Recipe for Revolution
Part 2
A child of the revolutionary sixties, I witnessed firsthand the unprecedented social upheaval of that turbulent decade. Especially on college campuses, the counterculture gained momentum as more and more students “turned on, tuned in, and dropped out.”1 Along with other nations, the U.S. pushed hard for center-left social reform; and its impact was lasting.
Just ask Curtis Bower. Decades later in 1992, Bower was a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley at a time when the Communist Party of America divided. Upon slipping in undercover to one of their meetings, Bowers learned of a highly developed agenda to infiltrate institutions so that, in the end, American families would be destroyed (via cohabitation, hijacked public education, the feminist movement); businesses would falter (via radical environmentalism); and our culture of religion and morality would collapse (via militant gay rights and hate-crimes legislation).2
Back from the Grave
Though the 1992 cast was new, the script was not. In 1921, leading American socialist Norman Thomas gave voice to the plan’s underbelly. “Under the name of liberalism,” he explained, the American people will “adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” 3 Far from crushed, America’s flourishing Communist Party of 1992 honed Thomas’ strategy by exploiting the obliging aftermath of the sixties revolution.
At its core, communism upholds damaging credos of rulers “from the grave” such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Charles Darwin, and Karl Marx, whose notions—“God is dead”; “man is animal” and “lives for the State,” respectively—serve to justify violence. Non-party members, called “useful idiots,” do the dirty work for party elitists and, once used to the full, these socialist “comrades” are likewise rubbed out. Genius strategy, don’t you think?
Bower thought so. Some fifteen years later, as Idaho State Representative, Bower recalled the Berkley meeting and observed that the agenda was advancing, as planned. Over time, both major political parties had moved left of center. Punishing the middle class, expanding racial justice to favor minorities, trumping the U.S. Constitution with international “soft law,” and demanding justice for the planet (ostensibly worthy of human apology and even worship) all had served to advance Thomas’ strategy.4
Aware that when a country goes down, others—be it China, Russia, the EU, or radical Islamists — are poised to fill the gap, Bowers further understood that, if America fails economically, she’ll also go down militarily. And this will mark the end of global freedom for a very long time. In letters to newspapers, Representative Bowers sounded the alarm.4
Shrouded in Weasel Words
Well-informed Americans get it that communism bears responsibility for more mass murders than the combined number of deaths tallied in all modern wars. This alone renders the term unsavory. In response, savvy strategists work word-craft magic by replacing the Marxist lexicon with kinder, gentler euphemisms, more appropriately called “weasel words.”
As is the case with most small omnivores, weasels are known for cunning. Weasel words share this attribute—e.g., use of “saving the planet” (for earth servitude), “commonism” (for communism), “social justice” (for Cultural Marxism), and “the greater good” (for blatant nepotism).
• “Saving the Planet” (for Earth Servitude)
For example, when big government gains control of the distribution and use of energy, it’s poised to interfere in every aspect of life. Indeed, “environment” comes from a French word meaning “surroundings.” Hence, it speaks to “everythingism”—that is to say, government control of every aspect of life. Rather than expose an underlying power-grab agenda, progressives instead fabricate the more palatable, even noble pretense of “saving the planet.”
• “Commonism” (for Communism) and “the Greater Good” (for Blatant Nepotism)
The love child of global super-capitalism, when mated with old school communism, is popularly called “commonism.” By transforming private intellectual assets and nationally controlled natural resources into the global commons, commonism effectively weds the bourgeoisie and the working proletariat—allegedly for the greater good. More accurately, this formula yields blatant nepotism and begets plutocracy.
• “Social Justice” (for Cultural Marxism)
To commonists, “greedy” Americans are a cancer whose market-directed economies wreak chaos and instability. For the sake of “social justice,” producers must provide for non-producers—from each according to ability, to each according to his work and/or need. Coupled with invasion of privacy and wealth confiscation, commonism handily provides a steppingstone for bureaucratic burdens and regulations that quell rugged individualism and entrepreneurism. In the end, society is none the better for it.5
Face of Communism in the 21st Century
Today, the persistent weed of communism springs instinctively from these four stubborn seeds: (1) the Fabian Socialist Society, (2) the Frankfort Schools, (3) Antonio Gramsci, and (4) radical feminism—the first two of which were discussed in Part 1. In review, the Fabian Socialist Society picked up where Karl Marx left off by advancing social reform via evolution versus revolution. Next, a German school that initially consisted of dissident Marxists, the Frankfort School laid claim to public education and the media.
Enter, Antonio Gramsci (January 22, 1891 – April 27, 1937)
Italian writer, politician, political theorist, linguist, philosopher, and atheist, Antonio Gramsci was a founding member and onetime leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Known as a highly original thinker within the Marxist tradition, Gramsci was characterized as the “biggest troublemaker of the world” by, first, creating chaos and, then, stepping in to resolve the problem.
To hasten revolution and thereby shape the destiny of rising generations, Gramsci purposed to infiltrate, sabotage and, then, destroy culture, morality, and religion through his influence in the universities, publications, the arts, entertainment, and churches.6
The Gramsci Model for affecting social change is no stranger to the White House. Having worked for Chicago communist Frank Marshall Davis, young Obama conformed himself to the model, as did his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Resulting from the 1992 split of the Communist Party in the USA, Committees of Correspondence, along with its sister organization, the Communist Party, supported Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.7
• Saul Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972)
A prominent Chicago radical in the 1930s, Saul Alinsky devoted his life to revolution against the American system he deemed oppressive and unjust by mobilizing community organizers to stir up things. Taking the best of Gramsci and the Fabian Socialists, Alinsky packaged his own strategy to destroy capitalism by overloading the system with unsustainable entitlements that accompany open borders.
Having interviewed Alinsky while attending Wellesley, Hillary Rodham wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky’s theories and, after graduating, was offered a job with Alinsky’s new training institute in Chicago. Although he never knew Alinsky personally, Barak Obama likewise became an ardent practitioner of Alinsky’s methodology. According to the Alinsky Model, deception is the most important method to create the world “as it should be.” 8
Betty Friedan (February 4, 1921 - February 4, 2006)
A staunch supporter of Stalin, Betty Friedan launched the Feminist Movement in America. In 1966 she co-founded and became the first president of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Purportedly to free female victims of male domination, she wrote The Feminist Mystique and, through it, promoted her communist goals.
Unfortunately, once the value of human life is invalidated (e.g., via “choice” campaigns for managed death and selective breeding options), and our moral strength as a nation is lost (by moral relativism and ensuing anarchy), freedom and free enterprise are left to rot in the wake of revolution. No matter. Following the 2006 death of Betty Friedan, Hillary Clinton suggested that we are not victims, but rather “beneficiaries of her vision." 9
Fundamental Transformation
On Election Eve 2008, Barack Obama noted: “We are five days away from fundamentally trans-forming the United States of America.” Thankfully, the true American dream is not over until it’s over—or until the proverbial fat lady sings. Though we’re hopefully not yet at the point of no return, it’s most assuredly late in the day. Armed with conviction that our values are worth upholding, this is our last chance to push back; and it’s not the Republicans or Wall Street who have the answers.
What Must Be Done?
Accept it or not, our only hope is in the God of creation. Nonetheless, our charge as Americans is to pick great leaders who honor our country and, then, hold those leaders accountable. We need dedicated, praying Christians to take the reigns, leaders who esteem and defend national sovereignty and personal freedom.
It’s been said that an organized minority will defeat the disorganized majority every time. By mobilizing a fully informed and engaged citizenry, we effectively put legs to our prayers. We must rise above evil and guide our children to do likewise. But, above all, we must humble ourselves, seek God’s face, and turn from our own wicked ways.10 Each American patriot must commit to be informed, take appropriate action, engage in prevailing prayer, and stand for godly values. Then, and only then, will we hear from the God of Heaven who, in turn, will heal and restore our land. 11
1. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary.
2. Curtis Bowers. Agenda: Grinding America Down. (Black Hat Films: MMX Copybook Heading Productions LLC, 2010): Curtis Bowers.
3. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Norman.Thomas.Quote.FFB1
4. Forty-five destructive goals taken from The Naked Communist (1958) by the late Willard Cleon Skousen, an American author, conservative American Constitutionalist, and faith-based political theorist:
• U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
• U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
• Illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
• Free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
• Long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
• American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
• Recognition of Red China and her admission to the U.N.
• Set up East- and West- Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
• Conferences to ban atomic tests so the United States suspends tests while negotiations are in progress.
• All Soviet satellites given individual representation in the U.N.
• The U.N. offered as the only hope for mankind. (If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.)
• Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
• Do away with all loyalty oaths.
• Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
• Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
• Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
• Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
• Gain control of all student newspapers.
• Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations under Communist attack.
• Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
• Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
• Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression; "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings; substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms."
• Control art critics and directors of art museums.
• Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
• Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
• Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy.”
• Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
• Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
• Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
• Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
• Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
• Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
• Eliminate all laws or procedures that interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
• Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
• Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
• Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
• Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
• Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders that no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
• Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
• Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation, and easy divorce.
• Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
• Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.
• Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
• Internationalize the Panama Canal.
• Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Wallis.
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci.
7. Curtis Bowers. Agenda: Grinding America Down. (Black Hat Films: MMX Copybook Heading Productions LLC, 2010): Curtis Bowers.
8. Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).
9. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1328.
10. 2 Chronicles 7:14—“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
11. James 1:22—“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”
Friday, June 10, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Recipe for Revolution
Recipe for Revolution: Mobilizing for Social Transformation
Part 1
As a young teenager, I witnessed the historic visit of Nikita Khrushchev to my mid-west hometown. At the time, our respective nations were embroiled in the Cold War. Distinguished as first secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, Khrushchev had famously insisted, “We will bury you”—of course, “not with a shovel”—but “[America’s] own working class will [do it].”1 While driven downtown in an open convertible, Khrushchev nodded and waved to a wary Iowan crowd that intentionally stonewalled fanfare typically afforded public figures.
With the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, many boomers heaved a shared sigh of relief. Khrushchev’s threats were proven toothless, the Cold War was history, and it was time to kiss and make up. Thereafter, the leader of the Free World looked Vladimir Putin in the eyes and, as a friend, discerned “his soul.” In doing so, President George W. Bush necessarily overlooked Putin’s KGB infamy.
Communism’s Dead; Case Closed
Decades later, there are more Communist Party members in the world than ever before, and over 1.5 billion today live under communism’s iron fist. Hence, the “mission accomplished” proclamation of 1989 is shown to have been unwarranted. Fact is, communism didn’t die with Karl Marx, nor did it collapse with the Berlin Wall; but there’s a price to pay for saying so. Progressives mock “conspiracy theorists” and accuse them of McCarthyism. Mere mention of this emotive term suggests “proof” that none can gainsay without reaping the scorn of enlightened folk who somehow know better.
Not So Fast, America!
Consider this: Technically speaking, communism is the final phase and goal of socialism—that is, “big government.” Significantly, there are no examples in history of big government that hasn’t abused its people. Even so, diehard partisans concede that, in the U.S., both major political parties enable it; and communism’s call for world revolution, workers’ democracy, equality, and “real” freedom lingers to this day.
Mobilizing for social transformation, communism boasts strong footholds in South Africa, South- and Central- Americas, Cuba, Viet Nam, Russia—even the European Union. Advanced by “progressives,” the end goal is global governance, core values for which are socialist at best, Marxist at worst.2
Without fail, the persistent weed of communism springs instinctively from these four stubborn seeds: (1) the Fabian Socialist Society, (2) the Frankfort Schools, (3) Antonio Gramsci, and (4) radical feminism.3
Fabian Socialist Society
Advancing social reform by evolution versus revolution, the Fabian Socialist Society picked up where Karl Marx left off. Ardent socialist George Bernard Shaw wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society and, in the furtherance of its causes, became an accomplished orator on behalf of equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, and promoting healthy lifestyles. Shaw was in favor of rescinding private ownership of productive land, and he vigorously supported Stalin. He also believed in Hitler’s eugenic dream to improve the human race through selective reproduction.4
SDS (Students for Democratic Society), Weathermen/ Weather Underground
Shrouded in the Hippie Movement, Students for a Democratic Society were activists representing the country's New Left. The organization developed and expanded rapidly in the mid-1960s before dissolving in 1969 at its last convention. In January of 2006, a new incarnation of SDS was founded and, by 2010, had grown to over 150 chapters around the United States.5
A faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Weathermen (later known as the Weather Underground Organization) likewise originated in 1969. Its founding document called for a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement," among others, to achieve "the destruction of U.S. imperialism” and “a classless world under world communism."6
Now a professor of education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, SDS founder Bill Ayers “doesn’t regret” having set bombs to further the cause. Like Ayers, the founder of ACORN Wade Rathke is a disciple of Saul Alinsky (of Rules for Radicals fame).7 You may recall that working for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN) was key to advancing President Obama’s political career.
Also involved with the SDS in his youth, the Reverend Jim Wallis is best known as founding editor of Sojourners magazine and the D.C.-based community of the same name; moreover, he serves President Obama as spiritual advisor. Wallis’ primary support from the progressive religious left champions “social justice,” arguably the latest, greatest buzzword for socialism, communism, and Marxism.
The Frankfort School9
A German school initially consisting of dissident Marxists, the Frankfort School serves as a sort of outpost for European Bolshevism in America. Father of Progressive Education, John Dewey established one such school—its emphasis, destruction of religion and morality.
To destroy the family is to destroy the nation, so then Frankfort enthusiasts plotted its demise in the 1930s by making America so corrupt that “it stinks.” The oft-repeated phrase, “Make Love, Not War,” originated in the Frankfort School of Cultural Marxism. Beyond systematic breakdown of traditional family relationships and values, the Frankfort School recommended (among other things) sex education (inclusive of homosexuality) and bias against churches, not to mention victims of crime.
With Dewey’s assistance, the Frankfort School set its sights on the media, along with education, to control and then dumb down both. Proponents advocated continual change (to create confusion), open borders and huge immigration (to blur national identity), and ever-increasing dependency on the Nanny State.
Today, the Frankfort School’s impact on American society is inescapable. By accessing the Internet and liberal media, young student activists are swayed to pit themselves against presumed-to-be bankrupt traditionalism—be it religion, the U.S. Constitution, or nuclear family. Given revisionist history as its catalyst, Marxism assumes center stage. Victimization theories effectively hook our youth; and hardcore action holds promise for global transformation to a just, peaceful, sustainable society bereft of national sovereignty, traditionalism, and free enterprise capitalism.10
In reality, a mere mirage attracts and then points gullible idealists down the proverbial “yellow brick road” leading to Shangri-La. Problem is, “utopia” literally means “no place,” and paradise it ain’t.
