"Left" v. "Right" and the West Point "Far-Right Extremist" Paper

The Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy recently published a paper that would categorize our Founding Fathers as "far-right extremists."  This categorization stems from a lack of understanding of the true ideologies behind "right" and "left," which results from the progressive ("left") control of our schools, government, and the mainstream media, and sets up American patriots to at some point be considered "insurgents" against which America's own Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine can be applied.

In November 2012, the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the United States Military Academy published a paper by Arie Perliger (the CTC Director of Terrorism Studies) entitled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," which relies heavily on the generally understood categorizations of "left" and "right" in order to categorize terrorism in "far-right" groups:

"Regarding affinity towards traditional values, a common perception is that liberal/left- wing and conservative worldviews are different in their time orientation. While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo. The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community. In many cases these past-oriented perspectives help to formulate a nostalgic and romantic ideological aura which makes these groups attractive for many who aspire to restore the halcyon days of a clear hierarchy of values and norms." (p. 17)

As you can see, the author (and society) is biased toward defining the "left" as looking toward the future while the "right" looks rearward at an idealized (implied: false, unobtainable) past.  The belief behind making these two categorizations is that there are no eternal truths, so change ("progress") is always desirable in a never ending quest for human perfection.  Therefore members of the "right" who look to the past are only obstacles to this human "advancement."

In reality, progressive (the "left") thought is not anymore forward looking than conservative (the "right") thought looks to the past.  Where their central difference lies is in their concept of "truth" and not necessarily in time orientation.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!" Romans 1:24-25*

Progressives reject God's Truth (following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, among others), so are actually returning to the thinking of Adam and Eve in Eden, Nimrod in Babylon, and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, who all rejected God's Truth which ultimately resulted in despair and suffering.

Conservatives (the "right") acknowledge God's Truth and, just like our Founding Fathers, seek to lay that as the foundation on which all else is built.  Progressives deliberately suppress God's Truth in order to formulate their own and become like gods themselves.

America has consistently exchanged the Truth for lies as shown in the following beliefs that are being bolstered by the government:

• The Holy Bible is a collection of sayings and myths, not Truth
• Man was not made in the image of God, but "evolved"
• The universe created itself (the "Big Bang" theory)
• Homosexual behavior is normal and not rebellion against our Creator
• Abortion--what amounts in many cases to a blood sacrifice to cover the sin of fornication--is not murder
• The family unit as defined in the Bible and practiced over many centuries is an arbitrary creation and should be redefined at will
• The Constitution was created as a "living" document open to liberal interpretation
• The Founders intended for Biblical Truths to be completely absent from public discourse 

Prior to making the distinction between "left" and "right" the author paints the conservative ("far right") world view in a negative light:

"In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland." (p. 15)

"Internal homogenization rejects the incorporation and recognition of those embodying different ethnic and national traits as part of the nation. In addition, nativism adds opposition to external influence, whether on a cultural, religious, or normative basis. Foreign influence is perceived as a threat to the entirety and homogeneity of the nation and, as a result, to its resiliency, its ability to counter external threats and to preserve its essential traits. The concept of nativism explains why in many cases the activities of far-right groups do not only oppose foreigners, but also those citizens who promote what is perceived as non-native norms, practices or values." (p. 16)

Internal homogenization and rejection of foreign influence are both important, but are not based on the shallowness of national origin or ethnicity.  What matters is a person's ideology, world view, and how they define "truth."  This is what must be protected in America because diversity of world views in a society leads to national schizophrenia and requires a strong central government to maintain order.

America's founding was unique among all world governments, before and since, because it was based on the Word of God.  It is not perfect (no human government can be), but it is the most effective form of government to maintain order and security in a religious and moral society while providing its citizens the maximum liberty to direct their own lives. Therefore we should be suspicious of outside "norms" (truths) which seek to encroach on our culture since they will most likely contradict the values of our Founding.  That is why immigrants who come to America should accept our form of government and our values, and not the other way around.

To attempt to rule a nation that contains a multitude of ideologies and world views will require much more power in the central government--just look at places like the former Yugoslavia or Iraq.  But remember--America was not founded for a specific color of people (even though others would like you to believe this narrative), but based on an idea and world view.  It should be expected of all who join us to accept that world view as primary in the nation.

The author also paints "anti-federalism" tendencies in a negative light:

"The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government." (p. 4)

The author fails to acknowledge that many of our forefathers were "anti-federalists" who feared that the Constitution in its original form would give the central government too much power and result in tyranny over the People and States.  That is the very reason why the Bill of Rights was added--to give additional protection to the People and States against the natural tendency of a government to unceasingly increase its power.

More importantly, those who reject ultimate Truth (the progressives) desire to perfect humanity by their own hands.  This will ultimately lead to tyranny as the government, who is expected to perfect life for all, continually fails to do so and therefore must assume more power at the expense of the People's liberties so they have total control over all aspects of life to arrive at their desired Utopia.

Thus we have irreconcilable differences within the United States because of the two competing world views.  One seeks to operate within the framework of the Constitution and the Word of God.  The other rejects both and seeks to rule the nation based on the ability of Man to "evolve" and solve all the world's problems given enough time, technology, and power.  This latter world view requires the commensurate (and necessary) loss of the individual's ability to choose their own ends in exchange for the coercive ends dictated by the government.

This paper,"Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," coming from one of the nation's military academies tasked with producing our future military leaders who will take an oath to support and defend the Constitution is disturbing to say the very least.

First, the paper demonstrates a lack of understanding of the founding of America and its Constitutional government.

Second, it potentially demonizes those who seek to follow in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers--a group who through study of the past and the Word understand the fallen nature of Man and the necessary limits that must be placed on government by a moral and religious people.

On the opposite side is a group who is vastly different, for they reject the past in the misguided hope that Man in all his Greatness can design a more perfect society this time around.  Those of us who study the Truth know that this will always result in misery.

That group, known as the "left" or "progressives," need to be identified for what they are--collectivists (as described by F.A. Hayek).  At their very core they seek to consolidate all power into the central government to determine the ends of the people as a whole.  They do not lament the loss of individual liberties, and are the anti-thesis of the vision of our Founding Fathers.  They go by many names--communists, Marxists, fascists, socialists, and progressives--and can be found in both parties, Republican and Democrat.  For those of us who love liberty, they must be resisted.  The Constitution and Truth must be defended.

