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.
Conservatives were once a lonely band of freethinkers
In the early 1950s, liberal intellectuals shaped the American zeitgeist, while conservatives, to quote Yale professor Willmoore Kendall, manned “tiny outposts” over a broad front, rarely communicating with one another.
When 39 American and European conservative intellectuals, calling themselves “traditional liberals,” formed an organization in the spring of 1947, they did not meet in America but thousands of miles away in Mont Pelerin, Switzerland. Their mood was somber, for statism had permeated the governments of Western Europe while communism ruled in Eastern Europe with a little help from the Soviet Army. Led by the Austrian economist F. A. Hayek, these free-market scholars described their goal, rather grandly, as “the preservation and improvement of the free society.” Economist Milton Friedman contented himself with saying the meeting demonstrated that “we were not alone.” All too alone were conservative academics such as University of Chicago English professor Richard Weaver, Duke political scientist Ralph Hallowell, Louisiana State University political philosopher Eric Voegelin, Harvard historian William Y. Elliott, and UC Berkeley sociologist Robert Nisbet.
There were scattered conservative publications, with small circulations compared with those of established liberal journals such as The New Republic and The Nation. Human Events was a weekly eight-page political newsletter. Firmly anti–New Deal, it described the changes in American government since 1932 as “revolutionary” and called on Republicans to roll back the “iron curtain” that separated Washington from the rest of the country. But its call to action had attracted a circulation of only 5,000.
The one conservative youth group was the newly born ISI, with its paradoxical name, the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists (now the Intercollegiate Studies Institute). Encouraged by a $1,000 check from oil executive J. Howard Pew, ISI’s organizers argued that the push toward socialism in America had begun in the early 1900s with the formation of Socialist Clubs on college campuses. ISI’s plan was to “foment the organization of campus cells for the study and discussion of individualistic ideas.” The libertarian language reflected the ideology of its founding father, Frank Chodorov, who never met a government program he didn’t want to dismantle. With William F. Buckley Jr. as president, ISI reached 600 members in its first year and then quadrupled over the next several, revealing a campus appetite for at least some conservative ideas.
There were conservative newspaper columnists, such as George Sokolsky, and radio broadcasters, such as Fulton Lewis Jr., but liberals undercut their influence by linking them whenever they could with a “militant right wing.” CBS’s Mike Wallace, for example, invited his viewers one evening to listen to Lewis explain “the attraction the far right has for crackpot fascist groups in America.” Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
When The Conservative Mind was published in 1953, liberals joked that the title was an oxymoron. But they stopped laughing when they read Kirk’s synthesis of the thought of leading conservatives from the late 18th century to the 20th century, including Edmund Burke, John Adams, Daniel Webster, Benjamin Disraeli, George Santayana, and T. S. Eliot. The work established convincingly that there had been a conservative tradition in America since the Founding. Kirk made conservatism intellectually respectable. In fact, as NR publisher William Rusher pointed out, he gave the conservative movement its name.
As George Nash has written in his indispensable study The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, there were three reactions to the Left in the aftermath of World War II. The first, as represented by Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, consisted of classical liberals and libertarians, resisting the threat to individual liberty posed by the collectivist state. The second was the revolt of traditionalists, such as Weaver and Kirk, who urged a return to time-honored religious and ethical beliefs and a rejection of moral relativism. The third was, in Nash’s words, “a militant evangelistic anti-Communism,” shaped by ex-communists such as Frank Meyer and Whittaker Chambers, author of the powerful autobiographical work Witness.
Bill Buckley’s special genius as a master fusionist was his ability to keep these dissimilar, disputatious intellectuals on the same masthead for years to come. Why were there so few defectors? Because of Buckley’s extraordinary skill at harmonizing the conflicting voices of the conservative choir. Because he persuaded his fractious colleagues to concentrate on their common enemy — the Soviet Union — and set aside for the time being their undoubted differences. And because he helped them realize they were part of something historic — what Buckley would call “our movement.”
Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards has published 25 books, including “Just Right: A Life in Pursuit of Liberty.”
The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah is known as “the weeping prophet.” He was a citizen of a nation that had ascended to the pinnacle of world power. That nation had set the world’s standards for economic, civil, military, and political successes. These accomplishments were not approached by any other nation until Columbus discovered America in 1492 and the United States of America declared her God-given sovereignty in 1776.
But Jeremiah uttered an anguished cry, “Oh that my head were waters and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” (9:1) and “Let my eyes flow down with tears night and day, and let them not cease; for the virgin daughter of my people has been crushed with a mighty blow, with a sorely infected wound” (14:17).
The prophet sorrowed because his nation had dissolved into anarchy. The Rule of Law that once assured peace, safety, and successes had been replaced. The prophet was perplexed by this catastrophic change in his nation’s direction. “I have listened and heard, they have spoken what is not right; No man repented of his wickedness, Saying, ‘What have I done?’” (8:6) and again “I know, O Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps” (10:23).
Jeremiah walked his city looking at the corrupt culture. No doubt he shook his head and asked “What IS happening to my country?!” He mourned, “We waited for peace, but no good came; for a time of healing, but behold, terror!” (8:15)
With one brief word the Prophet summarizes the culture of a nation in crisis—“Terror”!
Rule of Law in America?
This highlights a historical constant—when a nation dissolves the Rule of Law that sets boundaries and regulates behavior, then that nation’s foundation begins to crack, crumble and collapse. It does not matter how strong the military is. It does not matter how weak the enemy is. It does not matter how vibrant the economy is. If God is denied and the Rule of Law is ignored, catastrophe is certain.
This truth has been recognized. Perhaps one of the more recent comments, “If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.” (President Ronald Reagan August 23, 1984).
Another truism states, “A nation without God is a God-less nation.”
The truth of history repeatedly validates that when a nation turns away from God and refuses to restrict the immorality of its population, then evil rules and national collapse is near. Such a message was sent to the World Empire of Nineveh (Jonah 3:4). That nation repented and was spared collapse until it turned away from God’s Rule of Law and refused to repent. It was then destroyed.
This historical constant applies to modern America. This is not just a boring historical fact to be welcomed by a “ho-hum” sigh. This is our present reality. The United States of America is experiencing Jeremiah’s desperation, “We waited for peace, but no good came; For a time of healing, but behold, terror!” (8:15)
The added stress is the fact that many appear to have surrendered to this cultural anarchy. Night after night people are attacked, kicked to the streets, victims of arson and anarchy. The law officers are resigning. Many are surrendering to the anarchists. Now the protestors are marching into the suburbs demanding the houses be given to them. “Racism” and “reparations” are used to justify the vilest acts of inhumanity.
Two Revolutions Compared
But…this situation in the United States of America is not new. It is only a repeat of the historical constant that lawlessness destroys peace and a lawless culture does not bring personal freedom but a total national collapse.
The late 1700’s provides us with an amazing lesson validating our point. Two revolutions marked that era but each was diametrically opposed to the other. One based its foundation on the Rule of Law that comes from “the Creator” (God Almighty). The other based its foundation on the Rule of Law that is established by “Man’s Reason and Enlightenment” without God Almighty. It is this choice that America faces in 2020—which Rule of Law will our nation choose to follow?
Consider the foundation of each of these nations.
We first consider France 1789 the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” was composed. This claimed to be a document safeguarding the basic charters of human liberties. Its 17 articles, adopted between August 20 and August 26, 1789, by France’s National Assembly, served as the preamble to the Constitution of 1791. The basic principle of the Declaration was that all “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” (Article 1), these rights were specified as the rights of liberty, private property, the inviolability of the person, and resistance to oppression (Article 2). This document inspired the French Revolution. The vague terms were used to disguised a malevolent goal—yes property, liberty, and personal rights were stated BUT they would be defined far differently than the general population understood. Yes “oppression” was to be resisted BUT ONLY as defined by the elite. The general attitude of the anarchists implementing this Declaration is well voiced by a politician in recent weeks who said, “Yes everyone should have a choice in wearing face masks as long as they make the RIGHT choice.”
