The South China Sea (SCS) is fast becoming one of the key geopolitical battlegrounds of our time. China’s systematic, rapid and large-scale island-building campaign has suddenly altered the strategic equation in “Asia’s Mediterranean.” It has also presented Washington with a long-term strategic dilemma in the Western Pacific.
There are literally dozens of disputed islands, atolls, submerged banks, reefs, rocks and shoals in the SCS. Incompatible territorial claims involving China, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines have been the subject of legal wrangling and rhetorical bickering for years. In recent months China has suddenly upped the ante with its Spratly Island building expansion on the Johnson, Cuarteron, and Gaven reefs. Over Fiery Cross Reef and, more recently, Mischief Reef, fleets of dozens of dredgers have been continually sucking sand off the bottom of the sea and blowing it in huge plumes to create new land above the surface, while simultaneously digging deep harbors. What used to be reefs barely visible above the waves are now massive building projects which already house permanent air and naval facilities. Since early last year China has expanded these islands by 2,000 acres – and the work of its engineering teams appears to be far from over. Future likely flashpoints are the Scarborough Shoals (claimed by Philippines and China), and the Paracel Islands, already occupied by China but still claimed by Vietnam.
For China, asserting control over the disputed zone is seen as a near-existential issue. The UN Environmental Program (UNEP) estimates that the South China Sea currently accounts for as much as one tenth of global fish catches. China will have no more than 20 percent of the world’s population by 2030, but she will account for 38 percent of global fish consumption by that time. Energy-hungry China is also hoping to exploit massive likely deposits of oil and gas below the SCS surface, if and when its fait accompli is accepted as irreversible.
The series of man-made islands and the massive Chinese military build-up on them have alarmed Washington, with the U.S. Navy carrying out P8-A Poseidon surveillance flights over the new islands. Ten days ago former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell told CNN’s Erin Burnett Wednesday night that the confrontation indicates there is “absolutely” a risk of the U.S. and China going to war sometime in the future. “China is a rising power. We’re a status quo power. We’re the big dog on the block . . . They want more influence,” Morell said. “Are we going to move a little bit? Are they going to push? How is that dance going to work out? This is a significant issue for the next President of the United States.”
It is indeed. The challenge that the rise of China presents to the United States global strategy ascurrently concieved is more pressing than any other global issue except for the ever-present threat ofjihad. Beijing is rapidly becoming a regional power of the first order, the potential Asian hegemon that will need to be contained and confronted, or in some way appeased. Its ruling party still calls itself “communist,” but the ethos of the nomenklatura is eminently traditional: nationalist, xenophobic, and authoritarian. The sacro egoismo has been China’s guiding light in foreign affairs for over two millennia.
With the demise of Maoism, Han nationalism is the only ideological cement that binds the nation under CPC rule, granting it legitimacy. Nurtured by the collective memory of humiliations, invasions and massacres that started with the First Opium War in 1839, it is a potent force. Taiwan epitomizes the legacy of past shame. She was taken by force by Japan and ruled as a colony for 50 years (1895-1945). To condone her separation, under whatever name, would be tantamount to accepting the status of a second-class power. Furthermore, a soft line on Taiwan would have serious implications for the future status of Tibet and – even more significantly – for the restive Muslim-populated Sinkiang-Uigur province in the far west of the country.
The choice facing the United States is fairly clear. China is an ancient power, studiedly contemptuous of outsiders, steeped in Realpolitik. If she is to be treated as a rival and potential enemy, it is necessary to halt further American investment in the Chinese economy, to reverse massive outsourcing of the past quarter-century, and to erect effective trade barriers against the continuing deluge of Chinese-made consumer products in American stores. It is also necessary to improve defense capabilities of China’s regional foes – from Japan and South Korea in the north to the Philippines and (yes) Vietnam in the south – who are not necessarily on friendly terms with each other. The geopolitical equation of containing and confronting China also demands an alliance, informal or otherwise, between the United States and India, which is, in the long term, China’s sole natural rival in Asia.
If the list is unappetizing or even impossible to fulfill (India), then the alternative is to accept the rise of China as a first-order power, and to do so with the best possible grace. Exactly ten years ago I wrote in these pages that “a reigning power is naturally disinclined to look on benignly as another rises, but the middle road would be based on the notion that a conflict between America and China is not inevitable. The relationship will need to be managed skillfully – with more reciprocity in the field of trade and exchange rates – but its essential ingredient will be to accept that Taiwan is part of China and that she will eventually be reintegrated . . . ”
The diagnosis still stands, and China is in no hurry. She is the fastest growing among the world’s major economies; per capita basis, her growth over the past two decades was the highest in the world. That Western-style political liberties have not kept pace with China’s increasing economic freedom is true but irrelevant. A decade from now she will be a great power of the first order. In foreign affairs, her leaders will continue to trust China’s wealth and power as a means of achieving diplomatic objectives and treating a strong defense as an outgrowth of a strong economy.
The current tension in the SCS notwithstanding, countries of the region will be hard pressed to negotiate the terms and conditions of an acceptable relationship with Beijing that would fall short of China’s outright hegemony. At the same time, it is self-defeating for the U.S. to assume that anychange of the status quo in Asia is detrimental to American interests. As China continues to transform herself into a global economic power, her interests, security concerns, and aspirations will be asserted with ever-greater self-confidence. The task of U.S. policy in East and Southeast Asia should be to consider whether, and to what extent, those aspirations are compatible with American interests and security. Ultimately the American interest demands a pragmatic acceptance of the emerging redistribution of power in Asia, and – on the global scale – policies that will seek to manage, rather than resist, the emerging multipolar structure.
Torture, pain, beheadings, the murder of children…. If God exists and is all good, how could He allow such suffering and evil? This is a common question, and a lament often an impediment to faith. It also was addressed recently on the Savage Nation radio show, where host Michael Savage — exhibiting his versatility and talk virility — will sometimes broach that certain thing we’re supposed to discuss even less than politics. His answer to the question was contained in his newsletter and is:
I actually believe that God has no effect on a moment-by-moment basis or a person-by-person basis.
If I did, then I’d have to stop believing in God.
If I were to believe that God controlled everything on earth, then I’d have to believe that God is evil.
I believe God is not omnipotent. He is omnipresent.
That’s what saved me from atheism.
It certainly is good to have an answer that saves one from atheism, but is the above the answer?
God undoubtedly doesn’t micromanage our lives, controlling matters on a moment-by-moment basis; this reality is called His “permitting will” in theological circles, as opposed to His “ordaining will.” But why is God, as some might say, so “permissive” (He isn’t, really)? There is an answer, but before addressing it let’s examine the matter of God’s omnipotence.
God is known as the “Creator” because the belief is that He created the whole Universe, the heavens and the Earth and all living creatures — out of nothing. He is the first cause. In this case, however, it would seem fanciful to suppose that He could create life but not control that life. After forging the wonders called the Universe and its denizens, controlling man would seem small potatoes.
To suggest otherwise is to say that God is not really “God” — by definition all-powerful and perfect — but a different kind of being entirely. For He then either created something He couldn’t control (which certainly can be a fault of man) or didn’t create it at all. If the latter, though, where does that leave us? We can’t say something else created the Universe, for that entity would then be above what would merely be but a cosmic middleman, and it would be God (the “Immovable Mover,” as Aristotle said). The only other possibility is that we believe in something and call it “God” even though it would just be some spirit being formed as a cosmic accident via some evolutionary process wholly unknown to us. But this would just bring us back to atheism and its inherent relativism and meaninglessness — with the twist that, for sure, we’re not the most powerful cosmic accidents in the Universe.
This is why philosophers have long explained God’s tolerance of evil by way of “free will.” Yes, I know it sounds clichéd now to some, but my explanation won’t be. So why is free will so important that God would allow profound evil in its name?
Imagine you could have a computer chip implanted in your child’s brain that would control his behavior (something perhaps possible in the foreseeable future). No more terrible twos or toddler tantrums, no disobedience, no crying, no frowns, no shirking of responsibility — just a perfectly agreeable Stepford Child. Would you implant away?
This would defeat the purpose of having a child. Sure, we want our kids to mature into moral beings, but that is impossible if you’re merely a controlled being. For being moral involves making moral choices, and this cannot happen if you have no choice. The chipped child would have been dehumanized, reduced to automaton status via the negation of his free will. You might as well just purchase a cute robot and be done with it.
Think about what is being said here, however: You’re willing to tolerate sinful acts in your child — and the possibility of truly horrible behavior — in the name of his being fully human.
God is no different with respect to us, His children. He could completely control us with the snap of divine fingers, but we are then reduced to mere organic robots; we are not then His children, but His things. Note, when it’s said we’re created in God’s image, this does not refer to our physical being but that, like God, we have intellect and free will. Remove either quality and we’re mere animals.
(Speaking of which, it’s hard to imagine even a pet owner chipping his dog; we’d likely feel that this would eliminate his “dogness” and wouldn’t want to use perverted science to accomplish what training should.)
Then there is the matter of love, which is represented in action: Loving attitudes beget loving acts. When someone serves us — whether it’s a spouse bringing home the bacon or serving it, or a child doing chores — we’re by far most pleased if it’s done in a spirit of love because the person wants to make us happy (yes, much to expect in a child!). It doesn’t touch us in the same way if the work is performed out of a mere sense of obligation; worse still is if the person is acting as a slave, compelled to labor against his will. Most of us wouldn’t even want to be served under those circumstances.
God is no different. He wants us to serve Him as a representation of our love (not because He needs our love and service, but because we need to love and serve Him), and trumping our free will would defeat that purpose. It would reduce us to not just slaves, but those organic robots.
Some may now say that this is all well and good, but aren’t there limits to free will’s abuse? When people are being burned alive and children massacred, don’t you draw a line? The answer is that God is far more logical and consistent than we are.
We talk about “freedom of speech” but then set limits on what can be said; we trumpet “freedom of religion” but then draw lines at certain practices (e.g., human sacrifice). I’m not implying that such lines aren’t sometimes necessary, mind you, only pointing out that once they’re drawn, it follows that we aren’t actually allowing true “freedom of religion.” But God means what He says and says what He means. Free will is just that: free will. It’s absolute. Besides, He makes the rules, but their application and enforcement are our business — in this world.
This brings us to the last point: worldliness. Too often we analyze faith-based propositions while coupling them with atheistic corollaries. We may wonder, for example, how a just and loving God could allow the deaths of large numbers of children in free will’s name. But He doesn’t.
He gave the children life, and upon leaving this fold they pass on to eternal life.
I know, this sounds like a handy rationalization to modernistic ears. But we are discussing matters within the context of the Judeo-Christian world view, no? In other words, people could question the data — that God and the afterlife are real, etc. — but that is a different question. The logic when operating within this data set, however, is unassailable. To wit: What is this temporal life as compared to eternity? It’s as a grain of sand in a desert or a drop of water in an ocean. It’s eternity that matters. And if slaughtered children pass on to a far, far better place, God has done them no disservice.
I don’t want to seem unfeeling; I react to worldly horrors much as does everyone else. And it’s understandable: This world is all we know firsthand. The hell we so often create on it we see and hear, as it accosts our senses; we feel it. Heaven is generally just something we try to apprehend intellectually. And the heart has seductions the mind cannot match.
There is something we can do, however. Even if we don’t feel certain truths on an emotional level, we can choose to believe them. That is a proper exercise of free will — one that lends much happiness and meaning to the life God gave us.
This is no doubt great news. The 21st century’s greatest war criminal is called to lead the campaign against ‘extremism’ which he himself instigated. Truth be told, it only makes sense to appoint a mass murderer to such a delicate job because only a genocidal character could be intimately familiar with the nitty gritty of institutional hatred and intolerance.
The British former prime minister who launched an immoral interventionist war has been appointed as chairman of the European Council on Tolerance following his spectacular success as a Peace Envoy to the Middle East introducing reconciliation and new harmony to the entire region.
In a joint article (paywall) with Moshe Kantor, the president of the council of the European Jewish Congress, Blair recently expressed his devotion to the Jews and the primacy of their suffering. “Antisemitism is not a Jewish problem, but one infecting the whole of society and needs to be tackled for the sake of us all.”
The penny dropped. Blair, seemingly understands his contribution to Jew hatred. Next time when he launches a global criminal war with no end he must make sure that rather than using Lord Cash Point Levy as his chief fund raiser he should consider using someone else, preferably a ‘gentile’ (If he finds one). Even Blair must have grasped by now that the clear association between his Ziocon war and a Jewish financier is ‘not just a Jewish problem.’ With 5 million people dead in the region it infects the whole universe.
It is encouraging to learn that the council chaired by Blair doesn’t really believe in elementary freedom, quite the opposite, it believes it should promote legislation to confront ‘holocaust denial’, and this makes a lot of sense to me. As a person who perpetrated a holocaust himself, Blair is interested in laws that would stop any attempt to narrating and revising the past. I totally agree. I believe that all history except the Jewish one, must be abolished all together and immediately. We are moving forward, we progress, we should invest in the future rather than attempt to find out what really happened let alone why.
