Brazil: The invisible revolution

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBLE REVOLUTION

 

When will the Western world wake up to Brazilian threat to freedom?

A PREVIEW

Heitor De Paola 

(This is a preview of a larger article that will be published in the near future. Emergency circumstances made this preview mandatory. These circumstances included massive attacks on my site, www.heitordepaola.com, with a variety of viruses and Trojan horses that precluded remaining online for more than a day in order to upgrade security levels.)  

In recent years Latin American Countries have been facing a renewed leftist movement that jeopardizes the little remaining individual liberty, freedom of speech and most of all private property rights and free enterprise there. The methods as well as the degree of violence vary from country to country. In Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia, vociferous and blatant Presidents stridently announce nationalization of oil, gas, and businesses and there are constant threats against free press.

While this situation prevails noisily in those countries, Brazil is deemed as a quiet and peaceful nation that abides by the rule of law and sound capitalism. This is far from the truth. Actually, in 1990, President Lula da Silva was co-founder, together with Fidel Castro, of the huge and powerful communist organization Forum of São Paulo. The center of the subversive leftist movement in Latin America didn’t move from Havana to Caracas as a great number of political analysts say. Instead it moved to Brasilia. Caracas and Chávez are only well designed disguises to conceal the very source of all revolutionary actions in the Continent. The Forum of São Paulo was founded to “restore in Latin America what was lost in Eastern Europe”: communism, no less! And at the same time to save Cuba from the imminent disaster that the island was facing after the Soviet money injection ended. Deception is extremely important to divert attention from Brazil and in this way allow the quiet development of the most dangerous of all revolutions: the invisible revolution. Anyone who dares say Brazil has undergone a quiet yet sustainable journey to become a communist country is immediately certified as psychotic. Supposedly “well informed” analysts, including Mary O’Grady, Montaner and Vargas Llosa, with their theories about the existence of “two lefts” – one “carnivorous” and another “vegetarian” – and using “populism” instead of communism, when referring to Brazil, collaborate a great deal with the concealment. The US Department of State controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations seems to establish its policies toward Latin America based on the same assumptions. I wonder if the Defense Department thinks otherwise in rescheduling the 4th Fleet, but I don’t believe so. Perhaps they are only thinking of threats posed by Venezuelan’s Chávez.

However, anyone who looks attentively at Brazil’s social structure will see unfolding before one’s eyes many details, apparently detached from each other, that when unified reveal a terrible scene. From a Marxist-Leninist influenced education to statism; from attacks on Christian and moral values to invasion of all kinds of private property; from Government support of leftists NGO’s to growing corruption of the Legislative and Judiciary branches together with growing empowerment of the Executive – all converge toward a steady revolutionary trend and to a police state.  

There are many fronts in this war but I must restrict myself in this brief article to a small part of what is going on in the countryside. For example, the MST (“Landless” Movement) is not what it is usually called, a “social” movement of poor farmers, but in fact a very rich guerrilla revolutionary movement – funded by American and European organizations such as Friends of MST and leftist Catholic foundations around the world – which have no interest at all in property for the landless but in destroying productive properties, agribusiness and experiments with genetically modified food. MST combines forces with many other revolutionary movements and is a branch of the powerful international guerrilla Via Campesina that has spread through 56 countries around the world.

However, there are other fronts where inconspicuous movements have been under way for the last thirty years or so. When suspicion is aroused and threatens to make them visible the political police branches start to move in order to prevent these suspicions from surfacing. In this preview I will stress only two points that, when I tried to expose them, motivated two massive attacks on my site in less then four days time: 1- the continuous and renewed attacks against Brazilian Armed Forces, particularly the Army, based on unproved accusations of torture in the past, and 2- the massive anti-rubella vaccination program developed by the Ministry of Health with the strong support of the United Nations through World Health Organization.

* * *

The attacks on the Army are widely announced by the president’s press secretary, a former terrorist and kidnaper of American Ambassador Charles B. Elbrick, and the Chairman of a so-called Special Secretary on Human Rights focused on some officers who participated in home security actions against terrorism or developed military actions against communist guerrillas, such as the one in Araguaia, in the seventies. Such attacks are coordinated on an international level by the United Nations and a myriad of NGO’s among them Amnesty International. Javier Zuniga, CEO of Amnesty, stated recently that ‘there are wounds that still are not healed’. How could they be if an average of 75% of Brazilian population considers the Armed Forces the most trustworthy institutions in the Country? At the same time, politicians of both Houses have an average of no more than 8-9%. Not healed for whom? For something so immaterial as an ‘international community’? Or for former terrorists who now govern many Countries in Latin America?

On the other hand, what moral credentials does Miguel Alfonso Martinez have to criticize Brazilian Army officers if he was nominated to the UN Human Rights Committee by the ‘exemplary defender of human rights’, Fidel Castro himself? Or Jean Ziegler who was nominated to same committee despite the strong protest of more than twenty Countries for being a notorious friend of the most truculent dictators like Robert Mugabe, Muammar Khadafi, Mengistu Haile Mariam and Fidel Castro? Ironically Ziegler created the ‘Muammar Khaddafi Prize for Human Rights’ which Ziegler awarded to himself in 2002! More details here.

The international coordination goes on by sentencing Argentine officers life in prison as well as the arrival in Brazil of Spanish ‘super-judge’ Baltasar Garzón, invited by the same people, who always find reasons to condemn right-side militaries but denied many lawsuits of families of Cuban prisoners against Castro.

* * *

The second sensitive subject addressed by myself and many others is the Ministry of Health program on vaccination against rubella. Denunciations were brought by Argentine scientists of the University of Buenos Aires School of Pharmacy and Biochemistry that confirmed the presence of human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (ß-hCG), a hormone essential for maintaining pregnancy. The administration of ß-hCG in vaccines induces the female organism to create anti-hCG antibodies, which interpret the natural fabrication of hCG occurring in pregnancy as ‘enemies’ that must be eliminated at once, precluding, by this attack, the implantation of the egg cell in the uterus. In brief: if ß-hCG is inoculated in this form it becomes an abortion factor.

Other accusations have come to the fore recently. In 1995 the Philippine Supreme Court halted a vaccination program against tetanus supported by UNICEF due to contamination with ß-hCG.  In 2004 in a Nigeria’s vaccination against poliomyelitis a scientist found sterilizer agents secretly introduced into vaccines. Another accusation came from a different source in Asia.

Although Brazil has almost 200 million inhabitants there were only 17 cases of congenital defects due to Congenital Rubella Syndrome last year (2007). Comparatively, the United Kingdom with less than half that population, had 43 certified cases. Besides, studies developed in the University of Rio de Janeiro Information Center for Travelers (CIVES) suggest that rubella is no more a danger for public health, dropping from 30 thousands certified cases in 1997 to 326 in 2005.

So why such an expensive vaccination program to inoculate adults from 20 to 39 years of age with 70 million doses? Are those vaccines really contaminated with ß-hCG? Is this a monstrous secret abortion program?

So much evidence and suspicions should at least lead to a thorough investigation by the public health authorities. But the only answer until now has been a nondescript one page press release from the Pan American Health Organization that failed to answer any scientific questions. This report is obviously released to reassure the Brazilian Ministry of Health Vaccine Program. It must be said that this Minister is a well known and self-defined pro-abortive activist.

At last I must state that I do not belong to any anti-vaccine activist group. On the contrary, a few years ago I had a strong and harsh discussion defending vaccination programs against some of these groups religiously or ideologically biased against vaccines. I have some articles on the subject from that date. See here and here (in Portuguese). And I still defend vaccination programs due to its efficacy in eradication of smallpox, poliomyelitis, tuberculosis and many others. By I cannot agree with the criminal and secret use of such powerful disease-control instruments used to murder human beings. If so many accusations have been brought, this situation must be thoroughly investigated beyond a doubt.

Olavo de Carvalho on the revolutionary mind

Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture: The structure of the revolutionary mind

 

By Donald Hank

Even the best of observers have trouble figuring out what the Left is, or what the difference between left and right is, or what these concepts even mean any more.

