “Michael Moore, another vehement proponent for gun control, also has armed bodyguards.” And Moore is not the only gun control hypocrite. Watson notes that “Prominent gun control advocates like Piers Morgan, who base their argument on reducing gun violence, routinely threaten violence against ideological adversaries. Morgan once spoke of his desire to use machine guns to ‘take out’ his critics, while also making jokes with his guests about murdering second amendment advocate Alex Jones with a semi-automatic assault rifle during his CNN show on January 8.”

Watson concludes his report saying, “The agenda-driven and factually bankrupt political arguments of gun control advocates may be somewhat easier to stomach if the people making them were not rampant hypocrites who–while calling for the American people to be stripped of their right to bear arms–are precluding themselves from being subjected to the same treatment.”

See Watson’s report at:

The Astounding Hypocrisy Of Gun Control Advocates

The examples of gun control fanatics who either use guns for personal protection or hire guns for their own protection are ubiquitous. Not long ago, a gun-grabbing State senator from North Carolina used his own firearm to shoot intruders. FOX NEWS covers the story:

“Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles (D-NC), 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician’s home county said.”

The report continued saying, “The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.

“In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the ‘Do as I say and not as I do’ Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask?

“It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.”

See the report at:

Anti-Gun Politician Shoots Intruder

Virtually every major proponent of the banning of semi-automatic rifles, from Bob Costas to Joe Scarborough to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, all enjoy varying degrees of ARMED SECURITY–often including semi-automatic, or even fully automatic, rifles. Yet, these same people want to deny you and me the liberty of defending ourselves with a semi-automatic rifle.

And is there anyone reading this so naïve as to think that if they succeed in banning semi-automatic rifles that they would stop there? It has never happened. Disarmament is always accomplished one step at a time. Big-Government toadies will never be content until a population is, for all intents and purposes, totally disarmed. If gun-grabbers get their way, only the privileged few (including them) would be allowed to own their own firearms. The rest of us would be turned into helpless, hapless sheep: unable and incapable of defending ourselves, our homes, or our communities.

Among the thousands of emails I have received over the last few weeks was one written by a professing Christian who rebuked me saying, “The only guns anyone needs to own is a short-barreled shotgun and a large-caliber revolver.”

Does this man truly believe that if the gun-grabbers succeed in banning our semi-automatic rifles that it will stop there? If he does, he is positively delusional! Then, my next question to the gentlemen is, so what will you do when they ban your short-barreled shotgun and large caliber revolver?

The problem with this misguided Christian is that he suffers from the same sickness that many people suffer from: they truly do not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment. It was never about hunting or target shooting or anything of the sort. It was about the ability of the citizenry to be able to withstand government tyranny.

If you don’t think that the government fears an armed citizenry, pay attention to the way virtually any police agency reacts to almost any “dangerous” situation today. With full military garb, military hardware and ordinance, and almost battalion-size numbers, one would think that soldiers were headed to war against an invading army.

And as to the argument that the American people have “no chance” against the US military should the federal government decide to use it to enslave us, one must understand that a significant percentage (if not a majority) of our combat troops love freedom and liberty as much as we do and would use their skills and equipment to fight alongside of their fellow citizens in opposition to a tyrannical government. The hundreds and thousands of combat troops that have written me expressing this exact sentiment is too overwhelming to dismiss. Plus, the sheer number of armed citizens in the U.S. amounts to the largest fighting force in the world. An armed citizenry is anything but helpless.

But the reason so many people today have lost sight of the historical meaning of the Second Amendment is somewhat understandable. In the first place, it has been a long time since the American people have had to use their guns in the defense of their liberties on their own soil. It’s been several generations since the tree of liberty has been watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants (Thomas Jefferson).

In the next place, far, far too many people suffer from the affliction known as the “It Can’t Happen Here” syndrome. Americans today (especially Christians, it seems) are way too trusting of their government. Way too trusting! They seem to have lost all awareness of history–and all rational thought to boot. It is no hyperbole to say that many of today’s Americans are every bit as gullible as were the Germans who rejoiced over the rise of Adolf Hitler, or the Russians and Chinese who still revere the memories of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung. They seem incapable of believing that there could be wicked people in Washington, D.C., who would, if possible, put the shackles of slavery over our necks. In fact, these would-be tyrants attempt to do just that every day with their onerous and burdensome laws, ordinances, and regulations, which are literally strangling the life out of our liberties piece-by-piece.

I dare say if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, and Patrick Henry lived today, they would have hoisted the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag a long time ago!

In the third place, pacifist preachers are literally killing America! All over the country, local church pastors and radio and TV preachers keep telling their audiences to “trust the government,” “the government is good,” “don’t resist the government,” “Romans 13 says obey the government no matter what,” ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

But what is so incredible with these “don’t resist the government” preachers is that they are the first ones to lead the cheer for America fighting unlimited undeclared, unprovoked, preemptive wars of aggression against governments all over the world. It is okay for Barack Obama to order the killings of hundreds of people (including American citizens and innocents) with no congressional authorization or oversight; it is okay for America to attack and invade sovereign states without moral or legal justification; it is okay to distrust any and all government leaders throughout the world–but never distrust our own leaders; it is okay to send other people to pick up all kinds of guns and go fight and die in hundreds of nations all around the globe in order to “preserve freedom.” But when it comes to fighting for freedom in our own country, when it comes to distrusting our own government when it proves itself to be dishonest and untrustworthy, when it comes to defending our own lives, homes, and communities with our own guns, we have no right to do so? Hogwash! Balderdash! Poppycock!

At this point, let me remind readers that my constitutional attorney son and I are right now in the process of publishing a brand new book entitled, “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.” This book thoroughly and completely researches both the Old and New Testaments to conclusively show that the right of armed resistance is cemented in both Natural and Revealed Law. The book should be released in a matter of just a few weeks. We are now taking pre-orders for the book. To pre-order “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” go to:

Keep Your Arms

There seems to be no doubt that these pacifist preachers and gun-grabbing gasbags could say along with Doc Holliday in the movie Tombstone, “My hypocrisy knows no bounds.”

The Linchpin Lie: How Global Collapse Will Be Sold To The Masses

In our modern world there exist certain institutions of power.  Not government committees, alphabet agencies, corporate lobbies, or even standard military organizations; no, these are the mere “middle-men” of power.  The errand boys.  The well paid hitmen of the global mafia.  They are not the strategists or the decision makers.

Instead, I speak of institutions which introduce the newest paradigms.  Who write the propaganda.  Who issue the orders from on high.  I speak of the hubs of elitism which have initiated nearly every policy mechanism of our government for the past several decades.  I am talking about the Council On Foreign Relations, the Tavistock Institute, the Heritage Foundation (a socialist organization posing as conservative), the Bilderberg Group, as well as the corporate foils that they use to enact globalization, such as Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Carlyle Group, etc.

Many of these organizations and corporations operate a revolving door within the U.S. government.  Monsanto has champions, like Donald Rumsfeld who was on the board of directors of its Searle Pharmaceuticals branch, who later went on to help the company force numerous dangerous products including Aspartame through the FDA.  Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have a veritable merry-go-round of corrupt banking agents which are appointed to important White House and Treasury positions on a regular basis REGARDLESS of which party happens to be in office.  Most prominent politicians are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization which has openly admitted on multiple occasions that their goal is the destruction of U.S. sovereignty and the formation of a “one world government” or “supranational union” (their words, not mine).

However, one organization seems to rear its ugly head at the forefront of the most sweeping mass propaganda operations of our time, and has been linked to the creation of the most atrocious military methodologies, including the use of false flag events.  I am of course referring to the Rand Corporation, a California based “think tank” whose influence reaches into nearly every sphere of our society, from politics, to war, to entertainment.

The Rand Corporation deals in what I would call “absolute gray”.  The goal of the group from its very inception was to promote a social atmosphere of moral ambiguity in the name of personal and national priority.  They did this first through the creation of “Rational Choice Theory”; a theory which prescribes that when making any choice, an individual (or government) must act as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at an action that maximizes personal advantage.  Basically, the ends justify the means, and moral conscience is not a factor to be taken seriously if one wishes to be successful.

