Would a supporter of Israel really fill his foreign policy staff with those who hate the Jewish State?
Just days after Joe Biden was inaugurated, pro-Erdogan Turkish journalist Hakkı Öcal, according to Ahval News, “highlighted a report on the strong presence of Jews in the cabinet of U.S. President Joe Biden.” The report claimed that there was an “over 50 percent Jewish presence in the new U.S. cabinet,” and pointed Secretary of State Antony Blinken and CIA Deputy Director David Cohen, among others. But Öcal was off base: among Biden’s handlers, Jewish and non-Jewish, there are few, if any, staunch friends of Israel. After just a few months in office, it was clear that Joe Biden’s handlers’ administration was shaping up to be the most anti-Israel presidency since the founding of the modern State of Israel.
Robert Malley, Special Envoy to Iran, has become notorious over the years for his support for Iran’s Islamic regime and pronounced distaste for Israel. The Washington Times revealed in February 2021 that back in July 2019, “Iran’s smooth, English-speaking foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, met with Robert Malley, who was President Obama’s Middle East adviser, in an apparent bid to undermine the Trump team and lay the groundwork for post-Trump relations.”
Malley was a good choice for such an assignment. An Israeli security official noted in February 2008 that Malley “has expressed sympathy to Hamas and Hizbullah and offered accounts of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that don’t jibe with the facts.” Obama dropped Malley in May 2008 after it came to light that he had met with representatives of Hamas, but six months later sent him as an envoy to Egypt and Syria.
Meanwhile, Reema Dodin is a deputy director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. According to the Jerusalem Post, “during the Second Intifada, in 2002, Dodin spoke about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with residents of Lodi, California, saying that ‘suicide bombers were the last resort of a desperate people.’” Also, “in 2001, Dodin took part in a demonstration at UC Berkeley calling for the university to divest from Israel….The demonstrators compared Israel to apartheid South Africa.”
In a similar vein, Biden’s handlers appointed Maher Bitar the Senior Director for Intelligence on the National Security Council. In 2006, while a student at Georgetown University, Bitar was a member of the executive board of the viciously pro-jihad, anti-Israel Students for Justice in Palestine, and was seen dancing in front of a banner that said “Divest from Israel Apartheid.”
The Deputy Secretary of State is Wendy Sherman, who was the lead negotiator of Barack Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. The State Department’s undersecretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights is Uzra Zeya. According to the Jewish News Service, Zeya “worked for the magazine Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and its publishing group, American Educational Trust. The Washington Report has questioned the loyalty American Jews have to the United States; published accusations against the ‘Jewish lobby’; claimed American Jews control the media; and accused the Mossad of perpetrating the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy and the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.”
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israel-Palestine is Hady Amr. In an unhinged 2002 rant, Amr repeated Palestinian jihad propaganda, declaring: “I have news for every Israeli: a very large proportion of the more than 150 million children and youth in the Arab World now have televisions, and they will never, never forget what the Israeli people, the Israeli military and Israeli democracy have done to Palestinian children.”
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy is Colin Kahl. According to Israel Hayom, “Kahl has quite the anti-Israel record. He thinks the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq was 1981 was a mistake. In 2012, he acted to remove recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital from the Democratic party’s platform. In 2015, he was among those to formulate the Iran nuclear deal. In 2016, at the end of his term, then-US President Barack Obama tasked him with enlisting support for the anti-Israel UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that determined Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria were a violation of international law.”
Have Biden’s handlers appointed a balancing group of strong supporters of Israel, who will move to prevent this unsavory group (which is larger than just those named here) from disrupting America’s relationship with its strongest, most reliable ally in the West? Is there any brake to the ability of the anti-Israel group in Biden’s administration to force Israel to make potentially life-threatening concessions to the Palestinian jihad force. The answer to both questions is no.
Klaus Schwab has been someone in the background of global machinations for many decades. He is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) which he formed in 1971 (fifty years ago) as an International NGO (one of the way too many “civil society” partners of the United Nations). The majority of these NGOs are there to promote and embed Agenda 21/2030/The Green New Deal into every country, no matter how small, in the world. Schwab’s WEF was set up to push Public-Private Cooperation, in other words, fascism, across the globe.
Kimberly Amadeo, President of World Money Watch defines fascism as: “a brutal economic system in which a supreme leader and their government controls the private entities that own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. A central planning authority directs company leaders to work in the national interest, which actively suppresses those who oppose it”.[i]
To simplify and clarify what Public-Private Partnerships PPPs) are:
In a speech at the Freedom 21 National Conference in Dallas in 2007, Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center, noted:
During the first years of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, there was much fanfare about a new policy to “reinvent government.” It was sold as a way to make government more efficient and less costly. It would, said its proponents, “bring business technologies to public service.”
Pro-business, anti-big-government conservatives and libertarians were intrigued. The backbone of the plan was a call for “public/private partnerships.” Now that sounded like their kind of program.
Government, they said, would finally tap the tremendous power of the entrepreneurial process and the force of the free market into making government more effective and efficient. It sounded so revolutionary and so American.
Being open-minded and wanting to help us get back to what the framers of the Constitution had built for us, we wanted this to be true. But as Tom pointed out:
Today that “reinvention” has revealed itself to be the policy known as Sustainable Development, which is nothing more than a plan for a top-down managed society. Sustainable Development policy includes population control; development control; technology control; resource control; and in a great sense, thought control.
Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply. There is no individuality as it advocates group policies; there is no private property under Sustainable Development – period. And there is no free enterprise as markets and supplies are tightly controlled by the hand of government.
Yet, incredibly, much of the Sustainable policy has been embraced by the “free-trade” movement, which advocates open borders, free trade zones, and one-size fits all regulations, currencies, and the use of public/private partnerships. And many of the biggest proponents of the policy are conservative and libertarian think tanks.
Tom nails it:Public/Private Partnerships = Government-Sanctioned Monopolies
It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.
That’s because no one ever comes forward and tells the general public the entire plan for something as vast as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. No one ever calls for a debate or a vote to implement the plan with public approval.
Instead, it’s done incrementally, a piece at a time, in an easy to disguise program here – a suggestion there. There are few debates or discussions. Even elected officials rarely know the true agenda they are helping to put in place.
Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.[ii]
For fifty years the WEF has been using these PPPs to cancel any liberty, individual freedom, and take property rights from individuals. Agenda 21! The Public Private Partnerships are a big tool in relieving us of our property, liberty, and control of our nation. PPPs and Regionalism, with its unelected governing bodies, work hand in hand to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law.
As society breaks down, the globalists welcome the anarchy, chaos, and general social unrest. Next, they need a defining event.
What drew Schwab to set up the WEF?
“The most influential group that spurred the creation of Klaus Schwab’s symposium was the Club of Rome, an influential think tank of the scientific and monied elite that mirrors the World Economic Forum in many ways, including in its promotion of a global governance model led by a technocratic elite. The Club had been founded in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish chemist Alexander King during a private meeting at a residence owned by the Rockefeller family in Bellagio, Italy.”[iii]
The Club of Rome spelled out what they view as the true enemy:
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.[iv]”
Realizing that back in the ‘70s, when the above was written, the masses weren’t yet dumbed-down enough to accept that they needed to join VHEMT, the voluntary human extinction movement. The globalist Marxist Left decided a New Ice Age would fit the bill of a major crisis that only they could fix. Oops, it didn’t happen. So, let’s flip it to Global Warming (to go along with the hole in the ozone. Of course, the Earth wasn’t warming. Tweak that, voila, Climate Change. Ignore the fact that the climate changes four times a year, and sometimes daily.
No matter the science. We are facing an apocalyptic threat.
