Most are unaware that the Roman Catholic Church is a secular as well as religious organization. It weds church and state. As such, throughout the centuries, it has fielded armies, raised taxes, occupied territories—as it does today at the Vatican. As all governments do that are opposed to freedom, the Roman Catholic Church has conducted “inquisitions” and “book burnings” to “root out error.”
An example of this is during the 16th century in Germany. Martin Luther was a friar who served as professor of biblical studies in out-of-the-way Wittenberg. Luther posted his ninety-five theses (objections) regarding the “selling of indulgences” on the church door of Wittenberg, the local bulletin board. This created a firestorm throughout Europe. The local inquisitor (official appointed by the RCC to handle such problems) was Thomas Cajetan. Luther’s works were later burned in the town square by men such as Cajetan, and Luther himself was taken before an august assembly known as a Diet—an official inquisition by the Roman Catholic Church.
Everything that was taught must conform to the official doctrine of the Catholic Church. Non-conformity was punishable by death by burning at a stake. This is the nature of a communistic-totalitarian-style government that ruled from the Vatican in Rome.
We do not see much literal flames burning hardcover books today—but we do have the deletion and censorship on social media of what is considered anything outside the orthodoxy. So powerful has it become that Big Tech has censored the former President, Donald Trump, even before he left office. The new DHS put out this statement this past week: “We remain concerned that individuals frustrated with the exercise of governmental authority … and ideological causes fueled by false narratives could continue to mobilize a broad range of ideologically-motivated actors to incite or commit violence.”
So, false “ideas” that fuel “false narratives” [speech]—that are outside this orthodoxy—are banned. In November, a member of the Democratic National Committee, David Atkins, said on Twitter that “de-programming” is needed for every one of the Trump supporters in America. Add to this the newly proposed bill by Rep. Adam Schiff called “The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021” that targets “extremists” that need de-programming. Then we have Rep. Stephanie Murphy’s “Security Clearance Improvement Act of 2021” that proposes forbidding security clearances to conservatives.
Inquisitions and Book Burnings. I wonder which book they will be after next?
A new bogeyman has supposedly made an entrance in the American scene: Christian Nationalism. Multitudes of Christians – specifically white people who support the Republican Party platform–are said to be in its clutches. The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), a humanist organization that attacks all things Christian, co-founded by atheist Dan Barker and whose board boasts rabid anti-Christian heavy-weights such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, summarized what the concept means in a 2007 article by Michelle Goldberg.
She explains that it is a political ideology masquerading as a faith. Christian Nationalism basically holds that America was founded as a Christian nation, that the founders never intended to separate church and state, and that church/state separation is a lie and a fraud perpetrated by secularists in the last 100 years, which has to be undone so America can reclaim its ‘former glory.’
Christian Nationalism is the charge against those who believe America was founded as a “Christian Nation.” Goldberg worries that “this movement” seeks to “Christianize all the institutions of American life, from the schools to the judiciary to the federal government, the presidency, Congress, etc.” A similar screed by FFRF (10-14-19) blasted former Attorney General William Barr with “Christian Nationalism” for referring to the values upon which our nation was founded as “Judeo-Christian” ethics.
A 2017 booklet entitled Christian Nationalism in the United States, edited by Mark T. Edwards, a professor of US History and Politics at Spring Arbor University in Michigan, likens Christian Nationalism to the belief that America is a “Christian Nation,” even when the verbiage itself is absent. The accusation includes that even in the early 19th century, “lettered men and women were ‘reinventing’ the United States as a Christian nation. Outspoken Christian nationalists like Justice Joseph Story joined [Alexis de] Tocqueville in solidifying the Pilgrims and the Puritans as the foundation of religious and political liberty present in antebellum America.”
Kevin Kruse, professor of history at Princeton University, in his book, One Nation Under God (2015), makes the identical accusation against conservatives. George S. Benson, long-time president of Harding University, is heavily criticized for having advanced the cause of “religious nationalism.” The thesis of Kruse’s book is that America was “re-branded” as a “Christian Nation” in the 20th century. The chief culprits for such a plot were the religious professors, conservative politicians, and preachers, including Harding’s National Education Program, headed by Benson.
Fred Schwarz, the Baptist preacher from Australia who began the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, who worked in the same fields as did Benson’s NEP, is also called out by Kruse for pressing “religious nationalism.” As a matter of fact, the NEP’s model of a nation which is founded upon a “Fundamental Belief in God,” is singled out by Kruse for harsh criticism as being completely erroneous (p. 71).
The Christian Nationalism charge was picked up by Christianity Today in an article by Michael Horton (What Are Evangelicals Afraid of Losing? 8-31-2018). In it he lambasts preachers and professors who are on board with President Trump’s “America First” agenda as, “courting political power and happily” allowing “themselves to be used by it.” “This always happens when the church confuses the kingdom of Christ with the kingdoms of this present age. Jesus came not to jump-start the theocracy in Israel, much less to be the founding father of any other nation.” That which is “at stake” here, according to Horton, is “whether evangelical Christians place their faith more in Caesar and his kingdom than in Christ and his reign.”
Christian Nationalism in the churches of Christ?
From here the idea has been uncritically picked up and repeated in articles by members of the churches of Christ. In a blog entitled, For King, Not Country, Brian Casey (7-8-2020) informs us that “’Christian Nationalism’ is a contradiction in terms. ‘God and country’ is a misleading amalgamation.” “Things get very confused as Christian and national identities are blended indiscriminately and ignorantly. The mixture is so toxic to the Christian life…”
He introduces the article by criticizing with heavy-hand Harding’s George Benson for the mistake of confusing the church and the country. “…he promulgated the false marriage of the Kingdom of God (and the ideal of Harding) with the political machine of the United States. The National Education Program became the center of conservative political activism.” The madness in America today could have been avoided, says Casey, if Benson “not merged” nationalistic ideals” with “Christianity.”
Benson, the tireless missionary to China and president of Harding College, according to Casey even confused evangelism for Christ with “making America safe for democracy.” This is an “ill-blended mindset,” he intones.
Now comes The Christian Chronicle with articles written by Bobby Ross, Jr. (10-30-2020; 1-13-21) which carries the same ill-informed charges of Christian Nationalism against members of the churches of Christ who happen to be conservative Trump supporters. Interviewed in the articles are a number of ministers and church workers. The recent rash of attention on the topic is supposedly because some Trump supporters rioted and broke into the Capitol building on January 6. But that wrong-doing merely highlights a much more sinister sin, per these ministers.
Jeremie Beller, congregational minister of the Wilshire church of Christ in Oklahoma City and adjunct professor at OCU, repeats the Michael Horton charge (Christianity Today) that “Christian nationalism is the intertwining of the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of men.”
Tanya Smith Brice is the dean of the College of Professional Studies at Bowie State University in Maryland. She gravely warned that Christian Nationalism is a “form of civil religion that places one’s earthly citizenship above one’s obligation as a follower of Christ.” Those who do this “falsely” give to a “nation-state a Messianic identity.” The “nation-state” is seen as the “primary mechanism for ‘saving’ human history.”
Tanya Smith Brice, who is black, now levels the racist charge. “White evangelicals are more likely to support the oppressive class and behaviors of our current federal administration than those who don’t identify as White evangelical.” She then remarks, “Christian nationalism has become inextricably linked with White Supremacy.”
Lee Camp, professor of theology as David Lipscomb University, goes so far as to say that this Christian Nationalism is “idolatry.”
Melvin Otey, former U.S. Justice Department trial lawyer for the Obama Administration and law professor at Faulkner University, says that “People believe that being an American or being a patriot or being a part of a political party is part of their faith. It absolutely is not. That’s what keeps people divided.” He admonishes with words of the apostle Paul, that we are “citizens of heaven.” Says Otey, “we have too many people in the church who aspire to be Christian Republicans, Christian Democrats …Their alliances and their allegiances are not first and foremost to Christ.”
Divided allegiances; white supremacy; confusing the church with Americanism; mistaking missionary activity for Christ for Americanism; idolatry invented in the 20th century—a heavier list of dark sins is hard to be found.
What Shall We Say to These Things?
First, America was founded as a Christian Nation. This is no “re-invention” by later generations, for the Founding generation spoke almost with one voice on this topic. It is noteworthy that celebrated authors such as Kevin Kruse of Princeton, in his One Nation Under God, hardly takes a glance at what the founding generation of Americans actually said. He assumes that in the mid-20th century the entire concept was invented, and he moves forward from there.
When our Founding Fathers referred to this nation, as “Christian Nation,” as did John Jay, one of authors of Federalist Papers, they did not intend that this be understood in the sense that an official church had been established, or that a “Theocracy” was in place, but rather that the principles upon which our republic rests were Christian in origin. Benjamin Morris, a second-generation American, in surveying the mass of material on this topic, summarized:
“Christianity is the principle and all-pervading element, the deepest and most solid foundation, of all our civil institutions.It is the religion of the people—the national religion; but we have neither an established church nor an established religion.”
