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:



Bad religion

The “Religious” Left’s influence


by Donald Hank

Medical experts know that pathogenic bacteria and viruses aren’t the only worrisome microbes out there. They speak of a “vector,” which is a bacterium that in itself is generally harmless but can serve as a host to a harmful, if not deadly, virus.

Rick Warren at the inauguration.

The American left has long strived to use religion as a vector to carry the deadly message of the Democrats to gullible Christians, and in this year’s election, it paid off big time. Evangelicals fell hard for the message of Obama thanks to numerous hardworking disease-carrying vectors among the religious community.

Rick Warren is easily identified as a key player for the Democrats, not by the religious right but by none other than Howard Dean. Who are we to argue?


Read more.

Just say no to civility

Just say no to civility

Commentary by Donald Hank

Note that almost everything you find on Laigle’s Forum is a counter-attack against  the Left, which seeks to destroy all that is good and decent on this planet, including traditional family, truth and knowledge, the free market (our life blood), population and economic growth and freedom of expression. They have dressed up their monstrous, failure-bound platform to make it palatable to the chronically inattentive and are succeeding, not because they are intelligent, but because so few can see a pattern in their behavior.

Now, mainstream Christianity today believes that any person or group devoted to opposing something is not being “civil.” Note, for example, that Rick Warren justified his participation in Obama’s inauguration on the basis of this notion of civility.

But Jesus was never civil. He was an in-your-face provocateur. Even the early Christians never teamed up with the worldly leaders of their day (be not unequally yoked), and were not civil toward sin. Paul bluntly condemned many specific sins, including those indulged in by the rich and powerful.

William Buckley defined conservatives best when he said it was their duty to “stand athwart history yelling stop!”

That is wiser than most suspect. By definition, conservatism may not stand for any one particular goal, because goals presuppose a movement, and conservatism may not be a movement. Rather it must be an anchor. Except in cases where the status quo is ungodly, it must be an essentially non-moving entity, or a non-movement. But to be effective it must stop other movements that oppose it.

Because of its nature, it has been reluctant to do so. It just wants to exist.

But ironically, if it keeps just wanting to exist, it will very soon cease to exist, because the forces of change are upon us and won’t go away without a fight.

But the end thereof are the ways of the Left…

The Left wants you to believe they are for the oppressed and the downtrodden. Yet their ideological brothers killed 100 million innocents in the last century (see the book “The Black Book of Communism” by Stephane Courtois), most of the victims representing the oppressed and downtrodden classes.

It seems the “beloved leader” of North Korea has a policy of jailing, torturing and then killing not only those he perceives as his enemies but also their children and grandchildren.

Kim Jong Il, the most far-left of all modern leaders, has produced a gulag whose cruelty goes far beyond Hitler, Mao and Stalin, and in fact, beyond anything the human imagination can conceive of.

The evidence that, at bottom, the Left is nothing less than a collective of evil people of murderous intent is abundantly clear when you look at any example of a nation in which the Left has had complete control, unopposed. Ironically, it was a group of French communists who tallied up the body count of communism, showing it to be around 100 million in the 20th Century alone, eclipsing all the killing by all wars and other evils perpetrated by any other group.

Yet, incredibly, the Left goes on unabated and almost without resistance, spreading the absolute malarkey that religion is dangerous, while atheism – the essence of the Left – represents enlightenment.

They point to the Crusades and the 30 Years War as if these were the distillate of what Christianity has produced since the beginning, and when confronted by the inconvenient facts of the slaughter of innocents in leftist regimes, they shrug them off, attributing this cruelty to an aberration, to accidents of human personality.[1]

So what do you say when someone tells you that Christianity is no better than leftism because both Christians and leftists have killed people?

It is true that people calling themselves Christians have done wrong, as have leftists.

But the harm attributed to Christians was done in disobedience to God’s commandments.

The harm attributed to the Left was done in perfect obedience to a humanist system in which there is no absolute commandment, nor is there a concept of absolute right or wrong. In fact, leftism is a system based on “change” or in other words, revolution. By definition, such a system cannot be stable or lead to the stable utopia targeted by its proponents.

Thus, in both systems we have humans imperfectly executing commands. But in one, the humans in charge are, all too often, disobeying God. In the other, they are almost invariably obeying the wishes of imperfect humans, including themselves.

Thus when the humanist system fails, it does so because it was not only executed by humans who believe they are the center of the universe but is designed to be executed on the premise that man is the center of the universe. Thus it is designed for failure.