A major investigative report by the Washington Post tells a chilling story: police killings nationwide are on a pace to eclipse 1,000 by year’s end. That’s more than double the national average in recent years. Even more disturbing is the fact that police shootings are largely underreported. Mind you, these statistics do not include police-inflicted deaths by means other than police bullets, such as stun guns and people in police custody.
The report states, “‘These shootings are grossly underreported,’ said Jim Bueermann, a former police chief and president of the Washington-based Police Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving law enforcement. ‘We are never going to reduce the number of police shootings if we don’t begin to accurately track this information.’”
“And in a high-rise apartment in Birmingham, Ala., police shot an elderly man after his son asked them to make sure he was okay. Douglas Harris, 77, answered the door with a gun.”
Mr. Harris is one of nearly 400 people who were shot and killed by police during the first five months of this year. This equates to more than two a day.
Eighty percent of the victims of police shootings were in possession of “potentially lethal objects.” However, this statistic is deceptive, in that it includes people such as Mr. Harris who was simply armed for his own protection and was shot and killed because he was armed. The remaining victims were completely unarmed; and many were actually running away.
The dead ranged in age from 16 to 83. About half of the calls were in response to some sort of domestic disturbance. Some involved homeless people behaving erratically or someone threatening suicide. Nearly 25% of the victims were identified as being “mentally ill.”
“In Miami Gardens, Fla., Catherine Daniels called 911 when she couldn’t persuade her son, Lavall Hall, a 25-year-old black man, to come in out of the cold early one morning in February. A diagnosed schizophrenic who stood 5-foot-4 and weighed barely 120 pounds, Hall was wearing boxer shorts and an undershirt and waving a broomstick when police arrived. They tried to stun him with a Taser gun and then shot him.”
Police are only authorized to use deadly force when they fear for their lives or the lives of others and there is an imminent threat to life. This is the same principle of law that governs the conduct of American citizens in general. However, nowadays, running away from a police officer could easily get one shot.
“Running is such a provocative act that police experts say there is a name for the injury officers inflict on suspects afterward: a ‘foot tax.’”
Of the nearly 400 police killings so far this year, only three have resulted in an officer being charged with a crime. That’s less than one percent.
“The low rate mirrors the findings of a Post investigation in April that found that of thousands of fatal police shootings over the past decade, only 54 had produced criminal charges. Typically, those cases involved layers of damning evidence challenging the officer’s account. Of the cases resolved, most officers were cleared or acquitted.”
According to FBI statistics, over the past several years, police have killed around 400 people each year. But this stat was achieved in just the first five months of this year. To be sure, many of these killings were completely justified–and sometimes even heroic.
The problem is, far too many chiefs of police, sheriffs, county prosecutors, judges, etc., are willing to either, 1) not properly and thoroughly investigate police killings or, 2) look the other way at questionable killings or, 3) actually cover-up wrongful deaths committed by police. Regardless, all of the above leads to a breakdown of justice and true law and order–and serious distrust on the part of the American citizenry regarding law enforcement agencies and the court system itself.
Just about everyone is predicting a long, hot summer of anti-police violence this year in many of America’s major cities–especially after the highly controversial episodes involving police killings in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland. But the problem is much deeper than these two events. A recent history of police abuse and killings has produced deep resentment against the police, especially within many minority communities. And it’s time that the American people (and especially America’s police agencies) began realizing that this resentment is not entirely unfounded.
The Post report notes that for most police departments and sheriff’s offices, a fatal shooting is a rare event (as it should be). However, 19 state and local police agencies have had at least three police killings so far this year including the police departments in Los Angeles, California, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Bakersfield, California.
“The most troubling cases began with a cry for help.
“About half the shootings occurred after family members, neighbors or strangers sought help from police because someone was suicidal, behaving erratically or threatening violence.
“Take Shane Watkins, a 39-year-old white man, who died in his mother’s driveway in Moulton, Ala.
“Watkins had never been violent, and family members were not afraid for their safety when they called Lawrence County sheriff’s deputies in March. But Watkins, who suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, was off his medication. Days earlier, he had declared himself the ‘god of the fifth element’ and demanded whiskey and beer so he could ‘cleanse the earth with it,’ said his sister, Yvonne Cote.
“Then he started threatening to shoot himself and his dog, Slayer. His mother called Cote, who called 911. Cote got back on the phone with her mother, who watched Watkins walk onto the driveway holding a box cutter to his chest. A patrol car pulled up, and Cote heard her mother yell: ‘Don’t shoot! He doesn’t have a gun!’
“‘Then I heard the gunshots,’ Cote said.
“Lawrence County sheriff’s officials declined to comment and have refused to release documents related to the case.”
“Catherine Daniels called police for the same reason. ‘I wanted to get my son help,’ she said. Instead, officers Peter Ehrlich and Eddo Trimino fired their stun guns after Hall hit them with the metal end of the broomstick, according to investigative documents.
“‘Please don’t hurt my child,’ Daniels pleaded, in a scene captured by a camera mounted on the dash of one of the patrol cars.
“‘Get on the f—ing ground or you’re dead!’ Trimino shouted. Then he fired five shots.
“Police spokesman Mike Wright declined to comment on the case. Daniels said no one from the city has contacted her. ‘I haven’t received anything. No apology, nothing.’
“But hours after her son was killed, Daniels said, officers investigating the shooting dropped off a six-pack of Coca-Cola.
“‘I regret calling them,’ Daniels said. ‘They took my son’s life.’”
See the Washington Post report here:
The Post report seems to suggest that the answer is for the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., to take a more active role in monitoring local and State policing. I strongly disagree!
One of the reasons why so many of our police officers and sheriff’s deputies have become so abusive and trigger-happy is due to the training they are receiving. The “us versus them” mentality is much the result of training indoctrination. And, since 9/11 and the advent of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the federal government is mostly responsible for training policies, procedures, philosophies, etc., within State and local police agencies. In fact, most of our local police SWAT teams are trained by U.S. military Special Forces troops. DHS has turned our State and local police agencies into quasi-military units. And it has turned the U.S. citizenry into enemy combatants. I argue that the problems we are having with our police agencies today is the result of the ubiquitous and draconian influence from Washington, D.C.
Plus, think about the manner in which the federal government “bribes” State and local police agencies with all kinds of funding for everything from personnel to tanks and armored carriers, to sophisticated eavesdropping equipment, to military arms and ammunition, to helicopters, ad infinitum. If anything, the American people should be demanding that their local police departments and sheriff’s offices STOP accepting federal funding OF ANY KIND for their agencies. The way it is now, our State and local law enforcement agencies are more beholden to Uncle Sam than they are to the people whom they are supposed to serve. To ask the federal Justice Department to become more involved in local policing is like asking the proverbial fox to guard the proverbial hen house. Do you really want to turn your local police department over to the people who massacred the Branch Davidians?
Another remedy is the citizens of our respective counties should demand that the State legislatures and/or county commissions establish an independent Citizen Review Committee charged with the task of investigating EVERY incident of alleged police abuse and, especially, EVERY incident involving a police shooting. Quite frankly, we can no longer trust the internal affairs division of our respective police agencies to adequately police their own. This committee should have the financial ability to hire independent private investigators to examine these incidents. And the committee should be given teeth. It should be mandatory that the prosecutor’s office prosecute an officer if the committee investigation finds probable cause–in much the same way that a grand jury’s indictment is binding. It would be even better if an independent prosecutor was assigned to these type cases. In many counties, blatant cronyism between the prosecutor’s office and the city police departments and county sheriff’s office is way too common. The money should be taken from the annual budget appropriated for the actual police agencies. After all, providing accountability to the public is as much a part of a police department’s responsibility as providing a squad car or K-9 unit to police personnel. Without accountability and the respect of the public, all of the police personnel and equipment in the world is not sufficient to keep the peace.
Thirdly, the American people should demand that appropriate tax-dollars be allotted for the Office of Public Defender (OPD)–even if that means it is taken from funds allotted to police departments. In most states and districts, the OPD is one of the most underfunded entities of all. And the OPD is the one office at the courthouse that is constitutionally-mandated within our U.S. Constitution. Yet, most “law and order” conservatives look at the OPD with disdain–but somehow they still refer to themselves as “constitutionalists.”
Believe me, the last place you want to be forced to defend yourself in a court of law is in a mostly conservative, Christian, FOX News-type-Republican district. To many, if not to most of these good folks, you are guilty simply because you are arrested and you must PROVE YOURSELF INNOCENT. I know what I’m saying rubs many people the wrong way; but it is an absolute fact.
One of the bedrock principles of American law and justice is that a person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. Tragically, this principle has been all but lost in the thinking of many of our citizens today–especially those who watch FOX News too much. It demonstrates a serious lack of understanding and appreciation for liberty itself. For a civil government–any civil government–to take away an individual’s liberty should require the strictest requirements. The old adage is still true: “It is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to go to jail.” Americans need to start defaulting to liberty in their thinking once again. This was the Spirit of ’76. For so-called “conservatives” and Christians to demonstrate a “prove your innocence” mentality reveals that they have lost all appreciation and respect for individual liberty and the due process of law.
The county prosecutor’s office has virtually unlimited monies to prosecute people. In fact, the prosecution and imprisonment of the American people has become a HUGELY PROFITABLE BUSINESS. The confiscation of properties and assets of accused (sometimes accusation is all that is required to confiscate a person’s wealth and property) and convicted persons often serves as a significant revenue stream for many cities and counties–as do traffic citations.
Anyone who thinks speed laws are mostly for “safety” is seriously naïve. It’s mostly about generating revenue for the various State and local police agencies, prosecutor’s offices, courts, etc. Most police agencies and prosecutor’s offices directly benefit from speeding tickets and from people being arrested and sent to jail. Not to mention, the incentives that come from Washington, D.C.
A properly constituted and funded OPD is the second to the last line of peaceful defense against government overreach, abuse, and tyranny. The last line of peaceful defense against government overreach and abuse is the citizen jury. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that a sizeable percentage of people serving time behind bars today are there unjustly. They were convicted by overzealous prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves (not to mention a pile of money), by circumstantial evidence, and by the lack of an adequate defense.
Public defenders are pressured to “go along with the system” and not backlog the court by rendering a thorough and vigorous defense of their clients. The weight of city hall often threatens to come down hard on honest public defenders who won’t roll over for the prosecutor’s office. Judges, likewise, pressure public defenders to “hurry up” with their defense procedures, as all of these myriad laws (especially drug laws) enacted over the years have resulted in most courts being seriously backlogged with cases. And in the minds of most of these “public servants,” the answer is for the public defenders to not bog down the system by being too detailed and thorough in the defense of their clients.
It’s a rigged system, folks! And it’s not rigged in favor of you and me; it’s rigged in favor of the police and prosecutors. This reality makes it far too easy for police to literally “get away with murder.” Fully authorized and functional Citizen Review Committees, and an adequately funded (and appreciated) Office of Public Defender, and police departments and sheriff’s offices that are NOT beholden to the federal government could make a tremendous difference in restoring accountability to our police agencies and public trust in our police departments and prosecutors’ offices.
As police killings rise–and as public distrust and anger rise along with it–a rational and reasoned response becomes obligatory. It begins with people, especially our conservative, Christian, Republican friends, recognizing the current holes in our justice system and returning to common-sense, constitutional principles. If this doesn’t happen soon, political agitators will create a climate of violence and lawlessness that will only produce more of the abuse and misuse of law that is already taking place. And this accomplishes nothing, except making it easier for Big-Government usurpers to justify themselves in their attempt to encroach upon more and more of our liberties.
“Where does ISIS come from and how can we stop them?” you might ask. Answering that question is easy if you just do the math. So let’s find out the answer — by simply adding up the columns of numbers listed below:
ISIS = American weapons and training.
ISIS = Access to Syria from Turkey
When we subtract American, Turkish, Israeli and Saudi neo-colonialists’ $$$ and weapons from ISIS, we get peace in the Middle East — or at least a hopeful shot at it.
“But, Jane,” you might ask next, “how can we prove this equation?” We don’t have to be Euclid or Einstein. We just have to do the math.
The Middle East minus Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Palestine equals more land + more oil + more power + more $$$ for Turkish, American, Israeli and Saudi neo-colonialists.
ISIS + Al Qaeda + the spoiled-brat House of Saud’s grand illusion that oil $$$ can buy them anything they want + America’s Wall Street and War Street immoral lust for profit and power + Zionist neo-con lust for “Greater Israel” + Turkish neo-con lust for a return of the old Ottoman Empire = Bad News for the Middle East + Bad News for you and me too.
Our tax $$$ to America’s Wall Street and War Street + ISIS + Al Qaeda + Israeli neo-colonialists also equals less jobs, more class conflict, less education for our children, more paramilitary cops, more Fergusons and Baltimores, more homelessness and tent cities and a lot less democracy here at home.