Some of founders even referred to America as a “Christian Republic.” That generation demonstrated this by the fact that they adorned public buildings with biblical symbols such as Moses crossing Red Sea; or Moses holding tablets of stone carved on the building of the Supreme Court; or that the state papers of the Continental Congress that are filled with Christianity.
One of the formative laws of the United States, listed in the U.S. Code, is the Declaration of Independence. It reads more like a theological statement that a political thesis. Our republic posited that rights come from God and that the single role of government is to protect what God gave us, inclusive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Republic itself is an outgrowth of Christian principles.
Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, one of the most influential of the founders, having signed not only the Declaration of Independence, but the Articles of Confederation as well as the Constitution. He wrote to Samuel Baldwin in 1790 that “his faith in the new republic was largely because he felt it was founded on Christianity as he understood it.”
Joseph Story, a jurist who served on the Supreme Court during the founding era and wrote the first lengthy Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, commented as follows:
Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal sentiment was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
The Supreme Court in numerous cases has referred to this as “A Christian Nation.” Most notable is the 1892 case entitled The Church of the Holy Trinity v. The United States. Here the Court packed its decision with a litany of precedents from American history to establish “this is a religious people, … this is a Christian Nation.”
The First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion …” simply forbade the establishment of an official National Denomination in the sense of a state church supported by federal taxes. Fisher Aimes, who offered the wording of the Amendment, makes clear from his original version that “religion” meant “a single Christian denomination.” This is also how Thomas Jefferson understood the Amendment in his comment upon it in which he used the phrase “separation of church and state.”
Even Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1989 expressed the same.
It was never intended by the Constitution that the government should be prohibited from recognizing religion …The Christian religion was always recognized in the administration of canon law, and so far that the law continues to be the law of the land, the fundamental principles of that religion must continue to be recognized … (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573).
The charge therefore that our Founders desired “Christian Nationalism” because they spoke of a Christian Nation reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. The modern pretension misfires completely by suggesting that some of our brethren have been guilty of “re-inventing history” when they point to a Christian foundation of America.
Second, the blanket charge that great evangelists of modern times, such as George Benson, somehow confused the kingdom of God, or heavenly reward, with a Christian America is flagrant falsehood. I challenge any of these who make such an outlandish charge to produce one statement from Benson or James D. Bales, who also worked for the National Education Program, or any other prominent evangelist such as Baptist Fred Schwarz, who has made any statement that remotely resembles these accusations.
The truth is, our modern-day professorships completely misunderstand the concept of a Christian Nation. The reason our founders desired to have a nation established on a Christian principles was that it provided—for the first time in modern history—a zone of order established upon the fundamental concepts that God provided us our rights, including life, liberty, and property—that the government was merely an institution designed to protect those rights.
And instead of inventing charges of “Christian Nationalism” against fellow Christians, as if someone somewhere wishes to establish a theocracy where an official State Church would rule, I would like one of these ministers to take in hand to defend how a Christian can in any way subscribe to the Democratic Party platform, that enshrines as a principle the destruction of innocent human life through infanticide and abortion and champions the practice of sodomy in our land. It would be interesting to hear one of these professors defend supporting a political platform that sounds as if had been written by King Herod.
Professor Otey’s rebuke is that Christians are “citizens of heaven.” The logical conclusion to that argument in this context is that one should not be involved at all in anything that partakes of civil government. Yet, he is one who continually calls for “conversations” about “race” in the church. What does “race” have to do with being a citizen of heaven? (Gal. 3:28). Apparently there are things about which he thinks we should be concerned as citizens of the United States as well.
Politics is nothing more than the organizing of human society and its institutions upon certain principles. Why should not Christians desire biblical principles to help regulate conduct at various societal levels? The apostle Paul’s ultimate citizenship was in heaven, but that did not stop him from appealing to his Roman citizenship (Acts 22) and ultimately to Caesar (Acts 25) to prevent miscarriage of justice in civil society.
Earlier Paul had been beaten with rods—unjustly by Romans in the city of Philippi. When the magistrates of the community discovered his Roman citizenship they were fearful and invited him to leave quietly (Acts 16:22ff). The apostle would have none of it. He utilized his Roman citizenship to his own benefit. “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out.”
Did Paul do wrong to press his Roman citizenship and fair treatment in Roman society? Should we have remonstrated with him that his “citizenship is in heaven” and not to worry about such matters? Was Paul “blending his Christian and national identities,” in the words of Brian Casey? Was he “conflating” Roman citizenship with being a citizen of heaven?
There is nothing more erroneous about speaking of a Christian Nation than of a Christian Family. What is a Christian family? It is one where biblical principles are implemented. Does that mean it is a perfect family? Is this family absent of sins committed by mother, father, children? No. But the principles there taught we recognize as Christian and refer to it as a Christian family. No one objects by suggesting that the entire family has not been baptized into Christ, or that not every family member is a Christian. But we still recognize what is a Christian family. So also a Christian nation.
More importantly, shall we say that when someone uses the phrase “Christian family” that we have “conflated the concepts of heaven and the family?” Have we laid ourselves open to the charge that we have “confused the Lord’s church with the family?” The answer is obvious. Brother Benson and others who worked with the NEP merely recognized that just as a godly, Christian family is more conducive in which to rear children to love and respect God, so also the nation.
Third, perhaps the most dangerous element revealed of the above critiques of Christian Nationalism is that they are born of Cultural Marxism. Classical Marxism, revealed in The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is rooted in atheism. This atheistic creed demands that the sole factor that determines a person is his economic status. A person thinks and moves as he does because of the class into which he is born.
Society is divided between the bourgeois (land-owners, middle-class) and the proletariat (the workers, who do not have property to sell, but only their labor). Between these classes there is an inevitable class struggle. This is the dialectic. People are not considered as individuals, but as part of a class.
The Italian philosopher, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), built on Marx’s materialistic base and developed the concept of “cultural hegemony” meaning that the dominant ideology of society reflects beliefs and interests of the ruling class. Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D. explains:
Cultural hegemony refers to domination or rule maintained through ideological or cultural means. It is usually achieved through social institutions, which allow those in power to strongly influence the values, norms, ideas, expectations, worldview, and behavior of the rest of society.
Cultural hegemony functions by framing the worldview of the ruling class, and the social and economic structures that embody it, as just, legitimate, and designed for the benefit of all, even though these structures may only benefit the ruling class. This kind of power is distinct from rule by force, as in a military dictatorship, because it allows the ruling class to exercise authority using the “peaceful” means of ideology and culture.
Gramsci would argue that “consent to the rule of the dominant group” in a nation is achieved by the “spread of ideologies—beliefs, assumptions, and values—through social institutions such as schools, churches, courts, …” The dominant values in America—designed solely to maintain power of this class—is white male heterosexual.
To Gramsci’s Marxism the founders were only “a group of white men” constructing a government to protect their own cultural dominance. So also today. Laws in America supposedly reflect whiteness; the proof of this is the fact that minorities comprise the majority of prison populations. The assumption is that white America—the dominant culture– is racist. Hence, Cancel Culture rages in our streets.
Tanya Brice Smith’s blanket charge of sin of White Supremacy among Trump supporters is nothing less than this cultural Marxism. An entire class of people—white males—are guilty. Period. No need for evidence or fact. It just is. White people may insist continually the opposite of these things, but to no avail.
Cultural hegemony also explains why Jim Wallis, the “spiritual advisor” to Barack Obama, lambasted America by saying that “Racism is America’s Original Sin.” Sin attaches to white people because of whiteness. Again, no proof necessary. Whites are guilty. Lamentable as it is, now there are black preachers among us who will sound more like Jim Wallis than the Apostle Paul. Some suggest white people have “racism” in their “DNA.” Again, no proof necessary before a bar of justice. Just assume and blast away. Cultural Marxism.
It is indeed a sad day in America when preachers of the gospel of Christ will be more about beating the drums against an entire culture that has provided the greatest freedom to preach since the days of Adam and Eve. And that a Christian paper would allow these types of blanket Marxist-style charges indicting a large portion of the brotherhood of Christians shows how far we have gone.
Remember the old New Orleans Saints coach Jim Mora, who went nuts at a press conference? “Playoffs? Are you kidding me? Playoffs?” he said.
You can quote me today: “Unity? Are you freakin’ kidding me? Unity? There’s no unity. President Joe Biden can mouth the word ‘unity’ all he wants. It’s a lie. Democrats don’t want unity. They want to censor us, ban us, purge us, wipe away American history like it never happened and then intimidate us into meekly going along with it all. They want us to kneel and say thank you while they destroy America and the American way of life. That’s what they mean by ‘unity.’ So, you can take your unity and shove it where the sun don’t shine.”