By trusting in the Word of God and the form of government created by our Founding Fathers, this author has painted himself to be a "far-right extremist" according to the Director of West Point's Combating Terrorism Center.  This demonstrates just how far our nation has deviated from our creation, because, by Perliger's definition, our Founding Fathers would be far-right extremists and potential "terrorists" in America today.

If those who defend our Founding today are truly "far-right extremists," then they are in good company alongside our Founding Fathers.

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

--Against All Enemies

*Bible verse from Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Kindle Locations 44519-44521). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition. 

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

God Rest Ye Merry Anti-Semites

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

There is an old hatred returning to the Christian community.  A hatred of Jews and Judaism.  It is especially vicious this time of year.  A new call for the blood of Jews to run through out the streets of the world.  A vicious cry led by the Church of England, Roman Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church (USA) and Evangelical Lutheran Church.

A new report from NGO Monitor reveals that several Christian organizations that support the Palestinian Authority are using Christmas to attack Israel. Holiday propaganda ranged from half-truths aimed at portraying Israel as oppressive to “crude anti-Semitism” based on historic Christian accusations of Jews being prophet-killers, the group said.

The report, titled, “O Boycott All ye Faithful,” criticized groups including Christian Aid, Sabeel, Kairos Palestine, and Israel Palestine Mission Network, Presbyterian Church (USA).

The latter group has published a daily advent devotional headed by a picture in which Mary and Joseph, parents of Jesus, are trapped behind a wall styled on Israel’s security barrier between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The first entry compares Israel to the Romans who once brutally oppressed the Jewish people.

“Jesus lived when the Roman empire had recently come to his land and made it part of the empire. The Romans were very cruel to any of those who dared to resist the occupation… As we look at the complexity of the Palestine/Israel issues today, I am struck by a sense of déjà vu,” wrote Reverend Richard Toll.

His message also included a warning to “collaborators,” whom he said Christians must expose. The PA considers “collaboration” with Israel in fighting terrorism a death penalty offense.

Further writings continue the trend of extreme criticism of Israel, with some hinting that modern-day Palestinian Authority Arabs are like Jesus, while Israel is like the Romans who killed him.

The annual Christmas message from Sabeel compares Israel to the Roman Empire as well, as does a video message posted by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Groups based in England and Ireland – Amos Trust, Christian Aid, and the Ireland Palestinian Solidarity Campaign – used images or writings that targeted Israel’s security barrier by comparing PA residents to figures in early Christianity. Amos Trust, for example, wrote, “If Jesus were born today in Bethlehem, the Wise Men would spend several hours queuing to enter the town.”

The security barrier was built following a brutal wave of suicide attacks targeting Israeli civilians. Jerusalem, just minutes from Bethlehem, was hit by dozens of attacks murdering hundreds of people. Several of the attackers were from Bethlehem, among them a bomber who targeted high school students on their way to school, killing and wounding several dozen.

Unsurprisingly, the issue of terrorism in Bethlehem was not mentioned by any of the organizations.

“NGOs and well-known charities are exploiting the 2012 Christmas season with anti-Israel campaigns… The repeated emphasis on Bethlehem highlights the dark theological messaging,” warned NGO monitor.

“With this abuse of holiday and religious symbols, these NGOs and charities that claim to promote moral agendas are not offering messages of peace and good cheer. Rather, their intolerant and theologically charged messages exacerbate an already polarized and violent conflict,” the group charged.

Many of the offending groups are funded by the European Union and European governments. Sabeel is funded by Sweden, and Christian Aid by the UK, Ireland, Norway and the EU.

“As funders, these governments are enablers and share the moral responsibility for the actions of the NGOs,” NGO Monitor declared.

Source

A new Christmas Carol is being taught to Christian children all over the world:

Deck the streets with the Blood of Jews,
Fa la la la la la la la la.
Tis the season to hate Jews,
Fa la la la la la la la la.
Blame them for the death of Christ,
That way the PA will let us stay,
Fa la la la la la la la la.

I wonder how long it will be until this becomes a prophecy and not a song?

Dinesh D'Souza on the "Morality" of Government Coercion

In the following meeting of the Oregon State University Socratic Club, Dinesh D'Souza discusses how the element of governmental compulsion strips the virtue out of transactions (in response to a question about universal health care).  He then goes on to describe the current moral inversion in our society of painting the "wagon pullers," or the makers, as selfish and greedy, and those "sitting in the wagon," or the takers, as being wonderful and morally superior to the "wagon pullers."

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEM4NKXK-iA&feature=player_embedded


--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Hate Speech

Most crimes are objective in nature, as they can be observed or measured.  For instance, murder means someone is dead.  Theft means something was taken (can be electronic as well as physical, but there is a record).  Speeding means that there is a limit to the maximum speed and it can be accurately measured.  Assault means someone was physically attacked, or verbally threatened with physical attack.  When it comes to objective crimes, their definitions remain consistent over time.

However, the introduction of "hate speech" into the legal system is purely subjective and can be manipulated to serve the causes and ideology of the State.  Once hate speech laws are enacted, it gives the government the ability to classify almost anything as "hate speech," up to and including opposition to the State.  The criminalization of hate speech directly contradicts freedom of speech rights granted by the First Amendment, and will ultimately result in State-sponsored censorship.

Here are two examples of how "hate speech" thinking is applied.  Through them it will be clear how the government decides what is hate speech and what is not based on their own ideology and political goals, and not on any higher standard of moral conduct.

Islam by it's very nature and conduct is replete with hate speech, and is in fact genocidal against those who do not accept Islam.  However, our government gives them a pass and labels them the "religion of peace."  In fact, the government goes so far as to label jihadic violence in the name of Islam "workplace violence."  Our Administration is even voicing their support for international law (Human Rights Council Resolution 1618) that prohibits that speech which incites religious violence in order to protect the Islamic faith (see David Horowitz's speech on the matter).

Christianity, on the other hand, is not given such a pass.  The assault on the Word of God and Christians is just beginning, as preachers are starting to come under scrutiny for preaching against homosexual behavior.  This teaching of the Word will eventually be categorized as "hate speech" and criminalized.  Then Christians will be forced to either edit any such "hate speech" out of their Bibles, or get rid of them altogether.  Leaders and pundits may even compare the Bible to "Mein Kampf" in its "intolerance."