Maurice Strong, former Undersecretary General of the UN, Sec. Gen. of UN Conference on the Environment, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, was called a visionary and a “pioneer of global sustainable development. He was the secretary-general of the 1992 Rio EarthSummit which unveiled Agenda 21, the culmination of decades of scheming, planning, and cajoling to bring about a global government via the UN. He was also a close friend of Klaus Schwab, George Soros, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and many of the rogues’ gallery of One-World government advocates.
In interviews that Strong did with two reporters in Canada wanting to write about their golden boy, both times he talked about his vision of the future. The early vision focused on the WEF:
“Each year, the Word Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics, gather in February. to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead.
What if a small group of these world leaders were to form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse? It’s February. They are all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered a panic using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies. They’ve jammed the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries . . . I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”[v]
Does this sound familiar? Sure sounds plausible to me. In his second theoretical vision, Strong dreams, “what if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive those rich countries would have to sign an agreement, reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is “no”. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, a group decides ‘isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse’.”[vi]
It’s in the works now; it has been for decades. But a statement that most overlook, but it shows that the people on the Left, the globalists, the Fabians, the cultural Marxists, the Communists are all looking for the right bait, the right evil foe to attack.
Strong and Klaus Schwab were good friends; they were also close with David Rockefeller. They were (are, in Schwab’s case) members of that not so secret, secret society, the Bilderburg Group. The Bilderburg Group is approximately 130 political leaders from Europe and North America who meet once a year for informal discussions about major issues. “The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”[vii]
According to Schwab, the fourth Industrial Revolution provides the potential “to robotize humanity, and thus compromise our traditional sources of meaning—work, community, family, identity.[viii]” He also predicts that it will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness.[ix]” And it will “upend the existing ways of sensing, calculating, organizing, acting and delivering”. That was a statement from 2015, so don’t think he hasn’t been pushing this for a long time. Now his edicts are getting more definitive, “Even our thinking and behavior will have to dramatically shift. We must have a new social contract centered on Social Justice. We need a change of mindset, moving from short-term to long-term thinking, moving from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder responsibility (ed. note: PPPs). Environmental, social and good governance have to be a measured part of corporate and governmental accountability.”[x][xi]
While Schwab is predicting that his Industrial Revolution will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness”, Dr. Anthon Mueller, a German professor of economics, wrote, “The WEF’s great reset project is social engineering at the highest level. Advocates of the reset contend that the UN failed to establish order in the world and could not advance forcefully its agenda of sustainable development—known as Agenda 2030 —because of its bureaucratic, slow, and contradictory way of working. In contrast, the actions of the organizational committee of the World Economic Forum are swift and smart. When a consensus has been formed, it can be implemented by the global elite all over the world.”
Johnny Vedmore at Unlimited Hangout writes, “At the Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting in January 2021, Schwab stressed that the building of trust would be integral to the success of the Great Reset, signalling a subsequent expansion of the initiative’s already massive public relations campaign. Though Schwab called for the building of trust through unspecified “progress,” trust is normally facilitated through transparency. Perhaps that is why so many have declined to trust Mr. Schwab and his motives, as so little is known about the man’s history and background prior to his founding of the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s.”
The Global Technology Governance Summit (GTGS) of the World Economic Forum, meeting in Tokyo (and virtual) the first week of April 2021 has a number of documents to be discussed. One, Harnessing new technologies, states:
“Industry transformation: No industry has been untouched by the global response to COVID-19. The world can no longer operate as it has, and as such markets will have to respond to its new and evolving needs. To survive, every business in the world will have to become a technology company. – Government transformation: The transformation of government will be front and centre in the area of digital infrastructure as technology services become an essential public utility comparable to electricity, water or roads.” In simple terms, Pubic Private Partnerships. The government controls, the businesses follow government orders.
In one of the best articles I’ve read on the Great Reset, Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Great Nonsense of “The Great Reset”, is this:
[S]ocialism . . . is . . . the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with . . . the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment . . . . [C]apitalism must be monitored, regulated, and contained to such a degree that it would be difficult to call the final social order capitalism.” Robert Heilbroner, “After Capitalism,” The New Yorker, Sept. 10, 1990
The above quotation by socialist economist, the late Robert Heilbroner, was written in the context of an article that lamented and mourned the worldwide collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. The great debate between capitalism and socialism was over, he said, and Ludwig von Mises was right about socialism all along, said a man who had spent the past half century promoting socialism in his teaching, speaking, and writing. But do not despair, he told his fellow socialists, for there is one more trick up our sleeves, namely, the Trojan Horse of achieving socialism under the guise of ‘environmentalism.’
“The basic strategy was then, as it is now, to constantly frighten the gullible public with predictions of The End of the World from environmental catastrophe unless we abandon capitalism and adopt socialist central planning. This has always been the one constant theme of the environmentalist movement (not to be confused with the conservation movement which is actually interested in the health of the planet and the humans who occupy it) since the 1960s. It ignores the fact that the twentieth-century socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China had by far the worse environmental problems on the planet, orders of magnitude worse than in the capitalist countries.”
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order. David Rockefeller at a 1994 UN Dinner
Can a combination of two fraud emergencies, COVID and Climate Change, be the crises that will usher in the globalist dream of a New World Order? If so, and if the inhabitants of what remains of the free world do not get off their duffs and wake up to this threat, Klaus Schwab et al will have achieved the “global transformation” they have spent 100+ years to achieve.
I for one want to see them fail. We, the useless eaters, the nobodies, can stop them. All we have to do is turn over the rock they are under and let the sun shine in. Most people, if they see the truth, will start thinking.
The World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:
People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.
The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.
Organs will not be transplanted but printed.
Meat consumption will be minimized.
Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.
To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.
People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.
Western values will be tested to the breaking point.
I cannot believe even half of the American people want to live like that.
We must take back our country a city and a county at a time. All the while, we must get our lesser magistrates to ignore unconstitutional federal laws, throw the bums out of office, and we must educate our children with truth, reason, and sound science.
Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.
Earlier this week, 20-year-old Duante Wright, an African-American, was shot and killed by a police officer in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. As has unfortunately become commonplace in America, the black community rioted and looted throughout the Minneapolis area in response. As of this writing, multiple arrests have been made as looting continues.
Open lawlessness is disturbing on many levels. Leaving aside the fact that Duante Wright was apparently accidentally shot—due to the fact that he, with outstanding warrants, was resisting arrest while struggling with the police officer—succeeding events demonstrate that we now have “mob rule” in the United States.
City manager of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Curt Bagoney, tried to reason with the mob. In an open press conference he suggested that the woman police officer, Kim Potter, who shot Duante Wright, “deserves due process.” That would be a fair hearing.
But we live in a planned chaotic-socialistic society where our political authorities have empowered and enabled minority mobs to hold law-abiding citizens hostage by unrestrained violence. Bagoney’s judicious words cannot be allowed. We must have Kim Potter’s head on a platter—and now.
Curt Bagoney lost his job, as the City Council terminated his services and salary. His firing portends the end of America.
According to the Star Tribune, a Twin Cities paper, at least one city council member voted to oust Bagoney from the job he’s held since 2006 not because he had done a bad job, or because he’d done anything wrong, but “because she feared for her property and retaliation by protestors if she had voted to keep him.” Council Member Kris Lawrence-Anderson said, “I didn’t want repercussions at a personal level.”
The situation is so hopeless that, even though police officer Kim Potter resigned her position, Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon, who also called for “due process,” has been forced by mobsters to step down.
Thugs rule in Minnesota. The political powers-that-be at higher levels apparently want it this way. This is why City Councils, Mayors, and local Police Departments, cannot seem to stop it.
Due Process of Law, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, simply means that the government promises legal and judicial fair play with its citizens. Normally, “due process” is divided into procedural and substantive. It is the former that is under consideration here.
Procedural “due process” refers to legal procedures are required to be followed in state proceedings. It includes opportunity for an open hearing, confrontation of cross-examination, and availability of counsel. This is why our legal system provides, at taxpayer expense, legal counsel for those who cannot afford it.