More to follow in Part 2.
1. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=we+will+bury+you+nikita+kruschev&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8.
2. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. (U.S.: Tribeca Books, 2011).
3. Curtis Bowers. Agenda: Grinding America Down. (Black Hat Films: MMX Copybook Heading Productions LLC, 2010): Curtis Bowers.
4. Ted Flynn. “Fabians.” Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World. (Herndon: MaxKol Communications, Inc, 2000): 2,4-5,8,80-81,117,132,218,304,376,383,400.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(1960_organization).
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground.
7. Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).
8. Marvin Olasky. “Let’s Admit Who We Are.” (World, 17 July 2010): 80. See also World, 14 March 2009: 57-58; 29 August 2009: 76; 10 April 2010: 88; 17 July 2010: 88; 11 http://agendadocumentary.com: Trevor Loudon.
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School.
10. See also: Debra Rae. “Rousing Young Visionaries for Radical Social Change.” (News with Views, 4 June 2006): http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra6.htm.
Part 1
As a young teenager, I witnessed the historic visit of Nikita Khrushchev to my mid-west hometown. At the time, our respective nations were embroiled in the Cold War. Distinguished as first secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, Khrushchev had famously insisted, “We will bury you”—of course, “not with a shovel”—but “[America’s] own working class will [do it].”1 While driven downtown in an open convertible, Khrushchev nodded and waved to a wary Iowan crowd that intentionally stonewalled fanfare typically afforded public figures.
With the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, many boomers heaved a shared sigh of relief. Khrushchev’s threats were proven toothless, the Cold War was history, and it was time to kiss and make up. Thereafter, the leader of the Free World looked Vladimir Putin in the eyes and, as a friend, discerned “his soul.” In doing so, President George W. Bush necessarily overlooked Putin’s KGB infamy.
Communism’s Dead; Case Closed
Decades later, there are more Communist Party members in the world than ever before, and over 1.5 billion today live under communism’s iron fist. Hence, the “mission accomplished” proclamation of 1989 is shown to have been unwarranted. Fact is, communism didn’t die with Karl Marx, nor did it collapse with the Berlin Wall; but there’s a price to pay for saying so. Progressives mock “conspiracy theorists” and accuse them of McCarthyism. Mere mention of this emotive term suggests “proof” that none can gainsay without reaping the scorn of enlightened folk who somehow know better.
Not So Fast, America!
Consider this: Technically speaking, communism is the final phase and goal of socialism—that is, “big government.” Significantly, there are no examples in history of big government that hasn’t abused its people. Even so, diehard partisans concede that, in the U.S., both major political parties enable it; and communism’s call for world revolution, workers’ democracy, equality, and “real” freedom lingers to this day.
Mobilizing for social transformation, communism boasts strong footholds in South Africa, South- and Central- Americas, Cuba, Viet Nam, Russia—even the European Union. Advanced by “progressives,” the end goal is global governance, core values for which are socialist at best, Marxist at worst.2
Without fail, the persistent weed of communism springs instinctively from these four stubborn seeds: (1) the Fabian Socialist Society, (2) the Frankfort Schools, (3) Antonio Gramsci, and (4) radical feminism.3
Fabian Socialist Society
Advancing social reform by evolution versus revolution, the Fabian Socialist Society picked up where Karl Marx left off. Ardent socialist George Bernard Shaw wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society and, in the furtherance of its causes, became an accomplished orator on behalf of equal rights for men and women, alleviating abuses of the working class, and promoting healthy lifestyles. Shaw was in favor of rescinding private ownership of productive land, and he vigorously supported Stalin. He also believed in Hitler’s eugenic dream to improve the human race through selective reproduction.4
SDS (Students for Democratic Society), Weathermen/ Weather Underground
Shrouded in the Hippie Movement, Students for a Democratic Society were activists representing the country's New Left. The organization developed and expanded rapidly in the mid-1960s before dissolving in 1969 at its last convention. In January of 2006, a new incarnation of SDS was founded and, by 2010, had grown to over 150 chapters around the United States.5
A faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Weathermen (later known as the Weather Underground Organization) likewise originated in 1969. Its founding document called for a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement," among others, to achieve "the destruction of U.S. imperialism” and “a classless world under world communism."6
Now a professor of education at the University of Illinois, Chicago, SDS founder Bill Ayers “doesn’t regret” having set bombs to further the cause. Like Ayers, the founder of ACORN Wade Rathke is a disciple of Saul Alinsky (of Rules for Radicals fame).7 You may recall that working for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN) was key to advancing President Obama’s political career.
Also involved with the SDS in his youth, the Reverend Jim Wallis is best known as founding editor of Sojourners magazine and the D.C.-based community of the same name; moreover, he serves President Obama as spiritual advisor. Wallis’ primary support from the progressive religious left champions “social justice,” arguably the latest, greatest buzzword for socialism, communism, and Marxism.
The Frankfort School9
A German school initially consisting of dissident Marxists, the Frankfort School serves as a sort of outpost for European Bolshevism in America. Father of Progressive Education, John Dewey established one such school—its emphasis, destruction of religion and morality.
To destroy the family is to destroy the nation, so then Frankfort enthusiasts plotted its demise in the 1930s by making America so corrupt that “it stinks.” The oft-repeated phrase, “Make Love, Not War,” originated in the Frankfort School of Cultural Marxism. Beyond systematic breakdown of traditional family relationships and values, the Frankfort School recommended (among other things) sex education (inclusive of homosexuality) and bias against churches, not to mention victims of crime.
With Dewey’s assistance, the Frankfort School set its sights on the media, along with education, to control and then dumb down both. Proponents advocated continual change (to create confusion), open borders and huge immigration (to blur national identity), and ever-increasing dependency on the Nanny State.
Today, the Frankfort School’s impact on American society is inescapable. By accessing the Internet and liberal media, young student activists are swayed to pit themselves against presumed-to-be bankrupt traditionalism—be it religion, the U.S. Constitution, or nuclear family. Given revisionist history as its catalyst, Marxism assumes center stage. Victimization theories effectively hook our youth; and hardcore action holds promise for global transformation to a just, peaceful, sustainable society bereft of national sovereignty, traditionalism, and free enterprise capitalism.10
In reality, a mere mirage attracts and then points gullible idealists down the proverbial “yellow brick road” leading to Shangri-La. Problem is, “utopia” literally means “no place,” and paradise it ain’t.
More to follow in Part 2.
1. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=we+will+bury+you+nikita+kruschev&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8.
2. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. (U.S.: Tribeca Books, 2011).
3. Curtis Bowers. Agenda: Grinding America Down. (Black Hat Films: MMX Copybook Heading Productions LLC, 2010): Curtis Bowers.
4. Ted Flynn. “Fabians.” Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World. (Herndon: MaxKol Communications, Inc, 2000): 2,4-5,8,80-81,117,132,218,304,376,383,400.
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(1960_organization).
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground.
7. Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. (New York: Vintage Books, 1971).
8. Marvin Olasky. “Let’s Admit Who We Are.” (World, 17 July 2010): 80. See also World, 14 March 2009: 57-58; 29 August 2009: 76; 10 April 2010: 88; 17 July 2010: 88; 11 http://agendadocumentary.com: Trevor Loudon.
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School.
10. See also: Debra Rae. “Rousing Young Visionaries for Radical Social Change.” (News with Views, 4 June 2006): http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra6.htm.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The WOW Factor
The WOW Factor: Watchmen on the Wall for Such a Time as This
Remember the Alamo, Part 2
Debra Rae
From very early history to modern times, city walls served as fortifications, if not fortresses. The term, “fortification,” is derived from the Latin fortis ("strong") and facere ("to make") and speaks to “making strong” one’s defense, specifically from enemy intrusion. Able to see in the distance, watchmen on city walls forewarned fellows of impending danger, thereby inspiring appropriate preparations and timely action.
Vestiges of ancient defenses remain even today; however, one need not travel to Persepolis in Iran to find an example. Texas will do just fine. There, a former Spanish religious outpost converted to a makeshift fort, the Alamo, recently marked the anniversary of its infamous fall in 1836. It was then that, for over 13 days, 186 patriots withstood Santa Anna’s 4,000 troops.
Perhaps the most notorious failure of a well-known fort, the Alamo had no chance of prevailing. Indeed, Santa Anna described her as an "irregular fortification hardly worthy of the name." The Alamo was woefully undermanned, under-provisioned, and poorly commanded. Significantly, it was not her stouthearted defenders, but rather avoidable defense flaws that sealed her doom.1
As mentioned above, a fortification “makes strong.” Just how strong is paramount. You see, while the Alamo was designed to withstand an attack by native tribes, it could not weather an artillery-equipped army. Even so, Texas engineer Green B. Jameson boasted to army commander Sam Houston that, given artillery at their disposal, they could "whip [the enemy] ten to one.”2
Defenses Compromised
From a Bible point of view, believers are commanded to “war a good warfare.”3 Their charge is to be fully armored up,4 ever vigilant,5 and “instant in season and out.”6 While these mandates apply to spiritual warfare, they likewise speak to national defense. God may well have been “on their side,” as Alamo patriots claimed; however, it’s conceivable that, had proactive steps been taken, the defenders’ fate might have been different.
In like manner, America may boast that “God is on her side,” and that her superior defenses are impenetrable; but in compromising her borders, she falls short of defending herself against very real threats—and this time, not just from Mexico! According to a recently released government report, less than one percent of the 4,000-mile stretch along the U.S.-Canadian border is adequately protected.
Senator Joe Lieberman warns that the northern border from Washington State to Maine provides “easy passage into America by extremists, terrorists, and criminals whose purpose clearly is to harm the American people.” It is, in fact, a higher risk to public safety than its counterpart to the far south. Today, Canada harbors more Islamic extremist groups than does Mexico.7
Promoting open borders subjected to a network of global bureaucracies renders our union all the more vulnerable. Nonetheless, a planned, ten-lane international corridor will be the first leg of what has been dubbed the NAFTA Superhighway, boasting a tri-national database under joint military command. With no signed agreements or congressional oversight, our nation’s merged future with Canada and Mexico will allow freer flow of people, goods, and capital—drugs, terrorists, and human traffickers included.8
Wily Warfare
Rather than mobilize a professional, highly disciplined military force, mostly volunteers defended the Alamo. Alamo defenders did not wear uniforms. For example, Davy Crockett was more a sharpshooter-hunter and storyteller than he was a soldier. As such, his standard attire was that of a frontiersman.
Similarly, Americans too often fail to don the “whole armor of God” without which they open our nation to wiles of her enemies.9 Case in point: Former governor of Colorado Dick Lamm fleshed out what he recognized as a genius strategy for expediting America’s demise.10 Without the “shield of faith” properly positioned, America is catching the proverbial arrows of this clever scheme.
It goes like this: To spark tension and turmoil, one first must turn America into a bi- or multi-lingual and bicultural country. Next, to level the playing field, one must invent multiculturalism and, then, celebrate diversity over unity. No more the “melting pot,” America establishes her metaphoric identity with the “salad bowl,” components for which are distinguished by the hyphenated identity, bilingual education, and radical historical revisionism.
Some surmise that under the gargantuan burden of entitlement, even for lawbreakers, America’s already begun her downward descent. Once the rate of immigration overtakes assimilation, chaos will be unavoidable. That said, to strengthen her defense from enemies within and without, America mustn’t remain undermanned, under-provisioned, underprepared, distracted, poorly commanded, and out-strategized. Otherwise, she’ll share the Alamo’s fate.
Undermanned and Under-provisioned
Though the Texan force grew slightly with the arrival of reinforcements led by James Bowie and William B. Travis, Sam Houston could not spare the number of men needed to mount a successful defense. By January 1836, fewer than 100 soldiers remained; and the sick and wounded among them were unable to fight.
American patriot-frontiersmen and heroes are as few and far between today as were defenders of the Alamo. Ever growing numbers of “victims” outnumber stalwartly rugged, American individualists. Case in point: Recent union rallies whereby government-employed activists in Wisconsin pooh-poohed budget-repair bills, bemoaned the plight of public workers, and affirmed their right to lobby for more government spending at taxpayers’ expense. Forced dues to unions are tantamount to taxpayer subsidies to do just that, but never mind.
Nor does it matter that, given our struggling economy, sometimes lavish, taxpayer-funded bennies are unsustainable. Even “undocumented workers”—i.e., “illegals”—feel entitled to jobs and all the rights and privileges of American citizens. “Victims” look to corporations and America’s wealthiest citizens to bear the brunt of their demands—if necessary, under threat of interrupted vital services.11
Forget that our nation is collapsing under the federal deficit, and Washington can’t find a nickel to cut from the budget. “Victim” entitlements take priority. For example, compliments of American taxpayers (who themselves struggle to pay bills), a government program called “Lifeline Benefits” provides a free SafeLink Wireless cell phone coupled with assurance that “income-eligible consumers” will get no bills and no contracts ever.” 12
More among us would do well to heed the words of Texas Colonel Travis. "Our business,” he explained, “is not to make a fruitless effort to save our lives, but to choose the manner of our death." His was a call to sacrifice. With that, Travis drew his sword and slowly marked a line in the sand. "I now want every man who is determined to stay here and die with me to come across this line."13
Unlike defenders of the Alamo, too many among us elect to join French soldier of fortune, Louis Moses Rose who, for self-interest, refused Travis’ challenge.
Underprepared and Distracted
Unfortunately, the Texan government was in turmoil and unable to provide much assistance to Alamo defenders. Struggling to secure men and supplies, Texas settlers were unprepared for a long campaign.
Nonetheless, unaware of the Mexican army's proximity, the majority of the Alamo garrison joined Béxar residents at a fiesta. Similarly, too many today turn deaf ears to watchmen’s warnings.14 Packed agendas propelled by time-gobbling social media, obsession for entertainment, and “cares of life” distract and delude clear thinking.15 Wartime was not (and is not) the best time to throw a party. But party, they did.
Poorly Commanded
No one was entirely certain who actually was in charge. Four different men claimed to have been given command over the entire army. When appointed sole commander of all troops, Sam Houston journeyed to Gonzales to take command of the 400 volunteers who were still waiting for Colonel James Fannin to lead them to the Alamo. Unbeknownst to them, Fannin had aborted the mission of mobilizing men, artillery, and supplies for the Alamo. Dissent and confusion abounded when Fannin, his officers, and enlisted men blamed one another for lack of follow through.
When Neill left the Alamo to recruit additional reinforcements and to gather supplies, he transferred command to Travis, the garrison’s highest-ranking regular army officer. Although unconvinced by the reports of the Mexican army's imminent arrival, Travis stationed a soldier in the San Fernando church bell tower—the highest location in town—to watch for signs of an approaching force. Even then, few arrangements were made in preparation for a potential siege in exceedingly cold temperatures.