Why does the government find this necessary?  Because the government wants to be god on earth, dictating what is right and wrong.  Just look at some of our government's actions that contradict the will of God:

• open support for, and encouragement of, homosexual behavior  
• encouragement of sexual promiscuity through education, birth control, and murder (abortion)
• discouragement of personal responsibility through bailouts, grants, "free stuff," etc.
• idol worship through the explicit legitimization of other religions and rejection of the God of the Bible
• destruction of the family unit through social programs and propaganda; employment of the educational system to perpetuate lies (such as the specious theories of evolution and man-made climate change) and encourage immoral behavior that undermine parents' teachings of morality, truth and religion; and ultimately replacing the authority of parents with the authority of the State
• encouraging taking from some to give to others, and that the government can provide everything that you need (coveting and theft)

All of these actions are designed to appeal to the carnal nature of man so that Americans will want to seek the baser, lower road that is encouraged by the government rather than seek the higher road as laid out by God.  The American government is making America safe for sinners, and pushing the Word of God aside to do so.  They may eventually make the Word of God illegal because it is "hateful" against those who follow the depraved guidance of the government.  Once the people worship the false idol of the humanist government, they will submit as slaves and liberty will have died in America.

"Your God is hateful and won't let you do what you want!  We, as your government, are much more benevolent...worship us!"

(And a final note: the criminalization of "hate speech" is a means to controlling the content of the Internet and suppress dissent amongst the population.)

--Against All Enemies

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Lessons America Can Learn from the Rwandan Genocide

On Sunday, 11 November 2012, Major (ret.) Brent Beardsley gave a powerful presentation reflecting on his experience as a Christian Soldier in Rwanda during the Rwandan genocide from 1993-94.  He served as the personal staff officer to then Canadian General Romeo Dallaire before and during the Rwandan genocide that engulfed that nation and ultimately claimed the lives of approximately 1 million people in 100 days.*

As Americans we should listen carefully to Major Beardsley's comments on the events that led to the genocide in Rwanda, and judge whether or not we are following in the exact same steps.

At 27:00 in the audio (link here), Major Beardsley warns us to beware when you resent another group and go through a period of instability with fear and despair with opportunistic politicians who stir up anger.  The politicians stir it up until it is a combination of hatred and fear.  Hate is only a step away from killing.  Hate breeds violence.

Are we Americans not being led to anger, and then hate?  At the point of hate, the unthinkable will be possible, and Americans will believe it necessary to kill their fellow Americans just like in Rwanda and also Bosnia.  Neighbors will turn on their neighbors, and Christians will turn on their fellow Christians.

We must never allow it to get that far.

Link to Major Beardsley's presentation: Click Here
02:08 Major Beardsley begins speaking
03:50 Rwanda discussion begins
15:45 What did the Tutsis do?

Link to Major Beardsley's slides: Click Here

*Note: Text adapted from the Bethel Church biography found here.  Also, AAE does not agree with the comment that Adam and Eve gave us free will.  God gave us free will--Adam and Eve happened to choose poorly.

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Movie: 300 Million Slaves

From the website: "We are called to something great. If we are to save our culture and make sure future generations have a better world to live in than what we have now, WE NEED TO MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD. We need to vote our values. We need to hold our politicians accountable for their actions. If we do not, we may not have a country left for future generations. Now is the time to act! Now is the time to equip ourselves! Become empowered to take action and engage the community around you and CHANGE OUR CULTURE, PRESERVE THE FREEDOMS WE STILL HAVE LEFT, AND REGAIN OUR LOST FREEDOMS!"

Link to trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDWlCKhayW0&feature=player_embedded

Link to Intro Scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKwI6kDlgUE&feature=player_embedded

Official website: http://www.300millionslaves.com

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

The Hegelian Dialectic and the Pathway to a One World Government

Ah yes, the Hegelian Dialectic.  I have always had a difficult time understanding what the heck Georg Hegel was talking about, but in a word it is "compromise."

(There is a series called "Deception" by the Fuel Project out of Scotland that helps to simplify his concept: link to Part 49 The Hegelian Principle here.)

In the Hegelian Dialectic, you have two generally irreconcilable ideas, a "thesis" and an "antithesis."  When these two ideas are brought into conflict with each other, the expected result is "synthesis" where "compromise" is achieved (this is not necessarily through peaceful means) and the two ideas are no longer in conflict, because they really no longer exist in their original forms, instead existing as one.

Satan's desire is to turn humans away from the Word of God (Truth), and the Hegelian Dialectic is one technique to do this.  Within the Hegelian Dialectic, there is no Truth, unless one believes the synthesis of the two different ideas becomes temporary "truth" once synthesis (compromise) has been reached.  Therefore Satan wishes to assault God's Truth with lies, hoping that humans will compromise between the two.  The result will be a rejection of certain aspects, or even all, of God's Truth.  The result is not Truth, but Lies.

This is the general form of attack on our Constitution, where the socialists have been steadily assaulting it with their poisoned ideas, counting on Congress to compromise, marching our nation slowly over time toward socialism.  In essence, we are compromising away the truths upon which our nation was founded.

Similarly, those who seek a One World Government will use the Hegelian Dialectic to create conflict between differing ideologies to create a synthesis, or compromise, so as to achieve a homogenization of humanity over time.  This homogenization must be done to create such a government backed by a singular theology (which will be Satanic).

My question is this: is a clash between the West and Islam the next attempt at reaching a synthesis between the two irreconcilable ideologies?  Is the antithesis of Islam being used to destroy the thesis of Christianity? By its very nature, Islam is anti-Christ, for it does not believe that Jesus was the Son of God and the Quran commands its followers to slay the unbelievers (Christians being a part of that group).  This, therefore, makes Islam a very convenient anti-thesis to Christianity, by which to arrive at synthesis once the two are brought into conflict.

--Against All Enemies

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Marx & Satan: Is Everything Permitted?

Richard Wurmbrand was a Christian Pastor who was jailed and tortured by Communist Romania security forces for 14 years because of his opposition to communism.  After his release, he wanted to better understand why those who followed communist ideals committed such evil acts.  The results can be found in his book "Marx & Satan."  I recommend that you get a copy and read it.

