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?
Hypocrisy is not simply failing to live up to a standard, but is rooted in deceit. Our Lord accused the Jewish leadership of being “hypocrites” in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, not because they had failed to live faithfully to the law, but because they were power-brokers, establishing their own system while purposefully ignoring God’s Revealed Law. Hypocrisy points to ulterior motives. It is steeped in hidden agendas, double-dealing, dishonesty and duplicity.
The utter shock continued to be displayed by the MSM, the communists/socialists of America (aka Democrats), Big Tech, and the Main Stream Culture over what occurred at the Capitol last week is a case in point. No one, least of all myself, agree with violence or storming the Capitol building by anyone, be it a MAGA supporter or anyone else.
However, to continue to blame Donald J. Trump for what occurred, and beating the drums for his head on a platter, to use another biblical reference, illustrates hypocrisy in its deepest dye. We need to ask, what hidden agenda, what ulterior motive has the left for such blaming? Consider the constant hypocrisy Americans have witnessed over the past four years, all with the imprimatur of our cultural leaders.
Past Four Years
Lefty Madonna, before Trump sat in the Oval Office one day, spoke of “blowing up the White House” while Democrats present cheered by the hundreds. Remember also the riots where cars were set ablaze in Washington, D.C. because Trump had been elected. Which voice on the left did we hear condemning this?
Not to be outdone, Kathy Griffin posted a bloody picture of her holding “Trump’s head” in her hand. Democrats defended the violence-mongering. Then there was the Hamilton: An American Musical play, which openly challenged President Trump with VP Mike Pence in the audience. No voice was heard from the left in protest for “creating a violent atmosphere.” Another play, Julius Caesar, depicts the famous Roman dictator dressed as Donald Trump, being assassinated. The New York audience whooped and cheered, while Democrats sat silent. Liberal Snoop Dogg, the rapper, shot a “Lavender” video in which he portrayed the same thing. No objections from the left.
How about communist-lover Rep. Maxine Waters? A year after liberal James Hodgkinson actually shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, as well as others—being completely motivated by leftist rhetoric of violence and killing—Maxine Waters, not seeking to “tone down the rhetoric,” infamously yelled at an open-air gathering to “get into their [Republican] faces” and tell them they are not wanted here or anywhere! One might think that one wicked witch haranguing against Republicans does not a case make. But the point is: when did we hear one single Democrat calling for her removal, discipline, or a tech company censoring her? Any MSM pundits condemn her? No. The underlying message was clear: violence is approved if against conservatives.
The atmosphere has been electrically charged by these Democrat war-mongers who encourage more violence against Republicans. Sarah Sanders, press secretary for Donald Trump, was run out of a public restaurant. Sen. Ted Cruz was publicly heckled and mobbed to leave another eating establishment. Attempted murder on a ball field made no difference to any Democrat. Aggression. Tucker Carlson and his family were harassed and threatened by leftist mobs. Sen. Rand Paul was attacked with a hammer in his yard by a leftist and sent to a hospital.
And who can forget the Brett Kavanaugh hearings? His life destroyed by Democrat lies on top of lies, Capitol Hill was turned practically into a war zone as Republican lawmakers were continually cornered and threatened by mobs roaming the halls. Offices were stormed, people were arrested. But the Democrats and MSM celebratedthis as somehow the “working of Democracy.”
Finding their stride now, the Leftist Revolution led by Democrats continued. Eighteen months after the Kavanaugh hearings, Antifa gangs showed up at Trump rallies and marches in San Diego, in Phoenix, and other places. Violence occurred. This is what the right deserves, was the MSM take.
Then there were the George Floyd protests that invariably turned violent. Washington, D.C. had burning buildings; Chicago, Milwaukee, Seattle, Portland, Baltimore, and other cities all saw huge acts of riotous violence in which entire towns look like downtown Baghdad after bombers had struck. America watched on television as police headquarters were burned, enforcement officers were beaten, and Trump supporters were physically assaulted.
Did the communist-inspired left speak in condemnation of any of this? No. Instead, VP-elect Kamala Harris, bailed out of prison some of the rioters. She later publicly declared in debates, as did Joe Biden, that this was all “peaceful protest.”
