Chalcedon Report Current Issue
The Establishment of Religion

  In This Issue
  Back Issues
  Log In
Subscribe today to the original magazine on
the Christian world
and life view.

  Complimentary Issue
  Magazine Subscription
  Free MP3s!
  Free Newsletter
  Rushdoony Podcast
  Chalcedon Podcast
  Homeschooling Blog
•  Articles
•  Español
•  Chalcedon e-Store
  Become an Underwriter
  FFAOL Magazine
•  MP3 Audio
  Log In
  Log Out
  Manage Profile
•  Advertising Rates
•  Contact Us
•  Privacy Policy
•  Support Chalcedon
•  Who We Are

Christian Conservatives Considering 3rd Parties

If the GOP nominates the pro-choice Giuliani, the CNP is considering a third party candidate.

Getting Away with Murder

The things I could get away with if I could speak out of both sides of my mouth! The sheer audacity of Dick Cheney is incomparable. He's a one-man Axis of Evil.

Gen. Pace: Homosexuality is Counter to God's Law

"[W]e should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law."
~ General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
With one week left before retirement, General Pace is seeking to clarify his remarks made about homosexuality in the military earlier this year. In the face of pandering morons like Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), General Pace is made to sound as if he is a hate-monger. This is despite the fact that the U.S. military has consistently condemned homosexual acts throughout its history. But, in an age dominated by pluralism, a grotesque historical revisionism is underway that makes Gen. Pace appear out-of-step and suggests that U.S. history was largely gay-friendly. Hogwash!

This comes as no surprise when compared with a similar revisionism on the secular left over the founding of this nation--was it founded as a Christian nation? Secular revisionists revolt at the slightest indication that the founding fathers had a Christian nation in mind, or that their notion of "religious freedom" did not include having muslims or buddhists becoming president. Secularists offer us an image of the founding fathers as a cadre of latte-sipping liberals celebrating their new creation of a freedom-based republic as a beach head for practicing sodomites. When this distorted paradigm represents the tenor of the American temperament, a Gen. Pace holds a position just below the Klan.

Gen. Pace is correct: gay sex is immoral and no U.S. or military law should condone it. This is not bigotry--it is righteousness. It is not bigotry to oppose man-boy love, bestiality, or necrophilia. It is righteous to oppose these immoral behaviors. Like other mind-tricks such as "anti-semitism," the retort of "bigot" every time someone condemns homosexuality is a loser's tactic to stay in the game. I don't grant the homosexual the right to frame the debate around bigotry or phobias. I could easily do the same in reference to their hatred and fear of Bible-believing Christians, but they won't permit that.

Their "disapproval" of Bible-believing Christians, they say, is because we oppose their consensual love. Our disapproval of their lifestyle is because of our love for God and His Law. So, if God exists, and the Bible is His infallible Word, then the Christian is on solid footing. If not, then all things are permitted--philosophically speaking. Therefore, let the debate begin there. Enough with the casting about of pejoratives like "hate-monger."

They are the ones that have cast off reasoned debate. They are the ones who refuse to argue ethically by disregarding all appeals for them to produce an abiding standard that 1) even remotely justifies their behavior, and 2) that doesn't lead to a condoning of all forms of sexual perversion. That's why NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Assoc.) earnestly waits a national ruling permitting gay marriage. Their goal "is to end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen, mutually consensual relationships." In other words, older queers want a legalization of their unrestrained desire to sodomize young boys. This is not a "consensual relationship." If you want a relationship, become a big brother. Make a friend of a young man in need of fatherly support. But that's not what they really want. They want sex; and for some twisted reason, the younger, the better.

I'm glad General Pace stuck to his convictions. Being a traditional American Christian, I'm sure he's weary of the political control being imposed on the U.S. military.

Should gays be in the military? Well, according to General George Washington, a republic should be wary of a standing military. Plus, the question puts the cart before the horse. As mentioned above, we have to answer the ethical question first.

Rushdoony on Sending Kids to College

Rushdoony was once asked, "What advice do you have for Christian parents who want to send their children to college?"

Rushdoony: I think the closer to home the better. Keep them at home, even if they go to a secular college. Most Christian colleges are church-related, rather than Christ-related. In many instances, even in very fundamentalist groups, the faculties are evil. I've been astounded at some ostensibly Christian colleges, of ultra-fundamentalist groups, at what appears on their faculties.

Chris Ortiz and Herb Titus on "I Object"

Tune in tomorrow, if you can, to hear myself and Herb Titus on Jerri Lynn Ward's radio program "I Object: Justice Examined." You can listen online tomorrow at 3:00 pm Eastern Time. Here's the blurb from Jerri's site:

The Lawyer, the Preacher and the Values Voters Debate

On September 17, the Republican candidates participated in the first Values Voters Debate moderated by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily. Paul Weyrich, founder and President of the Free Congress Foundation, Phyllis Schlafly, founder and President of Eagle Forum, Don Wildmon, founder and Chairman of the American Family Association, Judge Roy Moore, with the Foundation for Moral Law, Rick Scarborough, Vision America, and Mat Staver of Liberty Council and others asked questions of the candidates.