This was not an invention by our Founders. It is part of the principles laid out in the Bible. For example, one of the commands: “Thou shalt not commit murder” (Ex. 20:13) is fairly straightforward. Punishment for this crime is the death penalty (Ex. 21:12).
But what about the case of “manslaughter?” According to Deuteronomy 19:2-4 there were six cities of refuge to which a person who had committed manslaughter might flee in order to have a fair trial. If the accused was found innocent of “murder” then the option would be to remain in that city of refuge until the death of the High Priest. What is this? Due Process.
Even a trial itself, in the Mosaic Code, was governed by due process. Fairness. The procedures required more than one witness (Num. 35:30) in order to convict a person of a crime. One witness alone was insufficient (Deut. 17:6). This is procedural due process.
The extreme importance of “due process” cannot be overstated. One of the solid underpinnings of our entire nation and even western culture is fairness in dealing with the accused.
This is why the Constitution binds the government itself, and requires that it must follow what might be called “duly-elected laws” when it seeks to restrict freedoms and liberty. It is, as billofrights.org writes, “a blend of rights, customs, procedures, and legal traditions that have evolved over centuries alongside our modern understanding of the requirements of the concept of ‘justice.’”
This keystone of society is in danger of disappearing. America is on the cusp of losing this cornerstone of liberty. And if the cornerstones go, so does our liberty.
America is in turmoil. It may be playing out on a “political” field, but it goes much deeper than that. It reaches down into the patterns of beliefs, values, ideas, and concepts upon which our culture is built. It is western culture, built upon a God-centered worldview, that is under assault. Political wars have religious roots.
Consider the biblical view of man. What is it that gives man value? Reaching further, what worldview encompasses principles which give value to humankind? The answer: only one basic understanding of the world recognizes that man has any intrinsic value—the biblical worldview.
Creation of Man
The creation of man is set forth in Genesis 1:26-27 in wherein God said, “Let us make man in our image and after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, …And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him, male and female he created them.”
Only man is said to be “created in God’s image and after His likeness.” The same is repeated in Genesis 5:1,3 as well as in 9:6. The latter specifically demonstrates that “the image and likeness of God” is not shared by the animal creation (see 9:3 where animals are for man’s consumption) whereas the taking of human life is that which merits the charge of “murder.”
Genesis 5:1,3 clearly echoes 1:26-27 and evinces the fact that “the image and likeness of God” continues even after man’s sin in the garden. New Testament passages such as Jas. 3:9 show that value is attached to man due to this “likeness.”
“The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts …” (Prov. 20:27). Professor Plumptre, educated at Oxford a century ago, remarked of this verse: “the higher life, above that which he has in common with lower animals, coming to him direct from God.” Then he adds, “Such a life, with all its powers of insight, consciousness, reflection, is as a lamp which God has lighted, throwing its rays into the darkest recesses of the heart.”
What is the Image and Likeness of God?
The “image of God” is a distinction that sets humanity apart from the animate creation. We have but to ask, what does the Bible teach about man that is not taught about animals? Since man shares a biological make-up like that of animals, as well as the animation of the body, the single factor which sets man apart is the fact that man has an eternal spirit within him that is answerable to God (see 1 Thess. 5:23; Ecc. 12:7). What does this entail?
First, man is a rational being. This is not to argue that all of us act rationally at all times, but it is to say that we have the capacity to weigh matters and make informed decisions about them. Man has the ability to think, the power of problem-solving, the power to frame hypotheses, gather materials, gain insights into reality, test explanations, and to determine whether or not the test worked or did not work. As Professor Plumptre put it, only man has powers of insight and reflection.
Second, man is a moral being. Once again, this is not to say that we all act morally upright at all times, but only humankind has the capacity of “moral sensitivity.” Even evolutionist of yesteryear, G.G. Simpson stated, that unlike the rest of the animal creation, “Man is a moral animal.” Only man feels obligated to to obey moral principles. Only man distinguishes between what IS, and what OUGHT TO BE. All men have a sense of duty, and the sense of obligation to this duty regardless of personal safety.
Third, man has free will. When options are laid out before a person, only man has the ability to weigh these options for action and move on them—sometimes to the detriment of his own personal safety. It is solely from this biblical basis that our entire culture is predicated upon the proposition that “all men are created equal.”
These are the qualities which Solomon in Proverbs called “a candle of the Lord.”
Worldviews that Deny the Value of Man
I mentioned above that political wars have religious roots. Take paganism, both ancient and modern. Paganism begins with a denial that all men are created equal. Kenneth Matthews authored the two volumes on Genesis for The New American Commentary series. Reflecting upon ancient pagan beliefs, Matthews had this to say:
In the ancient Near East it was widely believed that kings represented the patron deities of their nations or city-states. Among the Mesopotamians and Canaanites, royal figures were considered ‘sons’ adopted by the gods to function as vice-regents and intermediaries between deity and society. Egyptian society recognized pharaoh as divine who was Horus in life and Osiris in death. Some royal stelae describe the king as the ‘image’ of God.
Some are born to rule. They have the “image of God.” Others are born to serve. Not much different from socialism. If we but allow the elite ruling class to organize and manage the rest of us, all will be well. This is the “gospel of socialism.”
How about the “Green Gospel” of Environmentalism? The grandfather of the modern environmental movement is former Vice-President Al Gore. His magnum opus, Earth in the Balance, specifically attacked the Genesis passages mentioned above.
“…major scientific discoveries have often undermined the Church’s tendency to exaggerate our uniqueness as a species and defend our separation from the rest of nature.” “It is my own belief that the image of God can be seen in every corner of creation, even in us, but only faintly.”
I believe that the image of the Creator which sometimes seems so faint in the tiny corner of creation each of us beholds, is nonetheless present in its entirety—and present in us as well. If we are made in the image of God, perhaps it is the myriad slight strands from the earth’s web of life—woven so distinctly in our essence … By experiencing nature in its fullest … with our senses and with our spiritual imagination, we can glimpse, bright shining as the sun, an infinite image of God.
To kick-off the modern environmental movement Gore felt the need to re-write Genesis. He recognized that a value shift was necessary to accomplish his green socialism.
The 1992 Biocentric United Nations Treaty did exactly the same thing. “Nature has an integral set of values (cultural, spiritual, and material). Where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore, the natural way is the right and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.”
And just how might it be ensured that “human activities” be “molded along nature’s rhythms” and that humans recognize the “equality” of nature, since all of nature has God’s image, per Al Gore? Big Government—that’s how. It forces us to honor this “value shift” by recognizing humanity as no more valuable than a free-flowing stream, beautiful giant mountain, or a tall tree in the forest. And it is not “all men are created equal, but all living creatures.” No supreme value to mankind.
Denying the supreme value of man by jettisoning the biblical worldview lies at the bottom of the political left today. As Joe Biden himself stated on January 27, 2021, after one week into his presidency, his entire agenda is a “whole-government approach to put climate change at the center of our domestic national security, and foreign policy.”
That about sums up the entire machinery of government. All rooted in anti-biblical concepts that are the heartbeat of the Environmental Green Agenda. As stated in The First Global Revolution, a 1991 report by the Club of Rome, a powerhouse establishment group populated by people such as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, George Soros, David Rockefeller and Mikhail Gorbachev, “The common enemy of humanity is man.”
As President Biden works to handicap both American energy production and usage, in the name of fighting global warming, he is destroying jobs, prosperity, and freedom.
On January 20, 2021, the booming town of Midland, South Dakota, became practically a “ghost town” in an instant. In the morning, every single room at the rustic Stroppel Hotel was occupied by highly paid workers toiling away on the Keystone XL pipeline and associated operations. By evening, there was nobody left. “Our whole world turned upside down with the stroke of a pen,” explained Laurie Cox, who bought the hotel six months ago with her husband, Wally, with the understanding that the pipeline would be bringing in large numbers of guests and patrons for the foreseeable future.