To complicate matters, volunteers within the garrison refused to accept Travis as their leader. Instead, they elected Bowie as their commander because he had a reputation as a fierce fighter. Unfortunately, Bowie celebrated his appointment by getting very intoxicated and, then, creating havoc in Béxar. Moreover, Houston's orders to Bowie were vague; and historians disagree on their intent.
To mitigate ill feelings due to Bowie’s drunkenness, he agreed to share the command with Travis; however, once Bowie succumbed to illness, Travis assumed sole command of the garrison. Even as the Alamo suffered a dirge of rank-and-file, proactive leadership coupled with neglect, misunderstandings, dissention, and bickering, so it is with present-day America. Without timely intervention, the probable outcome will be every bit as damaging.16
Out-strategized
Santa Anna opportunistically timed their final assault for when Texans fell into the first uninterrupted sleep many had gotten since onset of the siege.17 The makeshift north wall of the Alamo contained many gaps and toeholds, and few defenders guarded the west-wall gun ports. As enemy troops massed against Alamo walls, Texans were forced lean over them while shooting. This further exposed defenders to Mexican fire. In the heat of battle, Texans neglected to spike their cannon before retreating to fortified barracks, where remaining defenders were ensconced and, in the end, overcome.
As a nation, we, too, are asleep at the wheel. Entangled with affairs of this life and embroiled in contentious partisanship,18 we have compromised our “shield and buckler” of truth for the god of political correctness.19 More often than not, sobriety and vigilance evade us.20 As a result, we have compromised God’s protective wall of fire round about us and forfeited His glory in our midst.21
With God’s help, we can take back the reigns of our nation. If there’s still some fight in us, we’d best cross Travis’ line in the sand, forego fruitless efforts to save our own lives, and make whatever sacrifice is necessary to fortify our borders and our ranks within—in other words: Remember the Alamo. Otherwise, we’re destined to obsolescence, if not extinction.
1. http://thealamo.org/battle/words.php.
2. Small, Melvin and J. David Singer. Resort to Arms: International and civil Wars 1816–1980 and Berenbaum, Michael. A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis, New York: New York University Press, 1990.
3. 1 Timothy 6:12.
4. Ephesians 6:13.
5. 1 Peter 5:8.
6. 2 Timothy 4:2.
7. Hotakainen, Rob (2011), McClatchy Newspapers, Seattle, WA: The Seattle Times Nation & World Report, A2 News.
8. http://infowars.com/articles/nwo/nafta_superhighway_coming_through.htm.
9. Ephesians 6:13.
10. http://www.safehaven.com/article/4837/how-to-destroy-america.
11. Olasky, Marvin. Purim in Wisconsin. Asheville, NC: World, 12 March 2011.
12. https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx.
13. http://www.texasescapes.com/MikeCoxTexasTales/Line-in-the-Sand-Alamo-History.htm; Hardin, Stephen L. (1994), Texan Iliad, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, ISBN 0-292-73086-1, p. 111.
14. Luke 8:4.
15. Matthew 13:22.
16. Todish, Timothy J.; Todish, Terry; Spring, Ted (1998), Alamo Sourcebook, 1836: A Comprehensive Guide to the Battle of the Alamo and the Texas Revolution, Austin, TX: Eakin Press, ISBN 978-1-57168-152-2, p. 29, 30-31.
17. Judges 16:20.
18. 2 Timothy 2:4.
19. Psalm 91:4.
20. 1 Peter 5:8.
21. Zechariah 2:5.
Remember the Alamo, Part 2
Debra Rae
From very early history to modern times, city walls served as fortifications, if not fortresses. The term, “fortification,” is derived from the Latin fortis ("strong") and facere ("to make") and speaks to “making strong” one’s defense, specifically from enemy intrusion. Able to see in the distance, watchmen on city walls forewarned fellows of impending danger, thereby inspiring appropriate preparations and timely action.
Vestiges of ancient defenses remain even today; however, one need not travel to Persepolis in Iran to find an example. Texas will do just fine. There, a former Spanish religious outpost converted to a makeshift fort, the Alamo, recently marked the anniversary of its infamous fall in 1836. It was then that, for over 13 days, 186 patriots withstood Santa Anna’s 4,000 troops.
Perhaps the most notorious failure of a well-known fort, the Alamo had no chance of prevailing. Indeed, Santa Anna described her as an "irregular fortification hardly worthy of the name." The Alamo was woefully undermanned, under-provisioned, and poorly commanded. Significantly, it was not her stouthearted defenders, but rather avoidable defense flaws that sealed her doom.1
As mentioned above, a fortification “makes strong.” Just how strong is paramount. You see, while the Alamo was designed to withstand an attack by native tribes, it could not weather an artillery-equipped army. Even so, Texas engineer Green B. Jameson boasted to army commander Sam Houston that, given artillery at their disposal, they could "whip [the enemy] ten to one.”2
Defenses Compromised
From a Bible point of view, believers are commanded to “war a good warfare.”3 Their charge is to be fully armored up,4 ever vigilant,5 and “instant in season and out.”6 While these mandates apply to spiritual warfare, they likewise speak to national defense. God may well have been “on their side,” as Alamo patriots claimed; however, it’s conceivable that, had proactive steps been taken, the defenders’ fate might have been different.
In like manner, America may boast that “God is on her side,” and that her superior defenses are impenetrable; but in compromising her borders, she falls short of defending herself against very real threats—and this time, not just from Mexico! According to a recently released government report, less than one percent of the 4,000-mile stretch along the U.S.-Canadian border is adequately protected.
Senator Joe Lieberman warns that the northern border from Washington State to Maine provides “easy passage into America by extremists, terrorists, and criminals whose purpose clearly is to harm the American people.” It is, in fact, a higher risk to public safety than its counterpart to the far south. Today, Canada harbors more Islamic extremist groups than does Mexico.7
Promoting open borders subjected to a network of global bureaucracies renders our union all the more vulnerable. Nonetheless, a planned, ten-lane international corridor will be the first leg of what has been dubbed the NAFTA Superhighway, boasting a tri-national database under joint military command. With no signed agreements or congressional oversight, our nation’s merged future with Canada and Mexico will allow freer flow of people, goods, and capital—drugs, terrorists, and human traffickers included.8
Wily Warfare
Rather than mobilize a professional, highly disciplined military force, mostly volunteers defended the Alamo. Alamo defenders did not wear uniforms. For example, Davy Crockett was more a sharpshooter-hunter and storyteller than he was a soldier. As such, his standard attire was that of a frontiersman.
Similarly, Americans too often fail to don the “whole armor of God” without which they open our nation to wiles of her enemies.9 Case in point: Former governor of Colorado Dick Lamm fleshed out what he recognized as a genius strategy for expediting America’s demise.10 Without the “shield of faith” properly positioned, America is catching the proverbial arrows of this clever scheme.
It goes like this: To spark tension and turmoil, one first must turn America into a bi- or multi-lingual and bicultural country. Next, to level the playing field, one must invent multiculturalism and, then, celebrate diversity over unity. No more the “melting pot,” America establishes her metaphoric identity with the “salad bowl,” components for which are distinguished by the hyphenated identity, bilingual education, and radical historical revisionism.
Some surmise that under the gargantuan burden of entitlement, even for lawbreakers, America’s already begun her downward descent. Once the rate of immigration overtakes assimilation, chaos will be unavoidable. That said, to strengthen her defense from enemies within and without, America mustn’t remain undermanned, under-provisioned, underprepared, distracted, poorly commanded, and out-strategized. Otherwise, she’ll share the Alamo’s fate.
Undermanned and Under-provisioned
Though the Texan force grew slightly with the arrival of reinforcements led by James Bowie and William B. Travis, Sam Houston could not spare the number of men needed to mount a successful defense. By January 1836, fewer than 100 soldiers remained; and the sick and wounded among them were unable to fight.
American patriot-frontiersmen and heroes are as few and far between today as were defenders of the Alamo. Ever growing numbers of “victims” outnumber stalwartly rugged, American individualists. Case in point: Recent union rallies whereby government-employed activists in Wisconsin pooh-poohed budget-repair bills, bemoaned the plight of public workers, and affirmed their right to lobby for more government spending at taxpayers’ expense. Forced dues to unions are tantamount to taxpayer subsidies to do just that, but never mind.
Nor does it matter that, given our struggling economy, sometimes lavish, taxpayer-funded bennies are unsustainable. Even “undocumented workers”—i.e., “illegals”—feel entitled to jobs and all the rights and privileges of American citizens. “Victims” look to corporations and America’s wealthiest citizens to bear the brunt of their demands—if necessary, under threat of interrupted vital services.11
Forget that our nation is collapsing under the federal deficit, and Washington can’t find a nickel to cut from the budget. “Victim” entitlements take priority. For example, compliments of American taxpayers (who themselves struggle to pay bills), a government program called “Lifeline Benefits” provides a free SafeLink Wireless cell phone coupled with assurance that “income-eligible consumers” will get no bills and no contracts ever.” 12
More among us would do well to heed the words of Texas Colonel Travis. "Our business,” he explained, “is not to make a fruitless effort to save our lives, but to choose the manner of our death." His was a call to sacrifice. With that, Travis drew his sword and slowly marked a line in the sand. "I now want every man who is determined to stay here and die with me to come across this line."13
Unlike defenders of the Alamo, too many among us elect to join French soldier of fortune, Louis Moses Rose who, for self-interest, refused Travis’ challenge.
Underprepared and Distracted
Unfortunately, the Texan government was in turmoil and unable to provide much assistance to Alamo defenders. Struggling to secure men and supplies, Texas settlers were unprepared for a long campaign.
Nonetheless, unaware of the Mexican army's proximity, the majority of the Alamo garrison joined Béxar residents at a fiesta. Similarly, too many today turn deaf ears to watchmen’s warnings.14 Packed agendas propelled by time-gobbling social media, obsession for entertainment, and “cares of life” distract and delude clear thinking.15 Wartime was not (and is not) the best time to throw a party. But party, they did.
Poorly Commanded
No one was entirely certain who actually was in charge. Four different men claimed to have been given command over the entire army. When appointed sole commander of all troops, Sam Houston journeyed to Gonzales to take command of the 400 volunteers who were still waiting for Colonel James Fannin to lead them to the Alamo. Unbeknownst to them, Fannin had aborted the mission of mobilizing men, artillery, and supplies for the Alamo. Dissent and confusion abounded when Fannin, his officers, and enlisted men blamed one another for lack of follow through.
When Neill left the Alamo to recruit additional reinforcements and to gather supplies, he transferred command to Travis, the garrison’s highest-ranking regular army officer. Although unconvinced by the reports of the Mexican army's imminent arrival, Travis stationed a soldier in the San Fernando church bell tower—the highest location in town—to watch for signs of an approaching force. Even then, few arrangements were made in preparation for a potential siege in exceedingly cold temperatures.
To complicate matters, volunteers within the garrison refused to accept Travis as their leader. Instead, they elected Bowie as their commander because he had a reputation as a fierce fighter. Unfortunately, Bowie celebrated his appointment by getting very intoxicated and, then, creating havoc in Béxar. Moreover, Houston's orders to Bowie were vague; and historians disagree on their intent.
To mitigate ill feelings due to Bowie’s drunkenness, he agreed to share the command with Travis; however, once Bowie succumbed to illness, Travis assumed sole command of the garrison. Even as the Alamo suffered a dirge of rank-and-file, proactive leadership coupled with neglect, misunderstandings, dissention, and bickering, so it is with present-day America. Without timely intervention, the probable outcome will be every bit as damaging.16
Out-strategized
Santa Anna opportunistically timed their final assault for when Texans fell into the first uninterrupted sleep many had gotten since onset of the siege.17 The makeshift north wall of the Alamo contained many gaps and toeholds, and few defenders guarded the west-wall gun ports. As enemy troops massed against Alamo walls, Texans were forced lean over them while shooting. This further exposed defenders to Mexican fire. In the heat of battle, Texans neglected to spike their cannon before retreating to fortified barracks, where remaining defenders were ensconced and, in the end, overcome.
As a nation, we, too, are asleep at the wheel. Entangled with affairs of this life and embroiled in contentious partisanship,18 we have compromised our “shield and buckler” of truth for the god of political correctness.19 More often than not, sobriety and vigilance evade us.20 As a result, we have compromised God’s protective wall of fire round about us and forfeited His glory in our midst.21
With God’s help, we can take back the reigns of our nation. If there’s still some fight in us, we’d best cross Travis’ line in the sand, forego fruitless efforts to save our own lives, and make whatever sacrifice is necessary to fortify our borders and our ranks within—in other words: Remember the Alamo. Otherwise, we’re destined to obsolescence, if not extinction.
1. http://thealamo.org/battle/words.php.
2. Small, Melvin and J. David Singer. Resort to Arms: International and civil Wars 1816–1980 and Berenbaum, Michael. A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis, New York: New York University Press, 1990.
3. 1 Timothy 6:12.
4. Ephesians 6:13.
5. 1 Peter 5:8.
6. 2 Timothy 4:2.
7. Hotakainen, Rob (2011), McClatchy Newspapers, Seattle, WA: The Seattle Times Nation & World Report, A2 News.
8. http://infowars.com/articles/nwo/nafta_superhighway_coming_through.htm.
9. Ephesians 6:13.
10. http://www.safehaven.com/article/4837/how-to-destroy-america.
11. Olasky, Marvin. Purim in Wisconsin. Asheville, NC: World, 12 March 2011.
12. https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx.
13. http://www.texasescapes.com/MikeCoxTexasTales/Line-in-the-Sand-Alamo-History.htm; Hardin, Stephen L. (1994), Texan Iliad, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, ISBN 0-292-73086-1, p. 111.
14. Luke 8:4.
15. Matthew 13:22.
16. Todish, Timothy J.; Todish, Terry; Spring, Ted (1998), Alamo Sourcebook, 1836: A Comprehensive Guide to the Battle of the Alamo and the Texas Revolution, Austin, TX: Eakin Press, ISBN 978-1-57168-152-2, p. 29, 30-31.
17. Judges 16:20.
18. 2 Timothy 2:4.
19. Psalm 91:4.
20. 1 Peter 5:8.
21. Zechariah 2:5.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Remember the Constitution
The WOW Factor: Watchmen on the Wall for Such a Time as This
Remember the U.S. Constitution, Part 1
Debra Rae
Most agree that life is fraught with danger. Not all threats are physical, but most are birthed out of ideologies. Hitler’s Germany provides a prime example. At the Führer’s bidding, Heinrich Himmler executed Hitler’s Final Solution. By some counts, persecution and genocide, carried out in stages, resulted in up to seventeen million victims.1
Expanding their concept of the Aryan race, today’s Neo-Nazis promise a wannabe utopia every bit as autocratic as Hitler’s Germany; and globalists advance their own version of dictatorial democratic trans-federalism.