Great strides have been made recently, however, with the recognition, among the most astute observers, that Hitler’s Third Reich is by no means an example of rightwing ideology and policies in action, contrary to current political doctrine.

Many conservative writers have already concluded that Hitler was not a rightwinger, based mostly on his National Socialism.

Indeed Mr. de Carvalho’s (as yet unpublished) lecture “The structure of the revolutionary mind,” cites the recent book “The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia” by Richard Overy, which demonstrates the parallels between Hitler and Stalin.

I had noticed that the compatibility of Hitler’s ideology with today’s European relativism was brilliantly highlighted in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled, and most poignantly in the scene in a former Third Reich mental “hospital” where patients deemed to be of no value to society were gassed (I couldn’t help but think of Terri Schiavo). When Stein asked the tour guide at the museum what she would say if she could talk to the perpetrators of that horror, she simply said that was another era and they had their reasons for doing what they did. Thus she clearly would not feel justified in judging these criminals by her standards (assuming she had any). Here was a woman who had certainly been educated in Germany, either the communist East Germany or the socialistic West Germany. Neither system prepared her to condemn Hitler’s actions because these actions were based on the same world view that Germany embraces today, atheistic humanism based on a tenacious belief in Darwinist principles of natural selection, and the correlative notion that man has a moral right and even obligation to support natural selection with his laws under which a race can be culled of inferior elements. Neither socialism nor “national” socialism reject this out of hand. Only Christianity does, and that religion is fading fast in Europe (while here Christianity is being absorbed by the Left. See here, here and here).

All this helps clarify the compatibility between two world views that our education system and mainstream press insist are opposites.

But surprisingly, despite a lot of keen observation, before Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture, no one had yet managed to credibly characterize the Left in all of its main facets.

I have personally grappled with this for many years and had all but despaired of finding an adequate definition. And yet, how can a good American be a good American if he can’t identify the enemy of his way of life? How can he stand athwart history and shout stop if he doesn’t know what it is he must stop?

At the top of the first page of each issue of Izvestia was the slogan “Workers of the world unite!” Thus to people of my era, the Left portrayed itself as a system of social justice that aimed at creating a level playing field between workers and their bosses and attempted to share the wealth equally with a view to building a world free of poverty.

Yet today, we see the Left working hard to make fuel more expensive for the poor, not in any attempt at social justice but rather to “save the planet.” The main area where social “justice” is sought is between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and the current thrust is toward legalizing same-sex “marriage” which, if it triumphs, will trivialize traditional marriage, ultimately prompting fewer to marry and bear children, since part of the attractiveness of marriage has been a sacred religious ceremony affirming one’s faith, encouraging people to wait until marriage to enjoy sex, and therefore fostering heterosexual purity based on a biblical world view. None of this is apparent in the “gay” community with its emphasis on promiscuity (broad daylight naked orgies) and its rejection of the biblical view of homosexuality. This focus on discouraging child birth is mightily supported by Planned Parenthood. Thus, ultimately, the leftist vision seems to be a world with more poverty and fewer children born to shoulder the burden of caring for the elderly, for example, by paying into the social services system. The once-proud vision of a world of strong healthy workers receiving equal pay for a better, more prosperous life, is quickly giving way to a vision of a world impoverished for the sake of an impersonal planet to whose riches mankind must increasingly forfeit its claims. We are taught that to consider humanity’s needs is to be selfish, that we must sacrifice our children’s future for the sake of a planet. And yet we are being asked to sever ties to that planet as if our destiny were separate from its.

Thus, obviously, the old left and the new left are different ideologically and many ordinary people are confused (particularly since an astounding percentage of Republican politicians embrace the Left’s policies). Some are confused into thinking that the new Left is more benign. These are the ones who believe the myth that communism is dead.

In fact, communism never died, it merely metamorphosed.

How to explain that the Left can completely substitute its original ideology and still be the Left?

Olavo de Carvalho had wondered the same thing. But he was born into a South American environment where leftism was the air they breathed. It was the worldview in academe and on the street and there was no other box to think outside of. Therefore, as a philosophy student, he was steeped in the literature of the Left, not just Marx and Hegel but the entire pantheon of leftist gods writing the blueprints for society. Thus he had read an enormous amount of this literature and is today one of the few living conservatives-having had his epiphany-who now truly understands the Left, something like David Horowitz, except that de Carvalho had the additional benefit of seeing a much more virulent leftism in action and up close.

Even so, Mr. Carvalho had to read and reread the old (and new) revolutionary literature to find a common thread, and what he found is surprising:

The Left (which he calls the “revolution”) is not a unified ideology or agenda at all, but rather a way of seeing the world, and specifically it is an inversion of what normal people call common sense. And this inversion is the sole unifying factor, the one common thread running through the revolution since the 13th and 14th centuries

According to de Carvalho, revolutionary thought as we know it did not exist before about the 13th century; nor is it a function of chronological age. The myth that the young tend to be revolutionaries arises from the Left itself and serves the purpose of making the Revolution appear to be a natural phenomenon.

Instead, this revolutionary inversion has its origins in an early Christian heresy (arrogating to itself the role of Christ the avenger) and has at least three aspects:

1-Inversion of the perception of time.

Normal individuals, based on common sense, see the past as something immutable and the future as something that can be changed (it is contingent, as de Carvalho puts it).

Not so the leftist revolutionary, who sees the utopian future as a goal that eventually will be reached no matter what and the past as something that can be changed, through reinterpretation (what we call “rewriting history”), to accommodate it.

One example the author gives of this is how Soviet propagandists reinterpreted Dostoevsky, an anti-revolutionary of the first order. In his novel “Crime and Punishment,” young revolutionary Raskolnikov kills his wealthy elderly landlady as an act of solidarity with the poor class, in keeping with his world view that ownership of private property is immoral and that the revolutionary is entitled to take possession of it by any means at his disposal. But Raskolnikov is caught and goes to jail where the only book available to the prisoners is a Bible, which he reads, and is converted to Christianity, abandoning his revolutionary ideology, which he now understands as immoral.

While fully aware of Dostoevsky’s anti-revolutionary mindset, the early communists liked his novels and considered them too thoroughly Russian to ban, so they simply reinterpreted him posthumously and declared that his novels were written to highlight  the need for more social justice. Thus the Left reached back into time and manipulated the thoughts of a man who would have been their adversary, making him posthumously a fellow communist.

2-The inversion of morality

De Carvalho points out that because the revolutionary (leftist) believes implicitly in a future utopia where there will be no evil, this same revolutionary believes that no holds should be barred in achieving that utopia. Thus, his own criminal activities in achieving that goal are above reproach.

The author cites Che Guevara, who said that the revolutionary is the “highest rank of mankind.” Thus, armed with such moral superiority, Che was able to cold-bloodedly murder his political enemies wholesale.

Another example cited in the lecture is Karl Marx, who had an illicit liaison with his maid and then, to keep bourgeois appearances, made his son, the offspring of that liaison, live in the basement of his home, never even introducing the boy to his brothers in wedlock. The boy was never mentioned in the family and went into historical oblivion.

De Carvalho compares this despicable behavior with the more noble conduct of Brazilian landowners who had illegitimate children but made them heirs, yet made no claims of moral superiority!

To the revolutionary mind, it is normal that the revolutionary should pay no mind to the bourgeois morality, because after all, nothing he does can be construed as immoral, since the sum total of his actions hasten the revolution when justice will prevail. This is why conservatives frequently refer to the Left’s hypocrisy (for example, environmental champion Al Gore’s 20-fold electricity consumption compared to yours and mine).

By contrast, the author shows that by the Left’s own definition of “revolution,” the American revolution is not a revolution at all because our founders were men who held themselves (not just others) to high moral standards, and in no way tried to usher in a novel experimental utopian system, basing their actions and policies on older English traditions and common law, and modeling our Republic on these tried and true common-sense precepts. 

3-Inversion of subject and object

When revolutionaries like Che, and Hitler’s operatives, for example, killed innocent people, they would blame the people they killed for “making” them do it by refusing to go along with their revolutionary notions. This is one example the author gives of the inversion of subject and object.