I won’t even discuss the statements in the past week by liberals and Democratic politicians that sounded like acts of war. I won’t get into how they dragged conservatives — and, of course, white males — into the gutter. I won’t get into the way they slandered us, attacked us, denigrated us, slimed us, aimed hate speech at us.
I’m an SOB (son of a butcher). My butcher father had great common sense. He taught me, “Watch what a man does, not what he says.” So, I’ll just point out Biden’s first acts as president.
• Biden had a record-setting first day in office. In a matter of hours, he killed an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 jobs. He killed the Keystone XL Pipeline. He suspended all new oil and gas leasing and drilling permits on federal land. He halted construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall.
These weren’t just any jobs. These were high-paying middle-class jobs in construction and energy. And ironically, these were union jobs. This is a disaster for the U.S. economy.
• Biden offered up a radical amnesty plan for every illegal alien in the United States. Biden wants to give every one of them (a Yale University study says there are 22 million) a fast-track to citizenship in only eight years. This is a disaster for America in many ways.
First, this radical amnesty plan rewards lawbreakers. The rule of law and the U.S. Constitution no longer matter. We’re not America anymore; we’re in “Mad Max.”
Second, these 22 million will no doubt become new Democratic voters. Republicans will never win again.
Third, they will take jobs from and lower the wages of American citizens.
Fourth, these new citizens will bankrupt America as they all qualify for welfare, food stamps, free Obamacare and 100 other welfare programs.
Fifth, they will overcrowd and bankrupt our public schools and health care system.
Sixth, this will overwhelm the police, court and prison system.
Seventh, this will encourage millions of additional foreigners to invade our border. Soon none of us will recognize America. This will be a country foreign to Americans.
Lastly, Biden will have to dramatically raise taxes on American citizens and business owners to pay for this massive cost.
• Biden put a 100-day freeze on deportations of illegal aliens. How many American citizens will die because illegal alien felons were allowed to stay?
• Biden required noncitizens to be included in the census, thereby increasing funding for sanctuary cities and broke Democratic welfare states, while adding new Democratic members of Congress for cities and states filled with illegal aliens.
• Biden reversed the Trump ban on travelers from seven terrorist-friendly countries. Just what the American people desperately need — more visitors from Yemen, Somalia and Iran. I can’t wait.
• Biden rejoined the Paris climate accord and promised to add tons of new environmental regulations. This will destroy manufacturing and energy companies, kill millions of high-paying jobs and dramatically raise energy bills for the middle class.
• Biden forced women’s sports to allow transgender males to compete on women’s teams, use women’s bathrooms and dress in women’s locker rooms. This is a declaration of war on women — even if liberal mothers are too blinded by feminism, atheism, communism and dumb political correctness to see it.
Biden is not a “moderate.” He is either a radical Marxist out to destroy America or a feeble old man with dementia being used as a puppet by George Soros, former President Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Ilhan Omar and other radical, extreme, crazed America haters to destroy this country. But it really doesn’t matter. Either way, he’s leading us down the road to disaster, ruin, misery and poverty. He is going to turn America into Venezuela.
This isn’t “unity.” It’s the destruction of America and everything that ever made it great. I’m not in unity. Are you?
For nearly thirty years, as some of us have attempted to sound the alarm over plans to reorganize human society into global governance, we have been mercilessly attacked and labeled as radical conspiracy theorists.
Now, as those very plans move ever closer to enforcement, many are beginning to ask questions about the origins of the plans. Who stands behind them, and where will it all lead? Will life be better? Will there be more freedom and happiness? Are we finally going to create a society free of war and strife, as promised by the promoters? Who’s right, the conspiracy theorists or the promoters?
First, a little history. One of the direct results of World War II, which had affected every nation, was the desire to find a way to prevent war. Most of all, the threat of nuclear war truly terrified everyone. This led to the creation of the United Nations as a way to provide a forum where nations could work out their problems in a public forum instead of on a battlefield. That was the selling point, at least.
The fact of the matter is, the United Nations is a club in which nations join voluntarily and pay dues for the privilege. However, from its very beginning, some envisioned a much larger role for the club. They envisioned the end of independent sovereign nations in which they charged were the root of war, strife and poverty. They claimed that for true freedom to exist, everything must be equal, including food, possessions, and opportunity. To achieve that, individual nations must surrender their sovereignty to the greater good – global governance overseen by the United Nations.
Right away, many socialist and communist-run nations grabbed hold of the concept. These were nations where the rights of the people were already determined by those in charge. In short, where government granted rights.
But there was one nation, in particular, that openly opposed this concept, because that nation had been created under the idea that every person possessed their rights from birth and that it was government’s job to protect those rights. Such a concept was completely antithetical to the growing determination to give the United Nations central power over the Earth. The United States was soon seen as the major obstacle to the globalist agenda.
Over time, a “cold war” between the totalitarians of the communist nations and the advocates of free nations erupted and the United States found itself the designated leader of the “Free World.” As a member of the UN’s Security Council, the United States used its single-nation veto power to foil many of the efforts by the communist nations to build a UN power structure. This caused major frustration to those behind the goal of global governance. A solution had to be found to bring the United States into compliance.
Finally, in the 1970s a novel tactic emerged in the form of the illusion of environmental Armageddon by way of the illusion of “Climate Change.” It was the perfect tool to propel the argument for independent nations. “It doesn’t matter what rights you think you have if you don’t have a planet to stand on!” The drive for global governance took hold, full speed ahead. One of the main proponents of the global governance movement, the Club of Rome said, “The common enemy of humanity is man. 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 of these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be over come. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” There it was! The answer. The environment doesn’t recognize political or national boundaries. Just grab control of the land, water and air, and control every nation and every human life.
It didn’t take long for the globalist forces to jump onto the concept. Again, the Club of Rome laid out the party line necessary to grab control: “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though it may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the task at hand. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” So, according to this concept, in order to replace these leaders which were elected by the people, we are going to enforce global policy created by forces unseen, unknown, and equipped with their own agenda. Yep – that will solve the world’s problems!
It didn’t take long for the communists to grasp the idea. Former Soviet dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, after the collapse of his socialist paradise, quickly set himself up as an environmentalist to promote this new world order. He explained to the State of the World Forum, “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of world government.” And there is was — the real goal, out in the open.
The UN’s Commission on Global Governance went further to explain how it would all come about as it reported, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Now, how to set it all into place…?
The UN began to sponsor a series of international meetings, specifically focusing on the environment and how to “save planet Earth.” After a series of such meetings where private, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), officially recognized and sanctioned by the United Nations, met with government leaders, diplomats, and various bureaucrats, began to draw up a plan for using environmental issues as the basis for regulating human activity – all through the noble guidance of the United Nations, of course. Finally, in 1992, more than 50,000 NGOs, diplomats, and 179 world leaders, including U.S. President, George, H.W. Bush, met in an “Earth Summit,” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Here, they introduced a series of four documents and treaties for the world to accept as guidelines for UN-led reorganization to save the planet.
Most significant of these plans was one designed to create a global plan of action for the 21st Century. It was named Agenda 21, and its supporters promoted it as a “Comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” All 179 world leaders signed onto the document, including President Bush, and promised to bring its goals into national policy.
Here’s a quick overview of the Agenda 21 plan:
There are four parts: Sections 1 is titled Social and Economic Dimensions. Details include, international cooperation to accelerate sustainable development policies, combat poverty, changing consumption patterns, protecting and promoting human health conditions, and promoting sustainable development by integrating environment policy into development plans.
Section 2: is titled Conservation and Management of Resources for Development. This section outlined plans for promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development, integrating those policies into planning and management of land resources, enforcing sustainable policy into every body of water from seas to rivers and lakes, waste management, and conservation of “fragile” ecosystems, .
Section 3: is titled “Strengthening the Role of Major Groups. Here we get into who was going to promote these policies in a divide and conquer tactic. First, the infamous NGOs who wrote the document gave themselves a major role under the chapter entitled “Strengthening the role of non-governmental organizations: partners for sustainable development.” But we were also to have “global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development.” Next, children were specifically targeted to be promoters of sustainable development. Another chapter outlined how to pull in local elected officials to promote support for Agenda 21 initiatives. Each chapter in this section of the Agenda 21 document focuses on more and more individual interest groups needed to push the agenda, from business and industry, to science and technology to farmers. No stone was left unturned in this outline to reorganize human society.
Section 4: titled Means of Implementation. Here, finally, are the details on how it was to be accomplished. As all of the individual groups are brought under the umbrella, now the enforcers would focus on the necessary financial resources, transferring environmental technology into decision making, and focusing on education process, not only for schools, but also for “public awareness and training.” And then, of course, there are the necessary “International legal instruments and mechanisms.”
