Norway’s Amazing Pro-gay, Pro-choice, Anti-racist, Masonic, Big Government, Zionist, Agnostic, Breakdancing, “Conservative Christian” Terrorist!

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

A deluded Christian leader predicted the world would end on May 21, but this weekend’s Norwegian terrorist attack has raptured the liberal media into the third Heaven. They exulted that the terrorist, who killed at least 76 people, is a “Christian fundamentalist” and possible “neo-Nazi” with (they repeatedly pointed out) blue eyes. Anders Behring Breivik appears to be precisely the white conservative the Department of Homeland Security has spent two years warning us is the “most likely source of terrorism” in the United States. There’s just one problem: Breivik states he does “not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ or God,” questions “[i]f there is a God,” defines Christianity as as a cultural construct to oppose Islam, favors a “secular” society, supports abortion in many circumstances, describes himself as “pro-homosexual” and “pro-Israeli,” wants to transfer child-rearing from the family to the government, hates Adolf Hitler, belongs to the Freemasons, supports a “New World Order,” wants to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple…and has a soft spot for breakdancing.

As he was about to unleash his deadly assault, Anders Behring Breivik released his 1,500-word manifesto 2083 — A European Declaration of Independence under the pen name Andrew Berwick. Unlike many of the mass media “journalists,” this author has read nearly all of it. It paints a picture of Breivik that shatters the mainstream media template of an angry Christian yokel.

The Rise of the “Christian-Atheist” and “Christian-Agnostic”

To begin with, he does not appear to be a Christian. He insists atheists and agnostics “are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it.” He then asks:

So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian (p. 1307).

The Cross, he writes, “should serve as the uniting symbol for all Europeans whether they are agnostics or atheists” (p. 1307).

To facilitate the new Crusades, Breivik and a group of others refounded the Knights Templar in April 2002. On page 817 of his tome, he notes that the 12 founding members included an “English Christian atheist,” a “German Christian atheist,” a “Russian Christian atheist,” a “Dutch Christian agnostic,” and three people with no religious description. That is, seven of the 12 founders do not feign any religion whatsoever.

The Knights’ ranks would be open to atheist recruits, whom he said would fight for secularism:

Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage….European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).

So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist. (pp. 1361-2, Emphases in original).

For a “Christian fundamentalist,” Breivik skirted the definition of Christianity and diminished the importance of its practice. When describing his preparations for the attack he wrote, “If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out…If there is a God I will be allowed to enter Heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past” (p. 1345).

However, he seems on thin ice for this belief. On page 1324, he introduces his “Christian justification of the struggle.” It consists of one verse from the Book of Psalms. In a later section on “self-defense” (pp. 1327-1334), he cites a series of Old Testament passages — and the verse in which Christ tells St. Peter to put his sword away, “for all those who take the sword shall perish by the sword” (St. Matthew 26:52-54).

Paganism may have played a greater motivating role than the religion of the Crucified One. Breivik writes, “Odinism is still and will always be an important part of my culture and identity” (p. 1360).

Despite his lack of faith, he has no timidity in planning to transform Christianity — or kill its leaders. Finding the faith of his fathers too passive and “suicidal,” he and his fellow knights “will rejuvenate” the Christian Church “by implementing our reforms” (p. 1307). The Church will always take a second place to secular learning, saying it is “essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings.” Later he says, since Pope Benedict XVI has not called for military coups in Europe, he “has abandoned Christianity” and is “a cowardly, incompetent, corrupt, and illegitimate pope…we will take the necessary steps to eradicate the corruption which is continuing to plague the Church” (p. 1327).

“Church leaders” who disagree with the Knights are listed as “Class B traitors” who will incur the “death penalty and expropriation of property/funds,” although he graciously allows, “Punishment can be reduced under certain circumstances.” He courteously tallied the exact number of Class A and B traitors in each EU country from the most (Germany at 82,820) to the least (Malta at 417).