The question is, which candidates, in their answers, remained true to both Biblical and Constitutional law? Find out this coming Thursday, September 27 at 3 PM ET when Miss Ward hosts two knowledgeable guests; the lawyer and the preacher.


Sovereignty, a new book by R.J. Rushdoony, is now available for purchase at! This is not a reprint, this is a brand new book! This is not so much a book which discusses the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God, so much as it is a book which discusses the implications of God's Sovereignty and its transfer to man and his institutions.

Hurry over to the online store and get your copy today!

Greenspan on the Daily Show

Despite the comedic format of Jon Stewart's program, he is asking some fundamental but tough questions of Alan Greenspan. You don't need a degree in economics to understand from this interview that Mr. Stewart is correct: there is an invisible hand regulating the market in a way that favors high-end investors and penalizes those who labor and save.

I couldn't help but snicker at the graphic wall behind Greenspan in this camera angle. It features the long-supposed Illuminati symbol (pyramid) from the back of the dollar bill. This will drive the hardcore conspiracy theorists bonkers.

Dan Rather vs. Government & Corporations

Associated Press: Dan Rather said Thursday that the undue influence of the government and large corporations over newsrooms spurred his decision to file a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and its former parent company.

"Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news," he said on CNN's "Larry King Live."

[From Chris Ortiz] Maybe the so-called "liberal media bias" was a bit overblown? Maybe it took conservative eyes off the ball of corporate and government influence in the newsroom.

Satan Confesses His Sins

The despotic dragon from the underworld of neoconservative foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, is coming clean on Iraq. First, Alan Greenspan admitted this week that the reason the U.S. is in Iraq is oil--though this is not a criticism on his part. It is an admission.

Now, Kissinger gives a tell-all. The war is not about WMDs or 9/11, but it's about U.S. hegemony and establishing "global order":
The missing ingredient has not been a withdrawal schedule but a political and diplomatic design connected to a military strategy. The issue is not whether Arab or Muslim societies can ever become democratic; it is whether they can become so under American military guidance in a timeframe for which the U.S. political process will stand....

However much Americans may disagree about the decision to intervene or about the policy afterward, the United States is now in Iraq in large part to serve the American commitment to global order and not as a favor to the Baghdad government.
Wow. In the words of Thomas Friedman, "suck on this patriotic Americans!"

Kissinger, like the other neocon armchair quarterbacks, has a clear case of "Hind's view is 20/20." In other words, he thinks a withdrawal from Iraq will only multiply the evil terrorists in the region:
Two realities define the range of a meaningful debate on Iraq policy: The war cannot be ended by military means alone. But neither is it possible to "end" the war by ceding the battlefield, for the radical jihadist challenge knows no frontiers.

An abrupt withdrawal from Iraq will not end the war; it will only redirect it. Within Iraq, the sectarian conflict could assume genocidal proportions; terrorist base areas could re-emerge.

Under the impact of American abdication, Lebanon may slip into domination by Iran's ally, Hezbollah; a Syria-Israel war or an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities may become more likely as Israel attempts to break the radical encirclement; Turkey and Iran will probably squeeze Kurdish autonomy; and the Taliban in Afghanistan will gain new impetus.

That is what is meant by "precipitate" withdrawal - a withdrawal in which the United States loses the ability to shape events, either within Iraq, on the anti-jihadist battlefield or in the world at large.
Dear Mr. Kissinger: if you were worried about Iraq becoming a hotbed for Jihadists, then need I remind you that there was no more successful suppressor of radical Islam than Saddam Hussein! And, there was no greater resistant to Iranian hegemony than Saddam's Iraq! By encouraging Saddam in his policies against Jihadists and Iran, we could've stopped terrorism and Iran for a pocketful of change and without the loss of U.S. lives. But noooooo! You had to make up stories about Saddam being in bed with Bin Laden. You had to send Colin Powell to the U.N. with "graphics" (no photos) of mobile weapons labs. You had to frighten the psychological distraught American people still reeling from 9/11 with tales about stockpiles of chemical weapons ready to be dumped on American cities.

Well, sports fans, the elite are coming clean on why we are in the Middle East, and still, the Religious Right says nothing.

Dollars and No Sense

For 30 years--even as kids--we always joked about how much more you could buy with the U.S. dollar in Canada. And anybody who's been in mail-order sales knows that there's always a line in the order form calling for Canadians to add extra for the currency conversion. Well, it looks like ol' Canada's dollar hasn't done this well since 1976! The U.S. dollar isn't fairing so well, and the Euro is all the rage!

Nukes for Israel, or You're an Anti-Semite!

Rick Fisk on the Christian Jihadists

Ron Paul Questions Bernake's Fiscal Morality

What is Congressman Ron Paul up to when he's not educating Americans in basic constitutionalism? Well, he makes good use of time by confronting the power brokers running the Federal Reserve for their deliberate and immoral depreciation of the U.S. dollar.

The dollar is tanking, and still the Religious Right says nothing.