Bottom line: To stop ISIS, all we have to do is cut off the flow of $$$ + weapons + training to it from American + Saudi + Israeli + Turkish neo-colonialists. Plus start up a flow of $$$ to Americans like you and me instead. Plus hopefully stop the eventual flow of ISIS to Turkey, Arabia, Israel and America as well.
The quandary of the economic dilemma continues. A globe suffering from a deflationary financial impact, while consumer prices rise well above the reported cost of living increases, does not bode well that prospects of commercial growth can rescue the world economy. What changes can overcome this predicament? Well, some academic scholar’s offers serious concern that a long term rebound towards prosperity is no longer possible.
In an essay, What if economic growth is no longer possible in the 21st century?, Sean McElwee and Lew Daly argue that fundamental changes will be the norm in this century.
“Many economists have warned that the old model is dying out. In a much-cited paper, Robert Gordon argues that the rapid growth we take for granted is not only historically anomalous but likely to slow significantly in the 21st century, pointing in particular to diminishing returns from technology as one major drag. Developed countries have already picked the “low-hanging fruit” of technological advance (in Tyler Cowen’s phrase), and future innovations will produce far less growth, he argues.”
Postulating from a climate charge bias the authors claim a bleak future is in the cards.
“The conclusions that flow from these observations are stark. The old economic paradigm relied on unsustainable growth, so we must change the paradigm. For decades, our rising standard of living came at a deep cost to our environment and our children’s future. There is simply not enough planetary bio-capacity to grow our way out of the messy moral discussions of distribution. The idea that inequality is merely an inefficiency to be corrected with a technocratic fix or perpetual growth is no longer tenable.”
Compare this perspective with that in The End of Economic Growth by Charles Siegel who presents three backdrops.
“First, imagine that people decide they have enough at the economic level of the United States in the 1960s—the time when American social critics began to say that our economy was so affluent that it was geared to waste. Imagine that individuals generally chose more free time rather than more income, and imagine that people also made the political decisions needed to limit sprawl, excessive automobile use, and other forms of destructive consumption, so per capita GWP stops growing when it reaches the level of 1965 America.
As a second scenario, imagine that the world imitates the current American consumerist style, so growth does not end until everyone in the world has the income that more affluent Americans have today. Imagine that everyone wants as many useless medical treatments as insured Americans receive today, everyone wants to spend as much on schooling as the most affluent American suburbs do today, everyone wants to drive to the mall and shop till they drop, everyone wants an oversized house in a sprawl suburb and at least two family cars. People are not satisfied until there are more motor vehicles than registered drivers in the world, as there already are in the United States.
Finally, as a third scenario, imagine that we do not do not allow choice of work hours. Instead, we continue to believe the economists who tell us we need growth to avoid unemployment, so the entire world decides it must stimulate demand and promote growth endlessly to create more jobs, as America did after World War II.”
An objective analysis of both research approaches needs to ask, what about the unabated increase in population and world-wide debt.
If technology is pushing the limits of providing real economy of scale or reduced innovative and useful generation of economic growth, the prospects for a rising prosperity is significantly diminished. Ever since the industrial revolution, a general economic improvement has registered improvement in individual lives.
The supposition that the planet is running out of bio-capacity is certainly debatable. However, dispute over spending beyond our mutual means and burdening future generations is not arguable.
A forecast that people will choose to consume less will not be from a perspective of voluntary design, but from decreased employment opportunities, lower pay and increases in taxes.
The notion that the entire world will achieve the Herbert Hoover adage, A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, is about as remote as achieving universal brotherhood.
As for stimulating demand, is that really possible when currencies continue to lose their purchasing power, low interest rates savage savers and government debt is the only engine of funding public programs and make- work jobs?
Lacking in all these academic approaches is the fact that corporatists, bureaucrats, authority officials and the financial elites have no interest or desire to see ordinary citizen prosper.
Economic growth is no longer possible; because of intentional decisions that accept the strategy that most people are no longer necessary to maintain the conspicuous excesses of the super rich.
Since the consumer society is distained by the socialists in academia, it is not expected that their analysis would value a strong independent domestic economy.
The message they would have you believe and work to impose on all of us is that we must sacrifice for the communal good.
Contrary to this attitude is to accept that the common good is actually achieved under a prosperous national economy.
The bare facts are hard to accept for most “Free Trade” proponents. The primary starting point is to write off the bankster debt and issue honest money. As long as the Federal Reserve is allowed to control the monetary creation of currency, the rules of compound interest apply and actual economic growth is impossible.
Accept that the economic woes of the planet are solvable by the liberating spirit of individual entrepreneurs and small business merchants if the stranglehold of transnational corporatocracy model was broken.
The actual resource in short supply is the will and courage to build a true free market where competition is encouraged and monopolies are broken up. Without the insurmountable burden imposed by the counterfeit financial dictatorship, the world could recover. As it stands now, business as usual will destroy the masses.
The title of this column is taken from the Old Testament Book of Micah, chapter seven, verse six. Speaking to His disciples, the Lord Jesus sounded a very similar warning to that of Micah’s. He said, “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” (John 16:2 KJV)
Jesus’ prediction literally came true with the persecution and deaths of thousands of Christians by Romans and Jews in the Early Church and later with the persecution and deaths of thousands of Anabaptists, Protestants, Waldenses, etc., by Popes and Catholics during the Dark Ages.
Killing in the service of God is assuredly nothing new. How many wars throughout history have been (and are being) fought in the name of God? Nowadays, nearly all of the supporters of the current neocon “holy war” against Muslims love to tout the passages of the Koran that seem to condone waging “holy Jihad” against any and all non-Muslims. Of course, they conveniently ignore passages in the Koran that promote peace. They seem to ignore the peace passages in the Bible, too, by the way.
Are some extremist Muslims using their religion as cover for their hatred and violence? You bet. But you can also bet it’s more about politics and power than anything else, because Muslims kill Muslims more than any other group of people.
For the record, it never ceases to amaze me that the same Christians who love to use the words of the Koran as justification for a holy war against Muslims have either totally forgotten or never read the words of the Jewish Talmud. The Talmud was the law that the Pharisees held in highest regard–even above The Torah. It was the law they constantly accused Jesus of violating. Still today, the Talmud is regarded as God’s highest law by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and most of Israel’s leaders. In fact, just recently Bibi announce that it was his intention to enshrine the Jewish Talmud as the “official basis for Israeli state law.”
According to Israel National News: “Netanyahu also promised that ‘we will define in the law the Gemara as a basis for the Israeli legal system,’ referencing the Jewish legal text analyzing the Mishnah, a legal work of the Jewish sages, which together form the Talmud.”
See the report at:
So, have any of our Muslim-hating friends bothered to read the Talmud? Try these excerpts on for size:
“When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves.”
“That the Jewish nation is the only nation selected by God, while all the remaining ones are contemptible and hateful.”
“That all property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general.”
“Kill the Goyim [non-Jew] by any means possible.”
“Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious [non-Jews] is as acceptable to God as he who offers a sacrifice to God.”
“The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.”
“A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.”
So, when Bibi says he wants to make the Talmud the official law of Israel, does he plan to implement these Talmudic injunctions? And are we now going to hear Christians say, “There is no such thing as a peace-loving Jew”? Or is that moniker reserved exclusively for Muslims? If Christians are afraid of Sharia Law, why are they NOT afraid of Talmudic Law?
Can one imagine how Christians throughout America would have reacted had any Muslim nation attacked one of our Navy vessels that was peacefully patrolling international waters, killing dozens of our sailors and Marines? Yet, that is exactly what the government of Israel (not independent gangs of terrorists) did to the U.S.S. Liberty on June 8, 1967. The attack was completely unprovoked; and in fact, U.S. naval vessels that were in the vicinity were forbidden to assist. The attack lasted for hours, and the United States did absolutely NOTHING. And to this day, there has been NO JUSTICE for the families and loved ones of the victims of the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. The story has been swept from the pages of history like it never happened. Was this attack the result of Jewish belief in Talmudic Law? We will never know.
If one confronts Jewish apologists with the above quotes from the Talmud, they will say that the words are taken out of context and will point to other quotations that seem to support their position. And this is exactly what Muslim apologists will say when confronted about seemingly pro-violence passages in their holy book.
And how many so-called Christians have used verses from the Old Testament to justify all sorts of violent acts? Even some of Protestantism’s most celebrated names are quoted as promoting violence in the name of the Christian God.
For example, the “Lutheran towns of Lubeck, Bremen, Hamburg, Luneburg, Stralsund, Rostock and Wismar all voted to hang Anabaptists and flog and banish Catholics and Zwinglians from their homelands.
“Luther said of Roman Catholic leaders, ‘If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house, I would set fire to it . . . To the fire with them!’
“Luther (who in 1518 taught baptism by immersion) taught that dissenters (those who disagreed with him) should be banished and said that ‘The peasants (involved in the Peasants’ War) would not listen; they would not let anyone tell them anything; their ears must be unbuttoned with bullets, till their heads jump off their shoulders. … On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants, let no one have mercy, but let everyone, as he is able, hew, stab, slay, lay about him as though among mad dogs, . . . . so that peace and safety may be maintained….’ Note that he was speaking of German peasants!”
A man was arrested for writing on one of John Calvin’s tracts the words, “all rubbish,” and was put on the rack twice a day for a month. He was beheaded on July 26, 1547.
“The Spanish Reformer Servetus had dared to criticize Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and Calvin declared: ‘If he comes here and I have any authority, I will never let him leave the place alive.’
“Servetus , an anti-Trinitarian, had disagreed with Calvin via correspondence and when he visited Geneva on August 13, 1553, he went to hear Calvin preach. Calvin saw him in church and had him arrested. Calvin drew up forty charges against him including Servetus’ opposition to infant baptism and his attack upon the preaching of Calvin. On August 20, 1553, Calvin wrote: ‘I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death’ and in October the Geneva Council ordered that he be burned alive the next day.
“‘Heretics’ were hanged then burned in Zurich, Basil, and Geneva for disagreeing with Calvin’s teachings. During the first five years of Calvin’s rule in the small town of Geneva, 13 people were hanged, 10 were decapitated, and 35 were burned to death. A citizen could go to prison for smiling during a baptismal service or sleeping during a church service!
“In England, Henry VIII was head of the Church of England (that Henry formed after his break from Rome) and doctrinal disagreements now became high treason to be punished by disembowelment while still alive, hanging, and quartering. In the end, even failing to denounce anyone else who criticized these things became treason.”
See the report at:
Reformation Leaders Tortured And Killed Dissidents!
You see, it’s not just pagans who kill God’s people. As often as not, Christians are killed by other Christians–but all in the name of God, of course.
And, dear reader friend, I am persuaded that Christians persecuting and killing Christians is soon to be the experience of many of us in America. And I am absolutely certain that it will look very much like the experience of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Confessing Church during the days of Nazi Germany.
During the Nazi years in Germany, pastors and churches mis-taught Romans 13 to mean that Christians are commanded by God to submit to civil authority, no questions asked. This devilish indoctrination eventually led to the murder, persecution, and imprisonment of Christian men such as Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemoller, and thousands like them.
In like fashion, America’s pastors and churches are teaching their congregations to obey civil government, no questions asked. There is not a smidgen of difference between the way pastors and churches in Hitler’s Germany taught Romans 13 and the way pastors and churches in America are teaching it today. This can only culminate with the persecution against those who refuse to submit to such heresy–in much the same way that the German National Church persecuted the recalcitrant (but faithful) Confessing Church.
I recently became aware of the ominous signs of this potential eventuality from a story that came out of Grants Pass, Oregon.
Josephine County, Oregon (the county in which Grants Pass is located) had one of the finest constitutional sheriffs in the entire country. Gil Gilbertson was a sheriff’s sheriff. He was unafraid to stand against federal overreach. He knew the Constitution; and he faithfully defended it.
Therefore, it is not surprising that federal, state, and local pressure mounted strongly against Sheriff Gilbertson. Funds were denied his office to the point that it was next to impossible for his office to perform its duties. Of course, Sheriff Gilbertson was blamed for these problems by political leaders and the media. Subsequently, Sheriff Gilbertson was defeated for reelection by big-government toady Dave Daniels on May 20, 2014. Not long afterward, a tax-hike was put on the ballot for the “new” sheriff’s office. And guess who the biggest cheerleaders for the tax levy for the new big-government-bought-and-
In fact, these two pastors took to the air with the newly-elected big-government sheriff for a media campaign pitching the new tax. I hope you will take the time to watch both of these clips:
Pastor Mark Goens says, “It is painful that we don’t listen to authority.” He also said, “People go to school board meetings and question their every decision and trying to change everything they don’t like.” The good pastor also said that raising taxes was “a Biblical and a spiritual issue.”
So, in other words, parents, “If you don’t like the fact that your school system is teaching the academically and morally corrupt Common Core federal curriculum to your children, you are supposed to be good little Nazis and stay home and question nothing. After all, the authorities know better than you do about what to teach your children. The Bible tells you to submit: so sit down and shut up!”
