What Separation Of Church And State?

For the first time in U.S. history, the leader of a major religion was invited to speak before a joint session of Congress. (No. Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t count.) Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals–along with the national news media–are all praising the pontiff’s congressional appearance.

But wait just a doggone minute! How is the pope’s speech before Congress NOT a violation of the separation of church and state? Everything he talked about was both political and religious based. His left-wing theology permeated what can only be regarded as a blatantly political sermon. Where are all of the folks who demand that Christian pastors not get involved in politics? Furthermore, why is no one threatening the Catholic Church with the loss of its 501c3 tax exempt nonprofit organization status? The Internal Revenue Code is pretty plain about pastors of 501c3 churches (of which the Catholic Church is the largest) being forbidden from engaging in political activity during their official duties. And when Pope Francis spoke before Congress, did he appear in the attire of a private person? No! He spoke in full papal regalia–meaning, he appeared before Congress in the official capacity as a religious head.

“The Vatican is a state,” you say. In that case, the hypocrisy of Pope Francis to lecture the United States about tearing down our borders and allowing illegal aliens to pour in at will is as obvious and odious as it can possibly be. Before he lectures us about how we should accept any and all illegals into our country, he should set the example and tear down the forty-foot wall surrounding the Vatican City State.

Then there is his pet socialist (yes, Pope Francis is a longtime socialist and Marxist) talking point regarding how rotten America is because of our material success. BARF! Why is no one willing to point out to the pontiff that the Roman Catholic Church is the richest corporation in the entire world? As if he needs any reminder. No corporation is even a close second. Without a doubt, the Catholic Church is the biggest hoarder of wealth on the planet.

But not only is Pope Francis a Marxist/socialist, he is also a globalist. His remarks regarding globalism could have been written by Henry Kissinger. Who knows? Maybe they were.

The history of this pope is one of a lifetime of involvement in Marxist, globalist activities. I strongly recommend that readers take a look at this report:

“Washington’s Pope”? Who is Pope Francis?

When I watch–and listen to–Pope Francis, it reminds of Piers Morgan.

With all due respect to my British friends, when I watch–and listen to–Piers Morgan, I want to fight the War for Independence all over again. And with all due respect to my Catholic friends, when I watch–and listen to–Pope Francis, I want to fight the Reformation wars all over again.

Thankfully, not all Roman Catholics are enamored with this pope. No more than I am enamored with many of our evangelical “popes” such as Joel Osteen and John Hagee.

It constantly amazes me how so many people are so willing to live their entire lives, and predicate the principles of their lives, with ideological, sociological, and theological biases–biases that have nothing to do with truth and everything to do with the advancement of private parochial agendas. And liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and secularists are equally culpable.

When President Bill Clinton lied to the American people, liberals and Democrats looked the other way and defended him in every way possible. And when President G.W. Bush lied to the American people, conservatives and Republicans looked the other way and defended him in every way possible.

Too many Catholics defend the pope regardless of his Marxist, socialist ideals. Too many evangelicals defend their denominational leaders regardless of their Marxist, socialist ideals. Even though they claim to reject globalism, too many secular libertarians refuse to deal with the way Bernie Sanders sidesteps the perpetual exploration into global hegemony by Democrat leaders in Washington, D.C. And even though they claim to detest and oppose terrorism, too many religious conservatives refuse to deal with the way that Benjamin Netanyahu and the State of Israel are up to their eyeballs in the sponsorship of all kinds of terrorism–including giving assistance to ISIS and terrorizing the Palestinian people.

Too many people are in a “protected” class, while those sharing alternative ideologies are marked for isolation, persecution, incarceration, or annihilation.

Public schools around the country are making prayer rooms available for Muslim students to pray in during school hours. Colleges and university campuses across the country provide prayer rooms, foot baths in bathrooms, and holy days for Muslim students. And no federal judge suggests that such conduct violates the SCOTUS rulings banning prayer in public schools. No school principal or college president or dean is put in jail. No mayor or city councilman of a “sanctuary” city that openly defies federal immigration laws is thrown in jail. But a Christian clerk in a Kentucky county is sent to jail by a federal judge for refusing to sign her name on a same-sex “marriage” license.

Liberals ignore the injustices and crimes against humanity by Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, while conservatives ignore the injustices and crimes against humanity by Talmudic Jews in Israel. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ignore black-on-black crime, while Franklin Graham ignores police abuse. Conservatives ignore Ben Carson’s biggest big-government scheme of all the presidential candidates so far: government-mandated vaccinations, while liberals ignore the crimes of the biggest criminal in the field: Hillary Clinton.