Hilariously, rational choice theory has been attacked in the past by pro-socialist (collectivist) critics as “extreme individualism”; a philosophy which gives us license to be as “self serving” as possible while feeling patriotic at the same time.  In reality, the socialists should have been applauding Rand Corporation all along.

What Rand had done through its propaganda war against the American people was to infuse the exact culture of selfishness needed to push the U.S. towards the socialist ideal.  At the onset of any communist or national socialist society (sorry socialists, but they do indeed come from the same collectivist mindset), the masses are first convinced to hand over ultimate power to the establishment in order to safeguard THEMSELVES, not others.  That is to say, the common collectivist man chooses to hand over his freedoms and participate in totalitarianism not because he wants what is best for the world, but because he wants what is best for himself, and he believes servitude to the system will get him what he wants with as little private sacrifice as possible (you know, except for his soul…).

The psychologist Carl Jung notes in his observations of collectivism in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia that most citizens of those nations did not necessarily want the formation of a tyrannical oligarchy, but, they went along with it anyway because they feared for their own comfort and livelihoods.  Many a German supported the Third Reich simply because they did not want to lose a cushy job, or a steady paycheck, or they liked that the “trains ran on time”.  Socialism is by far the most selfish movement in history, despite the fact that they claim to do what they do “for the greater good of the greater number”.

Rand also used Rational Choice Theory as a means to remove questions of principle from the debate over social progress.  Rational Choice propaganda commonly presents the target audience with a false conundrum.  A perfect example would be the hardcore propaganda based television show ‘24’ starring Kiefer Sutherland, in which a government “anti-terrorism” agent is faced with a controlled choice scenario in nearly every episode.  This choice almost always ends with the agent being forced to set aside his morals and conscience to torture, kill, and destroy without mercy, or, allow millions of innocents to die if he does not.

Of course, the real world does not work this way.  Life is not a chess game.   Avenues to resolution of any crisis are limited only by our imagination and intelligence, not to mention the immense number of choices that could be made to defuse a crisis before it develops.  Yet, Rand would like you to believe that we (and those in government) are required to become monstrous in order to survive.  That we should be willing to forgo conscience and justice now for the promise of peace and tranquility later.

This is the age old strategy of Centralization; to remove all choices within a system, by force or manipulation, until the masses think they have nothing left but the choices the elites give them.  It is the bread and butter of elitist institutions like Rand Corporation, and is at the core of the push for globalization.

In my studies on the developing economic disaster (or economic recovery depending on who you talk to) I have come across a particular methodology many times which set off my analyst alarm (or spidey-sense, if you will).  This latest methodology, called “Linchpin Theory”, revolves around the work of John Casti, a Ph.D. from USC, “complexity scientist” and “systems theorist”, a Futurist, and most notably, a former employee of Rand Corporation:

http://www.viennareview.net/vienna-review-book-reviews/book-reviews/john-casti-an-optimist-of-the-apocalypse

Casti introduces his idea of “Linchpin Theory” in his book “X-Events:  The Collapse Of Everything”, and what I found most immediately striking about the idea of “Linchpin Events” was how they offered perfect scapegoat scenarios for catastrophes that are engineered by the establishment.

Linchpin Theory argues that overt social, political, and technological “complexity” is to blame for the most destructive events in modern human history, and it is indeed an enticing suggestion for those who are uneducated and unaware of the behind the scenes mechanics of world events.  Casti would like you to believe that political and social tides are unguided and chaotic; that all is random, and disaster is a product of “chance” trigger events that occur at the height of a malfunctioning and over-complicated system.

What he fails to mention, and what he should well know being a member of Rand, is that global events do not evolve in a vacuum.  There have always been those groups who see themselves as the “select”, and who aspire to mold the future to their personal vision of Utopia.  It has been openly admitted in myriad official observations on historical events that such groups have had a direct hand in the advent of particular conflicts.

For instance, Casti would call the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria an “X-event”, or linchpin, leading to the outbreak of WWI, when historical fact recalls that particular crisis was carefully constructed with the specific mind to involve the U.S.

Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee’s investigation. The Committee stated:

“The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question.  If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war…. They discussed this question… for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people.  That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war.  This was in 1909.” 

So, long before the advent of Ferdinand’s assassination, plans were being set in motion by globalist interests to draw the U.S. into a large scale conflict in order to “alter the life, or thinking, of the entire culture”.  When a group of people set out to direct thinking and opportunity towards a particular outcome, and the end result is a culmination of that outcome, it is obviously not coincidence, and it is definitely not providence.  It can only be called subversive design.

In the economic arena, one might say that the collapse of Lehman Bros. was the “linchpin” that triggered the landslide in the derivatives market which is still going on to this day.  However, the derivatives market bubble was a carefully constructed house of cards, deliberately created with the help of multiple agencies and institutions.  The private Federal Reserve had to artificially lower interest rates and inject trillions upon trillions into the housing market, the international banks had to invest those trillions into mortgages that they KNEW were toxic and likely never to be repaid.  The Federal Government had to allow those mortgages to then be chopped up into derivatives and resold on the open market.  The ratings agencies had to examine those derivatives and obviously defunct mortgages and then stamp them AAA.  The SEC had to ignore the massive fraud being done in broad daylight while sweeping thousands of formal complaints and whistle blowers under the rug.

This was not some “random” event caused by uncontrolled “complexity”.  This was engineered complexity with a devious purpose.  The creation of the derivatives collapse was done with foreknowledge, at least by some.  Goldman Sachs was caught red handed betting against their OWN derivatives instruments!  Meaning they knew exactly what was about to happen in the market they helped build!  This is called Conspiracy…

One might attribute Casti’s idea to a sincere belief in chaos, and a lack of insight into the nature of globalism as a brand of religion.  However, in his first and as far as I can tell only interview with Coast To Coast Radio, Casti promotes catastrophic “X-Events” as a “good thing” for humanity, right in line with the Rand Corporation ideology.  Casti, being a futurist and elitist, sees the ideas of the past as obsolete when confronted with the technological advancements of the modern world, and so, describes X-event moments as a kind of evolutionary “kickstart”, knocking us out of our old and barbaric philosophies of living and forcing us, through trial by fire, to adapt to a more streamlined culture.  The linchpin event is, to summarize Casti’s position, a culture’s way of “punishing itself” for settling too comfortably into its own heritage and traditions.  In other words, WE will supposedly be to blame for the next great apocalypse, not the elites…

I might suggest that Casti’s attitude seems to be one of general indifference to human suffering in the wake of his “X-Events”, and that he would not necessarily be opposed to the deaths of millions if it caused the “advancement” of humanity towards a particular ideology.  His concept of “advancement” and ours are likely very different, though.  I suspect that he is well aware that X-Events are actually tools at the disposal of elitists to generate the “evolution” he so desires, and that evolution includes a collectivist result.

With almost every major economy on the globe on the verge of collapse and most now desperately inflating, taxing, or outright stealing in order to hide their situation, with multiple tinderbox environments being facilitated in the Pacific with China, North Korea, and Japan, and in the Middle East and Africa with Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Mali, etc., there is no doubt that we are living in a linchpin-rich era.  It is inevitable that one or more of these explosive tension points will erupt and cause a chain reaction around the planet.  The linchpin and the chain reaction will become the focus of our epoch, rather than the men who made them possible in the first place.

Strangely, Casti’s theory was even recently featured in an episode of the ABC mystery/drama show “Castle”, called “Linchpin” (what else?), in which a writer turned detective uncovers a plot by a “shadow group” to use the research of the innocent Dr. Nelson Blakely (apparently based on Casti) to initiate a collapse of the U.S. economy by assassinating the ten-year-old daughter of a prominent Chinese businessman, triggering a dump of U.S. Treasuries by China and fomenting WWIII:

http://www.alterna-tv.com/castle/xevents.htm 

Now, I think anyone with any sense can see where this is going.  Casti and Rand Corporation are giving us a glimpse into the future of propaganda.  This is what will be written in our children’s history books if the globalists have their way. The fact that Linchpin Theory is featured in a primetime television show at all is a testament to Rand Corporation’s influence in the media.  But, as for the wider picture, are the trigger points around us really just a product of complex coincidence?