And Pastor Dennis Webber says this to the sheriff and the chief of public safety, “We recognize that God gave you permission to be in that place and is giving you the authority to function there.”
Really, Pastor Webber? God has given these men authority to “function” in their positions? Under whose orders are they to function? Under whose laws are they to function? You failed to mention that. Do these men have authority from God to make up their own laws? Simply because they are elected or appointed to public office, does God give them “authority to function” as they see fit? You didn’t qualify your remarks at all.
These men swore an oath to the Constitution. They are required by the supreme law of the land to submit to the limits and constraints imposed upon them by the Bill of Rights–not to mention their duty to submit to our Creator’s Laws of Nature. They have NO approbation from Heaven to act outside the limits and boundaries of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Natural Law. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. And for these two pastors to act as if the citizens of Josephine County owe Sheriff Daniels and Chief of Public Safety Bill Landis their unlimited, unquestioned submission (which is exactly what they did) is the height of irresponsibility.
Not once did Pastors Goens or Webber say a word about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not one time did they make mention of the sheriff’s responsibility to obey the law of the land, that his position is that of a servant of the people. Instead, the sheriff and chief of public safety were held up as ultimate authorities to whom Christians are commanded to always submit and support. And, ladies and gentlemen, this is the kind of rubbish that the vast majority of our Christian ministers are regurgitating every Sunday throughout the United States of America.
Oh, readers should know that despite the best efforts of Goens and Webber, the proposed tax levy FAILED. Here is a local Grants Pass reporter’s summary of this entire sordid episode:
Am I suggesting that pastors Goens and Webber have killing other Christians in mind? ABSOLUTELY NOT! But do I believe that the devilish doctrine of unlimited submission to civil authority that they are ignorantly teaching is paving the way for future persecution and killing? ABSOLUTELY, I DO.
I’m sure Calvin and Luther never anticipated the killing that would later ensue from their words; I’m sure good Anglicans never anticipated the killings that would later ensue from “their” king; I’m sure good Roman Catholics never anticipated the purging and inquisitions that would later ensue in the name of their Church; and I’m sure the good pastors and Christians in Germany never anticipated the slaughter that would ensue from their heretical teaching of Romans 13, either.
This kind of thing never happens overnight. It takes years and decades to sufficiently indoctrinate a population before such atrocities can take place. And, my friends, we are smack dab in the middle of this totalitarian indoctrination as we speak. And, wittingly or unwittingly, some of the biggest propagandists are pastors such as Mark Goens and Dennis Webber.
As a fellow pastor, I am outraged! I am sick to my stomach that my fellow ministers would allow themselves to be used in such a devilish fashion. And, while I know that this kind of heresy is being taught nationwide, we have the videos of these two pastors publically participating in this propaganda.
Since these are very public pastors who are unashamed of their unbiblical and tyrannical position, and as a fellow pastor with forty years seniority (as of next month), I feel I have “standing” to call them on the carpet for it. Therefore, I am including their contact information in this column should any of my readers want to express their personal feelings one way or another. (Readers already have my contact information.)
Pastor Mark Goens
River Valley Church
405 NE 6th Street
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Church phone number:
River Valley Church
Pastor Dennis Webber
Parkway Christian Center
229 NE Beacon Dr.
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Church phone number:
Parkway Christian Center
General Butler, the most decorated American military figure of the first half of the 20th Century, wrote a book about his military service titled, “War is a Racket.” The corporate cabal, which reportedly included a du Pont and Prescott Bush, asked him to assist in removing FDR from office in 1934, were deceived by Butler’s vocal criticisms of FDR, and unfamiliar with his belief his service to his country had actually made him an enforcer for the corporations. Smedley was alive to the impropriety of using America’s military might to intimidate small central and south American countries for the profit of corporations controlled by these men.
Instead of handling their problem for these wealthy folks Smedley reported them to Roosevelt, who was well aware of the hazards of having the heads of houses of banking which included Morgan as well, arrested. FDR leaked word of the plan, which would have placed Butler in the White House, to the press.
This resulted in a Congressional investigation which achieved nearly as much as the Warren Commission would thirty years later. It was four years before the terrified men would publish their findings, marked for, “restricted circulation.” Sadly, the General, recipient of two Medals of Honor, died unexpectedly in 1940, just before our entry into World War II.
Charges conveyed by General Butler, which the committee confirmed, included the information a million people had agreed to join the insurrection using arms and munitions made available by a close associate of du Pont, Remington.
Many of those involved were still the heads of their various corporations when charges of doing business with German corporations during World War II surfaced. This continued to be true when departing president, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his speech warning Americans of the dangers they faced during his farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961.
Nothing had changed when John Perkins published his book, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” in 2004. Perkins work ensured the continued flow of money from smaller and weaker nations into the same corporate interests who schemed to remove FDR in 1933 and who did remove JFK in 1963.
Since then occupiers of the Oval Office have been much less likely to make waves, understanding who is really in charge. Choosing between Jeb and Hillary is just picking between, “chocolate or strawberry.” They are both corporate ice cream, bad for us and America.
Their precious young minds and our precious young minds…
She was a redheaded rebel, the singer in the family, a trash-talking, tattooed 21-year-old wrapped up in a hip-hop dream of becoming Holland’s Eminem. Then Betsy found Allah. After her sudden conversion to Islam last summer, Betsy began dressing in full Muslim robes. By January, the once-agnostic Dutch woman, raised in a home where the only sign of religion was a dusty Bible on a shelf, began defending homegrown terrorists. … Denis Cuspert, a German hip-hop artist known as Deso Dogg who converted in 2010 and later joined The Islamic State [ISIS], delivers a rap-like chant portraying the path to jihad as a chance for empowerment, spiritual fulfillment, vengeance and adventure. … ‘The door to jihad is standing there waiting for you,’ says a Swedish convert to Islam in a video. ‘It is the fastest way to paradise.’ (1)
Tales told many times in recent years, all over Europe, at times in the United States. Parents and authorities are deeply distressed and perplexed. How can young people raised in the West – the freedom-obsessed, democratic, peace-loving, humanitarian, fun-filled West – join the Islamic State and support the public cutting off of the heads of breathing, living human beings? Each of us in our own way are lost souls searching for answers to the awful mysteries of life. But THIS? What life-quest does The Islamic State satisfy that our beloved West can’t satisfy? ISIS is unique in the world in making US foreign policy look good. The Defense Department and the State Department have special task forces studying the new enemy; the latter regularly puts out videos to counteract the many Islamic State videos.
I hope those researching the question look inwardly as well as at ISIS. How do young people raised in the West – the same West we know and love – coldly machine-gun to death more than a dozen Iraqis, men, women, children, reporters, absolutely in cold blood, in the video made famous by Chelsea Manning; but this of course is nothing compared to Fallujah with its two-headed babies, even three-headed, an eye in the middle of the forehead. The Islamic State has done nothing compared to what the United States did to the people of Fallujah. Can anyone name a horror in all of history more gruesome? Yes, there are some, but not many; and much of Fallujah was personally executed by nice, clean-cut, freedom-obsessed, democratic, peace-loving, humanitarian, fun-filled made-in America young men.
Here’s US Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, in his memoir, April 6, 2004, the time of Fallujah, in video teleconference with President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “We’ve got to smash somebody’s ass quickly,” said Powell. “There has to be a total victory somewhere. We must have a brute demonstration of power.” Then Bush spoke: “At the end of this campaign al-Sadr must be gone. At a minimum, he will be arrested. It is essential he be wiped out. Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can’t send that message. It’s an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal. … There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!” (2)
“Years from now when America looks out on a democratic Middle East, growing in freedom and prosperity, Americans will speak of the battles like Fallujah with the same awe and reverence that we now give to Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima” in World War II. – George W. Bush, 2006 (3)
Well, George, it’s either that or Fallujah was one of the key reasons for the rise of ISIS.
My point here is not that United States foreign policy is as barbaric and depraved as The Islamic State. It’s not. Most of the time. I simply hope to make it a bit easier to understand the enemy by seeing ourselves without the stars in our eyes. And I haven’t even mentioned what the United States has led the world in for over a century – torture.
The ever-fascinating and ever-revealing subject of ideology
Jeb Bush has gotten himself into trouble because, like all politicians running for office, he is unable to give simple honest answers to simple straightforward questions, for fear of offending one or another segment of the population. How refreshing it would be to have a politician say only what s/he actually believes, even if it’s as stupid as usual.
The brother of the previous president has been asked repeatedly: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” At first his answer was “yes”, then at times “I don’t know”, even “no” at least once, or he’s refused to answer at all. Clearly he’s been guessing about which reply would win him points with the most people, or which would lose him the least.
This caused a minor uproar, even among conservatives. Right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham was moved to make a rare rational remark: “You can’t still think that going into Iraq, now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to. If you do, there has to be something wrong with you.”
Such discussions always leave out a critical point. Why did millions of Americans, and even more millions abroad, march against the war in the fall of 2002 and early 2003, before it began? What did they know that the Bush brothers and countless other politicians didn’t know? It was clear to the protesters that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were habitual liars, that they couldn’t care less about the people of Iraq, that the defenseless people of that ancient civilization were going to be bombed to hell; most of the protesters knew something about the bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Yugoslavia, or Afghanistan; and they knew about napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, etc. Those who marched knew that the impending war was something a moral person could not support; and that it was totally illegal, a textbook case of a “war of aggression”; one didn’t have to be an expert in international law to know this.
Didn’t the Brothers Bush, Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war in the Senate), et al know about any of these things? Of course they did. They just didn’t care enough; supporting the empire’s domination and expansion was a given, and remains so; no US politician gets very far – certainly not to the White House – questioning the right of American Exceptionalism to impose itself upon humanity (for humanity’s sake of course).
Consider the darlings du jour of the American Left, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. They very seldom speak out critically about US foreign policy or even the military budget. The anti-war/anti-imperialist segment of the American left need to put proper pressure on the two senators.
Mr. Sanders should also be asked why he routinely refers to himself as a “democratic socialist”. Why not just “socialist”? It’s likely a legacy of the Cold War. I think that he and other political figures who use the term are, consciously or unconsciously, trying to disassociate themselves from communism, the Soviet Union, Marxism, etc., all those things that are not good for you. (The word “socialist” once connoted furtive men with European accents, sinister facial hair, and bombs.)
It would be delightful to hear Sanders openly declare that he is simply a “socialist”. Socialism can be democratic; indeed, a lot more so than capitalism, particularly concerning the distribution of wealth and all the ramifications of that. Presented here are some relevant thoughts on these issues, from myself and others:
It’s only the socialists who maintain as a bedrock principle: People before Profit, which can serve as a very concise definition of socialism, an ideology anathema to the Right and libertarians, who fervently believe, against all evidence, in the rationality of a free market. I personally favor the idea of a centralized, planned economy. (Oh my God, a damn Commie!) Modern society is much too complex and technical to leave its operation in the hands of libertarians, communitarians, or anarchists seeking to return to a “community” or “village” level.
“Washington has always regarded democratic socialism as a greater challenge than totalitarian Communism, which was easy to vilify and made for a handy enemy. In the 1960s and ’70s, the favored tactic for dealing with the inconvenient popularity of economic nationalism and democratic socialism was to try to equate them with Stalinism, deliberately blurring the clear differences between the world views.” – Naomi Klein
“If it is true, as often said, that most socialist regimes turn out to be dictatorships, that is largely because a dictatorship is much harder to overthrow or subvert than a democracy.” – Jean Bricmont, Belgian author of “Humanitarian Imperialism” (2006)
Without a proclaimed socialist vision, radical change becomes too many different things for too many different individuals and groups.
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.” – Martin Luther King
The United States is so fearful of the word “socialism” that it changed the “social sciences” to the “behavioral sciences”.
If for no other reason than to save the environment, the world needs to abandon the capitalist system. Every day, in every spot on earth, in a multitude of ways, corporations are faced with a choice: to optimize profits or to do what’s best for the planet.
The great majority of people in any society work for a salary. They don’t need to be motivated by the profit motive. It’s not in anyone’s genes. Virtually everybody, if given the choice, would prefer to work at jobs where the main motivations are to help others, improve the quality of life of society, and provide themselves with meaningful and satisfying work. It’s not natural to be primarily motivated by trying to win or steal “customers” from other people, no holds barred, survival of the fittest or the least honest.
And what about this thing called “democracy”, or “majority rule”? Many millions marched against the invasion of Iraq before it began. I don’t know of a single soul who marched in favor of it, although I’m sure there must have been someone somewhere. That lucky soul was the one they listened to.
Finally, the question being asked of Jeb Bush and others is not the best one. They’re asked: “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” A more important question would be: “Knowing what we knew then, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?” And the answer should be “no”, because we knew that Saddam Hussein had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction. This is very well documented, from diverse sources, international and Iraqi, including Saddam himself and his chief lieutenants.