Now, thanks to Joe Biden’s executive decree canceling the pipeline, the Cox family’s future is uncertain at best. “Our real money was in renting the rooms — that’s where the pipeliners came in and really helped sustain us,” Cox told The New American magazine in a phone interview from her hotel. “We had a significant amount of people in the hotel, working on the pipeline and supporting them. Now, that’s done. We’re a small community, we don’t have a lot of opportunity. This was our once-in-a-lifetime chance and now it’s gone.”
Weeks into the devastation, the situation is already a tragedy. “I’ll be honest, we’re going to struggle month to month to pay the bills, whereas before we had plenty of money coming in to re-invest and improve the hotel and even hire people,” Cox said, reading off a list of other people in the region whose lives were similarly turned upside down. “I don’t even take a wage — everything we’ve got now we’re putting back into this hotel. I had hired somebody to help us run the place, but there is just no more money to have an employee anymore.”
There is still hope thanks to the hotel’s mineral bath. “Being a small hotel in the middle of nowhere, we do have our mineral waters that bring people in, even though right now we’re not bringing in enough to keep going,” she said. “We had been planning on having the workers for at least quite a long time. And our main money would have come when the main line kicked in. But now we’re going to have to try to pull in more people for going into our mineral waters — which are really special, by the way, healing.”
Still, Cox, sounding devastated but displaying traditional American spirit and perseverance, vowed not to give up. “This hotel is part of our little community, and when we bought it in September, we became part of this community. The hotel is a resource that this town has had since 1939, for generations, and we’re going to keep trying to make it work,” Cox continued. “We’re going to do everything we can to preserve this resource that God has given us.” But it will be hard, she added.
Keystone XL & National Pain
Of course, the Cox family is just the tip of the iceberg of destruction as Biden’s unconstitutional executive orders and his war on U.S. energy destroy thousands of lives and wreak havoc on countless families nationwide. According to data from the companies involved in just this one project, the Keystone XL pipeline was supposed to directly create almost 11,000 jobs — most of them “union” jobs, too, supposedly Biden’s favorite type of jobs.
Biden Bringing Economic Harm
Many of the unions that backed Biden are now expressing outrage. “The Biden administration’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline permit on day one of his presidency is both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working LIUNA members who will lose good-paying, middle class family-supporting jobs,” said the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), which previously endorsed Biden’s candidacy. “By blocking this 100 percent union project, and pandering to environmental extremists, a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish and 10,000 additional jobs will be foregone.”
But it gets worse. With a few strokes of Biden’s pen on a flurry of executive decrees, he managed to directly torpedo over 50,000 high-paying jobs on just his first day in office, according to estimates based on government figures. Some estimates suggest the real number may be as high as 70,000. Countless more will be lost in the years ahead as energy prices soar and firms seek out greener pastures to create wealth and manufacture products in places such as China.
While the Kremlin and dictators across the Middle East and beyond were thrilled with the killing of the Keystone XL pipeline, even America’s liberal friends and allies to the north were furious. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, for instance, blasted Biden’s executive order as a “gut punch to the Alberta and Canadian economies” and “an insult.” Despite being a fellow “green” fanatic, the far-left prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, expressed “disappointment” in Biden’s move.
American lawmakers were outraged, too. “President Biden’s executive order will rob both American and Canadian workers of good-paying jobs,” said Senator John Barrasso (Wy.), who is the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “President Biden’s actions will not end our need for oil from our strongest ally, Canada. Instead, it will cost jobs, result in more shipments of oil by rail and make America even more vulnerable to OPEC and foreign adversaries, like Russia.”
Fact checkers promptly sprang into action to silence critics of Biden’s killing of the pipeline. Their primary line of attack was the notion that, while it was true that Biden was destroying tens of thousands of high-paying jobs, he planned to create even more jobs in “green” energy at some point in the future. Basically, all those laid-off oil and gas workers could simply learn how to make solar panels, batteries, and those giant wind turbines strewn across large swaths of Texas and the American plains.
In other words, oil workers are being asked to give up high-paying jobs in exchange for jobs that usually pay less, in technical fields that can’t absorb the numbers of workers being shed by the oil patch, and that usually require retraining and that will mainly end after the big wind and solar projects are installed. Perhaps Biden could “create jobs” by borrowing money from China to pay people to smash big rocks into little rocks, too. At least it would not be as destructive.
Then mid-February’s bone-chilling cold hit. The very same wind turbines that were supposed to save humanity from alleged man-made global warming ended up freezing amid devastatingly cold temperatures, contributing to plunging millions into electrical blackouts as temperatures dropped below zero. (It’s noteworthy that there is a record of such cold snaps occurring in Texas since the 1890s.) The irony was not lost on the people of Texas — America’s largest energy producer — as some five million victims of government “green energy” schemes wondered if they might freeze to death before power returned. A number of people died, including an 11-year-old boy.
Other Assaults on U.S. Energy & Jobs
The war on American energy — and America itself — goes far beyond just the Keystone XL pipeline. Under President Trump, in 2019, America became “energy independent” for the first time in more than six decades. With his pen and phone, however, following in the footsteps of Barack Obama before him, Biden reversed much of that progress in just a matter of weeks. Biden’s actions will be a boon to Middle Eastern tyrants, Russia, Venezuela, and other regimes awash in oil. But the costs will be devastating to America, and to some of its most vulnerable communities.
It is not just energy and transportation that depend on “fossil fuels” and hydrocarbons. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s own website, oil and natural gas are needed in the manufacturing of over 6,000 everyday products and high-tech devices. These include tires, heart valves, toothbrushes, helmets, laptops, phones, wind-turbine blades, hearing aids, life jackets, and countless other essential goods without which modern life would come to a screeching halt. Producing these goods in the United States under the sort of regime envisioned by Biden would become difficult, if not impossible.
One of Biden’s major changes was an indefinite freeze on drilling and exploration for energy on federal lands. In just the state of New Mexico — one of the nation’s poorest states — Biden’s executive order halting oil and gas leases and drilling on federal lands is set to cost over 60,000 jobs, representing almost seven percent of the state’s entire workforce. New Mexico, a Democratic state, is also expected to lose more than $1 billion in tax revenue in the first year, an economic impact study by the American Petroleum Institute (API) suggests. Because half of New Mexico’s energy extraction happens on federal lands, and the feds own more than a third of the state’s land, that state will be particularly hard hit.
Other states set to be devastated by Biden’s decrees include Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, and more. In Louisiana, API data suggest, the state’s Gulf Coast region could lose 50,000 jobs and almost $100 million in tax revenue just by next year as a result of Biden’s imperial decrees against American energy production. It could get worse, too, as the offshore drilling industry in Louisiana supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and contributes almost $7 billion to the state’s tax revenues each year.
“It’s devastatingly simple,” explained Representative Yvette Herrell (R-N.M.) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) in an op-ed for Fox News. “When Washington radicals ban drilling on federal lands, Americans lose their jobs, investment flows overseas, and communities across America lose a primary source of revenue for schools, health care, and conservation efforts…. Our friends and neighbors rely upon these jobs to pay rent, put food on the table, and keep the lights on.”
“The Biden administration is attacking their livelihoods and jeopardizing America’s energy security,” the two lawmakers continued, adding that America is a global leader in producing and using energy in a clean, environmentally responsible manner while the regimes that will benefit do not adhere to proper environmental standards. “President Biden either doesn’t understand the damage he is doing to our communities or he doesn’t care.”
Gunning Americans down: Using executive orders, Biden has destroyed untold numbers of high-paying jobs producing energy domestically and made America more dependent on hostile foreigners. Perhaps even more significant than the economic damage inflicted on Americans is the national-security threat these decrees pose. “When the United States became the single largest oil and gas producer in the world, we were protected from market manipulation by OPEC and rogue actors,” the representatives said. “By undermining our energy dominance, Biden once again puts us at the mercy of foreign regimes, many of whom use those new-found billions of dollars against America and our allies.”