Not a chance.

Each major global hot-spot today can easily be linked back to the designs of international corporate and banking interests and the puppet governments they use as messengers.  Casti claims that “X-events” and “linchpins” cannot be accurately predicted, but it would seem that they can certainly be purposely instigated.

The globalists have stretched the whole of the world thin.  They have removed almost every pillar of support from the edifice around us, and like a giant game of Jenga, are waiting for the final piece to be removed, causing the teetering structure to crumble.  Once this calamity occurs, they will call it a random act of fate, or a mathematical inevitability of an overly complex system.  They will say that they are not to blame.  That we were in the midst of “recovery”.  That they could not have seen it coming.

Their solution will be predictable.  They will state that in order to avoid such future destruction, the global framework must be “simplified”, and what better way to simplify the world than to end national sovereignty, dissolve all borders, and centralize nation states under a single economic and political ideal?

Is it the Hegelian Dialectic all over again?  Yes.  Is it old hat feudalism and distraction?  Yes.  But, I have to hand it to Casti and Rand Corporation; they certainly have refined the argument for collectivism, centralization, technocracy, slavery, moral relativism, and false-flag dupery down to a near science.

Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market

In Defense of Old White Men

While modern society prides itself on being unbiased, it’s no exception to the rule that every age has its fashionable prejudices — and unfashionable people. Among the latter today are white men, and the closer they are to “dead white male” status, to use a favored leftist descriptive, the greater the disdain in which they’re held.

Thus do we see sneering at “old white men.” Earlier this year, Senator Harry Reid — one well acquainted through experience with old-white-male machinations — complained of “angry old white men” who bankroll conservative causes. More recently, the old-white-media paper the Guardian published a piece about America’s changing demographics titled, in part, “No country for angry old white men….” Ah, yes, it’s not just that they’re old, white, and men, that triad of turpitude. They’re “angry,” too.  So just dismiss them out of hand, with their agenda born of blinding, irrational hatred. It’s another example of projection, from the group (leftists) that makes intellect-clouding emotionalism an art.

If we’re to define matters based on group identification, however — and the left makes clear we will — there is an irony here.

You could roughly say that old white men built the whole modern world.

You can precisely say this if you include in the category the budding old white men known as younger white men. Who were all the great inventors, innovators, and philosophers from ancient Greece and Rome up through medieval and modern Europe and the United States? Who forged the West? Who birthed democracy? Who improved upon it, giving us our Constitution and modern republican government? There is a reason why most of the busts and pictures of legendary figures portray old white men.

We might also note that while old white men probably weren’t the first to practice slavery, they were the first to eliminate it. The same can be said of human rights: old white men had lots of company trampling them. They were alone in crafting the modern conception of them.

And is America really advancing as old white men’s cultural and political weight wanes? During what group’s hegemony were our national finances, morality, culture, and economic growth healthiest? Is there a group with a better track record of running successful civilizations? As to this, if only old white men had voted during the last 50 years, we likely wouldn’t be facing the fiscal cliff that hangs over us like a sword of Damocles.

Of course, much demonization of old white men is mere artifice, an effort to sell an inferior product (liberalism) by discrediting its opposition. “Hey, why buy from these white-prune Willy Loman salesmen when you can patronize sales people? We’re young, we’re hip, and quick with the lip!” Yet this appeal only works by playing on very real prejudices. Exposition of the anti-white variety has been done to death in the Reality Media. It was epitomized when Susan Sontag said, “The white race is the cancer of human history” and thus proved that some white people certainly are. But far more interesting and less discussed is the other bias relevant here: that against the aged.

For most of history, old was gold. There is the stereotype of the wise old man, and, historically, societies would be governed by “elders.” For example, ancient Sparta had a council of elders, and only men of at least 60 years of age qualified. And, of course, insisting that children respect their elders was once common.

This now has been turned on its head. One underappreciated reason why John McCain lost the 2008 election is that he appeared old — an old-looking candidate hasn’t won the presidency since the TV era’s advent — whereas Barack Obama seemed young and hip. And while fear that the person may die in office and our eye-candy culture certainly explain this in part, an increasingly significant factor is that many view seniors as they do our Constitution: old and yellowed and not relevant to our time. Just consider how the only consistent stereotype the hit show Seinfeld played upon was that of older people — and it was wholly unflattering. They were portrayed as doddering, out of touch, dishonest, egotistical, argumentative, and petty, too engrossed in trivial matters to ponder what’s truly important (such as, apparently, figuring out how to find someone more attractive to sleep with).

Of course, as Warren Buffet, Noam Chomsky, and many others prove, “Wisdom doesn’t always come with age; sometimes age just shows up all by itself.” Yet even if the two are joined at the hip, it won’t matter among a people who devalue wisdom. Note that the definition of the word — until dictionary writers lost their wisdom — was “knowledge of what is true or good.” But there is no such thing in a relativistic universe, that realm with favored mantras such as “That’s your ‘truth’; someone else’s may be different” and “Don’t impose your values on me!” There can be no objective “good” if there is no God; nothing can be truly “true” if there is no Truth. And what is left when people no longer perceive Truth’s existence and thus cannot use it as a yardstick for behavior? There then is just taste, preference, and what do we call the moment’s consensus tastes?

Fashions.

And this is where the elderly cannot compete. People who believe in Truth understand it’s timeless; that those who have lived longer will generally have apprehended more of it; and that it doesn’t matter if older people aren’t “with the times,” only whether the times are with the Truth. But the young will always be more with the fashions. And owing to that dislocation from Truth, they will often embrace fashions even when they’re fallacies. They won’t know they’re fallacies, either, as moderns’ only perceived standard for judging such things is the fashions themselves. And they won’t care what elders have to say about tried and true “wisdom.” It would be much like telling them that they should dispense with pizza in favor of their grandparents’ 1940s biscuits and gravy. It’s all a matter of preference, so why should they subordinate their tastes to those of the past?

This gets at the insidiousness of modern liberalism. The French revolutionaries sought to erase the past by starting history anew with their revolution’s first year, 1789; the Khmer Rouge sought to do so with their “Year Zero.” But revolutionary change is too obvious; it doesn’t gently boil the frog as does modern liberalism’s evolutionary variety. Progressives don’t make any major pronouncements, dear citizen, about the first year of the rest of your life. They simply disconnect each generation from the last — from the past — with the message that, hey, ya’ gotta be with it, which means being nothing like grandpa. And the “it” is change, not tradition; current tastes, not Truth; fashions and not fact. Just convince the young to ignore the old or dead — especially if they’re white and male — the people who formulated Western civilization’s recipe, and that Occidental delicacy is history. Then you will have started history anew not with an iron fist, but sleight of hand that keeps the frog simmering soundly.

Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero once said, “To be ignorant of the past is to be forever a child. For what is the time of a man, except it be interwoven with that memory of ancient things of a superior age?” Demonizing white men old or dead keeps the young and alive disconnected from them and hence from the past. This gives us a civilization of children, just the kind of people a pied piper can lead.

They Prefer Caviar, Even If It Comes With Chains

There is an Old Testament story that parallels with what is going on in America today. The story is found in Numbers chapter 11. God had delivered His people from great bondage. They witnessed His mighty hand of power and deliverance in defeating their oppressors and leading them toward a land of promise and liberty. He even dropped “angels’ food” (called manna) from Heaven to sustain them. But after being delivered from bondage, they began to yearn for a return to Egypt. In verse 5 of that chapter, the people are recorded as complaining, “We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick.” (KJV)

Can you believe it? After hundreds of years of floggings, imprisonments, beatings, chains, and slavery, they remember FISH? I don’t know if caviar was considered a delicacy back in those days. If it wasn’t, I suppose it’s possible that slaves ate fish eggs also. But can you believe it? After being delivered from the worst possible slavery, all they remembered was the fish? Holy Creepers, Batman!

Now, to understand what’s going on here, we have to read verse 4, “And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also.”

I have heard countless sermons on this passage, and in all honesty I cannot remember one that identified what they were lusting after. Lust here means “to covet greatly.” So, what were they coveting? Was it food? Was it the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic? No! What they coveted, what they lusted after, was SECURITY!