What was needed throughout the season of Hitler’s reign of terror is precisely what’s required today—namely, the WOW factor. By this I mean “watchmen on the wall.” In the mid-1930s Albert Einstein was one such watchman. His fear was that Nazi scientists might develop the world’s first atomic bombs. Hence, in 1939, Einstein urged President Roosevelt to launch an American program of nuclear research.
As a watchman on the wall, Einstein sounded the alarm with history-altering results. All the more today watchmen are needed to expose ideological threats not unlike those that were egregiously acted upon in the 1930s and 1940s.
A Strong Defense
From very early history to modern times, city walls served as fortifications, if not fortresses. The term, “fortification,” is derived from the Latin fortis ("strong") and facere ("to make"). It speaks to “making strong” one’s defense from enemy intrusion.
Those appointed to guard a city, or the headquarters of an army, were positioned with strategic advantage atop the wall around that city. Able to see in the distance, watchmen on these walls forewarned fellows of impending danger, thereby inspiring appropriate preparations and timely defensive action.
Vestiges of ancient defenses remain even today. In 1971, I visited Persepolis, the capital of the Persian Empire located NE of Shiraz—this, for the 2,500-year celebration of Iran’s monarchy. Persepolis defenses “made strong” this vast and powerful empire, which stretched from the Mediterranean to the River Indus. The bastion fortress was partly cut out of a mountain. Its terraces’ uneven foundation acted like a castle, and angled walls enabled its defenders to target any section of the external front.
A Defenseless America
All the more today, one’s national defense from enemy intrusion is required, but effectiveness is not limited to manning state-of-the-art armies, erecting bastion fortresses or, as the case may be, installing heavily guarded border fences. Indeed, ours is an ideological—more precisely, a spiritual warfare—against the God of the Bible and His handiwork. Whether shots are fired, or not, the battle we face is every bit as real.
In his letter to President George Bush dated 25 December 2000, Mikhail Gorbachev insisted that America’s extraordinary privilege is not tenable over the long run. To the contrary, Marxist ideals propel the one-world vision he hawks. A Robin Hood approach to wealth distribution is classic Marxism, which demands “equitable distribution” of the world’s finite resources.
Indeed, the Marxist-Leninist maxim of “earning one’s keep on planet earth” is at the heart of the UN sustainability principle. To merit this coveted status, enlightened communities must limit growth, eliminate suburbs, establish ethnic/economic equality, and curtail consumption patterns consistent with America’s middle class.
The socialist principle of government-managed development, sustainable development calls for revamping the very infrastructure of our nation away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of a national zoning system through which producers are expected to provide for non-producers. Good global citizens are herded out of the suburbs into urban clusters more easily controlled and regulated by UN-empowered special interest groups.
Her Defenseless Foundation
America’s premiere ideological defense was called “a miracle” at its adoption. The oldest written compilation of the fundamental laws of a nation, the United States Constitution, lays down our system of government. It further defines relations of the legislature, executive, and judiciary to each other and to citizens.
Its preamble gives rise to “a more perfect union” (not the “global village”), establishes justice (not exclusively for the world’s downtrodden), ensures domestic tranquility (not by militarizing police), provides for common defense (not under a UN banner) and general welfare (not excluding the unborn or unfit); and it secures blessings of liberty: private property, religious expression, freedom of speech, and limited government. But these very ideals are now under attack.
In fact, trendy “living Constitutionalism” renders this “miracle” up for grabs. To undermine the divinely inspired and unique political perspective of what Trinity Law Professor James Hirsen identifies as “the grand experiment we call America,” each sphere of culture that influences society is targeted for the taking—e.g., arts and entertainment, business, education, family, government, media, and religion.
Be sure the political apparatus of our current administration, Organizing for America, seeks to fundamentally transform the United States of America by means of a new convention to amend her Constitution.2
Should thirty-four states petition Congress to issue the call, then (according to Article 5) amendments (plural) must be considered by respective states—e.g., amendments to balance the budget, to limit debt, and to repeal acts passed by Congress, the 17th Amendment (election of Senators by popular vote), and the electoral college. The floodgates would be open to gay-, abortion-, and gun control- advocates—for that matter, all special interests.
In a letter to George Turberville (2 November 1788), James Madison warned: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system.” The Founder’s warning is no less relevant today.3
Her Enemies from Within
With or without rules of order, the “guy with the gavel” (not rule makers) would control such a convention, and no doubt the mainstream media would opportunistically manipulate the reins of public opinion. Aggressive partisanship, agitation, chaos, and controversy would surely follow.
Political correctness dictates that, as progressive, living Constitutionalists increasingly succumb to worldviews at odds with Bible truth, Christians gradually forfeit the same liberty afforded earth pagans who worship Gaia; Muslims who worship the Moon God, Allah; and neo-pantheists who worship “the god within.” Only when it’s too late will the underlying nature of Bible-free dictatorial globalism come to light.
John Adams once pointed out that the U.S. Constitution is “made only for a moral and religious people.” Accordingly, devout lovers of God, truth, freedom, family, and righteousness must plant themselves as watchmen on city walls, as it were, in order to spot, identify, then sound the alarm at the presence of encroaching danger. They must insist that representatives in Congress “make strong” the “miracle” of our republic—this, by strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Only then can America prove Gorbachev wrong and maintain her “extraordinary privilege” over the long run.
Part 2 to follow.
1. Small, Melvin and J. David Singer. Resort to Arms: International and civil Wars 1816–1980 and Berenbaum, Michael. A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis, New York: New York University Press, 1990.
2. http://www.barackobama.com/learn/about_ofa.php
3. http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/
Remember the U.S. Constitution, Part 1
Debra Rae
Most agree that life is fraught with danger. Not all threats are physical, but most are birthed out of ideologies. Hitler’s Germany provides a prime example. At the Führer’s bidding, Heinrich Himmler executed Hitler’s Final Solution. By some counts, persecution and genocide, carried out in stages, resulted in up to seventeen million victims.1
Expanding their concept of the Aryan race, today’s Neo-Nazis promise a wannabe utopia every bit as autocratic as Hitler’s Germany; and globalists advance their own version of dictatorial democratic trans-federalism.
What was needed throughout the season of Hitler’s reign of terror is precisely what’s required today—namely, the WOW factor. By this I mean “watchmen on the wall.” In the mid-1930s Albert Einstein was one such watchman. His fear was that Nazi scientists might develop the world’s first atomic bombs. Hence, in 1939, Einstein urged President Roosevelt to launch an American program of nuclear research.
As a watchman on the wall, Einstein sounded the alarm with history-altering results. All the more today watchmen are needed to expose ideological threats not unlike those that were egregiously acted upon in the 1930s and 1940s.
A Strong Defense
From very early history to modern times, city walls served as fortifications, if not fortresses. The term, “fortification,” is derived from the Latin fortis ("strong") and facere ("to make"). It speaks to “making strong” one’s defense from enemy intrusion.
Those appointed to guard a city, or the headquarters of an army, were positioned with strategic advantage atop the wall around that city. Able to see in the distance, watchmen on these walls forewarned fellows of impending danger, thereby inspiring appropriate preparations and timely defensive action.
Vestiges of ancient defenses remain even today. In 1971, I visited Persepolis, the capital of the Persian Empire located NE of Shiraz—this, for the 2,500-year celebration of Iran’s monarchy. Persepolis defenses “made strong” this vast and powerful empire, which stretched from the Mediterranean to the River Indus. The bastion fortress was partly cut out of a mountain. Its terraces’ uneven foundation acted like a castle, and angled walls enabled its defenders to target any section of the external front.
A Defenseless America
All the more today, one’s national defense from enemy intrusion is required, but effectiveness is not limited to manning state-of-the-art armies, erecting bastion fortresses or, as the case may be, installing heavily guarded border fences. Indeed, ours is an ideological—more precisely, a spiritual warfare—against the God of the Bible and His handiwork. Whether shots are fired, or not, the battle we face is every bit as real.
In his letter to President George Bush dated 25 December 2000, Mikhail Gorbachev insisted that America’s extraordinary privilege is not tenable over the long run. To the contrary, Marxist ideals propel the one-world vision he hawks. A Robin Hood approach to wealth distribution is classic Marxism, which demands “equitable distribution” of the world’s finite resources.
Indeed, the Marxist-Leninist maxim of “earning one’s keep on planet earth” is at the heart of the UN sustainability principle. To merit this coveted status, enlightened communities must limit growth, eliminate suburbs, establish ethnic/economic equality, and curtail consumption patterns consistent with America’s middle class.
The socialist principle of government-managed development, sustainable development calls for revamping the very infrastructure of our nation away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of a national zoning system through which producers are expected to provide for non-producers. Good global citizens are herded out of the suburbs into urban clusters more easily controlled and regulated by UN-empowered special interest groups.
Her Defenseless Foundation
America’s premiere ideological defense was called “a miracle” at its adoption. The oldest written compilation of the fundamental laws of a nation, the United States Constitution, lays down our system of government. It further defines relations of the legislature, executive, and judiciary to each other and to citizens.
Its preamble gives rise to “a more perfect union” (not the “global village”), establishes justice (not exclusively for the world’s downtrodden), ensures domestic tranquility (not by militarizing police), provides for common defense (not under a UN banner) and general welfare (not excluding the unborn or unfit); and it secures blessings of liberty: private property, religious expression, freedom of speech, and limited government. But these very ideals are now under attack.
In fact, trendy “living Constitutionalism” renders this “miracle” up for grabs. To undermine the divinely inspired and unique political perspective of what Trinity Law Professor James Hirsen identifies as “the grand experiment we call America,” each sphere of culture that influences society is targeted for the taking—e.g., arts and entertainment, business, education, family, government, media, and religion.
Be sure the political apparatus of our current administration, Organizing for America, seeks to fundamentally transform the United States of America by means of a new convention to amend her Constitution.2
Should thirty-four states petition Congress to issue the call, then (according to Article 5) amendments (plural) must be considered by respective states—e.g., amendments to balance the budget, to limit debt, and to repeal acts passed by Congress, the 17th Amendment (election of Senators by popular vote), and the electoral college. The floodgates would be open to gay-, abortion-, and gun control- advocates—for that matter, all special interests.
In a letter to George Turberville (2 November 1788), James Madison warned: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system.” The Founder’s warning is no less relevant today.3
Her Enemies from Within
With or without rules of order, the “guy with the gavel” (not rule makers) would control such a convention, and no doubt the mainstream media would opportunistically manipulate the reins of public opinion. Aggressive partisanship, agitation, chaos, and controversy would surely follow.
Political correctness dictates that, as progressive, living Constitutionalists increasingly succumb to worldviews at odds with Bible truth, Christians gradually forfeit the same liberty afforded earth pagans who worship Gaia; Muslims who worship the Moon God, Allah; and neo-pantheists who worship “the god within.” Only when it’s too late will the underlying nature of Bible-free dictatorial globalism come to light.
John Adams once pointed out that the U.S. Constitution is “made only for a moral and religious people.” Accordingly, devout lovers of God, truth, freedom, family, and righteousness must plant themselves as watchmen on city walls, as it were, in order to spot, identify, then sound the alarm at the presence of encroaching danger. They must insist that representatives in Congress “make strong” the “miracle” of our republic—this, by strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Only then can America prove Gorbachev wrong and maintain her “extraordinary privilege” over the long run.
Part 2 to follow.
1. Small, Melvin and J. David Singer. Resort to Arms: International and civil Wars 1816–1980 and Berenbaum, Michael. A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis, New York: New York University Press, 1990.
2. http://www.barackobama.com/learn/about_ofa.php
3. http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Class Warfare--Then and Now
Part 2: Evils of Free-Enterprise Capitalism
Curious, isn’t it? While America is portrayed globally as repugnant, several hundred thousand immigrants think enough about her to forfeit all they have to get here. Be sure those who have tasted the American pie groan in incredulity at the blame-America-first insults levied by those who hate her.
Former Secretary-general of the UN, Kofi Annan, blames America—not Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or the Darfur region of Sudan—for “an unjust world economy, world disorder, and widespread contempt for human rights and the rule of law.” I repeat: “Widespread contempt for human rights.” C’mon.
Pot-calling-the-kettle-black Syndrome
It’s been said that only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you—Jesus Christ and the American G.I. The former died for souls, the latter for freedom. Still, stone throwers from Germany, Japan, and maybe to a lesser degree Italy and Britain forget billions of U.S. dollars in aid and forgiven debt afforded them following World War 2. Now many openly rebuke “decadent, warmongering America” ignoring that, not long ago, the Marshall Plan and Truman Policy propped up their disheartened, war-torn countries. This begs the question, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”
All the while touting tolerance and inclusiveness, the United Nations likewise condemn America as “a nation of evil,” but with open arms host the real planetary bullies—to name two, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Forget that Americans lead the pack in rushing to the aid of earthquake-rattled and tsunami-ravaged victims in far-off lands. Chavez slams “the hegemonic pretensions of the American empire” that ostensibly place at risk “the very survival of the human species.” Say what?
The “roast” doesn’t end here. Through a “say-it-in-Spanish” campaign, Chavez’s government targets “U.S. cultural imperialism” ostensibly cloaked in disagreeable English words as “staff,” “marketing,” “password,” “mouse,” “meeting,” “sponsor.” Yet in speeches, Chavez routinely “breaks playfully into English.” In his world, what’s good for the gander isn’t necessarily good for the goose.
Then, there’s Ahmadinejad who anticipates intervention of the 12th Imam to obliterate America and Israel (a.k.a. greater- and lesser- Satans), but these aren’t the countries notorious for blowing themselves up, destroying churches, and engaging in so-called honor killings.
In no way are Israel or America free of vice and short fallings. However, to magnify what’s wrong with America, revisionists skew her history toward “the bad and ugly” and prune from it “the good.” They discount the genius of he U.S. Constitution, which they characterize as “a living work in progress,” subject to partisan punditry and edits. Moreover, they discredit traditional biblical values that gave rise to America’s founding documents (the Constitution included).
Religious Class Struggle
In the early 19th century, “Bohemians” occupied lower rent (and class) neighborhoods. Nontraditional lifestyles of these marginalized and impoverished artists, writers, musicians, and actors set them apart as creative nonconformists whose higher consciousness permitted them to live by different rules than those imposed upon their boring, moralistic, middle-class counterparts.