Bill Maher Endorses Ron Paul

Bill Maher made his way to CNN and told Wolf Blitzer that Congressman Ron Paul is his best choice for the Republican ticket. Maher is much smarter than the reactionaries on the secular Left who cringe at anything that even remotely smells of conservatism. All of the other Republican nominees--along with all of the Democrats (except Kucinich)--are willling to remain in the Middle East and even push for a wider war.

Bill Maher understands that basic liberties, economic crisis, are national security are all tied to our foreign policy. This has been Paul's incessant message throughout his campaign.

2 Days Left for FREE Shipping

Free basic shipping until September 21, 2007 on all orders at the Chalcedon Store.

Huckabee: Zionism is His Native Tongue

"As a candidate for president, I am not just a person who comes and speaks the language of Zion as a second language. For me, it's a native tongue." ~ Mike Huckabee of Arkansas (GOP Presidential Candidate)
Now we know where a great deal of the deception lies with the Religious Right: a deranged worship of Israel. For the Religious Right, the apocalyptic is central to their framing of the international intrigue, and with that a prophetic clock that ticks only to the winding of Zionism. For them, it's Israel first, America second. They swallow every jot and tittle of media demonization of Arabs, and salivate for the day when they'll be ruled by Rabbis. What's next, a refrain of "...the Talmud tells me so?"

More Evidence of the Religious Right's Turn from Constitutionalism

After my last post on the Religious Right booing Ron Paul, a Texas lawyer sent me the following email (she graciously permitted me to post the email along with her name):

You wrote:

I may have to rethink the issues surrounding the Religious Right. I believe the arguments of my secular counterparts regarding the Religious Right may have more weight than I thought. There's no telling what this holy bunch will endorse during another national crisis. They're cheering our descent into tyranny.

If you had been at the Texas Straw Poll, like I was, there would be no "may" in your sentence. I got in as a guest in order to campaign for Ron Paul. This being Texas, the delegates were overwhelmingly conservative Christians.

The morning program prior to the vote was spent on pure pro-war propagandizing. There were videos celebrating the accoutrements of empire like aircraft carriers, destroyers, troops on the battlefield. In fact, there was no mention of the private citizenry that makes our country run. There was worship only of the State in the form of the military, police and firefighters.

Moreover, every speech prior to those of the candidates and after--from the videotaped speech of Gov. Perry to a survivor of 911 was clearly calculated to encourage the delegates to vote for a pro-war candidate. Mentions of God were interspersed between condemnations of "islamofascists who hate us for our freedom".

The most troubling speech was made by the survivor of 911 immediately before the delegates voted. He was in the military and assigned to the Pentagon. He told his story--magnified by pictures on the huge video screens of his freshly debrided burned arms and legs. He ascribes his survival to the mercy of Jesus--yet he did not seem to believe that such mercy should apply to Iraqi and Afghan civilians.

This was the most unsettling experience I have ever had. The establishment Texas Republican Party engaged in the most shameless manipulation of religious people I have ever seen.

The Republican Party has used the Christian Right--and it has allowed it.

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D.

Religious Right Boos Ron Paul

For anyone paying attention, last night was the Values Voters Presidential Debate in Fort Lauderdale, FL; and although not all candidates appeared, Ron Paul of Texas made a showing and made his usual case on war, the police state, constitutionalism, and sound money. What astounded me was how the Religious Right booed him. Unbelievable.

I may have to rethink the issues surrounding the Religious Right. I believe the arguments of my secular counterparts regarding the Religious Right may have more weight than I thought. There's no telling what this holy bunch will endorse during another national crisis. They're cheering our descent into tyranny.

Welcome to AMERI-K-A


Can anyone see what's happening to our country? We're being Nazi-fied. We're becoming a totalitarian state... and still, the Religious Right says nothing.

Our Judeo-Christian Heritage?

"Judaism is also brought into the same generous tent, and reference is made to 'our Judeo-Christian heritage,' again an offense to earnest believers. To the truly religious Jew, Christianity is a diversion and a perversion of the true faith and is at best unrealistically weak where it appears most promising for man. For the Christian, Pharisaism, Sadduceeism, and Essenism were departures from Biblical faith, and all the nation was in heresy and apostasy when it crucified Christ. Since then, through Talmudic developments, the theological rift has widened, not diminished. The term 'Judeo-Christian' is most commonly used by the adherents of the religion of humanity, who are insistent on reading their religion into both Judaism and Christianity." ~ R. J. Rushdoony, Nature of the American System, p. 80

Blood for Money: The New American Way

A newly released study shows the death toll of Iraqis to be 1.2 million. Incredible. How many innocents does that include? How many women and children? Have we gotten sufficient "payback" now? Allegedly, Osama Bin Laden sent a crew of mostly Saudi Arabians to attack the United States and 3,000 people died. We've now killed 1.2 million Iraqis and Bin Laden is still posting videos on YouTube. The world is swimming in blood, and still the Religious Right says nothing.