In the wilderness, there was risk, uncertainty, and potential failure. They had to depend totally on divine Providence. They could not see what the morrow would hold. There were no guarantees, no entitlements, and no assurances. And even though God had delivered them with great power, sustained them daily with manna, and promised them a land of freedom of their very own, they lusted after security. To them, security was more important than liberty.

If this story does not parallel with what is happening in America right now, nothing does! God delivered the American people out of great bondage. He proved His power and might on our behalf. He gave us a land of liberty of our very own. And now all Americans seem to be able to think about are the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic of bondage. They lust for, and greatly covet, SECURITY.

It seems that there is no usurpation of liberty so egregious that the American people, both churched and un-churched, will not gladly accept, as long as it is presented to them as a way to make them feel more secure. In truth, so many Americans–especially so many of those who call themselves Christians–are practicing idolaters. They are worshipping at the altar of safety and security. Big Government politicians and bureaucrats are the priests, the Department of Homeland Security is the temple, and the taxes, fees, and assessments are the tithes and offerings. Hallelujah!

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

And that is exactly what happened to the Israelites in the wilderness. In their lust after the security of Egypt (even if it meant bondage), they so angered the Lord that He allowed them to die in the wilderness with neither liberty nor the safety that they coveted. And if America continues on its current course, this is exactly what will happen to us.

Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney has done or said anything that would indicate either man has any intention of dismantling the ubiquitous surveillance society/police state that is engulfing our country. Just the opposite. Both men have committed themselves to the tyrannical provisions of the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, etc. Neither man has any intention of dismantling the Warfare State that is leading the United States smack dab into the middle of World War III. In fact, I predict that if Romney is elected (which I think he will be), he will escalate America’s policies of military interventionism to heights never before seen. He will make G.W. Bush’s preemptive war incursions look like child’s play. (And I think the globalists know this and fully intend to put Romney in power for this very purpose.)

Noted researcher and analyst Joel Skousen quotes Daniel Indiviglio, Reuter’s Breakingviews columnist, as saying that Mitt Romney’s future wars will be a budget buster: “Mitt Romney’s foreign policy doesn’t match his thrifty approach to other spending. The U.S. Republican presidential candidate’s speech on Monday suggests a George W. Bush-like interventionist streak, another step away from the party’s pre-World War Two isolationism. That could lead to more Middle East conflict and defense spending. It’s also just as risky as President Barack Obama’s stance.”

In my opinion, Indiviglio greatly understates the problem. These modern-day Republican warmongers, including Mitt Romney, seem to have an insatiable appetite for war. In truth, if Barack Obama loses this election, he will have no one to blame but himself. If he had followed through with his commitment to end America’s military adventurism in the Middle East, he would have won in a landslide. By him choosing to not only continue, but expand, Bush’s wars in the Middle East, he put the nails in his own political coffin. The problem is, Romney will double or triple America’s Warfare State.

And don’t let anyone fool you! Ron Paul was right about “blowback.” Except for a very small minority of militant Muslim extremists, the vast majority of people in the Middle East do not hate the United States because of our freedom; they hate us for the way we have long intruded into the private affairs of their countries, and they hate us for the way we have rained down death and destruction at will upon their fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters.

Skousen writes, “Now we have strong evidence from direct interviews with a wide variety of victims that neither of the US government’s claims [of the lack of innocent people being killed by America’s drone attacks] are true. Leon Watson, of the UK Daily Mail, summarizes some of the findings: ‘Just one in 50 victims of America’s deadly drone strikes in Pakistan are terrorists –while the rest are innocent civilians, a new report claimed today. The authoritative joint study, by Stanford and New York Universities, concludes that men, women and children are being terrorized by the operations “24 hours-a day”.

“‘And the authors lay much of the blame on the use of the “double-tap” strike where a drone fires one missile–and then a second as rescuers try to drag victims from the rubble. One aid agency said they had a six-hour delay before going to the scene.’

“Hitting the relief effort can only result in more innocents killed. Everyone in the intelligence community knows that after a strike on suspected militants, all his comrades flee for their lives and try to get farther away. Only innocent relatives and relief works are present during the follow up strikes–which can only be meant to create terror.”

Come on, folks, think! How would we react if Russia or China were raining down missiles on our homes and families day after day after day? And bombing emergency workers’ relief efforts and funerals? Would not any person of decency and civility deem such practices among the most reprehensible that could ever be imagined? I mean, this is right out of 1920’s gangland atrocities. Is Al Capone in charge of our foreign policy, or what?

And Skousen (himself a Mormon), after excoriating Obama, says this about Mitt Romney: “But that isn’t to say Romney would save us from much of the Obama agenda. He’s already sending messages that he would retain most of Obamacare even if repealed. Romney’s problem is that he has too much ambition and is trying desperately to please the establishment. He has hired virtually all establishment and neocon advisors. I hope he loses–not because I want Obama back, but because the conservative movement suffers under Republican presidents who do the establishment bidding while convincing conservatives it’s the ‘right thing to do.’ It’s not.”

And all of this is being sold to the American public under the rubric of SECURITY. Our aggressive warmongering is believed to make us more secure (in reality, it makes us less secure). But security–even false security–is what the American people seem to covet. Plus, in so doing, they seem eager to put the fetters around their own necks here at home by being willing to accept a Soviet-style surveillance/police state. Just like the Israelites of old: many Americans prefer caviar, even if it comes with chains!

The Truth On Biden’s Abortion Malarkey

When Joe Biden was asked about abortion in the vice-presidential debate last Thursday, he replied with what, in part, has become boilerplate. “I accept my church’s position on abortion…” he said. “Life begins at conception; that’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life; I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman [Paul Ryan].”

The personally-opposed, no-values-imposed (PONVI) argument is nothing new. For instance, consider the following version of a typical pro-abortion appeal:

If each person will only agree to mind his own business, and leave his neighbors alone, there will be peace forever between us…. I am now speaking of rights under the constitution, and not of moral or religious rights…. It is for women to decide… the moral and religious right of the abortion question for themselves within their own limits….

Now consider that this passage was altered by Professor Michael Pakaluk, but was originally written by Stephen Douglas with “states” in the place of “women” and “slavery” in place of “abortion.” This typical “pro-choice” argument was originally a defense of slavery. (Note that Douglas, the consummate politician, did denounce slavery in private.)

So the fallacy of the PONVI position is revealed when we apply it to other things. “Personally, I’m opposed to rape, but I understand the world is shades of gray; “Personally, I’m opposed to slavery; I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, Mr. Lincoln.” Would we consider this a moral and compelling reason to not prohibit these things?

Some will now say that rape and slavery are very different from abortion, in that they directly hurt another person. To thus contend, however, is to depart from the PONVI argument and delve into the nature of the act in question. It then follows that if abortion also directly hurts another person, it may warrant prohibition as well.

And this is the problem with PONVI: it is a dodge. Abortion, or whatever is being discussed, may be good, bad, or morally neutral; it may or may not be a legitimate function of government to legislate on it. But we’ll never know when indulging the PONVI dodge because it doesn’t actually tackle the nature of what’s being discussed. Instead, it’s only moral component is the implication that it’s noble to not impose values on others. Yet we do this all the time: a law, by definition, is the imposition of a value.

Another common argument used against the pro-life stance is that it’s a religious position and thus not the legitimate stuff of laws. Vice-presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz’ abortion question played upon this, as she asked the two candidates how their Catholic faith shaped their views on the subject. And it was in a way reflected when slavery advocate Stephen Douglas said, “I am now speaking of rights under the constitution, and not of moral or religious rights….” And ne’er the twain shall meet?

Not according to Joe Biden. “My religion defines who I am… It has particularly informed my social doctrine,” he said in the debate. He then went on to chide his opponent, saying that Congressman Ryan takes issue with “Catholic social doctrine.” Think about that for a moment. Biden wasn’t criticizing Ryan’s personal charitable behavior, but his public policy; moreover, Catholic social doctrine involves a multitude of ways in which we can help our fellow man, and Biden believes that the government should help citizens (and maybe non-citizens) in a multitude of ways. Thus, Biden was chastising Ryan for not letting his religion influence a huge swath of public policy. Like a Saudi cleric, Biden was advocating the imposition of religious principles through government. And guess what?