De Carvalho also points out a number of other inversions and makes many fascinating points, but my purpose here is simply to clarify what the Left really is, to stimulate thought and to predispose the reader to buy his book when it comes out.

You will be a better American for having read the writings of – a great American.

 

Olavo de Carvalho is a well-known Brazilian philosopher and writer, many of whose articles have graced the pages of Laigle’s Forum.

 

Anti-gay protesters sue city, police

Anti-gay protesters sue city, police

 

Men claim their religious views were restricted at event in Elmira park.

BY RAY FINGER • RFINGER@STARGAZETTE.COM • AUGUST 22, 2008

 

A civil rights lawsuit has been filed against the city of Elmira and police charging they discriminated against Christians during Southern Tier Pride 2008.

In the suit filed last week in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, James Barnes and Julian Raven of Elmira and James DeFerio of Syracuse claim their Constitutional rights were violated on June 14. The suit says they were prevented from expressing their religious views during “a city-sanctioned event in a public park.”

The event was a gay pride gathering held in Wisner Park and inside The Park Church.

The three men seek a permanent injunction prohibiting their arrest, their removal or restriction of their speech during future events that celebrate homosexuality, according to the lawsuit that was filed by a legal alliance of Christian attorneys.

“It’s a free speech issue. Christians have the same free-speech rights as anyone else in a public forum,” Joel Oster, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said Thursday. The national organization says it seeks to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage and the family.

In this case, a person who was wearing a red T-shirt that said “Liberated from Sin by the Blood of Jesus” was forced to remove that shirt if he wanted to stay in the public park. Christians should not be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs at an event open to the general public, he said.

A news release by the alliance says police threatened to arrest Barnes and several other Christians for wearing shirts with that message, handing out literature, holding up signs on a public sidewalk surrounding the event and speaking about their faith with attendees.

According to a Star-Gazette account of the event, Elmira Police Capt. Michael Marrone told Barnes to take off the T-shirt to protect both sides, apparently by trying to avoid provoking a confrontation.

“As we’ve said all along, this is not a free-speech issue. It’s a public safety issue,” Mayor John Tonello said Thursday.

“As we saw, there was already a court case, and the judge upheld the fact that the city and the city police acted properly in guarding the peace and protecting the participants, which is our responsibility,” he said.

Oster disagreed. “This is not a public safety issue. This is a matter of can Christians act at a public forum to express their viewpoint, or can the city force them out?” he said.

He compared it to cases of the 1960s where black people did sit-ins in whites-only areas, and they were arrested for disturbing the peace. “And of course, now we’re not buying it,” he said.

Raven was among four people found guilty earlier this year of disorderly conduct for disrupting last year’s Southern Tier Pride Festival in Elmira. The four protesters claimed their right to free speech was violated when they were arrested June 23, 2007, after lyng on the lawn in front of a temporary stage in Wisner Park.

But Elmira City Judge Thomas Ramich said in his decision that Raven, the leader of the protest group, was being reckless when he inserted the four into the midst of the event participants.

The four were defended by Oster, who said they were wrongly arrested and not allowed to share their message with those in the park. But Chemung County Assistant District Attorney Robert Siglin argued that the case was about public order, not freedom of religion or speech.

“I was at the event last year and this year, and they like to call it a city-sanctioned event,” Tonello said of the protesters. “But we issue permits for people to appear in parks and other locations across the city all year long. This was just another group that has the free right to use city facilities in that way.”

John Ryan Jr., the city’s corporation counsel, was in court Thursday and could not be reached for comment.

In addition to the city and Marrone, Elmira police Capt. James Wandell and Sgt. Sharon Moyer are named in the suit.

*******

JAMES SUNDQUIST’S RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE IN WHICH CHRISTIANS WERE ARRESTED FOR PRAYING (SILENTLY) IN A PUBLIC PARK AT A GAY PRIDE EVENT:

People’s Republic of Elmira

http://rock-to-salt.cephasministry.com/JulianRavenTrial.pdf

 

 

Sincerely,

 

James Sundquist

Director

Rock Salt Publishing

 

Christians, fear the LORD, not Rick Warren!

Christians: Fear the Lord, not Rick Warren!

 by Donald Hank

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.    Mat. 25:45

Some will certainly ask why my campaign against Rick Warren. They say it seems so personal at times.

It is. Let me try to explain where I am coming from.

300 years ago, my Anabaptist ancestors, gentle, godly men and women, were persecuted for their faith and their plain talk.  Here is how it happened.

My people had been living in the mountains of Switzerland and had been holding house church services there, perhaps for centuries – no one knows – much like the Chinese Christians today, reading contraband German translations of the Bible (which was supposed to be in Latin only) and teaching against child baptism, when Martin Luther managed to throw off the yoke of the Catholic church for the first time. Now they knew that up until then, had the Catholic authorities learned of these “heretical” activities, they would have been in mortal danger. But seeing Luther as their liberator, they decided it was safe to come down and come out. They went into the public squares and preached their new doctrines. Amazingly, they could quote the Bible in German, something ordinary people couldn’t do, because the Catholics had taught that only higher ranking church people had the right to do that. And their words seared men’s hearts and consciences, because it thundered like the truth of prophets. Unadorned, unflattering truth that tore away centuries-old facades and hypocrisies in a flash, leaving sinful people naked before man and God.

But if Luther was a liberator for some, he was not their liberator, far from it.

For the followers of Luther had their own doctrines shaped as much by their leader as by the Bible. Luther was indulgent. He didn’t preach much about sin or hurt the feelings of his flock. After all, they were his bread and butter. Many were rich and influential. So he liked to make his flock feel good about themselves. Sound familiar?

Luther’s reformers decided to take action against my ancestors. Soon the more outspoken ones were rounded up and persecuted. The tortures were unspeakable. Some were loaded with weights and thrown into rivers to drown; some had their cheeks burned open with red hot irons, leaving hideous gashes in their faces. Some were burned at the stake. Even young girls were not spared the torture and execution. Yet they marched to the place of execution singing hymns of praise to our Lord!

Faced with extinction, the Anabaptist church elders soon decided their only hope was to emigrate. But where to go? Who would take them? Many of those living in the East went to Russia, which then was a godly country. But for most, there was only one haven: America. A certain William Penn, a godly man himself, had acquired the rights to a vast territory in the Eastern part of the new land and invited the Amish and Mennonites, as they came to be called, to settle there.

Praise be to God. They were free at last! And they brought with them a new concept of government: separation of church and state.

But good things like this never last forever, at least not without a fight. But the Anabaptists didn’t believe in fighting.

In the 20th century, their children were exposed to wicked ideas, from the same places that had expelled them. From Charles Darwin in Europe. Darwin’s idea that people could live without God, that they were no longer His children but accidents of nature, spread like a miasma over the land, suffocating good religion and righteous people who resisted evils like homosexuality and abortion were soon the target of ridicule and even threatened with imprisonment.

A new “church” rose up under the influence of the new ideas. The new church taught a new doctrine: civility. But what that meant was that the old believers were not to speak. The new believers were allowed to say what they pleased as long as they did not sully the new church’s elders. And they could embrace the evil condemned by God himself. For the new leaders were wicked and secretly hated God and his plain words about these evils.

A new leader emerged among the false prophets, a man named Rick Warren, who quickly became famous because he flattered the evil doers and said nothing about their sins. Not only that, he punished those who spoke out against the evil. Rick was well liked among the licentious because he provided cover for them by silencing dissenters, called them “uncivil” if they criticized same-sex marriage and abortion.

Meanwhile he devised a scheme known as the “Growth Covenant,” and urged churches to sign this, promising them growth and wealth if they did. Many foolishly believed that they would become prosperous even without God’s blessings. Yet some, the wiser and older believers who knew the Bible, resisted. Rick told the pastors to simply kick out these older people, whom he derisively called fundamentalists (a name that had been shrewdly used by non-believers to denote Islamic radicals, making it seem as if all traditionalist Christians were every bit as bad as terrorists). Through this sleight of hand, he was able to discredit real Christians.

