Rick Warren calls dissenting Christians fake

by Don Hank

Help grow my megachurch or leave!

I was recently surprised to read that Rick Warren is calling other Christians fake and calling for phony Christians to leave his church. He is targeting in particular those who fail to help his multimillion dollar Saddleback megachurch grow. Is the narrow way passé for the finger-pointing pastor?

A country preacher at a church I once attended used to say “when you point the finger of blame you have three fingers pointing right back at you.”

How about a pastor helping a Marxist get elected?

How about a pastor being unequally yoked with non-believers who deny Christ? Wouldn’t that be fake Christianity? Rick has been yoked with the Left and Islam for some time now despite Paul’s explicit command: 

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).

Rick seems to have his own personal definition of “Christianity” and it doesn’t look quite the same as the Apostle Paul’s.

So who’s a fake? 

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matt. 7:5).

The “Christian” Left, hordes of sheep-like socialist heretics led by charismatic fanatics, almost completely took over Europe at various times in the 13th and 14th centuries. Even after they were largely subdued, they clung to their utopian fantasies and the last one of their line, Wilhelm Weitling, met and influenced Karl Marx. Charismatic leaders like Dolcino in Italy and Thomas Müntzer in Germany, condemned other Christians as fakes, preaching that all property must be held in common and strictly forbidding all private ownership of anything. They plundered, killed, maimed, destroyed and looted churches and waged war against all who stood in their way, conquering vast territories and forcing concessions from powerful princes and popes before finally being overthrown. They were convinced that they were right, based on a cursory knowledge of certain verses of the Bible, and that they were Christ’s avengers, based on nocturnal dreams.

Yet nowhere do we read that Jesus or the early Christians had urged Christ’s followers to force others to live by their rules.

Jesus flatly rejected the socialists of his day, in so many words telling them to get lost when they dunned Him to initiate a free lunch program.

The socialist heretics had their way in Europe sporadically for about 2 centuries, and then faded away. Their modern day counterparts will do likewise.

But not before causing untold hardship and leading hordes of foolish, gullible souls to perdition.

Further reading:

http://www.zimbio.com/Rick+Warren+and+Seeker+Sensitive/articles/72/James+Sundquist+statement+Rick+Warrens+invitation

http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Driving-Purpose-Driven-Church/dp/0974476455

The most confused man on the planet

Bailout based on phony “crisis”

Commentary by Donald Hank

I had reported before the first bailout vote that I had called my own bank and asked if I could still get a home-equity loan in the amount of about $50,000.

The loan officer, with just a glance at my records, was able to ok that.

I asked him why they were able to do this at a time when everyone was talking about a credit crunch. He said it was because this bank (PNC) had always been careful whom it gave loans to.

Now an independent analysis shows the whole “crisis” may have been manufactured — or at least blown way out of proportion — by government. Whatever the case may be, it resulted in the election of Barack Obama, whom a majority of voters said they “trusted” to restore the economy — even though it was clear his own party had contributed mightily to the weakening of banks.

Now, the international research and consulting firm Celent, has presented an analysis suggesting the whole “crisis” is bogus.  Independent analyst Cliff Kincaid reports:

“Using charts and graphs of data from the Federal Reserve and other agencies, the Celent study says that statements from Paulson and Bernanke about a “credit crisis” affecting businesses, real estate, banks, and state and local governments were just not true.”

 

Madoff gave huge support to the Left

What a surprise.

While the Left constantly accuses conservative capitalists of being greedy, the world’s biggest rip-off artist of all time (aside from the Social Security Administration) has given almost a third of a million to far-left political candidates and the abortion industry, displaying a clear-cut sympathy for the Left and their vision for America.

America has seen a veritable parade of leftists (both RINOs and Democrats) committing crimes (Blagojevich is only the latest example) but so far shows not a glimmer of understanding that Leftism goes hand in hand with deviant, anti-social behavior, blithely voting for the Left and even believing – on Lord knows what basis – that the Left has the answer to our economic woes.

Read about it here.

 

GW Bush’s “Christian” globalism-socialism gobbledygook

George W. Bush could well be the most confused man on the planet. He calls himself a conservative but never saw a socialist give-away program he didn’t like. Unlike other conservatives, he seems to see the Constitution as more of an obstacle than a boon to his vision for America. He clearly opposes sovereignty for the US and has taken us to the brink of an EU type supranational government, greatly facilitating Obama’s job.