He’s right to do so.

(That is, he was {inadvertently} right about the nature of law—but not about the amount of it we should have.)

For while we can have a separation of church and state, there can never be a separation of church and just law. I know this is a controversial statement, but I’ll explain what I mean by connecting the dots.

Any law is the imposition of a “value,” but a just law is more specific: it imposes morality. After all, a law states that there is something we must or mustn’t do. But why must or mustn’t we? Sure, it could be because monarchs or masses feel like it and have the power, but that’s simply might making right. For a law to be just, what is prescribed or proscribed must be, respectively, a moral imperative or morally wrong—or a corollary thereof. To dispute this is to say that you would prohibit something even though it’s not wrong or mandate something even though it’s not a good. What would be the point? Only tyrants do that.

So a just law must reflect morality, but what is morality? Who determines it? There are only two possibilities: man or something outside of man does. Let’s consider the implications of each one.

Imagine that 95 percent of humanity liked chocolate and disliked vanilla. Would this make vanilla “wrong” or “immoral”? Of course not. We know such things are mere matters of taste. Okay, but then how can we rightly claim that murder, rape, or slavery is “immoral” if the only reason we’re doing so is that the vast majority of us don’t happen to like it? If the only argument we can hang our hat on is consensus preference, then it falls into the same category as flavors: taste.

Some will now point out that the aforementioned acts hurt others, but who is to say that’s wrong? Exasperated, you may now say “Everybody! That’s who!” But “everybody” is people, so we’re again down to consensus preference. It’s a merry-go-round always bringing us back to the same pointless point. And there’s only one way off it.

This is to accept the point: the one way we can rightly say an act is “wrong” or “immoral” is if something outside of man and supreme (i.e., God) has deemed that it’s so—is if it’s dictated by the objective reality called Truth. This is why the Founding Fathers took pains to emphasize that our rights are endowed by our Creator. They knew that for a principle to have credibility, it has to reflect more than merely consensus preference. It has to reflect morality, which, incidentally, is never “personal,” but universal and eternal.

So here are the dots and destination: a just law must reflect morality. Morality implies God. Things of God are discussed and discovered in the realm we call religion. Therefore, religion must and always does shape law—if that law is to be just. There is no way around it.

And what if God didn’t exist? Then what we call a just law couldn’t be any more “right” than “unjust” law, as this, too, would be reduced to preference. It is realities such as this that devoted atheists should consider. You won’t believe in the divine? Alright. But then we can dispense with words such as right, wrong, good, bad (as they relate to behavior), morality, and even values, as they’re then just redundancies that, while lending an illusory sense of meaning, only apply in religious fairytales and therefore muddy the waters. Just say what you mean and accept that our laws and social codes are all a matter of taste; accept that all of our arguments are mere vanity, that they’re but an intellectual veneer applied to an edifice of desire, and that there’s nothing noble in our cultural and political battles. It’s just a matter of who controls the guns by capturing the votes.

And what of religion in government? Well, if religious ideas really do come from God, the creator of the Universe, then they should infuse everything. And what if they don’t hail from Heaven and thus lack this divine credibility? Then religion is man-made just like everything else, so why discriminate against it? Why say that man-made ideas we happen to call secular (now, anyway) may be the stuff of laws, but man-made ideas we happen to call religious may not be? If all is man-made, religious/secular is in a sense a false distinction.

Of course, operating with a full understanding of the relativistic world view, devoted militant secularists now could tell us why they discriminate against “religion”: “Because we can.” And this explains why our political battles become more underhanded and vicious all the time: If “[m]an is the measure of all things,” he can never fail to measure up no matter how far down he goes.

The Sovereign Man Is The Real Prisoner

According to establishment officials, the concept of the Sovereign Man philosophy is a direct threat to the authority of the State. Depending upon your perception of reality and the degree of legitimacy for government, given to the prevailing order, fundamental inalienable rights of the individual may vary widely. In the extreme, government statists consider most if not all natural rights as capricious and arbitrary, if conflicts challenge the dictates of the regime. This unending and interminable struggle to defend undeniable individual basic rights drives bureaucrats to use unconscionable measures to coerce citizen compliance.

An illustration comes from the FBI’s Counterterrorism Analysis Section in their publication, Sovereign Citizens – A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement.

“The FBI considers sovereign-citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement, which, scattered across the United States, has existed for decades . . . Sovereign citizens do not represent an anarchist group, nor are they a militia, although they sometimes use or buy illegal weapons. Rather, they operate as individuals without established leadership and only come together in loosely affiliated groups to train, help each other with paperwork, or socialize and talk about their ideology. They may refer to themselves as “constitutionalists” or “freemen,” which is not necessarily a connection to a specific group, but, rather, an indication that they are free from government control. They follow their own set of laws. While the philosophies and conspiracy theories can vary from person to person, their core beliefs are the same: The government operates outside of its jurisdiction. Because of this belief, they do not recognize federal, state, or local laws, policies, or regulations.”

Such sentiments demonstrate that civil liberties have no place in the realm of federal law enforcement. Authoritarians assume that government automatically possesses authenticity because it claims to hold a monopoly of force within the society. Rational and balanced observers of the history and government abuses, especially to their own citizens, must conclude that arrogant superiority, manifested by magistrates and constables, has caused untold atrocities and suffering.

Resistance to unchecked governance through punitive social control and mind manipulation is the theme of arguably the most significant television series ever filmed, The Prisoner. The episodes of this 1960’s British cult production are not simply offbeat entertainment, for it deals with some of the most pronounced maltreatments and psychological torture in a society of distorted reality.For those not familiar with the program,

“Patrick McGoohan plays a man who resigns from a top secret position and is abducted from his London home. He finds himself in a beautiful village where everything is bright and cheerful – the people, their clothes, the buildings, the flowers. But despite this rosey exterior, the village serves a sinister purpose. People are forcibly brought there in order to have their valuable knowledge protected or extracted. Everyone in the Village is assigned a number instead of a name – the Prisoner is Number Six. Chief interrogator and administrator is Number Two, but he isn’t the boss – an unseen Number One is the boss.

Failure is not tolerated in the Village, and most episodes feature a new Number Two, though some are privileged to return for a second chance to break Number Six and discover why he resigned.

The Prisoner struggles to keep this information from his captors and to find out which side runs the Village and where it is. He strives to discover the identity of Number One, and above all, he attempts to escape.”

The global culture has changed in the forty-five years since No. 6 engaged in his existential struggle to preserve his dignity as a Sovereign Man. By any objective standard the attitudes and conditions in the world toward respecting the self-worth of the individual has descended into a new Dark Age of totalitarian despotism.

The always thoughtful and often profound John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute penned an exceptional essay,The Prisoner: ‘I Am Not a Number. I Am a Free Man!’

“Fundamentally, however, The Prisoner is an epistemological exercise that focuses on the concept of reality, both in the subjective and objective sense – that is, can we really know anything about anything? Is reality a mere social construct? Since society creates any knowledge that people may possess, does this mean that human beings are simply products of the given social setting from which they are manufactured? As Steven Paul Davies notes in The Prisoner Handbook (2002): “Thinking for yourself is not necessarily thinking by yourself.” And as Number 2 warns Number 6 in the episode entitled “Once upon a Time”:

Society is the place where people exist together. That is civilization. The lone wolf belongs to the wilderness. You must not grow up to be a lone wolf.

Therefore, the ultimate goal of those in power is conformity to the constructs of society. This means both figuratively and literally eliminating the lone wolf, the individual. Modern psychiatry defines “normality” as conformity. This “measuring of the human psyche by psychologists,” as Davies puts it, has seriously affected how we live our lives and how we view nonconformists. Media representations of “normality” have become the criteria that society uses to evaluate its members. The concept of normality has become subjective as our views have changed to meet societal demands. The individual, as the term was once defined, is becoming passé. As McGoohan commented in 1968:

“At this moment individuals are being drained of their personalities and being brainwashed into slaves. The inquisition of the mind by psychiatrists is far worse than the assault on the body of torturers.”