Do you see what had happened? The nation that had taken in the downtrodden was now persecuting them. And Rick Warren was the new Martin Luther, ruling with an iron fist – and a smile.

An old believer named James Sundquist documented the abuses suffered by these poor unfortunate Christians, in a book entitled “Who’s Driving the Purpose-Driven Church,” and later in another one entitled “Rick Warren’s Global Peace Plan.” For his pains, Brother James was also persecuted, receiving vicious attacks from the followers of Rick, who called him vile names. The hypocrisy was evident. These people who talked so much about “civility” were anything but civil.

It was a sham.

And this is the America we now live in. Anyone who dares to criticize Rick Warren is threatened with lawsuits, attacked viciously or treated as a pariah in the evangelical community. Almost no churches will tolerate a dissenter. Even the most traditional ones have adopted a code of silence. I spoke with some of the victims on the phone, who said they were threatened with the loss of their livelihood if they dared speak out against Rick. Others hung up as soon as they realized I was investigating Rick. I have spoken with otherwise traditional pastors who immediately jump to Rick’s defense when confronted with the truth, saying “I still believe Rick is saved,” as if being saved were an excuse for doing evil! And they hurry to get away. One man I spoke with said was escorted out of a church by the police because he had criticized Warren to his pastor earlier that week. It is surreal, like something straight out of Kafka.

But recently there have been stirrings. After Rick’s minion Richard Abanes had Ken Silva’s web site taken offline, I prayed earnestly about this intolerable situation and, seeing that no one else had the courage or understanding to intervene, finally stepped out in faith and took up the cudgel. I started exposing Rick’s shenanigans. And then, God stepped in as He always does at such times. Well-known and influential commentators started opening chinks in Rick’s armor, criticizing his leftism, something good Americans cannot tolerate when its mask is pulled away.

Below I present citations from respected and well-known serious commentators. Now, Randy or Hunt or Richard Abanes, or whoever is running interference for Rick today, please note that now, I am only quoting for a change.

But even so, don’t even think about harassing my friends here, because I promise to make you even more infamous if you do.

From what I have said about my ancestors, you can understand that I do not abide bullies well – especially religious bullies!

America is the last stronghold for religious freedom. If we fail here, there is nowhere left to go. All good people must fight. Please, fellow Americans, don’t be afraid. God will protect you, and bless you, if you stand up for what you know is right.

Now is the time to shed forever your purpose-driven shackles and shout a resounding NO to the rich and powerful bullies who have usurped America’s pulpits!

Donald Hank

 

Institute on Religion and Democracy

Rick Warren: Evangelical Statesman
Alan Wisdom
August 18, 2008 

“Rick Warren will not endorse either candidate. Nor has he abandoned his convictions about abortion and homosexuality. But he does Obama a great favor simply by presenting him on the stage of Saddleback Church alongside John McCain. Assiduously avoiding the issues where evangelicals differ most sharply with Obama also aids the Democrat’s cause. (One wonders whether it will be possible, at an event in California, to pretend that the court-imposed redefinition of marriage is a matter of little concern to evangelicals.)” [my emphasis here and hereafter]

Read more here.

 That, of course, is essentially what I had said back in February in my column “The purpose-driven left Turn.” No other columnist had mentioned this back then.

Star Parker echoes this same concern. Have a look:

Star Parker:

Pastor Warren: Stop politicizing religion

“For whatever good intentions Pastor Warren may have, by posturing as a neutral broker between different points of view, many of which have profound moral and religious implications, he contributes to the moral ambiguity we’d expect a pastor to be combating.
 
We have institutions for civic and political forums. The press, universities, town halls, etc. If they’re not delivering well, let the marketplace work to improve what we’re getting. But this is not the job of pastors or churches. If it is, where do we go to learn about good and evil?”

And further: 

“The pretense of neutrality is really a left-wing illusion. It’s a sleight of hand to buy into relativism, and somehow Pastor Warren seems to have fallen into the trap. [Star is very diplomatic, falling short of calling Warren a leftist-DH]
 
When a pastor hosts a political candidate that has a 100 percent rating by NARAL Pro-Choice America and a 0 percent rating by the National Right to Life Committee, he gives legitimacy to that candidate. When legitimacy is given to a line of reasoning that says that poverty and AIDS are symptoms of anything other than moral breakdown, the relativist views of the left are justified.”

Amen, Star!

Read more here.

Finally, for those who have not read the numerous blogs and the books by James Sundquist, here is a letter from one of the victims of the Purpose Driven Mafia, which I received from this courageous author.

Brother James says:

Kaycia Key is wife of Pastor Ron Key who was driven from a well known PDC church in Dallas, TX. I published her letter in my book on Rick Warren’s Global Peace Plan.   Here is her letter as cited in “Rick Warren’s Global Peace Plan vs. Scriptural Teachings on Peace.” page 114-116, ©2006  Bible Belt Publishing, Southwest Radio Church and Rock Salt Publishing:

December 14, 2005 and January 9, 2006

Hi James,

Our newly founded church, Cornerstone, is doing very well, has such a sweet spirit. We have over 250 members and we are meeting in facilities provided by Dallas Christian College.

We have to use the gymnasium for worship services because it’s the largest area to meet. We’re too big for their chapel. We also have refugees from a myriad of other churches.

Ron and I are having an Open House this weekend to try to thank everyone for all the love and support we’ve received . . . so that has kept me pretty busy.

I finally got to get a little further into your book and another one that someone else sent which echoes the same concerns you have. I am so grateful to you for identifying some of the causes of my fear and concern for the Lord’s church. The Deceiver certainly has come as an “angel of light” in these days.

I recently read an article in Christianity Today, five pages of Rick Warren’s Global Plan to end world poverty. It was sad and frightening to read all those pages and only one mention of Jesus . . . a mention about how Rick Warren was there to restore the hands and feet to the body. And as you point out, his theology is definitely skewed. Have seen numerous articles corroborating your book. . . . Many who left Valley View Christian Church did so in great part because the leadership had developed an irrational and irrecoverable rupture in our common faith, belief and vision of Christ’s church after we studied and implemented the Purpose Drive Life by Rick Warren.

The church had been experiencing problems between the elders and the congregation and people were quietly (and some not so quietly) beginning to leave. When the elders  brought in a new preaching minister [who supported Warren’s view] people grew more unhappy and then after we did, the purpose-driven programs the rift developed into the rupture of faith and our vision for Christ’s church to the point a “re-visioning” even the foundational charter. To try to overcome this growing rift the elders, and Ron and I, agreed to submit ourselves to a biblically-based reconciliation process under the direction of a professional Christian reconciliation group to try to overcome this mindset which had come upon the church.

But three days later the elders reversed their decision and asked Ron to resign, with six months severance or be fired and receive two months severance. Ron, my husband and senior minister, said that under these circumstances, they would have to fire him, because he said he could not resign when he had lived up to his end of the agreement. Ron Key did not, as some may thought (or been erroneously told) start a new church, but was asked to become the minister of the new church, once it was founded.

Since then the church has grown to about 275-300, several of whom were refugees from other churches in the area who were also leaving because of many of the same issues with

leadership that had developed in their respective congregations after purpose-driven programs. We are also now being able to share in love with more people about the perils of Warren’s programs. Believers, who sensed something amiss, but were not aware of the dangers in his teachings and who knew nothing (like me) of the congregations that have developed splits after having implemented his “purpose-driven” ideas. As one of our

members and past elder at VVCC stated, “The question is not whether the congregation will obey their elders, but whether the elders will obey Christ.”

-Kaycia Key [reprinted by permission]

Folks, if you are still not quite convinced, I recommend you go out and get James Sundquist’s books, which document the purpose-driven reign of terror that I have tried to briefly depict here.

Another Rick Warren defender persecutes godly preacher / author

Another Rick Warren defender persecutes godly preacher / author

There is something sinister going on here. James Sundquist (see below) had read my article “Did Rev. Rob Schenk really owe that apology to Rick Warren” (in which I demonstrate that he did not), but nowhere in that article did I disclose the email address of the person who sent me the slanderous email suggesting that I had somehow sullied a “man of God.”

