Economic collapse? More social media censorship? Will we get out of Syria? Legendary trends forecaster Gerald Celente joins today’s Liberty Report to let us know what he expects for 2019!
What exactly is a socialist? When someone announces to the world, “I’m a socialist,” what is that person thinking?
What exactly is a socialist? You could spend all day studying encyclopedias and not settle anything. Using various definitions, you could probably prove that anybody is or isn’t a socialist.
So let’s talk to a socialist. Ignore the verbiage and look inside his head. When someone announces to the world, “I’m a socialist,” what is that person thinking?
With this focus, everything becomes simpler. Socialists may not be able to claim experience, learning, smarts, or success. But they make up for all that by a boundless certitude about philosophical and political matters. It’s as if they, albeit atheists, are guided by a divine vision.
What is the central assertion contained in that vision? Here, I believe, is what the self-proclaimed socialist is saying to the rest of us:
“You pathetic losers are clearly not qualified to run your own lives. Or if you think you are, you’re probably in the grip of dangerous beliefs that need to be discarded. All in all, it would be better if you stayed out of the way and let experts manage your life. That would be I and my cronies.”
That’s it. “I’m a socialist” means “From now on, I’ll be in charge, fortunately. You can take a hike.”
What was the essence of Hillary Clinton’s campaign? She seemed to think she had a right to take charge and order everyone else around. Saul Alinsky, her mentor, felt the same way. I suspect that Obama agreed with both of them.
* * *
Socialism and communism are often presented as scientifically derived theories about economics and politics. That’s the pretentious academic surface. In day-to-day practical terms, however, our left-wing visionaries try to answer this question: who should run the world? Inevitable answer: They should.
Socialists are passionately concerned with making sure the right people have the power – that is, themselves.
Democracy, on the other hand, is all about distributing power and making sure the worst people don’t get it. How do we know they are the worst people? Because they are obsessed with grabbing power and using it to stifle other people, an arrangement they call socialism or communism.
It’s possible that many socialists don’t themselves know what they are really saying. Probably typical socialists always had a sense that they should have more power. Other people often have too much power, which is a bad thing. Beyond fixing these disparities, our socialists don’t need to discuss the details. Just get out of their way.
General William Sherman said in 1866 that if nominated, he wouldn’t run, and if elected, he wouldn’t serve. This guy did not want to be president. He did not want more power. In a democracy, he’s more or less the perfect person for the job.
In socialism, on the other hand, the most awful people on the planet strive to be your lord and master. Think Lenin. Think Marx, who often threatened his rivals with these words: “I will annihilate you.” You have to ask, Who talks like that? Psychopaths are probably the main category, along with socialists and communists.
Paul Johnson, the great British historian, wrote an entertaining book called Intellectuals. His subjects are chiefly from the left, names like Rousseau, Sartre, Brecht, etc. Certainly, they are brilliant, but they tend to be self-absorbed and tough on others – in other words, just what we should expect socialists to be. They’re in charge, and you’re not – that’s precisely how the universe should be arranged.
In 1920, as the Russian Revolution was consolidated, super-famous Bertrand Russell went to Russia to meet the super-famous Vladimir Lenin. Bertrand Russell was a confirmed communist; nonetheless, he detected something dangerous in Lenin. The Russian government was pitting ordinary peasants against kulaks, the more successful peasants. Russell, in his book about the meeting, noted a cruel streak “[Lenin] described the division between rich and poor peasants, and the Government propaganda among the latter against the former, leading to acts of violence which he seemed to find amusing.” Making sure the kulaks got kicked around – that was “amusing” for Lenin. Keep in mind that kulaks were the best farmers. Once these were more scarce, Russia had to import food. That shows you how smart Lenin was. That, and he trusted Stalin, an even bigger, more ruthless egomaniac than Lenin himself.
Now we have the remarkable spectacle of Venezuela, one of the richest countries in the world, being reduced to poverty and hunger by a dimwitted socialist junta. The whole thing is a public spectacle, like botched plastic surgery on a movie star. The socialists in charge have all the answers. They know what you need better than you do. Unfortunately, that turns out to be every tragic, stupid outcome imaginable. How does any other country dare to discuss socialism? (The foolishness in Venezuela offers many parallels to the foolishness in our K-12 educational system.)
The Tao Te Ching (a compendium of ancient Chinese wisdom) has a lot of shrewd advice for wannabe kings. A big empire should be handled as delicately as a chef handles a small fish.
The Tao Te Ching also says, “The less a leader does and says; the happier his people; the more a ruler struts and brags, the sadder his people will be.” Well, strutting and bragging are what socialist dictators know how to do. Look at Mussolini; look at Hitler; look at Mao. These are vast, swaggering egos.
Here is another Taoist insight. The great emperor is modest. When a large project is finished successfully, his people think, We did it ourselves. Hillary would be sure to correct that mistake. No, you deplorables, I did it all by myself.
CODA: If you wonder why some leaders prefer an inefficient public school system that seems intent on dumbing down the country, ask yourself what sort of citizens are more likely to put up with arrogant dictators. Probably that would be ignorant, semi-literate citizens.
Bruce Deitrick Price’s new book is Saving K-12: What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them? His education site is Improve-Education.org.
If government money is going to be wasted anyway, why not spend it on a border wall – which the Israelis have a decades-long track record as a worthwhile investment?
Authored by Duane Norman via Free Market Shooter blog,
Left: Israel’s West Bank Wall – Right: Proposed US Border Wall Prototypes
President Trump’s stare-down with Democrat leaders Pelosi and Schumer over $5.7 billion in funding for a proposed southern border wall construction is poised to become the longest on record by January 12th. Trump has shown no signs of backing down, demanding national airtime for an address to the nation regarding the wall:
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 9, 2019
Trump himself has touted the success of Israel’s border walls as justification for a wall in America…
This isn’t about the Wall, everybody knows that a Wall will work perfectly (In Israel the Wall works 99.9%). This is only about the Dems not letting Donald Trump & the Republicans have a win. They may have the 10 Senate votes, but we have the issue, Border Security. 2020!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 27, 2018
…..on a Border is only effective in conjunction with a Wall. Properly designed and built Walls work, and the Democrats are lying when they say they don’t. In Israel the Wall is 99.9% successful. Will not be any different on our Southern Border! Hundreds of $Billions saved!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 21, 2018
…and Israeli President Benjamin Netenyahu agreed with Trump, using the border wall between Israel and the West Bank as his model for success:
President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea 🇮🇱🇺🇸
— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) January 28, 2017
The wall Netenyahu is referring to is the Israel-Egypt barrier on the southern border, which began construction in November 2010 and was completed in December 2013. The 152-mile long barrier was built at the urging of Netenyahu to curb an influx of illegal immigrants and terrorists from African nations.
Even left-leaning Politifact was forced to admit it worked…
Johnson said Israel cut its illegal immigration rate by “99 percent” by constructing a 143-mile fence along its southern border.
Israeli government data support Johnson’s statement. Johnson’s statement is accurate, but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True.
…however, it is hardly the only border wall built in Israel. It is estimated that between 293 and 308 miles of the Israel-West Bank barrier wall are fully constructed, with a total estimated length of between 440-490 miles when completed. The successes of the “security fence” have been lauded by its proponents…
A portion of the security fence between Israel and the West Bank
In March 2002 alone, 140 Israelis were murdered in a continually escalating wave of Palestinian terrorism. Noting that only one suicide bomber managed to come from Gaza, where a security fence was already in place, Israel began construction of a security fence facing Palestinian areas of the West Bank in 2003.
The construction of Israel’s security fence put an immediate and dramatic end to the Palestinian campaign of suicide bombing. By 2009, only 15 Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorism, compared with 452 murdered in 2002, the year before construction began.
…but as noted above, Israel has even more border barriers. The security fence with Gaza has an estimated length of 25 miles, and seven miles of an 80-mile security barrier of “concrete wall topped by steel mesh, sensors and surveillance cameras” on the northern border with Lebanon have been completed.
Clearly, the very tiny country of Israel devotes an incredible amount of resources to border fencing and security, with an estimated 484 miles of completed walls/fencing and more under construction. Conversely, the US claims to have 580 miles of “barriers” in place already. Israel’s heavy usage of border walls is even more astounding when its size and GDP are considered relative to the US:
Population (2017 est): 8.7 million
GDP (2017): $350.9 billion (USD)
GDP per capita: $40,333 (USD)
Population (2017 est): 325.7 million
GDP (2017): $19.39 trillion ($19,390 billion USD)
GDP per capita: $59,533 (USD)
Israel’s population is 2.7% of the US population, and its annual GDP is 1.8% that of US GDP. In spite of Israel’s tiny size, population and GDP, the total mileage of completed barriers in the country is just under 25% that of the entire length of the 1,954-mile US-Mexico border.
Putting it into per capita terms, each Israeli citizen is “responsible” for the construction of about 3.5 inches of wall. Conversely, each US citizen is “responsible” for the construction of 0.11 inches of “barrier” – which as Peter Skerry articulated in in 2009, long before Trump or his wall – has been poorly constructed in many areas, often intentionally so:
A section of the US-Mexico border designed only to stop vehicles
Finally, there was the Border Patrol itself. As scores of interviews reveal, this agency did not want a fence so difficult to climb that there would be injuries, taking up the valuable time of its agents and resulting in a mountain of liability claims.
Yet, despite all the trappings, Border Patrol agents report that individuals routinely manage to scramble over both the primary and secondary fences in less than one minute. Officials now acknowledge that the fence was never designed to stop illegal immigrants cold, just slow them down so they could be apprehended. “The fences were never meant to be more than a filter,” one Border Patrol officer explained.
To put US wall construction into per capita terms vs. Israel’s wall, if just 50% of America put just 20% of the resources into border walls that Israel does, the full length of Trump’s wall would already be completed. Minus, of course, the sections of the wall that don’t need to be rebuilt – many border areas already have a sufficient barrier in place.
The opposition to Trump’s border wall ultimately boils down to the argument “it’s a waste of money”. But the same politicians so vociferously opposing a $5.7 billion dollar wall funding request complained, but ultimately funded George W. Bush‘s Iraq war request – despite its $54.4 billion budget for 2003 alone (over nine times Trump’s wall request). That price tag has since ballooned well into the trillions – but Democrats refused to shut the government to prevent it.
Democrats have also refused to shut the government over funding for the US Navy’s wasteful aircraft carrier spending. The last completed aircraft carrier, the USS George W. Bush (CVN-77), was commissioned in 2009 at a cost of $6.2 billion (more than Trump’s wall funding request), and underwent its first deployment in June 2011.