Although he intends to kill at least some of the Church’s leaders, he does not target many of the issues held as vital by most Christians.

Pro-Gay, Pro-Abortion, Anti-Family “Christian Fundamentalism”?

Traditional Christianity opposes abortion, promiscuous sexual activity, and the homosexual agenda, but Breivik finds himself on the other side of these cultural issues. In an online post, he wrote, “we have to ensure that we influence other culturally conservatives to take our anti-racist[,] pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought.” Elsewhere, he says we must “Support Israel’s fight against Jihad” (p. 1243).

He assures us the sexual revolution “is not a Marxist concept but rather a liberal one,” and thus one we have to preserve. “So how do we preach chastity to a mob that wants unlimited access to free sex? The answer is that we don’t.” He added it was important not to “ram a puritan and deeply conservative way of life down the throat of everyone” (pp. 1168-9). Instead, he envisions the development of autonomous “liberal zones” similar to Las Vegas, where anything goes.

He allows for abortion ‘in the case of rape…or if the baby has mental or physical disabilities. The liberals zones may be exempt [from] this law” (p. 1179). A “ban on abortion,” he writes, would “strip women or basic rights” (p. 1181).

Many of Christianity’s cultural opponents have sought to redefine marriage. So does Breivik. “Marriage must be based on a specific agreement between a man and a woman who creates [sic.] an advanced pact which must have a limited validity of at least 20 years” (pp. 1176). These contracts fit into his plan to transfer child-rearing from the family to the State.

“Outsource Breeding” for the State

Similar to other totalitarians, Breivik the alleged “Christian fundamentalist” would destroy the family. He proposes what he calls “outsource breeding” by women in “low cost countries,” who would produce babies on demand. The parents could select sex traits via “reprogenics” (pp. 1192-4). Once the engineered babies arrive on shore, Breivik would have “the state, or state funded institutions take on the fostering [of] these children.” This will begin with “kindergarden boarding school” at “age 0,” where they will be “assigned a specific surname,” and continue through college at age 25 (p. 1182-3). The “parents” assigned to them would follow them for at least 25 years and be paid based on “performance” (p. 1196). To ease matters, schooling will be replaced with a “Brain-Computer Interface,” which loads “15-30 years” of learning “from an external device to the brain” (p. 1199).

If Breivik values few Christian conservative issues, he has strong convictions that there are too many people on earth — approximately three billion too many.

Anders Breivik: The John Holdren of Terrorism

Breivik wrote that “Overconsumption, pollution, and overpopulation are the three problems that threaten the future of life on earth” while calling for “global population control” (p. 1200-1). “We should create population capacity guidelines for continents or countries. If starvation threatens the countries who have failed to follow our guidelines, we should not support them…or send them any kind of aid.” “Our planet should not exceed 3 billion individuals so radical policies will have to be implemented” (p. 1202).

An environmentalist campaign of population control hardly sounds Christian or fundamentalist. However, it closely echoes the writings of current Science Czar John P. Holdren, who envisioned a similar scheme in his book Ecoscience.

Breivik appears to be an economic centrist. He wrote, “To my left you will find a socialist, to my right you will find a social democrat” (p. 1355). He favors the “development of alternative energy” to “save the environment” (p. 1199) and argues it is “essential” that “national states have a controlling stake in” multinational corporations (p. 1196).

The Breakdancing Zionist “Neo-Nazi”

The media intimated Breivik may be a neo-Nazi, based on his concern for Europe and, apparently, his blue eyes….

Read more.

Obama’s Commerce Secretary’s Plan for Global Socialism

Chuck Roger, The American Thinker

The wise man smiled and proclaimed that government should use “regulatory steps” as well as market forces to intervene in the power generation sector. The man also told his UC Berkeley audience that government should set higher targets for non-fossil-fuel-based energy production and penalize producers that don’t comply. The issuer of these decrees was John Bryson, who at the time just happened to be CEO of Edison International, a company whose fortunes would increase under alternative energy mandates. Bryson now happens to be President Obama’s nominee to head the Commerce Department. Just another day in Barack Obama’s crony capitalist paradise.