Yet, as God is my witness, the email address Sundquist gives for this “Hunt” character (saee below), Drrsbm@hotmail.com, is indeed the address of the Randy J. I mentioned in that article.

And the subject line “ready to eat crow?” is identical as well. Now, let’s try not to get paranoid and ask whether the name “Hunt” is itself a veiled threat (as in “hunt and kill”?), although Sundquist, one of the most thorough investigators out there, has uncovered sinister means used to destroy numerous God-fearing people who have dared to criticize “America’s pastor.” In point of fact, just after my article exposing the attack on Ken Silva ran at Laigle’s Forum, Rick’s team put up a press release at Christian Newswire showing the cover of Time Magazine featuring a photo of Rick and calling him the most powerful religious leader of our time.

Why the emphasis on power? I don’t mean by Time but rather by Rick’s PR team. Why at that time, just after the Silva scandal broke, when you’d expect Rick to be laying low, would he suddenly focus on how powerful he is?  Part of the alleged abuse was abuse of …what?… power! So the PR team decides to highlight it? The old-fashioned evangelists and pastors I remember from my youth focused on the power of God, not their own power. Had they done so, they would have immediately gone into that great dustbin in the sky. But the “revolutionary inversion” (=post-modernism) as defined by Olavo de Carvalho, is upon us.

Of course, perhaps this attack on Brother Sundquist cannot be laid directly at the feet of Rick Warren. However, Warren acolytes have already forced one godly blogger (Brother Silva, see above) off the internet and, according to Sundquist, threatened others. And I received a similar attack from the exact same source, so someone has begun to see themselves as defenders not of the faith but of Rick the person. That smacks of cult behavior, and if Risk is smart, he will distance himself from these zealots before a major scandal breaks. In fact, it is probably only by the grace of Big Media that it hasn’t already happened.

One lady who does a radio show told me that she was threatened with legal action after merely cautioning her listeners to see what the Bible says and compare it to what Warren says in his book. Sounds like good advice to me, and if I had been Rick, I’d have said “amen”, but the person who contacted her in Warren’s defense scared her enough that she put a lawyer on the case.

Think about it: Have you ever heard of Billy Graham followers going after his detractors like that?

I think we are supposed to pray for those who revile us, not threaten to sue them!

But even if you want to depart from the Word of God, at least practice what you preach: civility.

 Donald Hank

 

PROOF OF SLANDER BY “HUNT” WHOSE EMAIL ADDRESS IS: Drrsbm@hotmail.com (see copy of email below)

Dear “Hunt”

Are you aware that it was Rick Warren himself that said he would not ask the difficult questions about sin in the Aug 25 Time Magazine article about him?  So is it the fault of those ministries for simply repeating what Rick Warren himself stated were his intentions regarding questions he would and would not pose at this forum?
A shift away from “sin issues” – like abortion and gay marriage – is reflected in Warren’s approach to his coming sit-downs with the candidates. He says he is more interested in questions that he feels are “uniting,” such as “poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights,” and still more in civics-class topics like the candidates’ understanding of the role of the Constitution. There will be no “Christian religion test,” Warren insists. “I want what’s good for everybody, not just what’s good for me. Who’s the best for the nation right now?”

So it was reasonable to presume that Warren would not ask questions on sin (abortion) at the forum.

Someone sent this to me…can’t tell if they want me to eat crow?

But there still remains NOTHING I ever said about Rick Warren that is still not true.  I saw the entire forum last night and it only confirmed my convictions about Rick Warren, if for no other reason than the following question posed to both candidates by Rick Warren:

“What should the U.S. do to end religious persecution?”

Warren could be one of the world’s greatest hypocrites for asking that question.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Here is my question for Mr. Warren:

What can the church do to end the persecution of churches by Purpose Driven hostile takeovers that purpose-drive true Christians from their churches, as I document in my “Spiritual Euthanasia” article?

I also address Warren’s question about evil in my second book on Rick Warren which describes how Rick Warren answered that question.

Dear “Hunt”

Are you aware that it was Rick Warren himself that said he would not as the difficult questions about sin in the Aug 25 Time Magazine article about him?  So is it the fault of those ministries for simply repeating what Rick Warren himself stated were his intentions regarding questions he would and would not pose at this forum?
A shift away from “sin issues” – like abortion and gay marriage – is reflected in Warren’s approach to his coming sit-downs with the candidates. He says he is more interested in questions that he feels are “uniting,” such as “poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights,” and still more in civics-class topics like the candidates’ understanding of the role of the Constitution. There will be no “Christian religion test,” Warren insists. “I want what’s good for everybody, not just what’s good for me. Who’s the best for the nation right now?”

So it was reasonable to presume that Warren would not ask questions on sin (abortion) at the forum.

Blessings,

James

 

Begin forwarded message:

From: “Hunt” <Drrsbm@hotmail.com>

Date: August 17, 2008 7:39:50 AM EDT

To: <rock.salt@verizon.net>

Subject: Ready to eat crow?

 

The entire nation will know you are a fool sir, if you do not do the same. You have misjudged a godly man and the entire world knows it now. Are you man enough to admit it or will your sinful pride (or lust for book sales) keep you in denial?

 

Rick Warren Critic Admits he Was Wrong to Jump to Conclusions – Praises Warren Civil Forum on the Presidency

 

Last update: 10:28 p.m. EDT Aug. 16, 2008

WASHINGTON, Aug 16, 2008 – The Reverend Rob Schenck, who was recently quoted in the Los Angeles Times and on National Public Radio criticizing Pastor Rick Warren for announcing he would not pose questions on hot-button issues to presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain during tonight’s Civil Forum on the Presidency, reversed his negative opinion before the event had even ended.

“I was wrong to jump to negative conclusions,” said Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council and a minister to elected and appointed officials in Washington, DC. “I made the wrong assumptions. As a result of his Saddleback Forum, Rick Warren helped us to get a clearer picture of the candidates, their moral and spiritual principles and their philosophy of government. It was better than I had prayed it would be.”

Schenck praised the contribution the forum has made to the election process. “While it is not the final word on which candidate is best, Christians and all Americans should find this forum very helpful as they consider who they will pick to occupy the White House in 2009. Rick Warren didn’t cover it all,  but he did accomplish more than anyone else has so far in unpacking who the two candidates really are. I applaud him.”

SOURCE National Clergy Council

Review of “Taken into Custody: The War against Fatherhood, Marriage and the Family”

Some of you saw my first article on Rick Warren and noticed that I focused on his wife’s involvement with domestic violence, protesting the premise of her activism as being feminist inspired and potentially causing collateral harm to men and children. Why the fuss? Shouldn’t we be protecting women? Of course we should, whenever their safety is threatened.

But the domestic violence industry has long been in the hands of the feminist Left. It is a money-making racket, and to put it as succinctly as I can, here is how it works:

— Divorce is a multibillion dollar industry rewarding mostly lawyers and divorced or divorcing women.

— Marriage law today is counter-intuitive and works backwards in relation to all other contract law: It rewards the person who is unfaithful while punishing the one who is faithful. 2/3 of all divorces are filed by women. (Olavo de Carvalho has an excellent as-yet unpublished lecture explaining the “revolutionary inversion,” of which “no-fault” divorce is a prime example. Lord willing, I will be presenting a brief column on this).

— To whitewash the person breaching the contract, a strong argument is needed: an accusation or hint of abuse.

— To make this accusation stick, while lacking any evidence of it, the divorce industry relies very heavily on the threadbare myth that males are typically abusers and unfaithful while women are almost always their victims. As I pointed out in that earlier article on Rick, this myth runs counter to almost all research on the subject, which shows that women initiate violence as frequently as men. Yet this long-debunked myth is the basis for divorce law in almost every Western country today.

— The accusation of abuse alone suffices in domestic court, so that the most of the unscrupulous, or mentally disturbed, women who contrive such accusations win. The male is not allowed to be present in many cases, and when he is he is generally instructed to be quiet throughout the proceedings. No proof is required, at variance with the Constitutional principle that the accused be able to face the accuser and that proof be required to convict.