Speaking of the bailouts, President Bush has said that he must go against his free-market principles to save the free market. Even after the banking crisis broke, his HUD web site called for a “Zero Down Payment Initiative” that would have forced banks to require no down payment for loans.

It is becoming abundantly clear that, at the rate government is jettisoning principles, we will soon have no free market left. The government now owns a significant share of banking interests and is greedily eyeing our auto industry. You the taxpayer are a silent – or rather muzzled – shareholder.

Many can’t decide if Bush is a socialist or if he is really naïve. But if he is really that naïve, then he possibly belongs in the Guinness Book of World Records!

Personally, having heard Bush speak, I believe he has a grossly distorted idea of Christianity and thinks that the US government must be kind to the enemies of our people (all but the man who threatened his father), treating them as we would ourselves but treating ourselves like slaves and letting our enemies abuse us. Mainstream “Christianity,” which is little more than a tool of the Left, teaches that nationalism is an evil. This teaching fits nicely with Bush’s notions of globalism (which he inherited from his father), melded with his naïve and distorted “Christian” socialism (a misinterpretation of Biblical precepts concerning the poor), his open-border, pro-amnesty policies and his receptiveness to supranational government. His fairly plain Christian views on abortion and family make him palatable to the Christian “right,” which has no understanding of the Left and their intentions. This group, which talks suspiciously like the “Christian” Left, has shown a dangerous willingness to coexist with socialism and global governance that is, as we speak, resulting in their own irrelevance in world politics.

If my theory is correct, Bush has zero understanding of the Left, which laughs at people like him.

But his policies are no laughing matter.

The REAL giving myths

 

 The REAL giving myths

By Donald Hank

In an article Giving in Today’s Economic Crisis, Dr. Steve McSwain (author of the book The Giving Myths) advises Christians to keep on giving despite the economic climate. Commenting on the causes of the crisis, writes:

…It’s not just corporate big shots, however, who are to blame for the failure in our financial markets. Granted, many of them have watched their companies close while they’ve safely floated away in “multi-million dollar parachutes.” But, there are many ordinary folks who are to blame, too. The majority of people in our culture have, in the words of Will Rogers, “borrowed money they don’t have, to buy things they don’t need, to keep up with people they don’t even like.”

Dr. McSwain never once mentions government culpability in this article. While claiming to be a myth buster, he seems to be a victim of the most pernicious myth of our time, namely, that the recent bank meltdown is due almost exclusively to Wall Street executives on the one hand and to you on the other. His article shows absolutely no recognition of the root causes of the problem, namely, government forcing Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) like Fanny and Freddy to give (under the CRA) to their favorite charities, the interest groups, in order to score political points – by forcing them to treat high-risk borrowers like low-risk borrowers.

The press release then gives advice to parents:

Don’t fret over the money markets, especially in front of the kids.

So not only does the author deny the root causes of the crash (or is he ignorant of them?), but he actually advises parents to make sure the kids don’t catch wind of this meltdown at all. In other words, let’s make sure history gets repeated, through ignorance. Continue reading

Obama can’t fix what his party broke

Obama can’t fix what his party broke

 

by Donald Hank

Before reading further, make sure you see this amazing video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o

 

Did you see the debate last night?

Despite his relaxed exterior,and his pontifications on the economy, Obama was on the defensive, as well he should have been. McCain knew stuff he didn’t know, like the difference between a strategy and a tactic, or the names of presidents in Eastern Europe. After McCain rattled off these names and associated facts, Obama could only say “I agree with Senator McCain on this.” It was obviously all he could say. And then there was the gaffe about “taking out” Pakistan. And the misquote of Kissinger. Not a good night for Barack.

McCain was like a father lecturing to a son who hadn’t done his homework.

Again, Obama tried to make the claim that McCain is a laissez-faire capitalist who wants no regulation of the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and, unfortunately, McCain muffed his chance to really explain the crash mechanism as well as Barack’s (and the Democrats’) primary role in the crash. Republican politicians seems to have little understanding of this mechanism, but it is all important for voters to know.

Folks, I had written a column on Bush’s role in the bank crashes that some thought was blasphemous, but what I said had to be said and no one else was willing to say it (that’s what Laigle’s Forum is all about, you know). And now we know the role Bush played in bringing down the banks. So is the bank crash all about Bush?