When a godly system fails, it does so due to disobedience – that is, man behaving in a man-centered manner. It is designed to succeed but fails when its executor behaves like a leftist! Thus Leftism fails when executed both by Leftists and by others (G.W. Bush, for example).

So the question that demands an answer is:

Why choose a man-centered (leftist) system that is not only designed by humans but also executed by humans when you can choose a system that is designed by God and, if executed according to design, will ineluctably succeed?

The Left is the quintessential “patient in charge of the asylum,” but the “right” is so splintered and disarrayed, and currently, so steeped in a hopelessly naïve, smarmy, sentimental version of “Christianity” that they perfectly embody the “ripe plum” that Premier Krushchev predicted would soon fall into the lap of the communists.


[1] The Left also muddy the waters by portraying Hitler as a right-winger. In fact, Hitler’s system was based on a utopian vision, a hallmark of the Left.  Hitler denied divinity, jailing and even executing many religious leaders. Note also that the European Right shared a vision of monarchic divine right that was quite alien to Hitler’s utopia.

The visual generation — the death of discernment


The Visual Generation – The Death of Discernment


When Chairman Mao of China wanted to reach an entire generation, many who were illiterate, he produced his communist message in “comic book” style. It resulted in an entire generation of youth jumping onboard Mao’s red wagon and subsequently tearing down the culture and traditions and the very structures of one of the oldest societies in the world.


In America it is mindless, Godless and feckless TV programming, You Tube and Hollywood’s latest offering of films that pour images on an entire generation. The result is exactly the same as it was in China but on a much larger scale and with so much more to lose.


If you asked anyone who is considering voting for Barack Obama or any liberal why they chose that candidate, the answer you will most likely hear is, “I like him.” or “he looks good to me.”


If he, she or it looks good that’s good enough for the “media generation.” No discernment needed, wisdom is too hard to acquire and who has more than a few seconds of time in this world of screen shots, blips and spot messages to look any deeper. A new language and a new media has developed that thrives on abbreviated communications; OMG could I be talking about texting?


People who read entire books and articles to learn something or to see an authors point are becoming rare. Just getting to this sentence means you probably are one of those people. You may have read some Hemingway, Joyce, even Shakespeare or at the very least the morning paper. You may be one of the rare breed of people that actually forms opinions and conclusions based on a careful weighing of all the facts.


In the Bible (1 Cor 12:10) there is mention of a “spiritual gift” known as “discerning of spirits.” Unfortunately that gift is often placed in a list of charismatic type gifts that end up being thought of as something only practiced by a few Pentecostal people. In fact the language of 1:Cor 12:10 connotes the idea of a “judging through” of any and all matters not a fleeting spiritual thought dropping out of the ether.


Discerning of spirits is a God given enterprise that does not work unless God is brought into the equation. He unveils, reveals or shows the deepest meaning of things to the deepest people. They are a peculiar people who weigh everything and refuse to make prejudiced and extraneous judgments based only on what they see or have heard from the grape vine, the media or God knows where!

It is the rarity of such people that serves as only one of a few reasons that can be found for the wholesale blindness that seems to be accompanying the decisions made by the American public about their presidential candidates.


The biblically based reason is far more obvious and it reads like this, “In whom the god of this world (Satan) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not” (2 Cor 4:4a) It is what allows people to assent to what late night talk show hosts say about candidates instead of listening to the candidates themselves and comparing that to all that has gone before. It is almost perverse, because it is a “spirit” that drives the average person to use no “spiritual” discernment at all.


It is what causes thousands to think Rick Warren is actually helping the American public to choose a better candidate by bringing John McCain and Barack Obama to “Saddleback” so they can smooth out their differences.  The program or show (side show) is partly sponsored by Meg Riley who formerly headed up her denomination’s homosexual advocacy office.  It raises the serious question of whose purpose is the author of “The Purpose Driven Life” fulfilling? It’s a show, a visual, and a media attraction with or without knowing exactly what is really driving Rick Warren’s purpose. What Evangelist Bill Keller told his over two million subscribers on his daily devotional July 26, 2008, was that Warrens sideshow is a “load of garbage.”


Has Keller crossed the sacred PC line and sinned against society? No, what he has really done is used God given discernment based on sound scriptural teachings and mustered the guts to say it out loud to a You Tube generation that would rather watch hours of delightful nonsense and tripe  rather than discern anything that matters. Kudos to Bill Keller, shame on Rick Warren!