Twenty-first century neo-Marxists follow suit. We may well have won the Cold War with political and economic communism, but Pat Buchanan laments our having lost the war with cultural Marxism.1 How so? Political cosmopolitanism (Held, Falk, Miller) demonizes free-market capitalism and champions forced equity among peoples of the world. Sound familiar? You bet.
Given that formal world federalism is linked to trendy, rights-based progressivism, all too many Americans are fooled into believing that Marxism is a “fairer” system. Truth is: Its core values are socialist at best, Marxist at worst. Not free-enterprise capitalism, but rather communism and its right hand of fascism bear responsibility for more human misery than any other system of belief known to contemporary man.
In the name of collective security, totalitarian global governance under world law features an a-biblical religious component. It heralds deceptive universal aspirations of peace, harmony, and safety. But “fairer” it isn’t. Progressive politics of immigration rob organized (legal) workers of real wages siphoned instead to cheap (illegal) immigrant labor.
Founded in 1657, the oldest charity still existing in the U.S. is the Scots’ Charitable Society of Boston. Historically, its supporters viewed the poor as “halfway up the ladder,” not at its bottom. Rather than pit one class against another, charity workers believed that, once in proper relationship with God, the needy would live and work accordingly. This would facilitate a blessed lifestyle. Able-bodied men who refused to work, called “imposters,” were denied charity reserved for willing counterparts in temporary need.
This pragmatic worldview escapes progressives. Neo-Marxists advance an increasingly bloated democratic welfare state helplessly suckled at the breast of big government. Social conditions “improve” by electing socialist representatives (nannies, if you will) who promise “equitable income” under strict state control. Hence, progressive politicians court the vote of their “underdog” constituency, whether “documented” or not.
Geo-political Struggle
Enter, globalism. Known as revisionism and called “social democracy,” this kinder, gentler Marxism melds capitalist and socialist principles and practices. By definition, globalism is a worldwide design to undermine sovereignty of nation-states toward realizing a spiritually illumined new-world order.
Trendy eco-socialists bypass the God of the Bible to serve the god of sustainable development (code for controlling populations and redistributing wealth). The global plan is to concentrate the world’s resources, wealth, and therefore power into the hands of few.
Paternalistic global elites shepherd willing “sheeple” and sternly discipline those inclined to act other than in the presumed-to-be best interest of the greater good. But here’s the caveat: Full-Monty Marxism hides under the guise of Christian socialism, in itself an oxymoron. You see, while Christianity is a spiritual creed characterized by personal relationship, communism is decidedly materialist enforced by the collectivist State.
Make no mistake. In the words of Dr. David A. Noebel (American Philosophical Association), the Marxist/Leninist worldview is “one of Christianity’s most vocal detractors.” 2 Its proponents court “the Christian Left” under compellingly sexy banners of liberation theology,3 red-letter social justice,4 bio-mimicry,5 freestyle evangelism,6 and/or political correctness.7 All imperil what Trinity Law Professor James Hirsen rightly extols as “the grand experiment we call America”; all are poised to rid the world of the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg.
Editor Donald S. McAlvany adds: “America is still in the early stages of a dramatic change that threatens to shatter the very foundations of the country.” While giving overriding priority to the world’s poor, a global brain trust calls the shots; and America eventually takes the fall.
After all, it’s presumed that freedom in the global commons (including outer space, the atmosphere, non-territorial seas, and environmental systems that support life) threatens ruin to all; hence, out of necessity, a new form of feudalism must be enforced. Politically correct, theologically bereft socialism handily fits the bill. America’s constitutional republic does not.
Economic Class Struggle, Déjà Vu
Not-so-new “New Class” theory was (and is) felt in fields of economics (rich/poor, Wall Street/Main Street, haves and have-nots); politics (bourgeoisie/proletariat; ruling elite/masses), society (blue collar/white collar; white/non-white); religion (enlightened/unenlightened); secret societies (“Greeks”/independents; initiated/uninitiated); and global government (world citizens/nationalists).
In an article entitled “Marxism in U.S. Classrooms,” U.S. News and World Report reported that there are ten thousand Marxist professors on America’s campuses. Georgie Anne Geyer adds: “The percentage of Marxist faculty numbers can range from an estimated 90 percent in some mid-western universities.” 8
A product of the sixties and state-certified master educator, I have observed firsthand said Marxists at work; and their clout mustn’t be underestimated. By establishing the State as god (à la George Hegel) with world citizens, its peons, Marxists work tirelessly to eliminate the middle class and thereby make room for an emerging new order.9 Thanks to public higher education, this plan is well underway.
Predictably, the Marxist plan for America’s demise has long been to negate eternal truths and conventional morality; confiscate property and abolish private ownership; impose burdensome taxes and eliminate rights to inherit; centralize means of communication, production, health care, and transportation; consolidate and distribute wealth; combine education with industrial production and thereby establish equality in labor.
To work this agenda, Marxists finger creative entrepreneurs as “rulers” not unlike absolutist monarchs and slave owners; therefore, their unfair, even immoral “rule” must end. The dream of a Marxist-socialist is for “the people”—i.e., State—to own the means of production. Accordingly, America is fast supplanting “ownership” with “we’re all in it together” society that is diverse, centrally planned, unionized, heavily taxed, and subsidized.
The Grand Plan Unfolding
In summary, the Marxist plan is to eliminate America’s middle class, free-market capitalism that created it, and traditional family values that nurtured and sustained it. Conspiracy? You bet. The objective of the global brain trust is control—not just of government, wealth, and natural resources—of people as well.
The formula is simple. First, create a problem, whether real or imaginary—i.e., class struggle. In advertising that problem through the media and public education system, convince folks that something must be done about it. Next, propose and implement a solution to bring about change: One-world governance for a new, collectivist age of infinite (but undeliverable) promises.
While ostensibly paving the way for world peace, international power elites have purposed to regionalize Europe, then the world. America’s blossoming love affair with Communist China, coupled with NAFTA and followed by GATT and CAFTA, grease the skids toward establishing a North American Union—this, after the European model. Even now, an international public-private partnership, the North American Super Highway Coalition (NASHC), is hard at work to create a four-mile wide, UN-controlled NAFTA Corridor—that is, a super highway from Mexico through mid-America and on to Canada.
With concepts of national sovereignty strategically dissolved, and regions (also called “kingdoms”) linked to a bio-regionally defined, representative federal government, the resulting “new” (actually recycled) world order doesn’t define, but rather defies what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
“From each according to ability; to each according to need” certainly wasn’t their vision. Nor did they posture manufacturers, farmers, small-business owners—you know, “citizen Joes”—to kowtow to elitists in the mainstream media, education establishment, mainline clergy, and certainly not in an information-technology industry that was yet to sprout wings.
In the Founders’ plan, “we the people” distinguish ourselves by a stellar work ethic coupled with strong motivation to provide well for our families. Biblical principles of conduct light the way. By design, private property ownership constitutes the cornerstone of American middle-class ideology and tradition.
Ideally, labor and management pull together; however, by fomenting discontent derived from division of labor, neo-Marxists perpetuate a stealth revolution until, by counterculture design, American citizens capitulate to global citizenship defined by a New Earth ethic.10 In the end, no one wins but global plutocrats.
1. newswithviewsstore.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=NWVS&Product_Code=DV49&Category_Code=DVD.
2. David A. Noebel. “The Marxist/Leninist Worldview.” Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth. (1996): 4-6.
3. Liberation Theology counters alleged oppression, racism, and poverty. Black liberation theology has much in common with Black Power, likewise developed in the 1960s. In North America, James Cone is considered its foremost architect. Linked the Obama-Biden bid for the White House, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Jr. is arguably its most visible proponent.
4. Red-letter social justice references New Testament words of Jesus that are printed in red letters. Based on said passages, Red-letter Christians advocate radically progressive social issues and policies as they relate to capital punishment, corruption, modern warfare, welfare, health care, homosexual rights, and the like.
5. Bio-mimicry examines and takes inspiration from nature, its models, systems, processes, and elements in order to solve human problems.
6. “Freestyle evangelicals” (word coined by Steven Waldman, editor of the interfaith Web site Beliefnet) are so-called “higher critics” of the religious left. Armed with a social gospel, proponents create “a new story” other than the ostensibly defunct “monologue of the religious right.” Theirs is a nouveau tolerance—i.e., political correctness.
7. Political Correctness is sophist anti-logic that advances an overarching agenda of united causes including civil/ gender/ sexual orientation rights and radical environmentalism.
8. David Horowitz. Marx’s Manifesto: 150 Years of Evil. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Popular Culture (1998): 1-12.
9. Karl Marx. The Communist Manifesto. American Opinion Press (1974): 24.
10. William Bowen, Jr. “Think Globally, Act Locally: Caveat Emptor.” Globalism: America’s Demise. Lafayette: Huntington House Publishers (August 1984): 59ff.
Curious, isn’t it? While America is portrayed globally as repugnant, several hundred thousand immigrants think enough about her to forfeit all they have to get here. Be sure those who have tasted the American pie groan in incredulity at the blame-America-first insults levied by those who hate her.
Former Secretary-general of the UN, Kofi Annan, blames America—not Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or the Darfur region of Sudan—for “an unjust world economy, world disorder, and widespread contempt for human rights and the rule of law.” I repeat: “Widespread contempt for human rights.” C’mon.
Pot-calling-the-kettle-black Syndrome
It’s been said that only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you—Jesus Christ and the American G.I. The former died for souls, the latter for freedom. Still, stone throwers from Germany, Japan, and maybe to a lesser degree Italy and Britain forget billions of U.S. dollars in aid and forgiven debt afforded them following World War 2. Now many openly rebuke “decadent, warmongering America” ignoring that, not long ago, the Marshall Plan and Truman Policy propped up their disheartened, war-torn countries. This begs the question, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”
All the while touting tolerance and inclusiveness, the United Nations likewise condemn America as “a nation of evil,” but with open arms host the real planetary bullies—to name two, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Forget that Americans lead the pack in rushing to the aid of earthquake-rattled and tsunami-ravaged victims in far-off lands. Chavez slams “the hegemonic pretensions of the American empire” that ostensibly place at risk “the very survival of the human species.” Say what?
The “roast” doesn’t end here. Through a “say-it-in-Spanish” campaign, Chavez’s government targets “U.S. cultural imperialism” ostensibly cloaked in disagreeable English words as “staff,” “marketing,” “password,” “mouse,” “meeting,” “sponsor.” Yet in speeches, Chavez routinely “breaks playfully into English.” In his world, what’s good for the gander isn’t necessarily good for the goose.
Then, there’s Ahmadinejad who anticipates intervention of the 12th Imam to obliterate America and Israel (a.k.a. greater- and lesser- Satans), but these aren’t the countries notorious for blowing themselves up, destroying churches, and engaging in so-called honor killings.
In no way are Israel or America free of vice and short fallings. However, to magnify what’s wrong with America, revisionists skew her history toward “the bad and ugly” and prune from it “the good.” They discount the genius of he U.S. Constitution, which they characterize as “a living work in progress,” subject to partisan punditry and edits. Moreover, they discredit traditional biblical values that gave rise to America’s founding documents (the Constitution included).
Religious Class Struggle
In the early 19th century, “Bohemians” occupied lower rent (and class) neighborhoods. Nontraditional lifestyles of these marginalized and impoverished artists, writers, musicians, and actors set them apart as creative nonconformists whose higher consciousness permitted them to live by different rules than those imposed upon their boring, moralistic, middle-class counterparts.
Twenty-first century neo-Marxists follow suit. We may well have won the Cold War with political and economic communism, but Pat Buchanan laments our having lost the war with cultural Marxism.1 How so? Political cosmopolitanism (Held, Falk, Miller) demonizes free-market capitalism and champions forced equity among peoples of the world. Sound familiar? You bet.
Given that formal world federalism is linked to trendy, rights-based progressivism, all too many Americans are fooled into believing that Marxism is a “fairer” system. Truth is: Its core values are socialist at best, Marxist at worst. Not free-enterprise capitalism, but rather communism and its right hand of fascism bear responsibility for more human misery than any other system of belief known to contemporary man.
In the name of collective security, totalitarian global governance under world law features an a-biblical religious component. It heralds deceptive universal aspirations of peace, harmony, and safety. But “fairer” it isn’t. Progressive politics of immigration rob organized (legal) workers of real wages siphoned instead to cheap (illegal) immigrant labor.
Founded in 1657, the oldest charity still existing in the U.S. is the Scots’ Charitable Society of Boston. Historically, its supporters viewed the poor as “halfway up the ladder,” not at its bottom. Rather than pit one class against another, charity workers believed that, once in proper relationship with God, the needy would live and work accordingly. This would facilitate a blessed lifestyle. Able-bodied men who refused to work, called “imposters,” were denied charity reserved for willing counterparts in temporary need.
This pragmatic worldview escapes progressives. Neo-Marxists advance an increasingly bloated democratic welfare state helplessly suckled at the breast of big government. Social conditions “improve” by electing socialist representatives (nannies, if you will) who promise “equitable income” under strict state control. Hence, progressive politicians court the vote of their “underdog” constituency, whether “documented” or not.
Geo-political Struggle
Enter, globalism. Known as revisionism and called “social democracy,” this kinder, gentler Marxism melds capitalist and socialist principles and practices. By definition, globalism is a worldwide design to undermine sovereignty of nation-states toward realizing a spiritually illumined new-world order.
Trendy eco-socialists bypass the God of the Bible to serve the god of sustainable development (code for controlling populations and redistributing wealth). The global plan is to concentrate the world’s resources, wealth, and therefore power into the hands of few.
Paternalistic global elites shepherd willing “sheeple” and sternly discipline those inclined to act other than in the presumed-to-be best interest of the greater good. But here’s the caveat: Full-Monty Marxism hides under the guise of Christian socialism, in itself an oxymoron. You see, while Christianity is a spiritual creed characterized by personal relationship, communism is decidedly materialist enforced by the collectivist State.
Make no mistake. In the words of Dr. David A. Noebel (American Philosophical Association), the Marxist/Leninist worldview is “one of Christianity’s most vocal detractors.” 2 Its proponents court “the Christian Left” under compellingly sexy banners of liberation theology,3 red-letter social justice,4 bio-mimicry,5 freestyle evangelism,6 and/or political correctness.7 All imperil what Trinity Law Professor James Hirsen rightly extols as “the grand experiment we call America”; all are poised to rid the world of the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg.
Editor Donald S. McAlvany adds: “America is still in the early stages of a dramatic change that threatens to shatter the very foundations of the country.” While giving overriding priority to the world’s poor, a global brain trust calls the shots; and America eventually takes the fall.