Not by a long shot, although he aided and abetted. It is more about Obama, his pals and his party. Much more.

I believe Bush’s role is related to his blind belief in New Age Christianity. As I have shown in various columns, evangelical Christians have been brainwashed by the Left into accepting what we might call “Christian socialism,” which includes teachings of globalism and surrender of sovereignty. Mainstream pastors now talk as though God had added an eleventh commandment: Thou shalt share the wealth. Indeed, my Brazilian colleague Olavo de Carvalho showed that the revolutionary mindset, which we now call the Left, started as a Christian heresy in the 13th century. Strangely, this heresy, which teaches that Christians must build the kingdom of God by eliminating social injustice, is now becoming the dominant doctrine in America, to our great peril, and the latest financial crash is its spawn. This heresy was first introduced into the American church by way of the far Christian Left (Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo) and was mainstreamed by preachers like Robert Schuller and later his protégées such as Rick Warren as well as supposedly “conservative” church leaders. If this sounds like blasphemy to you, you are no doubt a true believer in the emergent church’s New Age teachings. Beware.

But yes, the crash is really mostly about Obama and his party, which sabotaged American business.  Characteristically of the Left, they behaved like naughty school kids who made the spitballs and let other kids throw them. That’s how it works. There are always some smart aleck troublemakers who are highly popular and the other, shy kids with a good upbringing, want to imitate them. Pretty soon the kids with the good upbringing are the worst offenders in the schoolyard and the smart alecks are posing as angels, laughing up their sleeves as the poor suckers get punished.

Naughty boy Jimmy Carter (another Christian leftist, by the way) started things off by introducing the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977, which the Democrats passed. This was a typical Carter goody-goody initiative to bring housing to people who would only get housing if you twisted their arms and made them pay no more than they would pay to rent. You know, the group we used to be called poor credit risks. Now we call them the “underserved.”

The program was modestly dimensioned at first and ran with no major glitches until Clinton took it into high gear, demanding $1 trillion in sub-prime mortgages, with the semi-government bureaucracies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac leading the charge. Banks that could not or would not comply were punished. Punished for implementing nothing other than good business practice, mind you! (Remember that government-business partnerships are a feature of fascism, hardly the American way).

Then Bush morphed into Clinton on steroids and all but doubled the percentage of subprime loans, but added the cherry to the sundae with his “zero down payment initiative.”

There were a few futile attempts to put the brakes on, notably Senator McCain’s attempt in 2005 to enact the Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act. The Democrats blocked it. Obama doesn’t want you to know any of this, and the networks and mainstream media are helping him hide it and sell his fiction.

In all fairness to Bush, he too had tried to rein in Fanny and Freddy, back in 2003, but ran up against the Democrats.

So while Bush must take some of the blame, because he did push for higher percentages of sub-prime mortgages and his administration did write the disgraceful “Zero-Downpayment Initiative,” he was, after all, just following the Democrats’ lead and, I believed, trying, in a bungling way, to be a good little Christian, guided, unfortunately, by principles of the Christian Left, which had subtly and gradually become the mainstream in America.

Bottom line: while Obama claims regulation is necessary and accuses McCain of not wanting it, it was McCain himself who tried to introduce regulatory legislation that would help remedy the damage done by the Democrats through over-regulation of the socialist kind.

Keep that in mind when you go to the polls.

 

 

Another video on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

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.

 

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.

Change you can fall for

Change you can fall for

By Donald Hank

 

Change is the hallmark of the revolutionary, and it is not change for the sake of some greater cause. Change is the cause.

When the first red revolutionaries slithered out of the sea, their ideology and agenda revolved around the the worker. The first page of the newspaper Izvestia bore the slogan: Workers of the world unite!

The Left seemed to be about social justice for the worker in his struggle against capitalist injustice.

I say “seemed” because the situation of the worker remained grim throughout Soviet history and the government never tackled this problem in earnest, focusing instead on propaganda painting the West as the author of their ills.

In Soviet publications, gallons of ink were spilled over the plight of the international worker, but the plight of the Soviet worker never changed tangibly since 1917. Soviet workers suffered constant shortages of food and housing. Married couples shared small apartments in the most squalid conditions while the elite partied.