I will attempt to share some of his work with you in my blog.  Here is a portion where he describes how in Satanism "Nothing is true, and everything is permitted."  It sounds very much like today in our appeasement of Islam.  How can we forbid such a cruel ideology if everything is permissible and nothing is forbidden?

Is Everything Permitted?

The Satanist cult is very old, older than Christianity. The prophet Isaiah might have had it in view when he wrote, "We have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him (the Savior) the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6). 

True religious feeling is at the opposite pole. Certain Hassidic rabbis never said "I," because they considered it a pronoun that belonged only to God. His will is binding on human behavior. 

By contrast, when a man or woman is initiated into the seventh degree of Satanism, he swears that his principle will be, "Nothing is true, and everything is permitted." When Marx filled out a quiz game for his daughter, he answered the question "Which is your favorite principle?" with the words, "Doubt everything.” 

Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto that his aim was the abolition not only of all religions, but also of all morals, which would make everything permissible. 

It was with a sense of horror that I read the mystery of the seventh degree of Satanism inscribed on a poster at the University of Paris during the 1968 riots. It had been simplified to the formula, "It is forbidden to forbid," which is the natural consequence of "Nothing is true, and everything is permissible." 

The youth obviously did not realize the stupidity of the formula. If it is forbidden to forbid, it must also be forbidden to forbid forbidding. If everything is permissible, forbidding is permissible, too. 

Young people think that permissiveness means liberty. Marxists know better. To them, the formula means that it is forbidden to forbid cruel dictatorships like those in Red China and the Soviet Union. 

Dostoyevski had said it already: "If there is no God, everything is permitted." If there is no God, our instincts are free. The ultimate expression of this kind of liberty is hatred. Whoever is free in this sense considers loving-kindness a weakness of the spirit. 

Engels said, "Generalized love of men is absurdity." The anarchist thinker Max Stirner, author of The I and I is Property and one of Marx's friends, wrote, "I am legitimately authorized to do everything I am capable of.” 

Communism is collective demon-possession. Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago reveals some of its horrid a results in the souls and lives of people.

(Richard Wurmbrand, Marx & Satan, pp. 107-8)

--Against All Enemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Are You Ready for "Peace?"

What follows is an analysis of the "Report from Iron Mountain," a study conducted in 1966 to determine how to prepare American society for disarmament ("peace").  This analysis was done prior to my reading Chapter 24 of "The Creature from Jekyll Island."

Introduction

I began my blog as an investigation into current events, because they seemed far outside the norm of what should be happening in the United State of America as established by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  I sought to discover the motivation behind these events.  From my research, I have developed the hypothesis that world leaders are attempting to establish a "One World Government" to finally bring "peace" to the world.  Let me explain:

1. I believe that God, as revealed to us in the Bible, exists.
2. I believe that men have a natural tendency to seek power over other men.
3. I believe that men have a natural desire to attempt to solve humanity's problems (i.e. establish "peace"), without the assistance or acknowledgement of God, as this will make them god-like.
4. If you are going to establish "peace" on the planet, you will have a plan to do so.

I believe that I may have come across a seed crystal for just such a plan that focuses on transitioning a society from a state "war" to a state of "peace," potentially under a One World Government of some sort.  This plan is described in the "Report from Iron Mountain" which was written in 1966 by a group of 15 professionals who represented different fields and professions and were collectively referred to as the Special Study Group.  We are potentially seeing glimpses of the actions taken during such a transition today.

Whether or not anyone follows the recommendations of this Report verbatim, the thought process behind it is very similar to what is being done for Agenda 21 and other socialist movements.  The authors of the Report call for centralized control of the population, and acknowledge that "The elimination of war implies the inevitable elimination of national sovereignty and the traditional nation-state." (p. 36)  Interestingly enough, this is not at odds with general communist goals, as stated at the first World Congress in 1919:

The Comintern [Communist International] would work "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."  (source)

Before we continue, we must ask ourselves, what is "peace" (dictionary definition).  In the Report, it only means the absence of war between nations.  But there is an implication that is not stated.  With peace, generally something must be surrendered.  In Christianity, the individual surrenders to Christ.  In Islam, the society surrender to all the aspects of its totalitarian ideology.  So what do you surrender in a man-made peace?  I believe it is your liberties afforded you as an American citizen, because according to this report, to achieve peace, the population must be deceived and strictly controlled.  If you believe what the Lord has taught us, there will be no true peace until the return of our Savior.  Until then, any efforts by man to do likewise, especially through socialist methods, will end in utter failure, and most likely death (look back to transitions in Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia).

The "Report from Iron Mountain" indicates that the following actions may be required in a transition to peace:

1. Deceiving the people of the United States
2. Maintaining centralized control of the population
3. Massive disarmament and the transition of the economy to another form
4. Creating fictitious alternate enemies (aliens, pollution, etc.)
5. Potentially implementing a modern form of slavery
6. Implementation of a eugenics program for population control
7. Implementation of a massive social welfare program

What the Report does not address:

1. God (ruled out from the beginning)
2. The People of the United States as being sovereign
3. The Constitution of the United States and the protection of individual liberties

In its Report, the Special Study Group (SSG) first looked at the current state of war and its functions within society, identified what is needed for transition to peace, and then made recommendations as to what substitutes could replace those functions provided by war.

The Functions of War (from pp. 59-60 of the Report)

1. Economic.  War has provided both ancient and modern societies with a dependable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies.
2. Political. The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government; it supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has ensured the subordination of the citizen to the state, by virtue of the residual war powers
inherent in the concept of nationhood.
3. Sociological.  War, through the medium of military institutions, has uniquely served societies, throughout the course of known history, as an indispensable controller of dangerous social dissidence and destructive
antisocial tendencies.... [T]he war system has provided the machinery through which the motivational forces governing human behavior have been translated into binding social allegiance. It has thus ensured the degree of social cohesion necessary to the viability of nations.
4. Ecological.  War has been the principal evolutionary device for maintaining a satisfactory ecological balance between gross human population and supplies available for its survival.
5. Cultural and Scientific. War-orientation has determined the basic standards of value in the creative arts, and has provided the fundamental motivational source of scientific and technological progress. The concepts that the arts express values independent of their own forms and that the successful pursuit of knowledge has intrinsic social value have long been accepted in modern societies; the development of the arts and sciences during this period has been corollary to the parallel development of weaponry.