The American Mainstream Media – A Classic Tale Of Propaganda
“When an American warplane accidentally struck the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 during the Kosovo campaign …”
These words appeared in the Washington Post on April 24, 2015 as part of a story about US drone warfare and how an American drone attack in Pakistan in January had accidentally killed two Western aid workers. The Post felt no need to document the Belgrade incident, or explain it any further. Almost anyone who follows international news halfway seriously knows about this famous “accident” of May 7, 1999. The only problem is that the story is pure propaganda.
Three people inside the Chinese embassy were killed and Washington apologized profusely to Beijing, blaming outdated maps among other problems. However, two well-documented and very convincing reports in The Observer of London in October and November of that year, based on NATO and US military and intelligence sources, revealed that the embassy had been purposely targeted after NATO discovered that it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications. The Chinese were doing this after NATO planes had successfully silenced the Yugoslav government’s own transmitters. (5) The story of how the US mainstream media covered up the real story behind the embassy bombing is absolutely embarrassing. (6)
Over and above the military need, there may have been a political purpose served. China, then as now, was clearly the principal barrier to US hegemony in Asia, if not elsewhere. The bombing of the embassy was perhaps Washington’s charming way of telling Beijing that this is only a small sample of what can happen to you if you have any ideas of resisting or competing with the American juggernaut. Since an American bombing campaign over Belgrade was already being carried out, Washington was able to have a much better than usual “plausible denial” for the embassy bombing. The opportunity may have been irresistible to American leaders. The chance might never come again.
All of US/NATO’s other bombing “mistakes” in Yugoslavia were typically followed by their spokesman telling the world: “We regret the loss of life.” These same words were used by the IRA in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions over the years following one of their bombings which appeared to have struck the wrong target. But their actions were invariably called “terrorist”.
Undoubtedly, the US media will be writing of the “accidental” American bombing of the Chinese embassy as long as the empire exists and China does not become a member of NATO.
1) Washington Post, May 7, 2015
2) Ricardo Sanchez, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier’s Story (2008), pages 349-350
3) Associated Press, November 11, 2006
4) William Blum, America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy, pp. 61-2
5) The Observer (London), October 17, 1999 (“Nato bombed Chinese deliberately”), and November 28, 1999 (“Truth behind America’s raid on Belgrade”)
6) Extra! Update (magazine of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR], New York), December 1999; appeared first as solitary article October 22, 1999 (“U.S. Media Overlook Expose on Chinese Embassy Bombing”)
US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter is willing to risk a war with China in order to defend “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea. Speaking in Honolulu, Hawaii on Wednesday, Carter issued his “most forceful” warning yet, demanding “an immediate and lasting halt to land reclamation” by China in the disputed Spratly Islands.
Carter said: “There should be no mistake: The United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all around the world.” He also added that the United States intended to remain “the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come.”
In order to show Chinese leaders “who’s the boss”, Carter has threatened to deploy US warships and surveillance aircraft to within twelve miles of the islands that China claims are within their territorial waters. Not surprisingly, the US is challenging China under the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a document the US has stubbornly refused to ratify. But that’s neither here nor there for the bellicose Carter whose insatiable appetite for confrontation makes him the most reckless Sec-Def since Donald Rumsfeld.
So what’s this really all about? Why does Washington care so much about a couple hundred yards of sand piled up on reefs reefs in the South China Sea? What danger does that pose to US national security? And, haven’t Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines all engaged in similar “land reclamation” activities without raising hackles in DC?
Of course, they have. The whole thing is a joke. Just like Carter’s claim that he’s defending the lofty principal of “freedom of navigation” is a joke. China has never blocked shipping lanes or seized boats sailing in international waters. Never. The same cannot be said of the United States that just recently blocked an Iranian ship loaded with humanitarian relief–food, water and critical medical supplies–headed to starving refugees in Yemen. Of course, when the US does it, it’s okay.
The point is, Washington doesn’t give a hoot about the Spratly Islands; it’s just a pretext to slap China around and show them who’s running the show in their own backyard. Carter even admits as much in his statement above when he says that the US plans to be “the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come.” China knows what that means. It means “This is our planet, so you’d better shape up or you’re going to find yourself in a world of hurt.” That’s exactly what it means.
So let’s cut to the chase and try to explain what’s really going on, because pretty soon no one is going to be talking about Ukraine, Syria or Yemen because all eyes are going to be focused on China where our madhatter Secretary of Defense is trying to start a third world war.
Here’s the scoop: Washington has abandoned its China policy of “containment” and moved on to Plan B: Isolation, intimidation and confrontation. In my opinion, this is why the powerbrokers behind Obama dumped Hagel. Hagel just wasn’t hawkish enough for the job. They wanted a died-in-the-wool, warmongering neocon, like Carter, who is, quite likely, the most dangerous man in the world.
Carter’s assignment is to implement the belligerent new policy of incitement and conflict. His actions will prove to the skeptics that Washington is no longer interested in integrating China into the US-led system. Rather, China has become a the biggest threat to Washington’s plan to pivot to Asia. And, just to remind readers how important the pivot is to America’s future, here’s an Obama quote I lifted up from Tom Engelhardt’s latest titled “Superpower in Distress”:
“After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region….As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.”
The so called pivot is Washington’s “top priority”, which means that China’s unprecedented ascendency must be slowed and its regional influence curtailed. Thus, the dust up over the Spratly Islands will be used in the same way the US has used other incidents, that is, by demonizing China’s leaders in the media, by assembling a coalition that will publicly oppose China’s activities, by implementing harsh economic sanctions, by launching asymmetrical attacks on China’s currency and financial markets, by excluding China from critical trade agreements, and by inciting social unrest (color-coded revolution) through the support of dissidents living in China. These are the all-too-familiar signs of US meddling directed at “emerging rivals” who threaten US global hegemony. China now finds itself at the top of the list.
US powerbrokers know that bullying China involves significant risks for themselves and the world. Even so, they have decided to pursue this new policy and force a confrontation. Why? Why would they embark on a strategy so fraught with danger?
The answer is: They don’t see any way around it. They’ve tried containment and it hasn’t worked. China’s growing like crazy and its regional influence threatens to leave the US on the outside looking in. Carter even admitted as much in a recent speech he gave at the McCain Institute at Arizona State University. He said: “We already see countries in the region trying to carve up these markets…forging many separate trade agreements in recent years, some based on pressure and special arrangements…. Agreements that…..leave us on the sidelines. That risks America’s access to these growing markets. We must all decide if we are going to let that happen. If we’re going to help boost our exports and our economy…and cement our influence and leadership in the fastest-growing region in the world; or if, instead, we’re going to take ourselves out of the game.”
See? It’s all about markets. It’s all about money. Here’s more from Carter’s speech: (The) ” Asia-Pacific…is the defining region for our nation’s future”… “Half of humanity will live there by 2050″ and that “more than half of the global middle class and its accompanying consumption will come from that region.”….”There are already more than 525 million middle class consumers in Asia, and we expect there to be 3.2 billion in the region by 2030…President Obama and I want to ensure that… businesses can successfully compete for all these potential customers. ….Over the next century, no region will matter more… for American prosperity.”
This is why the Obama administration is making a general nuisance of itself in the South China Sea. It’s so the big US mega-corporations will have new customers for their IPADs and toaster ovens.
For that, they are willing to risk a nuclear war.
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6 “…in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9
John 1:10 tells us that everything seen and unseen was created ex nihilo by the spoken Word of the Son of God, which means that Jesus Christ was active and present long before His incarnation, therefore eternally co-existent with the Father. (1) Jesus Christ is therefore God just as the Father and Holy Spirit are God, thus the Word of the Old Testament’s creation account is Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Jesus Christ is the Word. His Word is Truth even as He Himself is Truth, the same today as yesterday and for always. Thus Jesus Christ does not change and as He is the starting point for the reasoning of the faithful, then Christians must reject the neutrality principle and doubt, its’ ugly twin, the long unchallenged principles in evolutionary modernism’s longstanding war against the Word of God—the Book of Genesis in particular—in all its parts… historical, prophetical, geographical, linguistic, and doctrinal. (2)
When Paul affirms in the Lord that his Gentile readers should no longer live as Gentile pagans do in the futility of their darkened minds (Ephesians 4: 17-24), he speaks to all pagans from antiquity to our own age (i.e., neo-pagan modernists) who reject the pure knowledge of the Holy Trinity and vainly think of themselves as “enlightened” when in reality they are “en-darkened.” Their ignorance is not a lack of education, and some of them are brilliant in their own way, but such brilliance is wasted on vain imaginings and wisdom of this world which will not get them to heaven, thus utterly foolish and futile, especially when combined with hardness of heart toward the truth of the gospel in Christ (Matt. 13:14-15; John 12:40; Acts 28: 26; Rom. 11:8)
“En-darkened” modernists claim scientific neutrality as a general operating assumption. Two applications of modernist thought evidence this: evolution (anti-creation account/relentless change/relativism), an inverted exegesis that deconstructs and reduces man in the spiritual image of the Trinity to evolved ape, and deconstructionism (destructive criticism/critical theory). Along with evolution, deconstructionism is a form of relativism or nihilism that for more than eighty years has been spilling into and contaminating our moral and culture sustaining institutions from seminaries and Biblical scholarship to academia, law, media, arts, and politics, thence our minds, individually and collectively. (2)
The origin of the neutrality principle is the Garden of Eden. Its’ father is the Evil One who tempted Eve to approach the question of eating from the forbidden tree in a neutral, unbiased fashion. He slyly suggested that she adopt a neutral position in order to decide who was right, God or the snake. Like modernists of our own age Eve doubted and therefore rejected God’s Word as authoritative and conclusive. As a true neutralist she determined for herself which choice to take. (Gen. 3:4-6)
Todays’ Christian Church and Western culture have for so long been saturated with evolutionary modernist claims of scientific neutrality paired with intellectual and moral autonomy that the ungodly neutrality principle which forbids the existence of immutable Truth and moral absolutes has been thoroughly ingrained in us. It is so constant and we are so accustomed to it that even within the church we fail to discern it.
Neutrality Principle, Deconstructionism & the Historical-Critical Method
For evolutionary modernists of both pagan and pantheist persuasion to choose to not believe the Word of God on an individual level is one thing. But in the past few hundred years the world has been witnessing a strange yet consistent phenomenon: institutionalized Biblical deconstructionism issuing in a concerted drive,
“…on an institutional level to rubbish the Scriptures altogether. It is nothing new of course. It’s just the scale of the enterprise which takes the breath away. And it’s not just international. It’s global.” (The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis, Bill Cooper, p. 7)
The first Biblical deconstructionists—the ancient “fathers” of today’s Biblical deconstructionists—were various Gnostic pagans in the first centuries of the Christian era.
The methodology employed by the early Gnostic pagan Marcion for example, was to masquerade as a scholar concerned only for truth while really getting rid of everything he was offended by, especially the entire Old Testament which he deconstructed by reducing in its entirety to an unhistorical myth. In a nutshell, this is the same method employed by modern Biblical deconstructionists.
Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to Gnostic heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic elements of Genesis as Revealed by God and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
Today it is commonplace for resuscitated Gnostic deconstructionism, otherwise known as the historical-critical method of Biblical scholarship, to be regarded as scientific, thus enlightened, neutral and objective. Recent decades however, have witnessed a much needed rising awareness that the historical-critical method serves particular ends thus always arrives at certain conclusions. In the meticulously researched work of intellectual history, “Politicizing the Bible,” Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker greatly add to this awareness by bringing to light the appropriation, deconstruction and paganization of scripture by politically motivated interpreters.
Shining a powerful light of truth on the techniques taken for granted at divinity schools worldwide, Hahn and Wiker trace the origins of the modern historical-critical method deep into the Middle Ages and the Renaissance “showing the deliberate Erastian project of subjecting the Bible and with it the Christian faith to the power of the State.” (4)
Through painstaking research Hahn and Wiker clearly demonstrate that the historical-critical method is grounded in the philosophy of Averroes, the writings of Machiavelli and Marsilio of Padua among others, together with the political projects of Henry VIII, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke, and the quest for an empire of science on the part of Descartes and Spinoza.
The authors argue that nothing can be rightly understood about the historical-critical method and the politicization of Scripture if close attention is not paid to the great cosmological shift that occurred in the seventeenth century. What the shift yielded was both a secular (anti-supernatural and wholly naturalistic or pagan) understanding of the universe, philosophy and scientific method and a secular-pagan understanding of man and politics:
“The two occur as part of one revolution because the shift in the meaning of nature includes human nature as well.” (p. 257)
With respect to the work of modern scriptural scholars, the great shift means that in order to comprehend the assumptions and methods of their own craft they have to understand the history of the philosophy and science grounded in the cosmological shift.