The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was commissioned in 2017 at a cost of $17.5 billion (including $4.7 billion in R&D for the new carrier class) – and will still require more funding to fix lingering issues with ship engines and EMALS catapults that stilldon’t work properly – before it can undergo its first deployment…
Shock testing. That’s 500 yards separation. The first ship in every new class goes through this….. except the new CVN-78 because “fear that it would cause additional delays to the operational deployment.” pic.twitter.com/zYD1MbiIvT
— Jive Turkey (@JivTurky) January 8, 2019
…but that still hasn’t caused Pelosi or Schumer to shut the government down to object to this waste of taxpayer dollars.
In fact, the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) continues to be built, with no contractors or military personnel fired or disciplined, despite not being scheduled to enter service until 2022. And as noted above by Anthony Capaccio, the future USS Enterprise (CVN-80) just began construction with an estimated cost of $12.6 billion, and the unnamed CVN-81 at an estimated price tag of $15 billion was recently approved by the Navy – without any objection from Democrats:
Navy gets yr-end gift from DoD which has approved its controversial two-carrier Ford Class contract for Huntington Ingalls..even as the first ship, CVN-78, still doesn’t have weapons elevators to move weapons on deck
— Anthony Capaccio (@ACapaccio) December 31, 2018
Regarding applying Israeli solutions to the US – I’ve stated in the past that there’s no “one size fits all” solution, but that it it is wise to cherry pick ideas that have worked, and apply some of their concepts. Israeli airport security describes TSA procedures, specifically the new body scanners, as “worthless” – as evidenced in how easy it is to smuggle weapons past them. Given the huge cost of these scanners (which got former Obama DHS secretary Michael Chertoff’s firm rich), it would have behooved the US to listen to Israel then, dumping these scanners instead of wasting money on them.
Fiscal responsibility was abandoned by Presidents Bush and Obama, and clearly Trump has no intention of curtailing monster budget deficits and out-of-control defense and entitlement spending. With politicians of all kinds either 1) refusing to corral spending, or 2) understanding that they can’t win on a platform of fiscal responsibility (and thus not running on one), government spending is going to continue unimpeded, with hundreds of billions (if not more) being wasteful at best, outright wasted at worst.
From Dem source on WH mtg. Trump to Pelosi: “In 30 days, will you be in favor of a wall?”
Pelosi:” No.”
Trump: “What’s the point?” “Bye bye” (slams hands on the table)
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 9, 2019
Many Americans don’t mind this government shutdown, and applaud Trump for drawing a line in the sand for what amounts to a rather small funding request in the overall scheme of things. However, “the resistance” is doing this to all of us, as they are so keen on not giving Trump a win, they will risk shutting the government down for what could be months.
If government money is going to be wasted anyway, why not spend it on a border wall – which the Israelis have a decades-long track record as a worthwhile investment?
“Regardless of Marx’s intentions, his doctrines spurred perpetual dread in hundreds of millions of victims… Two hundred years after Marx’s birth, never forget that a philosophy that begins by idealizing government will end by idealizing subjugation…”
Authored by James Bovard via The Future of Freedom Foundation,
Socialism’s popularity is reviving in America. A self-proclaimed socialist won the Democratic nomination for a congressional seat in the Bronx, and Democratic Socialist candidates are thriving in many areas of the nation. The Washington Post reported in July that it’s “been a good summer for the Democratic Socialists of America,” who have “never had more adherents or more clout.” The Democratic Socialists of America openly calls for the abolition of capitalism.
It would be gratifying to Karl Marx, born 200 years ago in Trier, Germany. In a New York Times tribute headlined, “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!” philosophy professor Jason Barker declared that “educated liberal opinion is today more or less unanimous in its agreement with Marx’s basic thesis” that capitalism is fatally flawed. But that presumption is true only if “educated liberal opinion” simply does not care about tyranny.
Trier, Germany, held a huge birthday celebration highlighted by the unveiling of a 5,000-pound bronze statue of Marx donated by the communist Chinese government. Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, gave a speech lauding the communist theoretician, declaring that
Karl Marx was a philosopher, who thought into the future, had creative aspirations, and today he stands for things which is he not responsible for and which he didn’t cause…. One has to understand Karl Marx from the context of his time and not have prejudices….
Juncker hyped Marx’s doctrines to claim that European governments need to give more handouts to fulfill citizens’ “social rights.” Daniel Kawczynski, a British member of parliament whose family had fled communist Poland, denounced the celebration:
“I think it’s in very poor taste. We have to remember that Marxism was all about ripping power and individual means away from people and giving to the State. Marxism … allowed a small band of fanatics to suppress the people.”
Unfortunately, as decades have passed since the fall of the Soviet Union,romanticism is deep-sixing the bitter facts of the lives people in communist regimes were forced to live. British Guardian columnist Paul Mason hailed the Soviet takeover of Russia for providing “a beacon to the rest of humanity.” But Marxism in practice didn’t work out so well. Communist regimes produced the greatest ideological carnage in human history, killing more than a hundred million people in the last century. Many zealots believe that it is unfair to Marx’s legacy to hold him culpable for the perennial savagery by regimes that invoked his name. But the seeds of tyranny were there from the start.
Marx’s salvation scheme was built on a mystical foundation supplied by German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. Though the New York Times eulogy for Marx touted Hegel as an advocate of a “rational liberal state,” Hegel was derided in his lifetime as the “Royal Prussian Court Philosopher” and for promoting the notion that the State is “inherently rational.” Hegel deified government, asserting that “the State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth” and “all the worth which the human being possesses — all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State.” Hegel scorned any limits on government power: “The State is the self-certain absolute mind which recognizes no authority but its own, which acknowledges no abstract rules of good and bad, shameful and mean, cunning and deceit.”
Marx, perhaps blinded by Hegel, never recognized the inherent danger of Leviathan. Nor did Marx explain how communism would actually arise after the demolition of capitalism. Equally important, he never even attempted to reveal how the State would “wither away” after the “dictatorship of the proletariat” commenced. Marx’s humanitarian piffle did nothing to deter Lenin from decreeing that “liberty is so precious that it must be rationed.”
Marxists assumed that vastly increasing government power was the key to liberating humanity. But all-powerful regimes quickly become ends in themselves. In 1932, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin decreed the death penalty for any theft of state property. In Ukraine, where millions were starving because of the brutal collectivization of farms, even children poaching a few ears of corn could be shot.
The history of communism proves there will never be a shortage of intellectual apologists to sanctify any and every atrocity. In 1936, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, two prominent British socialists, justified Soviet repression because “any public expression of doubt … is an act of disloyalty and even treachery” to central economic planning. Thus, to liberate people with food and clothing, government was entitled to execute anyone who criticized the Five Year Plan for agriculture and textiles. The Webbs glorified Soviet ethical doctrines: “Paramount is the injunction to abstain from and to resist ‘exploitation,’ meaning any employment of others at wages for the purpose of making a profit out of their labor.” The Webbs observed that “abstention from exploitation is the ethical duty that is … most forcibly and frequently impressed on the youthful mind.” They presumed that all private contracts are exploitative and that politicians would never abuse their power by exploiting those under their thumb.
Economist John Maynard Keynes hailed the Soviet Union in 1936 as “engaged in a vast administrative task of making a completely new set of social and economic institutions work smoothly and successfully.” American churchman Sherwood Eddy wrote in 1934, “All life [in Russia] is … directed to a single high end and energized by such powerful and glowing motivation…. It releases a flood of joyous and strenuous activity.” American philosopher John Dewey visited the Soviet Union and proclaimed upon his return, “The people go about as if some mighty, oppressive load had been removed, as if they were newly awakened to the consciousness of released energies.” Jean-Paul Sartre, France’s most respected postwar philosopher, declared, “Soviet citizens criticize their government much more and more effectively than we do. There is total freedom of criticism in the USSR.” After controversy erupted in France in 1997 over a book that claims communist regimes had killed nearly 100 million of their own citizens, a French Communist Party spokesman sought to differentiate Stalin and other communist leaders from Hitler: “Agreed, both Nazis and communists killed. But while the Nazis killed from hatred of humanity, the communists killed from love.”
While many Western intellectuals painted the Soviet Union as a utopia, some communists had fewer illusions. In 1928 Grigori Pyatakov, one of six Soviet leaders personally named in Lenin’s last testament, proudly declared, “According to Lenin the Communist Party is based on the principle of coercion which doesn’t recognize any limitations or inhibitions. And the central idea of this principle of boundless coercion is not coercion by itself but the absence of any limitation whatsoever — moral, political, and even physical. Such a Party is capable of achieving miracles.” Pyatakov was one of the stars of the 1937 Moscow show trials, confessing to ludicrous charges of sabotaging mines in Siberia, and was executed shortly thereafter.
Marx’s hostility to private property guaranteed boundless tyranny. Property rights are the border guards around an individual’s life that deter political invasions. Socialist regimes despise property because it limits the power of the State to regiment the lives of the people. A 1975 study, The Soviet Image of Utopia, observed, “The closely knit communities of communism will be able to locate the anti-social individual without difficulty because he will not be able to ‘shut the door of his apartment’ and retreat to an area of his life that is ‘strictly private.’” Hungarian economist János Kornai observed, “The further elimination of private ownership is taken, the more consistently can full subjection be imposed.”
Marxist regimes felt entitled to inflict unlimited delusions on their victims — for the good of the people, or at least proletariats. East Germans were told the Berlin Wall existed to keep fascists out — even though all the killings by border guards involved East Germans who were heading West. Marxism promised a utopia, and that unsecured pledge sufficed to treat subjects like serfs bound to endlessly submit and obey. Anyone who tried to escape was treated as if he were stealing government property.
Communism is still often portrayed as morally superior to capitalism because it banishes greedy corporations poisoning people for profit.According to Marxist theory, environmental problems cannot arise in socialist countries because man and nature are by definition in harmony. But Eastern Bloc regimes became a vast graveyard for Mother Nature. Pollution was pervasive largely because of the deification of economic plans. As long as the factories roared and industrial output rose, it didn’t matter that people and everything else were dying.
I traveled behind the Iron Curtain many times in the mid to late 1980s to study first-hand the results of Marx’s philosophy. I saw pervasive fear in the faces of emaciated people on the streets of Bucharest, Romania, and I saw the terror in the eyes of young Czechs when anyone touched on the subject of politics. I encountered border guards who flew into a tizzy at any piece of paper that might contain subversive ideas. And I witnessed legions of Western apologists who always insisted on giving communist regimes more time and more Western handouts to redeem themselves.
Marx continues to appeal to social justice warriors, thanks to axioms such as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And who determines “need”? The presumably omniscient, benevolent State.Marxism promised to end the “class struggle,” but it did so by subjugating almost everyone to officialdom. As Yugoslavian dissident Milovan Djilas observed in 1957, communism begot a new class of supreme bureaucrats with their own vested interest to perpetuate their power. Abolishing private property left people hostage to petty government officials who kept their jobs by punishing anyone who failed to kowtow to the latest dictates. As Leon Trotsky explained, “In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation … who does not obey shall not eat.”
