Revolution USA, repeat history with a twist

by Don Hank

A look back at the French revolution reveals many surprising commonalities with today’s situation in America.

Yet, if the Tea Party Revolution succeeds, it will not be due to a revolutionary mindset as best described by Olavo de Carvalho (my review; full text). It will be the opposite, but with a similar historical lead-up and tactics ( hopefully with less bloodshed).

The main factors in both revolutions are:

Economic

Intellectual

Spiritual

Political

One of the main factors in the French Revolution was an economic one: worldwide famine caused by a weather anomaly. What later came to be known as the Little Ice Age contributed mightily to the timing of the revolution, as detailed by Brian Fagan.

In our case, while there is no famine, there is a shrinking economy, and a looming double-dip recession or even a full-blown depression, as predicted by economist Paul Krugman. Many realize government policy actually caused the initial failure of banks and the consequent economic slide. Most do not.

Regardless of the origin of this current economic malaise, it will eventually parallel the situation in France in 1788/9. Already, the number of unemployment recipients is staggering and is further gnawing at our national treasury, just as the excesses of Louis XV and XVI gnawed at and eventually drained, France’s treasury.

Added to this in France was the intellectual factor, i.e., the wide circulation of the ideas of the enlightenment, which generally called for equality among all people, undermining the notion of divine right of the nobility. In fact, the successful American Revolution added fuel to this equality movement.

But the American Revolution also contributed in a political way to the revolution: In an attempt to vindicate his father’s waste of national funds in the unsuccessful Seven Years War against traditional enemy Britain, Louis XV, Louis XVI, the incompetent king and husband of Marie Antoinette, decided to help the Americans in their war with Britain. Success in that war did not translate into political success for Louis XVI, however, because the aid the French had sent us bankrupted France and further undermined the King’s authority and popularity. Other political factors include the popularity of revolutionary-minded Minister Jacques Neckar and of Maximilien Robespierre. The former’s dismissal gave more fuel to the movement while the latter’s oratory inspired the people to revolt.

It bodes ill for Michelle Obama that her extravagant vacations and leisure life are garnering her the monicker “Michelle Antoinette” – even among Democrats.

It is intriguing that the scenario of the French Revolution is now being turned upside down:

Economically, while most of the ills caused by the government in France were unrelated to the will of the public, the ills in our country were by consent of the governed, who foolishly installed politicians imbued with Keynesian economic ideas. A close look at globalist G.W. Bush, son of globalist George Bush Sr., would have shown us this flaw in his character. Obama, obviously driven by leftwing ideology, could scarcely have been expected to reject the idea of bailouts for banks and businesses, which then could be controlled by the government. This amassing of power in the hands of globalists and Marxists was accomplished by stealth, but it was ultimately the uncritical masses who chose them.

Intellectually, while the ideas that bolstered the French Revolution were strictly leftist revolutionary, the ideas of the Tea Party, promulgated by media personalities and a few politicians, and increasingly, by bloggers and internet activists, are spreading and causing a new kind of movement that could best be called antirevolutionary, if we accept the definition of the Revolution as set down by revolutionaries themselves over the centuries (again, I refer to the masterful work by Olavo de Carvalo).

Spiritually, the French revolution marked an upsurge in the religion of humanism, which has held for centuries, while the tea party revolution marks a turn toward traditional Christian values and beliefs that the French would call “reactionary.” It is no exaggeration to call humanism a religion in this context. The spiritual descendants of Voltaire include Sartre, Camus and a host of artists dedicated to proselytizing for atheistic humanism. A look at French cinema (works like “Jean de Florette,” “The Stranger” and “Madame Bovary,” for example) make this fanatical missionary spirit abundantly clear. Meanwhile, in America, the new heretics, like Jim Wallis and wishy-washy feel-good, “cool” pastors are being rejected for what Americans see as the “real thing,” solid men of God dedicated to the winning of souls from perdition.

Politically, the situation is similar between France then and the US today. The National Assembly in the 1780s had been at loggerheads with the King over issues like equality of taxation (only the commoners were taxed, nobility and clergy were exempted). It was the people against the tyrant at the top. Today we see the will of the people in Arizona, for example, being thwarted by the heavy hand of Obama and an activist court.  In reaction to the general perception of such tyranny, the true patriot tea party candidates (as distinct from the GOP-led imitations) are overthrowing incumbents in many elections. The GOP establishment, even with endorsements from once-popular heavy hitters like Sara Palin and Jan Brewer, is no longer able to sell their wishy-washy candidates at face value. Given the economic climate, the established church is no longer able to sell open borders and amnesty to their parishioners. Even popular icon Ann Coulter can’t pied-piper her followers into accepting a coalition with the homosexual agenda. The establishment is slowly cracking.

Conservatives and libertarians are forming a natural coalition and spreading the ideas of liberty and constitutional government but without the leftwing claptrap.

It is too early to predict anything, but the climate is right for a revolution that is, like the first American Revolution, not a revolution at all but rather a return to common sense, natural law and the God of our fathers.

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