Now, just when I thought I'd heard everything, the idiots at FOXNews are discussing how Wall Street will or will not benefit from bombing Iran. Watch them. They are discussing this issue as if it's investment advice. I am ashamed to call myself an American. I love my country, but I am beyond horrified at the conduct and mentality of my fellow citizens--especially the Christians.

And Now Alan Keyes?

Why would a no-talent lackey like Alan Keyes suddenly join the Republican presidential primaries? Might it be to snuff out some of life from the Ron Paul brigade? Johnny Kramer seems to think so.

Greenspan Speaks: "Iraq War was about Oil, Not WMDs"

Times of London: AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,� he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

From Chris Ortiz: In high school, we used to refer to "ratting" on one another as "dropping them in the grease." Greenspan is the latest to "drop Bush in the grease" over the bogus War on Terror. These are some of the clearest indications that the Establishment is gearing up for regime change in America. And while the Ruling Class dukes it out, we have a great opportunity to educate the American people on the precise source of our greatest threats. In this instance, I find it humorous that the Jewish ex-head of the Federal Reserve is claiming the Bushites have sinned. While he's telling us the war in Iraq is really about oil, why not come clean on the real reason behind the Federal Reserve? This is one liar dropping another liar in the grease. In the meantime, those disgruntled with Bush/Cheney will be peacefully at ease when they see this Republican administration "get what's comin' to them!" The changing of the executive branch will pacify the population while the same policies continue. God help us.

Thomas Friedman: "We hit Iraq, because we could"

Don't let Thomas Friedman's ostensible "liberalism" fool you. He's neocon through and through. No doubt his Jewish upbringing has caused his journalistic mind to be clouded by his Zionist heart: "We coulda hit Saudi Arabia... Coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq, because we could."

Follow Up: The Mark of the Beast

Last Monday, I wrote a post entitled "Implantable Microchips: NOT a Conspiracy Theory Anymore," in which I highlighted the sustained campaign by Republican bureaucrats and private industry to implant every person's skin with an RFID chip. In order to create interest, I began the post with the following statement:
"It's getting more difficult these days to sustain the preterist view of eschatology (preterism contends that the virtually all of the 'last days' events took place no later than A.D. 70) when companies are pushing to place implantable microchips within the actual bodies of people. End-time prophecy teachers have long stated that microchipping may be the fulfillment of Revelation 13:16-17."
I made an error here in not providing more explanation regarding my meaning. I was not intending to dismiss the partial-preterist interpretation of the Mark of the Beast, nor endorse the incorrect views of end-times prophecy teachers. In fact, the post was not exegetical at all. It was an attempt at noting a very real dynamic in the American experience regardless of one's eschatological leanings.

Here's the point to the opening: last days prophecy teachers claim that implantable microchips will "mark" the fulfillment of Revelation 13:16-17, and that the identity of the Beast and his marking of the population is still future. Partial-preterist theologians argue that this is a misreading of the Greek term used for "on", and that the time statements of both Revelation and the other eschatological NT passages show that both the Beast and his mark were first century developments, i.e., they transpired before the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. But, why would I bring this up to begin with? I'm so glad you asked.

If the end-times prophecy teachers are incorrect--and they are--then partial-preterists tend to disregard the contemporary phenomena of RFID chips. The chips are not a fulfillment of Revelation 13:16-17--or, are they in another way?--and therefore, we should dismiss them as irrelevant. On the other hand, the reality of implantable microchips in our time will reinforce the mistaken teachings of men like Hal Lindsey. We cannot depend upon the Christian masses to look that closely at the Greek when the news is confirming their theological assumptions.

This is where the idealistic hermenuetic of R. J. Rushdoony comes in; and it's what I meant by alluding above that Revelation 13:16-17 may have more implications than the grammatic-historical approach of the partial-preterist allows. Regarding the Beast of Revelation, Rushdoony writes:
The beast, symbol of human government and empire, of anti-Christian states and cultures generally, represented the Roman Empire of St. John's day, and all other anti-Christian orders. The beast represents the totality of all such empires in the ancient world, and all to come. [Thy Kingdom Come, p.170]
This basic construct is helpful for Christians in producing a Scriptural critique of modern social, moral, and political developments. Because man's sinful drive is personified in the totalitarian state, we will always contend with beasts to some degree. The problem with partial-preterism as a hermeneutic is that it becomes so focused on the historical interpretation that it offers little to its constituency in terms of contemporary beasts. That's why it's difficult to find any partial-preterist writing about the growing police state--it's not a first-century phenomena, so it's not a Biblical concern to them hermeneutically.

So, I do not believe that the present push to implant every person with an RFID chip represents any eschatological revisionism on my part; nor is it in any way an endorsement of "last days madness." My point should be well-taken. We do need a more comprehensive hermeneutic by which we can provide a sustained criticism to modern "beasts" and their systems of control. The net effect of implantable microchips IS the same as the consequences offered in Revelation 13:17:
[N]o man may buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
When we transition out of paper money into a cashless society, a microchip becomes the simplest method of a "secure" society. As the video clips in my previous blog post state, microchips are being promoted as the best means to secure children from abduction and provide citizens with the best medical care. They're already discussing microchips as the surest means to currency as well. If that happens, it becomes very easy for the state to simply "shut off" your ability to operate financially.