Here it is, a complete and comprehensive outline for the agenda to completely transform all of humanity under the umbrella of globalism. And of course, it was urgent that the agenda be enforced as quickly as possible because, we were facing an environmental Armageddon caused by selfish, uncontrolled, ignorant humans, unfettered in unenlightened nation-states.
First Global Warming, and then later Climate Change became the focus of the looming disaster. And it simply did not matter if there was no true science to back up the scare tactic. As the Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart, openly admitted, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” There is was! The truth. This whole charade wasn’t about saving the environment, but about changing the world order with a new gang in charge.
Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation, further enforced that fact when he said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” There it is again – “economic policy!”
And finally, there was Paul Watson, a co-founder of the radical Green NGO called GreenPeace. He summed it all up very nicely, saying, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” No muss, no fuss, just get in line and don’t question us!
However, there was still a skeptical world that had to be indoctrinated to follow the party line. So, it was important that the language, while keeping the urgent tension of environmental crisis in the forefront, used soft-peddle words to promote the policies. For example, soothing, reassuring comments such as, “we are just concerned about the environment, aren’t you?” “We want to help those less fortunate, living in poverty. Don’t you?” “Imagine all the people sharing all the world.” Nothing to worry about here, just a giant, loving, world-wide group hug. So, the agenda moved forward, with few questioning its details, motives, and true goals.
Meanwhile, forces inside the UN were determined to hurry along the real agenda — global governance. As we moved closer to the year 2000, many insiders saw the start of the new Millennium as the perfect opportunity to launch a full-scale framework for global politics. In preparation, the UN planned to sponsor a Millennium Summit to plan the future for the world. A document was prepared for presentation at the Summit called the Charter for Global Democracy. In the UN’s words, the document contained “detailed, practical measures which set out an ambitious agenda for democracy in international decision-making, now increasingly known as ‘global governance.”
The Charter contained 12 principles or goals. It would consolidate all international agencies under the direct authority of the United Nations. In addition, the UN would regulate all transnational corporations and financial institutions, along with the establishment of a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by insuring sustainable development. The Charter called for a declaration that Climate Change is an essential global security interest that requires a “high level action team” to control carbon emissions. And, the Charter called for the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and for “equitable sharing of global resources,” including land, air and sea, plus various wealth redistribution schemes. Under the Charter for Global Democracy there would be no independent, sovereign nations, no private property or free enterprise. All would be controlled and regulated by UN edict – all in the name of environmental protection, of course.
But there is more. To establish a government, three main ingredients are necessary; a revenue taxation system, a criminal court system, and a standing army. Principle 3 of the Charter for Global Democracy demanded an independent source of revenue for the UN. Proposed were taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels and licensing the use of the global commons. The “global commons” are defined to be “outer space, the atmosphere, non-territorial seas, and related environment that supports human life.” In other words, the UN claimed control of the entire planet, its air and water, even outer space, and the power to tax use of it all.
Principle Number 5 would authorize a standing UN Army. Principle Number 6 would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the United Nations.
Principle Number 8 would activate the International Criminal Court, make the International Court of Justice compulsory for all nations, and give individuals the right to petition the courts to remedy what they deemed social injustice, meaning redistribution of wealth based on emotional tirades rather than the rule of law.
There you have it, all the tools necessary to make the United Nations a full- fledged global government, a government over the whole world. But, the Charter for Global Democracy broke one major rule in the UN’s plans to dominate the world – it was too honest. It lacked the soft sell and, instead, marched brutally forward, revealing their true agenda. It was never officially presented to the Millennium Summit for world leaders to approve in front of the cameras. However, it remains a shadow agenda, with parts included in other documents. The Criminal Court does exist and there is still a drive for an environmental court. The UN continues to push for full ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty that would give it full control of the waters of the planet. While the United States has not officially ratified the treaty, Congress has promoted regulations through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce many of the same goals.
Meanwhile, the UN has continued to add more details, a little at a time, through documents released at yet more international gatherings. The Millennium Summit did issue 8 goals, mostly focusing on eradicating poverty, respecting nature, and “Protecting the Vulnerable.” The goals are there, just not the direct wording of the Charter. Peace, Brother!
In 2016, the UN issued Agenda 2030, containing 17 goals. They are all the same as Agenda 21 and the Millennium Goals, however each new document issued reveals a little more detail as the UN moves ever closer to enforcing all 12 principles of the Charter for Global Democracy.
Most recently, however, the Sustainable forces again took off the gloves of misdirection, and this time they have gotten away with it. This latest version is called the Green New Deal and it didn’t come as a declaration or a suggestion from another summit. This time it came as actual legislation introduced into the U.S. Congress and has been openly accepted as the center of political debate across the nation.
Even though the word “green” is in the title, it, too, is not an environmental policy. The Green New Deal is an economic plan to reorder society away from free enterprise, private property, and limited government. Gee, where have we heard that before? Oh yes, Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Millennium Declaration!
The Green New Deal is divided into four pillars. First is the Economic Bill of Rights, demanding full employment, guaranteeing a living wage, Medicare for all, tuition-free education and the right to affordable housing. Can you find any issue there that is designed to save the planet?
Pillar 2 is labeled the Green Transition. Surely here is where we will find concerns expressed for clean rivers and air, right? Nope. We find money and tax schemes for global corporations who agree to play ball and spread the sustainable propaganda. This helps to fill their pockets as it kills competition from small, independent businesses. There’s also the usual attack on cars along with schemes to end shipping of food and products by truck or air. Each community, you see, will be responsible for providing all of its needs for the local population.
Pillar 3 called Real Financial Reform, turns banks into public utilities run by government, doing away with the stock market, all leading to higher taxes and the end of freedom of choice for your financial needs.
Pillar 4 is called a Functioning Democracy. It calls for the creation of a “Corporation for Economic Democracy” that will basically combine government agencies, private associations, and business enterprise into one big corporation, all to be controlled by one, central ruling authority. The last time I checked on such an idea it was called communism.
My colleague, climate change expert Paul Driessen, produced a very clear picture of what life will be like under the Green New Deal. Are you ready America? According to Paul’s analysis, the GND would, “control and pummel the jobs, lives, living standards, savings, personal choices and ecological heritage of rural, poor, minority, elderly and working classes.” Says Paul, the GND would turn middle America into vast energy colonies. Millions of acres of farmland, wildlife habitat, and scenic areas would be blanketed by industrial wind, solar, and battery facilities. Windswept ocean vistas and sea lanes would be plagued by towering turbines. Birds, bats, and other wildlife would disappear. As you are forced to rip out exiting natural gas appliances from your kitchen, replacing them with electric models, electrical power would only be there when its available, rather that when you need it. And don’t forget, as the GND moves to ban petroleum, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, plastics for computers would all be gone, along with millions of jobs. Not to mention that the cost of near non-existent energy would soar.
This, then, is the future offered to us by the power-mad control freaks now plotting every day to “reorganize human society.” These policies now dominate political debate and are becoming established in more and more states and communities, yet any attempt to reveal the true goals are immediately labeled “conspiracy theories” and those sounding the alarm are called extremists.
Meanwhile, as we have all suffered through the COVID lockdowns, the forces behind these policies have been busy planning ways to use tactics they have learned from enforcing the pandemic to move forward with a “Green Reset” to tackle the so-called climate crisis. In a recent issue, Time magazine announced the “Great Reset,” asserting “The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want… to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work.”
Bill Gates said that large-scale economic shutdowns are “nowhere near sufficient” to curtail climate change. Rather, we need “to get rid of emissions from all the different sectors.” He went on, “Simply shutting down (the economy) is not going to get (us) to our goal. So just like we need innovation for COVID-19, we also need to get rid of emissions from all the different sectors and bring down climate change.” Are you ready to live in a cave with no heat or running water to satisfy Bill Gates’ demands to reorganize society? What else would be the alternative if we must completely shut down our entire infrastructure of transportation, industry, buildings, electricity, etc?
Green New Deal advocates, like Gates, see the COVID-19 outbreak as a signal to the international community that it is necessary to reform humanity’s relationship with nature, pointing to concerns that “as habitat and biodiversity loss increase globally, the coronavirus outbreak may be just the beginning of mass pandemics.” That’s the new scare tactic – piled on top of climate change. Just as the Club of Rome prediction declared decades ago, the real enemy is humanity itself. So there it is, now facing us like never before – the interconnection of climate change, the Green New Deal, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Step by step, changing and controlling human society.
The COVID-19 lockdown has been the master experiment as to how much manipulation people will accept out of fear. It has been the grand experiment to get us to stop driving, reducing energy use, and change our living habits. All called for in the Green New Deal. Arn Menconi, an environmental activist and recent candidate for the Colorado state senate said, the “coronavirus has proved we can afford the Green New Deal and Medicare for all.”