It is significant to note the sources of the Declaration included the major thinkers of the French Enlightenment, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire.
This Revolution was founded on a God-less basis and subsequent actions were God-less tyranny, evil, murders, arson, confiscation of private property, and the total destruction of a nation.
The second revolution to be considered was that in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [July 1776] where The Declaration of Independence was composed and ratified. In total contrast to the French the Declaration of Independence stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Preamble to the Declaration of Independence).
The contrast between The United States of America and France is stark. In fact, it is actually SHOCKING. One places trust and confidence in the protection of the Almighty Creator. The other exalts human reasoning and man’s “enlightened” freedom from religious obligations.
The greatest contrast is found in the consequent history of each nation. The USA soared to success and world influence. The economy, military, and culture of American became the envy of the world. The jurisprudence governing our civility made “true justice” a reality. France devolved further into anarchy. Historians identify the period of time (June 1793-July 1794) following France’s “Declaration of Man” as “The Terror.”
Even the blind can see this frightening contrast.
An explanation of France’s acceptance of anarchy that led to its collapse is suggested by this historian. “It is ironic that of all countries in Europe, France was the only one that could have had a revolution—not because she groaned under the lash of tyranny, but, on the contrary, because she tolerated and even invited every conceivable dissension and heresy. Restlessness, a passion for novelty and the pursuit of excitement were everywhere in the air. They were the fruits of idleness and leisure, not of poverty.” (PARIS IN THE TERROR, June 1793-July 1794. Stanley Loomis. J. B. Lippincott Company. Philadelphia and New York,1964. Page 12).
Culture cannot cancel history! The “cancel culture” is another point of absurdity that should be discussed but I do not have time to address it here. But I simply note the absolute fact that the prevailing pressure and riotous actions of today’s blasphemous culture CANNOT cancel the historical constant!
There is an idiom stating that one “cannot whistle past the graveyard.” This idiomatic phrase describes the attempt of one to stay cheerful in a dire situation. One thus described is going forward into a situation and ignoring a certain hazard. Even if the hazard is recognized the fool proceeds hoping for a good outcome. Those thus described enter a situation with little or no understanding of the possible consequences.
This is where the United States of America is in 2020. We are at a crossroad with a choice to follow the historical precedent that made our nation great or to choose the historical folly of Revolutionary France.
There is much more to say about this choice and its ramifications for modern America.
I close with a reference to another historical event that chronicles the collapse of a great nation into anarchy’s chaos. Hosea 4 addresses Israel’s surrender of allegiance to God’s Rule of Law and her acceptance of anarchy’s terror.
“Listen to the word of the Lord, O sons of Israel, for the Lord has a case against the inhabitants of the land, because there is no faithfulness or kindness or knowledge of God in the land. There is swearing, deception, murder, stealing and adultery. They employ violence, so that bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore, the land mourns, and everyone who lives in it languishes along with the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky, and also the fish of the sea disappear” (1-3).
Unspeakable catastrophe results when there is “no knowledge of God in the land.” There is violence, immorality, lawlessness, and disrespect for the governing legal officers. The entire scene is sadly summarized “bloodshed follows bloodshed.”
What is the answer? It is either follow man’s arrogance or submit to God’s sovereignty. One way brings “terror” and the other brings tranquility.
Hosea’s message highlights these primary points…
Truth and mercy are attributes and virtues of humanity only IF the population follows God’s Rule of Law.
Truth implies uprightness in speech and behavior. True integrity in character and conduct is possible only IF the Law of the Almighty God is permitted to transform one’s thoughts and actions.