After all, it’s presumed that freedom in the global commons (including outer space, the atmosphere, non-territorial seas, and environmental systems that support life) threatens ruin to all; hence, out of necessity, a new form of feudalism must be enforced. Politically correct, theologically bereft socialism handily fits the bill. America’s constitutional republic does not.
Economic Class Struggle, Déjà Vu
Not-so-new “New Class” theory was (and is) felt in fields of economics (rich/poor, Wall Street/Main Street, haves and have-nots); politics (bourgeoisie/proletariat; ruling elite/masses), society (blue collar/white collar; white/non-white); religion (enlightened/unenlightened); secret societies (“Greeks”/independents; initiated/uninitiated); and global government (world citizens/nationalists).
In an article entitled “Marxism in U.S. Classrooms,” U.S. News and World Report reported that there are ten thousand Marxist professors on America’s campuses. Georgie Anne Geyer adds: “The percentage of Marxist faculty numbers can range from an estimated 90 percent in some mid-western universities.” 8
A product of the sixties and state-certified master educator, I have observed firsthand said Marxists at work; and their clout mustn’t be underestimated. By establishing the State as god (à la George Hegel) with world citizens, its peons, Marxists work tirelessly to eliminate the middle class and thereby make room for an emerging new order.9 Thanks to public higher education, this plan is well underway.
Predictably, the Marxist plan for America’s demise has long been to negate eternal truths and conventional morality; confiscate property and abolish private ownership; impose burdensome taxes and eliminate rights to inherit; centralize means of communication, production, health care, and transportation; consolidate and distribute wealth; combine education with industrial production and thereby establish equality in labor.
To work this agenda, Marxists finger creative entrepreneurs as “rulers” not unlike absolutist monarchs and slave owners; therefore, their unfair, even immoral “rule” must end. The dream of a Marxist-socialist is for “the people”—i.e., State—to own the means of production. Accordingly, America is fast supplanting “ownership” with “we’re all in it together” society that is diverse, centrally planned, unionized, heavily taxed, and subsidized.
The Grand Plan Unfolding
In summary, the Marxist plan is to eliminate America’s middle class, free-market capitalism that created it, and traditional family values that nurtured and sustained it. Conspiracy? You bet. The objective of the global brain trust is control—not just of government, wealth, and natural resources—of people as well.
The formula is simple. First, create a problem, whether real or imaginary—i.e., class struggle. In advertising that problem through the media and public education system, convince folks that something must be done about it. Next, propose and implement a solution to bring about change: One-world governance for a new, collectivist age of infinite (but undeliverable) promises.
While ostensibly paving the way for world peace, international power elites have purposed to regionalize Europe, then the world. America’s blossoming love affair with Communist China, coupled with NAFTA and followed by GATT and CAFTA, grease the skids toward establishing a North American Union—this, after the European model. Even now, an international public-private partnership, the North American Super Highway Coalition (NASHC), is hard at work to create a four-mile wide, UN-controlled NAFTA Corridor—that is, a super highway from Mexico through mid-America and on to Canada.
With concepts of national sovereignty strategically dissolved, and regions (also called “kingdoms”) linked to a bio-regionally defined, representative federal government, the resulting “new” (actually recycled) world order doesn’t define, but rather defies what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
“From each according to ability; to each according to need” certainly wasn’t their vision. Nor did they posture manufacturers, farmers, small-business owners—you know, “citizen Joes”—to kowtow to elitists in the mainstream media, education establishment, mainline clergy, and certainly not in an information-technology industry that was yet to sprout wings.
In the Founders’ plan, “we the people” distinguish ourselves by a stellar work ethic coupled with strong motivation to provide well for our families. Biblical principles of conduct light the way. By design, private property ownership constitutes the cornerstone of American middle-class ideology and tradition.
Ideally, labor and management pull together; however, by fomenting discontent derived from division of labor, neo-Marxists perpetuate a stealth revolution until, by counterculture design, American citizens capitulate to global citizenship defined by a New Earth ethic.10 In the end, no one wins but global plutocrats.
1. newswithviewsstore.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=NWVS&Product_Code=DV49&Category_Code=DVD.
2. David A. Noebel. “The Marxist/Leninist Worldview.” Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth. (1996): 4-6.
3. Liberation Theology counters alleged oppression, racism, and poverty. Black liberation theology has much in common with Black Power, likewise developed in the 1960s. In North America, James Cone is considered its foremost architect. Linked the Obama-Biden bid for the White House, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Jr. is arguably its most visible proponent.
4. Red-letter social justice references New Testament words of Jesus that are printed in red letters. Based on said passages, Red-letter Christians advocate radically progressive social issues and policies as they relate to capital punishment, corruption, modern warfare, welfare, health care, homosexual rights, and the like.
5. Bio-mimicry examines and takes inspiration from nature, its models, systems, processes, and elements in order to solve human problems.
6. “Freestyle evangelicals” (word coined by Steven Waldman, editor of the interfaith Web site Beliefnet) are so-called “higher critics” of the religious left. Armed with a social gospel, proponents create “a new story” other than the ostensibly defunct “monologue of the religious right.” Theirs is a nouveau tolerance—i.e., political correctness.
7. Political Correctness is sophist anti-logic that advances an overarching agenda of united causes including civil/ gender/ sexual orientation rights and radical environmentalism.
8. David Horowitz. Marx’s Manifesto: 150 Years of Evil. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Popular Culture (1998): 1-12.
9. Karl Marx. The Communist Manifesto. American Opinion Press (1974): 24.
10. William Bowen, Jr. “Think Globally, Act Locally: Caveat Emptor.” Globalism: America’s Demise. Lafayette: Huntington House Publishers (August 1984): 59ff.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Class Warfare--Then and Now
Part 1: Middle-Class Menace
Ah, the sixties! I remember them well. College campuses across our nation were abuzz with flower power on one hand and seething with anger on the other. Targeting and manipulating naïve students, “Cultural Marxists” used art, music, and media, as well as education, to condition their prey. As puppeteers masterfully wielded rhetorical trickery to foment dissention, disunity, and dispute, deeply alienated and embittered marionettes submitted on cue, thus affecting what arguably amounted to a stealth revolution.
Baby Boomers after all were products of Progressive Education. The movement’s father, Professor John Dewey was a Marxist-Fabian socialist. In 1928, Dewey identified the political function of schools as he saw it—that being, “to construct communist society.” Thanks to Dewey and ilk, progressive public schools served as nurseries for anti-God, anti-American, anti-middle class collectivism. Indeed, atheism was Progressive Education’s root; Marxism its branch.1
The Middle-Class Anomaly
In many, if not most cases, myths sparked the flame, fanned it, and then drove the outcome—for example, stereotypical belief about proverbial “fat-cats.” Recall that some of the most vociferous rebels of the sixties themselves were privileged ivy leaguers. Phony disdain for affluence in no way prevented preppies from climbing their own professional ladders to success in business, law, media, and education. Over time, many amassed fortunes and became the very establishment they had censured.
The same applies today. Tinsel-Town liberals “own the bank” so to speak. All the while heralding “the little man,” and bemoaning right-wing greed, these live out an advantaged, planet-depleting lifestyle that they feign to detest. As was the case in the sixties, definitions as to who-fits-what-category are in flux and, especially throughout the coming decade, are destined to continue changing.
Keep in mind that half of America identifies with the “middle class”; and studies by the National Opinion Research Center reveal that those earning an annual income of $45K define themselves as such (Parade.com/intel). In politics, however, what constitutes this fuzzy category depends on what’s being promoted. For example, while campaigning, Obama promised a tax cut for “middle-class” families that earn up to $200K yearly. When a tax credit was proposed to help middle-class families pay for higher education, the magic number adjusted to $160K. 2
Two (or Three) Americas?
Well-to-do, progressive politicians, as former Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, advance the “two Americas” theory. In this paradigm, good guys are "regular Americans" (the many), and bad guys are an affluent minority (the few). That Edwards’ haircuts each cost $400 hardly qualifies him as “the regular many” he purports to champion.
Truth be told, progressives recognize three Americas—namely, the affluent, the poor, and the coalition of political elitists, intelligentsia, and bureaucrats who together form a ruling class. Unfortunately, their disingenuous political leaning on behalf of “the poor” serves more to magnify a growing fiscal gap than it does to bridge it. 3
Fashionable Disdain of the Middle Class
Cultural editor for World, Gene Edward Veith contends, rightly so, that “a fashionable disdain for middle-class values animates liberalism.” Accordingly, upper- and lower- crust folks snub the middle class—specifically for their work ethic, religious inclinations, and social respectability. Projected guilt is intended to shame middle-class Americans into questioning their rights to private property ownership, free enterprise, and manner of living to which they have grown accustomed.
Understandably, stereotypical middle-class norms appeal to most Americans—i.e., having kids, a dog or cat, home, appliances, car, and bank account. As if on cue, today’s “third-America” class is manifestly insulted if accused of indulging in unsustainable practices, as these; and spotlighted “have-nots” are incited to begrudge their own meager piece of the American pie.
Ironically, many prominent Democratic families possess inherited wealth—e.g., the Kerrys and Kennedys. These join computer- and Hollywood- industries in lending support to liberal ideals and causes likewise funded by mega-wealthy financiers, as Warren Buffet and George Soros.
Never mind that free-market capitalism created wealth that actually catapulted America’s teeming masses (the “have-nots”) into a middle-class (“bourgeois”) lifestyle. No more. Collusion between big business and big government is no real friend to American workers. Under a new social order, their monetary worth promises never to exceed the lowest common denominator prescribed by the world community at large.
To expedite this (the power-elites’ agenda), any memory of an “American dream” must be erased from consciousness. This is accomplished, first, by targeting America’s middle class for systematic extinction. Convince the masses that they are victims of greedy, rightwing management—the answer for which is “social justice,” minus the Founding Fathers’ blueprint. Do this, and dependency on the State with its many entitlements will flourish unabated.4
Marxist Plan to Destroy American Hegemony
Minus her middle class, America forfeits hegemony; and that’s just what globalists want—this, by dismantling and shipping overseas America’s industrial base and by advancing theories found in Paolo Friere’s book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Friere insists that non-whites must accept that they are oppressed and, then, give voice to their grievances; furthermore, they must resist any assimilation that “dominant white Western culture” attempts to impose on them. This they do by maintaining their native tongue and culture. Season this recipe with class envy, coupled with bogus claims of entitlement to other people’s resources, and the seething pot boils over.5
Cosmic Struggle between Worldviews
Chuck Colson said it well: “The culture war is not just about abortion, homosexual rights, or decline of public education. These are only skirmishes. The real war is a cosmic struggle between worldviews”—ideologies or philosophies offering overarching approaches to understanding God, the world, and humanity’s relations to both.
Postmodern nomenclature may be new, but concepts aren’t. As was the case in the sixties, non-socialist societies still are divided into two classes relating to class, race, ethnicity, and/or gender—namely, the oppressed and their oppressors. Under pretense of eradicating “class warfare,” opportunists fabricate and, then, exploit this seemingly timeless struggle (consistently to their own advantage).
In 1921, leading American socialist Norman Thomas gave voice to this scheme. “Under the name of liberalism,” he explained, the American people will “adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Punishing the middle class, expanding racial justice to favor minorities, trumping the U.S. Constitution with international “soft law,” and demanding justice for the planet (ostensibly worthy of human apology and even worship) all hasten Norman Thomas’ premonition.
Socialism’s pawns are in for a surprise ending, though. Minus America’s middle class, two classes will remain—namely, the oppressed and their oppressors.
This is the “real change” they can count on.
More to come in Part 2.
1. David A. Noebel. “The Marxist/Leninist Worldview.” Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth. (1996): 4-6.
2. Mindy Belz. “We vs. Them.” World (9 May 2009): 73.
3. Gene Edward Veith. “Head of the Classes.” World (5 March 2005): 30.
4. Donald S. McAlvany. “The Decline of the Middle Class.” The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor (December 2007): 1.
5. Kim Andrews. “Arizona Bill Targets Classes Promoting Ethnic Resentment.” Education Reporter 293 (June 2010): 1, 4.
Ah, the sixties! I remember them well. College campuses across our nation were abuzz with flower power on one hand and seething with anger on the other. Targeting and manipulating naïve students, “Cultural Marxists” used art, music, and media, as well as education, to condition their prey. As puppeteers masterfully wielded rhetorical trickery to foment dissention, disunity, and dispute, deeply alienated and embittered marionettes submitted on cue, thus affecting what arguably amounted to a stealth revolution.
Baby Boomers after all were products of Progressive Education. The movement’s father, Professor John Dewey was a Marxist-Fabian socialist. In 1928, Dewey identified the political function of schools as he saw it—that being, “to construct communist society.” Thanks to Dewey and ilk, progressive public schools served as nurseries for anti-God, anti-American, anti-middle class collectivism. Indeed, atheism was Progressive Education’s root; Marxism its branch.1
The Middle-Class Anomaly
In many, if not most cases, myths sparked the flame, fanned it, and then drove the outcome—for example, stereotypical belief about proverbial “fat-cats.” Recall that some of the most vociferous rebels of the sixties themselves were privileged ivy leaguers. Phony disdain for affluence in no way prevented preppies from climbing their own professional ladders to success in business, law, media, and education. Over time, many amassed fortunes and became the very establishment they had censured.
The same applies today. Tinsel-Town liberals “own the bank” so to speak. All the while heralding “the little man,” and bemoaning right-wing greed, these live out an advantaged, planet-depleting lifestyle that they feign to detest. As was the case in the sixties, definitions as to who-fits-what-category are in flux and, especially throughout the coming decade, are destined to continue changing.
Keep in mind that half of America identifies with the “middle class”; and studies by the National Opinion Research Center reveal that those earning an annual income of $45K define themselves as such (Parade.com/intel). In politics, however, what constitutes this fuzzy category depends on what’s being promoted. For example, while campaigning, Obama promised a tax cut for “middle-class” families that earn up to $200K yearly. When a tax credit was proposed to help middle-class families pay for higher education, the magic number adjusted to $160K. 2
Two (or Three) Americas?
Well-to-do, progressive politicians, as former Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, advance the “two Americas” theory. In this paradigm, good guys are "regular Americans" (the many), and bad guys are an affluent minority (the few). That Edwards’ haircuts each cost $400 hardly qualifies him as “the regular many” he purports to champion.
Truth be told, progressives recognize three Americas—namely, the affluent, the poor, and the coalition of political elitists, intelligentsia, and bureaucrats who together form a ruling class. Unfortunately, their disingenuous political leaning on behalf of “the poor” serves more to magnify a growing fiscal gap than it does to bridge it. 3
Fashionable Disdain of the Middle Class
Cultural editor for World, Gene Edward Veith contends, rightly so, that “a fashionable disdain for middle-class values animates liberalism.” Accordingly, upper- and lower- crust folks snub the middle class—specifically for their work ethic, religious inclinations, and social respectability. Projected guilt is intended to shame middle-class Americans into questioning their rights to private property ownership, free enterprise, and manner of living to which they have grown accustomed.