Instead of mourning for this mayhem, the only thing we heard from Democrats when President Trump went to a burned-out Cathedral in Washington, D.C., and held up his Bible, was that he was the hypocrite taking advantage of a photo op. No remorse. No outrage. No unity to pull America out of the ashes. Just more hate.
In response, Democrat/communist leader in the House, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, tweeted that all violence was necessary. “The whole point of protesting is the make ppl feel uncomfortable.” “That’s the point.” Sally Kohn, liberal political commentator, could only say, “I don’t like violent protests, but I understand them.” (5/3/20).
Communist-inspired mobs attacked the Portland, OR courthouse for more than 60 days. Twenty-one Police officers were hospitalized. Portland mayor Ted Wheeler even joined rioters and participated in demonstrations. Finally, the mayor had to be escorted to safety. Seattle mayor Jenny Durkin encouraged and lauded the anarchists as they set up an “autonomous zone” in her city. Insurrection has been afoot for years and it is encouraged by the left. Monuments of America culture, including Confederate statues, memorials to presidents, and others have been ransacked—all encouraged by Democrats.
Dallas, TX saw the breakdown of the rule of law. Viewers could watch on television as young blacks beat into unconsciousness white people running down the street. Yet, no outrage from Democratic lawmakers. Why? Because their Marxist playbook calls for it. Burn it down. Police were told in these cities to “stand down.”
A piece in the left-wing journal Current Affairs argues that “destroying property is not in and of itself a violent act.” “The word ‘violence’ should be reserved for harm done to people,” wrote editor Nathan J. Robinson. CBS News’ Hannah Jones agrees. “Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man’s neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”
And what about the Republican National Convention, the aftermath of which saw leaders such as Rand Paul physically attacked by Democrat-inspired mobs? Or the thousands of goose-stepping Democrats who literally occupied the Wisconsin Capitol building in Madison and physically occupied it for two weeks? “This is what Democracy looks like,” said the left. Even President-elect Joe Biden refused to condemn Antifa in the public debate with Donald Trump, chirping the liberal catch-line: “Antifa is only an idea.” Well, there are many people in America who are physically injured from this “idea.” But Joe could not bring himself to condemn any of it.
Then we are treated to AOC as well as Ilhan Omar both refusing to condemn any of this violence when asked about it on camera. Instead, they smugly walked by reporters who taunted them with the question of whether or not they were against the violence. And let us not forget Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demonstrably on camera tearing up the State of the Union speech immediately after Trump finished speaking.
Colin Kaepernick, the infamous America communist-sympathizer, responded to all of these years of leftist violence with this tweet. “When civility leads to death [speaking of George Floyd], revolting is the only logical reaction.” “We have a right to fight back.” So violence and destruction is all right—as long as the cause is justified. He has been endorsed by major sports teams as well as corporate America.
We deplore the Capitol violence. But for the reasons above we do not condemn the thousands of peaceful protestors who went to Washington, D.C. last week to legitimately exercise their patriotic and constitutional right to voice their opinion on the election. We uphold them and champion them. And we will not be so naïve as to vilify them by lumping them all into the category of the lawbreakers who stormed the Capitol.
Most of all, we do not intend to be lectured about the besieging of the Capitol by the Marxist Left that has sponsored, endorsed, and excused violence for four solid years.
For the MSM and the Democrats to feign outrage over the type of violence that they have patronized is diabolical hypocrisy. Their true agenda is the total overthrow of American liberty. As our Lord put it, these liberals have “compassed sea and land to make one proselyte” but they have made them “more than a twofold son of hell more than” themselves (Matt. 23:15).
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.”
Reports, videos, and other evidence of rampant and brazen voter fraud from all across the country — especially in jurisdictions controlled by Democrats — continue pouring in faster than the Big Tech giants can censor it and the fake “fact-checking” industry can dishonestly attempt to discredit it. At this point, virtually anybody who is not depending on the fake-news media as their only source of information can see it clearly. The outcome of the election is at stake. And Trump supporters are already rallying nationwide against the “Big Steal.”