As a synopsis of the monumental philosophical and scientific shift and its’ abominable effects on modern biblical scholarship and Christianity, Hahn and Wiker offer the following example from the highly influential nineteenth century scriptural scholar David Friedrich Strauss. Strauss is almost invariably the first of the modern critiques studied in the typical survey course taken by students of Scripture in graduate school. The key introductory chapter of Strauss’s “Life of Jesus Christ Critically Examined” is entitled “Development of the Mythical Point of View.” In it Strauss declares,
“…matter-of-factly that an ‘account is not historical,’ and hence ‘the matter related could not have taken place in the manner described,’ wherein ‘the narration is irreconcilable with the known and universal laws which govern the course of events. Now according to these laws, agreeing with all just philosophical conceptions and all credible experience, the absolute cause never disturbs the chain of secondary causes by single arbitrary actions of interposition.” (pp. 257-258)
In other words, miracles (i.e., creation ex nihilo, Christ’s Resurrection) cannot happen. For Strauss, the exegetical assumption that miracles are fictions is based on naturalistic philosophical-scientific assumptions.
Underlying Strauss’s assumptions is an entirely naturalistic (secular-pagan), self-generating machine-like cosmos, a mathematical-mechanical view of the evolving universe, an idol of defiant, rebellious mans’ mind in continual antagonism to the supernatural Judeo-Christian cosmology.
It was Descartes, Hobbes, and Spinoza who redefined nature so that it was ontologically mathematical and mechanical, thereby paving the way for the universe to be entirely law-governed, self-contained (closed to the supernatural), self-sustaining, mechanical and evolutionary. This view necessitated that the active, living, creating, and redeeming Holy God of Old and New Testament be redefined as a deistic god that created matter, mechanical mechanisms and formative evolutionary processes that over time allows things to make themselves, or a divine evolutionary force (pantheism) within nature, or be simply rejected by the more radical of the radical Enlightenment. (pp. 272-273 &544)
In the “new pagan” god-man centered cosmology, the gap between the Mind of God and the mind of man, and the supernatural and natural were closed. Thereafter, the exalted mind of the god-man and the content of the mathematical-mechanical universe defined what method was appropriate to its illumination:
“If the universe is fundamentally mathematical and mechanical, then of course the method of illumination must be mathematical and mechanical. ” (p. 545)
In the god- man centered universe, the redefined God’s wisdom does not exceed man’s wisdom. This being so, Unitarianism, liberal Protestant theology, Roman Catholic Teilhardism, evolutionary theism, Hugh Ross’s vastly popular progressive creationism, and all other forms of evolutionary Christianity as well as New Age pantheism are the products of the exalted wisdom of god-men who adopted a man-centered universe entirely in accord with their own capacities.
The approach to the Word of God followed suit, meaning that an evolutionary modernist understanding completely defines the ‘new’ approach to the interpretative deconstruction of the Bible:
“Since miracles had been excised from nature, they had to be removed from the text. Since nature was entirely defined by mathematics, knowledge of mathematical-mechanical laws displaced prophecy, and so prophecy had to be removed from the text. In fact, since there was, with pantheism, assumed to be an identity of the logos of nature with the Logos of God, scientists who studied the logos of nature provided the highest revelation possible, thereby demoting the revelation contained in the Bible as at best puerile. All that was left, so it seemed, was the moral message of the text, and the focus on the Bible as merely moral reinforced its politicization.” (p. 544)
All that is left is a desacralized book of moral messages for evolutionary modernist Christian theologians and intellectuals such as columnist Ross Douthat, leading Richard Dawkins to ridicule him for bracketing “Biblical fundamentalists” with atheists and accusing both of making the same mistake,
“…of thinking that the correct way to read the Bible is literally, as do Ken Ham or Al Mohler.” (Ross Douthat doesn’t understand atheism, Richard Dawkins, Oct. 5, 2011,whyevolutionistrue.com)
Douthat criticizes New Atheism said Dawkins, for thinking that we go after only the fundamentalist version of religion while “ignoring the sophisticated versions propounded by sophisticated theologians like John Haught and sophisticated intellectuals like himself” who see much of the Bible, particularly the Genesis account as metaphor. Douthat makes this clear in a New York Times article:
“It was a peculiar spectacle, to put it mildly: An atheist [Coyne] attacking a traditionalist believer [Shea] for not reading Genesis literally. On the merits, Coyne is of course quite correct that some of the details of the Genesis story seem to contradict what science and archaeology suggest about human origins. (For instance, the claim that Adam and Eve were formed from the dust of the ground and a human rib, respectively, not from millennia upon millennia of evolution, the suggestion that they lived in a garden near the Tigris and the Euphrates, not a hunter-gatherer community in Africa, and well, you get the idea.) But then again some of the details of the Genesis story seem to contradict one another as well, in ways that should inspire even a reader who knows nothing about the controversies surrounding evolution to suspect that what he’s reading isn’t intended as a literal and complete natural history of the human race.” (Why Atheists Need Fundamentalists, Douthat, Oct. 4, 2011, New York Times)
Dawkins zeros in on the contradictions in Douthats’ argument, pointing out that if Ken Ham, Dr. Albert Mohler, and other faithful believers, or ‘fundamentalists’ as Douthat labels them did not take the,
“…stories pretty literally, including the tales of Noah and the flood, the Genesis stories, the tale of Adam and Eve and their Original Sin, and, of course, the whole Jesus mythology (then)we’d have no creationism in America, and the story of Jesus would be a convenient fairy tale, like that of Santa Claus, rather than an object of universal veneration.” (ibid)
Exposing Douthats’ double-mindedness, Dawkins argues that while much of the Bible is dismissively relegated to the category of fanciful metaphor by Douthat,
“I’m sure that when he goes to Mass each week he recites the Nicene Creed, affirming his belief in these truths : ” Jesus is the son of God – God is the creator of heaven and earth – Jesus was the product of a virgin birth – The crucified Jesus was resurrected – Jesus will come again to judge us all – Our sins will be remitted through baptism – There’s an afterlife for the good folks.”
Dawkins then asks,
“Tell me, Mr. Douthat: are those allegories, too? When you mouth them in Church each week, are you saying what you really believe? If not, why do you call yourself a Catholic?” (ibid)
Douthats’ embarrassing peccadillo exemplifies that of increasing numbers of modernist theologians, intellectuals and Christians throughout the whole body of the church who waver between serving the Lord and serving Baal:
“And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.” 1 Kings 18:21
In 1 Thess. 2:13 the Apostle Paul summarizes and clarifies the issue at hand, which is whether the Revealed Word of God is received by the Christian Church as the word of “enlightened” men or “for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.”
“Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?….Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.” Job 38: 2-4
Dear reader, who do you place your faith in? Is it in pride-inflated foolish modernists who with their scissors have cut apart the Bible and with their words without knowledge and vain pretensions set themselves up against the knowledge of our Lord? They are the blind leading the blind into hell. Or is it in the Lord Whose Word is Truth, even as He Himself is Truth, our Lord and Savior Who,
“….if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved?” Romans 10:9
1. The Wonder-Working God, Jared C. Wilson, p. 38
2. Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen
3. The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis: A Study in Three Parts, Dr. Bill Cooper
4. quote from review by Prof. David Jeffrey, Baylor University, editor, The King James Bible and the World It Made; Politicizing the Bible, p. vi
In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, dated September 23, 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” By any definition that Jefferson could have envisioned, today’s political correctness can only be regarded as “tyranny over the mind of man.” Forget freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, or freedom of privacy, political correctness demands that we don’t even have freedom of thought or opinion.
If one does not have the freedom to live in good conscience with his own sense of morality, he or she is indeed the most enslaved of creatures. Listen to Jefferson again, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Forcing men to pay taxes “for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors” is indeed sinful and tyrannical enough. But to compel a man to actively PARTICIPATE in ideas he disbelieves and abhors is even more so. And, that, my friends, is exactly what modern political correctness forces us to do–or at least tries to force us to do. Political correctness attempts to strip us of our own sense of right and wrong. It is not only tyranny of conduct and behavior; it is tyranny of the mind and heart.
For example, if someone says something critical of Israel, they are labeled “anti-Semitic.” If they say something critical of the homosexual lifestyle, they are labeled “anti-gay.” If they say something critical of the practices and policies of our politicians, they are labeled “anti-government.” And if they say something critical of Roman theology, they are labeled “anti-Catholic.”
There are only two things that it is politically correct to be “anti” about: it is perfectly acceptable to be “anti-Christian” or “anti-Muslim.” Not only is it politically correct to be “anti-Christian” or “anti-Muslim,” it is all but REQUIRED that one be “anti-Christian” or “anti-Muslim.” One risks personal friendship and professional employment if he or she is NOT “anti-Christian” or “anti-Muslim.”
For the record, I am none of the above. I am not anti-Semitic; I am not anti-gay; I am not anti-government; I am not anti-Catholic; I am not anti-Christian; and I am not anti-Muslim. About the only thing I am “anti” is this: I am “anti-TYRANNY.”
And tyranny can come in many shapes and forms. There are tyrannical Jews, tyrannical homosexuals, tyrannical politicians, tyrannical Catholics, tyrannical Muslims, and tyrannical Christians. Because there are those from any of the above groups who are tyrannical doesn’t mean that EVERYONE in those groups is tyrannical. When I resist the ACT of tyranny by someone–or a group of someones–of a certain label doesn’t mean I am “anti” everyone who wears that same label.
But I absolutely will not be intimidated by name-calling when I resist what is obviously an act of tyranny, regardless of the label the tyrant wraps himself in.
To illustrate: I firmly believe that God has established marriage as being between a man and a woman. That does NOT mean I am against homosexuals having the same civil rights as everyone else, because I believe that ALL Americans enjoy the same protections under the Bill of Rights. Accordingly, all Americans have the right to enter into civil contracts with one another. But civil union is NOT the same as Holy Matrimony, which can be–and has been–defined ONLY by our Creator. Marriage is defined by both divine and Natural Law.
Any attempt to force me to participate in a so-called “marriage” between same sex couples violates my moral conscience and is, by definition, an act of tyranny. And by Nature, I cannot submit to such an act. I cannot and will not.
I wonder what all of the good Romans 13 pastors across America are going to do as civil authorities attempt to force them to marry same sex couples. This has already happened in one Idaho city. The city of Coeur d’Alene is threatening to incarcerate and heavily fine ministers and others who refuse to officiate over the marriage ceremonies of same sex couples. And as homosexual marriage becomes more and more vogue, Christian ministers across the country are going to be forced to come face to face with their own religious convictions–something many of them have not done for quite a spell. What will they do?
We know what many, if not most, of them will do. They will comply. They are like the pastors of Nazi Germany who taught their flocks to obey the government no matter what and who justified their cowardice and heresy with the misinterpretation of Romans 13. This is the same misinterpretation of that chapter that pastors are regurgitating today.
I highly encourage every reader who attends church to make a point of asking your pastor this Sunday what he will do when the civil authorities of his city or State demand that he marry same sex couples, because this demand is surely coming. Of course, how the pastor responds will then collapse a heavy weight of responsibility on the shoulders of parishioners won’t it (which is why many Christians will simply not bother to even broach the topic with their pastor)?
Do you see how political correctness has become tyrannical? Political correctness demands that we accept a Police State in the name of the “war on terror.” Political correctness demands that we say NOTHING critical of the state of Israel, even when it attacks a U.S. naval vessel and kills dozens of American sailors and Marines. Political correctness demands that we fight unconstitutional wars of aggression against Muslim people who have committed NO act of aggression against us. Political correctness demands that we dare not criticize neocon foreign policy in Washington, D.C. Political correctness demands that Christianity be held up to every form of ridicule and mockery. And now political correctness demands that people violate their own deeply-held religious and moral convictions. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of America’s founders must be turning over in their graves.
Concerning marriage specifically, in my opinion the state has absolutely no authority or responsibility defining, regulating, or controlling marriage. The state had little or no authority regarding marriage until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For the church to allow itself be joined to the state is the unholiest of unions.
This latest attempt of civil authorities to define and regulate marriage should serve notice to everyone, especially Christians, that it is probably time to completely abandon civil marriages altogether and take it back to the individuals, families, and churches, where it rightly has always belonged.
Political correctness is not merely an expression of opinion: it is the denial of anyone else to hold a differing opinion–or even personally-held moral and religious convictions. It is exactly what Thomas Jefferson detested and personally opposed: it is “tyranny over the mind of man.”
We are constantly seeing and hearing our American media use the word “Regime” these days. So exactly what is a “Regime”? Apparently it is whatever you want it to be.
Whenever Wall Street and/or War Street want to vilify a country that disagrees with their policies of occupation and exploitation, they always begin their vilification program by calling that country’s form of government a “Regime”.
Here are some examples: Syria is a “Regime” — even though it has a constitution, holds elections and almost all Syrians support its president, Bashar Assad. Gaddafi in Libya also operated a “Regime” — even though his government offered the kind of free education and healthcare benefits to its citizens that most Americans can only dream about. Cuba was (and still is) considered a “Regime” in the eyes of Wall Street and War Street. Putin also runs a “Regime” — even though most Russians today support him totally.
In reverse, Saudi Arabia is not a “Regime” — even though the House of Saud uses torture, suppresses decent, beheads people, treats women badly, brutally invades other countries and supports Al Qaeda and ISIS.