Understandably, stereotypical middle-class norms appeal to most Americans—i.e., having kids, a dog or cat, home, appliances, car, and bank account. As if on cue, today’s “third-America” class is manifestly insulted if accused of indulging in unsustainable practices, as these; and spotlighted “have-nots” are incited to begrudge their own meager piece of the American pie.
Ironically, many prominent Democratic families possess inherited wealth—e.g., the Kerrys and Kennedys. These join computer- and Hollywood- industries in lending support to liberal ideals and causes likewise funded by mega-wealthy financiers, as Warren Buffet and George Soros.
Never mind that free-market capitalism created wealth that actually catapulted America’s teeming masses (the “have-nots”) into a middle-class (“bourgeois”) lifestyle. No more. Collusion between big business and big government is no real friend to American workers. Under a new social order, their monetary worth promises never to exceed the lowest common denominator prescribed by the world community at large.
To expedite this (the power-elites’ agenda), any memory of an “American dream” must be erased from consciousness. This is accomplished, first, by targeting America’s middle class for systematic extinction. Convince the masses that they are victims of greedy, rightwing management—the answer for which is “social justice,” minus the Founding Fathers’ blueprint. Do this, and dependency on the State with its many entitlements will flourish unabated.4
Marxist Plan to Destroy American Hegemony
Minus her middle class, America forfeits hegemony; and that’s just what globalists want—this, by dismantling and shipping overseas America’s industrial base and by advancing theories found in Paolo Friere’s book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Friere insists that non-whites must accept that they are oppressed and, then, give voice to their grievances; furthermore, they must resist any assimilation that “dominant white Western culture” attempts to impose on them. This they do by maintaining their native tongue and culture. Season this recipe with class envy, coupled with bogus claims of entitlement to other people’s resources, and the seething pot boils over.5
Cosmic Struggle between Worldviews
Chuck Colson said it well: “The culture war is not just about abortion, homosexual rights, or decline of public education. These are only skirmishes. The real war is a cosmic struggle between worldviews”—ideologies or philosophies offering overarching approaches to understanding God, the world, and humanity’s relations to both.
Postmodern nomenclature may be new, but concepts aren’t. As was the case in the sixties, non-socialist societies still are divided into two classes relating to class, race, ethnicity, and/or gender—namely, the oppressed and their oppressors. Under pretense of eradicating “class warfare,” opportunists fabricate and, then, exploit this seemingly timeless struggle (consistently to their own advantage).
In 1921, leading American socialist Norman Thomas gave voice to this scheme. “Under the name of liberalism,” he explained, the American people will “adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Punishing the middle class, expanding racial justice to favor minorities, trumping the U.S. Constitution with international “soft law,” and demanding justice for the planet (ostensibly worthy of human apology and even worship) all hasten Norman Thomas’ premonition.
Socialism’s pawns are in for a surprise ending, though. Minus America’s middle class, two classes will remain—namely, the oppressed and their oppressors.
This is the “real change” they can count on.
More to come in Part 2.
1. David A. Noebel. “The Marxist/Leninist Worldview.” Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth. (1996): 4-6.
2. Mindy Belz. “We vs. Them.” World (9 May 2009): 73.
3. Gene Edward Veith. “Head of the Classes.” World (5 March 2005): 30.
4. Donald S. McAlvany. “The Decline of the Middle Class.” The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor (December 2007): 1.
5. Kim Andrews. “Arizona Bill Targets Classes Promoting Ethnic Resentment.” Education Reporter 293 (June 2010): 1, 4.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
The Lost Art of Critical Thinking
Part 6, Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
Recently, the Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church, Houston, joined Christian communities in Atlanta, Seattle, and Detroit to encourage “ecumenical reconciliation” between Christianity and Islam. Theirs was a celebration of a sort of worldview potpourri mixing together elements of Christianity and Islam. Predictably called Chrislam, this brand of ecumenicalism qualifies both the Bible and the Qur'an as holy texts. Hence, in a show of equal authenticity, Qur’ans were positioned in church pews next to Bibles.1
Not surprisingly, the American version of Nigerian Chrislamology hops the political correctness bandwagon. For the sake of harmonious coexistence, ecumenical reconcilers value elastic syncretism over orthodoxy, a milk-toast conciliatory gospel over the New Testament Gospel of Jesus Christ. This paradigm shift appears to be compellingly “tolerant”; however, the case for recognizing Chrislam within Christian churches relies solely on fallacies of logic, certainly not biblical compulsion.2
Conflict Escalation: Slippery Slope Fallacy
Some argue that if American “tolerance”—i.e., as in the form of Chrislam—were rejected, then the ongoing conflict between East and West would escalate beyond repair. This slippery-slope fallacy presumes a sort of chain reaction, destined to end with dire consequences that otherwise might have been averted.
Truth be told, embracing tolerance in the name of Chrislam—not the opposite—is what really leads to a slippery slope. After all, the Qur’an explicitly subjugates People of the Book (Jews and Christians) as second-class citizens, subject to burdensome fees and Shariah Law. Believers may live, yes, but only under Islamic terms.3
Can you say, “separate, but not equal”? Been there; done that; not good. Even if all Christian Americans were to embrace Chrislam, and Israeli Jews were to accommodate demands of neighboring Muslim countries, the ongoing conflict in the Near East would nonetheless persist. Solid evidence is lacking to support assertion that “tolerance” of this ilk can restrain Armageddon or that its lack will trigger it. To the contrary, Qur’an-believing Muslims will continue the fight until the Great Satan (America) and the Lesser Satan (Israel) are wiped off the face of the earth—literally.4
Wimpy Doctrine: Straw Man Fallacy
A clever way of strengthening one’s argument is to anticipate opposition, then respond to it in advance. Applying the straw-man fallacy, an arguer sets up a wimpy version of his opponent's position and, then, knocks it down.
A devout Christian, for example, is expected to denigrate Chrislam as apostasy (abandonment of, or departure from, the faith). One who anticipates this response will bypass deal-breaking differences to emphasize superficial similarities between Islam and Christianity—e.g., Abrahamic roots, monotheism, morals and ethics, and the like. Then, he might try to convince others that, only by uniting the world’s two largest monotheistic religions, will rise of atheism and alternative spirituality be thwarted.
Despite apparent similarities, it can’t be emphasized enough that the respective scriptures of Islam and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible. When the Qur’an adamantly rejects the deity of Christ as blasphemy (5:17), and it denies His death on the cross (4:157-158), Islam eradicates altogether any semblance to Christianity. Apostasy established; case closed.
Quacks Like a Duck Theory: Fallacy of Weak Analogy
From God’s vantage point, it’s a daffy idea that just because it looks, acts, and walks like a duck—it is one. He looks, not outwardly, but inwardly. Unfortunately, apart from God, humans lack that ability.5
Mirroring the Muslim practice of walking around the Ka'aba in Mecca, Chrislamists engage in "running deliverance," allegedly practiced by Joshua's army upon taking Jericho. But when Chrislam followers practice “running deliverance,” it doesn’t follow that these two examples of “spiritual running” represent one and the same thing.
Indeed, circumambulation—tawaf (طواف) in Arabic; pradakshina in Sanskrit; skorba in Tibetan—distinguishes many faith traditions. Its practice is integral to Hindu ritual for discovering a deity’s most sacred center of spiritual energy, but no one factors Hinduism into the Chrislam equation.
Merely drawing an analogy between two things (a weak one at that) doesn't prove the fallacious “quacks-like-a-duck” theory proposed by Chrislamists.
The Fast: Begging the Question Fallacy
An argument said to “beg the question” asks one to accept a conclusion without offering weighty evidence. It simply ignores an important, but questionable assumption upon which the argument rests. For example, Emerging Church Movement leader Brian McLaren has written a five-part blog entry arguing why Christians should join with Muslims in the Ramadan fast.
McLaren’s argument rests on the central, but erroneous assumption that, for the sake of congeniality, it’s okay for Christians to fast with their Muslim “brothers” to commemorate the month during which the Qur’an was revealed to Mohammed (2:185).
Consider the Night of Power (Laylat Al Qadr), the 27th night of Ramadan (ninth month on the Islamic calendar). Some scholars apply gematric value (occult mysticism) to it, and devout Muslims (called submitters) who observe the Night of Power expect to earn “double credit” in Allah’s eyes. McLaren forgets that it’s by faith we find favor with God—this, through grace and not by works (i.e., fasting), lest any man should boast.6
In advancing his own brand of political correctness, McLaren ignores the erroneous assumption upon which his argument rests. This he does by withholding the preponderance of scriptural evidence: While loving and befriending others is paramount to the Christian faith, the Bible forbids participating in abiblical religious ceremonies.7
Abrahamic Heritage: Post Hoc (False Cause)
The “false cause” fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase post hoc, ergo propter hoc, translated "after this, therefore because of this." It assumes that because B comes after A, A caused B. However reasoned this sounds, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.
In Islamic tradition, the three monotheistic, Abrahamic religions journeyed in a caravan. Having obtained a measure of truth, Judaism pitched tent and went no further. Thereafter, having expanded Judeo truth, Christianity moved forward, but then settled. Only Islam continued full bore to receive maximum truth.
Chrislamists would have us believe that shared Abrahamic heritage spiritually unites Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but this belief presumes an established pecking order generated by the “false cause” fallacy. Because Christianity came after Judaism (and Islam followed Christianity) does not presuppose that Judaism caused Christianity, or that Christianity caused Islam. For Chrislam to claim shared Abrahamic heritage is no “proof” of Islam’s stature as a Yahweh-sanctioned improvement over faith of the fathers.8
Cutting-Edge Church Leaders: Appeal to Authority Fallacy
By referencing respected, albeit biased sources or authorities, some employ the “appeal to authority” fallacy. To lend support to their own beliefs, they namedrop, align with, and explain positions held by well-known leaders who may not qualify as subject-specific experts.
Take, for example, Emerging Church leader Dr. Tony Campolo. While Dr. Campolo’s credentials are impressive, he was the subject of an informal heresy hearing in 1985, and for good reason. You see, he’s not convinced that Jesus lives only in Christians. In Campolo’s view, an Islamic “brother” who has fed the hungry and clothed the naked clearly has a personal relationship with Christ, but just doesn’t know it. Accordingly, Campolo excuses many Muslims from need for evangelization. Though not labeled heretical, he was found to be "methodologically naïve and verbally incautious." 9
Campolo insists “we cannot allow our theologies to separate us,” yet Jesus came with a doctrinal “sword” to do just that.10 Moreover, about seventy-five percent of Muhammad's biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers. In the words of Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy, “about sixty-one percent of the contents of the Qur’an … speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses … show goodwill toward humanity."
Although Campolo is a popular voice for Chrislam, Jesus is the ultimate authority for Christianity; and Mohammed for Islam. When Campolo contradicts Jesus and/or Mohammed, he forfeits the credibility afforded him by namedroppers hoping to catch the wind of his sails.
“Hath God Said?”: Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy
One who employs the fallacy of appealing to ignorance suggests that the absence of conclusive evidence on a given issue naturally boosts a position the arguer holds. Recall that, in the Genesis account, the serpent toyed with Eve, intimating that her lack of experiential knowledge—i.e., evidence—somehow gave default credence to his own premise, “Ye shall surely live.” 11
In similar fashion, Emergent Church leaders hold that spiritual edification and growth, inspiration and maturity, work for peace and the common good spring from uniting Islam and Christian worldviews. Without experiential knowledge, those who steer clear of Chrislam are deemed unknowing. Therefore, when arguers pose the biblical query “Hath God said?” they challenge purists to “try it and like it.” After all, what’s to say they won’t?
Political Correctness Bandwagon: Ad Populum Fallacy
A common application of ad populum is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer convinces others to believe something because “everyone else” does. Given that tens of thousands of Americans convert to Islam each year, and Chrislamic gatherings can attract up to 1,500 adherents each week, Christians should join the Emerging Church in its embrace of Chrislam.
The arguer overlooks the fact that, just because 130 prominent Christian leaders signed an agreement that states Muslims and Christians worship the same God, it doesn’t necessarily make it so. Indeed, solid archeological evidence overwhelmingly refutes Islamic identification with the God of the Bible.
In actuality, Islam is a revival of the ancient moon-god cult. Its ceremonies, rites, symbols, and name of its god come from this ancient pagan religion. When the moon-god’s popularity weakened, Arabs continued its worship as their chief deity, Allah (generic for “the god”).12
The Common Good: Red Herring Fallacy
The red-herring fallacy introduces a tangential side issue that distracts from what's really at stake. For example, it’s suggested that, when Jesus engaged and thereby learned from the Syrophoenician woman,13 he overcame his “religious prejudice” as a devout Jew. In spinning the biblical account thusly, the arguer distracts from what’s really at stake—the divinity of a sinless Jesus.14
Another example: Though the Qur’an mentions Jesus some twenty-five times (tangential side issue), it also accuses anyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God as having committed the greatest blasphemy imaginable (Qur’an 19:88). In this case, Qur’anic mention of Jesus is a red herring to distract from what’s really at stake—again, belief in Christ’s divinity.15 The tactic employed is to knock over the king pin, so all the pins fall.
What’s Really at Stake?
What’s really at stake is orthodoxy. Coming from a Greek root, the word means "straight belief." Correct practice—i.e., orthopraxy—depends on orthodoxy, not tolerance, as Chrislamists would have us to believe.16
Not recognized as a world religion in its own right, Chrislam blurs differences and distinctions between biblical Christianity and Islam fundamentalism. Its fuzzy thinking renders Chrislam obscure, indistinct, and hazy—thus, capable of deceiving those unschooled as to its nature.
Predictably, relativism drives the “worldview potpourri” of Chrislam. Given no established “black” or “white”—no scripturally validated truth upon which all can rightfully draw—the core value “not to offend” takes front stage. Never mind that the Bible likens Jesus to a stone of stumbling and rock of offense; some Christians believe they must never offend.17
Granted, Chrislamists are not alone in employing fallacious arguments. Many Christians and Muslims do likewise, but then most agree that matters of spirituality and faith transcend logic. Amos 3:3 poses the fitting question, “How can two walk together except they be agreed”? The implied answer is “they can’t.”