The context of comparing and contrasting society and the individual has lost much of its academic substance. The “concept of reality” is routinely scripted by the elitist system that operates as the all-pervasive and all-powerful Number One. The Village of pleasant and polite appearance is essentially a penitentiary of human bondage and servitude. Heed the lesson that conformity under a coercive courtesan court is doomed to strip the majesty of their human spirit and substitute a remorseful sense of ruin, for the zombies that swallow the anguish of state discipline.

 

The relevance of the plight of the prisoner holds true for all of humanity. In a video clip from the broadcast, The Prisoner – Which Side Runs the Village?, the purpose – “an international community, a perfect blueprint for world order”, is the essence of the gruesome quandary that faces every living person in this age of the macabre New World Order.

The Sovereign Man is the natural order of the created universe. The Illuminati plan for total dominance, seeks to eliminate individuals by the billions. Replacing the noncompliant is essential to their annihilating agenda. The selected and remaining few, will adopt the technocratic transhumanist transformation into a demented version of Nietzsche’s Gnostic Superman.Bureaucratic minions administer punitive retribution with a sense of urgency, since the Patriot Acts allows for unmerciful treatment of “domestic terrorists”. So says the FBI . . . The fear that grips the establishment rests upon the public awareness that “The government operates outside of its jurisdiction”, also stated by the G-men. However, the recent reinstatement of the unconstitutional NDAA dictum should alarm all men of good will.

As Kurt Nimmo reports on Infowars,

“This pernicious law poses one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in our nation’s history,” writes Brian J. Trautman. Under AUMF, “this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.”

If this is the real world, the Village of tranquil incarceration seems tame by comparison. The Prisoner program concludes in its search to unmask Number One, with the music of the Beatles – “All You Need Is Love” – playing on in the background. Such hallowed harmony falls upon deaf ears, when it comes to the overseers of theglobal gulag.

Sovereign individuality is basically the noble quest to fulfill your life as a unique and sacred human being. Superseding natural law with wicked Transhumanism rejects God as our creator and master. Personal responsibility and respect for a moral and lawful order is consistent with an accountable and meaningful life.

Subjecting the masses to a techno-maniacal imprisonment destiny is pure evil. That “perfect blueprint for world order” is a master plan for total enslavement. Dissent against such illicit sanctions is necessary to prevent the threat of human extermination by the functionaries of the NWO.

No law is valid without the consent of the people. Logic dictates that slavery by forced conduct and mental conformity, through cultural perversion, is a behavioral assault on human dignity. The Sovereign Man is effectively the conscience of society that oppressive government deems to be an enemy of the state. Under such governance, the state becomes the enemy of the public. Are you your own Number 6, with the need for redemption, or are you simply another jailer inside a prison of your own construction?

Be Seeing You . . .

Rewarding Idiots With Democratic Totalitarianism

Now that the Democrat Party convention concluded their class warfare rally, those with saner minds are left with the task of identifying the magnitude of the sociopathic disease that infects the vast mindset of the worship government sect. The rhetoric of the Left has little trouble with identifying the ills of the world, but when the collectivists start to rattle off their measures to make the world safe for democracy, the ugly fascist face of totalitarianism emerges. The bond among statists, span all ideological spectrums. Commies and Nazis share the same gene. In Amerika, that same defiled DNA proliferates in all the half-wits that still believe that government is or can be a force for good. Essentially, the people are a herd of corruption enablers.

Maybe the most ridiculous spin out of the mouths of the entitlement strivers references a CNN report, that a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 0 percent of African American voters intended to support Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama. On face value, this claim is absurd. However, by digging deeper into the attitude that the mainstream media characterizes for the black community, the only conclusion a reasonable person can draw, is that the true racism resides in the controllers of the popular culture and its perverted message.In order to appreciate the linkage between bigotry and subservience, the role of stupidity needs acknowledgment. Multitudes of all races share idiocy, often in the same way, by the institutional levers of control. The inference that any particular people would give consent to a betrayer of individual rights, based upon the shared color of their skin, is an insult to everyone.

The executive order practices of the Obama administration are inherently authoritarian. The coercion used by the State to enforce the power of the ruling elite is integral to the survival of the regime. The ridiculousness that gives fake relief and promises phony rewards, is often called – democracy.

This subject, seldom analyzed in a vacuum, takes on the persona of the ideologue. Richard Lichtman provides one such example, in an essay, Totalitarian Democracy, which cites the work of Sheldon Wolin.

“Since the time of the Civil War and the formation of the American colossus and its dual economy of corporate domination and social remainder, the course of capitalist domination has been set. Whatever further “progressive” change has been achieved has forfeited its full potentiality to the tendencies of an expanding corporate control. In this process, democracy has been more and more corrupted, as Sheldon Wolin notes in “Democracy Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism,” a work that has been blatantly ignored.

The United States has become the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed. This has come about not through a Leader’s imposing his will or the state’s forcibly eliminating opposition, but through certain developments, notably the economy, that promoted integration, rationalization, concentrated wealth, and a faith that virtually any problem from health care to political crises, even faith itself – could be managed, that is, subject to control, predictability, and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of the product. Voters are made as predictable as consumers; a university is nearly as rationalized in its structure as a corporation; a corporate structure is as hierarchical in its chain of command as the military. The regime ideology is capitalism which is virtually as undisputed as Nazi doctrine was in 1930s Germany.”

This topic, examined in more detail in the essay, Inverted Totalitarianism and the Corporate State, is worth a review. Mr. Lichtman being the “Predictable Progressive” concludes his remarks with a stunning attitude that perverts the natural order of the meaning of individual liberty.

“The Tea Party and other such calamitous confusions will eventually come to the sort of end that has destroyed all those who do not understand just who is the master and who the servant. But a great deal of suffering can be visited on the nation while this defeat is being enacted. Now is the time for all of us to engage in the intellectual activity of understanding what forces are in play and the practical task of forcing back and destroying the monstrous army of these protofascist directors and retainers.”

Ivory tower utopians march in the ranks of statist totalitarians by choice. Many seek to lead the charge. The “rank and file” that digs the ditches, usually lacks the skills to think independently for their self. Nonetheless, they are usually the first to rally to the cause of their sanitized Führer that preaches hope and change, with every loss of freedom. No one political theory has a monopoly on despotism. Yet the “peaches and cream” slogans of fairness and equality, that come from the ultra extreme wing of the Democratic Party, out does the worst of the GOP civil libertarian destroyers.

Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest is the end product of the collectivist education system that indoctrinates impressionable brains with reverence for the dependency society. Mush minds come out of this corrosive process. Voting for entitlements and the expansion of the democratic totalitarianism becomes the norm.

 

The short DNC Video: “The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To“, is an anti-intellectual message that appeals to government thugs and parasites. The underprivileged are permanent wards of the state. Those that lack self-esteem are usually products of government school pedagogy.

The Democratic Party Platform is just as immaterial as that of the GOP. However, the DemocRATS are more adapt at pushing the most collectivist policies that consistently strip away the last remnants of a constitutional republic. Democracy for the progressive statist translates into direct democracy, because they are the most adamant about open borders.Do not deduce that RepubliCANTS are protectors of traditional values or states rights. The fusion of the despots is systemic because both power structures rely upon a false dialectic, while both just wear different style uniforms.

 

One of the trademarks of the presidential imposter is viewed in the YouTube, Obamas Domestic Army? Recruiting new legions of mercenaries for domestic social control, from the gangs of idle hoodlums awaiting their “just due”, typifies the abnormal mindset of democratic despotism.Watching the culture of prerogative democratic diatribes, advocating the entitlement society, could never take root unless the peasants were conditioned to demand their total cradle to grave guarantees. The pandering is intolerable. The trade off enslavement that is conditional for receiving benefits goes unnoticed to most of the bottom feeders. What little rationality and critical thinking remaining on the Progressive Left, erodes with every election cycle.

The remorseful lesson that the majority of voters fail to admit is that the election pageant never provides the alternative to rid the country of collectivist politicians. The obvious reason is that the dependent masses crucify any candidate that dares champion the principles of liberty and personal responsibility.