In fact, that is a present reality without the microchips. Just look at the "mark" of ownership at the top of all U.S. currency:

The currency are Federal Reserve Notes. And these are not "notes" like a "love note from your wife." A note is a certificate of debt. It bespeaks of something owed. For example, you have a "note" on your house--meaning you owe a mortgage. Federal Reserve Notes represent dollars owed to the Federal Reserve plus interest.

Just try to buy, sell, or trade without either Federal Reserve currency or the credit the Federal Reserve provides. Is this not a de facto mark of the statist system? You cannot operate financially without their paper money or credit. This is a form of monetary control by private interests and enforced through the apparatus of the Federal government. As is often noted, the Federal Reserve is NOT a governmental department. It is a private central bank that has complete control of the creation of money and credit in the United States.

Do you want to see that monetary control INCREASED by moving from cash to digital currency functioning through RFID chips implanted in your skin? Do you trust the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government that much? That's the point. And Christians should have a great deal to say about this, but most partial-preterists say very little because they don't make the immediate connection to the idealistic concept of historical "beasts" and their attempts at totalitarian control.

This also does not mean I believe that any contemporary, or future, humanist system will ever prevail against the church. I believe in the victory of Christ in history. However, just like my partial-preterist colleagues are careful to resist the securalist in the culture war, so I deem it necessary to critique the totalitarian drive of the modern state. Their emphasis by no means indicates they are not optimistic about the success of the Gospel, and my emphasis should be not be miscontrued as a sinking into defeatism.

In short, conservative Christians must do more to criticize totalitarian police and surveillance controls as solutions to security. The result of these security measures is the loss of liberty for all Americans. If the Religious Right will unite in resistance to these controls, we just may see the kind of "Liberty Revolution" we're looking for. At present, some of the biggest supporters of the police state are conservative Christians. I pray this trend is reversed.

Bush Planned on Invading Iraq BEFORE 9/11

Bush insider reveals startling information on Bush's plan to topple Saddam's regime months before 9/11--and this right after he completed a campaign that included "no nation building."

Government Tramples on Prisoners' Religious Freedom

By Lee Duigon

You would think that of all people, prison inmates are most in need of religious education.

But in aid of "protecting the country from terrorism," the U.S. Bureau of Prisons has ordered the removal of thousands of religious books, tapes, CDs, and videos from federal prison libraries (see The New York Times, Sept. 10, "Prisons Purging Books on Faith From Libraries").

A spokesman for the government said the reason for this action was to keep the prisons from being used as recruiting grounds "for militant Islamic and other religious groups."

"Other" religious groups? When was the last time anyone saw a Methodist strapping on a suicide belt?

But the Bureau of Prisons is a prisoner of its own ideology of political correctness. To avoid offending Muslims, the Bureau has decided to treat all religions the same. Baptists, Buddhists, and Baha'is are all to be viewed as just as apt as Muslims to slaughter unsuspecting patrons at a pizzeria.

And we all know that that simply isn't true.

But the intention is not to empty the prison libraries of all religious materials. The Bureau spokesman said, "We really wanted consistently available information for all religious groups to ensure reliable teachings as determined by reliable subject experts." It would be nice to know who these "experts" are, but the government has not identified them.

The Bureau has dubbed this caper "the Standardized Chapel Library Project" (your tax dollars at work!). Said the spokesman, the idea is to bar access to materials that could "discriminate, disparage, advocate violence or radicalize."

If the aim is to get rid of materials that "discriminate" in favor of a particular religious viewpoint, that disqualifies everyone but the most insipid universalists. As for advocating violence against infidels, who regularly does that... but Muslims?

Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words, or What?

Herein lies the rub... (click on the photo to enlarge)

Implantable Microchips: NOT a Conspiracy Theory Anymore

It's getting more difficult these days to sustain the preterist view of eschatology (preterism contends that the virtually all of the "last days" events took place no later than A.D. 70) when companies are pushing to place implantable microchips within the actual bodies of people. End-time prophecy teachers have long stated that microchipping may be the fulfillment of Revelation 13:16-17:
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man may buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
My intent is not to wrestle with the eschatological debate, but to highlight AGAIN the growing draconian measures being pushed on all of us. Years ago, skeptics dismissed people as "wacko conspiracy theorists" for warning about the coming implantable microchip. They also warned about a National ID card, which will become a reality in May of 2008.

In 2005, the FDA approved implanting microchips in humans. To date, some 2,000 people around the world have RFID chips implanted in their skin. The company VeriChip Corp. has a goal of implanting 45 million Americans with medical monitoring chips. A person's entire medical history can be stored on the chip.

Critics claim that the next step--after National ID cards--is to to microchip the entire population with all their personal information such as banking info, driver's info, medical info, etc. You've probably seen the Visa credit card commercials when a person stops the flow of business by using cash or writing a check. Everyone else just glides their credit card across the scanner and they're done. It's easy to see after cash and cards, a single implanted chip is the ultimate technological solution. Visa's tagline is "Life takes faster money. Life takes Visa."