But, inviting the pope to speak before a joint session of Congress has to take the all-time prize for hypocrisy and for the most glaring double standard of the entire media and political worlds.

Our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights) were written to protect us all from despots from both the left and the right, from both secular and religious zealots. As human beings created in the likeness of our Creator, we all have the same intrinsic, Natural rights. The purpose of government is to protect those Natural rights.

Now, all rules are off. There are no safeguards and no protections. Nothing is secure, and nothing is sacred. The rule of law has been replaced with the rule of whatever one can get by with. Nothing is wrong, only politically incorrect. The Rights of Man have been replaced with the rule of government.

This isn’t America anymore.

For the first time in U.S. history, congressional leaders from both parties invited the head of a major religious institution (Pope Francis) to use the U.S. Capitol building to promote a blatantly leftist, globalist agenda IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. This one cannot be blamed on Barack Obama. He has no control of Capitol Hill. This was the collaboration of John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and Harry Reid.

So, pardon me while I laugh the next time someone accuses the pastor of a small church on Main Street, USA of violating the separation of church and state when he delivers a message supporting the right to life of unborn babies or traditional marriage or the lawful right of self-defense.

Pastors who relate Biblical principles to our country’s political affairs have NEVER violated the “separation of church and state.” Had Colonial preachers adhered to the modern interpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s personal letter to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptists (from whence the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” has been taken–but which appears in NO official U.S. document), we would still be a Crown colony of England.

But after this week, we can all say, “Separation of church and state? What separation of church and state?”


P.S. I am once again featuring my four-sermon video series on “The Church And Israel.” This is one of the most-requested DVDs we have ever offered. Questions addressed on this video include:

*Does Genesis 12 (“I will bless them that bless thee…”) refer to the modern State of Israel?

*Is the modern State of Israel synonymous with Biblical Israel?

*Are modern Jews “God’s chosen people”?

*Should U.S. foreign policy favor the modern State of Israel on scriptural grounds?

To order this DVD containing my four messages on “The Church And Israel” for yourself or someone else, go to:

The Church And Israel

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

An Introduction To Cultural Marxism

“We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth…We can and we must write in a language which sows among the masses hatred, scorn, and the like towards those who disagree with us,” wrote Vladimir Lenin. The basis of Lenin’s statement is very much alive today within the Democrat party as they relentlessly attack and sow hatred towards cultural, moral, and religious institutions that conservatives hold dear.

“This is the basis of the great cultural war we’re undergoing…. We are two countries now. We are two countries morally, culturally, socially, and theologically. Cultural wars do not lend themselves to peaceful co-existence. One side prevails, or the other prevails,” states Patrick J. Buchanan in the opening scenes of James Jaeger’s film, Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America.

The truth that conservatives must come to terms with is that the other side, the Democrat party, has prevailed as Cultural Marxism has advanced on the long march throughout our nation’s most revered institutions. This march began in the United States in the 1930’s as Marxists Antonio Gramsci and George Lukacs established the Frankfurt School at Columbia University in New York City. “The primary goal of the Frankfurt School,” writes Linda Kimball of American Thinker, “was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms.”

According to Kimball, “it provided ideas on which to base a new political theory of revolution based on culture, harnessing new oppressed groups for the faithless proletariat…smashing religion and morals [while] also building a constituency among academics.” Moreover, Cultural Marxism emphasized culture as the main cause for inequality stemming from race, religion, sex, and everything in between.

In order to implement this new direction in Marxism, Gramsci and Lukacs began what they termed the “long march throughout the institutions.” This “march” was slow and systematic beginning in the primary institutions of culture (schools, churches, newspapers, movies, media, etc.), which were taken over by socialist thinkers and sympathizers. “Once taken over,” notes Nelson Hultberg of The Daily Bell, “they could then impart ‘true socialist values to the people and raise new generations to give their loyalties not to God, country, and individualism, but to the State and collectivism.”