Requirements for Transition to Peace (from p. 61 of the Report)

1. Economic.  An acceptable economic surrogate for the war system will require the expenditure of resources for completely nonproductive purposes at a level comparable to that of the military expenditures otherwise demanded by the size and complexity of each society. Such a substitute system of apparent "waste" must be of a nature that will permit it to remain independent of the normal supply-demand economy; it must be subject to arbitrary political control.
2. Political. A viable political substitute for war must posit a generalized external menace to each society of a nature and degree sufficient to require the organization and acceptance of political authority.
3. Sociological.  First, in the permanent absence of war, new institutions must be developed that will effectively control the socially destructive segments of societies. Second, for purposes of adapting the physical and psychological dynamics of human behavior to the needs of social organization, a credible substitute for war must generate an omnipresent and readily understood fear of personal destruction. This fear must be of a nature and degree sufficient to ensure adherence to societal values to the full extent that they are acknowledged to transcend the value of individual human life.
4. Ecological.  A substitute for war in its function as the uniquely human system of population control must ensure the survival, if not necessarily the improvement, of the species, in terms of its relations to environmental supply.
5. Cultural and Scientific. A surrogate for the function of war as the determinant of cultural values must establish a basis of socio-moral conflict of equally compelling force and scope. A substitute motivational basis for the quest for scientific knowledge must be similarly informed by a comparable sense of internal necessity.

Potential Substitutes for War Functions (p. 62 of the Report)
1. Economic.
    a) A comprehensive social-welfare program, directed toward maximum improvement of general conditions of human life.
    b) A giant open-end space research program, aimed at unreachable targets.
    c) A permanent, ritualized, ultra-elaborate disarmament inspection system, and variants of such a
system. (This last substitute was generally rejected by the SSG.)
2. Political.
    a) An omnipresent, virtually omnipotent international police force. (This recommendation was generally dismissed by the SSG because it would imply a continuing state of warfare of some nature.)
    b) An established and recognized extraterrestrial menace.
    c) Massive global environmental pollution. d) Fictitious alternate enemies.
3. Sociological.
    Control Function:
      a) Programs generally derived from the Peace Corps model.
      b) A modern, sophisticated form of slavery.
    Motivational Function:
      a) Intensified environmental pollution.
      b) New religions or other mythologies.
      c) Socially oriented blood games.
      d) Combination forms.
4. Ecological. A comprehensive program of applied eugenics.  (eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).)
5. Cultural and Scientific.
    Cultural: No replacement institution offered.
    Scientific: The secondary requirements of the space research, social welfare, and / or eugenics programs.

Signs of Transition

Like all good planners, the SSG recommends that the solutions be arrived at before implementation begins.  What follows is taking the model provided by the SSG planners and fitting current events to that model.  The fact that many current events fit into this model does not in and of itself validate that the powers-that-be are actually following the model as laid out in the Report.  However, it could help explain these curious events that currently seem to make no sense otherwise.

1. Economic.
    a. The Affordable Care Act, being enormous in cost, independent of the normal supply/demand model, and under arbitrary political control, may meet the criteria to be a substitute function for the current military expenditures of the United States.  It even calls for a new civil defense force that may meet the need for a Peace Corps type organization in the Sociological realm.
    b. Some national leaders have thrown out the ideas of establishing a "moon base" or putting a human on Mars, which could be interpreted as efforts to establish an open-ended space program as the substitute for the military portion of the budget.
    c. Sequestration and the currently planned cuts to the military budget will assist in significantly reducing the size of the United States military over a 10-year period, and reduce its portion of the entire national budget.
    d. The current precarious position of the US military deployed in the Pacific and Mideast could result in significant losses should war erupt in near-simultaneous fashion.  This, coupled with the budget/deficit problems, could force the retirement of the US military from overseas positions.
    e. The creation of, and government support for, "green jobs" may be an attempt to replace a portion of the military industry in the economy with a completely new sector.

2. Political.
    a. The UFO phenomenon that has been present for decades now may not be a credible enough threat  to force people to accept political authority.  Threat from a meteor/asteroid strike might not either.
    b. Islam could be used as the external (and potentially internal) "menace," or even the controlling political structure itself.  However, the acceptance of Islam by the American people as that internal political structure may not be feasible.

3. Sociological.
   a. There will be a requirement to transition people currently serving in the military into other professions due to "general disarmament."  The new initiative by the Department of Defense, "Reverse Boot Camp," could be the start point for a larger program to support such massive disarmament and returning military professionals to civilian life commensurate with the disarmament.
   b. With the amount of debt being placed on the backs of the American taxpayer in the form of the national debt, home loans, college loans, etc., this could potentially serve as a modern form of slavery for the American people--slavery to enormous debt that is owed to the central government. (control function)
   c.  There are the current hyped-up threats of man-made "global warming" and "climate change" that can be used for the motivational function and provide "fear of personal destruction."  Maybe an asteroid or meteor strike.  (motivational function)

4. Ecological.
    a. Legalized abortion serves eugenics purposes by limiting the size of the population and the number of children had by members of the lower classes of society.  With pre-natal testing, abortion allows couples to abort children with birth defects.
    b. The promotion of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender behavior also helps reduce the size of the population by encouraging men to "shoot at the wrong target" and women to opt out of child-bearing relationships.
    c. Some researchers are now suggesting that post-birth abortions are ethical, which can also be used to reduce the size of the population and eliminate children with birth defects that were not identified in the womb.

5. Cultural and Scientific.
    a. A potential cultural replacement institution could be Islam which brings with it the complete totalitarian package that appears to be required by this Report.  However, the SSG potentially dismisses the need for a "god" by stating "It may be, however, that a basic cultural value-determinant [i.e. God] is not necessary to the survival of a stable society." (p. 63)  Another possibility could be the worship of the planet.
    b. An attempt to find a substitute for the scientific contributions of the war industry could be with the development "green technology," or potentially the space exploration sector should the US decide to resume its space program.