VeriChip had enlisted Tommy Thompson to its board in hopes of promoting the program. Thompson was going to run for president in 2008, but has since dropped out. Listen to this monster argue with a smile for the microchip--this is staggering:

Do you honestly believe that VeriChip is going to limit this technology to medical and child safety? Isn't financial support next? Listen to Ron Paul and a few "other" experts talk about this development:


There, I said it.

What About Bin Laden?

Jeff Ferrell, investigative reporter for KSLA news in Shreveport, LA (he broke the story on the Clergy Response Teams), is asking "why does Osama Bin Laden's wanted poster for the FBI not mention anything about his alleged involvement in 9/11?" A good question, and one of many that I and millions of others have been asking since 9/11. And, how exactly did we move from not formally charging Bin Laden to pre-emptive invasion of countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to U.S. national security? How will we answer for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis? Mike Huckabee says we should accept responsibility together as "one nation under God." Not me, Huckie! Maybe you, but not me!

Worse yet is the response of the White House to the new Bin Laden video in which Fran Townsend, the president's Homeland Security Adviser, told FOXNoise: "This is about the best he can do; this is a man on the run, from a cave, WHO'S VIRTUALLY IMPOTENT OTHER THAN THESE TAPES."

Impotent? Which is it, Mrs. Townsend? Is Bin Laden the head of a vast network of thousands of sleeper cells ready to strike any moment, or is he just a sickened Arabian hiding in a cave? And, if so, why in the name of all that is good are we gearing up to invade Iran? What does Iran have to do with 9/11? If Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then Iran has even less to do with 9/11.

The propaganda being unleashed on the American people is staggering. Before us, only one other country in recent history adopted a doctrine of pre-emptive invasion: Nazi Germany. They're also the ones who mastered the doctrine of the "state of emergency"--a doctrine written by Carl Schmitt, Hitler's lawyer, and then taught to Schmitt's protege, the Jewish/German, Leo Strauss. The doctrine states that fascistic leaders must create a "state of emergency" in order to justify the expansion of domestic police powers and greater involvement of the national military. This led to Hitler's "Enabling Act," which overlayed the German Constitution (think Patriot Act), and the creation of the Gestapo, Hitler's Department of Homeland Security.

Carl Schmitt was not only the sole mentor to Leo Strauss, but he also secured Strauss a Rockefeller Fellowship; and by 1949, Strauss was teaching political science at the University of Chicago. This is important to note. Strauss was drenched in Nazi political manipulation and was now teaching politics to American university students.

Disenchanted with 20th century Liberalism, Strauss argued for the viability of Plato's political myths, viz. "the noble lie." In order to stabilize an otherwise self-oriented population, civil leaders must construct myths, legends, and lies to tell the people. A national enemy can be created or exaggerated to instill greater fear and nationalism within the populace.

One of the more popular students that attended Strauss' classes is none other than Paul Wolfowitz, the man who after the first Gulf War penned the first draft of what is now known as the Bush Doctrine, i.e. pre-emptive invasion to secure U.S. dominance. Wolfowitz was also a part of the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think-tank that in 2000 produced the controversial document "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century." This document sported an odd prediction in which they argued that the massive spending they suggested for defense would not quickly be accepted by Americans without "a catalyzing event: a new Pearl Harbor." A year later, on September 11, 2001, that new Pearl Harbor would come.

And now, America is swimming in the political and social doctrines of Hitler's architects. The parallels are beyond coincidental. It was after the 1933 fire-bombing of the German Parliament building (the Reichstag) that Chancellor Hitler requested that German President Paul von Hindenburg pass national emergency measures. The fire was allegedly started by a Communist bricklayer. Through this act of terrorism Hitler was able to pass the "Enabling Act" (March, 1933) which gave Hitler the power to make executive decisions without approval of the German Parliament. The Enabling Act was only supposed to be valid during a state of emergency. That state of a national threat of terror never went away. Hitler became the dictator.

In April of 1933, the Prussian Secret Police were converted into the first version of the Gestapo. The Gestapo--or German Secret Police--were placed under the authority of the SS, and served for the purpose of homeland security. Within three years, the Gestapo had the unbridled authority to execute its police powers. Again, all of this security expansion was based upon a terrorist attack upon a government building and the corresponding declaration of a state of emergency. As I said, the parallels to our time are astounding.

The man who wrote the doctrine of Hitler's state of emergency (Carl Schmitt) mentored the German-born Jew, Leo Strauss. Strauss came to America and taught the Jewish Paul Wolfowitz, and then inspired a generation of ex-Trotskyites known as the neo-conservatives. These men are now leading America's "War on Terror."

We have our own Reichstag fire (9/11); our own Enabling Act (Patriot Act); our own Security Service (Department of Homeland Security); and we're nationally engaged in a foreign policy of pre-emptive war. Nazi Germany was turned into a military state and governed itself by an incessant declaration of martial law; and we are one crisis away from the same transition. It should be of major concern to conservative Christians that Hitler's ideological grandchildren are governing our national foreign policy.