Some analysts have suggested that the Democrats’ vote fraud is so brazen in this election that it was as if the fraudsters did not even care if it was known — or worse, that they wanted conservatives to realize the vote was rigged. In any case, despite blatant censorship by Silicon Valley “Big Tech” totalitarians, President Trump is fighting hard to expose and defeat the fraud. Lawsuits have been filed by the Trump campaign across the nation, especially in crucial swing-states where much of the voter fraud appears to have taken place. And Trump is gearing supporters up for a long fight.
“The Democrats will try to steal this election,” President Trump warned in an e-mail to supporters after facing blatant censorship and other shady antics from far-left social-media services such as Twitter and Facebook. “Just like I predicted from the start, mail-in ballots are leading to CHAOS like you’ve never seen, plain and simple! The Radical Left is going to do whatever it takes to try and rip a TRUMP-PENCE VICTORY away from you.”
Trump, who has already publicly suggested that he won, warned for months that Democrats would try to cheat and steal the election, with help from their Deep State allies in the press and social-media firms. “I warned the Nation this would happen,” he said in the e-mail to supporters vowing to fight on. “I knew the Democrats wouldn’t be able to accept another CRUSHING defeat, so now they’re trying to mess with the results. It’s madness!” Still, Trump promised to “fight back” to ensure the integrity of the election. Evidence of fraud is turning up all over the place.
Indeed, a number of arrests have already been made, stretching back months, as more and more evidence of fraud emerges. In Vanderburgh County, Indiana, for example, Janet Reed was arrested on felony charges for sending out hundreds of ballot applications with the Democratic party box pre-checked. In Gregg County, Texas, a county commissioner and three others were arrested in September on 134 felony charges of election fraud, illegal voting, and more in a scheme to help Democrats in a recent election. Numerous other arrests on elections charges have been made nationwide, and police are investigating many more cases.
While counting the mailed-in votes in Detroit, observers and Republicans were barred from watching, with cardboard and other obstructions placed in the way. The bizarre spectacle led to widespread accusations of impropriety and a lawsuit by the Trump campaign. Similar antics are occurring in Democrat strongholds across the state and beyond as lawless efforts to block GOP poll watchers and election observers are caught on tape by concerned citizens.
And those were hardly the only problems with mail-in voting in Michigan. For instance, according to publicly available data on the Department of States Michigan Voter Information Center, a 118-year-old man named William Bradley received an absentee ballot in Wayne County, Michigan, and voted with it. The problem is that Bradley actually died in 1984. Similarly, a 120-year-old woman named June Aiken also voted absentee in Jackson County, Michigan. Same for Donna Brydges, who was born in 1901 and voted absentee in Michigan’s Mason County.
Obviously, none of those votes were legitimate. Authorities responded to the scandal by claiming that even though the government Web page shows dead people voted, they do not count those votes once they become aware of them, and based on that statement, phony “fact check” services falsely claimed the reports of dead voters in Michigan were false. Republican Party officials nationwide are calling for law-enforcement officials to visit the addresses and determine what is going on so that criminals involved in election fraud can be prosecuted and punished. Countless similar examples from Michigan and other states will undoubtedly be discovered in the days and weeks ahead. In Florida, a man has already been arrested for voting using ballots belonging to the dead.
In Wisconsin, which is also crucial to the 2020 election, the results are more than a little suspicious, critics said. For one, the state counted more votes in 2020 than it had registered voters in 2018. However, even comparing the latest official numbers on voter registration, 3.68 million, with the number of votes counted, 3.3 million, reveals that about 90 percent of registered voters turned out. Unlike many states, Wisconsin allows eligible voters to register on the day of the election, and so the state calculates turnout differently than many jurisdictions, using all eligible voters rather than all registered voters. But still, more than a few critics, including the president’s sons, argued that the numbers do not make sense. Breaking down the numbers even further, a number of precincts in Milwaukee included extremely high voter turnout that has raised suspicion nationwide.