— The reward? Custody and child support for the accuser. Why would the courts and divorce lawyers go to so much trouble to bolster up a dead myth? Without it many of these people with troubled relationships would stay maried!

Imagine how many children would be living with a father under their roofs if we could overcome this dreadful web of lies!

Donald Hank

 

The Government, Divorce, and the War on Fatherhood

by Todd M. Aglialoro

7/31/08

 

Taken into Custody: The War against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family

Stephen Baskerville, Cumberland House, 352 pages, $24.95

 

For whatever reason, social conservatives focus considerable political effort on abortion, gay rights, and obscenity, but pay scant attention to divorce. Perhaps they think that ship has sailed for good, whereas other battles still offer winnable stakes. Perhaps too few look at our “family courts” and see a culture war; or perhaps too many lack the conviction to fight it. And when conservatives do target divorce, rather than lobby for legal reform of the “no-fault” divorce system, or changes in the way courts award custody or child support, they have preferred to employ the tools of ministry, treating divorce primarily as a moral problem rather than a political one; its attendant social evils as a consequence of sin, not of bad policy.

This is a grave mistake, says Stephen Baskerville, professor of government at Patrick Henry College and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. In his startling new book, Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, he asserts not only that reforming America’s divorce paradigm deserves a far higher priority among conservative culture warriors, but that our divorce courts today are agents of radical sexual ideology, occasions of shameless graft, and instruments for the expansion of governmental power at the expense of Constitutional rights.

Read more here

 

Did Rev. Rob Schenk really owe Rick Warren that apology?

Did Rev. Rob Schenk really owe Rick Warren that apology?

By Donald Hank

Last night, Christian Americans were pleasantly surprised to see Rick Warren posing really tough questions on abortion and same-sex marriage to the candidates.

As soon as the forum was over, Reverend Rob Schenk, one of Rick Warren’s fiercest critics, rushed to apologize for predicting that Rick Warren would not pose these questions, although I am not sure Rob actually predicted anything. 

So should he apologize? 

I too had written the article “will Rick Warren play softball with Barry and John?,” uttering my suspicion that Rick would play softball and let Obama, one of the most pro-abortion senators, go unchallenged.  I knew the risk that Rick might actually talk tough this time, but I decided he needed a push, and the best push was to give him a chance to go “Na nyah na nyah nya” at the end of the debate.  The strategy worked.

I know numerous Christians who, based on what they knew about Rick – who assiduously avoided these issues in the past, as if they didn’t exist, ranting on instead about poverty and the social gospel – had issued public statements urging Rick to ask the tough questions.

Rick never once promised he would.  Had he been an impassioned defender of life before last night, not one of these activists would have felt compelled to urge him on.

Think about it: did any pro-life activist ever feel compelled to urge Dr. Dobson to ask tough questions on life issues?

Dobson has always been self-motivated.  As for Rick, we will never know what motivated him, now will we?

Yet now, those who uttered legitimate concerns prior to last night are apologizing and thanking Rick for doing what he did (as if the Almighty had been a mere spectator).

I wonder if it has occurred to anyone that we all ought to be thanking not only God, first and foremost, but also Pastor Rob Schenk and scores of other staunch pro-life leaders for urging Rick and for praying hard for this kind of questioning to occur.

Today, a certain Randy J. sent me a copy of the news release regarding the Reverend Rob Schenk’s apology to Warren and the following terse message under the title “Ready to eat crow?”:

The entire nation will know you are a fool, Sir, if you do not do the same.  You have misjudged a godly man.

I e-mailed this person, thanked him for contacting me and asked him to come to Laigle’s Forum and leave his comment there.

So far he has chosen not to, obliging me to answer here.

Randy, please take a look at my article “Will Rick play softball with Barry and John?” First, note that the title takes the interrogative form.  I do not say Rick Warren will play softball.

Yes, it is true, I absolutely had doubts that Rick would not ask a hot button questions at his forum.

But were these doubts the product of some pathological paranoia on my part?

Remember that Rob Schenk had such doubts, and so did many pro-life groups who sent Rick an open letter urging him to ask the candidates about abortion.  I think we can assume that countless others did the same, based on what we knew from the press.

The letter from the eight pro-life groups also urged Rick to ask about the candidates’ past voting records on abortion, which he did not.

So why did Rob Schenk and these pro-life groups doubt that Rick would do what he ultimately did?

Were they paranoid?

Let’s see.  Here is a smattering of what the press was reporting, based mostly on what Rick Warren himself had said:

http://elections.foxnews.com/category/top-story/

August 16:

Hot-button campaign issues are expected to be off the table Saturday – instead Warren will touch on his broader priorities.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/obama-and-mccain-to-participat.php

Aug 15 (TPM Café):

Warren is one of the new breed of evangelicals who care as much about social issues like poverty and AIDs as they do about the traditional hot-button issues, such as abortion and homosexuality, typically associated with the religious right. It’s reported that Warren, who is anti-abortion in his own personal beliefs, is facing intense lobbying from the traditionalists to press the candidates regarding their views on abortion. But Warren is said to be not particularly inclined to focus on abortion in this forum, “I will be raising questions … beyond what political reporters typically ask. This includes pressing issues that are bridging divides in our nation, such as poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights,” said Warren of the forum.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-08-14-saddleback_N.htm

Warren will interview each candidate separately for about an hour on the presidency and Constitution, the role of the United States in the world, global poverty and, possibly, abortion. [my emphasis]

But, Randy, your worst offense is not the false accusation that I predicted Rick Warren would not ask tough questions, but rather your total disregard for Rick’s admonition, at the end of his forum, to be civil in debate.

I invite you to look back over all my writing and see if I have called anyone a fool. Go ahead, search for the word “fool” at my website.

You see, I know what Jesus said about that.  Want to know?

… whosoever shall say Thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire.  (Matt.  5:22)

But if you read my column, then you know it only expresses my concerns about Rick’s hesitancy to discuss abortion, and also the general impression among Christians that he embraces left wing causes.  He often is hard to distinguish from far-left “Christians” Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis, particularly when he talks about enlisting government in the worldwide struggle against poverty, healthcare and climate change, for example.  His membership in the liberal think tank The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and his allegiance to their support for supranational government (like the African Union) is apparent in his agendas.

Last night he stayed on script, urging the candidates to use their presidency to help the world’s 148 million orphans, calling this an emergency.  Recall that the welfare debate also framed the poverty as an emergency.  We all know the outcome.

Let me be crystal clear:

Rick Warren is advocating socialist programs the likes of which have been tried and have failed in the past.  The only difference is that his proposed programs risk bankrupting Americans now faced with the record gasoline prices and much less buying power than ever.  He is expecting a different outcome but, should his programs be implemented, will only prove, once again, that socialism does not work.  Tragically, we the poor, not he the rich, will pay. Now, Randy, that is a prediction.

Finally, there are issues vital to our nation that internationalist Warren ignored in his forum:

– tackling the oil crisis by down to earth means like drilling, building refineries, nuclear power and the like.  To his credit, John McCain, and McCain alone, emphatically urged: drill here, drill now, to thunderous applause.

– the dangerous “Fairness” doctrine, which is not only an infringement on the First Amendment but is anything but fair because the universities and media – with the exception of radio – are all solidly in the hands of the left. 

– illegal immigration.  Neither the candidates nor Rick Warren seem to consider this a problem.  While McCain frames the oil crisis as a national security issue, and rightfully so, he does not see any security problem in keeping our borders open and inviting 20 million lawbreakers to reside in our country indefinitely, inviting their friends and family to do likewise.  This despite the roughly 19 Americans who die every day at the hands of illegal immigrants.

– Nor did Rick, or anyone else for that matter, touch on the way the rights of Christians are trampled in schools, the way any Christian (or other for that matter) opposing the homosexual agenda can be threatened with fines and jail under “hate” crimes legislation and allied human rights issues should such legislation pass.

If our “leaders” ultimately stand for anything, it is not thanks to them.  It is thanks to what I call the “American sheep dog.”