Special Study Group Recommendation

The Special Study Group's (SSG) primary recommendation at the conclusion of the report was for the United States Government to establish a WAR/PEACE Research Agency to determine technically feasible, politically acceptable, and socially credible "substitute institutions for the principal non-military  functions of war" (pp. 61, 69) and "to ensure the continuing viability of the war system to fulfill its essential nonmilitary functions for as long as the war system is judged necessary to or desirable for the survival of society." (p. 70)

The Agency's organization and powers are described as follows:

This agency (a) will be provided with non-accountable funds sufficient to implement its responsibilities and decisions at its own discretion, and (b) will have authority to preempt and utilize, without restriction, any and all facilities of the executive branch of the government in pursuit of its objectives. It will be organized along the lines of the National Security Council, except that none of its governing, executive, or operating personnel will hold other public office or governmental responsibility. Its directorate will be drawn from the broadest practicable spectrum of scientific disciplines, humanistic studies, applied creative arts, operating technologies, and otherwise unclassified professional occupations. It will be responsible solely to the President, or to other officers of government temporarily deputized by him. Its operations will be governed entirely by its own rules of procedure. Its authority will expressly include the unlimited right to withhold information on its activities and its decisions, from anyone except the President, whenever it deems such secrecy to be in the public interest. (p. 69)

Conclusion of the Special Study Group (pp. 64-66)

Such solutions, if indeed they exist, will not be arrived at without a revolutionary revision of the modes of thought heretofore considered appropriate to peace research. That we have examined the fundamental questions involved from a dispassionate, value-free [aka no God] point of view should not imply that we do not appreciate the intellectual and emotional difficulties that must be overcome on all decision-making levels before these questions are generally acknowledged by others for what they are. (p. 64)

A viable system of peace, assuming that the great and complex questions of substitute institutions raised in this Report are both soluble and solved, would still constitute a venture into the unknown, with the inevitable risks attendant on the unforeseen, however small and however well hedged. (p. 65)

It is possible that one or more major sovereign nations may arrive, through ambiguous leadership, at a position in which a ruling administrative class may lose control of basic public opinion or of its ability to rationalize a desired war. It is not hard to imagine, in such circumstances, a situation in which such governments may feel forced to initiate serious full-scale disarmament proceedings (perhaps provoked by "accidental" nuclear explosions), and that such negotiations may lead to the actual disestablishment of military institutions. As our Report has made clear, this could be catastrophic.(p. 66)

Summary

This Report is one of the most evil documents I have ever read.  The SSG presupposes the absence of God, and treats humans as animals governed by evolution and survival of the fittest.  Not surprisingly, their construct is the polar opposite of how our Founding Fathers solved the problem of creating a new government for the United States of America, by first assuming there is a God who endowed us with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What we observe in the Report from Iron Mountain is man's total reliance on science (or human knowledge and reason) and a blatant rejection of God.  What is important to know is that there are people in the world that think this way, and can exploit science and reason to "rationally" support their conclusions, no matter how faulty their premises or how inhumane their solutions.  As a result, these are very dangerous people.

The Report from Iron Mountain, like socialism, is a great thought exercise.  However, its implementation will result in utter failure because of a critical precondition that was set by the Group: that God is not a factor (basically, does not exist).

The United States of America, as a Christian nation, can never be at "peace" with the rest of the world.  This is because the rest of the world is replete with poisonous ideologies that seek to destroy our liberties and faith in God.  So to even harbor the thought that peace is possible before the return of Christ is fallacious.

Finally, in the United States, the people are sovereign.  The fact that this Report proposes that our government deceive the people in order to transition to a state of peace indicates that many of the recommendations of the "Report from Iron Mountain" are treasonous (treason: 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2.a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.).

Read the Report from Iron Mountain at your own mental peril.  Two of the group members experienced heart attacks following the completion of the Report. (p. 13)  I personally have not experienced such a bad physical response to reading a document since reading descriptions of partial-birth abortions.

Primary resource: "Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace."  New York: The Dial Press, 1967.  (link)

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

America, Religion, and Depravity

Today we witnessed a brutal and senseless killing of innocent people in a movie theater in Colorado.  Some will declare that guns are the problem and that our right to bear arms must be curtailed.  Many will look to the government for solutions, to save us from ourselves.

What most people do not realize, however, is that our Founder Fathers already solved the problem by allowing for the free practice of religion (Christianity) in both public and private sectors.  Since the 1940's, however, the Supreme Court has steadily curtailed the freedom of religion in the United States, resulting in the massive increase of depraved behavior that we observe today.

Of note, the commonly used phrase, "separation of Church and State," is not to be found in either of our founding documents, The Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.  It is a phrase written by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists...a phrase that has been hijacked, perverted, and perpetuated by the ignorant and those who support the eradication of Christianity from the fabric of our nation.

(The discussion that follows uses David Barton's "Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant" as a resource for many of the quotes that are used.)

Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The original intent of our Founding Fathers when they drafted this Amendment was:
(1) to prevent the US Government from establishing one religious (Christian) denomination as the approved State Religion, such as the Church of England or the German Church (which Adolf Hitler successfully commandeered to help achieve his own twisted ends), and
(2) to allow the free exercise of religion in public and private venues unless "its principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." (1878 Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. United States )

Furthermore, our Founding Fathers, and those who followed shortly thereafter, clearly understood that our form of government required the Christian faith to maintain order in the nation by encouraging the good conduct of its citizenry. 

George Washington:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness--these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.  The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them."  (Address of George Washington, 1796)

"[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."  (Address of George Washington, 1796)

John Adams:

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  (Works, 1798)

Noah Webster:

"All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." (History of the United States, 1832)

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson alleviated concerns of the Danbury Baptist Association that the Constitution did not expressly identify the freedom of religion as an inalienable right.  Jefferson responded with a letter that reaffirmed the individual's freedom of religion that says in part:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."  (Jefferson's Letter to Danbury Baptists, 1802) (You can also read the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson here.)

However, beginning in 1947, the Supreme Court began misinterpreting the 1st Amendment and Thomas Jefferson's letter, specifically where he spoke of "a wall of separation between Church and State."  In short, the Judicial Branch of the United States Government began deliberately rejecting the Christian foundation of our nation and the morals it teaches, which are essential to the good behavior of its citizens.