Even conservative states run by Republicans have not been immune to Democrat fraud. In Texas, for example, Harris County, home to left-leaning Houston, appears to be the epicenter of most of the fraud. Raymond Stewart, a poll watcher and retired police officer, submitted a sworn affidavit to the district attorney about a Houston precinct judge — identified in news reports as a Democrat — and election staff who unlawfully used a “large stack of Texas driver’s licenses” to allow people to vote illegally at a “drive-through voting window.”
“Staff would come inside from the drive-through voting booth and scan a driver’s license from someone outside and get a ticket and return outside,” Stewart said. “But sometimes a staff member would search through the stack of driver’s license on the table, then scan it, receive a ticket and also go outside to the drive-through booth. As a Police Officer, I quickly became suspicious that they were committing a crime by having the unattended D.L.’s just sitting on the table and that possible voting crimes were being committed using these forms of ID.”
The problems in Texas appear to go very deep. The state political director for Joe Biden’s campaign, Dallas Jones, has been accused in affidavits filed at the Texas Supreme Court of operating a massive, illegal ballot-harvesting scheme involving as many as 700,000 ballots. The affidavits making the accusations, filed by a former FBI agent and retired police officer, allege that Jones was also ordering those ballots to be filled out in the names of homeless, dead, and elderly people. National File broke the story.
“This scheme involves voter fraud on a massive scale,” explained retired Houston Police Department Captain Mark Aguirre in his sworn statement. Using interviews, documents, and other information, Aguirre publicly identified Jones, Texas State Senator Borris Miles, political consultant Gerald Womack, and Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis. “This entire operation is being run by the elite politicians of the Democrat Party in Houston/Harris County,” the retired lawman explained, adding that he had video evidence as well.
Project Veritas also released video footage from San Antonio suggesting electoral fraud there, with somebody “helping” an elderly citizen to change her votes from Republican to Democrat. “What’s shown in the video is shocking and should alarm all Texans who care about election integrity,” Texas Attorney General Paxton said in a statement. “We are aggressively investigating the serious allegations and potential crimes that Project Veritas’s documentary audio and video recordings shed light on today.”
One of the non-profit organizations at the forefront of ensuring election integrity is the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF). Attorneys backed by the group already announced that they would be representing an unknown number of voters in Arizona, including Laurie Aguilera and anonymous plaintiffs, whose ballots were rejected after they were instructed to fill them out with Sharpies instead of pens that can be read by the machine. The scandal is being referred to as “Sharpiegate” by those fighting voter fraud across the nation.
“Plaintiff fed her ballot into the ballot box. The ballot box failed to properly register her vote, causing a poll-worker to cancel her ballot in the presence of Plaintiff,” the lawsuit explains. “Plaintiff requested a new ballot but, upon information and belief, upon consultation with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, the poll workers refused to provide her with one.”
That means the system “failed to provide for the maximum degree of correctness because at least some voters experienced issues having their ballots read because of the use of the Sharpie marking devices,” the lawsuit states, arguing that upwards of 80 percent of ballots at some locations were affected by the issue. The law requires integrity in elections so that citizens can be confident that their elected officials were legitimately elected by the people.
PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams, an expert on vote-integrity issues, emphasized the seriousness of the issue. “These voters were denied the right to vote. Arizona election officials allegedly were part of the problem, and denial of the right to vote should not occur because of failures in the process of casting a ballot,” he said. “We are asking that all ballots that were uncured or denied be identified and allowed to be cured.”
Even more sophisticated methods are also being alleged. Former intelligence and military officials interviewed by Dave Janda on Operation Freedom and Brannon Howse on Worldview Weekend alleged that computer code would be used. “Scorecard steals the elections by tampering with the computers at the transfer points,” explained Lieutenant General Tom McInerney, referring to a computer program known as Scorecard used by vote-fraud perpetrators to rig the vote in an imperceptible way.
In the run-up to the election, Biden bragged about having the largest “voter fraud organization” in history. “We’re in a situation where we have put together — and youse guys did it for President Obama’s administration before this — we have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,” he said in an interview. The fake media and fake “fact checkers” dismissed it as Biden misspeaking. However, the evidence suggests Biden may have been speaking the truth.