But there is much more planned for the reorganization of human society that few have counted on. Take careful note of the growing manipulation of the free market, a main target of Agenda 21/GND policy. Global corporations, such as Amazon and Walmart, that have agreed to join in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) with government to promote the Sustainable policies, have been allowed to continue near normal operations and they are thriving in the lockdowns. Meanwhile local, small, independent businesses have been forced to close their doors. As those small business jobs are lost, employees are left with little alternative than to seek positions in the global behemoths or accept government handouts. Soon, we will begin to see the corporations demanding that employees accept Bill Gates’ mandatory COVID vaccines or lose their jobs. That means that more and more will have no choice but too march in lockstep with the dictates of their masters. Free thought, free market competition, and free expression will no longer exist anywhere but in the minds of those old enough to remember “when”. These are all the enemies of totalitarianism and must be curtailed.
They’ve managed to find the perfect scare tactic to get us all to “voluntarily” give up our liberties, allow government to shut us in our homes, kill our jobs, stop our schools, and destroy human contact. They have finally achieved the vision of British monarch, Prince Phillip who once said, “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” Never tell these people a joke, because they will eventually turn it into global policy!
How do we stop this drive to destroy our way of life? One thing the COVID lock-down has proven, is that we must regain control of local and state governments. It was mayors and governors who led the way to enforce most of the draconian controls over our ability to move about, go to work and church, see our doctors, and open our businesses. That’s why it’s imperative that those concerned about stopping this transformation must become active on the local level, organizing, researching, speaking out and running effective local government campaigns.
One major obstacle standing in the way of the forces of freedom to stop this drive for global governance is that too many on the Right have ignored the threat, joining in the chorus against we who have been sounding the alarm. Not one mainstream, Washington, DC-based conservative organization will even mention the words Agenda 21 or the many issues connected to the global agenda. Many Republicans in Congress lamely accept many of the environmental positions, instead offering lighter, “more reasonable” positions. Once they do that, they’ve already lost the argument. Today’s mainstream Conservative movement has changed little of their tactics from those used 50 years ago, when they were fighting Soviet communism. Yet, as the environmental movement takes over the American beef industry and leads the way to destroy private property rights and single-family neighborhoods, little action is taken. We cannot win if we ignore the massive loss of property in cities and farms. We cannot win if we fail to stand with the growing number of Americans who are suffering from the radical environmental assault. We have to change the debate and appeal to the growing legions of victims. And we must learn that the most effective place to begin the fight is on the local level in our communities – not on Capitol Hill.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 49 states. Think about that when you look at today’s election results. When that happened, the Left said “never again” and they began to organize. They focused on the local level and not just city council and county commission races. No position was too small or unimportant, including appointed boards, and even city hall jobs. These are the places where policy is decided and regulations, licensing, and government attitudes are prepared and carried out. When was the last time a local Republican group discussed the importance of the office of City Attorney? Yet these are the positions of power that have enforced the COVID lock-downs. After this most recent election don’t you wish we had some influence over voter registration and Board of Elections? This is how the Democrats have managed to turn formerly red states blue. Pure determination.
Every freedom-loving American must become vitally aware that we now face the most powerful, determined force of evil to ever threaten humanity. To defeat them we must become equally determined to do the dirty work which our side has ignored for fifty years. This includes, local organization of precincts, finding viable candidates to run, and controlling the debate over issues as they appear, making sure our side is heard. We must decide to relentlessly focus on the three pillars of freedom, including protection of private property rights, taking necessary steps to help small business thrive, and assure that government is a servant of the citizens rather than citizens submitting to government.
Take such actions to secure your community as a Freedom Pod where these rights are the backbone of every decision made by your local government. If you are successful, the idea will get the attention of neighboring communities and another Freedom Pod will be planted there — and then the next and the next. These are the actions we must take to “flatten the Socialist curve” and take America back! As Winston Churchill said, “Never Give In, Never, Never, Never.”
Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.He is also the founder of The American Policy Center.He is the author of several books.
Mikhail Kalinin (far left Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR) and Leon Trotsky (middle) greets Red Army troops. Polish–Soviet War.
Mikhail Kalinin (far left Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR) and Leon Trotsky (middle) greets Red Army troops. Polish–Soviet War.
“Woe to those who drag wrongdoing with the cords of deceit, and sin as if with cart ropes; Who say, ‘Let Him hurry, let Him do His work quickly, so that we may see it…Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight! Woe to those who…declare the wicked innocent for a bribe, and take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!’”
History has shown the arrogance of culture’s “Intellectuals.”A quick scan of any historical period will highlight pompous politicians and the compliant masses eagerly led by the elitists.
There is a connection between the elite politicians and the violence of revolution. These go “hand-in-glove.” Consequently, where there are political elites managing the affairs of State there will be instigations of violence so the State’s ideals will be implemented. Especially is this true when Marxists takeover society and wield violence as a useful tool to advance their cause. This violence is presented to the public as necessary and justified. It is amazingly characterized in terms of non-violence! The success of the campaign relies upon the pairing of the elites and those used in violent actions.
Unfortunately, this pairing is visible in our time. While the general populace struggles with how they can satisfy the basic necessities of life, the elite enjoys an unrestricted binge and glut of pleasurable excesses. The crude comment by Marie-Antionette said—“Let them eat cake.” This reportedly came when the Queen was told that her French subjects could not get common bread and “cake” was a dream. The Queen’s callous remark highlighted her uppity opinion of the “perpendicular pronoun.” She became a hated symbol of the decadent monarchy and fueled the revolution that would cause her to lose her head at the guillotine. Marie-Antoinette was also known and hated for her lavish lifestyle publicly flaunted.
The Perpendicular Pronoun
In our time two political “elites” share Marie-Antionette’s uppity opinion of the “perpendicular pronoun.” (But these are not the exception because the general rule is that all in the governing State feel empowered to feast on benefits while the general population struggles with a famine. The examples of these two present a façade of sensitivity but masks a cunning objective to change a nation’s destiny.
First, a report revealed the Speaker of the House consoling Americans. Her feigned sympathy was stated standing in front of a $24,000.00 refrigerator filled with gourmet ice cream! Incredulously Pelosi showed off her ample supply of designer ice cream, gelato and other frozen treats suggesting that she was compliant with social distancing. However, her “show” was a visible record of just how out of touch she is with the common citizen. She was buying ice cream by mail and restocking her supply for Easter when many Americans could not find a roll of toilet tissue. It’s her version of “Let them eat cake,” and hopefully she will be made to pay the price for her insensitivity.
A second illustration of the political elite’s arrogance vies with Marie-Antionette’s insensitivity. Fox News reported that Freshman Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) wore outfits and jewels costing more than $14,000.00 for her spread in Vanity Fair magazine’s December issue. She was gifted a $2,850 suit from Loewe for the shoot, as reported by the Daily Mail.
The actions of today’s Progressives/Liberals/DEMS/RINOS/BLM/ANTIFA/RINOS have far surpassed Marie-Antionette of 1793! And yet, we are told that people voting for those campaigning on the Democratic platform, and who call themselves “Democrats,” are “very satisfied” with what their elitist leaders are doing. A timely query is asked by Victor Davis Hanson: “Where is common sense these days?”
The political elites must find a way to further their agenda so that “transformation” of the USA occurs and the evils of our Republic’s rule are punished. We thus see how the elites utilize violence to navigate successfully their takeover. It is unfortunate that society has been desensitized to the violence seeking to destroy our nation. Even though cities burn, anarchy reigns and murderers roam freely, the elites are telling us long and strong that only “peaceful protests” are present in our nation’s metro areas!
I was appalled when I heard the first reports of these “peaceful” protests. And that shock increased when the Democratic Mayors and Governors, whose cities were burning, parroted the “peaceful” spin. Even when video reports are filmed with a backdrop of violence, arson, and assault we are told these are “peaceful.”As the situation devolved the statement was adjusted to say these were “mostly peaceful”!
How can reasonable people accept this flagrant untruth? The answer is understanding that this is not a new maneuver but one rooted in historical tactics to further Marxism.
Look back 1920-1923 and consider events framed by the Russian-Polish War. One interesting fact about this war instantly arises in regard to these “peaceful protests.”
A published paper (by MIROSŁAW SZUMIŁO 12.08.2020) discussing the war suggests “the Bolsheviks took power not to change Russia, but to use it as a trampoline for world revolution.”
Commanding the attack on the western front was Mikhail Tukhachevski. Preparing his troops for action he gave his famous order: “Soldiers of the workers’ revolution – turn your eyes to the west. On bayonets, we will carry happiness and peace to working humanity.” This was printed 9 May 1920 in Pravda as “Go West!” It solidified the Bolsheviks’ propaganda objectives and recruited troops.
Pay attention to the psychological ploy in the propaganda that fixed attention on “peace.” Who could say that “peace” was bad. But it subtly embraced the violence necessary for the revolution and the murderous intent of the bayonet! You have to admit the subtle cunning was masterful. Consequently, thousands were sacrificed and the remainder sulked back to the Motherland after being defeated at the Battle of Warsaw.