I glimpsed this disparity between attitudes and platitudes while studying at the University of Leningrad in the early 70s with a group of American students. Following our studies, we took a side trip by rail to the Estonian capital of Tallinn.  I sat in a car with our Russian language professor and about a half-dozen other students playing guitar and singing folk songs.

After a while, our tour guide came to the door and invited me to join him in another car with an honored guest who was a Communist party member. You’d have thought party members were in short supply.  I told him I was needed as part of our entertainment. I will never forget his response. Smiling condescendingly, he said “That lady is a mere teacher. You have the opportunity to meet a party member.”

Where was the classless society? If she was a nobody because she was a teacher, what about the factory worker, who was supposed to be united with his international comrades in the glorious future revolution?

I understood at that moment that the “change” the Bolsheviks had wrought was hollow and had been from the beginning. Among themselves, they made no pretense of such idealism. And I suppose they assumed there was no point in pretending in front of me either because, as an American capitalist, I could be assumed to share their disdain for the little guy. The social change, i.e., elimination of class barriers that constituted their platform, was clearly only a pretext for grabbing power from the naive. Now they had it and that was the end of the pretense.

What I am driving at is that the Left does not have a central ideology or platform, as much as they would like you to think they do. They are about destroying the existing order, the status quo, and that is all. Once traditional culture is dismantled, they have accomplished their mission and are done pretending to help people.

Take the example of China’s Chairman Mao and Cuba’s Fidel Castro. These two dictators mouthed the world communist ideology of freeing the worker from oppressive capitalism.

Now, note that both Castro and Mao, like the early Soviet communists, disdained homosexuals. Fidel had them arrested.

Today, however, the Left in Europe, North and South America protects homosexual “rights,” advocating “gay” marriage and promoting the homosexual lifestyle, “protecting” homosexuals against “hate,” particularly on the part of Christian pastors, who have been fined and arrested, even threatened with horrendous jail terms for preaching the biblical viewpoint on homosexuality. There is no more talk of workers and their rights to enjoy the fruits of their labors, even though workers everywhere have recently lost as much as half their purchasing power in about a year’s time. So has the Left changed its agenda? I rather think it never had one and never will.

Now I have spoken with sincere Christians who have expressed the view that homosexuals are victims, born with a genetic makeup that causes them to desire the same sex, and that denying them “marriage” is sinful. Senator Obama has expressed this belief. “Christian” Leftists like him helped birth this absurd and anti-biblical notion.

But isn’t it curious that, say, Hugo Chavez and Brazilian President Lula, who promote homosexuality  and advocate laws that “protect” them by criminalizing free speech, nonetheless seem ideologically compatible with Fidel Castro, who openly hated homosexuals during most of his career? Where have you heard that Fidel and any other Latin American leftist have ever feuded over this ostensibly so vital issue? Where was the debate between these intimate allies on an issue that is so profoundly important to the Left in Latin America that legislation is written based on the absurdity that “gays” are a victim group threatened with extinction?

Or what about the Left in Canada, where the Human Rights Commission rounds up and arraigns pastors and others who oppose homosexuality but at the same time, rushes to the aid of Muslims, by far the deadliest enemies of homosexuals, whenever anyone   especially a Christian, opposes that religion?

Where is “workers of the world unite” when we need it most?

So what do you think? Is the Left really unified behind an ideology or agenda or is it unified behind a distorted view of the world that is independent of ideological content?

Olavo de Carvalho, who has studied leftist thought in greater depth than perhaps any other scholar, showed in a recent lecture (unpublished) that Leftism is not an ideology or agenda, but merely a reversal of common sense, a rejection of things normal and natural that rises to the level of a pathology.

The perceived ideologies or agendas they flaunt are nothing but a means to an end, and that end is the end of civilization.

Once they achieve the power they crave, they will no more aid homosexuals or minorities than they now aid the long-forgotten worker.

Contact: zoilandon@msn.com

 

Liars who boast of lying

By Donald Hank

The next column, by Olavo de Carvalho, scheduled to appear within a day or two, will need some introduction. First, for those of you who follow the US media, I need to point out that Lula is the president of Brazil. The only thing said about him recently was from a few months ago when President Bush visited Brazil and made nice with Lula, promising him the US would buy a few billions of dollars worth of his ethanol. No, you the fuel buyer did not agree to this. Your nice president agreed for you. You will buy.