Sadly, what is really happening is what the Apostle James and other biblical authors predicted would become commonplace as we approach the second coming of Christ. James said,”Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?” (James 2:4) King James Version or not this is exactly the meaning of “choosing between the lesser of two evils.” Not much discernment needed to know what that means. This is America today.


The greatest loss from the abandoning of discernment is that America has lost the connection. We are no longer able to discern the “connection” between our morality and all the other issues. The truth is that the economy, our security, and all the other matters of our national life depend on and are inextricably linked to our morality. We have mistakenly allocated morality to an aspect of our religious life and have thereby disconnected it from our own larger national welfare and security.


Political candidates, the news media and pundits rant about the economy, the war, taxes, crime and all the so called “critical issues” while ignoring the gross immorality of homosexuality, abortion, media filth, evolutionary dogma that passes itself of as academic freedom and general sensory driven visual tripe from Hollywood and similar sources. Morality is relegated to the churches and a few PC deficient fundamentalist Bible thumping diehards who just won’t seem to go away.


The result of all this distraction derived from the lack of discernment is in a word: judgment. But is it inevitable? Does the sun Rise? Does the sun set? It is God’s judgment that follows the refusal to use our own better judgment.


Using judgment is not a luxury that is reserved for a few and can be ignored by all others. In fact it is a biblical imperative that if ignored will have an immediate and devastating effect on everyone in our nation “The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.”(Isa 59:8)


The simplest rule for using good judgment turns out to be just the opposite of what is being done in America’s visual generation. Here it is; “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” Jesus, John 7:24.


If you have any discernment left and you must if you’ve gotten this far into this article then let me suggest that you pray for America to once again make decisions based on sound wisdom and spiritual discernment.


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





Judgment,bill keller,rick warren,meg riley,john McCain,Barack Obama,Jesus,Satan,Mao,Saddleback,America,politics,You Tube,morality,issues,taxes,pundits,purpose driven,Pentecostal,church,Hollywood,films,texting,



Does pro-life have to mean anti-sovereignty?

Does pro-life mean anti-sovereignty?


by Donald Hank

 A while back pro-lifers started reminding us that the babies that were aborted since Wade/Roe would have been productive American workers and that there were some 40 million of them. They said that this shortfall had to be made up by immigrants and strongly suggested that God had therefore allowed the current situation of millions of illegals from Mexico. They sound almost gleeful as they announce this.

So illegal immigration and all the associated ills like increased crime, drug abuse and extra money spent on social services is a visitation of God’s wrath on America for the sin of abortion?

That’s the old liberal guilt by association theory. But a closer look shows that it wasn’t God who intervened to punish us but rather the neocons under George Bush-the same ones who teamed up with the Democrats to punish us via our financial markets. And it is not the Christian God who started and perpetuated this myth but rather some corrupt left-leaning church leaders, including many evangelicals, who use this argument to defang opponents who have legitimate concerns about the invasion from Mexico.

A while back I got in trouble with some of the anti-sovereigns in the pro-life movement when I ran my article exposing pro-lifer Mike Huckabee’s choice of Richard Haass as his proposed secretary of state. Haass is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, which in itself is a huge red flag, but worse, had recently written a paper saying that we need to “rethink” the idea of sovereignty (meaning it is no longer needed in our post-modern world). I had also shown elsewhere how prominent church leaders like Dr. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, had criticized “nationalism,” and had shown that criticizing nationalism is just a sneaky way to undermine sovereignty. (If you understand that Land also endorses Al Gore’s ideas, it is not hard to imagine where he is situated on the political spectrum.) This criticism of nationalism is found throughout the denominations in America, which are coming under increasing centralized control and becoming little more than an arm of the Left, which is the main reason why you will almost never hear a “conservative” or “evangelical” leader or pastor speaking out against lawless immigration practices or sanctuary cities.

Now that McCain has chosen Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, he has become increasingly vocal about his pro-illegal immigration views, apparently believing he is invincible. An ad his campaign recently ran in Spanish (endorsed by McCain himself) absurdly “blames” the Obama camp for blocking immigration “reform,” which smart people know is code for amnesty. Frankly, folks, if conservatives knew the Obama camp were opposed to amnesty, I am sure some would consider voting for Obama, and I wouldn’t blame them, although I am not so sure it was the Democrats who torpedoed the amnesty bill. If I recall correctly, a lot of us, myself included, lobbied so hard against that bill (supported by McCain and Bush, for example) that the congressional phone lines went down.