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey was fuming over what he described as Biden’s “destructive” policies. “What we’re seeing in the first week of the Biden administration is that the president is really taking a wrecking ball to many of the states that have oil, gas, coal, manufacturing jobs — that’s gonna have a real detrimental impact, especially as the American economy is coming out of COVID-19, a pandemic,” he declared, noting that Biden was going even further than Obama in his “green” scheming. “I think he’s really kicking the American people when they’re down economically and it’s not a message of unity that he’s been talking about.”
Producers, too, are sounding the alarm, even as apologists try to soothe concerns. Speaking of the drilling “moratorium,” Dan Naatz with the Independent Petroleum Association of America suggested this was likely to be significant and long-term. “Do not be fooled, this is a ban,” he explained. “The Biden administration’s plan to obliterate the jobs of American oil and gas explorers and producers has been on clear display.” Experts such as investment legend Felix Zulauf are predicting almost a doubling in the price of oil during Biden’s first term due to the anti-energy policies being pursued.
Green Energy Fraud
The notion that America can simply replace all of its lost energy from hydrocarbons with windmills and solar panels is plainly preposterous. Perhaps nobody explained it more beautifully and succinctly than Mark Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, in a powerful five-minute video for PragerU exposing the “wind and solar” racket being used to dupe Americans into destroying their energy production.
Consider, among the countless problems, that the technology is simply not capable of supplying the power needed for an advanced civilization. After decades of governments showering billions of dollars in subsidies on their cronies behind the “green” wind and solar interests — think the scandal-plagued, Obama-backed solar panel company Solyndra, for instance, which flushed half-a-billion tax dollars down the drain when it declared bankruptcy — wind and solar power accounts for less than three percent of the world’s energy supply.
Aside from the economic absurdity of it all, the environmental devastation that would result from more widespread use of wind, solar, and battery power is hard to fathom. “Like all machines, they are built from non-renewable materials,” explained Mills. For instance, producing just one single electric-car battery requires digging up and processing over 250 tons of earth. Producing one wind farm, meanwhile, requires 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete — not to mention nearly 1,000 tons of plastic. To get the same amount of power from solar would take 150 percent more resources.
In short, to continue pursuing the tax-funded solar and wind fantasies of central planners will require digging up millions of acres of pristine areas. All of that mining will consume an unfathomable amount of hydrocarbon energy, too, as will the industrial processes needed to refine the materials. And if that “green” power is stored in batteries, it will cost orders of magnitude more than traditional sources of electricity.
Those enormous numbers do not even factor in the massive mining operations that would be needed to get the rare-earth metals necessary to produce the batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels. For a number of reasons, almost none of that mining is taking place in America now, and it will not in the future either — especially as the Biden administration and the federal government frantically work to destroy U.S. mining operations. Instead, much of the mining will take place in China and Russia and other hostile nations. Ironically, a great deal of it is being mined by children in some of the areas environmentalists say they most want to protect — in Central Africa and the Amazon region of South America.
As Mills also points out, the life of wind and solar equipment is typically half the lifespan of conventional energy machines such as gas turbines. The International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that by 2050, solar-panel waste in need of disposal will be double the tonnage of the plastic waste produced today. And that does not include worn-out batteries or wind turbines. Adding insult to injury, storing one barrel of oil costs about 50 cents, while storing the equivalent amount of energy generated by wind turbines in batteries will take $200 of batteries, Mills explained.
In short, the true cost of all this “green” energy scheming — both economic and environmental — is astronomical.
Green New Deal & Sustainable Development
But there is a method to the madness. Indeed, it is all part of a broader and more destructive plan. Even before winning the dubious 2020 election, which was marred by countless credible allegations of voter fraud, Biden was quietly but firmly peddling the Green New Deal. “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face,” explained the Biden-Harris campaign website outlining a “plan for a clean energy revolution and environmental justice.”
On January 27, just one week into his presidency, following dozens of executive decrees, Biden held a press conference at the White House to unveil what sounded suspiciously like the Green New Deal floated by extremists and socialists in Congress in recent years. In his Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, signed amid the confab, Biden even called for “conserving 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030.” In other words, almost one-third of all the land and water in America would be made virtually off-limits to man. Also in the order was a new “Civilian Climate Corps.”
Adding insult to injury, he promised to “create jobs” by finishing off the energy-extraction infrastructure. “We’re also going to create more than a quarter million jobs to do things like plug the millions of abandoned oil and gas wells that pose an ongoing threat to the health and safety of our communities,” he said before parroting the UN-created slogan about “building our economy back better,” a derivative of the UN slogan “Build Back Better” that Biden ripped off for his campaign. “It’s a whole-of-government approach to put climate change at the center of our domestic, national security, and foreign policy.”
The public first got a taste of the “Green New Deal” agenda in 2019, when H.R. 109 was introduced in Congress by a coalition of 67 radical communist and socialist Democrats led by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Among other absurdities, the effort would seek to eliminate air travel, the eating of steaks, the use of hydrocarbons, and more. It would aim to completely end all emissions of CO2 — an essential gas exhaled by every living person and required by plants — over the coming decade. An FAQ released with the bill even touted “paying people who are unwilling to work.” Seriously.
But even serious environmentalists ridiculed the Green New Deal. Calling it a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculous scenario I ever heard,” in an interview with The New American, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore blasted the “deal” as “completely preposterous.” He warned that if the scheme were actually implemented, people could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation — and they still would not survive. All the trees on Earth would be chopped down, too, as people scrambled for energy to cook and warm their families with, he said.
That horrifying scenario would seem to fit quite nicely with the plans of the Club of Rome, an establishment powerhouse bringing together a diverse group of totalitarian characters from around the world, ranging from climate guru Al Gore to Bill Gates, George Soros, and Bill Clinton, to the late New World Order kingpin David Rockefeller and former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev. In its 1991 report, this group of powerful billionaires and policymakers indicated that with the Cold War officially in the rear-view mirror, a new target was needed to justify globalism and Big Government.
“The common enemy of humanity is man,” the club said in its report, The First Global Revolution. “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” In short, you and your family are the enemy — and your ability to sustain yourself, especially the energy needed to sustain life and civilization, is now officially in the cross hairs.
War on the United States, and Fighting Back
The war on America’s energy is actually a war on America itself, and the American people, by enemies foreign and domestic. As to the involvement of foreign interests, while most critics have seen the benefits to the Kremlin and other regimes as an unintended consequence, there is actually more to the story. As The New American magazine has been reporting for years, members of Congress discovered that Russian-government energy interests were funding U.S. “green” groups through a shell corporation in Bermuda called Klein Ltd. It was sending money to the Sea Change Foundation. From there, the money was distributed to a broad network of extremist “environmental” organizations such as the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Climate Action Network that are all seeking to destroy America’s energy industry.
Also, not only were Communist China’s agents deeply involved in promoting the Obama administration’s “green” policies, but China is a major beneficiary of Biden’s policies (see article on page 17). As American companies become uncompetitive due to surging energy prices, and Communist China continues building coal-fired power plants, America’s productive capacity and its jobs will be quickly shipped off to China. And all those “green energy” jobs and technologies? They will be in Beijing’s interest, too.
“What they’re talking about is exchanging [our former] dependence on the Middle East and OPEC, which was at one point close to 50% of our energy, for almost total dependence or twice as much dependency on China,” American Energy Alliance Senior Vice President Dan Kish explained regarding the expected hard shift into wind and solar power, pointing to Communist China’s dominance in the “green” energy sector. “I’ve got friends who are geologists who are saying, ‘Why are we doing this? This is crazy.’”
There are also powerful domestic forces hostile to American interests who are pushing for — and profiting from — the misery they are imposing on America. In 2014, the tip of the iceberg surfaced when the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee dropped its bombshell report headlined “The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA.”