Although Americans are chided for being sheep, or as Michael Savage says, sheeple, there is a significant number that can be called sheep dogs.  That is, they nip at the heels of careless or dozing leaders, forcing them to lead.

Last night, President Bush was praised for picking good Supreme Court nominees.  Yet his choices would not have been much better than his lackluster predecessors’ had it not been for watchdog troops like the FRC, the AFA, James Dobson’s organizations, etc., who urged members to write and call the White House to stop the nomination of Harriet Miers, a potentially disastrous choice.  Likewise, the tenacious John McCain would never have backed away from his pro-amnesty, pro-open borders stance without us “sheep dogs” nipping at his heels during that legislative crisis last summer.

He is still wishy-washy enough to meet with the blatantly racist Mexican La Raza group, but would be even more radical without our monitoring.

Finally, to those who doggedly forced Rick Warren to ask the tough questions on life and same-sex marriage, my heartfelt thanks.

If America survives an Obama or McCain presidency, it will be thanks to your tireless efforts, your continued nipping at the heels of your inattentive helmsman.

And when he ultimately changes direction at your urging, remember: you owe no one any apologies. Quite the contrary.

Will Rick play softball with Barry and John tonight?

Will Rick play softball with Barry and John tonight?

 

By Donald Hank

 

An article that appeared in One News Now today entitled “Skepticism mounts over Warren’s presidential forum,” says that Christians are doubtful that Rick Warren will ask either of the candidates about their views on abortion in the 2-hour interview scheduled at the Saddleback church tonight (8:00 p.m. EST on Fox News). There has been a lot of pressure on Warren from various groups to ask this question, so he might actually grow a spine and do it.

But isn’t it sad that a man who has been called “America’s Pastor” would need to be prodded into raising the issue that is probably of greatest importance to Christians today?

If Warren does ignore this issue tonight, then he is covering for Obama, because while John McCain has been, for the most part, pro-life in his Senate career, Obama has garnered a 100% rating from NARAL for his pro-abortion votes. Barry has never seen a child killing he didn’t like.

What is Rick Warren, a pastor of the Southern Baptist denomination – once reputed to be one of the most conservative in America – up to?

For one thing, Rick has a long history of allowing “experts,” like Peter Drucker and Bob Buford, for example, to show him how to do God’s work.

What’s wrong with that?

Here is what the Bible says about how to prepare for preaching to reach souls for Christ:

In his letter to the Galations (1:15-16), he says:

 

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately, I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were disciples before me.

 

In other words, Paul got his preaching skills from God Almighty in person. By contrast, Rick clearly confers with flesh and blood.

Which is why he is often accused by Christian observers of straying from the Word of God.

And it is why his PEACE plan and other agendas for solving the world’s problems are vanity. Worse, there is absolutely no biblical basis for churches partnering with government and business, as Rick recommends. This system is a throwback to the ruling church in Europe, where Protestants were supreme in one region and Catholics in another and anyone who did not conform, like my Anabaptist ancestors, were persecuted, imprisoned, forced to recant or banished.

Another example:

The effete feminist myth that males are inherently bad while females are their perennial victims has repeatedly been debunked, most recently by Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who single-handedly stopped the ERA.

Yet Kay Warren and husband Rick, the “most powerful pastor in America” (according to a recent Time article) apparently want to “partner with governments” based on the threadbare feminist notion that domestic violence is typically violence against women.

Flying in the face of this claptrap, a recent article from the UK highlights a startling rise in violence among females there in the last 3 years. This violence can be laid at the feet of radical feminism (of the kind inadvertently supported by Kay) and its encroachment in the courts, which makes females all but exempt from prosecution in England, tempting some to go further and further to test their limits of immunity. Here in the US we have, of course, the famous case of Mary Winkler, who was able to shoot her husband in cold blood and get a slap on the wrist by the court, then on to victory in a custody case. She now has custody of the couple’s girls, who have registered no interest in being returned to her.

Virtually all studies on domestic violence (like the best-known and most extensive ones by Murray Strauss at the University of NH) show that males and females initiate DV at equal rates. Further, the highest DV rate by far is among lesbian women!

Yet Rick’s purpose-driven juggernaut continues to march inexorably forward with its leftist-liberal program, crushing truth as it goes.

Another example is the way Rick Warren gets rid of resistors, as reported, for example, by Dwayna Litz.

Getting rid of heretics would be biblically correct. But to Rick, anyone who opposes his man-made plan to grow the church is a heretic. In fact, some are beginning to see Rick as the heretic.

 

I have no advice for Rick. I have been told by a greater Authority not to cast my pearls before swine.

I have heard pastors say that one must pray for leaders who have gone astray rather than admonishing them or pointing out their errors.

Again, Paul has the answer to that:

 

If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

If Obama becomes our next president, America can thank Rick for playing softball with the candidates tonight.

Further reading on Rick Warren at Laigle’s Forum:

 

 KINDLY LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW:

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, tragically misunderstood by conservatives

Aleksander Solzenitsyn, tragically misunderstood by America

 

By Donald Hank

 

Solzhenitsyn is known as a writer who addressed issues like the lack of freedom in the USSR, for example, in his novels “Gulag Archipelago” and “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.”

But few are aware that his greatest contribution to the world was his thorough fact-finding research on the early years prior to the Russian Revolution and the first years thereafter.

Solzhenitsyn would go to the local library and ask for copies of pre-revolution newspapers. He would laboriously copy out passages that contradicted the Soviet revisionist histories. He also frequently checked out any items of interest in this regard, making library officials suspicious. He was soon tailed by Soviet agents, who interrogated him and ultimately had him arrested.

He was able to hide much of this copied information from them and later use it in his novels.

Thus Solzhenitsyn was much more than just a novelist. He was a chronicler and historian. And he was the only living Soviet who did this to such an extent. He filled a dark void and it is hard to imagine a world without his contribution.

Solzhenitsyn admitted that he was, initially, just another Soviet citizen who hardly questioned the regime and its motives and agenda. Yet, his curiosity led him to knowledge, and knowledge ultimately led to freedom.

But it was a long hard journey, and few understand the sufferings he went through.

Even fewer understand his sufferings in America, where he lived for a few years while employed by Harvard University. Here he was snubbed by those who should have befriended him. And he was snubbed – ultimately – simply for being a Russian patriot.

President Reagan’s advisors wrongly categorized Solzhenitsyn as an extreme nationalist, when he was nothing but a man who loved his country.

No wonder then that he returned disillusioned to Russia and became reconciled with some of the people who were once his persecutors. Who knows what direction Russia would have taken if America had befriended Solzhenitsyn instead of marginalizing him?

And it didn’t have to be that way. American conservatives must divorce their feelings about evil regimes from their feelings toward the people who have suffered under those regimes.

How can God bless us if we do not?

I had stumbled across Solzhenitsyn’s letter to Reagan, and had long wrestled with the idea of translating it but was thwarted by 2 considerations:

1-Perhaps the letter had already been published in English;

2-Perhaps it would not change any minds or produce any tangible benefit for Americans.

But now that our dear friend of freedom is gone, I decided to investigate and found no mention of the letter in English anywhere on the Web.

And I thought perhaps someone may benefit from reading it. Not that I wish to highlight the failure of those Americans responsible for offending the writer. It is rather my desire to help Americans of our generation to learn from our past mistakes.

I have tried to help introduce to Americans a writer from Brazil whose passion for freedom and understanding of the extreme dangers that the Left poses here and in his home country remind me for all the word of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. The knowledge we can gain from him is considerable and can be turned to our advantage.

Who knows? Perhaps how you treat Olavo de Carvalho may in some way affect our future course.

Let’s do better this time around.

 

 

 

Letter to President Reagan

 

(Published in the book “Aleksander Solzhenitsyn”, Yaroslavl, Verkhnaja Volga, 1997)

 

Cavendish, May 3, 1982

 

Dear Mr. President,

I am delighted with many aspects of your activity, and am happy for America that it finally has a president like you.  I never cease to thank God that you were not killed by those malicious bullets.