Mr. Bryson is a progressive, a member of that species of critter that favors government intervention to force “society” to adhere to policies that know-it-alls deem best. In textbook progressive style, as a prescription for stopping people in undeveloped countries from clearing forests, Bryson proclaimed to a 2009 UN energy conference that “we’ve got to… find ways to map out the affected lands, to develop plans for addressing them, find economic models in which the people who are driven to do these things to try to raise the livelihoods of their families, find alternative means.” [Awkward wording reproduced as is.]

Global wealth redistribution, pure and simple.

Read more.

Video of the Day: Alan Keyes, Impeachment is “The Best Way” to Save America

Ambassador Alan Keyes has told a gathering of prominent Christian conservatives the best way to oppose Obama’s agenda is impeachment. Keyes stated Barack Obama’s war in Libya, to establish the United Nations’ decree, sets an “ominous” precedent that could be used anywhere in the world…including in the United States. “The best way to make this case right now so that all these issues would be on the table, so that Americans would understand what it’s about, would be to have an impeachment move in the House and to debate what Obama did in Libya,” he said. Keyes spoke to The Oak Initiative’s Summit, held April 14-16 in South Carolina. The Oak Initiative is a moral and cultural organization dedicated to saving America through a “blend of a spiritual awakening with sound wisdom.”

Science Czar Wants a $1.4 Trillion UN Tax

Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

Next Wednesday, Barack Obama is scheduled to address a United Nations summit calling for a “small global tax” on the U.S. economy and hundreds of millions more dollars in U.S. aid — and some of his advisers do not believe that is enough.

Obama will speak to the UN Summit on Millennium Development Goals, a global “anti-poverty” blueprint that calls for $845 billion in foreign aid from the U.S. before 2015. But the UN and several foreign nations will use next week’s conference to push for “small global taxes” on airline tickets and financial transactions that could net $30-$35 billion a year. The new UN tax will deposit the money collected from developed Western nations into a “Global Solidarity Fund,” which will then redistribute the funds to other nations. The president  told the UN last year, “We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals.”

An undisclosed portion of this will go toward “climate change mitigation” — that is, advancing the global socialists’ Green agenda.  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has no plans to keep the international slush fund small, insisting properly saving the world from greenhouse gases “would require financial assistance of perhaps an additional 1 percent of gross domestic product of rich countries in 2015.” (Emphasis added.) That would haven taken $143 billion out of the U.S. economy last year alone, a debt he deems “a small sum compared with the likely costs of inaction.”

It is a small sum compared to the plan advocated by Barack Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, who has spent the last 30 years calling for a UN tax ten to twenty times that amount.

Read more.

Beware of International Govt Granting Amnesty to Illegals

David North, Center for Immigration Studies

Most of the dialogue on national immigration policy, understandably, is focused on direct federal government policy making; that is, when Congress passes a law or votes appropriations, when the executive makes policies within the law, and when the judiciary interprets the law.

But there is another aspect of national policy making in which the U.S. government hands off migration decision making to some other entity, such as to a huge international organization like the World Trade Organization (WTO), or to a tiny government, such as that of American Samoa. These arrangements should concern all low-migration advocates, particularly since the mass migration people are proposing commissions to help make immigration policy.

My strong sense is that these indirect pieces of policy making nearly always favor the open-borders types; typically the other side is better placed and better able to manipulate these situations than those of us who dislike loose immigration policies.

Every time one of these policy hand-offs happens, at least to date, it has opened our doors a little (or a lot) more. Further, it is usually harder for the American government to correct these indirect decisions than it is to modify its own direct decisions.

There are four types of situations in which indirect policy making takes place. They are….

Read more.