Thursday, December 26, 2013

The real reason for the Duck Dynasty Debacle

Particular episodes often have broader significances than the particular import of the events in isolation. In context, these events lie on fault-lines of larger issues. The support for Phil Robertson has little to do with Phil Robertson in particular and more with fundamental cultural conflict in which the Duck Dynasty Debacle is but one part. There are two larger issues at play here: intolerance from those who claim to represent the best interests of the homosexual community and threats to freedom of speech by large corporations.

The reality is that there is intolerance from those who claim to represent the best interests of the homosexual community. This is rooted in a prevalent homosexualist perspective on identity issues. Many homosexuals have the notion that their sexual orientation is not merely an attribute, but the defining attribute that represents their core identity. They reason then that it is impossible to disagree with "the homosexual" lifestyle without it being personal hostility towards homosexuals. This view, regardless of whether its holder is homosexual or heterosexual, is called homofascism.

Friday, November 29, 2013

The Real Reason Behind the Pope's Recent Attack on Capitalism

The following article is also available in PDF format here.

The Pope recently published the Evangelii Gaudium, Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis, 2013. Here he lays out his official proclamation of the ministry priorities of the Roman Catholic Church. While there are a number of nice sounding platitudes contained, they mask a very dark agenda. This document will examine some of the passages in the papal decree to show that the Pope is trying the build the religio-economic system called Mystery Babylon. This will result in the loss of freedom globally, increased poverty (in spite of its stated purpose to reduce poverty), and the promotion of a global system of worship that will be directed at nature, towards Satan, and away from God.

The papal document is dived into numbered sections. The quotation are in italics and my analysis in normal type. Bible quotations are in both italics and bold with the appropriate verse citations.

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

The Pope, in his analysis of the causes, of poverty, demonizes freedom. He blames the free market as the problem. He concluded that faith in the free market " expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. " He also seemingly demonizes prosperity.

The End of Economic Freedom The Pope blames free markets as the root of all economic evils.

No to a financial system which rules rather than serves
57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs.”

58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.
The Pope envisions an economic reform in which political leaders take a leading role.

59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called “end of history”, since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.

The Pope is NOT calling for people to act within the current socio-economic system in a way that is compassionate, as he has condemned this system as inherently evil. He is calling for the abolition of this system, which he defines as free markets. He wishes to replace the current social order with a new social order.

60. Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. This serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an “education” that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.

The Pope blames free markets as promoting "inordinate consumption" which exacerbates inequality and engenders violence. Now a general moral condemnation of excessive consumption is well within the purview of Christian morality. The pope, however, is not appealing here only to the consciences of free agents, but is calling for the creations of mechanism of centralized control over economic resources, specifically "decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality." The establishment of these things implies that there would be elites who would be given power and authority to decide for the rest of us what is an appropriate level of consumption.

204. We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.

Sections 205 and 206 clearly present a paradigm for centralized control of the entire global economy. This paradigm defines charity as a " principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones." As such, this would involve major institutions have decision-making role. Who does the Pope have in mind to lead this charge. To the pope, " It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and healthcare." Political and business leaders would work together in partnership to affect this economic transformation.

205. I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots – and not simply the appearances – of the evils in our world! Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good. We need to be convinced that charity “is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)”. I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor! It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and healthcare. Why not turn to God and ask him to inspire their plans? I am firmly convinced that openness to the transcendent can bring about a new political and economic mindset which would help to break down the wall of separation between the economy and the common good of society.
Section 206 continues the though expressed in section 205, applying it on a global level. The network of governmental- business partnerships would be global.

206. Economy, as the very word indicates, should be the art of achieving a fitting management of our common home, which is the world as a whole. Each meaningful economic decision made in one part of the world has repercussions everywhere else; consequently, no government can act without regard for shared responsibility. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find local solutions for enormous global problems which overwhelm local politics with difficulties to resolve. If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation, ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just of a few.

The pope is spot on in his diagnosis of there is a growing gap between the few rich and the many poor. The Pope's diagnosis of the root cause, however, is way off base. It is not the free market that has caused the growing gap between the rich and the poor and the concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. It is the absence of freedom:

  1. There is no free market when either a few corporation controls the lion's share of the world's wealth or all economic activity is regulated in detail by the state.
  2. This concentration of wealth was made possible by economic and legal instruments created by the state. The creation of artificial persons called corporations extended privileges from the state to its stakeholders, particularly shielding its officer and stockholder from liability. The creation of corporation allowed for the concentration of and creation of wealth on a scale never seen before. The rise of central banks allowed for the mammoth levels of debt that funnel money to the top.
  3. The super-rich corporations maintain and expand their position through the use of privileges received from the state that are not available to others. Two examples of this were the bailouts and the one year extension of the individual mandate on ObamaCare. These were given to corporations but were not made available to individuals.
  4. The history of Colonialism shows that its economic paradigm, mercantilism was a partnership between corporations and European states. Those who had privileged relationships with, or were skilled at acquiring such relations, ended up with the lion's share of the wealth produced by the Colonial operations that were done at the expense of the people groups who were exploited.
  5. The history of economic regulation shows that government regulators are in bed with the corporations they are supposed to regulate. In fact, one of the biggest challenges to regulation is that many regulation officers routinely go through a revolving door between employment at regulatory agencies and employment at the industries they are supposed to regulate.
  6. The history of economic regulation shows that government regulators are in bed with the corporations they are supposed to regulate. In fact, one of the biggest challenges to regulation is that many regulation officers routinely go through a revolving door between employment at regulatory agencies and employment at the industries they are supposed to regulate.