The elite Marxists announced happiness and peace was only possible at the point of the bayonet! And so, in today’s Marxist announcements we have the justification that arson, anarchy, and murder is actually “peaceful”! Isaiah would angrily object saying “You turn things around!” (29:16). How can “bad” be “good” unless the propaganda machine dictates that the population accept it? Anyone failing to accept the revised status as good is to be penalized.
The elitist arrogance that is visible today, was evident in the Russian leaders. Trotsky was bold in his speech about sacrifice for the Motherland but he lived almost permanently on an armored train, travelling from one front to the next, supervising progress, meeting officers and delivering rousing speeches to Red Army soldiers. Trotsky was as brutal to the common man as he was motivating and uplifting. One would never know his ruthlessness from his polished propaganda!
An poignant observation is made by Alexander Rubtsov regarding the Russian/Polish War. “Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky had a different scale: the Sovietization of Poland, the collapse of the Versailles system, and then a world fire! After World War II, the Soviet global project became more sophisticated and focused on assembling the socialist camp, national liberation movements, and all progressive humanity.”
The point not to be missed is the vision that the entire globe is targeted for the Marxist Project! In 1920 it was called “Sovietization.” In our current time is it referred to as the “globalization” of political, economic, and cultural differences so all become citizens of the “One-World Government.” And, who is surprised to learn that only the political elites are capable lead the sheeple to that grand utopia.
DO NOT ignore this unmistakable parallel…the “mostly peaceful protests” in the 1920s were advancing civilization at the point of the Marxist bayonets!
Threat to Our Republic
Americans beware! There is a visible and vocal threat to our Republic. Freedoms are being replaced with the tyranny of the elitists boasting they know better than the common citizen. These travel in armored cars and are far from the realities of daily existence. They stand in front of refrigerators feigning sincere concern while flaunting their superiority. They call for equality in wages and living standards while being gifted clothing that cost thousands of dollars. They strut and parade as royalty seeking the fawning of the peasants. The Democratic candidates in the 2020 Presidential election claim that a “transformation” of the USA is essential! We are told the “peaceful protests” will bring necessary results. This is a rephrasing of the Russian propaganda “On bayonets, we will carry happiness and peace to working humanity.”
Only those who do not think will accept that bayonets and peace are synonymous! Isaiah would have said, “You turn things around!”
It is all a LIE! And those who support and vote for the Democratic Party join in this lie.
The current political elitist reminds me of Mary Howell’s poem. The Spider and the Fly describes a cunning invitation to one to choose destruction. The poem is an enlightening read in the context of the invitation offered by the Progressives/Liberals/DEMS/RINOS/BLM/ANTIFA on 3 November 2020. The poem also presents the unavoidable outcome for those who foolishly accept the invitation.
Here is an excerpt of the poem:
“Will you walk into my parlor?” said the spider to the fly; “‘Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you may spy. “There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin, “And if you like to rest a while, I’ll snugly tuck you in!” “Said the cunning spider to the fly: “Dear friend, what can I do “To prove the warm affection I’ve always felt for you?”
Howell’s poem closes with a somber injunction to those being tempted:
“And now, dear little children, who may this story read, “To idle, silly flattering words I pray you ne’er give heed; “Unto an evil counselor close heart and ear and eye, “And take a lesson from this tale of the spider and the fly.”
Today’s electorate has a choice to make. It can choose a proven administration that has brought historic levels of success and freedom to our nation. Or it can choose an administration that will transform our nation and turn toward a global vision in which they will “on bayonets carry happiness and peace to working humanity.”
The elitist actions of today’s pols echo the terrors yesteryear’s elites. This ought to convince the electorate of 3 November 2020 to either vote out every Democrat or to vote for those in that political party and sacrifice the security of our constitutional Republic. We are a nation governed by the Constitution and not by the whims of an elite minority who has neither respect for the Rule of Law, the principles of humanity nor the personal liberty of the citizens.
There is a historical connection between the terrors that have savaged civilization in times past and the positions advocated by the Progressives/Liberals/DEMS/RINOS/BLM/ANTIFA!
Donald Trump is now in a fight for his political life. Pray and stand behind President Trump for eventual victory.
John Kachelman, Jr.is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.
The election isn’t about whether you like Donald Trump
There’s a ubiquitous Hollywood plot about a madman who has an evil plan to take over the world and he’s willing to destroy anything or anyone who gets in his way. The protagonist and other good guys save the world with only minutes to spare, sometimes even seconds.
Election Day, November 3, 2020 is the closest thing I’ve ever seen to a real-life morality play in which the future of America as we know it hangs in the balance. We have only days before we choose Individual freedom or collectivist conformity, the Constitution or Communism, Liberty or tyranny in America leading to a globalist, socialist, one world government. Nothing too serious, right?
In the kitch movie, Superman II, Terence Stamp is General Zod (like god only different) who delivers one of my favorite movie lines: “You will kneel before Zod!”
He uses his massive power to bring America to its knees and make everyone, especially the President of the United States bow down to him.
Unlike a free market system, Marxism and its derivatives is a zero-sum game. It requires compliance from all except those in control. They are never expected to follow their own rules.
Liberty dies in fear, ignorance, and forced compliance. Tyranny does not and will never tolerate Liberty. It’s not that socialism and communism have “failed wherever they’ve been tried” as so many conservatives weakly proclaim. It’s that eventually socialism will always require dissenters to be silenced, demonized, “re-educated,” banished or even killed. If you can’t see that this is the road the Left which now controls the Democrat party is on today, you haven’t been watching.
It’s essential to recognize who the tyrants are in our midst and who they are not. In this race, one candidate represents American sovereignty and Liberty. The other represents the destruction of America and it’s Constitution, to be replaced with socialism/communism. Talk about cultural misappropriation!
It doesn’t matter whether you think Joe Biden is a communist. (At this point, I’m not sure he could articulate what he believes without help.) The people with the power in the Democrat party are socialists and communists. Some have admitted it, others have not. Listen to my recent interview with Trevor Loudon who has done extensive research on this subject.
Avowed and secret socialists have infiltrated every area of American life so successfully that they have convinced more Americans than ever before that America is evil and should be “perfected” —that our free market system should be replaced with a more “just” system in which everyone gets what they are told they are entitled to.
It’s a Faustian bargain that preys on our greatest human weaknesses. Whether it’s lust, the desire for control others, wealth, social acceptance or recognition, Marxism’s poison pill is always wrapped in a pretty package. Not only do you get to feel generous with other people’s money, you feel virtuous for taking it from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn’t.
The price you pay for what you think you desperately want is in the fine print or maybe it’s not in the phony contract at all. The promise to remove all your burdens, perhaps give you peace and quiet from the constant wrangling or give you something for nothing will require everything you have and hold dear.
Before you realize what you’ve done, you are enslaved. Your individual free will has been snuffed out.
Sadly, history has shown again and again that this is not an overly dramatic characterization. The problem among others, is that the communists and the radicals et. al. are determined to erase history so few people will know the true destruction this ideology has wrought.
So, It’s Liberty or it’s Tyranny. That’s what this election is about, Charlie Brown. -and it’s for all the marbles.
Karen Kataline is a Blogger, Journalist and Radio Show Host. Go to her website and listen to of her radio shows. Episode archives are included.
“Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition And – We’ll – All – Stay – Free!”
An absolute truism of history and conflict states that “desperate times call for desperate measures.” The desperate times stir the heart with resolve and fortify one’s commitment with courage. The desperate times force men to move from mere words to courageous actions.
The United States of America currently faces a desperate situation requiring “desperate measures.” Our nation needs its citizens to rise up and courageously confront the evil threatening our freedom. It is NOT time to sit back and blithely say “well the Lord is in control and there is nothing I can do.” Such a comment is blatantly wrong. Such confesses one’s blindness to what ought to be done. Such is not just wrong but wrong multiplied—it is foolishness “gone to seed”! One making this statement is surrendering to evil; conceding the very faith that he supposedly is advocating! This is unashamed complicity in surrendering God’s values to the Devil. This retreat using vague words is actually a treasonous act in the midst of battle. Read your Bible and show me a single instance where God was pleased when His people struck their colors and surrendered to the enemy? NEVER once does God approve of a complacent embrace of evil excusing it as “God is in control.”
This point is illustrated by Jeremiah’s lament spoken to those leaving Jerusalem in smoldering ruin, “Is it nothing to all you who pass this way?” (Read Lamentations 1 for the complete account). Ancient Jerusalem had settled into a comfortable convenience saying “This is the city of God and He will protect it so we will not fret about what is happening.” Their comfortable convenience turned into a horrid historical fact. Their unwillingness to engage and confront brought a horrible torture, death and destruction to their family! Their refusal to engage caused them to sacrifice their children. This illustrates what happens when people sit back in resignation and neither says nor do anything while their nation disintegrates before their very eyes!