In 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court "interpreted the 'separation' phrase as requiring the federal government to remove religious expressions from the public arena--that is, it interpreted the First Amendment not as a limitation on government interference but rather as a limitation on religious expressions and principles."  ("Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant.", p.14)

In its 1962 Engel v. Vitale ruling, the Supreme Court perverted the meaning of the word "church" within Jefferson's letter to mean "public religious activity" instead of "denomination."  They also perverted the use of the word "state" to mean the "public square." ("Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant.", p.14)

In 1963 Abington v. Schempp, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bible could no longer be included in public education:

"[I]f portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and...had been psychologically harmful to the child."

In 1980 Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled against the public display of the Ten Commandments, stating:

"If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the Commandments...[T]his...is not a permissible...objective."

Our Founding Fathers clearly articulated that to have good citizens you need to have religion and morality.  Thus you should not have to sit for long and wonder why we have such problems in our current time...we did this to ourselves.

I will leave you with some of the findings of the Colorado Board of Education on the Columbine shootings which clearly identify the lack of moral teachings in schools being partly responsible for the depraved behavior we are seeing in our children:

"As we seek the why behind this infamous event, we must find answers beyond the easy and obvious. How weapons become used for outlaw purposes is assuredly a relevant issue, yet our society's real problem is how human behavior sinks to utter and depraved indifference to the sanctity of life. As our country promotes academic literacy, we must promote moral literacy as well, and it is not children, but adults in authority who are ultimately responsible for that....
As a Board we believe, with Edmund Burke, that all that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. We further believe that society must act now before it is too late for more innocent children. We also recognize that failing to act shall make us all accomplices in such future tragedies as may engulf our schools.

Accordingly, we make the following recommendations for renewing that unity and strength of purpose that has historically bonded our schools, our homes, and our society....
Finally, we must remember, respect, and unashamedly take pride in the fact that our schools,
like our country, found their origin and draw their strength from the faith-based morality that is
at the heart of our national character.

Today our schools have become so fearful of affirming one religion or one value over another that they have banished them all. In doing so they have abdicated their historic role in the moral formation of youth and thereby alienated themselves from our people's deep spiritual sensibilities.

To leave this disconnection between society and its schools unaddressed is an open invitation to
further divisiveness and decline. For the sake of our children, who are so dependent upon a consistent and unified message from the adult world, we must solve these dilemmas."  ("What is to be Done: Searching for Meaning in our Tragedy")

The main resource for this article is David Barton's "Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant."  I recommend that you obtain this pamphlet to enhance your knowledge of this topic.


Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

The Presbyterian Church (USA): What Progressive Christianity Looks Like

"They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them....They delight in deception even as they eat with you in your fellowship meals.  They commit adultery with their eyes, and their desire for sin is never satisfied.  They lure unstable people into sin, and they are well trained in greed....They have wandered off the right road and followed the footsteps of Balaam son of Beor..."   2 Peter 2:1, 13-15

Introduction.  It appears that the Presbyterian Church (USA) is positioning itself to become the Progressive Church of America by adopting the entire progressive agenda, hook, line and sinker.  This includes the homosexual agenda, the environmentalist agenda, the Open Society agenda (George Soros), and the acknowledgment that other religions are legitimate pathways to God.  Frankly, PC(USA) appears to be more like the Church of Oprah Winfrey rather than a Church based on the Word of God.

What follows are several of the topics that the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, USA, addressed this summer.  As a Christian having grown up in the Presbyterian Church, I find the topics and the PC(USA) responses to them alarming.

(1) Boycott of Israeli products from the Occupied Palestinian Territories.  "After three failed attempts to bring divestment back to the table, commissioners to the 220th General Assembly voted with a 71% majority to boycott “all Israeli products coming from the occupied Palestinian Territories....” One of the motions considered by the Assembly was the use of the word "apartheid" to describe the condition of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis....  The Assembly agreed and voted with a 72% majority to reject the motion."  (link)

"He [Bonhoeffer] had become convinced that a church that was not willing to stand up for the Jews in its midst was not the real church of Jesus Christ."  Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Eric Metaxas and Timothy J. Keller) (Bonhoeffer was a Christian pastor during the time of Nazi Germany.)

"I will make you a great nation.  I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt.  All the families on earth will be blessed through you." Genesis 12:2-3

(2) "New Arab democracies doing in a few years what it took the U.S. over 200 to do."  They willingly listened to Rami Khouri, director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University in Beirut, spout hogwash like:

• The United States and Israel need to understand and appreciate the change taking place this year across the Arab world because “you have for the first time nations with popular legitimacy.”  
• He pointed to the birth of the United States, followed almost 100 years later by the Civil War, later still by women’s rights, and now by issues of immigration, gender issues and sexual orientation. “You’re still debating these issues,” Khouri said. “They [the new Arab democracies] are debating these issues in one year.” (link)

We should be skeptical of the quality of the freedoms that result from these new Arab democracies, since they are influenced by the Islamic ideology that requires the implementation of shariah law, and because many of their leaders, like the President of Egypt, are members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The freedoms of fellow Christians in those nations will most certainly be in jeopardy, as will the lives of the Jewish people in neighboring Israel.

"...you may kill the idol worshippers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make." --Sura 9:5 of the Quran

"You shall fight them, for GOD will punish them at your hands, humiliate them, grant you victory over them..." --Sura 9:14 of the Quran

"As for those who reject our revelations, and are too arrogant to uphold them, they have incurred Hell, wherein they abide forever.  Who is more evil than those who invent lies about GOD, or reject His revelations?  These will get their share, in accordance with the scripture, then, when our messengers come to terminate their lives..." --Sura 7:36-37 of the Quran

"God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."--Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

(3) Rejected the return to the 'fidelity and chastity' language to the ordination standards.  In 2010 PC(USA) removed the language that required pastors to be either chaste or in a faithful marriage between a man and woman.  As a result, homosexuals are now permitted to hold leadership positions in the church. (link)

"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman.  It is a detestable sin."  --Leviticus 18:22

"Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God?  Don't fool yourselves.  Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people--none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God....  You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is good for you....  But you can't say that our bodies were made for sexual immorality.  They were made for the Lord..."  --1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 12-13

(4) Redefining marriage.  The Assembly rejected the idea of affirming that the definition of marriage is "a civil contract between a woman and a man" and instead called for a two-year study in the matter.  (link)  Two proposals during the General Assembly:

• Change the definition of marriage from between a woman and a man to between two people...The proposal to change the definition of marriage passed 28-24, with commissioners on both sides expressing fear about being unfaithful to God’s call.  (Against All Enemies note: Are you more concerned about obeying God or pleasing Man?)
• Call for a “season of serious study and discernment” about the meaning of Christian marriage. (link)

"But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband."  -- 1 Corinthians 7:2

"As the Scriptures say, "A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one."  This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one."  --Ephesians 5:31-32

(5) Approving multiple actions in regard to immigrants.  PC(USA) may have adopted the ideology of multiculturalism and an Open Society where there are no national borders, and may also be asking its members to ignore current immigration laws.  Frankly, how illegal immigrants are dealt with on a personal level needs to be left up to each parishioner's conscience and not dictated from on high.