The House of Saud has spent over a trillion $$$$ of its enormous petro-dollar wealth over the last half-century on killing people and being despotic. Just imagine what the Middle East would look like right now if the Saudis had chosen butter instead of guns. What a waste. And yet Saudi Arabia is still not considered to be a “Regime” by American media.
Israel never gets called a “Regime” either — even though it supplied Iran with weapons back when Khomeini was holding Americans hostage and it kills Palestinian children with impunity, foments wars whenever possible, runs secret torture prisons, is a neo-colonialist in the worst sort of way, appears to even be anti-Jewish, uses 9-11 to its advantage and has notoriously corrupt leaders.
And now America seems to have become a “Regime” as well — even though nobody ever dares to call it by that name. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….
Here are at least ten reasons that cause me to suspect that Wall Street and War Street are running a “Regime” here in America too:
Reason No. 1: Torture. Black sites. Rendition. Indefinite detention of Americans. Stuff like that. Our tax dollars at work.
Reason No. 2: No one is ever allowed to examine (let alone question) election results or voting machines here in the USA. Remember GWB, for instance? Never legally won an election in his life! Or take those new voter restrictions that have suddenly become so popular in the Ol’ South. You would expect something like that in the old Soviet Union or in the bad old days of Jim Crow — but not here, not now. And yet here it is.
No one is ever allowed to examine (let alone question) election results or voting machines here in the USA. Remember GWB, for instance? Never legally won an election in his life! Or take those new voter restrictions that have suddenly become so popular in the Ol’ South. You would expect something like that in the old Soviet Union or in the bad old days of Jim Crow — but not here, not now. And yet here it is.
Reason No. 3: Spying on its citizens. NSA. The Patriot Act. Snowden and Manning are being persecuted for spying — while FaceBook, Google and NSA get a free pass.
Reason No. 4: Ferguson. Baltimore. Zuccotti Park. Oakland. Military tactics used to violently suppress the American underclass if they dare to complain that their jobs are all disappearing, their children’s education sucks eggs and their tax dollars are being spent on military adventurism in foreign lands instead of on infrastructure here at home.
Reason No. 5: Congress! Government for sale. Widespread corruption. The Koch brothers’ and K Street’s yard sale of our politicians — all bought on the cheap. A solder in Afghanistan once told me that, “The only difference between corrupt politicians in Afghanistan and corrupt politicians in America is that corrupt politicians in America pass laws to make their corruption legal and Afghan politicians do not.” (Also see Reason No. 9)
Reason No. 6: No daycare! I just threw that in because I’m now babysitting my wonderful three-month-old granddaughter so that my daughter can go back to work. Even Iraq under Saddam Hussein had free daycare! Even Cuba under Castro.
And when Sofia goes off to kindergarten in five years, then I’ll finally be able to go back to being a war correspondent again — knowing for certain that the American “Regime” will still be subsidizing despots and Endless War in the Middle East even five years from now. What a waste.
Reason No. 7: Media suppression. You think that you might have some good ideas about telling truth to power around here? Then don’t expect to get a job with the New York Times or the Washington Post any time soon. Shades of the old Pravda.
Reason No. 8: Cops and the military (again). Peaceful protests are suppressed here just like they are in Occupied Palestine. Rubber bullets and tear gas R Us! Our cops recently used tear gas on protesters even here in my own hometown. And then there are all those poor countries abroad that have been Blitzkriegged by our very own Luftwaffe and then invaded by our very own Storm Troopers. I could drone on and on about that!
Reason No. 9: Our Supreme Court. Scalia would feel right at home in Nigeria or Haiti. There’s not a single corrupt corporate take-over that he doesn’t like.
Reason No 10: Corporatism itself. Nazi Germany ran on “Corporatism”. Hitler just loved handing out corporate welfare. And so do our so-called leaders. Nazi Germany was a “Regime”. Perhaps America is too.
I rest my case.
How many times has the mainstream media mentioned the USA Freedom Act? Well, if you did hear of this legislation, you must have been watching C-SPAN or a foreign press channel. Read a report from NPR, that government funded broadcast, which never fails to present a known editorial viewpoint.
“The USA Freedom Act extends many parts of the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which expires June 1. The measure’s fate in the Senate is less likely.
The surveillance issue has sparked “rare bipartisan unity” in the House, NPR’s David Welna reports for today’s All Things Considered. He notes that the push to change the law comes from Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
“Despite changes to the NSA bulk telephone metadata program announced by President Obama last year,” Goodlatte says, “the bulk collection of the records has not ceased, and will not cease, unless and until Congress acts to shut it down.”
Wednesday’s vote comes nearly two years after former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed the U.S. government’s secret program to collect and store huge amounts of data from millions of Americans’ phone records.”
Missing in the lack of “all things considered” press coverage is a comprehensive national debate on why Congress is renewing most of the components of the Patriot Act to begin with? The questionable support in the Senate for supporting this House measure, speaks to the nature of the “world’s greatest deliberative body”.
The Boston Herald provides the likely outcome from Senate leaders propose extending NSA phone records storage.
“Weeks before a key surveillance law expires, Senate Republicans have introduced a bill that would allow the National Security Agency to continue collecting the calling records of nearly every American.
The measure by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and intelligence committee Chairman Richard Burr would bypass Senate committees and reauthorize sections of the Patriot Act, including the provision under which the NSA is requiring phone companies to turn over the “to and from” records of most domestic landline calls.”
In order to understand the distinction in the House bill, read H.R.3361 – USA FREEDOM Act.
SEC. 103. PROHIBITION ON BULK COLLECTION OF TANGIBLE THINGS.
(a) Application.—Section 501(b)(2) (50 U.S.C. 1861(b)(2)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, is further amended by inserting before subparagraph (B), as redesignated by such section 101(a) of this Act, the following new subparagraph:
“(A) a specific selection term to be used as the basis for the production of the tangible things sought;”.
(b) Order.—Section 501(c) (50 U.S.C. 1861(c)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking the semicolon and inserting “, including each specific selection term to be used as the basis for the production;”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(3) No order issued under this subsection may authorize the collection of tangible things without the use of a specific selection term that meets the requirements of subsection (b)(2).”.
TITLE II—FISA PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICE REFORM
SEC. 201. PROHIBITION ON BULK COLLECTION.
(a) Prohibition.—Section 402(c) (50 U.S.C. 1842(c)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(3) a specific selection term to be used as the basis for selecting the telephone line or other facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or applied; and”.
(b) Definition.—Section 401 (50 U.S.C. 1841) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(4) The term ‘specific selection term’ has the meaning given the term in section 501.”.
Now these measures are being lauded as addressing the NSA domestic spying methods, which has caused such uproar among civil libertarians. However, placing your trust in such language misses the fundamental point why an outright repeal of the Patriot Act is not being passed.
The correct approach is outlined by Ron Paul: Don’t Be Fooled by Un-American ‘USA Freedom’ Act.
“The political group Paul founded, Campaign for Liberty, released a statement Tuesday criticizing the “inaptly named” USA Freedom Act.
Campaign for Liberty went on to encourage lawmakers to endorse the Surveillance State Repeal Act, which would fully repeal the Patriot Act and the equally controversial 2008 FISA Amendments Act.”
From this proposed alternative legislation:
“Surveillance State Repeal Act – Repeals the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (thereby restoring or reviving provisions amended or repealed by such Acts as if such Acts had not been enacted), except with respect to reports to Congress regarding court orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the acquisition of intelligence information concerning an entity not substantially composed of U.S. persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Requires orders approving certain electronic surveillance to direct that, upon request of the applicant, any person or entity must furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish such surveillance in a manner to protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is providing the target of such surveillance (thereby retaining the ability to conduct surveillance on such targets regardless of the type of communications methods or devices being used by the subject of the surveillance).
Prohibits the federal government from requiring manufacturers of electronic devices and related software to build in mechanisms allowing the federal government to bypass encryption or privacy technology.”
This shell game that passes for “good government” is discussed in the Inherent Autonomy essay, The Fourth Amendment, NSA and Metadata. The summary concludes:
“The snoops view you as an enemy of the state, unless you can prove differently, whereas the reality is that The Strange World of NSA Mind Control is the true foe of the liberty of people and a free nation.”
This is the essence of the motivation behind the original passage of the Patriot Act. Celebrating restriction on domestic surveillance, when the entire intent of the original legislation destroys the constitution is hardly a reason for jubilation. When the executive branch technocrats ignore any law, which conflicts with their intended tyrannical purpose of government dominance, Congress needs to defund any agency that refuses to protect the true public interest.
The absurdity that a total scrutiny society will make citizens safe is beyond intelligent debate. Yet the country has been willing to endure the prying eyes of Homeland Security, rationalized with a trumped up excuse that trashing the constitution is necessary to achieve a crusade against a phantom bogyman.
Jay Syrmopoulos writes in Why are People Celebrating? USA FREEDOM Act is a Big Win for the NSA- Not Civil Liberties about the USA Freedom Act.
“What no one wants to say out loud is that this is a big win for the NSA, and a huge nothing burger for the privacy community,” said a former senior intelligence office, while speaking to The Daily Beast.
The bill doesn’t actually end or suspend the phone records program, but simply requires phone companies to hold onto these records rather than the NSA.
Additionally, under this bill the NSA will now get cell phone records in addition to the landline call records. Under the current collection regime, only landline call records are kept.
“The NSA is coming out of this unscathed,” Joel Brenner, the NSA’s former inspector general, told The Daily Beast. “I think no one thought it was in the realm of the possible before this bill.”
The irony is that this is exactly what former NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander had wanted to implement previously, but the idea was shelved due to the extreme unlikeliness of Congress being willing to pass such legislation.
“The USA Freedom Act”—the supposed reining in of the NSA—“was literally born from Alexander,” the former official said.”
This assessment is not a surprise, because the District of Criminals generates every opportunity to create a false straw man in order to justify a more punitive response.
The Orwellian culture that has engulfed America goes unnoticed in the daily lives of a submissive populace. The courts only protect the despotism of the federal government. The few remaining civil libertarians are ignored or marginalized through the mass media propaganda that views any dissent to the established order as a threat to the entire Washington political class.
The NSA has proven that it operates above the law and no new legislation will curb the totalitarian appetites of the outlaw monitoring institution. Privacy has been destroyed in the United States intentionally to control the population.
Authoritarianism has replaced personal solitude in order to dissect every aspect of one’s life. If people are not angry over this reality, they deserve submissive enslavement. The Patriot Act has always been a national disgrace. Now the USA Freedom Act will be the next scorn.
Can one imagine how difficult it was for America’s founders to actually make the decision to separate from Great Britain? England was the Motherland. The Crown was the central government. For all of their lives, the government of Great Britain was the only government they had ever known. The history of England was their history. Not only that, these men had never experienced any other system of government. Neither was there history to guide them. A monarchical form of government was all they knew. The “divine right of kings” was inculcated into their hearts and minds via virtually every established institution, including the Church, from the time they were born.
The Magna Carta had paved the highway of philosophy for the acceptance of self-government and individual liberty, but it was hardly practiced. King John signed the charter under extreme duress and then spent the rest of his reign in bloody retaliation against those who had pressed him to accept it. For over five hundred years, the Magna Carta lay as a noble idea but with little practical application. The Enlightenment philosophers wrote and theorized much about the principles contained in the Great Charter, but, again, until America’s founding generation came on the scene, nothing much of substance had been achieved. It was America’s Founding Fathers and founding generation that took the principles of the Magna Carta and the Enlightenment philosophers and actually used those principles to birth a new nation.
But how did they come to such a decision? Imagine the consternation. Imagine the inner conflicts. Communities were divided. Friends were divided. Families were divided. Brothers were divided. Parents and children and husbands and wives were divided. Yet, make the decision, they did. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause. They obtained liberty and independence for their posterity–at great cost.
Granted, the decision to separate from the British Crown was not made overnight. Thomas Jefferson explained the process of reasoning behind the separation in the Declaration of Independence. Hear him:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”
How could Jefferson have been any clearer? He and the rest of America’s founders were convinced of “a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.”
Noah Webster’s Dictionary Of The English Language (1828) defines “design” as verb: “To project; to form in idea, as a scheme.” And as noun: “A scheme or plan in the mind.” And, “Purpose; intention; aim; implying a scheme or plan in the mind.”
Hence, America’s founders were convinced of a scheme, a plan, and an intention in the minds of those within the British Crown to “reduce them under absolute Despotism.” Yes, friends, America’s founders were convinced there was a CONSPIRACY within the hearts and minds of the British government to enslave them. Hear Jefferson again:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design…”
When abuses and usurpations which pursue invariably the “same Object” continue unabated over a long period of time, this is NOT an act of happenstance; it is by “design.” Somewhere along the line, the eyes of America’s founders were opened to the conspiracy within the British government to enslave them. Once their eyes were opened to the conspiracy, the rest, as we say, is history.