Some of the worst offenders in Capitalism are former socialists. leading Communist bureaucrats became the Oligarch after the Soviet Union disintegrated. China started out as a Communist nation but is now Communist in name only. China today is the closest parallel to Italian Fascism, where corporations and the government work together to break the power of the people.

Any partnership between business and government will inevitably fail to help the poor. Business leaders eventually realize that it is in their vested interest to have a system of government regulation that they can game to acquire a competitive advantage. Government bureaucrats and politicians eventually realize that doing business with business people scheming to game the government was in their personal and private interests. It could be either lucrative financially or politically. It is also only inevitable that politicians would realize that they could vote to spend money from the treasury to their favorite political, personal, and business interests. It was inevitable that both would join forces to break the power of the people.

The Pope's plan, a partnership between business leaders and government, is the cause of the current economic crisis and will make the problem even worse. What the Pope is proposing is Corporatism that will lead to Fascism.

A one-world religious system
This Fascism is not, in the Pope's eyes, merely about political economy; it has a profoundly spiritual foundation. In the last paragraph of section 205, the Pope asks " Why not turn to God and ask him to inspire their plans? I am firmly convinced that openness to the transcendent can bring about a new political and economic mindset which would help to break down the wall of separation between the economy and the common good of society." The Pope's economic and political program is spiritual at its root, but what type of spirituality is in view here?

While the Pope is considered the top clergy person in all of Christianity, we should not assume that this spirituality is automatically Christian. The Pope here makes a very broad statement, referring to this as " openness to the transcendent." This can be broadly interpreted by a variety of religious traditions - even non-Christian religion can interpret this in light of their own religious perspectives.

The Pope sees ecumenicalism is contributing to the "unity of the human family (sec 245)." In sections 244-245, Christian ecumenicalism (unity within the body of Christ) is quickly morphed into global ecumenicalism that includes all religious beliefs under one umbrella.

244. Commitment to ecumenism responds to the prayer of the Lord Jesus that “they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). The credibility of the Christian message would be much greater if Christians could overcome their divisions and the Church could realize “the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her children who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her”.[192] We must never forget that we are pilgrims journeying alongside one another. This means that we must have sincere trust in our fellow pilgrims, putting aside all suspicion or mistrust, and turn our gaze to what we are all seeking: the radiant peace of God’s face. Trusting others is an art and peace is an art. Jesus told us: “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Mt 5:9). In taking up this task, also among ourselves, we fulfil the ancient prophecy: “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares” (Is 2:4).

245. In this perspective, ecumenism can be seen as a contribution to the unity of the human family. At the Synod, the presence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, His Holiness Bartholomaios I, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, His Grace Rowan Williams, was a true gift from God and a precious Christian witness.[193]

The Bible clearly teaches that there is only one name given under heaven under which men must be saved. Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5). Christian orthodoxy teaches that Christ is the only way to be saved. The Pope, however, has a different message to say about the relationship of Christian orthodoxy to other religions.

254. Non-Christians, by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”,[199] and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”.[200] But due to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace, God’s working in them tends to produce signs and rites, sacred expressions which in turn bring others to a communitarian experience of journeying towards God.[201] While these lack the meaning and efficacy of the sacraments instituted by Christ, they can be channels which the Holy Spirit raises up in order to liberate non-Christians from atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences. The same Spirit everywhere brings forth various forms of practical wisdom which help people to bear suffering and to live in greater peace and harmony. As Christians, we can also benefit from these treasures built up over many centuries, which can help us better to live our own beliefs.

Pope Francis believes that non-Christians can be saved by following their conscience. He makes several additional statement that are not only removed from orthodoxy but indicate he intends to establish a global apostate church. He argues that these other religions can bring people into a " communitarian experience of journeying towards God." He blasphemously attributes these religions as the work of the Holy Spirit to liberate non-Christians from " atheistic immanentism or from purely individual religious experiences." Atheistic immanentism is, without doubt, a reference to the philosophy of philosophic materialism that denies any transcendent experiences. What does he mean by " purely individual religious experiences?" The Pope sets this term in antithesis to "communitarian experience." He is making a claim, that in spite of the inclusive sounding language, is actually quite exclusive: the Pope is saying that this " communitarian experience of journeying towards God." is the only valid religious experience. Only those who join the ecumenical movement are of God in the eyes of the Pope.