Now consider the song “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” Remember the undeniable truth that “desperate times call for desperate measures.”
The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 is known as the single greatest loss of American lives (it is now joined with the Muslim terrorist attacks known as 9/11). On the morning of the attack the US Pacific Fleet was wounded (the attack damaged the fleet but within months most of the damaged ships had been repaired and deemed sea worthy).
During the attack an Army chaplain was among the defenders returning small-arms and machine gun fire on the oncoming fighters. In the heat of the battle, he was asked by the men to say a prayer for them, as they were afraid that those were the last moments of their lives. It is said that the chaplain lay down his Bible, manned one of the machine guns and shouted: “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.” This gesture boosted the morale of the soldiers and they continued the defense of the harbor.
The legend behind this song says the song was dedicated to the fighting chaplain, by Frank Loesser in 1942.
The true story is a bit different from the legend. According to the facts of the event a chaplain named Lieutenant Howell Forgy was involved. Forgy was aboard the USS New Orleans at the time of the attack. The story was reconstructed from several sources, one of them being Forgy himself. The officer in charge of the ammunition line on the USS New Orleans reported that he originally heard the phrase during the attack.
When he heard it, he turned around and saw Chaplain Forgy walking towards him through the line of scared man, patting them on the back and saying the famous sentence: “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” The officer reported that it had a positive effect on the man and on him also, because he felt comforted and prepared.
The story became the basis of a patriotic inspirational song for American soldiers on the battlefields, but also for the people on the home front.
After the recording of the song, another lieutenant who served in Howell Forgy’s outfit made a remark how they used to kid him about the event, encouraging him to claim the phrase and stop the counterfeit of the story. According to the same officer, the chaplain was a modest man and he believed the story should remain uncredited to him or any other particular person, for that matter, since this way as a legend it could inspire the soldiers more.
Jack McDowell noted that the press became more interested in the story and eventually got the permission to interview the crew members of the USS New Orleans to learn the identity of the man. Chaplain Forgy’s superior officers set up a meeting with members of the press and at last, the real story of the song and the man who had inspired it was confirmed. Later, after the war, Forgy made an appearance on the popular game show “I’ve got a secret,” where he recalled and told the entire event:
“Well, I was stationed aboard the USS New Orleans, and we were tied up at 1010 dock in Pearl Harbor when the attacked began. We were having a turbine lifted, and all of our electrical power wasn’t on, and so when we went to lift the ammunition by the hoist, we had to form lines of men — a bucket brigade — and we began to carry the ammunition up through the quarterdeck into the gurneys, and I stood there and directed some of the boys down the port side and some down the starboard side, and as they were getting a little tired, I just happened to say, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” That’s all there was to it.”
The song was often played and released by multiple covers. It reached the number 1 position on the Billboard Chart in 1942.
The message and historical background of this song should alarm those today who are silent and complacent in the face of the evil facing our nation. Many have friends, family and associates who either uphold the evil political platform for the coming election or who silently “like” the atrocious immorality that is advocated by continuing to fund the recognized censorship of social media platforms! People do not understand that their “hiding” and “dislike—thumbs down” supports the platform that is dedicated to destroying the “Republic for which it stands”! A malevolent deception and many are willing cohorts of Satan in this platform. They love the platform more than they love God!
It is NOT time to sit complacently. It is NOT time to mutter meaningless words of faith without action. It is NOT time to say “the USA is God’s nation and He will take care of it.”
If you want a stinging rebuttal to this attitude of complacent surrender excusing one’s inactivity, then turn to (Judges 5:23). There God’s nation was in a desperate condition and urgently needed desperate action by God’s People. However, one village sat inactive. They excused their involvement. In military terms they did not “engage” in enemy. What is God’s opinion of such action? “‘Curse Meroz,’ said the angel of the Lord, ‘Utterly curse its inhabitants; Because they did not come to the help of the Lord, To the help of the Lord against the warriors.’”
Modern America is facing a desperate situation. The nation is divided by those pursuing an anti-God Marxist agenda and urging citizens to embrace the most heinous immorality. The troubling reality is that our nation’s soul is in peril. Let us trust in God BUT do not let us excuse our silent rejoinders to those advocating support and acceptance of the Democratic platform. Those who choose to be silent and sit inactively while professing an inexcusable “faith in God” to deliver, will historically join the defeated Jerusalem citizens who would not answer the Prophet’s query, “Is it nothing to all you who pass this way?”
Consider another historical anecdote from Ancient Judah. The background is King Asa’s reign. Zerah the Ethiopian came out against them with an army of one million men and 300 chariots. King Asa had an army of 300,000 from Judah 280,000 from Benjamin. The recon reports were demoralizing. The superior strength of the enemy exaggerated the obvious weakness of King Asa.
What did Asa do? Did he sit back, cowering in a corner wringing his hands whimpering, “What can I do? Look at all that is happening. Well…God in control and I cannot do anything.” Did he allow the voices of defeat and compromise to paralyze his response?
History records that Asa mobilized his army, engaged the enemy and defeated the Ethiopians with an amazing victory. “Asa went out to meet him, and they drew up in battle formation in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah.” But in addition to his active response in engaging the enemy, history says, “Then Asa called to the Lord his God and said, ‘Lord, there is no one besides You to help in the battle between the powerful and those who have no strength; so help us, O Lord our God, for we trust in You, and in Your name have come against this multitude. O Lord, You are our God; let not man prevail against You.’ So the Lord routed the Ethiopians before Asa and before Judah, and the Ethiopians fled.”
In terms of Pearl Harbor 1942, Asa praised the Lord and passed the ammunition!
Where are YOU in this battle for America’s soul? Are you too embarrassed to make your commitment to God and His principles known to others? Do you justify your cowardice to engage saying “It will not matter what I say.” Are you a closeted believer whose faith is intimidated to silence so you allow family, friends and associates spew vile support for ungodly political platforms? Are you sitting back, cowering in a corner wringing your hands whimpering, “What can I do? Look at all that is happening. Well…God is in control and I cannot do anything.” Are you allowing the voices of defeat and compromise to paralyze your response to ungodly posts and comments?
On the battlefield there is absolutely NO tolerance for the cowering soldier. Such action jeopardizes the safety of the unit and allows for compromise of values and offers encouragement to the enemy. In the spiritual war, God will not allow such betrayal to go unpunished. “Be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Peter 3:17).
The Proverb writer urges man to practice behaviors that are “stately; becoming; admirable.” One of these is found in 30:30 where man is urged to emulate the Lion “which is mighty among beasts and does not retreat before any.”
It is past time to speak up and stand out as God’s soldier! It is time to engage and confront those who have casually accepted the evil’s that are embraced in the current election by the Democratic Party and its ancillaries BLM/ANTIFA.
John Kachelman, Jr.is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.
America’s globalist foreign policy-makers have for decades treasonously assisted the rise of godless and murderous communist regimes. Red China’s murderous slave-state has especially received the “most-favored nation” status while friendly nations such as Taiwan received the heel of our boot. This has been the ongoing legacy of America’ foreign policy – until Donald Trump. Trump is the first president with enough backbone to reverse course on these godless suicidal tendencies by our lawmakers. For it, he has received the ire of soft-shell Republicans and the acidic hatred of the Democratic machine as well as the press.
The guilt of aiding and abetting Red China’s gulag lies at the feet of both Democratic as well as Republican administrations. From the period of FDR through the no-win wars of Harry Truman, LBJ and Richard Nixon, into the political machinery of the Clinton and Obama eras, America has encouraged the rise of communism around the globe. It is no less with presidential hopeful Joe Biden.
The core of communism is systematic militant atheism and godless materialism. The latter is a fruit of the former. Vladimir Lenin did not express his own personal view of Christianity when he commented that it was the “opium of the people,” but was giving expression to the nature of the communistic beast itself.
And, Karl Marx, the father of the communistic system, which is responsible for the murders of more human beings than any dictatorship in history, stated, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” Indeed, changing the world has been Marx’s followers mission. Red China alone has amassed a body count of between 34 million to 64 million by 1971.
In 2014 the Global Times published an opinion piece by Zhou Weiqun, director of the Subcommittee of Ethnic and Religious Affairs at the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. In it he emphasized that communism continues to demand that “CCP (Chinese Communist Party) members must not have any religious beliefs and have firmly to uphold Marxism and “materialism.’ One might think that the bloody history of communism and its hatred of God might turn Americans away from that philosophy. Not so. Aiding and abetting murderous regimes is particularly pronounced in the Democratic Party.
Democratic cooperation with Chinese Communism has a long history. When mainland China fell to Mao Tse-tung’s Communist forces in 1949 and Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalist Army was forced to escape to Formosa (Taiwan), the culprit was the notorious Franklin D. Roosevelt who promised Joseph Stalin at the Yalta Conference in 1945 the northern Chinese province of Manchuria in exchange for Soviet entrance into the war against Japan.