So, remember Bin Laden? Wasn't he the one that supposedly attacked us on 9/11? If so, why does the FBI still not list 9/11 on his crime sheet? And, why does Fran Townsend claim that Bin Laden is of no consequence? She would say, "Iran is our enemy now; don't you know that?"

In Orwell's 1984, it was the job of the "Ministry of Truth" to keep changing the identity of who the nation of Oceania was actually at war with--it changed constantly. One month they would say, "Oceania is at war with East Asia; Oceania was always at war with East Asia." Then, the propaganda would change: "Oceania is at war with Eurasia; Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia." The point was the Oceania was to remain in a constant state of war, and this was the only way the totalitarian state could remain in power and control the population.

Welcome to Oceania!

Ron Paul and America at the Tipping Point

Below is a clip of the recent Republican debate sponsored by the morons at FOXNoise. Of all the clips of the lonely but indefatigable Ron Paul, this one is both the most thrilling and disturbing. You can see that Paul is beyond frustration at this point. He's determined to get his message across, and the mixed response of the audience indicates that a good many are hearing the most consistent politician of the 21st century.

But, this clip is equally disturbing. The other candidates, the obviously biased hosts, and the naysaying warmongers in the audience clearly demonstrate that modern Republicanism is in the throes of psychosis. I was astonished to hear people mocking and laughing at Ron Paul's positions on private enterprise and the massive downsizing of the federal government. Were everyone but Ron Paul wearing "brown shirts," the image would have better matched the rhetoric.

What has happened? How can a body politic so easily turn from their rich tradition of conservatism into a grotesque display of nationalistic fascism? How can they swallow the massive expanse of federal power in police state measures while decrying "big government" in their Democratic opponents? How is the Department of Homeland Security any less government than universal healthcare?

And, where are the Christians? I was sickened to see these candidates sport "one nation under God" while they simmer in bloodlust to wipe Iran off the map. All of them are catering to the politically ignorant masses of the Christian Right; and when Christians stand behind the adulterating, cross-dressing, two-time divorcing son of a mobster, you can rest assured that objective thought is all but lost.

I know, I know, I'm forgetting one little event: 9/11. And, yes, I know, "the world changed forever!" But, I beg to differ. As we approach the anniversary of that fateful day, thousands will be gathering in New York City calling for a new investigation into those attacks. Virtually every video-based web site (e.g. YouTube, Video.Google) are teeming with alternate analysis of what happened in 2001. What's the conclusion? There's too many unanswered questions to start the invasion of a THIRD country. As Ron Paul has argued, our path is reckless, destructive, and ill-informed; and worse, it's unconstitutional. The secret nature of the Executive Branch has turned into a corporate dictatorship, and we are now at the tipping point--one more national crisis of any kind and this once free republic will slip into full totalitarianism.

Pope: Abortion Not a "Human Right"

"Pope Benedict rejected the concept that abortion could be considered a human right on Friday and urged European leaders to do everything possible to raise birth rates and make their countries more child-friendly... 'Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right -- it is the very opposite. It is a deep wound in society.'"

John Edwards: Globalist Junkie

In speaking of the ridiculous policy suggestion of Senator John Edwards last Tuesday, I noted that in the end we have two choices: Right-wing Imperialists, or Left-wing globalists. Now, the New World Order junkie, John Edwards, wants an international organization to head up the "global" war on terror:
Edwards said the centerpiece of his terrorism policy will be a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization. He said it will be designed to coordinate operations like the recent arrest of three suspected terrorists in Germany who were suspected of plans to bomb airports and other institutions in the country.

"Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation," Edwards said. "Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world."
So, vote for the Democrats and you'll get the tyranny of an international bureaucracy; or vote for the Republicans and you'll get the Project for the New American Century. Either way, the same interests win. The squabbling politicians are just for show. Or, maybe you still believe that if you eat your Wheaties and work hard in school, you can grow up and one day become the President of the United States. Yea, and that's how the 2004 presidential election came down to two members of the same secret society.

The First Promise Keeper

From the latest issue of Faith for All of Life...

A masculine soul is one that is content and impassioned with the responsibilities God has given him. Real men don’t require profanity and a hunting license in order to feel more masculine. Real men understand they have a task to perform, and they do it with diligence and patience knowing that a reward awaits them.

Our Lord did not say, “If you love Me, keep your promises.� Rather, He said, “[K]eep my commandments� (John 14:15). We do not demonstrate our love for God by contriving a list of what we deem important and then struggle to fulfill it. Genuine love for God recognizes that He has spoken infallibly in His Word and our only response should be a willing obedience.

The Apostle Peter learned this firsthand, and the story of his humiliating fall is recorded for all generations. Peter made a “promise� to our Lord that he would not deny Him. Before morning Peter would do so three times. This serves as a lesson to all future “promise keepers� that beginning with your own concept of what God expects of you will lead to embarrassing moments of denial. Read this article...