Regardless of Marx’s intentions, his doctrines spurred perpetual dread in hundreds of millions of victims.
But it was criminally naive to expect happy results from any system that bestowed boundless power on politicians. Two hundred years after Marx’s birth, never forget that a philosophy that begins by idealizing government will end by idealizing subjugation.
— Read on www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-11/karl-marx-and-great-socialist-revival
8. For my thoughts are not your thoughts. This passage is expounded in various ways. Some think that it condemns universally the life of men, that they may not be satisfied with it or flatter their vices; for we cannot approach to God but by taking away a false conviction of our own righteousness. And indeed none call for physicians but those who are driven by the violence of disease to seek both health and remedies. Accordingly, this passage is compared by them to that saying of our Lord, “What ranks high among men is abomination in the sight of God.” (Luke 16:15.)
But the Prophet’s meaning, I think, is different, and is more correctly explained, according to my judgment, by other commentators, who think that he draws a distinction between God’s disposition and man’s disposition. Men are wont to judge and measure God from themselves; for their hearts are moved by angry passions, and are very difficult to be appeased; and therefore they think that they cannot be reconciled to God, when they have once offended him. But the Lord shews that he is far from resembling men. As if he had said, “I am not a mortal man, that I should shew myself to be harsh and irreconcilable to you. My thoughts are very different from yours. If you are implacable, and can with difficulty be brought back to a state of friendship with those from whom you have received an injury, I am not like you, that I should treat you so cruelly.”
9. For as the heavens are higher than the earth. This agrees well with that passage in which David, describing the mercy of God, says, (Ps. 103:11,) that it is as much more excellent “as the heavens are higher than the earth;” for although the application is different, yet the meaning is the same. In short, God is infinitely compassionate and infinitely ready to forgive; so that it ought to be ascribed exclusively to our unbelief, if we do not obtain pardon from him.
There is nothing that troubles our consciences more than when we think that God is like ourselves; for the consequence is, that we do not venture to approach to him, and flee from him as an enemy, and are never at rest. But they who measure God by themselves as a standard form a false idea and altogether contrary to his nature; and indeed they cannot do him a greater injury than this. Are men, who are corrupted and debased by sinful desires, not ashamed to compare God’s lofty and uncorrupted nature with their own, and to confine what is infinite within those narrow limits by which they feel themselves to be wretchedly restrained? In what prison could any of us be more straitly shut up than in our own unbelief?
This appears to me to be the plain and simple meaning of the Prophet. And yet I do not deny that he alludes, at the same time, to the life of men such as he formerly described it to be. In a word, he means that men must forget themselves, when they wish to be converted to God, and that no obstacle can be greater or more destructive than when we think that God is irreconcilable. We must therefore root out of our minds this false imagination.
Moreover, we learn from it how widely they err who abuse the mercy of God, so as to draw from it greater encouragement to sin. The Prophet reasons thus, “Repent, forsake your ways; for the mercy of God is infinite.” When men despair or doubt as to obtaining pardon, they usually become more hardened and obstinate; but when they feel that God is merciful, this draws and converts them. It follows, therefore, that they who do not cease to live wickedly, and who are not changed in heart, have no share in this mercy.[1]
55:8–9. God’s compassion on those who turn to Him (vv. 6–7) comes because His thoughts and ways are far superior to human thoughts and ways, which in fact are evil (cf. v. 7). God’s plan is something people would have never dreamed of.[2]
55:8, 9 Men shouldn’t judge Jehovah by their own thoughts and ways. He thinks and acts in ways that transcend anything man could ever imagine. This is never more true than in the gospel plan of salvation, which is all of God’s grace and allows no glory in self-effort. William Cowper expressed it with his usual elegant English in his poem “Truth”:
O how unlike the complex works of man,
Heav’n’s easy, artless, unencumber’d plan!
No meretricious graces to beguile,
No clustering ornaments to clog the pile;
From ostentation, as from weakness, free,
It stands like the cerulian arch we see,
Majestic in its own simplicity.
Inscribed above the portal, from afar
Conspicuous as the brightness of a star,
Legible only by the light they give,
Stand the soul-quickening words—
believe, and live.[3]
55:8, 9 God’s gracious thoughts exceed all human imagination (64:4; Rom. 11:33; 1 Cor. 2:9; Eph. 3:20). No one can fathom the depths of His wisdom.[4]
55:9 — “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.”
Even when we do not understand what God is up to in our lives—which may happen frequently—He asks us to trust Him. He knows what He is doing, even if we cannot comprehend His methods or timing.[5]
55:8, 9 My thoughts … My ways. Some may doubt such willingness as is described in v. 7, but God’s grace is far beyond human comprehension, especially as manifested toward Israel.[6]
55:7–9 let the wicked forsake his way … let him return. Thorough repentance is required, for God’s thoughts are not your thoughts—that is, they are as high above man’s thoughts as the heavens are above the earth and vastly superior to the expectations of human intuitions (cf. Ps. 145:3; 1 Cor. 2:9). neither are your ways my ways. In the immediate context, this is an appeal to people to exchange their sinful “thoughts” and “ways” (Isa. 55:7) for God’s, which are higher (nobler and more magnificent). More broadly, theologians have recognized that God, the incomparable Creator, is far above his finite creatures and beyond their ability to describe him or comprehend him fully; though they may know him truly, such knowledge is always partial and imperfect. But because God is perfectly wise in all his thoughts and ways, his people can take great comfort amid hardship and when inevitably they are unable to understand the mysteries and tragedies of life.[7]
55:8 my thoughts are not your thoughts Invites trust in Yahweh’s ability to accomplish everything He has promised for His people if they repent. While people may fail in their plans or promises, God can be trusted to keep His word.
This passage in Isa 55:8–9 is often taken as a direct statement about God’s transcendence: His nature and plan are infinitely beyond human understanding. God is infinitely different from us in His thoughts and ways. The biblical portrait of God develops both transcendent and immanent aspects of His nature. The transcendent aspect is not like people and infinitely above people. The immanent aspect is intimately present with people and among people. God’s transcendence places Him beyond the limits of time and space. His nature as uncreated and separate from His creation is a fundamental concept distinguishing a biblical understanding of God from other philosophical or religious theories, such as pantheism or monism.[8]
55:8 my thoughts are not your thoughts. Specifically, God’s thoughts concerning grace exceed human imagination (64:4; 1 Cor. 2:9; Eph. 3:20; Rom. 11:33). See “God Sees and Knows: Divine Omniscience” at Prov. 15:3.[9]
55:8–9 The statement that God’s ways and thoughts are different from those of human beings does not mean that people can never expect to understand anything about Him or follow His ways. He reveals what His people need to know to return to Him (vv. 6–7) and to obey Him (see Dt 29:29), and what He has in store for those who love Him (1 Co 2:9–10). The statement needs to be understood in the light of where Isaiah was carrying this thought: Unlike human ways and thoughts, God’s will produce the results He desires in the restoration of His people (Is 55:12–13). It is through His word that He will accomplish His purpose; it will “return to Me” (v. 11). God’s word does not coincide with human worldviews which are all off center. But when His people return God’s word to Him, they are changed people. They have received God’s word and it has done its work within them. It has transformed both heart and mind.[10]
55:8–9 God is far above humanity in thought and deed. God’s people are called to turn from their sinful thoughts and deeds (v. 7) to God’s exalted thoughts and deeds.[11]
[1] Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. (2010). Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Vol. 4, pp. 168–170). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
[2] Martin, J. A. (1985). Isaiah. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 1111). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
[3] MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (p. 982). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
[4] Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (p. 865). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.
[5] Stanley, C. F. (2005). The Charles F. Stanley life principles Bible: New King James Version (Is 55:9). Nashville, TN: Nelson Bibles.
[6] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). The MacArthur study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (Is 55:8). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
[7] Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1342). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
[8] Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., … Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (Is 55:8). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
[9] Sproul, R. C. (Ed.). (2005). The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (p. 1031). Orlando, FL; Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries.
[10] Cabal, T., Brand, C. O., Clendenen, E. R., Copan, P., Moreland, J. P., & Powell, D. (2007). The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (pp. 1068–1069). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.
[11] Longman, T., III. (2017). Isaiah. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 1121). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.
“Make no mistake, as erratic and unstable as 2018 was, 2019 will be far worse…”
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
In 2018, a very significant economic change occurred which sealed the fate of the U.S. economy as well as numerous other economies around the globe. This change was the reversal of central bank policy. The era of stimulus and artificial support of various markets, including stocks, is beginning to fade away as the Federal Reserve pursues policy tightening, including higher interest rates and larger cuts to its balance sheet.
I warned of this change under new Chairman Jerome Powell at the beginning of 2018 in my article ‘New Fed Chairman Will Trigger Stock Market Crash In 2018’. The crash had a false start in February/March, as stocks were saved by massive corporate buybacks through the 2nd and 3rd quarters. However, as interest rates edged higher and Trump’s tax cut cash ran thin, corporate stock buybacks began to dwindle in the final quarter of the year.
As I predicted in September in my article ‘The Everything Bubble: When Will It Finally Crash?’, the crash accelerated in December, as the Fed raised interest rates to their neutral rate of inflation and increased balance sheet cuts to $50 billion per month. In 2019, this crash will continue as the fed resumes cuts once again in mid-January.
It is important to note that when we speak of a crash in alternative economic circles, we are not only talking about stock markets. Mainstream economists often claim that stocks are a predictive indicator for the future health of the wider economy. This is incorrect. Stocks are actually a trailing indicator; they tend to crash well after all other fundamentals have started to decline.
Housing markets have been plunging in terms of sales as well as value. The Fed’s interest rate hikes are translating to much higher mortgage rates in the wake of overly inflated prices and weaker consumer wages. Corporate buyers in real estate, which have been propping up the housing market for years, are now unable to continue life support. Corporate debt across the board is at all-time highs not seen since the crash of 2008, and with higher interest rates, borrowing cheap capital is no longer an option.
In November 2018, home sales posted the steepest decline in over 7 years.
Auto markets, another major indicator of economic stability, have been plunging in extreme fashion. Autos saw steep declines throughout the last half of 2018, once again as higher Fed interest rates killed easy credit ARM-style car loans.
U.S. credit is also drying up as investors pull capital from volatile markets and interest rates rise. Liquidity is disappearing, which means debt is becoming more expensive, or inaccessible to most people and businesses.
A false narrative is being presented in the mainstream on these circumstances – by both the media and central bankers. There has been a considerable amount of “jawboning” by economic authorities and mainstream analysts in an attempt to keep the public distracted from the economic crisis as well as keep the investment world engaged in trading with blinders on. With the propaganda going into overdrive, we must cut through the fog and mirrors, gauging the most important threats within the system and determining when they might escalate.
Make no mistake, as erratic and unstable as 2018 was, 2019 will be far worse.