Given that the Pope asserts greater efficacy of "sacraments instituted by Christ, " he envision this communitarian journey as ending at the door of the Vatican. The Pope is making the Vatican a haven of idolatry and Naturalistic religion in order to have communion with false religions, while excluding the true followers of Christ. He forget the stern admonition of Paul to avoid mingling with idols and false or Satanic things. While the people of God can be acquaintances and co-belligerents with non-Christians concerning secular issues and, we are to have no part in their counterfeit spirituality which leads those who are deceived to the feet of Satan. We are to practice separation from the world where spiritual issues are concerned, especially the most intimate issues of our lives. We are to avoid spiritual and intimate relations with those who are not of Christ.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." - 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

The Vatican is being controlled by the same dark spirit that proclaims that the pope is the vice-ruler of Christ on earth and started the Inquisition, the only difference is that there is a change of methodology. The Papacy is using Orwellian double-speak: exclusion in the name of inclusion. This is the promotion of Mystery Babylon. The Pope's economic program without doubt, part of the Agenda 21 program that will imposes corporate and statist control over every resource on planet earth, this program is described in greater detail in chapter 10 of Mystery Babylon Rising. The religious program is, without doubt, part of the United Nations religious program to impose Pagan, naturalistic spirituality on the world. This program is described in greater detail in chapter 11 of Mystery Babylon Rising.

The following article is also available in PDF format here.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Does God Still Speak Today?

Since the Reformation, and particularly since The birth of modern Pentecostalism at the Azusa Street Revival, the church has been divided over whether "charismatic gifts" are operative today. John MacArthur, in particular, is an outspoken opponent of charismatic gifts. He is a Cessationist - one who believes that the charismatic gifts ceased when the first generation of apostles died off.

MacArthur repeats a common proof-text that Cessationists use to argue that revelatory gifts, specifically prophecy, have eased. It is found in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12
" Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. "

- 1Cor 13:8-12

Master's Seminary, which MacArthur heads, has produced a document that argues that the phrase " that which is perfect" refers to the formation of the New Testament Canon(esp page 2/188). There is nothing in the text that mentions the NT canon. It is purely reading man's theology into the text something that isn't there. The document parses the Greek ultra-hard in order to make room to insert this man-made idea.

The master's seminary document concedes that the coming of the perfect refers to maturity and completion, but does not allow these concepts to speak for themselves, but puts these idea in a straight-jacket by parsing obscurities in the Greek. MacArthur misses the forest for the trees. I shall let these idea speak for themselves in this article.

The Greek word translated perfect is teleios - meaning completeness. The text contrast this completeness with that which in part. The text could have easily read "When that which is complete is come, that which is in part shall pass away." What is that which is complete?

There are three context clues which tell us what this is and when it will happen: These are maturity and a changes in human epistemology (philosophy of knowledge) for believers.

It is written in verse 11, " When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." Maturity is one demarcation of the coming of that which is complete. Eph 4:11-16 described apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers as given to equip the church until she "attains the stature of the fullness of Christ, a perfect man." The Greek word teleios also appears here to describe a mature adult church. Complete maturation of the church requires resurrection bodies, as flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:35-54, particularly vs 50). While the church can reach a place of being "not immature," or literally "not green (Rev 14:15) in the corruptible body," it can only fully mature by being harvested into resurrection bodies.

The second context clue is given in verse 12. " For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." This is describing a two phase change in epistemology. to the ancients, seeing through a glass darkly meant looking at a mirror of polished metal. These mirrors gave a good reflection of the big picture, but were poor at showing fine detail - details were fuzzy in these mirrors. We now see a big picture with a clear outline but fuzzy details. It is only when that which is complete is come, will we see everything with clarity.

It is written, that when that which is complete is come, that " then shall I know even as also I am known. (vs 12)." The ability to know as I am known means that the subjective filters of our limited perspective are taken away. We will be able to see ourselves as other see us; we won't be limited to one partial perspective, as we are now. The canonization of the New Testament did not take away these filters; it provided an anchor to counteract the tendencies of these filters to push us towards relativism, allowing us to be anchored in the truth. The Bible is a compass that allows us to truly proclaim "thus saith the Lord" in spite of the limited perspective we have by giving us enough of God's perspective to know some things truly.

When the resurrection of the saints occurs (1 Corinthians 15:35-54), the glorified bodies of the saints will have abilities far more advanced than our currently corruptible bodies allow. These will include advanced capacity for knowledge. Our epistemology will change. We will not need partial spiritual revelatory gifts because we will have access to all of the knowledge of God in its fullness. That which is complete will occur at the resurrection of the saints; until then we need all of the partial s that God is willing to give us to live our current, earthly lives in His strength.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

The Coming Death of the Bill of Rights

There are emerging trends in the law that will result in the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments of The United States Constitution ceasing to have legal force in American Courts. While this article is not about "gay rights" issues, more accurately called homofascism1, the Homofascist movement is becoming the vehicle through which this loss of liberty is affected. Chai R. Feldblum, who is a law professor at Georgetown who self-identifies as a lesbian2, is promoting a new paradigm for adjudicating liberty claims in an article in the Brooklyn law Review called Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion3. This article will explain her paradigm, critique her paradigm, and then show why it is relevant to the debate over freedom.