This shadowy network identified as the “Billionaires Club” was exposed showering huge amounts of funds on the environmentalist “green movement.” And with all that money, the billionaires had come to dominate policy making, fleece taxpayers, and more — often in violation of federal laws. Numerous billionaires involved in the Club of Rome, such as the late David Rockefeller and Bill Gates, were key players.
This war on energy inspired by hostile foreign powers and anti-American billionaires in bed with Beijing has known consequences — and those responsible have openly admitted it. As Obama put it in 2008, under his plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” And when power prices skyrocket, businesses will rocket out of the United States and into other countries — China, for example. In countries where power prices are not skyrocketing and where companies need not even worry about pollution, there’s the extra benefit of slave labor. Biden and his handlers are not fools. Like Obama, they fully understand the consequences of their actions. And that is the point.
But from the flyover country and state capitols to the halls of Congress, opposition is growing quickly. And effective ways to resist are already being explored. Consider the example set by Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt. Noting that Biden’s decrees targeting energy are “in contravention of Article II Section 2 and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution,” in addition to the threat they pose to his state, the Republican governor ordered state agencies to resist.
Specifically, Stitt directed that state officials “utilize all civil methods and lawful powers to protect [Oklahoma’s] 10th Amendment powers and challenge any actions by the federal government that would seek to diminish or destroy Oklahoma’s ability to encourage job growth and the responsible development of our natural resources within the energy industry.” Other governors may follow suit.
Every state in the union can use the power of nullification. For the last four years, Democrats used it unconstitutionally to block immigration laws and constitutional Trump policies. By contrast, Republicans at the state and local level can and should use it, constitutionally, to stop federal overreach into the energy sector, where the government has no constitutional authority.
America’s Founding Fathers viewed nullification as “the rightful remedy” to lawless usurpation of power by the feds. When there’s a case such as Biden’s, wherein an apparently almost-senile puppet is carrying out the instructions of power-mad billionaires and hostile foreign powers to reduce the United States to poverty and despotic rule, it is not just the right of the states and the people under the Constitution to resist — it is their duty.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) has spread into almost every area of society. Beginning in the 1970’s with various radical lawyers and liberal activists desirous of canceling the culture of America, CRT has now moved into education, sociology, religion, government, philosophy, the arts and even medicine—practically every area of human experience. Collegiate campus activists, who have been taught to admire socialist/communist agitators such as Antonio Gramsci, Cesar Chavez, and Barack Obama, now are mobilized against American society.
What is the CRT?
Critical Race Theory is thinly veiled anti-white bigotry. To CRT activists all of Western culture is tainted by the “bigotry” that comes with being white.In turn, all institutions and traditions of America have been polluted by the past and our “institutional racism.” Whiteness is a moral blight by nature and all white people are compliant in oppression.
What exactly are these institutions that are so poisoned with whiteness? Our entire educational system which holds academic achievement as a high standard; our value system which believes an eternal standard of right and wrong exists—this is only a “white man’s construct”; critical thinking that enables one to solve problems logically is “racist”; logic and reasoning or mathematics are supposed to be “white people’s ideals”; the family structure of husband, wife, and children—inherited from the Bible—is a “white man’s organization” that needs replaced by Black Lives’ Matter “villages”; the holding of “private property” is once more, a white construct; “legal reasoning” and “neutral principles of constitutional law” are all racist ideals. The list goes on.
Luis Miguel documents how this works in Seattle where the city government held on June 12 a “whites-only employee training session.” Attendees were instructed to “undo your own whiteness” so as to be held accountable to people of color. Training literature declared that “racism is not our fault but we are responsible.” In other words, a white person is racist by genetics.
Concepts such as “individualism” and “intellectualization” are white people’s racist constructs. All Caucasians own in their DNA an “internalized racial oppression.” Training materials included this gem: “city employees who identify as white [are to] … reflect, challenge ourselves, and build skills and relationships that help us show up more fully as allies and accomplices for racial justice.” Reach down inside and find that racism that lies deep within!
Since the assumption is that whites are born with “racism” in their DNA, training in Seattle admonished, “We’ll examine our complicity in the system of white supremacy … how we internalize and reinforce it—to begin practices that enable us to interrupt racism in ways to be accountable to Black, Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) folks within our community.”
How shall we interrupt our whiteness, especially since it is in our genetics? Employees in the seminar were taught how to “interrupt” their whiteness by being “honest and implicate yourself either in the moment or in past experiences in which you acted or thought similarly.” Condemn yourself for being white.
This all is social engineering gone mad. “CRT is the opposite of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance.’ It’s a bitter movement bent on vengeance against everything branded as ‘white.’”
CRT in Health Care
CRT has even entered the once hallowed-halls of medical science.
Wesley J. Smith, writing in The Epoch Times, points us to a recent article in The Lancet, the world’s oldest medical journal, which has now left the field of “science” and amazingly, entered into the territory of “wokeness.” Readers are encouraged to make race the primary focus of “the concept of intersectionality” to describe “how multiple social categorizations—such as race and gender—interact to confer interlocking oppressions and privileges.”
Deserting even the realm of common sense, the authors of The Lancet article Time to take critical race theory seriously: moving beyond a colour-blind gender lens in global health, write the following:
“Like gender’s problematic binary of male versus female, race is a complex social construct with biological implications, the classifications of which vary across history and geography.” Gender itself is not male and female and it is “problematic” to so consider the sexes.
As Dr. Duke Pesta pointed out, Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset, in The Revolt of the Masses, defined the appearance of this modern “woke” “mass-man,” a barbaric figure whose ignorance was a necessary precursor to the rise of the violent masses. The “mass-man” could emerge to destroy his own culture. “This type of anarchist ‘did not care to give reasons or even to be right.’ Ortega argued that cultivated irrationality is what set apart 20th– century fascist and communist movements from what came before: ‘the right not to be right, not to be reasonable: the reason of unreason.”
Another “scholarly” screed speaks this way about the sin of “whiteness.” “This racial consciousness needs to be part and parcel of our efforts to address gender inequity worldwide … Only then will we develop an essential sense of humility and self-awareness to be antiracist in our work.”
Wesley J. Smith comments: “That’s not anti-racist. It’s crass bigotry, unvarnished and cruel, and moreover a blatant call to societal dissolution.” This is the point of the CRT–societal dissolution.
Robert Hayne of South Carolina was the first man to put forth conspicuously the doctrine of Nullification, by which is meant the right of a State to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, provided the State in convention should decide that the law was unconstitutional. The year was 1830. Hayne delivered his speech in the U.S. Senate on January 21.
At issue was the Tariff of 1828, popularly known in the South as “The Tariff of Abominations.” South Carolinians hated it, and not without cause. It strongly favored the northern states while causing the southern states to carry the lion’s share of taxes on imported goods. At the same time, the tariffforced the South to go into debt to New England.It was largely believed that “North had declared economic war on the South.”
Daniel Webster was Senator from the state of Massachusetts. He was disturbed that Hayne, in his objections to the tariff, had also asserted a states’ right to secede. Northern states looked to Webster to give reply to Hayne, which he did the following day, in what has come to be known as The Second Reply to Robert Hayne of South Carolina.
Webster is championed as providing an unanswerable argument to Nullification. It is widely believed, even today, that Webster “dismantled” the South Carolinian’s argument, “point by point.” Webster’s reply may have been over 150 years ago, but his rebuttal needs to be examined.
Before reviewing Webster, it is to be noted that the Senator from Massachusetts had earlier taken the position that what the Constitution did not specifically forbid, Congress may do. His argumentation was that the Constitution was a “sketch, an outline, not a detailed rendering.” “The true view of the subject is that if it be a fit instrument to an authorized purpose, it may be used, not being specifically prohibited.” Consider now Webster’s disputation against Robert Hayne on the floor of Congress.