Gary North on D. James Kennedy

I love Gary North's "R.I.P.'s." Never emotional; just the facts. I've read too many lauding pieces over Dr. Kennedy in the last 24 hours, and I appreciate the simple objectivity of Dr. North.

I was never a supporter of Dr. Kennedy myself. I didn't come up through the ranks of the PCA, or any other Reformed denomination, so I don't have the emotional attachment of my colleagues. I also did not see Christian Reconstruction as comporting with the stated agendas of the popular Religious Right leaders. This was Kennedy's opinion as well. His feeling for Chalcedon and Rushdoony was made evident to us when his organization denied us even a book table at one of their conferences. Over the years, most of the leadership of the Religious Right distanced themselves from Rushdoony. No matter. Rush didn't think much of them either.

Kennedy and Co. are "Christian America;" Chalcedon and Rushdoony are theocracy. The Religious Right wants to belabor the religious convictions of the founding fathers; Chalcedon wants to build Christian civilization. The Religious Right sees politics as the answer; Chalcedon bases the Christian hope on faithfulness to law and covenant. We are working to see a restoration of Christian government, viz. the self-governing Christian man working in terms of God's law. Christian dominion means taking dominion back from the state and returning it to self-governing individuals and families.

This mission is so imperative that we cannot risk diluting it by intimidation from the Moral Majority. Therefore, I use this opportunity of the passing of another Christian leader to drive home the differentiating idea of Christian Reconstruction. Some will dismiss me as insensitive, but that is not my intent. ~ Chris Ortiz

September 5, 2007

D. James Kennedy, the pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, died today at the age of 76. He had suffered a heart attack in December, 2006, and never returned to the pulpit. His daughter announced his retirement on August 26.

Kennedy was a Calvinist in a Calvinistic denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, which separated from the liberal Southern Presbyterian Church in 1973. His congregation has 10,000 members, the largest in the denomination. He started it in 1959.

He was the only Calvinist television evangelist. He was also the only Protestant televangelist who delivered sermons in ecclesiastical robes, a tradition still common though not universal in Presbyterian circles.

His national ministry was part of the evangelical Protestant re-capture of the airwaves. It came as a result of the 1960 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC-1) to allow radio and television stations to fulfill their requirement to broadcast religious programming by accepting paid broadcasts. The 26-year sweetheart deal between FCC-1 and FCC-2, the theologically liberal Federal Council of Churches, which let FCC-2 screen the preachers, collapsed. As soon as radio and TV stations could get paid for the time devoted to religion, free time ended. Subsidized indirectly for decades by the Federal government, Protestant liberalism never learned to compete for an audience on the air.
[It was altogether fitting that the ruling came in 1960, the same year that John D. Rockefeller, Jr., died. He had been the primary donor behind Protestant liberalism since about 1920, as his father had been since about 1900. Senior had put up money to launch FCC-2 in 1908, which after 1950 was called the National Council of Churches. The primary liberal radio preacher, 1927-1946, was Harry Emerson Fosdick, Junior's pastor, who was on the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1917 when Junior took over, and which his brother ran after 1920.]
His influence would have been extensive even if he had not gone on TV. He was the developer of the widely used evangelism program known as Evangelism Explosion. He also founded Knox Theological Seminary, which trains men for the ministry, primarily for service in Presbyterian circles.

His weekly television broadcasts were sometimes followed by hour-long specials on political, historical, and economic topics. I was on one of them that dealt with inflation. He was politically conservative.

He believed the obvious: the United States was originally a Christian nation, which is reflected in the trinitarian oaths required by most of the states in the period of the Articles of Confederation. These oaths were extensions of the oaths required by the British crown for colonial officer-holders. He also believed that the United States remained officially (covenantally) Christian under the United States Constitution, a far more difficult thesis to maintain, due to the Constitution's explicit forbidding of any religious test for an office-holder of the United States government (Article VI, Section III). I have explained this problem elsewhere.

Kennedy lived in a modest home. There was never a hint of scandal regarding his ministry.

The church's organist, Diane Bish, became nationally famous through his broadcasts. She has been featured on numerous PBS shows.

D. James Kennedy Dies

The Big Sister State

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death..." ~ Sen. John Edwards

John Edwards of North Carolina wants the Nanny State (a.k.a. "Big Sister") to provide MANDATORY cradle to grave health care for every American. But, as in education, environment, and SUVs, usually the elite exclude themselves from the Nanny State. The elite will send their children to private schools to receive the absolute best in education--to his credit, John Edwards did not do this. The elite will decry "global warming," but they'll use massive amounts of energy to fuel their estates and private jets. And, as in Edward's case, the hypocrisy is compounded as he tells Americans give up their SUVs while he's climbing into his—he has several.

The gullibility of Right-wing Americans over the terror threat, and the necessity for invading the countries of our choosing, will soon be matched by the equally naive Left-wing cadre of boobs swallowing the incessant stream of socialist sewage of fake environmentalism, universal healthcare, and free everything. One man's 9/11 is another man's global warming. One man's American Imperialism is another man's exaltation of the United Nations. Pick your poison; or, become a Reconstructionist.