• Affirming the scriptural call to provide hospitality to and justice for immigrants, regardless of status
• Continuing to advocate on behalf of comprehensive immigration reform
• Actively advocating for legislation such as the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) that offers hope for young immigrants by providing a pathway to citizenship
• Directing the PC(USA)’s Office of Public Witness to make immigration reform one of the top policy issues in its work
• Urging the U.S. government to end policies such as Secure Communities, a program of the Department of Homeland Security, because of concern that the program has led to racial profiling, lack of due process and violations of human rights related to the arrest and detention of immigrants
• Encouraging presbyteries to create cross-cultural ministry teams and immigration issues task forces
• Calling on congregations to build relationships with immigrants and refugees and to learn about the gifts they have to offer
• Incorporating stories from churches engaged in ministry with immigrants into times of worship and sharing at next year’s Big Tent event and at the 221st General Assembly (2014) (link to article)

(6) Steering away from the one true path; worship of the planet.  The following "to do" list was recommended by a speaker at a "Voices of Sophia" breakfast.  The points sound very much like New Age philosophies that are fundamentally at odds with the Christian faith.

• the need to create holistic, sacred space
• giving attention to inclusive, expansive language for God
• speaking truth to power about warmongering, sable-rattling, and more
• recognizing the earth as an endangered species
• building coalitions with other faith communities (link to article)

Why are we building coalitions with other faith communities when the Church should be spreading the Good News to them?  This sounds like the legitimization of other faiths as pathways to God.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."  --John 14:6

(7) Embraced the ideology of environmentalism (socialism).  Remember F.A. Hayek said in "The Road to Serfdom" that "...this is linked directly to the environmentalist agenda to only produce that which we need...using the threat to the environment as the rationale for controlling production..." (p. 84).  PC(USA) fails to understand that by supporting socialist goals such as those established by environmentalists, the end state will be tyranny and a limitation on religious freedoms to ensure the power of the state is unchallenged.  What follows demonstrates some of the discussion about the matter during the General Assembly.

Economic growth “has taken on a God-like identity,” Kovacs said, “and fossil fuels have become the economic temple of global commerce. This is perilous to the well-being of humanity, especially the impoverished.”

The World Christian Student Federation (WCSF), composed of Christian student groups from around the world, has been active in a program of the World Council of Churches called AGAPE, which is promoting “an alternative global development policy that integrates concerns for poverty, wealth and ecology.” Regional gatherings around the world over the last four years culminated last month in a Global Economic Forum on Poverty, Wealth and Ecology. 

“We are addicted to economic models that are the antithesis of God’s justice, which is not a political system or a social gospel but THE gospel―the good news for the hungry is a piece of bread.” (link)

Another speaker, Rev. J. Herbert Nelson, espoused more global socialist policies:

Nelson listed other examples of violence, including the “economic violence in our nation, where two classes are emerging—one rich and the other poor.” Free trade agreements, because they are not about “fair trade,” have contributed to violence and poverty in developing nations. Nations such as Iran and the United States are in a “race to see who can take out the other.” (link)

(8) Retained PC(USA) Property Clause.  This ruling prevents a local congregation from owning their own property, keeping it in the hands of the PC(USA) denomination as a whole.  This is most likely a move to prevent congregations from seceding from PC(USA). (link)

(9) Ruled on social(ist) issues. (link)

• Calling for an end to Poverty Zone Development and a resolution on Workers’ Rights and Income Equality
• Supporting the work of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• A set of principles and actions called World of Hurt, Word of Life: “Renewing God’s Communion in the Work of Economic Reconstruction”
• A Resolution on Racism, Incarceration and Restoration
• Commending the 2011-2012 Horizons Bible Study and the Accra Confession
• Plans to update the Safe Child Policy in the PC(USA)
• Supporting justice for survivors of sexual abuse
• A Statement on housing and the mortgage crisis
• Appointing two seasons of prayer to seek the will of God in this year’s election
• A Statement of concern about prolonged solitary confinement
• Advocating for trade reform and accountability

Conclusion.

"I believe that the church's main power comes through the influence of chiefly their congregations.  If the Word is not taught properly, then it sets itself up for failure when assailed by challenges to the beliefs of the faith."  Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Eric Metaxas and Timothy J. Keller)

"We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans." Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Eric Metaxas and Timothy J. Keller)

I have not been to seminary and am therefore not a pastor, but I do possess the capacity to read.  In 1536, William Tyndale sacrificed his life to ensure that the people of Britain had access to an English translation of the Bible.  He did so to prevent the Church of England from possessing the sole ability to interpret the Bible and relate it to the people based on what the Church of England wanted the people to believe.

Some 400 years later we are fortunate to still be able to read the Bible in English, but are being told by churches like PC(USA) that our interpretations are wrong.  Instead, we are being fed interpretations that fit an earthly agenda.  The Presbyterian Church, USA, is clearly becoming of the world, as opposed to being in it.  The leadership of PC(USA) fits the Bible to the world, as opposed to making the world fit to the Bible.

What business does the Church have meddling in all these topics covered during this year's General Assembly?  Should they not be more concerned about ministering to their flocks instead of establishing a social platform?  The behavior of PC(USA) appears more like that of a progressive, secular political party rather than that of a church concerned first and foremost with following Christ.

Bottom line is this: PC(USA) needs to get back to basics--the Word of God--or witness more of the faithful walking away.

(From 2010 to 2011, the total membership of PC(USA) declined by 63,804 members.--article link)

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.