Whether they succeed or not will depend on what happens in the coming days.
Update: Early reports from Milwaukee City Wire showing turnout of over 200 percent in some Milwaukee wards were based on data that the outlet said have since been updated. This article has been updated based on that new information as well. Authorities in Milwaukee who spoke to The New American on background claimed reports of voter fraud from across America were a “conspiracy theory” by President Trump.
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.
Government education bureaucrats in Tennessee are under fire again after asking parents to sign a form pledging not to watch their children’s online public-school classes, drawing suspicion and criticism from across America. When outrage ensued, officials backed down, but still asked parents not to record or share the lessons.
The form in question attempts to justify the bizarre request that parents stay away by claiming that it was about protecting “student privacy” to “the greatest extent possible.” However, with government schools deliberately obliterating privacy rights of children for data-mining and other purposes, and sharing that data with practically anyone, few analysts believe the dubious excuse.
“RCS strongly discourages non student observation of online meetings due to the potential of confidential information about a student being revealed,” explained the form sent home by the Rutherford County Schools district that was obtained by The Tennessee Star. “Violation of this agreement may result in RCS removing my child from the virtual meeting.”
In short, if a parent decided to check on what their child was being taught, that child could be removed from the virtual classroom. According to “educators” who have expressed concerns about parents seeing what is going on, major concerns are that parents might disagree with or even interfere with the indoctrination on gender, sexuality, LGBT, race-mongering, history, and other controversial subjects.
Philadelphia teacher Matthew Kay, for instance, publicly expressed a common concern among teachers recently. “So, this fall, virtual class discussions will have many potential spectators — parents, siblings, etc. — in the same room. We’ll never be quite sure who is overhearing the discourse. What does this do for our equity/inclusion work?” he wondered without explaining why he was doing “equity/inclusion work.”
“I am most intrigued by the damage that ‘helicopter/snowplow’ parents can do in honest conversations about gender/sexuality,” he continued after saying race “conversations” are in his “wheelhouse,” even worrying about leftist parents being upset. “If we are engaged in the messy work of destabilizing a kids [sic] racism or homophobia or transphobia — how much do we want their classmates’ parents piling on?”
Naturally, parents and citizens were incensed at the form in Tennessee asking them to stay out. The outrage forced the school district to walk back the demands, but officials still insisted that parents would not be allowed to record or share the content. “We are aware of the concern that has been raised about this distance-learning letter that was sent to parents,” district spokesman James Evans told the media.
Claiming that the intent was not to prevent parents from being involved with their children but to “protect” supposed “academic privacy,” Evans said the district has now shifted its policy. “We have issued new guidance to principals that parents can assist their children during virtual group lessons with permission of the instructor but should refrain from sharing or recording any information about other students in the classroom,” he said.
The bizarre request is especially ironic considering that just last week, Tennessee parents were boiling over a plot to send government agents into every family home to check on the “wellbeing” of every child in the state, including homeschoolers. The plan called for the agents to try to speak with the children without parents to check on whether their “needs” were being “met.” Parents who resist would have their information placed in a database.
Apparently phony Republican leaders in the state of Tennessee believe they have a right to propagandize “our” children without interference from parents. Parents, by contrast, have no right to raise their own children without interference from government. Only a massive, nationwide outrage campaign that included furious legislators speaking out forced Governor Bill Lee and “Education” Commissioner Penny Schwinn to go back to the drawing board.
Government is growing increasingly arrogant in its war against families and parents over control of the raising and upbringing of children. Because molding the minds of the next generation is such an awesome power, tyrants everywhere have desperately sought it out. Only educated and active parents will be capable of pushing the tyrants back. They must. Liberty literally depends on it.
Nothing more clearly demonstrates the pagan religious orientation of the left than the recent effort by Democrats to begin turning our entire economy Greenward as their input into the recent COVID-19 stimulus package. According to Jeff Brady of NPR, “Clean energy and climate advocates say the huge stimulus bill Congress is negotiating should address not only the economy, but also climate change.” To Democrats, the Corona Virus pandemic is not about helping the American people—it is about fundamentally transforming the American economy.