A new, subjective paradigm for interpreting rights is emerging
Feldblum right out of the gate makes her point when she says " Your religious belief - your belief liberty interest, as I hope to explain below - is necessarily curtailed by the existence of a law that prohibits you from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status."4 This, however, raises a question. What if the law is unconstitutional. Doesn't the First Amendment of the Constitution restrict the government from encroaching on religious liberty. Feldblum wants to do away with the first amendment by imposing a new interpretive paradigm in constitutional law.

" Second, I want to suggest that the best framework for dealing with the conflict between some people's religious beliefs and LGBT people's identity liberty is to analyze religious people's claims as belief liberty interests under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, rather than as free exercise claims under the First Amendment. "5

She wants the Due Process clause to trump the First Amendment. She suggests that the First Amendment is not the only source of protection for religious people. What she fails to disclose is that the First Amendment is the strongest legal protection for religious people because it clearly and explicitly defines religious liberty. Her new paradigm seeks to game the Due Process Clause to change the rules.

She suggests that Supreme Court Justice David Souter, in his concurring opinion in Washington v Glucksberg6, hints at this new paradigm7. This paradigm, as we shall see, replaces objective criteria for judging the constitutionality of a law with subjective criteria.

According to Feldman, " Justice Souter finds guidance for this approach in Justice Harlan's dissent from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds in Poe v. Ullman:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. 8

What this means is that if a judge "finds" a right that is not explicitly disclosed but is deemed present in the due process that is contrary to an explicitly stated right, the explicitly stated right does not limit the rights that are allegedly hidden in the "rational continuum." This principle, if consistently applied, takes the explicit guarantees of religious freedom, freedom of speech, and other freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights completely out of the equation as one could no longer appeal to the plain meaning of the text as an argument in court.

Souter, in Washington vs Glucksberg, is clearly pushing towards a subjective standard of review. He writes.

" It is only when the legislation's justifying principle, critically valued, is so far from being commensurate with the individual interest as to be arbitrarily or pointlessly applied that the statute must give way. Only if this standard points against the statute can the individual claimant be said to have a constitutional right. 9"

While Souter does directly not do away with the strict standard10, this standard clearly stands contrary to it. Souter is saying that a statue only gives way if it is " arbitrarily or pointlessly applied. " There is no need to demand that state conform to a strict standard or even have a burden of proof. Historically, encroachments on rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights were subjected to strict scrutiny11, which means that the state must show that they have a compelling interest and that the statute is necessary to fulfilling the requirements of this compelling interest.

Not only is Souter hinting that a statue only need not be arbitrary, but removes original intent of the legislative body from the equation. It is not " legislation's justifying principle " as set forth by the legislative body, but as " critically valued, " that is counted. It is the judges take that all freedom rest in this paradigm.

Feldblum clearly supports this paradigm shift, and proceeds to cite numerous references to make her case that Justice Kennedy used this paradigm in deciding Lawrence v Texas12. This is especially noteworthy as Kennedy is a swing vote on the Court and could very well be the vehicle through which the strict scrutiny that protect our fundamental rights is abolished. I do not believe these are isolated quotes Feldblum is using but representative of the direction that the judicial system is moving. This approach clearly dovetails with the so-called living document theory of constitutional law13 that many judges now uphold.

While Feldblum is obviously motivated by her desire to provide a legal environment friendlier to the interest of the "lesbian gay bisexual transgendered LGBT" community, but this paradigm has implications that go way beyond homofascism. Subjectivizing constitutional law will have devastating effect on liberty across the board.

The Founding Fathers, when they set up the Constitution, clearly envisioned the Bill of rights as providing some contours for liberty. The Founders clearly saw liberty in terms of "certain inalienable rights. 14" The Founders also clearly made several provisions for the Constitution to adapt to the changing times. There was instituted The Commerce Clause to allow the Federal wide scope in regulating state commerce, the Ninth Amendment, that allowed wide sweep to protecting both states rights and enforcing a host of unenumerated rights, and a process for adding amendments to the Constitution or convening a convention to replace it with a new Constitution. All of these imply that the founders saw the Constitution as an objective standard for law.

The great danger of making the Constitution relative to a subjective standard is that it then becomes manipulable. David Strauss writes,

"Even worse, a living Constitution is, surely, a manipulable Constitution. If the Constitution is not constant-if it changes from time to time-then someone is changing it, and doing so according to his or her own ideas about what the Constitution should look like. The "someone," it's usually thought, is some group of judges. So a living Constitution becomes not the Constitution at all; in fact it is not even law any more. It is just some gauzy ideas that appeal to the judges who happen to be in power at a particular time and that they impose on the rest of us."15

Strauss goes on to assert that we can escape this predicament by grounding Constitutional jurisprudence is precedent root in centuries of common law. Strauss' method would only work in an environment where are certain objective limiting parameters. The Founders intended for the Constitution to provide just such a framework. This framework would make it harder for government officials and judges to game the system. One of the things that Professor Feldblum lamented about current jurisprudence in cases involving conflict between rights connected with sexual identity and rights connected with religious freedom was that in many of these cases, judges twisted and creatively parsed facts in such a way to come to a conclusion that that laws putting a burden on religious freedom did not really put a burden on religious freedom. She would rather that the courts acknowledge that these laws do burden religious freedom and then justify that encroachment16. What Feldblum fails to say is that her paradigm would not stop judges from continuing to game the system. Without an objective standard to judges rights claims, the judge will simply game the critical evaluation as a means to impose his or her opinion on people.