There is a lie circulating in the media that Jerome Powell and the Fed are “heroic” for “going against” past central bank regimes and removing easy money policies. This is the exact opposite motive behind what is happening. We have to remember that it was the Fed and other central banks that created the initial crash in 2008 through easy money policies. They then deliberately created an even bigger bubble (the “everything bubble”) through more monetary stimulus; a bubble so large that it would collapse the entire U.S. economy including bond markets and the dollar if it ever burst.
This circular process of crisis-stimulus-crisis is one that that the central bank has used for over a century. Former Fed officials like Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan have openly admitted to central bank culpability for the Great Depression as well as the crash of 2008. Though, as they do this they also assert that they were “not aware at the time” of the greater danger. I don’t buy that for a second.
In almost every instance during which the Fed created a crash environment, banking institutions were able to use the opportunity to snatch up hard assets for pennies on the dollar, as well as steal more political and social power. During the Great Depression, major banks absorbed thousands of smaller local banks as well as all the assets those banks held. In 2008, banks and corporations enjoyed a deluge of easy money paid for by American taxpayers for generations to come, while also vacuuming up hard assets like distressed home mortgages.
An even greater prize for banking elites is global centralization of economic authority, which is what I believe their goal is as the next engineered crash runs its course. As crisis leads to catastrophe, it will be institutions driven by globalism like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Bank for International Settlements (BIS) that step in to “save the day”.
As I have noted time and time again, Jerome Powell is well aware of what will happen as the Fed tightens. He is recorded in the Fed minutes of October 2012 discussing the consequences, including his hint of an impending crash if the Fed shut down stimulus measures, raised interest rates and cut the balance sheet.
Yet, Powell continues tightening all the same, indicating that Fed actions and the results are quite deliberate. Recent statements by Powell have been wrongly interpreted by the mainstream to indicate that the Fed might back off of tightening policies. I predict that this will not happen, at least not until the crash has already run its course.
I expect Powell to continue balance sheet cuts at around $50 billion per month through until perhaps the end of 2019. I also hold to my original prediction last year that the Fed will hike interest rates in 2019, at least two more times, with a hike in March. The Fed has continued to show a propensity for double talk on “accommodation”, and there is a good reason for this…
Many alternative economists have been pointing out over the years the direct correlation between the Fed balance sheet and stock market prices. As the Fed bought up assets, the stock market rose exactly in tandem. As the Fed dumps assets, stocks fall with increasing speed and volatility.
If you want a perfect example of this, simply examine the central bank’s FRED balance sheet totals and compare them with a year long graph of the S&P500. Do not only look at the stock plunges, but also the stock rallies. Dramatic cuts in December facilitated the start of the crash; the recent bounce occurred in part due to end of the year investment by corporate pension funds, searching desperately for yield in an environment where bonds are no longer viable or safe. However, take note that the first week of January also saw Fed cuts flatline.
What does this mean? Without a massive alternative capital source like stock buybacks in play, every new large Fed asset cut will result in a steep decline around the middle of each month. Every pause in cuts will result in a bounce, but to lower highs. The ceiling for rallies and the expectations of investors will gradually dwindle until the reality that the party is over finally hits them.
The Fed’s recent “dovish” comments, in my view, are completely fraudulent and highly calculated. Because the central bank has cut stimulus and raised interest rates to the point that corporations can no longer afford massive buyback binges, there is nothing left to support stocks except disinformation, blind faith, and a 1-2 week pause in balance sheet cuts.
This is a controlled demolition of the economy and markets. The Fed will jawbone as much as possible to keep the system from imploding too fast, because jawboning is the only tool that is left. In the meantime, Powell will keep cutting assets and raising interest rates on schedule. This will inevitably translate into lower prices in equities as the system is “steam valved” down. Blind faith by investors will only go so far. They will be left holding the bag, right along with pensions.
I expect stocks will resume their steep decline through 2019, and will fall well below support levels seen in 2017. If December’s decline was any indication, as long as the Fed continues its current path of balance sheet cuts, I see the Dow in the 17,000 to 18,000 point range in March-April.
Trump’s incessant propensity for taking credit for the bull rally in stocks makes him a perfect scapegoat for the ongoing crash. The acceleration in 2019 will be followed by numerous distractions. While Trump has blamed the Federal Reserve for recent stock instability, he has at the same time blamed his own trade war. Trump has attached the success of his presidency to the success of a stock market that he used to call a “big bubble” created by the Fed.
Trump’s trade war along with the government shutdown are just two factors that are already being targeted by the mainstream media and globalist commentators as the causes of the December plunge in equities.
The shutdown might not continue through January if Trump declares a state of emergency and begins the southern border wall, making the budget debate rather moot. That said, I suspect it may continue anyway; this time does feel different. Consider that if the shutdown enters into February there is the threat that welfare programs like EBT will be delayed, which opens the door to a whole new kind of insanity. I don’t necessarily have anything against the average person seeking welfare in times of personal crisis. That said, there are millions of Americans who have made a career out of collecting government aid, and their attitude is often one of entitlement. If and when their revenue and food source is cut off, their reaction may be violent.
The timing of the current shutdown makes it such a useful distraction away from central bank actions that I would be surprised if it was ended in the near term. The threat of delays on EBT and government welfare would be a very juicy crisis that could be exploited by central banks and globalists
I predict the trade war will continue through 2019, as it has for the past year. Trump will announce “huge” progress on negotiations with China at times in order to jawbone stocks up, but days or weeks later this progress will once again come into question. I realize this is an easy prediction. The trade war farce has followed a rather predictable pattern lately.
Trump has been extraordinarily helpful to the banking elites in this regard. In fact, the Trump Administration seems to add a new escalation in the trade war a week after every major Fed balance sheet cut or rate hike; just in time for stocks to drop violently due to the Fed dump.
A “Hard Brexit”: Look for the Brexit to enter a possible no-deal scenario with the EU followed by an aggressive economic downturn beyond what is already occurring in Europe. While this outcome appears to be a longshot right now, it makes sense according to the false narrative globalists are building – the narrative that “populists” are a reckless and destructive influence that is leading to economic disaster.
Turkey Leaving NATO: This seems like a done deal already. Turkey is positioning to couple to Eastern powers like China and Russia through various trade agreements and strategic deals, and abandoning ties to the West. While this has the potential to drag on for a few more years, I believe it will happen quickly – by the end of 2019.
Martial Law Conditions In France: The “yellow vest” protests are going to continue through 2019, and will probably become more volatile as Emmanuel Macron attempts to tighten control. Look for protests to grow in spring and summer as the weather warms up. Macron has not been shy about using his totalitarian toolbox. I expect him to declare a condition of national emergency with martial law-like powers in place as soon as the end of this year. Whether or not this was an intended outcome by the globalists Macron so closely associates with, I do not yet know. We have not heard much in terms of specific demands or ideological views from the Yellow Vests. Understanding the goals and motives of both sides will determine if there is a false paradigm in play or if the Yellow Vests are a true grassroots movement.
To summarize, the crash of the “everything bubble” has been deliberately initiated by central bankers. The worst is yet to come in 2019.
Trump has made himself a sacrificial goat for the banking elites, and his administration will be taking the blame by the end of this year regardless of the facts surrounding the Federal Reserve’s program of controlled demolition. The year of 2018 was the beginning of the next phase of engineered crisis, 2019 will see the crash hit the mainstream consciousness not to mention the doorsteps and wallets of the general public.
— Read on www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-11/crash-everything-bubble-started-2018-heres-what-comes-next-2019
Note: Dr. Singleton is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, AAPS.
My new year’s resolution is to expose the hypocrisy of the morally superior politicians whose election strategy was to pretend they cared about crafting policies in the country’s best interest.
Take the wall on our southern border. Ignoring the opinion of the Border Patrol agents (51 percent of whom are Hispanic) that it would “without a doubt” be a helpful tool, Nancy Pelosi and her people claimed it would be ineffective in stopping everybody. That’s like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stopping its flu vaccination campaign because the vaccine is only 40-60 percent effective.
And sanctuary state California Sen. Kamala Harris was quick to the gun control microphone when some people were shot in a brawl but not a peep out of her when a community is in mourning after its brown-skinned legal immigrant policeman is gunned down at a traffic stop by a twice arrested illegal immigrant.
Expanding on the racist meme, the new talking point is that a wall is “immoral.” Where is the morality in enabling 1.5 million pounds of drugs to enter our country through Mexico, contributing to the 70,237 drug overdose deaths – over 200 deaths per day – in the U.S. in 2017? Or in turning a blind eye to MS-13 gang members and criminals entering the country? I imagine the Costa Ricans and Panamanians are racist for securing their borders from the flood of illegal immigrants, and the El Salvadorians are immoral for putting razor wire walls around entire neighborhoods.
There is no morality in scoring anti-Trump political points by exploiting the deaths of two children who had endured a trek through an unfriendly landscape. (Some parents have admitted that their child was “their passport”to a better chance of getting in the United States.).
It is heartbreaking when any child dies. It is frustrating when there is no obvious cause. The CDC reports that in 2015 in the U.S., 393 children in good health between the ages of 1-18 years died suddenly without a clear cause of death, known as Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood (SUDC). One migrant child reportedly died of sepsis. Sepsis and septic shock can result from an infection anywhere in the body, including an open cut or scrape. In the United States, more than 75,000 children develop severe sepsis each year. Almost 7,000 of these children from all socioeconomic groups die – this is more than those who die of pediatric cancers. These families also deserve compassion. I didn’t see these outraged, compassionate legislators listed as co-sponsors to the bipartisan House resolution to increase awareness of sepsis.
Where are the tears for the children of Chiraq? At about 24 deaths a year,children in Chicago’s deteriorating black neighborhoods are being killed 24 times the rate that Chicago soldiers are being killed in Iraq. From September 2011 to 2016, at least 174 Chicago children under the age of 17 have been killed in shootings. I’m still waiting for the Obamas to mention the problem, much less solutions to their hometown tragedy.
Multimillionaire Nancy (“We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” and if you disagree with me you are sexist) Pelosi is safe in her Napa Wine Country or San Francisco home, far from the drug addicts, dirty needles, feces, gang members and homeless lining the streets of San Francisco. Her voters may be too uninformed or willfully blind to see what she and her ilk have done to this formerly beautiful city. Sadly, the nation will be forced to suffer from her policies that reward scofflaws, patronize the poor, create dependency and are designed to hustle votes.
Many of the morally superior advocates of government-run health care frame the issue as a matter of compassion and social justice for all. The opposite is true. The program will rob every worker of their hard-earned income by doubling their taxes to fully fund Medicare-for-All’s $32 trillion 10-year price tag.
Worse yet, everyone’s liberty will be curtailed. With Medicare-for-All, private insurance is prohibited, doctors will still have to prove that their desired treatment is “medically necessary,” and patients will have longer wait times for services and still get a 7-minute visit with a “provider.” The 63,000 Canadians who came to the U.S. for health care in 2017 will have to rely heavily on other medical tourist destinations.