What the press didn’t tell you at that time or any time, and what Bush could care less about, is that President Lula, a communist sympathizer, is one of the biggest shysters on the South American continent and has aided and abetted not only Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, mightily helping to get him elected, but also the narcoterrorists and kidnappers of the FARC (Colombian Revolutionary Army) and other criminal organizations on the continent.

Lula did this in part through the Forum of Sao Paolo, which he himself originally denied ever existed, even though he was one of the most influential organizers. Recently, however, as Olavo de Carvalho points out, Lula now not only admits it exists but that he was there and made great efforts to undermine democracy precisely by means of this instrument. Although I trust Mr. Carvalho’s painstaking research, I needed to see this with my own eyes, so I went and checked the official web site publishing Lula’s speech, which admits this. Sure enough. It is all there just as quoted in Mr. de Carvalho’s article (see below).

Now nota bene: President Bush and his fellow neocons also denied the existence of meetings held in Canada to promote the North American Union. He knows we know he was there, because the meetings were reported in the world press. But he denies – or denied (but later admitted) – that there are plans to embark on a North American Union.

Like fellow globalist Lula, Bush will almost certainly some day boast of his success in pulling the wool over the eyes of constituents and subjecting the US to a continental government that will spell the demise of US sovereignty. Globalists are true believers in their cause. Those among them who call themselves Christian point to numerous statements by “Christian” leaders denouncing “nationalism,” based on tenuous interpretations of scripture, failing to point out that by nationalism, what they actually mean is sovereignty, a vital component in the existence of all nations! Thus these pious leaders tell us, or at least imply, that closed borders are un-Christian and the entire Third World has a claim to a piece of our territory and our national product – your income. Thus, for all of their piety, these clerics are traitors.

The globalist pattern described by Mr. de Carvalho below, namely, lying and then admitting one lied, is bound to repeat itself here.

As I have said before, globalism is the new communism.

It may surprise some readers to read that, as mentioned above, President Lula, after carefully concealing the very existence of the leftist Forum of Sao Paolo, would suddenly come out and vaunt his role in it as well as the duplicity of the Forum organizers, thus:

“In this way we could act, together with other countries, with our comrades of the social movement, of those countries’ parties, of the union movement, always using the relationship built in the Sao Paulo Forum so that we could talk without appearing to do so, and so that people would not understand any political interference taking place.”

What struck me is that the initial cover-up displays the same pattern as that of the NAFTA Superhighway, a similar globalist venture, which was at first denied by all those complicit in its planning, but then showed up on a web site maintained by the Canadian government.

Ron Paul quotes the SPP web site as admitting:

“The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda.”

But most stunning of all is Bush’s admission, despite constant subsequent denial, at Baylor University, that a union along EU lines is in fact in the works.

Why do leftwing activists, whether the old-fashioned communist, or the post-modern globalist variety, first lie and then admit, nonchalantly, or even boastfully, that they lied?

No explanation is possible for such seemingly irrational behavior, unless, that is, one admits the monstrous hypothesis that the global elite is the new communist elite. In this case, the following excerpt, the concluding chapter of the Communist Manifesto, explains this odd behavior:

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

Of course, if you set out to subjugate an entire nation to globalist policies, then you must tippy-toe at first. But then when the trap has sprung, as it did in Europe, for example, you lower the boom.

Will the North American Union be achieved by forcible overthrow?

The answer is yes, if we let it happen. Force does not necessarily presuppose violence. Forceful overthrow is the injection of countless willing minions like the McCains, the Kennedy’s, Clintons and the Bushes, into the political process by subterfuge, using polished marketing techniques in the media, independently of the will of the electorate, and then simply watching them do their destructive work. Conspicuously, conservatives have no candidate this fall, and this is by design, not accident.

The media, including the radio talk shows and Fox News, all had a hand in suppressing the truth about the impending North American Union, and the highly suspicious furtiveness of the SPP meetings in Canada.

They sanitized it, marginalizing as dangerous radicals anyone who dared to speak out against it.

That is how you get a job done when you are determined to overthrow the will of the people, whether here or in Brazil.

Once Olavo de Carvalho’s article appears at this site, we will have a better idea of how nations are taken over by the power elites on the Left.

It is up to us as a free nation to resist.

But do we have the will or the wisdom to do so?