The emphasis of Cultural Marxism was thus placed on analyzing, controlling, and changing what was once the popular culture, the popular discourse, the mass media, and the language itself in America. By institutionalizing and spreading their influence, this kind of Marxism would ingrain a hatred of Western values into the culture and future generations to come. The reason for this is best explained by the justification used by Frankfurt teacher and Father of the “New Left” Herbert MarcuseMarcuse writes that: “The West is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture it has encountered. American and Western civilization are the world’s greatest repositories of racism, sexism, xenophobia, antisemitism, fascism, and narcissism. American society is oppressive, evil, and undeserving of loyalty.”

With this notion in mind, Cultural Marxism placed a new emphasis on liberating all men and women from the “evil repression” and “tyrannical values” that Western civilization was built upon. To bring this about, the Frankfurt School designed numerous strategies to discredit and smear the values that had forged and sustained the West for the past 2,000 years.

Critical Theory,” writes Hultberg, “was the first and most important of these strategies,” as it was not only critical to discrediting capitalism but also social conditions of contemporary society and existing social institutions. Hultberg explains: “Under its auspices, every tradition of Western life was to be redefined as ‘prejudice’ and ‘perversion’. And these redefinition’s were to be instilled into the social stream via devastating scholarly criticisms of all values such as family, marriage, property, individualism, patriotism, faith in God etc.”

Critical Theory precisely defines the tactics used by the Democrat Party today as they attack Christianity, capitalism, family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, loyalty, and patriotism. They routinely and consistently attack any and all foundations of our society in order to destroy our culture and advance their agenda.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with the various “rights” the Left has aggressively promoted throughout the years. James Simpson, of American Thinker, elaborates that “the Left doesn’t care about gay rights, any more than they care about civil rights, welfare rights, minority rights, animal rights or any other ‘rights’. According to the Left, ‘the issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.” In other words, the cause of political action that we see today being pushed by the Left – whether minority rights or women’s rights – is never the real cause; women, minorities and other “victims” are only instruments in the larger cause, which is power.

“The Left uses ‘Rights’ agendas to wrap itself in the mantle of righteousness and seize the moral high ground, tactically putting us [conservatives] on the defensive in the process. But they couldn’t care less about the actual issue except in its ability to facilitate their path to power,” concludes Simpson.

In his first autobiography, Dreams Of My FatherBarack Obama clearly identifies his Marxist agenda, stating that: “once I found an issue enough people cared about, I could take them into action. With enough actions, I could start to build power. Issues, actions, power, self-interest. I liked these concepts. They bespoke a certain hardheadedness, a worldly lack of sentiment; politics, not religion.”

Take a second to think about this statement made by the future President in 1995 and then apply it to what we see happening today in America, with the latest example being the riots in BaltimoreWhat we are witnessing in Baltimore, as we did in Ferguson, epitomizes how the Left pushes an agenda in a way that disguises their true intention.

Make no mistake about it–the riots in Baltimore have as much to do with the death of Freddie Gray as the riots in Ferguson had to do with the death of Michael Brown. The Left is using their deaths in order to push a false narrative that seeks to exploit their deaths as examples of police waging a war on the black community. As Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke explains, the real war is on “our nation’s finest, the American police officer, and it continues to be fueled by some very important people.” Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, and former Attorney General Eric Holder have all contributed to fueling this fire.

From a Marxist standpoint, the “police war on blacks” is not the issue; the issue is expanding federal control of community police forces. Using animosity and hatred towards police, the Left has selectively chosen which cases to report on in order to incite these communities into rioting–no matter if actual or perceived targeting of the black community by police has occurred. The real issue is power, and Obama stated as much when he introduced his plan for a progressive takeover of state and local policing.

“We have a great opportunity… to really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations,” stated Obama earlier this year as he unveiled his goal in a report that gave recommendations on how Obama could institute his Task Force on 21st Century Policing. “Now Obama is trying to expand progressive control by attaching more conditions to federal funding of state and local law-enforcement efforts”, writes Neil Munro of Daily Caller. Obama drove this point home, stating that: “We can expand the [federally-funded] COPS program… to see if we can get more incentives for local communities to apply some of the best practices and lessons that are embodied in this report.”

“Those best practices,” comments Munro, “likely will eventually include rules that restrict police investigations of groups that are part of the Democratic coalition, and rules that try to lower convictions and penalties among favored sub-groups of the United States, regardless of the actual rates of illegal activity among those groups.” Furthermore, Obama’s goal is to ultimately implement the plan among the nation’s 18,000 or so law enforcement jurisdictions–thus, giving him an unprecedented amount of power and control over state and local police forces.