It is highly unlikely that the political elite will be forced to go to the retail clinic at the local drug store or Wal-Mart – certainly not the same southern Virginia Wal-Mart where FBI higher-up Peter Strzok “could SMELL [sic] the Trump support.”
Barely a nanosecond had passed after Speaker Pelosi promised less divisiveness when the newest identity politician shouted from the rooftops (in front of her child), that “we’re going to go in and impeach the mother f––-!”
Because their lives are so much more precious than ours, the power brokers have their private security and the medical care of their choice. They also have no shame.
— Read on www.wnd.com/2019/01/resolved-expose-morally-superior-phonies/
“For seven decades we have been yielding our most basic liberties to a secretive, unaccountable emergency state – a vast but increasingly misdirected complex of national security institutions, reflexes, and beliefs…”
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“For seven decades we have been yielding our most basic liberties to a secretive, unaccountable emergency state – a vast but increasingly misdirected complex of national security institutions, reflexes, and beliefs that so define our present world that we forget that there was ever a different America. … Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have given way to permanent crisis management: to policing the planet and fighting preventative wars of ideological containment, usually on terrain chosen by, and favorable to, our enemies. Limited government and constitutional accountability have been shouldered aside by the kind of imperial presidency our constitutional system was explicitly designed to prevent.”
– David C. Unger, The Emergency State: America’s Pursuit of Absolute Security at All Costs
It’s all happening according to schedule.
The civil unrest, the national emergencies, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters,” the government’s reliance on the armed forces to solve domestic political and social problems, the implicit declaration of martial law packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security…
The government has been planning and preparing for such a crisis for years now.
No matter that this crisis is of the government’s own making.
To those for whom power and profit are everything, the end always justifies the means.
This latest brouhaha over President Trump’s threat to declare a national emergency in order to build a border wall is more manufactured political theater, a Trojan Horse intended to camouflage the real threat to our freedoms: yet another expansion of presidential power exposing us to constitutional peril.
This is not about illegal immigration or porous borders or who will pay to build that wall.
This is about unadulterated power and the rise of an “emergency state” that justifies all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.
The seeds of this present madness were sown more than a decade ago when George W. Bush stealthily issued two presidential directives that granted the president the power to unilaterally declare a national emergency, which is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”
Comprising the country’s Continuity of Government (COG) plan, these directives (National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20), which do not need congressional approval, provide a skeletal outline of the actions the president will take in the event of a “national emergency.”
Mind you, that national emergency can take any form, can be manipulated for any purpose and can be used to justify any end goal—all on the say so of the president.
This is exactly the kind of mischief that Thomas Jefferson warned against when he cautioned, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Thus far, we have at least pretended that the government abides by the Constitution.
Despite the many attempts by government leaders to claim broader powers for themselves during wartime, the Constitution allows for only one emergency power: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it” (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2).
Those who wrote our Constitution sought to ensure our freedoms by creating a document that protects our God-given rights at all times, even when we are engaged in war, whether that is a so-called war on terrorism, a so-called war on drugs, or a so-called war on illegal immigration.
This threat by Trump to rule by fiat merely plays into the hands of those who would distort the government’s system of checks and balances and its constitutional separation of powers beyond all recognition.
Apart from the fact that this highly politicized, shamelessly contrived border crisis does not in any way constitute a national emergency, to allow such a manufactured emergency to override constitutional constraints and the rule of law will push the nation that much closer to outright totalitarianism.
To be clear, this is not a criticism of Trump or a disavowal of the need for better vigilance at the nation’s border.
Rather this is a word of warning.
Remember, these powers do not expire at the end of a president’s term. They remain on the books, just waiting to be used or abused by the next political demagogue.
So, too, every action taken by the Trump administration to weaken the system of checks and balances, sidestep the rule of law, and expand the power of the president makes us that much more vulnerable to those who would abuse those powers in the future.
No matter whether you consider Trump to be a demagogue or a die-hard patriot, there will come a day when Trump no longer occupies the White House, and then what?
We’ve been down this road before.
Although the Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers, in recent years, American presidents (Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) have claimed the power to completely and almost unilaterally alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill.
Should the Trump Administration act on its threat to build a border wall using the president’s emergency powers, it would constitute yet another gross perversion of what limited power the Constitution affords the executive branch.
The powers amassed by each successive president through the negligence of Congress and the courts—powers which add up to a toolbox of terror for an imperial ruler—empower whomever occupies the Oval Office to act as a dictator, above the law and beyond any real accountability.
As law professor William P. Marshall explains, “every extraordinary use of power by one President expands the availability of executive branch power for use by future Presidents.” Moreover, it doesn’t even matter whether other presidents have chosen not to take advantage of any particular power, because “it is a President’s action in using power, rather than forsaking its use, that has the precedential significance.”
In other words, each successive president continues to add to his office’s list of extraordinary orders and directives, expanding the reach and power of the presidency and granting him- or herself near dictatorial powers.
This abuse of presidential powers has been going on for so long that it has become the norm, the Constitution be damned.
We no longer have a system of checks and balances.
“The system of checks and balances that the Framers envisioned now lacks effective checks and is no longer in balance,” concludes Marshall. “The implications of this are serious. The Framers designed a system of separation of powers to combat government excess and abuse and to curb incompetence. They also believed that, in the absence of an effective separation-of-powers structure, such ills would inevitably follow. Unfortunately, however, power once taken is not easily surrendered.”
All of the imperial powers amassed by Barack Obama and George W. Bush—to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to operate a shadow government, and to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability—have become a permanent part of the president’s toolbox of terror.
These presidential powers—acquired through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president—enable past, president and future presidents to operate above the law and beyond the reach of the Constitution.
America, meet your new dictator-in-chief: imperial, unaccountable and unconstitutional.
If we continue down this road, there can be no surprise about what awaits us at the end.
After all, it is a tale that has been told time and again throughout history.
For example, over 80 years ago, the citizens of another democratic world power elected a leader who promised to protect them from all dangers. In return for this protection, and under the auspice of fighting terrorism, he was given absolute power.
This leader went to great lengths to make his rise to power appear both legal and necessary, masterfully manipulating much of the citizenry and their government leaders.
Unnerved by threats of domestic terrorism and foreign invaders, the people had little idea that the domestic turmoil of the times—such as street rioting and the fear of Communism taking over the country—was staged by the leader in an effort to create fear and later capitalize on it. In the ensuing months, this charismatic leader ushered in a series of legislative measures that suspended civil liberties and habeas corpus rights and empowered him as a dictator.
On March 23, 1933, the nation’s legislative body passed the Enabling Act, formally referred to as the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation,” which appeared benign and allowed the leader to pass laws by decree in times of emergency.
What it succeeded in doing, however, was ensuring that the leader became a law unto himself.
The leader’s name was Adolf Hitler.
The rest, as they say, is history. Yet history has a way of repeating itself.
Hitler’s rise to power should serve as a stark lesson to always be leery of granting any government leader sweeping powers.
Clearly, we are not heeding that lesson.
Indeed, all of those dastardly seeds we have allowed the government to sow under the guise of national security are bearing demon fruit.
Brace yourself.
There is something being concocted in the dens of power, far beyond the public eye, and it doesn’t bode well for the future of this country.
Anytime you have an entire nation so mesmerized by the antics of the political ruling class that they are oblivious to all else, you’d better beware.
Anytime you have a government that operates in the shadows, speaks in a language of force, and rules by fiat, you’d better beware.
And anytime you have a government so far removed from its people as to ensure that they are never seen, heard or heeded by those elected to represent them, you’d better beware.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are at our most vulnerable right now.
The gravest threat facing us as a nation is not extremism but despotism, exercised by a ruling class whose only allegiance is to power and money.
— Read on www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-10/beware-emergency-state-imperial-unaccountable-and-unconstitutional
“It’s not a volatile economy, it’s a bubble economy… this is the beginning of a much greater crisis, of a much greater recession than the one that we experienced back in 2008.”
Wall Street has been on a roller coaster ride over the last few months. If you listen to the pundits on the financial networks, you’ll hear the word “volatile” used over and over again. That word certainly seems to describe the current state of US stock markets and in a broader sense the economy.
But during a recent interview on RT News with Rick Sanchez, Peter Schiff said it’s not that the economy is volatile. It’s actually a bubble. And we are on the verge of a bigger crisis than the one we went through in 2008.
It’s not a volatile economy, it’s a bubble economy. Thanks to the Federal Reserve, they inflated an even bigger bubble, on purpose, than the one they inflated by accident that popped in 2008. And so the economy is in much worse shape structurally today then it was before it fell apart the last time. So, this is the beginning of a much greater crisis, of a much greater recession than the one that we experienced back in 2008.”
Sanchez asked Peter what exactly the Federal Reserve did wrong. Peter said, basically, everything.
But the biggest things they did wrong were lowering interest rates down to zero, practically, and leaving them there for pretty much the entirety of the Obama presidency. And then they’ve barely raised them. They’re still at 2%, which is very low. They also did all the quantitative easing where they printed a bunch of money and bought US government bonds and mortgage bonds. That enabled the housing bubble to reflate, and that enabled the US government to go much deeper into debt. So, the government didn’t cut spending, which is what we needed. They increased spending. But it also enabled corporations to lever up and buy stocks. It enabled more Americans to go deeper into debt. So, it took a gigantic debt bubble and made it much bigger. And so now we’re on the precipice of a much worse crisis.”
As Sanchez put it, the fear is that if the Fed continues to raise rates, it will pop the bubbles and the economy will come crashing down. But Peter said that’s not what’s going to happen. In fact, the Fed isn’t going to keep raising rates. Ultimately, the central bank will push rates back to zero and launch another round of QE when it becomes clear that the economy has entered into a recession.
That is going to take a very bad situation and make it much worse because it’s not going to work like it did last time in that it blew up a bigger bubble. This is going to blow up in everybody’s face. It’s not going to cause real estate prices to go up or stock prices. It’s going to cause food prices to go up, gasoline prices. It’s the cost of living that’s going to rise, not the stock market. And so this is going to be an inflationary recession.”
Peter went on to say that when the Democrats take control of the White House and Congres in 2020, they will turn the inflationary recession into an inflationary depression.
The problem is Trump made the economy his political issue.
He put his brand on a bubble and when that bubble pops, it’s going to be very easy for the Democrats to blame all the problems on Trump and that’s what’s going to enable them to win in a landslide in 2020.”
As Peter put it, the people aren’t going to vote for four more years of Trump during a recession. They’re going to vote for socialism, “Which is going to give us four more years of hell.”
— Read on www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-11/peter-schiff-beginning-much-bigger-crisis
New American Psychological Association guidelines labeling “traditional masculinity ideology” bad for male health aren’t sitting well with religious leaders who hold a “complementarian” view of what the Bible teaches about gender.