The Soviet army was supplied with FDR’s lend-lease equipment and was sitting along the Manchurian border. After the atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima, the Red Army of the Soviets invaded Manchuria and captured Japanese arms which they immediately made available to the Chinese Communists. The balance of power shifted in China to Mao-Tse-tung’s army.
It was not merely Joseph McCarthy who stated that U.S. policy-makers lost China, John F. Kennedy did as well. He told the House in January 1949, “The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State.”
After that planned catastrophe, the United States entered two no-win wars; Korea and Vietnam. Curtailed by the globalist President Harry Truman, Douglas MacArthur was forbidden victory. He was denied the right to pursue enemy planes that attacked our own; the right to bomb hydro-electric plants along the Yalu River as well as every plant in North Korea; the right to bomb the extremely important supply center at Racin in northeast Korea. Racin was a staging center utilized by the Soviet Union as they forwarded supplies for the North Korean Army.
America’s foreign policy looks as if it is built on assisting communism around the globe. Indeed, this is what occurred.
Jimmy Carter terminated diplomatic relations with our friends in Taiwan in December of 1978 and established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China on the first day of 1979. Carter betrayed America’s friend, the Shah of Iran, and helped give Iran to the mullahs. And America continues to pay the price for that sabotage.
And how about the treasonous actions of President Bill Clinton pertaining to the People’s Republic of China (PRC)? Clinton’s Chinagate scandal involved:
• Receiving enormous illegal campaign contributions into his coffers from Red Chinese operatives in exchange for favorable “foreign policy” decisions
• The appointment of Johnny Huang, a suspected Red Chinese agent to high positions in the United States government whereby secrets might easily be stolen
• Enormous efforts to allow the Long Beach Naval Station to be utilized by the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO)
• The reception from Yah Lin “Charlier” Trie, a member of the Red Chinese-linked Triad crime syndicate, of $460,000 into the Clinton-Gore campaign
• Refusal to impose sanctions on Beijing for its export of military technologies to terroristic states—despite the fact the he was required to do so by law—one that had been specifically written by none other than Al Gore
• The obstruction by Attorney General Janet Reno of any Congressional investigation of the above matters even when pressed by the FBI itself to do so
Obama was no different.
• The United States saw Chinese troops on U.S. soil for the first time during the Obama years
• Obama pledged a “joint-effort” to “fight global warming” with China despite its ongoing stealing of sensitive government material
• Secretary of State John Kerry promised “more cooperation” with China in spite of the fact that known Chinese espionage had accelerated to a larger degree than ever before. It had reached “unprecedented proportions”
• The Chinese regime’s massive intelligence-gathering apparatus aimed at the United States did not concern Obama. American money continued to flow to China and global “climate change” deals were ratcheted up to siphon off more money to China
Where is Joe Biden in this equation? Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden is cut out of the same treasonous mold. Having served with President Barack Obama, who never met a communist he did not like, Biden has an impressive resume for favoring the Chinese communists.
• He supported China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 which led to permanent normal trade relations with the United States
• Biden considers China a “developing nation” and has made certain that China has access to Wall Street. For example, “In 2013, the Obama administration allowed Chinese companies to invest in U.S. capital markets without having their books inspected by U.S. regulators” (Epoch Times, quoting Brian Kennedy, chairman of the “committee on the Present Danger: China.” 9/9-15/20).
• Biden continues to desire Chinese “investment” in the United States. So he said at a roundtable meeting in Beijing in 2011.
• This week, emails found on son Hunter Biden’s computer reveal that Hunter Biden would be able to profit to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from the Red Chinese while, according to the text that he wrote his father, Joe Biden would be able to take half of the money.
• Michael Johns, former speech White House speech writer for George H.W. Bush and a Heritage Foundation foreign policy analyst, told The Epoch Times that Joe Biden, throughout his 47-year career in Washington, been supporting … “one of the biggest foreign policy lies ever told: that china’s economic ascent would lead to more moderation and liberalization in its approach with the U.S. and the free world, and in its human rights conditions at home.”
Many Democrats do not wish to be associated with “communism.” However, their own party not only favors socialism in all areas, but openly assists godless communism on its rise over the world. These liberals are marching beneath the Democratic flag that has a red star of communism emblazoned upon it.
Whatever one may think about the United States’ Government leaders’ involvement in bringing about the 1930’s Depression, the crisis was certainly used by the Democratic left to usher us into an unconstitutional era of Big Government intrusion. And it is this mammoth-sized government which, in the name of assisting the poor, crushes the lives and liberties of citizens.
Amity Shlaes, in her new masterful recounting of Lyndon Johnson’s socialistic Great Society programs, provides ample proof that big government erodes freedom. Her book, Great Society: A New History, documents how the do-gooders of yesteryear in reality “shackled millions of families in permanent government dependence.”
Setting the American people on the course of entitlement dependency – which is dependency upon government confiscated taxpayer money– Lyndon Johnson practically “precluded” a return to constitutionalism. One particular episode perfectly illustrates the destructive force of bureaucracy. It is the formation of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and its implementation of “urban renewal.”
As with its precursor, the Federal Housing Administration, HUD began using public monies to bribe the local communities to establish local housing authorities as receptacles to receive and dispense funds. As with all funds funneled through the federal government, these federal monies now controlled the projects themselves. One can see even today that every element of social and private life is controlled by Uncle Sam.
Illustrative of this is the fact that when massive housing structures such as Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis were built, only “welfare families were entitled to the lowest rents.” But to receive welfare in Missouri a family could have only one parent—normally, the mother. The government itself thus incentivized single-parent families. Where there were two-parent families, a mom and dad, many of these families actually “lost a father” in order to move into Pruitt-Igoe.
“’The stipulation was that my father could not be with us,’ recalled a former tenant, Jacquelyn Williams. ‘They would put us into the housing projects only if he left the state.’” The social workers even policed apartments at night, checking to see if father had secretly returned, grounds for eviction. Williams remembered this all her life. “We’re giving you money, so we have the right to make stipulations as to how you use it.”
Confiscating Private Property—Evicting Citizens
Next, “the only way to make grand-scale building possible [for public housing] was for the authorities to condemn and claim large swaths of private land.” For this they used the old doctrine of “eminent domain.” “Under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this was the taking of private property for ‘public use.’” This was specifically constructed by the Founders for military and other public purposes.
But Johnson “began to bulldoze whole sections of cities, and then hand the land with its rubble to private developers. In Detroit, the violence to old neighborhoods was especially great.”
Black Detroit in the 1940’s and 1950’s lived packed in areas known as Paradise Valley and Black Bottom. The main retail thoroughfare, Hastings Street, was legendary, known the nation over because it was frequented by the singers and agents who later gave the country Motown music. Stores, churches, and homes stood tightly together, sometimes tightly enough to be called ‘slums,’ but often containing a vibrant life, much loved by the inhabitants.
However, liberty is lost in Big Government schemes, and regardless of what was and was not loved by the people who actually lived there, in “the eyes of the government, Black Bottom looked like blight. To the eyes of the auto unions and the Big Three automakers, pedestrian zones were a threat: highways that replaced sidewalks represented not only modernity but job security and high company share prices.”
The bulldozers leveled it all. Room was made for “public housing towers, for [Walter] Reuther’s Lafayette Park and for freeways. “Families had been herded into tall, anonymous apartment buildings, or had simply disappeared.” Hundreds of thousands of Americans, many poor or black, were evicted in this way.
Such grandiose government on the scale of Lenin was taken to court by home and business owners who resented the confiscation of their properties. As a matter of fact, both sides appealed to the Supreme Court. The homeowners and the government. In its decision, Berman v. Parker, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas “stretched the old concept of eminent domain like a rubber band.” His words are remarkable for the disdain of individual rights and the Constitution.
“’Public welfare,’ Douglas wrote, equating ‘public welfare’ with public use, should be ‘broad and inclusive.’ Authorized agencies could make their decisions about what to take freely.”
“’It is not for us to reappraise them,’ Douglas said. Douglas concluded by handing over his rubber band to government authorities. ‘If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the nations’ capital shall be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.’”
Shlaes points out that more than 600,000 Americans were displaced by this totalitarian process.
Predictably, Johnson’s socialistic utopia of urban renewal failed. The vacancy rate of Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis was at 23.9 percent and 29.3 percent, much higher than in the free market. Poor maintenance meant that elevators jammed, windows were regularly broken by wild youngsters, gangs of thugs lurked in the halls, and the entire community surrounding it became a sorry joke. Even the architect hired by Johnson, Minoru Yamasaki apologized publicly for Pruitt-Igoe.
In the end one cannot but draw the conclusion that it is the government itself which destroys lives. Pruitt-Igoe a perfect illustration.