However, I have never had the honor of being received at the White House — neither in the Ford administration (the question arose there without my participation), nor later.  In recent months, roundabout inquiries have come to me through various routes asking under what circumstances I would be willing to accept an invitation to visit the White House.  I always responded that I was willing to go for a substantive discussion with you under circumstances providing the opportunity for a serious effective conversation, but not for an open ceremony.  I do not have time in my life for symbolic meetings.

However, I was offered (in a telephone call from advisor Pipes) not a personal meeting with you but a luncheon with the participation of emigrant politicians.  The same sources announced that this would be a luncheon for “Soviet dissidents.”  However, an artistic writer in the Russian sense does not belong to either of these groups.  I cannot allow myself to be assigned a false rank.  Further, the fact, form and date of the reception were sent and released to the press before I was informed myself. To this day, I have not received any information on even the names of the persons who were invited along with me for May 11.

Still worse, the press reported various hesitations on the part of the White House and publicly announced that the White House had not refuted the statement of the reason why a meeting with me was considered undesirable, namely, because I was “a symbol of extreme Russian nationalism.” This statement is offensive to my countrymen, to whose suffering I have dedicated my entire literary life. 

 I am not a “nationalist” at all.  I am a patriot.  In other words, I love my country — and that is why I also understand why others love theirs.  On more than one occasion, I have publicly stated that the vital interests of the peoples of the USSR demand the immediate cessation of all global seizures by the Soviets.  If people who think as I do came to power in the USSR, their first step would be to pull out of Central America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, leaving these nations to decide their own fate.  Their second step would be to stop the murderous arms race, devote the country’s efforts to healing the internal nearly century-old wounds of an already moribund populace.  And, of course, they would open the doors to those who wish to emigrate from our hapless country.

Amazingly, none of this suits your nearest advisers!  They want something else.  They call this [my] program “extreme Russian nationalism,” and some American generals are proposing selectively destroying the Russian population with an atomic strike.  It is odd that in the world today Russian nationalism evokes the greatest fear both in the potentates of the USSR and in the people around you.  Here is evidenced the hostile stance toward Russia herself, the country and the people, independently of government forms, which is characteristic of a substantial segment of American educated society, American financial circles and, sadly, even your advisers.  This attitude is harmful to the future of our two nations.

 Mr. President, it is with heavy heart that I write this letter.  But I think that if a meeting with you somewhere were considered undesirable because you are an American patriot, you would also be offended.

Once you are no longer president, if you are ever in Vermont, I will be sincerely happy to meet with you at my home. 

Since this entire episode has been subjected to a distorted interpretation and it is quite likely that my motives for not traveling there have already been distorted, I feel that I will be obliged to publish this letter. Forgive me.

With sincere respect,

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

 

Translated by Donald Hank

 

Informative article on Solzhenitsyn:

http://www.acton.org/commentary/468_solzhenitsyn_and_his_critics.php

Further reading on Solzhenitsyn’s stay in Vermont:

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080804/NEWS01/808040348/1002/NEWS01

 

How conservative is your talk show host?

How Right is Your Conservative Commentator
 
 

 

By Michael Bresciani

Those who host conservative radio shows are less likely to be pressured by
PC watchdogs but all of them occasionally take leave of reality especially
when it comes to theology. Let’s see!

From the stinging replies of Americas “culture warrior,” Bill O’Reilly, to
the sardonic humor of Glenn Beck and all in between there is a lot to be
desired.

It may be naiveté as in President Bush’s remark about Islam being a
“peaceful religion” or it may just be that after all they are only political
commentators and not avowed conservative theologians. In either case, some
who are only slightly above novice theologians have to cringe from time to
time at what they have to say.

In O’Reilly’s Culture Warrior he notes that he must leave all judgment about
sin to the deity. (pg. 179) No problem with that but then he indicates that
he sees no problem with gay couples raising children. As with all others he
offers a chance for the Catholic Church to explain their reasons for the
negative positions they hold about children in such unions. It still might
be easier to get the Pope to come on the “Factor” than Barack Obama but I
doubt he is going to accept the offer if one is made.

The biblically grounded use the Bible as their ultimate authority under what
is known as the belief in the “plenary verbal” method of biblical
inspiration. In short that means that every letter, word and phrase was
chosen explicitly by God. Catholic theology allows for ex-cathedra which in
essence says that the Pope can speak in Christ’s stead through something
called apostolic succession. Then there’s Bill O’Reilly’s view. He is right
about a lot of things and always interesting but for those of us who trust
God’s word only scripture is endowed with intrinsic infallibility.

I don’t need to say what the bible says about homosexuality again but if I
did the fastest way to get the info would be to check the rhetoric on the
gay sites where the blogs are always in full steam and much is always being
said against those words.

Then along comes Glenn Beck with his feisty and often gut splitting raw
humor and sarcasm, until he starts praising ministers like Osteen and
Warren. Both are well intentioned icons of the day but once again the best
bet for biblical truth is still the bible itself, not the surmising of an
icon.

Beck graduated from Sehome H.S. and O’Reilly often reminds his viewers that
he is an alumnus of Harvard University so it is safe to say we should not
expect theology that reflects an education from Dallas Theological Seminary
from either of the aforementioned. What we might hope for is that someone
explains to Glenn that for millions of conservative Christians around the
nation the mega church darlings are part of the problem (apostasy) not the
solution.

Being interviewed between stops and found at an airport, Rick Warren was
lauded by Beck for his shear “brilliance” as he wrapped up the question of
what he planned to ask the candidates Obama and McCain at his upcoming
forum.

Warren said he planned to ask them the question of how they see the
Constitution of the United States. Do they view it as “carved in stone”
immovable and rigid, or is it “a living” document open to interpretation.

It is the old “open to interpretation” aspect of the question that causes
the greatest concern. For the politically conservative it is that very
question that makes us look for Supreme Court judges who are willing to take
the constitution at face value. Among the biblically conservative it is the
same reason we look for leaders who will take the bible at face value.

For well over 35 years I have been reproving those who virtually ignore
every word in the bible under the guise that it is after all a book that is
open to all sorts of interpretations. Nonsense! It would be almost
impossible to line up the major 24 translations of the bible and choose a
passage that after reading every translation would not say exactly the same
thing.

Hiding behind an open interpretation clause when it pertains to God’s word
is shaky ground at best. The Apostle Peter addressed the silly notion that
just anyone could see just anything they wanted to in scriptures when he
said “Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation.” (2Pet 1:20)  But even if Peter had been silent who would
dare trust the most well intentioned preacher or commentator, conservative
or not, if you couldn’t take God at his word?

Rev Bresciani is an author and columnist for several online and print
publications. With over two million readers worldwide and growing you will
enjoy the articles, movie reviews, commentary and much more visit
www.americanprophet.org

Purpose driven myth: Males are violent, females are their victims

 The effete feminist myth that males are inherently bad while females are their perennial victims has recently been debunked, again, by our good friend Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who single-handedly stopped the ERA.

Yet Kay Warren and her husband Rick, the “most powerful pastor in America” (according to a recent Time article) apparently wants to “partner with governments” based on the threadbare feminist notion that domestic violence is typically violence against women.

A recent article from the UK highlights a startling rise in violence among females there in the last 3 years. This violence too can be laid at the feet of radical feminism and its encroachment in the courts, which makes females all but exempt from prosecution in England, tempting them to go further and further to test their limits of immunity. Here in the US we have, of course, the famous case of Mary Winkler, who was able to shoot her husband in cold blood and get a slap on the wrist by the court, then on to victory in a custody case. She now has custody of the couple’s three girls, who have registered no interest in being returned to her.

Write to the Saddleback Church to register your concern about Kay Warren’s portrayal of domestic violence as a typically male-on-female phenomenon.

Tell them that virtually all studies on the subject (like the best-known and most extensive ones by Murray Strauss at the University of NH) show that males and females initiate DV at equal rates. Further, the highest DV rate by far is among lesbian women!

Tell them therefore to adopt a more balanced approach to this important issue.

Be polite but firm:

info@purposedriven.com or elizabeths@saddleback.net.

Donald Hank

zoilandon@msn.com