First-time guidelines to help psychologists work with men and boys adopted in August but just being made public challenge patriarchal norms often identified in the #MeToo era as “toxic masculinity.”
Albert Mohler
But Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, said the 31-page APA report goes beyond toxic masculinity to “the basic difference between men and women.”
The guidelines define masculinity ideology as “a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive of cognitions about boys and men.” While there are different masculine ideologies, the report identifies “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”
According to the guidelines, studies show boys are disproportionately represented among schoolchildren with learning difficulties including lower scores on standardized tests and behavior problems like bullying, school suspension and aggression.
Men are overrepresented in prisons and more likely both to commit and be victims of violent crime.
Components of traditional masculinity such as emotional stoicism, homophobia, self-reliance and competitiveness make it harder for males to bond closely with other men.
“Trauma-related avoidance response to difficult emotional situations and uncomfortable affective states” is connected to alcohol use and suicide.
“We discover that in order to attempt not to make persons confused about their gender, harmed or further confused, the entire society is supposed to confuse the fact that there is supposed to be some difference between men and women.”
Gendered social roles are linked to high-risk behaviors like seat belt use, fighting, smoking and going to the doctor for a physical exam.
Many men struggling emotionally do not see a psychologist because of cultural norms that equate asking for help with weakness and shame.
Teenage boys are significantly more likely than girls to carry a gun to school, and nearly every school shooter in the last 30 years has been an adolescent male. Ninety percent of U.S. homicides are committed by men, and 77 percent of all homicide victims are male.
The guidelines say masculinity ideology also affects women and non-conforming males.
Overall, men experience a greater degree of social and economic power than women. Male privilege comes at a cost of adhering to sexist ideologies designed to maintain dominance. Controlled experiments show adult men who endorse sexist male norms are more likely to be aggressive toward women who resist.
A 2015 study found that men who rigidly adhere to patriarchal norms commit higher levels of intimate partner and sexual violence toward women.
Traditional masculinity also encourages men to approach sexuality in ways that emphasize promiscuity and other aspects of risky behavior like not using a condom.
Boys with feminine identities or expressions “face especially negative reactions” to non-normative expressions such as passivity or crying. Research shows such boys are more likely to face verbal and physical abuse from peers, possibly leading to problems like depression, self-injury and suicide.
Mohler, a member of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said in a Wednesday podcast that while “certain dimensions of traditional masculinity … can be distorted,” the APA guidelines cannot “be honestly and consistently squared with any form of historic biblical Christianity.”
“So here is one of the most incredible insights you gain from all of this,” Mohler said of the guideline document. “We discover that in order to attempt not to make persons confused about their gender, harmed or further confused, the entire society is supposed to confuse the fact that there is supposed to be some difference between men and women.”
The Danvers Statement outlining views of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says “distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart.”
In marriage that means the “husband’s loving, humble headship” and “willing, joyful submission” by the wife.
In 2017 the CBMW, in partnership with the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, issued a follow-up Nashville Statement opposing same-sex marriage and declaring “that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception” is a sin.
Owen Strachan
Last March the council added a statement condemning abuse as “destructive and evil” and “in direct opposition to the purposes of God.” At the same time, CBMW believes “that the biblical teaching on relationships between men and women does not support, but condemns abuse.”
Owen Strachan, former president and executive director of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, criticized the new APA guidelines on Twitter as “hot garbage.”
“The culture that stigmatizes men primes them to fail,” said Strachan, associate professor of Christian theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri. “Instead of shaming men, we should: 1) Inspire men 2) Call them to leadership 3) Teach them nobility & virtue 4) Train them to manage emotion 5) Harness their abilities for good 6) Call them to Christ.”
Fredric Rabinowitz, one of the lead writers and a professor of psychology at the University of Redlands, said the primary purpose of the new guidelines is to help men and boys lead happy, healthy lives.
“We see that men have higher suicide rates, men have more cardiovascular disease and men are lonelier as they get older,” he told the New York Times. “We’re trying to help men by expanding their emotional repertoire, not trying to take away the strengths that men have.”
— Read on baptistnews.com/article/sbc-leader-says-apa-guidelines-on-toxic-masculinity-do-not-square-with-scripture/
Genesis 13; Matthew 12; Nehemiah 2; Acts 12
it is worth comparing the two italicized passages (Neh. 2; Acts 12:1–19).
The same God is behind both situations, of course. In both situations, a lone servant of God faces the challenge of building up and strengthening God’s people in the teeth of opposition from some pretty hostile customers. Both men are in danger, in part for political reasons, though Peter’s danger is the more immediate. Both are unflinching in their loyalty to the living God and to the mission to which each is called.
Thereafter the stories diverge. Having won the ear of the emperor, Nehemiah finds himself on the imperial frontier. He has a certain paper authority, but the locals are set on giving him a hard time. He proceeds step by step, wisely, winning the support of the local Jewish leaders, securing the supplies needed for building the wall, dismissing the opponents and all their wiles. For Nehemiah there are no miracles, no mighty displays of power, no angels in the night. There is only a great deal of risky and courageous work.
By contrast, Peter’s situation is much more restricted. He has been arrested and is in prison awaiting execution. Since James has already been killed, Peter has no reason to think he will escape the executioner’s sword. In a strange apparition that he mistakes for a dream, Peter is rescued by an angel; the chains fall away from him, the doors open of their own accord. Finding himself outside the prison walls, Peter comes to his senses and presents himself at the home of John Mark’s mother, where people have gathered to pray for him. Eventually he secures entrance, and in due course leaves for “another place” (12:17). In Peter’s case, to escape death is a triumph, and the faith of the church has been strengthened by what has happened. And it all happened because of a miraculous display of angelic help.
The lesson of these radically different experiences is one that we must learn again and again: God’s servants do not have the same gifts, the same tasks, the same success, or the same degree of divine intervention. It is partly a matter of gifts and calling; it is partly a matter of where we fit into God’s unfolding redemptive purposes. Has he placed us in times of declension, for example, or of revival; of persecution, or of major advance? Let God be God; let all his servants be faithful.[1]
[1] Carson, D. A. (1998). For the love of God: a daily companion for discovering the riches of God’s Word. (Vol. 2, p. 25). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
It should come as no surprise that the popular ‘Passion Conference’, lead by its Apostolic leader, Louie Giglio, espouses the New Apostolic Reformation’s dangerous ‘little god’ theology (also known as sonship). Not only do they espouse it, they openly advertise and promote it on social media. With thanks to Reformation Charlotte for pointing out serious doctrinal error.
Charlotte Reformation writes:
It’s well known that the popular Passion conferences every year host some highly questionable at best speakers. Among them have been the prosperity pimp-tress from Hillsong, Christine Caine, Matt Chandler of the Village Church, Hillsong LA pastor Chad Veach, popular bible-twister, Beth Moore, open-but-cautious charismatic bible teacher John Piper, and also, of course, Louie Giglio of Passion City Church.
A popular heresy among charismatic false teachers is little-god theology, or the belief that we as humans carry within us the potential to become God, or divine like God. This is not…
View original post 202 more words
The Mexican government is reportedly preparing for the caravan’s arrival, according to the Washington Post.
“We have information that a new caravan is forming to enter our country in mid-January,” said Olga Sánchez Cordero, the interior minister. “We are already taking the necessary steps to ensure the caravan enters in a safe and orderly way.”
“With this caravan, the goal is to give them a chance to work and have a better life, be it in Mexico or the United States,” added a taxi driver in the Honduran capital.
The size of the new caravan is unknown, but President Trump said on Thursday while he was in McAllen, Texas that the group forming is bigger that anything we’ve ever seen.
“There is another major caravan forming right now in Honduras, and so far we’re trying to break it up, and so far it’s bigger than anything we’ve ever seen, and a drone isn’t going to stop it, and a sensor isn’t going to stop it, but you know what’s going to stop it in its tracks?” Trump said. “A nice, powerful wall.”
Currently, there are thousands of Central American caravan migrants camping out in Tijuana, Mexico waiting for asylum claims to be approved by the US government.
Many of the Central Americans don’t want to wait for their asylum paperwork to be processed and approved so they are illegally crossing over into the United States where they are being released into the population.
Central Americans aren’t the only migrants embedded in the caravans headed towards the US.
The caravans from Honduras have been infiltrated by military-aged, virile men from Bangladesh, Haiti, Congo and Sri Lanka, according to embedded reporters.
This is especially troubling because Bangladesh has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world with a very high rate of Islamic terrorism and barbarism.
Investigative reporter Sara Carter was in McAllen, Texas this week and met two men from Bangladesh who crossed the border. According to Sara Carter, their journey took 3 months and cost $16,000 a piece.
Sara Carter did say in a follow up video that the two Bangladeshi men were apprehended by border patrol agents.
Another Caravan Forming in Honduras – Headed Northbound to US ‘Next Week’ — The Gateway Pundit
In response to leaks of congressional testimony to The Epoch Times (Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe) damaging to the prior narratives of the DOJ and FBI; the opposing side of the political continuum begins leaking transcripts to the New York Times(James Baker) favorable to the DOJ and specifically FBI. Damn these insufferable leakers, their agendas, and their weaponized political motives; all of them.
CTH suspected this bull sh*t was going to start as soon as we saw the first Lisa Page transcript leak.
As a result we are now reduced to reviewing information through the pre-filter of the media outlet delivering the analysis of the transcript; a process CTH hates with the passion of a thousand supernovas.
The New York Times leak-angle is to justify *why* the FBI contemplated opening an investigation on candidate, president-elect and president Trump . – SEE HERE – That said, sticking with the Epoch Times leak-angle on Lisa Page testimony for a moment, there is an aspect to the CIA activity of John Brennan which confirms prior suspicions.
Here’s the part that pertains to earlier CTH research on the issue of Brennan, the CIA, and more importantly Fusion-GPS contract employee Nellie Ohr who we confirmed also worked for the CIA:
Epoch Times […] Page staunchly maintained that any briefings given to the White House were always about the “Russian active measures effort” and were not in relation to “Crossfire Hurricane,” the FBI’s name for their counterintelligence investigation into the Trump-Russia allegations.
Brennan has admitted during congressional testimony that his intelligence helped establish the FBI counterintelligence investigation:
“I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred.”
This admission is important, particularly since Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) had previously disclosed thatno official intelligence was used to open the FBI’s investigation.
Brennan’s role was highlighted again during testimony, as one Representative questioning Page questioned her in relation to an Aug. 25, 2016, text message: “What are you doing after the CH brief?” CH almost certainly referred to “Crossfire Hurricane.”
Page was asked specifically about an event that occurred on the same day:
“It’s the same day that Director Brennan is briefing Harry Reid, is why I ask. And so what you’re saying is you were unaware that Director Brennan was briefing Harry Reid that same day?”