The Democratic Party is especially adept at pimping for the welfare state. The utter failure of the crazy schemes, self-indulgent programs and social benefits, at taxpayers’ expense; has primed the public for surrender. Sacrificing individual dignity is a small price to pay for a place in the government check queue. The dire net results from the “Great Society” are all around us. It resembles the conditions that gave rise to Charlie Chaplin’s, The Great Dictator.Ironically his egalitarian political views, lent criticism that he was a Commie. From Chaplin’s famous speech, his words run amok, when applied to the requirements of the Democratic Totalitarianism that now engulfs every aspect of the Obama version of socialism.

“Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don’t hate – only the unloved hate. Only the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers – don’t fight for slavery, fight for liberty.”

What kind of conduct should you expect from a Reich that wants to field an AmeriCorps, civilian national security force. This is the Obama standard for pledging your “Good AmeriKan” credentials for a national socialist passport. Have we not learned from the European experience? The oath to the psychopathic beloved leader is creating our own domestic holocaust.

The idolization of Hitler is reminiscent of the flaunting over Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. Today, there are no excuses for not knowing that this demigod is a tyrant or that his plan is to enslave the nation. Pride in America the Stupid is a badge of admission to the Democrats Delusional Worldview. The Democrat convention of 2012 is just as pathetic as that of the GOP. The language and emphasis may seem to differ, but when you strip away all the empty words, you have a phony competition to head up the omnipresent corporate state.The ruling class and the suck-ups that pledge their allegiance to a State adoration, despise the defense of liberty. The metaphysical question of our age is, Why are we here? How will you answer this eternal and political question? It is evident how the useless-idiot will respond.

Obama’s Vision Versus Economic Reality

It took less than 24 hours for Obama’s “inspiring” convention speech to be smothered by the reality of the job crisis. The August national jobs report showed that the U.S. economy failed to create enough new jobs to keep up with population growth. More importantly, in August 368,000 Americans completely dropped out of the labor force, meaning that they’ve given up looking for a job (this ironically “lowered” the unemployment numbers, since demoralized workers aren’t counted in the official rate).

Most of the jobs created in August were low paying, such as retail, hotel, and restaurant jobs. Higher paying manufacturing and government jobs were once again cut by the thousands. These statistics are in line with Obama’s tenure as president and will continue if he is re-elected. In fact, they are the result of a conscious policy that he is pursuing in the interests of the profits of big business, who are demanding lower wages from workers. As Obama has repeatedly said, the government is not in the job-creating business.

According to a study performed by the National Employment Law Project, 58 percent of all new post-recession jobs come with hourly wages between $7.69 to $13.83. A worker would need two of these jobs just to afford rent, food, and other basics.

The New York Times commented on the “new normal” of low wage jobs:

“The disappearance of midwage [living wage], midskill jobs is part of a longer-term trend that some refer to as a hollowing out of the work force, though it has probably been accelerated by government layoffs.”

This “hollowing out” of the workforce is — along with high unemployment — the most striking feature of the “new normal” of the American workforce. A new generation of youth entering the labor market is not finding secure jobs and decent wages but unemployment and wage slavery. Republicans and Democrats are completely silent on this all important subject because they agree that it is necessary.

The Democrats attack on public employees confirms that this dynamic is being purposely done: over 600,000 public employees have lost their jobs since 2009. Most of these workers were paid a living wage and had health care and pension plans. Their private sector replacement jobs that Obama boasts about pay peanuts and more often than not have no additional health or retirement benefits. The Obama administration understands perfectly well that these public sector layoffs could have been prevented by government action, but undermining employment and the wages of public employees is one way to drive down wages for everyone else. Together these trends lower the need for taxes and raise corporate profits.

The attack on unions is yet more proof that the low wage syndrome is a self-induced illness: Democratic Party governors across the country have demanded major wage and benefit concessions from public employees. And while the Democrats blame the Republicans for being “anti-union,” the concessions demanded by the Democrats drastically weaken unions to the point that Republicans can finish them off. For example, the Democrats in Chicago are presently preparing to smash the Chicago Teachers Union, if they can, by demanding massive concessions. The teachers will have to fight, not only for their standard of living, but for the survival of their union.

One of Obama’s proudest achievements — “saving” General Motors — is yet more proof that the Democrats have a conscious plan to lower wages. The administration’s Auto Task Force helped in the layoffs of 35,000 autoworkers while slashing the wages of the new hires by half as well as deepening the cuts in health care and pension benefits. This action created a precedent that other corporations were eager to copy in order to remain “competitive.”

Another example of Obama’s push to lower wages is his purposeful lack of action to solve the unemployment crisis. Obama is perfectly aware that he could — like FDR before him — massively invest in a national jobs program rebuilding U.S. infrastructure, putting teachers back to work, and ideally transitioning to green energy sources. President Obama hasn’t done this, in part, because doing so would raise the wages of all workers, and it would need to be funded by the people who fund his campaign the most, the rich, since they are the only ones with money to spare.

The labor market works like every other market, according to the rules of supply and demand. When there is high unemployment the supply of workers outstrips the demand, and thus workers’ wages drop. The administration is using unemployment as a hammer against the wages of U.S. workers. Lowering the wages of public sector employees works the same way: if public employees have higher wages, the private sector must compete with the public sector by attracting workers with similar wages.

When unions are strong and demand higher wages, they are able to alter the national labor market so that it acts more favorably towards workers: non-union companies must compete for workers by raising wages. When the labor movement is weak — as it is now — the exact opposite dynamic takes hold.

Why is President Obama hell-bent on lowering wages for the U.S. workers? He was very clear about this in his acceptance speech, with his repeated reference to increasing U.S. exports for the world market. The rub, however, is that China, India, and other low wage countries also compete on this same world market, and the workers in those countries make horribly low wages. But in the last four years the U.S. corporations that aim to compete with these low wage nations have made spectacular “progress” in driving down the wages of their workers. Thus Obama can brag about his “achievement” of increasing U.S. exports.

Democrats and Republicans agree that no national jobs program should be implemented, that unions should be weakened or destroyed, that the public sector should be slashed and its workers’ wages cut. Both parties want U.S. corporations to compete better on the world market, requiring that U.S. workers make lower and lower wages. This is the fundamental economic issue being ignored in the mainstream media.

Workers must fight back in massive demonstrations to demand a federal jobs program and a consequent strengthening of the public sector, lest their issues be completely ignored in a national election that is promising them nothing. They should insist that taxes on the rich be raised, given that the rich are continually becoming richer while the rest of us are losing ground. They should demand no cuts to Social Security and Medicare and that the attack on public workers and their unions stop immediately. Workers can accomplish all this and more if they stop waiting and hoping for help from the Democrats and begin to build their own independent movement to fight for the interests of the majority.

http://www.nelp.org/index.php/content/content_about_us/tracking_the_recovery_after_the_great_recession\

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/business/majority-of-new-jobs-pay-low-wages-study-finds.html

More Than 100 Million Americans Are On Welfare

There are more Americans dependent on the federal government than ever before in U.S. history.  According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government.  Many are enrolled in more than one.  That is about a third of the entire population of the country.  Sadly, that figure does not even include Social Security or Medicare.  Today the federal government runs almost 80 different “means-tested welfare programs”, and almost all of those programs have experienced substantial growth in recent years.  Yes, we will always need a “safety net” for those that cannot take care of themselves, but it is absolutely ridiculous that the federal government is financially supporting one-third of all Americans.  How much farther do things really need to go before we finally admit that we have become a socialist nation?  At the rate we are going, it will not be too long before half the nation is on welfare.  Unfortunately, we will likely never get to that point because the gigantic debt that we are currently running up will probably destroy our financial system before that ever happens.

It is really hard to believe how rapidly some of these federal welfare programs have grown.

For example, the number of Americans on food stamps has grown from about 17 million in 2000 to 31.9 million when Barack Obama took office to 46.4 million today.

The federal government spent a staggering 71.8 billion dollars on the food stamp program in 2011.

That sure is a lot of money to spend on food.

And I thought that my grocery bills were high.

Medicaid is also growing like crazy.