The riots we watched in Baltimore, as we did in Ferguson, signify the culmination of attacks brought about by Cultural Marxism, the end result of which will inevitably lead to anarchy in the streets and a consolidation of power by Barack Obama. Since Obama was elected, we have seen the Left use this tactic from healthcare to education. This administration is directly using those championing “No Justice, No Peace” as pawns in order to consolidate unbridled tyranny.

The Democrat Party is achieving their goal as they depict the present as miserable while deliberately making it so. The prime objective of the ascetic ideal preached by the Left is to “breed contempt for the present,” wrote the famous American philosopher Eric HofferHoffer noted: “It fashions a pattern of individual existence that is dour, hard, repressive and dull. It decries pleasures and comforts and extols the rigorous life. It views ordinary enjoyment as trivial or even discreditable, and represents the pursuit of personal happiness as immoral.”

Sadly, it seems that too many Americans are not aware of the narrative and tactics that the Left has accelerated the pushing of. We are truly living in a country that is undergoing a fundamental transformation between a capitalist and a communist society. As described by Karl Marxthis period is “of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other…in which the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Here’s Why It’s Idiotic To Conflate Fascism With Right Wing Ideology

There are many logical incongruities that are maintained on a populist level, especially when it comes to politics. Not least of these is the composition of the political spectrum in identifying ideologies and systems of governance. The most common fallacy is identifying fascism as a right-wing ideology, even though its ideological roots originate in the left-wing extremist models of communism and socialism.

The most pervasive political spectrum is loosely based on a left/right orientation, and attempts to place political models somewhere along the continuum. But for a political spectrum to have any meaningful representation, it must be based on some set of absolute values. Since every system of governance has unique characteristics, those can hardly be used for the absolute reference points from which to measure.

Since a spectrum is in fact a continuum, the absolute extremes must be established so that all variations and deviations from those extremes can be accurately charted. For example, light and dark, heat and cold, the band of waves of the electromagnetic spectrum, all measure from one extreme to the other. So it is with the political spectrum. Since governments establish order based on the regulation of the activities of the members of their respective societies, the correct extremes for the political spectrum delineate the degree of individual freedom allowed. And traditionally, that has been demarcated as left to right; least freedom, to most freedom; totalitarianism to anarchy.

And because the spectrum is a continuum, from one extreme to the other, it is a straight line. It doesn’t curve around, or circumvent the scale at any point. It is a continuous, single-dimensional range from one extreme to the other. And with individual freedom, there are only two absolute points of reference: maximum freedom (anarchy), or no freedom (totalitarianism). With those absolutes established at the ends of the spectrum, all systems of governance can be effectively placed on the spectrum, and scaled based on the degree or level of individual freedom–or conversely, the degree of state control over the individual.

Some political scientists have maintained that a single left-right axis is inadequate, and have consequently often added biaxial spectra distinguishing between varying issues. This is unnecessary when broadly identifying systems of governance based on a continuum of individual freedom; for ancillary factors and characteristics inevitably integrate into the dominant ideological model.

On the political spectrum, the furthest to the left, the more totalitarian the government is. Centralized planning and governmental control over the lives of individuals is characteristic of all forms of socialism, whether Communist or the Nationalist variety (fascism); and the state assumes preeminence over individual rights when taken to the extreme.

The furthest to the right on the political spectrum, the more individual liberty is advanced. Taken to its extreme is anarchy. When analyzed logically, then, National Socialism and fascism are wholly incongruent philosophically and practically to the right of the spectrum. Those who refer to Nazism as “right-wing” are politically ill-informed and have fallen for Stalin’s tactic of referring to them as such. One scholar makes the point that Nazism is to Communism what Pepsi is to Coke: basically the same but with a little different flavor.

Economically, fascism advocates control of business and labor, not ownership of it as communism advocates. In fact, Mussolini called his system the “Corporate State.” Even the term “totalitarianism” derives from Mussolini’s concept of the preeminence of the “total state.”

Indeed, European fascism is an offshoot of Marxism, the theoretical framework for communism and socialism. The founding father to fascism, Benito Mussolini, in 1919 established the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, which by 1921 became the National Fascist Party. He was born and raised a socialist. His father was a member of the same internationale as Marx and Engels. His father read him Das Kapital as a bedtime story. He was kicked out of the Italian Socialist Party in 1914 for supporting World War I, which he believed would save socialism, and stubbornly declared that he’d die a socialist.