Page said she was unaware of Brennan’s briefing to Reid. She was then asked the following:
“You give a brief on August the 25th. Director Brennan is giving a brief. It’s not a Gang of Eight brief. It is a one-on-one, from what we can tell, a one-on-one briefing with Harry Reid at that point. And it becomes apparent, based on your text messages and based on Director Comey’s emails, that you all are aware that that conversation took place. Were you aware that Director Brennan had a briefing with Harry Reid and that you expected a letter from Harry Reid?”
Page noted that she remembered the letter sent by Reid, but seemed confused as to Brennan’s involvement and possible knowledge of the Steele dossier. Worth noting is that while some within the FBI likely had parts of the dossier in July, the Counterintelligence investigative team did not receive it until mid-September during a trip to Rome where they met personally with Steele.
The Representative, who was clearly aware of the disparity in timing, focused on precisely how Brennan might have been aware of the dossier in August:
Rep.: So what you’re saying is, is that you had no knowledge of these potential unverified memos prior to the middle part of September in your investigation?
Page: That is correct, sir.
Rep.: Okay. So on August 30th, you and Peter are going back and forth, and you go, “Here we go.” If you’ll look at 9:44:50 on August the 30th, you go, “Here we go.” And it’s referencing “Harry Reid Cites Evidence of Russian Tampering in the U.S. Vote and Seeks FBI.” Now, what happens is, and what I guess gives me a little bit of concern is, if you drop down, that if you drop down to the same day, August 30th, 9:45, it says: “The D”—which I assume means Director—”said at the a.m. brief that Reid had called him and told him that he would be sending the letter.”
Page: Okay.
Rep.: So you get a brief that says, well, we got the letter, but it’s almost like it’s a coordinated effort between Harry Reid and the FBI Director, because obviously, he’s briefing you.
After a bit of back and forth, Page responded, “I don’t know what Harry Reid was told or why or what the purpose of Brennan [was.]”
The Representative pressed on:
“Why would Director Brennan be aware of things that the FBI was not aware of at this particular point when it actually would potentially involve, according to Peter Strzok’s word on January 10th of 2017, an unverified salacious set of memos?”
And then the big reveal:
Rep.: We have documents that would suggest that in that briefing the dossier was mentioned to Harry Reid and then obviously we’re going to have to have conversations. Does that surprise you that Director Brennan would be aware [of the dossier]?
Page: Yes, sir. Because with all due honesty, if Director Brennan—so we got that information from our source, right? The FBI got this information from our source. If the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of that nor did the CIA provide it to us if they did, because the first time we —
Rep.: We do know there are multiple sources.
Page: I do know that. I do know that the information ultimately found its way lots of different places, certainly in October of 2016. But if the CIA as early as August, in fact, had those same reports, I am not aware of—I’m not aware of that and nor do I believe they provided them to us, and that would be unusual.
Rep.: Were you aware that Christopher Steele had conversations or multiple conversations with Fusion GPS and others outside of just working special intel for you?
Page: As of August of 2016, I don’t know who Christopher Steele is. I don’t know that he’s an FBI source. I don’t know what he does. I have never heard of him in all of my life. So let me just sort of be clear. When the FBI first receives the reports that are known as the dossier from an FBI agent who is Christopher Steele’s handler in September of 2016 at that time, we do not know who—we don’t know why these reports have been generated. We don’t know for what purpose.
A bit later in the discussion, the representative asked another question:
“So you don’t know whether it’s a coordinated effort to get you those documents or not at that point in September?
Page responds, “Coordinated by whom, sir?
Rep.: Anybody, other than a confidential human source saying, “Listen, I’ve got reason to be concerned and bring it to you.” It could be coordinated by the CIA. It could have been coordinated by Fusion GPS. You don’t know.
Page: At the time that we received the documentation, no. What we have is the preexisting relationship with the source and the reliability of his prior reporting. (more)
The key issue here is one of timing. Lisa Page states emphatically the FBI investigative unit first became aware of the Steele Dossier in mid-September 2016. However, CIA Director John Brennan is demonstrably briefing Gang-of-Eight Senators (including Harry Reid) in August 2016 on the material in the dossier.
Page says: “If the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of that nor did the CIA provide it to us if they did.” This cuts to the heart of the dossier origination as our CTH research discovered it back in 2017.
Billionaire supporter of Marco Rubio, Paul Singer, originally contracted with Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS) for opposition research on Trump in late-fall 2015. Glenn Simpson and his wife Mary Jacoby had extensive pre-existing research files on Paul Manafort and Russia dating back years.
Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson then hires Nellie Ohr at the end of November 2015 to work on the Trump project. Nellie Ohr works on that project throughout Dec ’15, Jan, Feb, March, April 2016. The Fusion-GPS contract with Paul Singer was discontinued in March 2016; but Nellie Ohr continued working on it. The reason why we put Nellie at the center of that graphic more than a year ago is because of her importance:
In April 2016, after Paul Singer cancelled the contract with Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson’s wife Mary Jacoby goes to the White House (April 19th, 2016). Immediately thereafter Team Clinton pick up the research and start paying Glenn Simpson (Fusion-GPS) to continue developing it. However, at the same time Clinton picked up the Trump project, Fusion contracts Christopher Steele to write his research dossier.
Mrs. Nellie Ohr was not only a Fusion GPS contracted employee, she was also part of the CIA’s Open Source Works, in Washington DC (link) Both Mr. Bruce Ohr and Mrs Nellie Ohr worked on a collaborative CIA group project surrounding International Organized Crime. (pdf here) Page #30 Screen Shot Below
When you overlay the timeline with the demonstrable activity, it becomes transparently easy to see exactly what was taking place.
♦ When Glenn Simpson hired Nellie Ohr (Nov ’15) he was hiring a CIA analyst and Russian expert. Nellie Ohr had research access to the FBI/NSA database. It is almost guaranteed Mrs. Ohr’s work in Dec, Jan, Feb, March was done by exploiting her “contractor” access to the database through FISA-702(16)(17) searches.
♦ It is not coincidental that the exact timeline when the NSA compliance officer noted an uptick in FISA-702(16)(17) database search abuses (November ’15 through April ’16) coincides perfectly with Nellie Ohr’s contract with Fusion GPS. The FISA court report from Judge Rosemary Collyer speaks directly to this timeline:
♦ Glenn Simpson hired Ohr in November 2015, Nellie took the material already assembled by Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby in years passed, and used her CIA access to the FISA database to prove it, and enhance it. She eventually built out more evidence and expanded the research. By mid April 2016 Nellie Ohr had amassed a bunch of illegally obtained information surrounding the Trump empire, and, additionally, had information on Manafort and Russia etc.
♦ When Team Clinton get involved in April 2016 (that team includes Brennan Inc.), they needed to weaponize all of Nellie Ohr’s research. That’s where Chris Steele is brought in to receive the Nellie Ohr information, launder it into an intelligence product, where it became “the Steele Dossier”, and then inject it back into the intelligence community. CIA Director Brennan always knew of the material before the FBI did, because Brennan was part of the construction team.
Christopher Steele is not the actual author of the material inside the ‘Steele Dossier’, but rather he was attempting to wash away evidence of FISA database abuse by finding alternate confirmation for the underlying material. Once he could provide ¹plausible secondary origination for Ohr’s material, Steele sent it back to Fusion-GPS in chapters.
Nellie Ohr was, is, and will always be, the factual author of the material inside the Steele Dossier. Notably Nellie Ohr refused to testify to the joint house committee citing spousal privilege as the excuse to avoid questioning.
Nellie Ohr, a CIA contract employee, is at the epicenter of the Steele Dossier; and as a result she is the person who created the basis for all of the FISA surveillance warrants that exploited the dossier for approval.
Of course CIA Director Brennan was briefing Harry Reid in August 2016 on the dossier material a month prior to the FBI unit receiving it…. Brennan helped create it.
¹”plausible” – the Cohen-in-Prague mistake within the Steele Dossier is evidence of Nellie Ohr mistakenly interpreting a database search query result for the wrong Michael Cohen.
The Presbyterian Church in the United States is divided into two camps, the PCA and the USA branches. The Presbyterian Church USA has been 100% pro-LGBTQ for many years now, a complete and total Laodicean trainwreck. But mainline Presbyterians still took some comfort in knowing that the other branch, the Presbyterian Church in America was still standing strong. Well, recent events at two Presbyterian Churches (PCA) in St. Louis are showing that not to be true.
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;” 1 Timothy 4:1 (KJV)
The South City Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St. Louis is hosting all sorts of interesting events these days, not the least of which featured the pastor’s daughter preaching a message on ‘transgender Jesus” that included lines like “Remember, your God who is black, who is transgendered, who is differently able, who is non-English speaking is coming”. But this comes as no surprise as the PCA has been nearly silent on the Revoice Conference held at Memorial Presbyterian church that drew widespread criticismfrom conservative Christians around the US. The Revoice Conference promoted homosexual unions and the notion that “gay Christians” could be a healthy and thriving part of the Church.
“…But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” Romans 7:13b (KJV)
The greatest attack on the church right now is the relentless pursuit by the LGBTQ to rewrite the Bible and rework the gospel so that sin does not appear to be sin, but acceptable. The LGBTQ does not want tolerance, and they do not want acceptance. What they are after is control of everything on every level. Sadly, they appear to be winning because Bible believing Christians are too afraid to stand up to this attack and tell them no. The LGBTQ is gaining ground because the Christian church is giving it to them.
FROM REFORMATION CHARLOTTE: More recently, however, a PCA (you read that right, PCA, not PCUSA) church in St. Louis has invited a transgender rights activist in a lesbian relationship to teach the members of their church and anyone else who wants to join how to “celebrate the lives of transgender people by “reclaiming” Martin Luther King’s legacy.
The hosting church is South City Church in St. Louis, and, according to their website, were organized as a particular church in the PCA in 2008. Pastored by Mike Higgins, Higgins is also Adjunct Professor of Applied Theology and Dean of Students at Covenant Theological Seminary and serves on the board for Faith for Justice who is sponsoring the conference.
Jay-Marie Hill holds the title of Transgender Education and Advocacy Program Coordinator at the ACLU and according to their website, is “an activist, musician, and educator who lives a life designed to help our world ascend beyond gendered and racialized norms. Hill founded Music Freedom Dreams to build systemic change in queer and trans communities around the country.”
According to Hill’s own website, she is “originally from Oakland, CA. but now works out of St. Louis, MO building a very Black, very Queer life with their incredible partner, Kayla” READ MORE
In July 2018, over 400 people gathered in St. Louis for the first annual Revoice Conference.
Rashida Tlaib immediately declared victory for Allah after she walked up to the lectern to give her speech.
After greeting the crowd in Arabic, Rashida Tlaib said, “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim,” which means, “In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate.”
This very phrase begins every chapter in the Quran except one and is seen as a Muslim war cry.