For example, eight Democratic U.S. senators also called upon fellow lawmakers, according to NPR news, to tie financial help for airlines and cruise lines to new environmental requirements that would reduce their carbon footprints.” According to Michael Greenstone, who served as the Chief Economist for President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “We can both stimulate the economy … and we can lay the foundation for a lower-carbon future.”
The Green Agenda, sponsored by all socialists and Democrats, is not about science. It is more nearly akin to a paganistic religious belief which jettisons real science in favor of doctrine. Like the Canaanite paganism of the Old Testament which involved itself in nature-worship and sacrificing in “sacred groves”, the New Green Deal advocates root themselves in a false ideology.
In what was called the “Eco-shot heard ‘round the world,” Berkeley historian Lynn White, before the American Association for the Advancement of Science over 30 years ago, frankly admitted that the source of our environmental “crisis” was the “victory of Christianity over paganism.” Plainly siding with ancient Canaanite paganism, he went on to say that “Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of detachment to the feelings of natural objects …Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt.” He went on to predict that “more science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion.”
Note carefully the Environmental Activists were sounding apocalyptic alarms over 30 years ago. They haven’t changed. Noteworthy it is as well that it is all about religion.
The same thing is true according to Green Grandfather Al Gore. His infamous book Earth in the Balance made a frontal attack on the Genesis account of creation by re-writing the entire first few chapters of Moses’ account. The end result was a complete VALUE SHIFT from a human-centered world view to what the Clinton Administration called A Biocentric Worldview. This tells us that humans are seen as merely another species inhabiting a democratic “ecosystem.” No more value a human being than a bug.
Steven C. Rockefeller of Middlebury College, a theology professor and environmentalist, explains: “In a biocentric approach, the rights of nature are defended first and foremost on the grounds of the intrinsic value of animals, plants, rivers, mountains, and eco-systems rather than simply the basis for their utilitarian value or benefit to humans.”
This biocentric approach was formally adopted by the Clinton Administration. Alton Chase, in his book In a Dark Wood: The Fight Over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology, describes the new faith of the elite, as it sprang to life in the Clinton Administration. “The Administration, under the rubric of ‘reinventing government’ … adopted biocentrism as the guiding philosophy of all federal land management.”
Recent COP25 Conference
In December of last year the United Nations sponsored a COP25 conference in Madrid, Spain. Attendee Alex Newman writes that the “cult-like nature of climatism was on full display.” An alternative conference occurred in Madrid which was totally ignored by the Main Stream Media. It was called “Climate Reality Conference” hosted by a coalition of environmental groups that reject climate alarmism, including The Heartland Institute, the CO2 Coalition, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).
The Climate Reality Conference featured numerous scientific experts which totally debunked the UN Global Alarmists. But what is particularly interesting is that a number of these world-class scientists likened the Green Agenda to so much religious propaganda.
William Happer, for instance, an international renowned Princeton physicist, put it plainly. “I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the phoniness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end.” MIT Meteorologist Richard Lindzen has frequently referred to the Global Warming crowd as a “cult” because they refuse to change their beliefs in response to evidence and proof. (See Alex Newman, “Dangerous Climate ‘Cult’ Ignores Science,” in The New American, 2-17-20).
Lindzen even stated it this way in a 2015 radio interview: “Think about it: You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!” Dr. Ivstan Marko, a chemistry professor at the Catholic University of Louvain and head of the European Chemical Society, told The New American magazine that “the climate cult had perverted Christianity to develop its dangerous theology. Instead of repenting of sins, climate cultists want you to believe that you must repent of your ‘carbon footprint.’”
“It’s a new religion going on,” Marko explained. Many other top scientists and political leaders are also calling the Green Agenda pushed by Democrats and soft-shelled Republicans a religion. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott as well as Eco-activist Stuart Scott have so likened it.
The entire Green debate illustrates the throes of a religious conflict occurring in America. Unless enough American Christians, oriented and educated sufficiently in the Holy Scriptures to combat the growing forms of ancient Canaanite religious beliefs, engage in the cultural wars, America has seen its better days.