But McCain must take us all for a bunch of bumpkins if he thinks there aren’t any conservatives who understand Spanish and can find out what he is up to.

Michelle Malkin recently slammed McCain hard on the border-amnesty issue. And there are good blogs that show how shameless officials and their immigration policies are causing unnecessary killings, rapes and other hardships on Americans. CNN’s Lou Dobbs does an outstanding job reporting on illegal immigration, and I recommend you tune out of Fox News and into CNN for as long as his show lasts.

But Malkin and Dobbs are almost alone these days. You won’t hear much meaningful talk on illegal immigration on talk radio or Fox News these days. Sean Hannity is still blathering about the evils of the Democrats as if the Republican leadership were back in the hands of Ron Reagan, but in his interviews with McCain and Palin (where does she stand?), never mentions illegal immigration, as if the issue has gone away.

But we are far from that these days, and short of an act of God, we are in for 4 very very rocky years, no matter who is elected.

Oh, and if you believe pro-life automatically means anti-sovereignty, I have a bridge I can sell you.


Three Members of Obama’s Church Killed

Investigator close to case believes there’s more to the brutal murders than mainstream press is letting on.


By Victor Thorn

Is a Barack Obama bombshell lurking in the shadows, waiting to derail one of the biggest Cinderella stories in recent history?

While most political prognosticators in the mainstream press presume that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, they still wonder aloud if Hillary Clinton (or some other entity) has something up their sleeve.

The bombshell may involve the murder of Donald Young, a 47-year-old choir master at former Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ-the same congregation that Obama has attended for the past 20 years. Two other young black men that attended the same church-Larry Bland and Nate Spencer-were also murdered execution style with bullets to the backs of their heads-all within 40 days of each other, beginning in November 2007. All three were openly homosexual.

What links this story to Barack Obama is that, according to an acquaintance of Obama, Larry Sinclair, Obama is a closet bisexual with whom he had sexual and drug-related encounters in November 1999.


Read more

The Evangelical church becoming corrupt, culturally irrelevant

The Evangelical church has become corrupt, lacks cultural influence

MADISON, Wisconsin, September 22 /Christian Newswire/ — underGROUND, the first sports apologetics ministry, is a branch of 4 Winds. Concerned about the spiritual condition of the United States, underGROUND believes people need to get back to the basics of the Christian faith.

At the recent Olympics, 4 Winds provided Olympic testimonies of track and field athletes to the underground Chinese church, estimated to be 100 million people. 4 Winds operates a website that includes an underGROUND section.

underGROUND believes the United States evangelical church has become more corrupt over the years. The evangelical church could change the political climate in Washington D.C., but in order to do so, the church must first clean up the corruption in their backyard.

During the last twenty years, the evangelical church has been in moral decline. Corruption in the evangelical church includes the following:

First, Focus on the Family has endorsed The Truth Project, a project showing people how to develop a correct worldview. In this program, Ravi Zacharias and Os Guinness give talks on the importance of truth.

However, Ravi Zacharias will soon appear with others at Robert Schuller’s Rethink conference. Schuller has denied central doctrines for years by promoting religious pluralism. Os Guinness recently authored “An Evangelical Manifesto” which lacked a clear definition of what a Christian is. Also, the “Manifesto” did not clearly show people how to make clear moral decisions in the political arena.

Second, the promotion of Word-Faith teachers who teach heresy. The teachings of prosperity and health have their place. However, the evangelical church has fallen victim to major doctrinal errors in the Word-Faith Movement. Currently, there are six evangelists under investigation by the Senate because of their excessive lifestyles at the expense of hard-working Americans. While defrauding donors, these teachers are living a life of luxury.

Third, the evangelical church has endorsed contemplative prayer authors who deny essential doctrines. Brian McLaren is confused on the atonement, a central issue of Christianity. Richard Foster has aligned his beliefs to mystics who deny major doctrines. Currently, Christianity Today has a feature on Foster. Rick Warren endorses many mystics and includes New Age sympathizer Leornard Sweet in his church.

In order for the church to influence society, Christians must seek God’s face and turn from their wicked ways according to 2 Chronicles 7:14. His ‘face’ can be found in the Bible which gives clear directions on the central issues of the faith.

Seb site:


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.


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.




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



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