In fact, this is the very same phrase Bowe Bergdahl’s father said in front of the White House in 2014 after Obama traded Taliban terrorists in exchange for traitor Bergdahl.
Back in 2014, Brigitte Gabriel of Act for America told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that this phrase declares the greatness of Allah over the land, calling it a “war cry of Allah” and a Muslim victory call.
Muslims often try to downplay this victory war cry as an ordinary everyday prayer, however it is seen as a ‘war cry of Allah’ by hardliners.
Rashida Tlaib also invoked Mohammed, the founder of Islam, saying “Mohammed was all about justice. He was all about pushing up against all of the things that you see from slavery from what we see now, if he was here today, he would be stronger and stronger and pushing up against the kind of injustice that we see coming out of the White House.”
WOW.
Rashida Tlaib spoke for 7 minutes, speaking in both English and Arabic and not once did she say the word “American.”
Tlaib did however, say the words “Muslim,” “Islam” and “Palestinian” several times. The only time she said “The United States” was when she trashed President Trump.
VIDEO:
Democrat Palestinian-American Rashida Tlaib was draped in a Palestinian flag as she celebrated her primary victory with supporters in August.
Video taken of Tlaib’s victory speech for the August 7th primary showed an emotional Tlaib being embraced by her Palestinian mother,Fatima Elabed, who took the flag off her daughter and draped it on her own shoulders.
No American flag was seen in video taken of Tlaib’s speech.
Tlaib also went on a profane impeachment tirade the day she was sworn into office on a Quran, calling President Trump a “motherf*cker!”
OK, a few quick confessions: I know very little about American Bible teacher Beth Moore, and up till this point I have not had a desire to learn more. Thus when a little storm erupted recently on the social media over something she said, I paid little attention to it. However, someone just now asked me particularly about her comments, so I gave a generic response.
But I decided to look into it a bit more. Let me say a few more introductory remarks before specifically commenting on her tweet about Bible reading. As I have said so often now, while there certainly are such things as heresies and heretics, we also need to guard against becoming heresy hunters, condemning everyone plus their uncle if they do not think exactly as we do.
I believe the heresy hunters who condemn just about everyone else besides themselves and their followers can cause just as much damage to the cause of Christ as real heretics can. I really have little time for such heresy hunters. And I have given detailed reasons as to why this is the case: billmuehlenberg.com/2014/04/09/on-heresy-hunters/
And if you want to take all this a bit further, here are two more articles on this:
billmuehlenberg.com/2016/01/07/six-theses-on-truth-error-heresy-and-disagreement/
billmuehlenberg.com/2018/03/12/on-heresy-hunters-again/
Hopefully those three articles make a careful case as to what I believe on such matters. But back to Beth Moore. As I mentioned, I know little about her. But I have seen much about her on the social media – both positive and negative. However, as I have come to learn over the years, one has to be a bit cautious here.
There is a lot of fake news on the social media. Moreover, this avalanche of both positive and negative commentary is true of basically any public Christian figure, pastor or leader. They ALL will be praised or denounced on the social media and elsewhere. There is just no avoiding that.
Indeed, I am sure that if you googled my name with the word “heretic” added in the search field, you will find plenty of pieces seeking to prove that I am an arch heretic, and likely a very good candidate for the Antichrist. I certainly am aware of plenty of Christians who think that way about me.
So I already know that if I type in a search phrase with the words “Beth Moore heretic” I will get plenty of hits on google. Indeed, I just did, and sure enough: some 129,000 hits came back! Again, maybe one day I will make an in-depth study of her and her ministry and report my findings, but not just now.
That is really not my calling. Yes I have often called out clear-cut cases of apostasy and heresy, and I will continue to do so. But as I also keep saying, far too often we call someone a heretic when they are NOT a heretic. They just happen to have differing theological views on some issues, and that in itself certainly may not make them a heretic.
Anyway, with all that introductory material out of the way, let me go back to what she actually said about Bible reading that caused such a stir. Without going back to see what she actually said, I offered my social media questioner this quick reply:
Thanks – I have not followed that incident closely, so let me offer just a quick, generic response. It can be said that one might have a lot of head knowledge of Scripture and not really know and love God. That can happen often. But one cannot really know and love God without regularly and prayerfully reading the Word of God.
OK, so now I have just done a quick search on what this recent firestorm was all about. I assume the first piece I clicked on gives us a more or less accurate account of what took place. According to this article, Moore first tweeted this:
Spending time with God and spending time with the Bible are not the same thing. The Bible is the Word of God, crucial to knowing Him, but it’s not God. We can study our Bibles till the 2nd coming & leave God completely out of it. We can grow in facts & never grow a whit in faith.
And after some reaction to this, she said further:
Do not be deceived. People who study the Scriptures constantly and are continually mean-spirited, rude, slanderous and, aside their religious rhetoric, bereft of outward evidences of the Holy Spirit are having Bible study without God. He affects us. You can take that to the bank. I will emphasize once more that my point is NOT studying Scripture less. I am a proponent of daily Bible study. It’s my practice. My life work and my delight. My point is that we need to God in our study of His Word. I’m just saying don’t leave Jesus out of Bible study.
mychristiandaily.com/beth-moore-stirs-the-pot-by-stating-reading-the-bible-is-not-time-with-god/
As I said, I am not at this point interested in becoming an authority on Beth Moore and her beliefs, nor in defending her. She may well have said or taught unhelpful things elsewhere in the past. But on this particular matter, it seems what she said may not be all that harmful, and is the sort of thing I might also say – albeit perhaps a bit differently.
Indeed, as I have said elsewhere, we all know of Christians who have a ton of head knowledge. Their minds are crammed full of theology and even plenty of biblical knowledge. But they seem to live like the devil. They can be the most ungracious, unloving, uncaring people around.
Yet they are so very proud of how much they KNOW. Now make no mistake about it: I have said zillions of times that yes, we must know about our faith. We must know what we believe and why. We need biblical knowledge desperately. There is far too much biblical ignorance and theological illiteracy in the church today.
But as had been pointed out, the difference between heaven and hell is around 18 inches. If the heart is left cold and untouched by the Spirit of God while the head is absolutely full with knowledge alone, then you can go to hell just as easily as any pagan can.
The biblical aim is to have sound biblical knowledge in our heads, but ALSO a heart and life that have been radically transformed by the Spirit, based on that knowledge. Mere head knowledge will do you no good, just as a soft and fuzzy heart with no biblical knowledge will also be problematic.
People who are emotional and “loving” but devoid of sound doctrine are easy prey for Satan and the cults. But people who have all the “right” beliefs and doctrines but have a heart cold as ice are also easily manipulated by the devil. So we need to avoid both extremes.
And if that was the main point Moore was trying to make in her tweets, then I have no real problems with it, and would basically agree with it. Again, I am not necessarily seeking to fully defend her here on this particular matter. And even if I were, to defend her here on this one issue does NOT mean I might approve of all she says.
But my main reason I guess in penning this piece is to warn against another error: some Christians are as eager as all get out to find something – anything, even the slightest thing – as a gotcha moment. Anything will do as an excuse for them to exclaim: “See, I told you she was an arch heretic! Death to the apostate!!”
Well, perhaps in other areas she is, and again, I would have to explore such things further and more carefully. But it is not a good Christian practice to just run on hearsay, Facebook memes, or rumours about such things. This post then was really about just two things:
1) Answering a direct question from a person about a particular issue;
2) Giving a broad-brush look at how we might seek to wisely and biblically deal with such matters.
As always, we need to avoid the nasty and unbiblical extremes. Pretending there is no such thing as heresy and claiming there are no heretics is a dangerous place to be in. But so too is the one where we discover heretics under every rock, behind every door, in every church, and in every ministry. That too is more the work of Satan than it is of God.
So let’s pray to get the biblical balance right here. That is absolutely essential.
In a recent outburst on Twitter, Southern Baptist pastor and race-baiter, Thabiti Anyabwile, suggests he’d be in favor of enlisting foreign nations to commit voter fraud, as he states,
If I were the head of state for an American ally, I would be working to convince other American allies to work together to hack the next election to choose for the US a normal president so we could return things to normal. The world can’t afford more of this.
Genesis 13; Matthew 12; Nehemiah 2; Acts 12
the picture is a lovely one. Jesus is so tender and gentle that when he finds a “bruised reed” (Matt. 12:20), instead of snapping it off thoughtlessly, he binds it up in the hope that it will rejuvenate itself. If the wick of a candle has been reduced to a smoldering ember, instead of snuffing it out—thereby extinguishing it completely—Jesus fans it back into flame. He will act this way, we are told, “till he leads justice to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope” (12:20–21).
The words are drawn from Isaiah 42:1–4, one of the “Suffering Servant” passages of Isaiah. Many people expected a Messiah who would come with decisive and irresistible power and bring justice to the earth, or at least to Israel. But it appears unlikely that many people linked the coming King with Isaiah’s promised servant. That is why the notion of a kingdom that dawned in the context of meekness and blessing, and restrained in the matter of climactic judgment, was so unexpected. Yet here was Jesus, healing the sick among the people—and then warning them not to tell people who he was (12:15–16). Small wonder Matthew sees in such conduct a direct fulfillment of Isaiah’s lovely words.
Even the surrounding verses betray something of the same theme. While Jesus is healing someone on the Sabbath, his opponents try to kill him for ostensibly breaking the Sabbath (12:9–14); while Jesus casts out demons from a poor victim, his opponents are ready to write Jesus off as the devil himself (12:22–28). Their very harshness, in the name of an alleged orthodoxy, contrasts sharply with his gentleness.
In addition to the great christological implications, this passage discloses something of the nature of the kingdom into which Christians have been drawn, and therefore of the conduct that is demanded of us. On the one hand, as Matthew has made clear in the previous chapter, Jesus’ witnesses are called to a holy and courageous boldness, a firm fidelity to the Gospel that is willing to endure ostracism and even persecution. But we are not to display the kind of “strength” that is hard and harsh, the kind of uprightness that is angry and condescending, the kind of courage that is merely ruthless, the kind of witness that rants and manipulates. We follow the Lord Jesus, who tells his followers, “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart” (11:29). That means that we too, while we proclaim “justice to the nations” (12:18), resolve not to quarrel or cry out, clanging cymbals in the streets.[1]
[1] Carson, D. A. (1998). For the love of God: a daily companion for discovering the riches of God’s Word. (Vol. 1, p. 25). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
•Your emails
•Why do people paint Democrats as the more moral party?
•What do I do with my sins from before I was saved?
•How do I start a conversation about the Gospel?
•Does Todd disagree with Paul about allegory in the Bible?
•What are Sins that lead to death?
•Can miracles still happen where there are no Bibles?
•Did Joyce Meyer recant her false teachings? No
•What is the difference between Pentecostals and Charismatics?
Truth2Freedom's Blog 