Natural Rights or Constitutional Rights?
Webster’s first response was to confess that a people had a natural right to revolution, to be openly disobedient and even to throw-off the yoke of a government, such as had occurred in our founding period. “Webster granted that the people were not bound to obey unconstitutional laws, and that they might disobey them without overturning the government.”
However, Webster distinguished between a natural right and a constitutional right. A natural right he granted, but believed the doctrine of Nullification belonged in the category of a constitutional right, and since the Constitution itself did not grant the right of nullification, South Carolina could not rightly directly interfere with a federal law.
Webster’s objections are shallow and his distinction is arbitrary.
First, Webster had earlier argued that what the Constitution did not specifically forbid, Congress may do. This is now at cross-purposes to his stand against nullification. Hayne had pressed for a “constitutional right of resistance” by the states. But Webster now insists that Nullification is illegal since it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a legal course of action. Gone therefore is his principled stand that unless a Congressional action was specifically forbidden the states or the people may do.
Second, to argue that the “people are not bound to obey unconstitutional laws” assumes that the people have a natural right to interpret the Constitution for themselves outside the “official interpretation” of the Federal Government. This is the true nature of the case, as “the people” agreed to the Constitution, ratifying it in the states, several years prior to the establishment of the Supreme Court, the supposed final arbiter of legitimate Constitutional interpretation.
As stated earlier by President John Adams: “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”
Third, most importantly, a states’ right to Nullify, or Disobey a law that it believed was unconstitutional need not be grounded in the text of the Constitution itself. There is a natural right before God to manage our own government. This was the ground of the Declaration of Independence. Nullification is what the Founders practiced regarding England.
It is arbitrary to place a states’ right of self-government in the category “constitutional or not” as opposed to natural rights before God—as if all of our rights must be listed in the plain text of the Constitution. To this the founders would never agree. In fact, they specifically forbade that concept in the 9th Amendment. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Simply, the instrument of the Constitution merely granted certain specified rights owned by the people to the federal government. Webster’s position against Hayne, at least in this case, assumes that the role is reversed, that the people have whatsoever the government decides.
The Constitution a Revocable Contract?
Related to the above is the basic issue is whether or not the Constitution is a contract to which both parties, states and the federal government, agree. And at the heart of this is the issue of just who is the interpreter of the Constitution?
When, during the War of 1812, New England was convinced that the federal government was not serving their interest, Webster and others characterized “the Constitution as a revocable compact” and “furnished the philosophical basis for a New England declaration of independence.”
Now, however, in 1830, when New England profited heavily from the Tariff of 1828, to the South’s detriment, Webster reversed himself. When Robert Hayne argued that the “true defenders” of the Union were “those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, who would preserve to the states and the people all powers not expressly delegated …”, Webster disagreed. If Webster is correct here, the field is wide open. America is exactly where it is today by the logic of Webster’s reasoning.
“The great question is,” per Webster, “whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws?” This is the crux of the entire discussion. Webster answers that it lay with the federal government alone, in particular the federal judiciary. In response, consider:
First, Webster is in the field of philosophy, since the Constitution itself, by its language alone, does not specifically address the “interpreting” the Constitution, at least as mandating law for the entire country. It is noteworthy also that neither Jefferson nor Madison agreed with Webster at this point. The ‘Principles of ‘98’, which they authored, pointedly took issue with his assertion. And it is more than highly doubtful that any of the Founding generation would agree that the federal judiciary alone could decide laws for the entire nation.
Second, the federal constitution was founded as a contract, a compact between the States and the federal government. To ignore this is to ignore the entire fabric of the Constitution. When the Pilgrims escaped to American shores they were escaping a top-down control of the Roman Church in the Old World. Though ignored by modern America, this is the taproot of our Constitution.
Our Founders believed that their associations in religion were voluntary, which lay at the base of their political associations. This type of preaching gave rise to the words of the Mayflower Compact. “We solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic …” The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639 reads exactly the same. These were antecedents to our Federal Constitution.
These concepts gave rise to the fundamental law of our nation, The Declaration of Independence, which asserts that “the consent of the governed” is for rule to be legitimate. This principle Webster, as well as myriads of moderns, freely cast aside by the assertion that the federal government alone may decide what is constitutional. Not much consenting in that.
As noted above, Webster himself agreed with the principle of Nullification in matters of “palpable” departures and that it is true that “the people are not bound to obey unconstitutional laws.” But if this be the case then the ability to “interpret” the Constitution does not lie within the province of the federal judiciary alone. Webster did not see his inconsistency.
Third, most ominously, if Webster is correct, then once again the field is boundless for Congress to make whatever laws it desires. As long as an activist Supreme Court agrees, these legislations become law and there is absolutely no recourse, per Webster’s argument, for the citizens that must chafe beneath the burden of these laws.
No matter how wicked or onerous, whether it enact socialism or communism, infanticide by law or homosexual unions, a one-child policy as in China, the socialist redistribution of wealth, an open border or nationalized health care carried on the backs of the middle-class—citizens are legally bound to bear that yoke.
This is where the logic of Webster leads.
Webster finished by asserting that if a State has the right to nullify federal laws, then the entire Union is a “rope of sand” and we are “thrown back again … upon the old Confederation.” The people had, Webster reminded, “rejected the Confederation by ratifying the Constitution, whose central point was to prevent the states from vetoing measures enacted for the common national good.”
He added that people ought to repudiate Hayne’s principle of “Liberty first and Union afterwards.”
Let us here agree with Webster on confederation. If states have the right to nullify laws, perhaps we are indeed “thrown back” onto the ‘old confederation’ which the people “rejected by ratifying the Constitution.”
Must Webster’s principle of Union first, and Liberty afterward always be maintained? Does this ring true to the Founders’ vision? As Webster announced it, it must. But if so, we “are thrown back” onto eventual subservience and despotism. How far must we uphold “Union” to the detriment of our “Liberty?”
James Madison asserted, almost as if he was prophesying of modern America, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, …may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
We have certainly crossed to the other side of the road in America where tyranny has become commonplace. Webster would certainly have agreed, at this point, that his principle of Union first, and Liberty afterward, is no longer valid. But if not valid now, neither was it then. We should not be left to the Webster’s of the world to tell us just when we should cherish our liberties more than the Union.
The war has always been between liberty and bondage. Allow people to control their own lives with local government, or will complete control of people gravitate to the top in a statist society? The left has been about the latter, which is why the United Nations was initially created.
One tool only is in the toolbox of the UN Dictator’s Club—Climate Change, which is now upgraded to “Climate Emergency.” So bartender turned scientist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warns. It is the crowbar to beat America over the head into economic submission. We must bow down to the Imperialism of the UN—for the environment, of course. Eco-Imperialism.
The Dictator’s Club Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calls on all the countries of the world to immediately declare a “climate emergency” (December 12 Summit). His hand-wringing last year included that President Donald Trump had withdrawn from the “Paris Climate Accord.” Trump actually exposed the truth that the Sustainable Agenda of the UN Paris Accord is nothing less than a socialist siphoning-off of billions of American dollars to redistribute around the world. Climate sins, you know.
Now that Joe Biden is in, what a relief to the globalists! His first day in office, slow of speech he may be, but he quickly began goose-stepping to the tune called down from the globalist masters, and the Paris Climate Accord has been rejoined. He can’t speak very well, but he can take orders.
That was a close one for the Global Masters of the UN. With Donald Trump at the helm, it looked like they would not conquer America after all. This is why Jeffrey Sachs, an economics professor at Columbia University, and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development, opined out loud that the most severe emergency facing the Dictator’s Club was Donald J. Trump being in office. Now that that is solved, back on the fast-track of globalism and eco-imperialistic governing from the United Nations.
A “State of Climate Emergency” has been declared by the UN. Antonio Guterres breaks it down for us. “This is a moral test. We [read, ‘America’] cannot use these resources [fossil fuels] to lock in policies that burden future generations with a mountain of debt or a broken planet.” The prime minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, suggested that the primary crime of America was that we are “major emitters of carbon dioxide.”
What about the real major emitters, China and India? Chinese President Xi offers only modest changes to cut emissions per unit of GDP by 65 percent by the end of the decade. He also promised to make non-fossil fuels account for 25% of China’s energy by 2030. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged no new climate commitments.
No matter. It is America the globalists want. Our liberty has rendered us immoral climate sinners. Morality has nothing to do with how many of its citizens China may torture. No. It is how much carbon dioxide society as a whole emits. Guterres knows. We must submit to the Eco-Imperialists. This is the moral thing to do. And you thought science was a study of the natural world through systematic observation and experiment. Foolish Americans.
The year is 1948. The man is Lyndon Baines Johnson, an operative of ruthless power with no moral compass to guide him. The arena is the Democratic Primary for a Senate seat vacated by W. Lee (Pappy) O’Daniel. Opposing him for that seat in the U.S. Congress is Coke Stevenson, a strict conservative who boasted he had “never voted for a tax bill.” Stevenson was the product of the hills of Texas, had been a cowboy, a country lawyer, and spent time as a freighter.
The lesson that follows is pertinent to America in 2021: it is a story of stuffing ballot boxes, stealing an election, and twisting the Constitutional system completely out of shape. Did America learn?
LBJ Goes to Washington
Richard Kleberg, of King Ranch fame, had been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from the 16th District in south Texas in 1931. Accompanying him to Washington was his secretary, LBJ. Once there LBJ, ever the wheeler-dealer, became solidly in the New Deal socialistic camp of FDR. “The devious ways of Washington were duck-soup” to LBJ.In 1935 FDR put him over that boondoggle of a program, the National Youth Program.
In 1937, after resigning from the NYP, Johnson became a Congressman from Texas’ 10th Congressional District. LBJ was unsuccessful in a 1941 bid for a Senatorial seat that Pappy O’Daniel eventually won. Coke Stevenson became governor of Texas that same year.
However, in 1948 O’Daniel decided not to re-run for Congress, which set the stage for a Democratic Primary contest between LBJ and Coke Stevenson. Coke was popular in Texas, and the New Dealers were his enemies by principle. LBJ was a leading socialist, supported by FDR, the Washington establishment, and the Brown & Root Texas contractors whose war-time contracts had become a scandal in itself. Also in LBJ’s corner was George Parr, a multi-million-dollar criminal whose profits from illegal liquor, gambling establishments and houses of prostitution landed him in jail. He became a huge power-broker in south Texas after his incarceration.
Perhaps the saddest part of the saga is that the New Deal socialism had already begun showing its deleterious effects on the American people by means of a steady erosion of character with its sordid appeal to the most selfish traits of human nature.Ideological confusion was the order of the day, class warfare had begun in earnest and hatred was growing—the full flowering of this one can witness today.
Jim Wells County
Just west of Corpus Christi, Texas is situated Jim Wells County with its county seat being the community of Alice. With the voting in the Democratic Primary being extremely close on July 24, Johnson was behind. Stevenson’s lead began to dwindle, however, as more precincts reported. Then, Johnson votes began to “magically appear.” Yet, Stevenson maintained a lead by a mere 349 votes and election officials declared him the winner. But the “counting” was not finished.
Johnson calls George Parr, the “Duke of Duval” County, whose family machine controlled much of the politics in south Texas. Parr told Johnson “not to worry.” Jim Wells County “re-canvassed the votes” and by September 3, Jim Wells County called in a 200-vote change that gave Johnson an 87 vote-lead.
The State Democratic Executive Committee convened in Fort Worth before their official meeting time, their subcommittee having already met in Austin, and they said they accepted the votes from “Box 13”—Jim Wells County. As R. Cort Kirkwood noted, Coke “Stevenson wasn’t fooled.”
Stevenson, the man who taught himself bookkeeping by campfire light and had caught rustlers with friend and now Texas Ranger Frank Hamer, traveled personally to Jim Wells County to check the vote tallies. Hamer went with him, along with two lawyers. They went to the bank in Alice and demanded to see the records which were kept in a vault. Parr’s henchmen, armed with Winchesters, were guarding the bank. Neither Hamer nor Stevenson were intimidated.
Once inside the bank an election official allowed them to see the election records where the evidence was in plain sight that the entire election had been stolen. Looking at the poll list, they found that 200 names had been added to the list, all in the same handwriting, all in alphabetical order, all written in blue ink—which was distinct from the black ink in which the other names had been registered. They had their proof.
An LBJ crony, Judge Roy Archer in Austin, however, gave an injunction against Stevenson and Hamer and forbad the County Committee to meet. Friends in high places. The counter attack came to a standstill. Stevenson appealed to a Federal Court where Judge T. Whitfield Davidson presided.
When Davidson heard the evidence from Stevenson’s lawyers and had listened to LBJ’s attorneys, he became at one point personally enraged against the LBJ team. Not only were Stevenson’s contentions completely unchallenged, but LBJ’s lawyers, in typical liberal fashion, spent all of their time berating Stevenson on a personal level for being a “poor loser.” Judge Davidson cut them short. “There has not been one word of evidence submitted!” he thundered against the LBJ team. He put off the final decision until September 28.
LBJ’s connections to the “powers that be” seemingly knew no bounds, however. Perhaps it is simply that socialism creates its own fraternity. Be that as it may, Hugo Black, the former Ku Klux Klansmen, and ardent supporter of the New Deal, now on the bench at the Supreme Court, issued a sweeping order in behalf of Johnson and ending the hearings in Davidson’s court in Ft. Worth.
Judge Davidson, knowing that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this matter—it being a State primary over a party nominee–nevertheless was forced to close shop. “The US Supreme Court has altered my opinion,” quipped Davidson, “but it hasn’t changed my mind.”
Johnson goes to Washington as Senator, later as President. His Great Society finished establishing the New Deal socialism into America as a ubiquitous nightmare.
What Are We to Learn?
Lessons come hard for “we the people.” Vote stealing, stuffing ballot boxes, loss of integrity of the election process—it has been occurring for a long time, generally at the hands of socialists who intend to change America, trashing the Constitution in their wake. We are seeing the same thing today, only now it appears to have swept the entire nation, placing Joe Biden where he should not be.
More importantly, America is now encased in a socialistic cage which has all but destroyed our nation. The Welfare State in which we currently live has entrenched globalists and Marxists in positions of power while at the same time gnawing the morals and ethics of people like an aggressive cancer eating away the organs of a body. Citizens hardly know the difference between government theft and redistribution and personal charity, and frequently put the former for the latter.
Perhaps most pertinently, the alternative conservatives seek of recourse to the Court system to stop the onslaught against freedom is a placebo. Oh, there may be a few court wins here and there. But look at the big picture.
We live in an unconstitutional welfare state—with the imprimatur of the Court system. God has been exiled from classrooms and public places—thanks to activist courts. Murdering the unborn continues unabated—by “rights” invented by the Court. Homosexual marriage has been installed as a legitimate civil union—once again by the Court, overstepping the will of the people. California itself has had ballot initiatives successfully voted on by the citizens of the state—against same-sex marriages and another denying taxpayer funding to illegals—both to be cancelled by activist courts and judges.Self-rule by citizens is effectively dead. We live in a black-robed oligarchy.
Add to this now that censorship of conservatives is on steroids; we have no effective border any longer; and Marxists rule in Washington behind chained-linked fences. Will we ever see freedom again? Will the Court System save us? Hardly.
Maybe instead of “waiting for the next election,” of which the integrity is in serious question anyway, it is time to drive toward State Sovereignty by Nullifying at a State Level federal unconstitutional laws. If our state representatives and senators have not the backbone for this, then perhaps a people’s move toward secession is in order.