The number of Americans on Medicaid grew from 34 million in 2000 to 54 million in 2011.

Once upon a time, Medicaid was supposed to help the poorest of the poor get medical care.  In fact, back in 1965 only about one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.

But now about one-sixth of the entire country is on Medicaid.

Will we all eventually be on Medicaid?

As I mentioned recently, It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

And we all know that projections like that are usually way too low.

Other federal welfare programs are exploding in size as well.

For example, federal housing assistance increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010.

The chart posted below was produced by Senate Budget Committee Republican staff.  As you can see, the number of Americans on welfare just continues to grow and grow and grow….

Keep in mind that the chart posted above does not even take into account the huge numbers of Americans that are on Social Security and Medicare.

In the United States today, more than 61 million Americans receive some form of Social Security benefits.

Just think about that.

That means that nearly one out of every five Americans is drawing on Social Security.

That is just crazy.

And in the years ahead we are going to see wave after wave of Baby Boomers retire and so the number of Americans drawing on Social Security is just going to keep going up.

The same kind of thing is happening with Medicare.

As I wrote about the other day, it is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.

Ouch.

That sure does sound expensive.

If you can believe it, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years.

That comes to approximately $328,404 for each and every household in the United States.

Will you be able to pay your share?

And that is just for Medicare.

The federal government just keeps becoming a bigger and bigger part of the health care industry.

Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for just 32 percent of all health care spending in America.

This year, it is being projected that the federal government will account for more than 50 percent of all health care spending in the United States.

Americans have become completely and totally addicted to government money, and word has gotten out to other nations that the U.S. is a place where you can live the high life at the expense of the government.

According to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, 43 percent of all immigrants that have been in the United States for at least 20 years are still on welfare.

Keep in mind that the study only looked at immigrants that have been in the country for at least two decades.

Nearly half of them are still on welfare.

Needless to say, the system is fundamentally broken.

And there is no way in the world that we can afford all of this.  We have rolled up the biggest pile of debt in the history of the world and our children and our grandchildren are facing a lifetime of endless debt slavery.

Once again this year we are facing a federal budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars, and very few of our politicians even seem to care.

We just continue to spend money as if it was going out of style.

At this point, spending by the federal government accounts for more than 25 percent of U.S. GDP.

The last time that happened was during World War II when we were trying to rescue the world from the tyranny of the Germans and the Japanese.

If you divided up the U.S. national debt equally, it would come to more than $134,000 for every single household in the United States.

Ack.

1. Overall, the U.S. national debt has gotten more than 37 times larger than it was when Nixon took us off the gold standard.

We are a nation of debt addicts, and both political parties have been responsible for getting us into this mess.

We simply cannot afford to continue to go down this road.  We need to significantly reduce all categories of government spending.

And yes, we will always need a safety net.

But we simply cannot afford to financially support more than 100 million Americans.

That is absolute madness and it must stop.

So what do you think about all of this?

Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below….

Source: The American Dream

Please, No Rice With That Romney

With the rumor that Condoleezza Rice is a frontrunner to be Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, she’s the talk of the town.  She’s so intelligent, so sophisticated, so statesmanlike and so scholarly that she could make you wonder if Hillary Clinton really ever was “the most intelligent woman inAmerica.”  That’s the pitch, anyway.  But when you check this Rice’s ingredients, you have to ask, where’s the beef?

When assessing this, I’m reminded of how the late Christopher Hitchens put Bill Clinton’s so-called intellectual prowess in perspective.  The 42^nd president has a long history of making statements, Hitchens pointed out, yet what has he ever said that was profound or memorable?  Of course, likeClinton and “I feel your pain” or lawyering the word “is,” Rice has made memorable statements.  But they’re all hamburger helper—way past the sell-by date.

For instance, when defending the fool’s errand of trying to put a square democratic peg in a round Islamic hole, Rice once said, “We should note that unlike in our Constitutional Convention, the Iraqis have not made a compromise as bad as the one that made my ancestors three-fifths of a man.”  Now, let’s put aside the fact that the Iraqis have incorporated Sharia into their constitution.  Informed people understand the origin of the three-fifths language.  To wit: it was slave states that wanted blacks counted as whole people because this would increase their representation in Congress and hence their power.  Northern states, however, wanted to minimize slave-state power and thus didn’t want the slaves counted at all.  The result, as is usually the case in democratic republics, was a compromise: the three-fifths compromise.

The only question now is whether Rice didn’t fully understand this—and she probably knows something about the origin of the constitutional language since she called it a “compromise”—or if she was just aiming for a cheap applause line (and a cheap shot at America).  Regardless, was hers an intelligent comment?

It should also be noted that European peoples might not have been the first to practice slavery, but they were the first to eliminate it.  Yet, to this day, Muslims still practice slavery in places such asAfrica.  Thus, what is to be concluded when Rice utters, as is her wont, divisive comments such as “when the Founding Fathers said ‘We the people,’ they didn’t mean me”?  Is it an intelligent thing to do?

Then try this Rice comment on for size.  She also said when defendingIraq policy that it is the kind of people who “once believed that blacks were unfit for democracy” who say “that the people of theMiddle East, perhaps because of their color or their creed or their culture or even perhaps because of their religion, are somehow incapable of democracy.”

Now, we know it was Rice’s job under George W. Bush to defend his administration’s policies, but the above simply was not an intelligent defense.  How can you conflate an inborn physical characteristic such as skin color with creed, culture and religion, which involve belief?  Does Rice not understand why John Adams stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”?  If a people’s beliefs don’t influence its compatibility with democracy, what does?

Following Rice’s logic out, we’d have to say that a people imbued with Nazi or communist doctrine couldn’t be unfit for democracy, either, as such things are simply “creeds.”  Translated, her comment means that beliefs simply don’t matter.  Of course, I don’t think this actually is her belief; she surely just didn’t think things through.  But is it intelligent to make public pronouncements on matters of import without thinking things through?

Add to this the fact that Rice described herself as “mildly pro-choice,” wishes the U.S. would have signed on to the global-warming scam treaty the Kyoto Protocol, and was so enthusiastic about Barack Obama’s 2008 win that it indicated she might have voted for him, and what kind of profile emerges?  She simply is not a conservative—except maybe in the European sense of the term.  And, we have to ask, is this an intelligent political ideology?

If you think me harsh, note that I spoke only of Condoleezza Rice’s remarks and positions; I didn’t say she was unintelligent.  I’m sure she is so in the sense that my family doctor, a couple of relatives and some other people I’ve known are intelligent.  I’m sure she plays the piano beautifully and I know she excelled at academics, but this doesn’t qualify one for high office.  In fact, she reminds me of someone.  You know the type: he has his head in books all day, gets straight A’s, spends many hours a week cloistered practicing an instrument, but has no common sense.  To paraphrase Mark Twain, she seems like the kind of person who has let her schooling interfere with her education.

Given Rice’s positions, one may wonder why she’s as popular as she is (63 percent of respondents in a Drudge poll want her as Romney’s pick).  Well, the answer reminds me of something.  Rice once said that what attracted her to George W. Bush was that he spoke of the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” something she understands well.  Ironically, though, this is precisely the phenomenon attracting many conservatives to Rice.  After all, would a white man with her history and political positions draw so much conservative support?  Would we even be talking about him?

Fact: we wouldn’t even know about him.

Why?  Because President Bush never would have chosen Rice to be secretary of state were it not for her race and sex.  The reality is that, just like Obama, she was an affirmative-action selection.

Of course, this is where some may opine that, with beating Obama being the priority, this is precisely what we need.  I’ll see your epidermal melanin content and raise you an X chromosome.  But don’t bank on this carrying the day, as it’s hardly a given that Rice will sweeten the dish for voters.  After all, staunch traditionalists won’t like her for the reasons I’ve outlined here, devoutly Democrat blacks will dismiss her as an Aunt Thomasina, and the swinging-to-and-fro middle may not like her ties to still unpopular Bush.  So not only is Rice disastrous ideologically, she’s at best risky politically.

So keep searching the menu.  The Romney has already been ordered, paid for and cooked up, but hold the Rice.  We need something that will stick to our ribs.

Next Page »