Mercy combined with truth makes a man kind as well as honest, benevolent as well as upright. These blessings are possible only IF one submits to the Almighty God. When man rejects God’s Law and chooses anarchy, he will NEVER find kindness, honesty, benevolence and integrity. Those involved in today’s riots illustrate this truth and they join the anarchists of the French Revolution.
The knowledge of God is the only cure for the problems of society today. The cure cannot be legislated. The cure cannot be coerced by an angry mob violence. And, the cure cannot be achieved by the culture of cancelation of things that are offensive to a minority.
If we know God to be a God of truth, we will cultivate truth in our hearts, express it with our lips, and practice it in our lives.
If we know God as a God of mercy, who has shown boundless mercy to us in pardoning our multiplied and aggravated offences, we will imitate that mercy in our relations to our fellow-man.
The Prophet’s point was clear—violence, bloodshed, and anarchy result because the nation did not know God. This point was further stressed in chapter 4:
Verse 6, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.” Destruction is coming because knowledge was rejected. The people knew God but refused to obey God. Verse 7, “The more they multiplied, the more they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame.” The degree and examples of sin multiplied greatly. Verse 8, “They feed on the sin of My people and direct their desire toward their iniquity.” The impact of the general sinning increased the intensity and shocking nature of sin in society. Verse 10, “They will eat, but not have enough; they will play the harlot, but not increase, because they have stopped giving heed to the Lord.” There is no satisfying the anarchist’s appetite. Anarchy cannot be placated. You cannot appease terrorists. Verse 19, “And they will be ashamed.” The finality of a nation that has turned from God and chosen anarchy is sorrowfully recorded for history to hold.
The United States of America was founded upon principles taught by the Almighty Jehovah God of the Bible. If we reject that we are one nation under God’s sovereignty, we face destruction. Jeremiah 20:4, “(T)hus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I am going to make you a terror to yourself and to all your friends’.”
John Kachelman, Jr.is a Christian patriot, preacher, and missionary for Jesus Christ to foreign countries. He lives in Montgomery, AL.
Since the founding of the Republic, Americans have appealed to God in times of crisis. From George Washington to Donald Trump, our presidents have been no exception.
One of Ronald Reagan’s favorite images was that of Gen. George Washington kneeling in the snow at Valley Forge, when the American cause seemed hopeless. That image, Reagan said, “personified a people who knew it was not enough to depend on their own courage and goodness; they must also seek help from God, their Father and their Preserver.”
Abraham Lincoln turned to God time and again. His Emancipation Proclamation, for example, ends with the words:
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, … I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
Lincoln captured the necessity of our leaders’ having a relationship with God when he said: “I would be the most foolish person on this footstool earth if I believed for one moment that I could perform the duties assigned to me without the help of one who is wiser than all.”
In war and peace, our presidents have called upon the Almighty, as did Franklin D. Roosevelt in his address to Congress asking for a declaration of war against Japan after the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor: “With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God.”
In announcing that D-Day had arrived and the invasion of France was underway, Roosevelt closed his national radio address with a heartfelt prayer that conceded the certain cost of the operation:
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy Kingdom.
One of the most famous invocations of World War II was the weather prayer requested by Gen. George Patton, eager to advance against the Germans in the critical Battle of the Bulge but blocked by unrelenting winter weather. The Rev. James O’Neill prayed:
Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend.
Grant us fair weather for battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies and establish Thy justice among men and nations.
Miracle of miracles, the snow stopped; the skies cleared, and Patton’s 3rd Army, unleashed, went on to crush the Germans and help end the war in Europe.
Thousands of miles away in the South Pacific, God also was invoked. After Japan had unconditionally surrendered, President Harry Truman declared Aug. 19, 1945, to be a day of prayer and acknowledged God’s essential role:
[Our victory] has come with the help of God, who was with us in the early days of adversity and disaster, and Who has now brought us to this glorious day of triumph. Let us give thanks to Him, and remember that we have now dedicated ourselves to follow in His ways to a lasting and just peace and to a better world.