As a Christian, I do not hate or shun Muslims, nor do I seek spiritual “common ground” with them, because core incompatibilities between Islam and Christianity preclude perceived, albeit superficial similarities. The Christian faith is founded on the deity of Jesus Christ, the great “I AM,” Immanuel (“God with us”). Were He not divine, Christ’s death on the cross would have been insufficient as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.18 To compromise basic tenants of biblical Christology is to abandon the faith altogether, thus removing the “Chris” from Chrislam.19
If I am faithful to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ, I will seek instead to “make disciples of all nations,” Islamic ones included. This isn’t accomplished by might, power, “holy war,” or congenial “give-and-take,” but rather by the spirit of the living God.20
Fallacies of logic that Chrislamists employ “stand away from” orthodoxy (whether Christian or Islamic) and, therefore, qualify as apostate. The English word “apostasy” comes from two Greek words. The first is a preposition (apo), which means “away from”; the second, a verb (histēmi), which means “to stand.” Biblically, apostates “stand away from” known or previously embraced truth.
Be sure Chrislam is apostate. For a Christian to believe otherwise is self-deception.
1. Posted on line at http://thelastcrusade.org. Paul L. Williams, Ph.D. Qur’an in the Pews; Jesus in the Qur’an. (Accessed November 2010).
2. Galatians 1:6.
3. William Wagner, Th.D. How Islam Plans to Change the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 108-109.
4. Ibid, 219-236.
5. 1 Samuel 16:7.
6. Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:4-6.
7. 2 Corinthians 6:14-15.
8. Galatians 1:6.
9. Posted on line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tony_Campolo (Accessed November 2010).
10. Matthew 10:34-36.
11. Genesis 3:1.
12. James 1:17.
13. Mark 7:26; Matthew 5:22.
14. Matthew 15:21 ff, Mark 7:24 ff.
15. 1 John 2:22, 23.
16. Matthew 7:14 with 1 Corinthians 12:31; 2 Peter 2:1-2, 15.
17. 1 Peter 2:7-8.
18. 1 John 2:2.
19. 2 Timothy 3:16 with John 10:35.
20. Zechariah 4:6.
Part 6, Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
Recently, the Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church, Houston, joined Christian communities in Atlanta, Seattle, and Detroit to encourage “ecumenical reconciliation” between Christianity and Islam. Theirs was a celebration of a sort of worldview potpourri mixing together elements of Christianity and Islam. Predictably called Chrislam, this brand of ecumenicalism qualifies both the Bible and the Qur'an as holy texts. Hence, in a show of equal authenticity, Qur’ans were positioned in church pews next to Bibles.1
Not surprisingly, the American version of Nigerian Chrislamology hops the political correctness bandwagon. For the sake of harmonious coexistence, ecumenical reconcilers value elastic syncretism over orthodoxy, a milk-toast conciliatory gospel over the New Testament Gospel of Jesus Christ. This paradigm shift appears to be compellingly “tolerant”; however, the case for recognizing Chrislam within Christian churches relies solely on fallacies of logic, certainly not biblical compulsion.2
Conflict Escalation: Slippery Slope Fallacy
Some argue that if American “tolerance”—i.e., as in the form of Chrislam—were rejected, then the ongoing conflict between East and West would escalate beyond repair. This slippery-slope fallacy presumes a sort of chain reaction, destined to end with dire consequences that otherwise might have been averted.
Truth be told, embracing tolerance in the name of Chrislam—not the opposite—is what really leads to a slippery slope. After all, the Qur’an explicitly subjugates People of the Book (Jews and Christians) as second-class citizens, subject to burdensome fees and Shariah Law. Believers may live, yes, but only under Islamic terms.3
Can you say, “separate, but not equal”? Been there; done that; not good. Even if all Christian Americans were to embrace Chrislam, and Israeli Jews were to accommodate demands of neighboring Muslim countries, the ongoing conflict in the Near East would nonetheless persist. Solid evidence is lacking to support assertion that “tolerance” of this ilk can restrain Armageddon or that its lack will trigger it. To the contrary, Qur’an-believing Muslims will continue the fight until the Great Satan (America) and the Lesser Satan (Israel) are wiped off the face of the earth—literally.4
Wimpy Doctrine: Straw Man Fallacy
A clever way of strengthening one’s argument is to anticipate opposition, then respond to it in advance. Applying the straw-man fallacy, an arguer sets up a wimpy version of his opponent's position and, then, knocks it down.
A devout Christian, for example, is expected to denigrate Chrislam as apostasy (abandonment of, or departure from, the faith). One who anticipates this response will bypass deal-breaking differences to emphasize superficial similarities between Islam and Christianity—e.g., Abrahamic roots, monotheism, morals and ethics, and the like. Then, he might try to convince others that, only by uniting the world’s two largest monotheistic religions, will rise of atheism and alternative spirituality be thwarted.
Despite apparent similarities, it can’t be emphasized enough that the respective scriptures of Islam and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible. When the Qur’an adamantly rejects the deity of Christ as blasphemy (5:17), and it denies His death on the cross (4:157-158), Islam eradicates altogether any semblance to Christianity. Apostasy established; case closed.
Quacks Like a Duck Theory: Fallacy of Weak Analogy
From God’s vantage point, it’s a daffy idea that just because it looks, acts, and walks like a duck—it is one. He looks, not outwardly, but inwardly. Unfortunately, apart from God, humans lack that ability.5
Mirroring the Muslim practice of walking around the Ka'aba in Mecca, Chrislamists engage in "running deliverance," allegedly practiced by Joshua's army upon taking Jericho. But when Chrislam followers practice “running deliverance,” it doesn’t follow that these two examples of “spiritual running” represent one and the same thing.
Indeed, circumambulation—tawaf (طواف) in Arabic; pradakshina in Sanskrit; skorba in Tibetan—distinguishes many faith traditions. Its practice is integral to Hindu ritual for discovering a deity’s most sacred center of spiritual energy, but no one factors Hinduism into the Chrislam equation.
Merely drawing an analogy between two things (a weak one at that) doesn't prove the fallacious “quacks-like-a-duck” theory proposed by Chrislamists.
The Fast: Begging the Question Fallacy
An argument said to “beg the question” asks one to accept a conclusion without offering weighty evidence. It simply ignores an important, but questionable assumption upon which the argument rests. For example, Emerging Church Movement leader Brian McLaren has written a five-part blog entry arguing why Christians should join with Muslims in the Ramadan fast.
McLaren’s argument rests on the central, but erroneous assumption that, for the sake of congeniality, it’s okay for Christians to fast with their Muslim “brothers” to commemorate the month during which the Qur’an was revealed to Mohammed (2:185).
Consider the Night of Power (Laylat Al Qadr), the 27th night of Ramadan (ninth month on the Islamic calendar). Some scholars apply gematric value (occult mysticism) to it, and devout Muslims (called submitters) who observe the Night of Power expect to earn “double credit” in Allah’s eyes. McLaren forgets that it’s by faith we find favor with God—this, through grace and not by works (i.e., fasting), lest any man should boast.6
In advancing his own brand of political correctness, McLaren ignores the erroneous assumption upon which his argument rests. This he does by withholding the preponderance of scriptural evidence: While loving and befriending others is paramount to the Christian faith, the Bible forbids participating in abiblical religious ceremonies.7
Abrahamic Heritage: Post Hoc (False Cause)
The “false cause” fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase post hoc, ergo propter hoc, translated "after this, therefore because of this." It assumes that because B comes after A, A caused B. However reasoned this sounds, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.
In Islamic tradition, the three monotheistic, Abrahamic religions journeyed in a caravan. Having obtained a measure of truth, Judaism pitched tent and went no further. Thereafter, having expanded Judeo truth, Christianity moved forward, but then settled. Only Islam continued full bore to receive maximum truth.
Chrislamists would have us believe that shared Abrahamic heritage spiritually unites Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but this belief presumes an established pecking order generated by the “false cause” fallacy. Because Christianity came after Judaism (and Islam followed Christianity) does not presuppose that Judaism caused Christianity, or that Christianity caused Islam. For Chrislam to claim shared Abrahamic heritage is no “proof” of Islam’s stature as a Yahweh-sanctioned improvement over faith of the fathers.8
Cutting-Edge Church Leaders: Appeal to Authority Fallacy
By referencing respected, albeit biased sources or authorities, some employ the “appeal to authority” fallacy. To lend support to their own beliefs, they namedrop, align with, and explain positions held by well-known leaders who may not qualify as subject-specific experts.
Take, for example, Emerging Church leader Dr. Tony Campolo. While Dr. Campolo’s credentials are impressive, he was the subject of an informal heresy hearing in 1985, and for good reason. You see, he’s not convinced that Jesus lives only in Christians. In Campolo’s view, an Islamic “brother” who has fed the hungry and clothed the naked clearly has a personal relationship with Christ, but just doesn’t know it. Accordingly, Campolo excuses many Muslims from need for evangelization. Though not labeled heretical, he was found to be "methodologically naïve and verbally incautious." 9
Campolo insists “we cannot allow our theologies to separate us,” yet Jesus came with a doctrinal “sword” to do just that.10 Moreover, about seventy-five percent of Muhammad's biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers. In the words of Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy, “about sixty-one percent of the contents of the Qur’an … speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses … show goodwill toward humanity."
Although Campolo is a popular voice for Chrislam, Jesus is the ultimate authority for Christianity; and Mohammed for Islam. When Campolo contradicts Jesus and/or Mohammed, he forfeits the credibility afforded him by namedroppers hoping to catch the wind of his sails.
“Hath God Said?”: Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy
One who employs the fallacy of appealing to ignorance suggests that the absence of conclusive evidence on a given issue naturally boosts a position the arguer holds. Recall that, in the Genesis account, the serpent toyed with Eve, intimating that her lack of experiential knowledge—i.e., evidence—somehow gave default credence to his own premise, “Ye shall surely live.” 11
In similar fashion, Emergent Church leaders hold that spiritual edification and growth, inspiration and maturity, work for peace and the common good spring from uniting Islam and Christian worldviews. Without experiential knowledge, those who steer clear of Chrislam are deemed unknowing. Therefore, when arguers pose the biblical query “Hath God said?” they challenge purists to “try it and like it.” After all, what’s to say they won’t?
Political Correctness Bandwagon: Ad Populum Fallacy
A common application of ad populum is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer convinces others to believe something because “everyone else” does. Given that tens of thousands of Americans convert to Islam each year, and Chrislamic gatherings can attract up to 1,500 adherents each week, Christians should join the Emerging Church in its embrace of Chrislam.
The arguer overlooks the fact that, just because 130 prominent Christian leaders signed an agreement that states Muslims and Christians worship the same God, it doesn’t necessarily make it so. Indeed, solid archeological evidence overwhelmingly refutes Islamic identification with the God of the Bible.
In actuality, Islam is a revival of the ancient moon-god cult. Its ceremonies, rites, symbols, and name of its god come from this ancient pagan religion. When the moon-god’s popularity weakened, Arabs continued its worship as their chief deity, Allah (generic for “the god”).12
The Common Good: Red Herring Fallacy
The red-herring fallacy introduces a tangential side issue that distracts from what's really at stake. For example, it’s suggested that, when Jesus engaged and thereby learned from the Syrophoenician woman,13 he overcame his “religious prejudice” as a devout Jew. In spinning the biblical account thusly, the arguer distracts from what’s really at stake—the divinity of a sinless Jesus.14
Another example: Though the Qur’an mentions Jesus some twenty-five times (tangential side issue), it also accuses anyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God as having committed the greatest blasphemy imaginable (Qur’an 19:88). In this case, Qur’anic mention of Jesus is a red herring to distract from what’s really at stake—again, belief in Christ’s divinity.15 The tactic employed is to knock over the king pin, so all the pins fall.
What’s Really at Stake?
What’s really at stake is orthodoxy. Coming from a Greek root, the word means "straight belief." Correct practice—i.e., orthopraxy—depends on orthodoxy, not tolerance, as Chrislamists would have us to believe.16
Not recognized as a world religion in its own right, Chrislam blurs differences and distinctions between biblical Christianity and Islam fundamentalism. Its fuzzy thinking renders Chrislam obscure, indistinct, and hazy—thus, capable of deceiving those unschooled as to its nature.
Predictably, relativism drives the “worldview potpourri” of Chrislam. Given no established “black” or “white”—no scripturally validated truth upon which all can rightfully draw—the core value “not to offend” takes front stage. Never mind that the Bible likens Jesus to a stone of stumbling and rock of offense; some Christians believe they must never offend.17
Granted, Chrislamists are not alone in employing fallacious arguments. Many Christians and Muslims do likewise, but then most agree that matters of spirituality and faith transcend logic. Amos 3:3 poses the fitting question, “How can two walk together except they be agreed”? The implied answer is “they can’t.”
As a Christian, I do not hate or shun Muslims, nor do I seek spiritual “common ground” with them, because core incompatibilities between Islam and Christianity preclude perceived, albeit superficial similarities. The Christian faith is founded on the deity of Jesus Christ, the great “I AM,” Immanuel (“God with us”). Were He not divine, Christ’s death on the cross would have been insufficient as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.18 To compromise basic tenants of biblical Christology is to abandon the faith altogether, thus removing the “Chris” from Chrislam.19
If I am faithful to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ, I will seek instead to “make disciples of all nations,” Islamic ones included. This isn’t accomplished by might, power, “holy war,” or congenial “give-and-take,” but rather by the spirit of the living God.20
Fallacies of logic that Chrislamists employ “stand away from” orthodoxy (whether Christian or Islamic) and, therefore, qualify as apostate. The English word “apostasy” comes from two Greek words. The first is a preposition (apo), which means “away from”; the second, a verb (histēmi), which means “to stand.” Biblically, apostates “stand away from” known or previously embraced truth.
Be sure Chrislam is apostate. For a Christian to believe otherwise is self-deception.
1. Posted on line at http://thelastcrusade.org. Paul L. Williams, Ph.D. Qur’an in the Pews; Jesus in the Qur’an. (Accessed November 2010).
2. Galatians 1:6.
3. William Wagner, Th.D. How Islam Plans to Change the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 108-109.
4. Ibid, 219-236.
5. 1 Samuel 16:7.
6. Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:4-6.
7. 2 Corinthians 6:14-15.
8. Galatians 1:6.
9. Posted on line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tony_Campolo (Accessed November 2010).
10. Matthew 10:34-36.
11. Genesis 3:1.
12. James 1:17.
13. Mark 7:26; Matthew 5:22.
14. Matthew 15:21 ff, Mark 7:24 ff.
15. 1 John 2:22, 23.
16. Matthew 7:14 with 1 Corinthians 12:31; 2 Peter 2:1-2, 15.
17. 1 Peter 2:7-8.
18. 1 John 2:2.
19. 2 Timothy 3:16 with John 10:35.
20. Zechariah 4:6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