If our freedoms hinge on the whim of a judge, what if those women in Texas who were sexually molested by the police in the side of the interstate17 appeared before a lesbian judge who thought it was no big deal that these women were subjected to having their vaginas fingered by the police. Would the lesbian judge be sympathetic if the women referred to this as a "homosexual attack" given that they were sexually assaulted by a female cop. Because there is still a vague semblance of an objective standard, the cops will be prosecuted, but under Feldblum's paradigm, it would be permissible for a judge to dismiss the case. There is currently a case in Montana where a judge gave out a superlight sentence for rape that was actually illegal under Montana law18. Do we really want to give judges wide open discretion to do whatever they want? Feldblum;s paradigm would do just that.

Lest we think that only the words of legislators are robbed of their original intent, this slippery slope also undermines the words of the judges themselves. If interpretation of law look at only the "critical evaluation" of a legal text and not its intended meaning, then what's to stop cops from playing the same games with a judge's ruling that the judges play concerning the text of legislation or the Constitution. This abolition of an objective standard that Feldblum and others advocate means the end of the rule of law in any meaningful fashion. It is also the end of democracy in any meaningful fashion as the product of legislative activity, texts of laws, are nothing more than legal "Play-Dough" to be molded and fashioned according to the whims of those with power.

This paradigm is what Francis Schaeffer called "sociological law.19" Sociological law is simply whatever those in power want it to be at the moment. Once the requirement to adhere to the plain meaning of the Bill of Rights is done away with, there is no objective legal basis for restraint of arbitrary government power. Without an objective standard to provide meaning to legal texts, there can be no rational basis for law, the law is nothing more than the subjective whim of those in power, and the only restraint on the exercise of power is the limit on what the power agent can get away with.


  1. Homofascism is a political philosophy that holds sexual orientation as one's master status (referred to by Professor Feldblum in her article as identity liberty), and therefore defines all opposition to that nature or its products as being necessarily a personal attack that warrants state intervention. Because it is a political philosophy and not a sexual orientation, one need not be homosexual to be a homofascist; most homofascists are heterosexual. It is also possible to be homosexual and reject homofascism.
  2. Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion, Brooklyn Law Review, vol 72:1, page 65, top para (Page 7 on pdf)
  3. Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion, Brooklyn Law Review, vol 72:1
  4. ibid,page 62, (page 4 on pdf), 2nd para from bottom, last line of para
  5. ibid, page 63 (page 5 on pdf), top line of last paragraph
  6. 521 U.S. 702, 752-89 (1997) (Souter, J., concurring).
  7. Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion, Brooklyn Law Review, vol 72:1, page 64 (Page 6 on pdf)
  8. ibid,page 92 (34 on pdf), top of page
  9. ibid, page 93 (35 on pdf), 2nd para citing Glucksberg, 521 u.s. at 768 (Souter, J., concurring).
  10. ibid page 93, last para-pg94, 1st para (35-36 on pdf)
  11. Cornell University Law School
  12. Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion, Brooklyn Law Review, vol 72:1, page 95-96 (38-39 on pdf)
  13. The Living Constitution, University of Chicago Law School
  14. The Declaration of Independence
  15. The Living Constitution, University of Chicago Law School, 5th para
  16. Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion, Brooklyn Law Review, vol 72:1, page 115-121 (Page 57-63 on pdf)
  17. North Texas Women Subjected to Roadside Cavity Search Speak Out After Troopers Indicted, CBS| DFW
  18. Prosecutors Weigh Appeal of 30-day Rape Sentence in Montana, Cable News Network (CNN),
  19. A Christian Manifesto, Francis Schaeffer, Crossway Books, 1982 Schaeffer used this term throughout his book to refer to the consequences of abandoning the world-view of Reformation Christianity. His opinion was that naturalistic and humanistic world-views left no adequate basis for morals and law.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Verizon’s bid to kill network neutrality law goes to court Monday | Ars Technica

Without Internet Neutrality in some form, ISP's could censor information that travels across their networks for any economic or political whim. Consider the following quote from Ars Technica.

The FCC counters Verizon's Constitutional arguments by noting in its brief that "Internet access providers do not engage in speech; they transport the speech of others, as a messenger delivers documents containing speech. Unlike cable systems, newspapers, and other curated media, broadband providers do not exercise editorial discretion. Verizon has defended itself from lawsuits on that very ground. If the First Amendment applies at all, the Open Internet Rules are narrowly tailored to serve important government interests. The rules result in no taking without just compensation because, among other things, broadband access providers are compensated for the use of their networks."

The FCC also said it was justified in making the rules because of "multiple incidents of broadband providers interfering with their customers’ ability to use Internet services, from file sharing services to Internet-based telephony."