Prayer is integral to America. A National Day of Prayer was first proposed by the Second Continental Congress in 1775, again by Lincoln in 1863, and then made a national tradition in 1988 by Reagan, who designated the first Thursday of May as a National Day of Prayer.
Reagan recognized God’s enduring presence in our nation’s history and made no secret of it.
In May 1982, for example, the 40th president proclaimed: “Through the storms of revolution, Civil War, and the great world wars as well as during times of disillusionment and disarray, the nation has turned to God in prayer for deliverance. We thank Him for answering our call, for, surely, He has.”
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001, a somber President George W. Bush, speaking from the Oval Office, asked the nation to pray for the victims:
I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security have been threatened. And I pray they will be comforted by a Power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: ‘Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for you are with me.’
Our current president has followed his predecessors in confessing his belief in God’s saving power.
When the coronavirus pandemic hit America, Trump quickly proclaimed March 14 to be a National Day of Prayer. Reminding us that “no problem is too big for God to handle,” the president said:
As one nation under God, we are greater than the hardships we face, and through prayers and acts of compassion and love, we will rise to this challenge and emerge stronger and more united than ever before.
One constant in our presidents has been their acknowledgement of the need for prayer in our lives.
Barack Obama, that most self-contained of all presidents, asserted at a National Prayer Breakfast held as the nation struggled to emerge from the Great Recession: “What better time than these changing tumultuous times to have Jesus standing beside us, steadying our minds, cleansing our hearts, pointing us toward what matters?”
Today, as we face an increasingly deadly national epidemic, a National Day of Prayer is a powerful idea.
An even more powerful idea is a daily prayer, by individuals of all faiths, to a loving God who we know will hear us and keep us and give us peace.
Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards has published 25 books, including “Just Right: A Life in Pursuit of Liberty.”
A barely noticed study on the Obama-backed Common Core scheme revealed that the controversial national “education” standards caused a “significant” decline in student achievement.
Basically, if the Common Core scheme had never existed, students would have been much better off, according to researchers at the federally funded Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction and Learning (C-SAIL).
Results show that student performance declined in both reading and math as a result of Common Core, the researchers noted.
“Contrary to our expectation, we found that [Common Core] had significant negative effects on 4th graders’ reading achievement during the 7 years after the adoption of the new standards,” the study found.
The controversial standards also “had a significant negative effect on 8th graders’ math achievement 7 years after adoption based on analyses of [National Assessment of Educational Progress] composite scores,” according to the analysis.
Researchers were surprised a how bad it was. Mengli Song, one of the authors of the study, noted that it is getting worse, too. “It’s rather unexpected,” Song explained. “The magnitude of the negative effects [of Common Core] tend to increase over time. That’s a little troubling.”
The results, which come after the politically toxic scheme has infested everything to do with education, confirm once again that the critics have been right all along.
The only two subject matter experts on the Common Core Validation Committee tried to warn Americans about it, too. Some of it was even based on incorrect math!
Common Core has been a total disaster for education, as FreedomProject Academy and FreedomProject Media have been warning consistently since the scheme was established. But of course, the disaster began long before Common Core.
RyanCare Does Not Eliminate Government Playing Doctor- …wearing the mantle of Franklin Roosevelt who helped turn America upside down and create a socialistic state…”
by Bill Lockwood
The proposed Republican version of ObamaCare, known as the American Health Care Act (ACHA), is just that– a lighter “version” of the Affordable Care Act—but certainly not a repeal as demanded by voters last fall. It is true that some of the provisions of the ACA, such as the individual mandate, have been cut. However, Republicans have retained their own set of Federal mandates. In the words of Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), “This is not the Obamacare repeal bill we’ve been waiting for. It is a missed opportunity and a step in the wrong direction.” Bottom line: the Republican version of Health Care, the ACHA, fails to recognize that, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “government is the problem.”