I submit that what we have in America today are basically two groups of people: those whose eyes are opened to conspiracy, and those who eyes are blind to conspiracy. This is exactly as it was in 1775 and 1776. Christian or unchurched, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, if one is blind to the conspiracy to “reduce [us] under absolute Despotism,” one cannot truly comprehend the real danger or the real war.
And, sadly, it appears that most people today do NOT see the CONSPIRACY. All they see is Republican and Democrat; conservative and liberal; right and left; Christian and Muslim; religious and secular; FOX News and CNN, etc. Until Americans awaken to the same “design” that our founders awakened to, they will not be able to obtain a solution to our country’s malaise, as they are blind to the real enemy.
Mind you, not everyone in the British government in 1775 had it in mind to enslave the Colonists. Not every British soldier, not every British magistrate, not every British agent had a personal goal to enslave the colonies. They were just following orders; their eyes were blind to the plans and objects of those who were orchestrating the conspiracy. And, of course, those within the colonies who supported the British Crown were, likewise, blind to the conspiracy. Thank God, enough of our forebears were enlightened to the design of the Crown to be willing to cast it off.
I will say it plainly: there is a design (conspiracy) within Washington, D.C., and its allies to reduce us under absolute despotism.
Come on, folks, think: when has it mattered to a tinker’s dam which party controlled the White House or Congress? No matter which party is in charge, the central government in D.C. continues to get bigger and bigger and more and more oppressive. Regardless of whether the President is a Democrat or Republican, NOTHING changes in regards to America’s foreign policies or our economic policies. Regardless of party, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) dominates our foreign policies and the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) dominates our economic policies. Regardless of party, an American Police State and surveillance society continue to mushroom, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) continue to exert more and more control over the American citizenry, and states and communities continue to fall under the heel of federal overreach.
Both parties in Washington, D.C., are led by warmongering zealots who use war, not only to enrich themselves, but also to carry out their preconceived plans of perpetual war for the purpose of paving the way for international bankers to control the world’s economies and for the purpose of subjecting the American citizenry to greater and greater infringements of their liberties.
In this regard, militant Islam is but a tool of the globalists. As long as Americans think that Islam is our enemy, they are blind to who the real enemy is. Our enemy is NOT Islam; our enemy is the cabal of globalists who are manipulating militant Islamists. The same people (the CFR and their fellow travelers) who took one of our strongest allies in the Middle East (Iran) and turned it into one our (supposed) greatest enemies are the same ones who are manipulating all of the wars of the Middle East, as well as bringing Russia and China to the brink of global conflict.
I submit the conspiracy of the British Crown has returned; and what used to be an indefatigable, recalcitrant, and vigilant independent republic (the United States) has become little more than a puppet of the old European monarchy. What the Crown could not accomplish through military force, it has accomplished through international banking.
The Federal Reserve wields absolute control over U.S. economic policy, and yet, no one really knows exactly who all of the members of the FRB even are. One thing is known, many (if not most) of them are NOT even U.S. citizens. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, foreign bankers have been controlling U.S. financial policy for the better part of a century.
In like fashion, the CFR virtually controls U.S. foreign policy. And the goal of the CFR is the reduction of national sovereignty and the rise of global government. Listen to Admiral Chester Ward.
Rear Admiral Chester Ward, who was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956-1960 and a former member of the CFR, but withdrew from the organization after realizing what they were all about, warned the American people about the dangers of this and similar organizations (such as the Trilateral Commission). He said, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common–they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”
Admiral Ward also said, “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all-powerful, one world government.”
Now, observe that the administrations of both Republican and Democrat presidents are littered with CFR members. Under President George H.W. Bush, CFR members comprised 20% of his cabinet; under President Bill Clinton, CFR members comprised 34% of his cabinet; under President G.W. Bush, CFR members comprised 22% of his cabinet; and under President Barack Obama, CFR members comprise 36% of his cabinet. And these figures do not take into account how many CFR members are scattered throughout the national news media.
Can one imagine how people would react if twenty or thirty percent of a given presidential administration’s cabinet members were from, say, the Christian Coalition–or, even the ACLU. If the Christian Coalition had that many members in a presidential administration, people on the left would be screaming bloody murder. And if the ACLU had that many members in a presidential administration, people on the right would be screaming bloody murder. As it is, the CFR DOES have that many members in EVERY presidential administration and no one from the right or the left even says “boo.” It’s because they (from both left and right) are blind to the conspiracy.
These international conspirators can be found in London, Brussels, Washington, D.C., New York City, Tel Aviv, etc. In terms of U.S. foreign policy, these conspirators completely control the neocon agenda. That doesn’t mean that every politician who embraces the neocon foreign policy agenda is him or herself aware of the conspiracy. In the same way, not every federal officer within the DHS is aware of the conspiracy. Not every soldier who is fighting these perpetual wars of aggression is aware of the conspiracy. But as with many in the old British monarchy, they are the pawns of the conspirators.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, et al., were only able to declare and fight for independence and liberty after they understood that they were dealing with “a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.”
Until the American people, including our State legislators, governors, city mayors, councilmen, county sheriffs, district attorneys, congressmen, senators, pastors, educators, journalists, etc., awaken to the conspiracy that seeks to enslave us, we will never have the sagacity and strength of will to properly resist it. This means that many of the current battles in which good people are engaged merely play into the designs of those who seek our enslavement. We can’t win the war until we know who the real enemy is.
P.S. On Sunday, April 19 of this year, I delivered the famous sermon of Pastor Jonas Clark that was originally delivered on April 19, 1776, on the occasion of the first anniversary of the Battle of Lexington. Pastor Clark was the pastor of the men who fought that historic battle, which began America’s War for Independence. Obviously, this message was delivered just a couple of months before our Declaration of Independence was signed. I preached this message word-for-word. And I tried to deliver it with the same zeal and passion in which it was originally preached.
The vast majority of today’s Christians NEVER hear a message that remotely resembles the kind of sermons that the pastors of Colonial America delivered. And since April 19 fell on Sunday this year, I delivered Jonas Clark’s powerful message regarding the Battle of Lexington and American liberty so people could listen to the kind of preaching that Christians in Colonial America heard routinely. Pastor Clark entitled his message, “The Fate of Blood-Thirsty Oppressors and God’s Tender Care of His Distressed People.”
My delivery of this awesome message is on DVD. I offer this DVD to my readers in the hope that many of you will purchase copies of the DVD and let your friends, relatives, fellow Christians, pastor, etc., hear true Colonial American preaching. Again, this is word-for-word the message of Jonas Clark delivered on April 19, 1776, concerning the Battle of Lexington Green and America’s fight for liberty.
I have never heard anyone deliver Rev. Clark’s famous message. As far as I know, this is the only verbatim recording of this historic message in existence–preached with the same kind of passion and fervor as it was said Pastor Clark delivered it.
To order my delivery of Jonas Clark’s message, go here:
US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia In Alliance with Al Qaeda…
The Syrian war stalemate appears to be over. The regional powers surrounding Syria — especially Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Jordan — have re-ignited their war against the Syrian government. After over 200,000 dead and millions of refugees, the U.S. allies in the region recently re-committed to deepening the war, with incalculable consequences.
The new war pact was made between Obama’s regional darlings, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who agreed to step up deeper military cooperation and establish a joint command in the occupied Syrian region of Idlib.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are now openly backing Islamic extremists under the newly rebranded “Conquest Army” The on-the-ground leadership of this “new” coalition consists of Jabhat al-Nusra — the “official” al-Qaeda affiliate — and Ahrar al-Sham, whose leader previously stated that his group was the “real al-Qaeda.”
The Huffington Post reports:
“The Turkish-Saudi agreement has led to a new joint command center in the northeastern Syrian province of Idlib. There, a coalition of groups — including Nusra and other Islamist brigades such as Ahrar al-Sham that Washington views as extremist — are progressively eroding Assad’s front. The rebel coalition also includes more moderate elements of the Free Syrian Army that have received U.S. support in the past.”
The article admits that the Free Syrian Army — that Obama previously labeled as “moderates” and gave cash and guns to — has been swallowed up by the extremist groups.
This dynamic has the potential to re-engulf the region in violence; deep Saudi pocketbooks combined with reports of looming Turkish ground forces are a catastrophe in the making.
Interestingly, the Saudi-Turkish alliance barely raised eyebrows in the U.S. media. President Obama didn’t think to comment on the subject, let alone condemn it.
The media was focused on an odd narrative of Obama reportedly being “concerned” about the alliance, but “disengaged” from what two of his close allies were doing in a region that the U.S. has micromanaged for decades.
It seems especially odd for the media to accept that Obama has a “hands off” approach in Syria when at the same time the media is reporting about a new U.S. program training Syrian rebels in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.
It’s inconceivable that Obama would coordinate deeply with Turkey to set up a Syrian rebel training camp on Turkish soil, while at the same time be “disengaged” from the Turkish-Saudi war coalition in Syria.
One possible motive behind the fake narrative of “non-cooperation” between Obama and his Turkish-Saudi allies is that the U.S. is supposed to be fighting a “war on terrorism.”
So when Turkey and Saudi Arabia announce that they’re closely coordinating with terrorists in Syria — like al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham — Obama needs an alibi to avoid being caught at the crime scene. He’s not an accomplice, simply “disengaged.”
This is likely the reason why Obama has insisted that his new “moderate” rebels being trained in Turkey will fight ISIS, not the Syrian government. But this claim too is ridiculous.
Is Obama really going to throw a couple hundred newly-trained “moderate” Syrian rebels at ISIS while his Turkish-Saudi allies focus all their fire on the Syrian Government? The question answers itself.
The media has made mention of this obvious conundrum, but never bothers to follow up, leaving Obama’s lame narrative unchallenged. For example, the LA Times reports:
“The White House wants the [U.S. trained rebel] proxy force to target Islamic State militants, while many of the Syrian rebels — and the four host nations [where Syrian rebels are being trained] — want to focus on ousting Syrian President Bashar Assad.”
The article simply shrugs its shoulders at the irreconcilable. The article also fails to mention that Obama’s “new” training camps aren’t new at all; he’s been arming and training Syrian rebels since at least 2012, the only difference being that the “new” training camps are supposedly meant to target ISIS, compared to the training camps that were openly used to target the Syrian government.
Here’s the LA Times in 2013:
“The covert U.S. training [of Syrian rebels] at bases in Jordan and Turkey began months before President Obama approved plans to begin directly arming the opposition to Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to U.S. officials and rebel commanders.”
This is media amnesia at its worse. Recent events can’t be understood if the media doesn’t place events in context. In practice this “forgetfulness” provides political cover to the Obama administration, shielding his longstanding direct role in the Syrian war, allowing him to pretend to a “passive,” “hands off” approach.
When it was reported in 2012 that the Obama administration was funneling weapons to the Syrian rebels, the few media outlets that mentioned the story didn’t bother to do any follow up. It simply fell into the media memory hole. After the weapons funneling report came out, Obama incredulously stated that he was only supplying “non lethal” support to the rebels, and the media printed his words unchallenged.
Consequently, there was no public discussion about the consequences of the U.S. partaking in a multi-nation proxy war against Syria, a country that borders war ravaged Iraq.
In 2013 when Obama announced that he would be bombing the Syrian government in response to a supposed gas attack, the U.S. media asked for no evidence of the allegation, and strove to buttress Obama’s argument for aggression.
And when Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh wrote an article exposing Obama’s lies over the aborted bombing mission, the article didn’t see the light of day in the U.S. media. Critically thoughtful voices were not welcome. They remain unwelcome.
In 2015 direct U.S. military intervention in Syria remains a real possibility. All the conditions that led to Obama’s decision to bomb Syria in 2013 remain in place.
In fact, a U.S. intervention is even more likely now that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are fighting openly against the Syrian government, since the Saudi-Turkish alliance might find itself in a key battle that demands the special assistance that only the U.S. air force can offer.
Unsurprisingly, there has been renewed discussion of a U.S. enforced “no fly zone” in Syria. ISIS doesn’t have an air force, so a no fly zone would be undeniably aimed at the Syrian government to destroy its air force. The new debate over a “no fly zone” is happening at the same time as a barrage of new allegations of “chemical weapons” use are being made against the Syrian government.
If a no fly zone is eventually declared by the Obama Administration it will be promoted as a “humanitarian intervention, that strives to create a “humanitarian corridor” to “protect civilians” — the same rhetoric that was used for a massive U.S.-led NATO bombing campaign in Libya that destroyed the country and continues to create a massive refugee crisis.
As the Syrian war creates fresh atrocities the Obama administration will be pressured to openly support his Saudi-Turkish allies, just as he came out into the open in 2013 when he nearly bombed the Syrian government.
History is repeating itself. But this time the stakes are higher: the region has already been destabilized with the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and the regional conflicts have sharpened between U.S. allies on one hand, and Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Russia on the other.
Such a volatile dynamic demands a media willing to explain the significance of these events. The truth is that Obama has been a proxy war president that has torn apart the Middle East as badly as his predecessor did, and if the U.S. public remains uninformed about developing events, an even larger regional war is inevitable.