This all makes much more sense logically, when the destructive and pejorative elements to Nazism, which was fascistic, are considered. The Brown Shirts, SS (Schutzstaffel), Gestapo, pogroms, anti-Semitism, genocide, eugenics, etc. ad nauseam are all products of oppressive, totalitarian ideology, not one that believes in more freedom.

Disturbingly, there is an American statism based ideologically on similar principles to European fascism. Our statist movement has the same ideological connections with those in Europe, reliant on philosophical components of Hegel, Weber, Marx, Kung, and Sartre. It’s harmonious in principle to Joseph Goebbels’, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, statement that “To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”

America’s version also seeks to concentrate power in the state at the expense of individual liberty. As philosopher Leonard Piekoff states, it “does not represent a new approach to government; but is a continuation of the political absolutism — the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies — which has characterized most of human history.” It seeks to suppress criticism and opposition to the government. It denounces and eschews individualism, capitalism and inequity in compensation. It seeks out and targets enemies of the people like corporations and those not supportive of their collectivist objectives. Clearly, even American statism is fascistic, and distinctly characteristic of the political left.

Historically, ideologically, and etymologically, fascism is a stepchild to Marxist theory. While differences exist between these isms, they are all oppressive, and are among the most totalitarian forms of government in the 20th century.

Any attempts to describe the political spectrum as “circular,” rather than “linear,” are logically untenable. Any attempt to conflate fascism with the American right on the spectrum is historically revisionist and wholly illogical. It only fits with an inane and politically motivated model for casting aspersions; for it has no basis in historical, logical, or ideological fact.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama: American In Name Only

Barack Hussein Obama is making the world safe for Islamo-Marxism.

At first glance, it would seem an improbable collaboration; but the marriage of convenience between radical Islam and Marxism, like the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939-1941, has a practical purpose: to destroy Western democracy.

Adolf Hitler did not want a two-front war and benefited from Soviet resources while he attempted to crush France and Britain in 1940 before turning the full force of the German military against his ultimate enemy in the east.

Likewise, Joseph Stalin expected Germany, France and Britain to exhaust themselves in a prolonged conflict, buying time to build Soviet military strength; and, debilitated by war, the Red Army would then easily march in and conquer all of Western Europe.

Both radical Islam and Marxism have a mutual hatred of Judeo-Christian democracy and a shared belief that the United States, as the cornerstone of Western civilization, is the embodiment of evil and the main impediment to establishing a global caliphate or a communist dictatorship. They have joined together in a formal conspiracy of political and social manipulation specifically designed to convince individuals that his or her actions are determined not by personal liberty, but the needs of a “community” whose desires and rights are dictated exclusively by mullahs or commissars.

Obama’s rhetoric and policies mirror the Marxist war on Western culture by destroying the Middle Class, weakening the family as the primary social institution, practicing tribal politics, encouraging historical revisionism, promoting political correctness and multiculturalism, and replacing logic and facts with emotionally satisfying gestures–all meant to undermine traditional American values and the principles upon which our country was founded.

Obama began his first term of office with his now infamous “apology tour,” humiliating, some say condemning, the United States.

On June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Obama said about Iran: “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.”

Yet Obama’s policies have virtually guaranteed a nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile-armed Iran.

Also in Cairo, Obama said: “There’s been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other.”

Yet Obama’s policies fostered Islamist governments in Egypt and Libya.

In general, Obama has pursued policies that have facilitated rather than opposed the aims of our enemies.

Having been granted immunity from any uncomfortable questions about his personal history, Obama has established deceit and political oppression as primary instruments of government policy. He has attempted to render Congress powerless by unlawfully assuming executive authority not granted under the Constitution in order to continue, unobstructed, his fundamental transformation of the United States.

Left unimpeded, the inevitable result of Obama’s transformation will be a dystopia, characterized by a New Dark Age, a cataclysmic decline of society in which a totalitarian government enforces ruthless egalitarianism by suppressing or denouncing ability and accomplishment, or even competence, as forms of inequality.

All the damage that Obama has perpetrated on the United States, however, could be reversed, and his Constitutional transgressions declared null and void, simply by telling the truth.

That will not happen because Congress and the media are complicit in the greatest fraud and Constitutional crisis in American history; and, if exposed, the truth would obliterate the corrupt political-media status quo.

The Democrats and their media shills are in lock-step. They have sworn allegiance, not to the Constitution and the country, but to their führer, their Islamo-Marxist Messiah, who they will protect by any means necessary.