First is the AHCA regulation requiring insurers to accept all applicants and charge them the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions. This is known as “community rating.” According to Michael Tennant (The New American, 3-8-17) “community rating” is the cause of the death spiral that health insurance is now experiencing under the ACA. It encourages the sick to buy coverage immediately while the healthy are encouraged to forgo it until they need it. This is why Obama placed individual mandates in the ACA. But free markets are not created by federal pressure, either a Democrat or Republican-controlled Washington, D.C.
Second, RyanCare also prohibits caps on lifetime coverage. According to the government website hhs.gov the current law (ACA) prohibits health plans from putting annual or lifetime dollar limits on most benefits you receive. Previously, “many plans set a lifetime limit—a dollar limit on what they would spend for your covered benefits during the entire time you were enrolled in that plan” (latimes.com). According to Fortune magazine, “Like Obamacare, ACHA also prohibits insurers from putting an annual or lifetime dollar limit on how much benefits a patient may receive.”
Let’s translate with illustration.
America is plagued with burgeoning health problems, in part caused by such practices as illegal drug use. Young and old alike are flooding into treatment centers because of one type of addiction or another. Many treatments are subsidized by the American taxpayer. This is an “entitlement” pure and simple. Again, no free market and no incentive for personal responsibility.
Third, RyanCare imposes its own mandate known as the “continuing coverage” mandate. Seth Chandler, writing in Forbes online (3-6-17) explains that section 133 of the AHCA requires insurers to charge purchasers a 30% “penalty” if they “obtain coverage in a given year without having had coverage the preceding year.” Individuals are “incentivized” to purchase health insurance “even in those years when they feel the premiums are high relative to their expected costs.”
In other words, the Republicans under Paul Ryan are keeping “mandates”–albeit in a more subtle fashion. “No one will be forced to do so—it won’t be a tax on doing nothing like the ACA imposed—but, if people know about the penalty, it might be fairly effective and feel somewhat less coercive.” It is government coercion just the same.
Fourth, then there is the “tax credit.” The GOP plan retains ObamaCare “tax credits” for the purchase of insurance. These “credits” may sound like tax “cuts,” but in truth they are not. The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon noted, “To the extent that the bill’s modified tax credits are tax reduction … they are the functional equivalent of ObamaCare’s individual mandate.”
This is because the “tax credits” are available only to those who purchase health insurance. Those who do not purchase health insurance must pay more to the IRS than those who do. This is a mandate and another entitlement.
For all the trumpet-blasting by the Republicans as they convene to rid America of the socialistic morass in which the health care industry is now engulfed, they cannot bring themselves to return to a Constitutional concept of limited government where more personal responsibility is required of citizens. Instead, they are wearing the mantle of Franklin Roosevelt who helped turn America upside down and create a socialistic state wherein the workers of America continue to be robbed to pay for more entitlements.
Most importantly, federal government involvement in health care is unconstitutional. Though America is used to thinking of the Constitution in terms of what federal judges, including the Supreme Court, may say it means, those who crafted it were very clear. Samuel Adams, though not of the Constitutional Convention, was Governor of Massachusetts and a delegate to the Continental Congress. He noted,
“The utopian schemes of leveling [income redistribution], and a community of goods [central ownership of property], are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.”
Benjamin Franklin, the most elderly delegate to the Constitutional Convention, warned us of the collectivist left and its raft of “entitlements.” After living many years in Europe and witnessing redistribution programs first-hand, he had plenty to say about the evils of those systems into which we now have been led. To a friend he wrote, “I have long been of your opinion, that your legal provision for the poor [in England] is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness.”
Entitlements are the problem. Retaining government mandates and entitlements by RyanCare sustains this unconstitutional system and is why the Republican ACHA is a “step in the wrong direction.” Our politically correct society is churning out young people who have been given subsidized education, food, housing, health care, and even subsidized incarceration. Entitlements incentivize poor choices while punishing responsible choices. RyanCare continues this sad legacy.