Powerful economic incentives coupled with technological progress and limited competition make it easier for ISPs "to discriminate among edge providers and to block customer access to Internet sites of their choosing," the FCC argued.
Verizon is now suing to do away with Internet Neutrality. They have economic motive in degrading Internet-based product of competitors who users may use their network for the transmission of data. There is also a huge issue concerning individuals' freedom of expression on the Internet. Should Verizon win on this issue, ISP's could block religious and political content that they don't like. For example, they could block access to Websites critical of same-sex marriage or block access to Conservative(or liberal) Web sites. via Verizon’s bid to kill network neutrality law goes to court Monday | Ars Technica.

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Syria World War Three Prophecies: Does Isaiah 17:1 Armageddon Vision Foresee US Military Strike? - IBTimes UK

A line in the Old Testament Book of Isaiah has led a number of people to believe US military action in Syria will lead to the end of the world.
Isaiah 17:1 reads: "The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap... The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria: they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the Lord of hosts."

As President Obama mulls a major air offensive against the Assad regime following the use of chemical weapons, fundamentalists have suggested this prophecy is now coming to pass, with believers interpreting the passage to foretell the Armageddon or the Second Coming of Christ.

via Syria World War Three Prophecies: Does Isaiah 17:1 Armageddon Vision Foresee US Military Strike? - IBTimes UK.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

John Locke and a Christian Understanding of Freedom

John Locke is considered by many to be the single most important influence on the American Revolution. He wrote the First Treatise on Government and Second Treatise on Government. I am posting an analysis of Locke's references to God in the Second Treatise to show Locke's view of the relation of God to nature and the topic of the rights of man. It is evident that Locke was not a secularist, a pantheist, a deist, or legal positivist. Locke was a believer in the Natural Law Theory, and held to a distinctively Judeo-Christian and libertarian interpretation of natural law - reflecting specifically the Reformation Christian understanding of freedom,

This analysis can be found here.

Friday, June 28, 2013

Some Thoughts on the Recent US Supreme Court Ruling on So-Called Same Sex Marriage

I have several observations concerning the rulings in particular and so-called same-sex marriage:

First: The idea that it is marriage equality is just slick marketing: There are fundamental differences between males and females that interplay in sexual relationships: Homosexual relationships cannot duplicate these dynamics no matter how much they may want to. This means that same-sex marriage is a colossal fiction.

Second: The fiction of same-sex marriage can only be maintained by denying that there is any divine or natural basis for marriage. Marriage is re-defined as a construct of the state. In United States vs Windsor, pages 16-17, the majority decision asserts that the state defines marriage and has "full authority over marriage." This view, of course, ignores both the fact that for thousands of years of history marriages existed without state sanction and that much of that history it was religious institutions that provided the sanction for marriage.

Third: While I believe that a case can be made that the government has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage, it is better to show that marriage is defined by God and embedded into the nature of the natural order. Marriage is God's domain, not the state.

Fourth: Because same-sex marriage promotes the idea that marriage is a state construct, that it is a statist monstrosity. If the state defines marriage and "definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the'[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities' (United States vs Windsor, pages 16-17)," then the door is opened for the state to undermine parental rights and even displace the parents as the parental authority.

Fifth: the Supreme Court used inflammatory language in the decision. It argues DOMA "necesarily demeans" homosexuals (page 29). As such, it affirms the homofascist narrative that says there can be no reasoned disagreement with same-sex marriage. You either affirm it or you are a hater. Scalia, who was in the chambers when this case was debated, argued in his dissent that the majority decision decribed opponents of same-sex marriage as "enemies of human race(page 55)."

If languages demonizing opponents of same-sex marriage and opponents of homo-dascism is promoted by the highest court, then it is only a matter of time before official persecution, discrimination, and restrictions on free speech become government policy. This is already the case in Canada, Australia, and Europe; and the United Nation supports criminalization of all criticism of homosexuality.

Time to prepare to some hard and bizarre times ahead. It's going to be a doosey.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Crushing Academic Dissent

The perfect scheme to ensure academic uniformity and enthrone propaganda involves a scheme to quash dissent as "uncollegial" and replace them with people who are sexually and racially diverse but who march lockstep with the official party line, creating the illusion of "diversity."

How to Purge Faculties of Real DiversityThe "fourth criterion" for tenure should be "collegiality", according to a current stream of university thinking. (The first three are said to be "research, teaching and service.")

We are supposed to want "productive dissent," and the key word that must be interpreted, of course, is "productive." Who decides? A scientific critic of Darwin's theory in the biology department is, by definition, an unproductive dissenter. An advocate of free market economics in most universities does not add the stimulus of intellectual diversity, you see, but instead threatens "unproductive" dissent
Read the rest of the article here

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Will the Government Exploit the Boston Bombings?

The recent Boston bombing weighs heavily in the minds of many people right now. Currently, investigators have detained a Saudi national as a person of interest, raising the specter that this is another instance of Islamist terrorism.   There is emerging pattern in recent years: the government lies in wait for opportunities to exploit tragedies in their gambit to either increase their own power or marginalize political enemies.   When the Oklahoma City Bombing occurred in 1995, it provided an opportunity for Hillary Clinton to promote her vast right wing conspiracy theory. An all out witch-hunt was done on conservatives to attempt to tie the entire Conservative movement to terrorism.   In September 2001, terrorists brought down the World Trade Center. The government response was the Patriot Act, which would have done nothing to stop 911 but has successfully gutted the fourth amendment.   Earlier this year a tragic shooting in Newtown, CT occurred. The result is an all out blitz to increase gun control.   Should this turn out to be Islamist terrorism, this will provide the government an opportunity to wage war against religious freedom. A new narrative has been emerging on Islamist terrorism over the past five years: terrorism is the result of religious extremism. Religious extremism is defined as exclusivism. What this means is that if you believe your religion is truer than others, you are an extremist.  
Globalists like Obama, the UN alliance of Civilizations, the Doha Debates and Karen Armstrong want the government to control all religion. Armstrong, in particular wants to set up an organization that will serve as an arbiter of religious belief.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

The Real Reason Corporations Support "Same-sex Marriage"

Corporations are uniting to support so-called same-sex marriage. As of this writing, there are two cases being hears by the Supreme Court. One case involves a dispute concerning whether the Defense of Marriage of Act (DOMA) is constitutional and the other is challenging California’s Propositional 8.

Over 200 major companies have filed Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) briefs. The corporate world, it seems, is speaking as one. They claim that legalizing “same-sex marriage” is good for business that it allows for greater market efficiency. This claim is rather dubious. Proposition 8 was passed by majority vote of the citizens of California. Corporate support for “same-sex marriage” risks alienating a large segment of the market. This could in losing business to suppliers who are not as hostile to traditional marriage.

Another reason to doubt that corporate support is just about business is that the libertarian view on marriage would actually be better for business. Libertarians argue that the government should stay out of marriage and that marriage be treated like a private contract. People would enter into the marriage contracts of their choosing and others would be free to recognize or refuse recognition. The libertarian view would allow homosexuals the freedom they claim they want without destroying the freedom of others. Corporations would then pursue whatever policies would be suitable for their companies, most of which would have gay-friendly policies based on their public support for “same-sex marriage.” People like me who object to the “gay lifestyle” would be free to refuse recognition of “same-sex marriages.”

The real reason that corporations are pursuing support for “same-sex marriage” is the same reason that the homosexual community supports it: the use of state power and government guns to forcibly change the cultural norms. The homosexual community wants to use the police power of the state to enforce the perception that homosexual activity is moral. Corporations also want to use the police power of the state to forcibly change social norms. Corporations see the issue of “same-sex marriage” as an opportunity to gain allies from groups that would normally oppose them. Many Leftists would normally oppose displays of corporate power are now supporting such power grab because they see it beneficial to one of their favorite causes.

It goes without saying that the sudden convergence of so many companies supporting “same-sex marriage” smells of collusion. The root of big business is banking. In Mystery Babylon Rising, I write about how modern banking was rooted in the occult mysteries of Mystery Babylon. Both the Medicis and the Fuggers were deep into the occult. Freudo-Marxism, out of which comes the militant homosexual political activism, is also ultimately rooted in the occult. These two streams are converging together.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Charisma: Christians Dominate American Idol This Season.

"Season 12 of American Idol has its share of Christian contestants: Eight of the top 10 are Christians.Contestants Candice Glover, Lazaro Arbos, Janelle Arthur, Curtis Finch Jr., Amber Holcolm, Angie Miller, Devin Velez, and Burnell Taylor are all in it to win it.   "They're also not ashamed to share their faith with the world while they're at it. Angie Miller, who many expect to be crowned winner this year, often tweets about her faith."  
Read the rest of the story here.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

The Coming Internet Lockdown

The wild, wild world of the Internet is becoming less free. Current trends are underway to lock down the various layers of the Information Architecture known as the Internet. This paper will explore a possible paradigm for centralized control of information.   There are a number of possibilities for locking down the Internet. There are a number of proprietary methods, but I believe these will have limited impact. Proprietary standards would result in splitting the internet into competing fiefdoms. End users would pick the walled garden that they liked best; centralized control would be hindered.   This paper will show how the Internet can be locked down using open standards. There are four layers to this approach: Hardware, platforms, networks, and government regulation. The analysis will include methods currently used and extrapolate where these methods may lead.   Read the rest of this article here.  

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

American Citizens now subject to Droning according to Holder

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.   “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”   Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.    
Read the rest of the article here.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

School Overreaction:Idiocy, or Psychological Manipulation for the New World Order

A second grader was recently suspended for eating a pop-tart into the shape of a gun. His teacher felt "threatened" because she though she heard him say "bang bang!!!" while eating the pop-tart.     As asinine as this sounds, this is not the first time that a public school has taken an idiotic stand. One child was sent home and forced to undergo a psychological evaluation for merely drawing a picture of Jesus on the cross. The First Amendment Center has documented numerous cases of school overreaction.   When I first heard of these types of cases, I thought "How stupid!" But my research for my recently published book, Mystery Babylon Rising - a Five Thousand Year History of the New World Order, has informed my perspective. I believe that these cases are not educators gone stupid, but that it is clever psychological manipulation designed to create fear. Controlling people through fear is part of the "wine of her fornication."  

Friday, March 1, 2013

Will Hive-Mind Technology be used to create the Mark of the Beast

I found this interesting article from End Times Headlines.
"Creating a “superbrain” of connected minds, scientists on Thursday said they had enabled a rat to help a fellow rodent while the animals were a continent apart but connected through brain electrodes. With electrodes imbedded in its cortex, a rat in a research institute in Natal, Brazil sent signals via the Internet to a counterpart at a university lab in Durham, North Carolina, helping the second animal to get a reward. The exploit opens up the prospect of linking brains among animals to create an “organic computer,” said Brazilian neurobiologist Miguel Nicolelis. It also helps the quest to empower patients stricken with paralysis or locked-in syndrome, he said. More"
Something struck me with this article. If brains can be connected to a network, then it may possible for the brain to submit irreversibly to remote control through means of the network architecture. Today computers can be completely controlled through client-server network architectures like Active Directory. Directory services like Active Directory allow a computers to be joined to a domain. Computers joined to the domain, called clients, have their security information managed by a database distributed among one or more domain controllers; and installed programs, apps, and services are managed remotely by servers in the domain. Clients can be completely remote-controlled.   The information architecture of human brains is complex enough that I doubt any such system could work in a functional manner without the initial co-operation of the subject. Once a person was initially conveted to loyalty to the Antichrist system and willingly received as the mark technology that could join their brain to the beast hive-mind, that technology would allow the hive-mind to irreversibly take complete control of their brain, pushing the subject past the point of being able to repent.   This post orignally appeared in Dallas Carter's Commentary  

Thursday, February 28, 2013

America's Most Bible-minded Cities

Barna research has published a list of Most and least Bible-minded cities in the country. There are few surprises here, with southern Bible-belt cities dominating the list. According to the report, Knoxville, TN is the most Bible-minded city in America.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

The Greatest Revival the World has Ever Known to Break out as Israel is Surrounded by the Nations

A slate of recent reports suggests that we are soon to enter into the time in history when Israel is surrounded by armies. Obama is shifting America's policy away from Israel and towards the Palestinians. This is coupled with revolutions in the Middle East that are resulting in the replacement of U.S. - friendly governments with more radical governments. Both of these developments are setting the stage for a major war where Israel is surrounded by a coalition of armies.
Psalm 118 gives some promises that apply to this time. He promises great revival and victory. The end-time revival occurs within the context of world war against Israel. It will involve both Jews and Christians. Great revival, the likes of which the world has never seen, will break out on the Temple Mount as Jews join with Christians in seeking God.
Both testimony of the enduring mercies of God and encouragement to testify to those mercies is given in verse 1-4. Both Israel and the House of Aaron are called upon to praise God. This is a universal call on all of God's people, both those who are God's people in Moses (The House of Aaron), and those who are grafted into Israel in Christ. Both the people and the priests are called.
In the remainder of the chapter, there is a call to prayer, praise, and proclamation. Psalm 118 is a special call to seek God during the time of greatest distress for God's people.
In verses 5-9, We see that God answers our cry for deliverance by “setting us in a large place” We are to trust in God and NOT in our political alliances with “princes.” During this time, God's people cease to trust in their political alliances and trust in the Lord. This trust results in assurance that God will strengthen us for the coming battle.
Verses 10-13 positively identify this as the end-time global war on God's people. Israel is surrounded by all nations. The global hostility to God's people extends to Christians as well. Jesus says in Matthew 24:7-9 that, among other things, that we will “hated by all nations for My name’s sake.”
There is confession of great victory in verses 14-18. We read repeatedly,”in the name of the LORD I will destroy them.” While God's people suffer much during this time, it is a time of victory. The people of God are militant about their faith in the face of war.
The remainder of the chapter is a call for God to “Open to me the gates of righteousness.” This is a call for God to open to pathway to His Presence. We will see that “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner” Christ, who has been rejected by the Jews, will finally be recognized by the Jews as her rightful King. After almost 2000 years of rejecting Christ, the Jews finally call on them. When Christ departed from Israel, He told them in Matthew 23:38-39, “you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD! ' ” Verse 26 contains that exact phrase. What Jesus is saying is that when God's people start to pray Psalm 118 in the time of global distress, then Christ will return.

Friday, February 22, 2013

My new book, Mystery Babylon Rising

There is much discussion nowadays about the New World Order. Much discussion about corporations being in bed with politicians. There is, however, nothing new about the New World Order. It is a five thousand year old conspiracy. While its basis of power is economic, its roots are religious and spiritual. Mystery Babylon is a mystery cult that began at the Tower of Babel and has continued in various forms throughout history to the present day.  
  Mystery Babylon Rising weaves Biblical narrative with historical analysis to show that roots of the modern ideologies and narratives that govern today's world find their origins in Mystery Babylon. It is available at Amazon for only $5.