Republicans remain silent because they have sworn allegiance to their personal bank accounts.

It should now be clear to Americans who are not politically sedated that the institutions of the federal government can no longer be relied upon to adhere to the Constitution or enforce the rule of law. The States will need to reclaim the powers given them and the American people under the 10th Amendment, powers that have been increasingly usurped by Washington DC.

“When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.” – Thomas Jefferson

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Global Warming: Not About The ‘E’ Word (Environment)

Listen to propaganda from the EPA and MDE, and you would think “Climate Change” programs are about saving the environment–but you would be wrong.

I’ll start by defining a term I created: “climateer”–someone with a vested interest in believing in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Two especially interesting attributes of climateers are the facts that (a) they have no conclusive facts, but rely on anecdotal assertions like ”97% of scientists believe in climate change”; and (b) climateers are genuinely disappointed when evidence indicates their fears are exaggerated.

The fact is, exaggerated Climate Change has little to do with the E-word, i.e. the Environment…but has everything to do with the C-words: Communism vs. free-market Capitalism.

Perhaps you’re thinking… “sounds a little over the top, commissioner…”

Consider this.

The question of whether or not there is climate change is not the question. Climate has been changing since the beginning of time. The more relevant questions are these: Is change exceeding regular cyclical norms? And to what extent is it anthropogenic, i.e. man-made?

Let’s return to the question of whether climate change doctrine is motivated by the E-word or the C-word.  Nothing I say will convince climateers they’ve been duped, so I’ll let the leftist “experts” tell us in their own words.

Fasten your seatbelts.

Ottmar Edenhofer, Vice-chair of the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, says: “One must say clearly that we… redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Hmmm.

Harvey Ruvin, former Vice-chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives, said: “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.” Interesting vernacular.

Naomi Klein of The Nation magazine says: “So when [Commissioner Rothschild] reacts to… climate change as if capitalism itself were coming under threat, it’s not because [he’s] paranoid… It’s because [he’s] paying attention. … most leftists have yet to realize that climate science has handed them the most powerful argument against capitalism.”

Third Annual Conference of the World Association for Political Economy in Lang Fang, China, May 2008:  “…global ecological sustainability will be possible only with fundamental social transformations and a new global economic system organised on the principles of social ownership of land and other major means of production … only socialism and the global solidarity of all working peoples can free both humanity and the earth from the fatal threat of global capitalism.”

Are you catching these not-so-subtle undercurrents of Marxism?

A top-10 favorite comes from David Foreman, founder of Earth First and director of the Sierra Club: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects … We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Truth is stranger than fiction.

In the book “Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis by Environmentalist Chris Williams,” Williams says: “It is utterly impossible for Capitalism to view the world as a single interlocking system. “ He asserts the only political system that can holistically address the challenges of the 21st century is “Marxism.”

The frontal attack on free-market capitalism is self-evident.

They regularly change phraseology, so rebutting them is like playing a game of whack-a-mole at the Ocean City Boardwalk–as soon as you knock down one of their hysterical arguments, an increasingly ambiguous replacement argument pops-up.  Pow!

A lack of conclusive evidence forced climateers to change their vernacular four times in three decades. First, it was “Global Cooling.” Then, “Global Warming.” Next, “Climate Change.” And now, drum roll please, they have adopted their most ambiguous term. They call it “Climate Disruption.”

Cute… and sufficiently ambiguous to allow every self-appointed pantheistic climateer to wave his/her hands hysterically and yell “climate disruption.”  Every time there is a storm, hurricane, tornado, typhoon… you name it…  hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, more snow, less snow… see, it’s exactly what we warned would happen. Their diagnosis is always the same, and it reminds me of the snake-oil salesmen of the 1850’s who went from town to town selling the same “ointment” for anything and everything that ails you.

Climateers also shifted vernacular related to “Sea Level Rise.” In an effort to band-aid unsustainable hysteria, it’s now called “Storm Surge.” Convenient.

There you have it. Hilarious, pathetic, and a threat to America and individual liberty.

Climate Change is all about attempts to put a stake through the heart of America’s free-market economy, and replace it with a government-controlled Marxist economy… all in the name of social justice… to save the world from the threat of free market capitalism.

Remember, this was in their own words, not mine.

It’s time to stop scaring our children and refocus them on the morality of free markets and individual liberty.


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth