Tuesday, October 31, 2006



Pentagon Will "Catapult the Propaganda" Via U.S. Media

From http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/311006pentagonpropaganda.htm

Pentagon Will "Catapult the Propaganda" Via U.S. Media

Military, government indoctrination wing formally declares psychological warfare on the American people
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com October 31 2006
The Pentagon has formally declared psychological warfare on the American people by announcing it will engage in propaganda and indoctrination by using the Internet and media to "set the record straight" on the war on terror. Recent history clearly indicates this is just the latest outreach of an insipid brainwashing agenda that is totally unlawful and anathema to the U.S. Constitution.
In the past, the military or the government did not announce that they were planting surreptitious propaganda to target U.S. audiences, they did it secretly and for a very good reason - because it was and still is illegal.
But since George W. Bush, backed by his renegade legal advisors, officially announced the end of the Republic and the birth of the "decidership," he can arbitrarily create out of thin air, ignore, or amend any law he likes and to all intents and purposes is above the Constitution and has ascribed to himself total dictator power. The only thing that remains is, in his own words, to "catapult the propaganda," in an attempt to legitimize his absolute rule and assure the blind obedience of the American people to his junta's future desecrations of foreign lands and the bill of rights at home.

The new program is simply another wing of the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence, publicly announced after 9/11 but simply the latest incarnation of a PR brainwashing scam that spans back decades. The OSI exploited legal loopholes by planting its propaganda in foreign newspapers that would later be picked up by U.S. newswires. In today's environment even that seems quaint, with the Pentagon openly and proudly shouting from the rooftops that they will knowingly violate the law to indoctrinate the American people.
Perhaps the most alarming case of the military's information tentacles burrowing their influence deep into media circles in recent years was in February 2000, when another branch of the same Pentagon propaganda bureau, Psychological Operations Command (PSYOPS), had placed their operatives "in the news division at CNN's Atlanta headquarters as part of an “internship” program starting in the final days of the Kosovo War."
FAIR speculated that the purpose was twofold, one to directly propagandize the American people via CNN and also potentially to allow the "military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against the network itself," because the "military needed to find ways to "gain control" over commercial news satellites to help bring down an "informational cone of silence" over regions where special operations were taking place."

With the knowledge that government propagandists were utilizing U.S. news network hubs at CNN to run what was described as a "vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in enemy territory," and that this took place over six years ago - just imagine how infested today's networks and newsrooms are with paid agent provocateur propagandists whose sole job specification is to orchestrate methods of mind control over the population of the United States.
In October 2005 Government Accountability Office investigators concluded that the Bush administration's secret policy to pay off influential journalists to plant fake news and positive spin on Bush's policies was illegal and that the "administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban."
The consequences were not the drafting of new legislation that would clearly outlaw such actions in future, nor any form of criminal proceedings against the protagonists. The upshot of it all was a slap on the wrist for Armstrong Williams and a request that he pay back part of the money that the government had given him - not even all of it.

"Armstrong Williams is going to pay back $34,000 to the government for work he failed to deliver, but who's going to pay the taxpayers for the rest of the quarter million dollars Williams was paid for his propaganda services to the administration?," asked Congressman George Miller, as the Justice Department hurried a settlement and swept the whole sordid affair under the rug.

---Launch of Aaron Russo's From Freedom to Fascism on DVD!Neither left- nor right-wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America, the federal reserve scam and the plan to track and trace the movements of every US citizen.Click here to get your copy!------------

Impromptu mass e mail circulations and talking points spread around messageboards and social networking websites that triumph the moral virtues of the war on terror have been rife for years and are clearly part of a gargantuan propaganda campaign that has been insipid for years but is only just being announced now.
Here are a couple you'll probably remember from the past few months.
A recent diatribe that was forwarded more times than an annoying "meet the love of your life" chain letter concerned a visit to the White House by a man who was overwhelmed by the intensely warm and gracious personality of George W. Bush, and astounded by the negative media stereotype of his nature. The man just felt the need to share his tear-jerking story of how the President shook him by the hand, looked in his eyes and made him feel like the most important person in the room - and by a miracle it just happened to bypass our spam guards and end up in tens of millions of Americans' inboxes.

Another example that similarly wormed its way through MySpace bulletin boards was an attempt at bolstering the credibility of the flagging war on terror and countering the progress of the 9/11 truth movement by simply listing terror attacks over the last three decades and their alleged perpetrators. A modified version of this was used in a speech by Bush propaganda architect Karl Rove just a week ago where he referenced terror attacks that had occurredbefore the invasion of Iraq, therefore attempting to absolve charges that the Iraq invasion provoked an increase in terrorism. So under that twisted logic, drug dealers shouldn't worry about creating more addicts by selling drugs because there were always drug addicts before them!
In both cases, as soon as you read the first paragraph of these screeds, the big fat stinking rat of covert government propaganda scuttled across the computer screen.
Now the modern day gang of Goebbels wannabees seek to sink their teeth even further into the last outpost of free speech - the Internet - and impose a blackout on any dissent under the auspices of "disseminating enemy propaganda."
The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Bush's own strategy document for "winning the war on terror" identifies "conspiracy theorists," meaning anyone who exposes government corruption and its lies about major domestic and world events, as "terrorists recruiters," and vows to eliminate their influence in society.
In a speech given last Monday, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills."
Chertoff has pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.
A program on behalf of CENTCOM is also underway to infiltrate blogs and message boards to ensure people, "have the opportunity to read positive stories,"presumably about how Iraq is a wonderful liberated democracy and the war on terror really is about protecting Americans from Al-CIAda.

The eminently hypocritical tenet of the Pentagon's justification for the propaganda program - that they need to correct "inaccurate statements" and "set the record straight" is borne out by the fact that they participated in the dissemination of the most lurid and damaging propaganda since Hitler's final speech - a deliberately fomented lie about weapons of mass destruction that killed 655,000 Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers.

How dare this gaggle of criminals lecture us about how the insurgents control the media while equating anyone who even mildly criticizes their bloodlust with being a terrorist?
They are the liars, they are the crooks, they are the propagandists and it is we the alternative media - the fifth estate - that should mobilize like never before to counter their spurious deception.




Sickness is ever prevelant on this Earth. Yet real healthy solutions spring forward like the thremedous waves of a waterfall. Regardless of the unfair hate exhbited unto certain individuals, I will continue on. Despite all of the demonization of Patriots and real, authentic religious people, I will carry on living. As for the apostacy and counterfieth religions, exposing those frauds are a must. Individuals had supported and are supporting a new world order. A new world order is a threat to national sovereignity making it one of the evils of globalism. Now, a cultural war is as potent as ever. Either we will have a glorious nation of absolutes or laws or a nation filled with hedonism. We either will embrace moral values or embrace disturbing, trash horror movies like "Saw 3." We must either stand up for what we believe in or become innate cowards. The United States ought to incorporate healthy medicine, not countries with recreational drug use like Holland (where pedophilia is legal or 16 years can have sex with adults. Some want the age of consent lowered to 12 years old). There is an issue of wealth. Unlike some, I never subscribe to socialism or stealing wealth from the rich to be given unto the poor. Although is not necessary equated to basic virtue. Just because someone is rich, doesn't mean he or she is virtious or an upright human being. Debate and looking at many viewpoints are keys into developing arguments. It is possible to strengthen your own views by delving into the other side's opinions. Refreshing is that millions of Americans maintains my opinions on issues. Recently, the Pentagon is executing another program of sending propaganda to people in responding to critics of their war policies. The good news is that more human beings are waking up from the British terrorism against Iraqis, John Yoo's torture memos wanting children to be tortured sexually, the civil liberty threats, and other points.

Popularity is not a sign of truth. Just because a majority of Americans desired Terri Schiavo to starve to death (which was a violation of the Geneva Convention and Florida Statues This is my response to Chris Matthews' deception yesterday) doesn't mean that the murder of Terri Schiavo was justified. Just because many Americans love abortion, doesn't mean that killing an unborn baby is honorable. Abortion is murder. Not to mention that Planned Parenthood (which was invented by pro-eugenicists and racists. Sanger was in the New Age group called Unity, was an adulteress, and a notorious drug addict. I'm not proud of some drug addict founding group lecturing us on so-called "family planning") has been caught in covering up child molestation. There's more. I guess some other folks don't want people like us to mention the tons of successes as a product of real adult stem cell research. Sometimes going outside of the box and out of the crowd can build character. It can enables charity on subjects. Frank Morales on October 26, 2006 wrote that President Bush is inching toward martial law. He tries to justify by citing Bush signing the Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122). Now, this new law gives the President the right of the President to send troops anywhere without the consent of the governor or local authorities (by just declaring a "national emergency." It also allows the President to control the state-based National Guard. You also have the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which gives the President the right to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" and send them to Gitmo for a trial bounded by the military tribunal. This is out of control. Already you have $385 million (sent from Homeland Security ) to be utilized to fund Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root to build real concentration camps in America.

Today is Halloween on October 31st, 2006. Now, I never agreed with Halloween for many reasons. My mother told me that it was of the occult and wicked. She was right. Halloween is not Christian and originated from the pagan/Celtic celebration called Samhain. Samhain (even today according to the ASHEVILLE Citizen Times on October 31, 2006 show that deluded pagans today worship nature and the Earth on this very day) was a time when the pagan Celts lit bonfires to drive out the so-called "evil spirits." Back then, the pagans dressed in customes to try to celebrate their false "gods." Today, you see folks wearing customes of devils, murderers, skeletons, and other themes praising death. Samhain (or Halloween) is nothing more than a day loving and celebrating death. What does this have to do with Real Christianity or a step into developing morality? The answer is absolutely nothing. Since Samhain is a witch's celebration day, no question that human sacrifice is possible on this day. Another smoking gun exposing Halloween (or Hell-o-ween) is "Trick or Treat." Trick or treat came from the Druids asking for a Treat (or a young woman) for a human sacrifice. According to Ruth Edna Kelley's, "The Book of Hallowe'en" (found in, Lothrop, Lee and Shepard Co. which was published in Boston at 1919), Samhain was done in celebrating Baal. It isn't just stuff back in the day. Now, world leaders like Tony Blair do rituals where he and his life seeks "the light" for guidance. The Bohemian Grove have a ritual praising Molech and burning a human effigy. Death imagery is found in the Jesuit Order. In Freemasonry, people swear death oaths with pagan symbolism from the Hexagram to the snake. As for me, I will not celebrate Halloween. There is nothing wrong with praying for people during Halloween to wake people up and end human sacrifice on this day.


Nancy Levant from Al-Jazeerah on October 30 ,2006 cite the reality that the government want National IDs by May 2008. This is because on 2005, Congress and Bush signed the Real ID Act giving the government the power to form national IDs. It even requires every American to have it in order fly, organize your bank account, and is part of our driver licenses. This isn't real freedom since it just federalizes our information into a finite system. It involves a Big Brother system that leads to more government control over people's privacy. Extreme forms of Big Brother and militarized police isn't just in London or New York City. Associated Press on October 29, 2006 reported that in WYOMING, Michigan, a school drill occured. This drill have police in full riot gear with weapons in a Middle and high schools. Parents like Diana Silva have rightfully complained about this sceanario, because what does an armed police in riot gear (with weapons and parents weren't informed of this) have to do with a legitimate drill. Roxana Hegeman from the london Independent on October 29, 2006 the US Missile Defense Agency released a 757 plane that can shoot out lasers. The military want to test it to see if it can destroy intercontinental missiles. Strange events occur on a regular basis like the evil MK-ULTRA program of brainwashing citizens. Additionally, real poisons like flouride and aspartame are in our water streams. Common sense leads people to realize that the FDA hasn't done enough to warn people of real health dangers.

Losing my intellect and intensity isn't an option for me. I've been thinking about something. Even the Texas Congressman Ron Paul and Jerome Corsi wrote about the NAFTA Superhighway.
The NAFTA Superhighway is about the construction of a huge highway splitting the country in half that's proposed to be ten football fields wide in 10 colossus lanes. Now, this will connect Mexico, the U.S., and Canada through a large road. This is apart of the North American Union agenda found in the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" document (which wants one global zone of North America). Governor Perry of Texas endorses this. This NAFTA Superhighway proposal doesn't have Congressional oversight. From the European Union (with the euro currency), the African Union, the Asian Union, and now this proposed American Union, many internationalists want one world government. World leaders from David Rockefeller, Walter Cronkite, and others have endorsed world government, which I'm totally against. Even Robert Pastor of the CFR proposed one North American currency called the amero. Architecture is beautiful. Instead of worshipping a false Masonic "Grand Architect," I choose to worship the Creator of this Universe, who is God.

By Timothy

Ottawa rules out amnesty for 200,000 illegal workers


The NAFTA Superhighway by Ron Paul

From http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html

The NAFTA Superhighway

by Ron Paul


By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.
This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.
This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.

Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it.
The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.
The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.

The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.
The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.
A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election.

Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight – and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty.
October 31, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Ron Paul Archives

Christians Growing Increasingly Dissatisfied With Amoral Public Education System


Is Google a Government Spook?


Speeches by Malcolm X


911 Revisited

An Invitation to the Occult? Halloween



From http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/311006Occult.htm

An Invitation to the Occult? Halloween

Chuck Missler October 31 2006

This is always a difficult time for Christians, especially those with children. It has been suggested that for a Christian to be asked to celebrate Halloween is like asking a Holocaust survivor to celebrate Hitler's birthday!

It is also a dangerous time for some, since many of the seemingly "harmless" involvements associated with Halloween can also be "entries" for the occult, and can prove very tragic for the unwary.

Pagan Background

In ancient Britain and Ireland, the Celtic festival of Samhain was observed on October 31, the end of summer. November 1 was the new year for both Celtic and Anglo-Saxon calendars and was one of the most important and yet sinister calendar festivals of the Celtic Year.
Settling in northern France and the British Isles, the Celtic people engaged in occultic arts and worshiped nature, giving it supernatural, animistic qualities. (Much like our Federal government is attempting to enforce today.)
The ancient Druids were the learned priestly class of the Celtic religion. Many of their beliefs and practices were similar to those of Hinduism, such as reincarnation and the transmigration of the soul, which teaches that people may be reborn as animals. The Druids believed that on October 31, the night before their New Year and the last day of the old year, Samhain, the Lord of Death, gathered the souls of the evil dead who had been condemned to enter the bodies of animals.
The Druids also believed that the punishment of the evil dead would be lightened by sacrifices, prayers and gifts to the Lord of Death. (This begins to reveal the strange link between this holiday and the non-Biblical concept of purgatory.)

The souls of the dead were supposed to revisit their homes on this day, and the autumnal festival acquired a sinister significance, with ghosts, witches, hobgoblins, black cats, fairies, and demons of all kinds said to be roaming about. It was the time to placate the supernatural powers controlling the processes of nature.

And, on October 31, 1517, Martin Luther drove a stake into the heart of many of the prevailing non-Biblical concepts by nailing his famous 95 theses to the Castle Church door in Wittenberg, Germany, which started the movement known today as the Reformation-the single most important event in modern history.1 Appropriately, he did this on Halloween.

Modern Halloween Traditions

In early American history, Halloween was not widely practiced until the 20th century, when it was introduced by the Irish Catholic settlements. Gradually, Halloween became a secular observance, and many customs and practices developed. The carved pumpkin may have originated with the witches' use of a skull with a candle inside to light the way to coven meetings.
Since 1965 UNICEF, an agency of the United Nations, has attempted to incorporate into the Halloween observance the collection of money for the United Nations Children's Fund. This exploitation by the ungodly United Nations of this pagan holiday seems strangely appropriate.

The Occult is Increasingly Popular

Halloween is, for many, a "crossover" involvement in which innocent games can lead to serious entanglement with real witches, neo-pagans, New Agers, and other occultists.2 A common pastime is the use of a Ouija board to attempt to contact ghosts or spirits that are believed to be roaming about. This can lead to serious consequences including demon possession.3 Demons have a vested interest in Halloween because it supports the occult, and it also offers novel and unexpected opportunities to control and influence people.
Forms of the occult can include mediums, channelers, clairvoyants, psychics, spiritists, diviners, mystics, gurus, shamans, psychical researchers, Yogis, psychic and holistic healers, astral travel, astrology, mysticism, Ouija boards, Tarot cards, contact with the dead, UFOs, and thousands of other practices which almost defy cataloging.
Occultism includes Satanism, astrology, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, theosophy, witchcraft and many forms of serious magic. It includes activities seeking the acquisition of "hidden" things-which are expressly forbidden by God in the Bible.

The Biblical View

Halloween practices can open the door to the occult and can introduce forces into people's lives that they are not equipped to combat.4 There is genuine power in the occult, but it is demonic power.5

Any serious study of Biblical demonology will reveal Satan as the power behind false religion, witchcraft, idolatry and the occult.6 The Word of God makes it clear that these are all to be shunned as dangerous. There were many superstitions and false concepts in ancient Israel about which the Bible is silent. However, occultism, in any form, was punishable by death! Why?
The spiritual power and reality behind idols involves demons.7 The Bible commands us to shun occult practices. Mediums and spiritists are expressly prohibited.8 Nowhere are such practices acceptable.
A Halloween Project?
Every year, many people are perplexed as to how to deal with the children's celebrations surrounding Halloween. On the one hand, participating in the perpetuation of the usual pagan (and occultic) rituals are hardly the enterprise of a Biblical Christian. On the other hand, creating constructive alternatives can be challenging.

Many churches and families organize a "Harvest" festival with games, prizes, etc., as an alternative party opportunity. These are gaining widespread interest and are to be encouraged.
Organizing a drama event to involve the older children is an alternative candidate; such an effort could include Saul and the Witch of Endor, from 1 Samuel 28, as a play.
[The winning scripts resulting from a play-writing contest held a few years ago are available through K-House.]

Your Protection

Intellect alone is insufficient. "If it were possible, it would deceive the very elect." This is another example of the necessity to truly understand the Armor of God as outlined in Ephesians 6. This brief review was excerpted from our featured briefing package, Halloween: Invitation to the Occult?
* * *
Missler, Chuck, Signs in the Heavens, The Mysteries of the Planet Mars Halloween: Invitation to the Occult? (briefing packages), Koinonia House, 1991-6.

Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, The Facts on Halloween, Harvest House, Eugene OR, 1996. A key reference for this article.

Sykes, Egerton, Who's Who in Non-Classical Mythology, J.M. Dent, London, 1993.
Patten, Donald Wesley, Catastrophism and the Old Testament, Pacific Meridian Publishing Co., Seattle WA, 1995.

Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs, Harvest House, Eugene OR, 1996.
Also the video, Halloween: Trick or Treat, Jeremiah Films, Hemet CA

Jesuit info

From http://z13.invisionfree.com/THE_UNHIVED_MIND/index.php?showtopic=16206

Remember folks according to the Jewish Encyclopedia the Rothschilds are "Keepers of the Vatican Treasury." They are merely powerful Masonic Labor Zionist Court Jews. Remember folks that Opus Dei "Work of God" aren't as powerful as Dan "Temporal Coadjutor" Brown would like you to believe. They are merely yet another arm of the true Catholic powerhouse known as the Jesuit Order who've ruled the Papacy since 1814 and Vatican II since 1963. Israel was created by the United Nations in 1948, the United Nations was created and is controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR itself was created and is controlled by the Sovereign Military of Malta, headed in New York at the Maltese Round Table. The CFR controls both U.S and Israeli Policy. -2tuff




From http://z13.invisionfree.com/THE_UNHIVED_MIND/index.php?showtopic=16195

I suggest my friend you try to source a new ISP which should stall some attacks on your for a while hopefully. Another idea is to have a new phone line installed (new #) and this too will help for a while. You could always use an internet cafe for posting certain things on the web.I can easily imagine Italians having a hard time when speaking the truth. To speak of truth or anything deemed negative about the Vatican is a big no no indeed. People think talking about Jews is bad enough, they don't truely realise the lock down on Vatican knowledge and how its craftely done. Remember Greg Szymanski said hes had more trouble since talking about Jesuits/Vatican than he ever encounter with Zionist MASONIC labor COURT Jews.The United States is DOMINATED by the Society of Jesus or better still its more Military name Company of Jesus as you rightfully address it. The Sovereign Military of Malta are the donkey workers for the Jesuits. Remember the Jesuits always hide in the shadows, the SMOM unfortunately for the Jesuit is their last possible shadow to people woken to the Vatican.

Temporal Coadjutor and Vatican henchman Dan Brown whos met with the Pope himself, trys to create more confusion making out Opus Dei is the head of the Vatican. What proposterous nonsense whilst never mentioning the almighty JESUIT "Black Brotherhood of Seth" ORDER. The Jesuits have dominated in the Papacy since 1814 and 100% by 1870 with the Doctrines of Infallibility. They then took over Vatican II in 1963 if I recall the date correctly. Opus Dei could NOT be created by the Pope unless the SUPERIOR JESUIT GENERAL had granted authorisation to do so. Opus Dei is another arm of the Jesuit Order placed in regions where needed. Remember who orders whos gets within the Cardinal College that great realm of Princes of the Roman Catholic Church. Its the SUPERIOR GENERAL who chooses who gets into the Cardinal College. Whos just one of those 70 Princes? You guessed it, Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Edward Michael Egan; the head of the Americas Sovereign Military of Malta via the Maltese Round Table also situated in New York City controlling the Council on Foreign Relations, Federal Reserve, U.S Military and Intelligence for their hierachy the Jesuit Order.

Pro-Life News







Britons 'could be microchipped like dogs in a decade'



From http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/281006rockefellerpredicted.htm

Rockefeller Predicted "Event" To Trigger War Eleven Months Before 9/11

Hollywood director Russo recalls remarkable "forecast" of coming attack

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com October 28 2006

Hollywood director, producer and documentary film maker Aaron Russo, currently receiving a wave of plaudits for his latest release, America: From Freedom to Fascism, told The Alex Jones Show that Nicholas Rockefeller had personally assured him there was going to be an "event" that would trigger the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq eleven months before 9/11 took place.
During his career in the entertainment industry, Russo was manager for Bette Midler from 1972 to 1979 [1] and The Manhattan Transfer, and the producer of the films The Rose and Trading Places. He also produced Wise Guys. Russo has stated that he was the first person to book Led Zeppelin in a United States venue, (the "Electric Circus," Chicago,1968, later named the "Kinetic Playground").
Saying he had been approached many times by the Rockefellers and other members of the CFR elite in an attempt to recruit him, Russo recalled a conversation that would come home to roost on September 11, 2001.

"Here's what I do know first hand - I know that about eleven months to a year before 9/11 ever happened I was talking to my Rockefeller friend (Nicholas Rockefeller) and he said to me 'Aaron there's gonna be an event' and he never told me what the event was going to be - I'm not sure he knew what the event was going to be I don't know that he knew that," said Russo.
Russo related how Rockefeller knew precisely what the event would lead to and which countries would be militarily targeted by the elite.
"He just said there's gonna be an event and out of that event we're gonna invade Afghanistan so we can run pipelines through the Caspian sea, we can go into Iraq to take the oil and establish bases in the middle east and to make the middle east part of the new world order and we're going to go after Venezuela - that's what's going to come out of this event."
"Eleven months to a year later that's what happened....he certainly knew that something was going to happen."
"In my relationships with some of these people I can tell you that it's as evil as it really gets - this is it - this is the game," stated Russo - also relating how members of the elite were routinely obsessed by creating a world identification society where people had to carry ID cards and prove who they were at all times.

---------------Launch of Aaron Russo's From Freedom to Fascism on DVD!Neither left- nor right-wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America, the federal reserve scam and the plan to track and trace the movements of every US citizen.Click here to get your copy!----------------

Russo was told that if he joined the elite he would be exempted from any of the police state measures inflicted on the general public. He has now chosen to take a bold public stance on everything he knows and stated that the potential consequences no longer concern him and that freedom for future generations is paramount.
Rockefeller also told Russo that the elite families created and financed the women's lib movement so they could tax another half of the population and so that the children would be trained by them in government schools rather than in the context of the family unit.
Russo also sounded off on 9/11, openly airing his view for the first time that it was a complete inside job.
"People know that 9/11 was an inside job," said Russo, "look what they did here in America, look at 9/11, look what they did - they killed thousands of Americans - people jumping out of windows from a hundred floors up - they don't care," said the director.
"There's no way that Building 7 came down without a controlled demolition, it takes weeks to do the controlled demolition, they couldn't have done it in a few hours like Larry Silverstein said - it blows the whole game - concrete doesn't turn to powder unless its exploded."
"We all know that 9/11 was a fraud - an inside job," concluded Russo.



From http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/301006globalcrash.htm

Former World Bank Chief Economist Predicts Global Crash

Nobel Prize winner Stiglitz highlights agenda of predatory globalism now arriving in America under auspices of NAFTA Superhighway, North American Union

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com October 30 2006
Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has predicted a global economic crash within 24 months - unless the current downturn is successfully managed. Asked if the situation was being properly handled Stiglitz emphatically responded "no," and also drew ominous parallels to the development of the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union.

Stiglitz caused controversy in October 2001 when he exposed rampant corruption within the IMF and blew the whistle on their nefarious methods of inducing countries to fall under their debt before stripping them of sovereignty and hollowing out their economies.
Speaking on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones radio show, Stiglitz defined the process of globalization as a system that was "rigged against the poor countries, rigged for the advanced industrial countries - the result of that is there were an awful lot of losers."
The Columbia University Professor described how rampant privatization has crippled Mexico, in particular citing the sell-off of major infrastructure such as roads.
"They sold the roads to the private enterprise and the hope was that they would be more efficient but of course what happens is that they didn't maintain the roads, they couldn't generate enough revenue and they eventually had to default and give the roads back to the government."
Stiglitz agreed that the process of hijacking and looting key infrastructure on the part of the IMF and World Bank, as an offshoot of predatory globalization, had now moved from the third world to Europe, the United States and Canada.

These sentiments are especially disturbing when we consider the current fast-moving quasi-secret agenda to sell-off major American highways to foreign corporations who plan to turn them into toll roads for tracking and taxation purposes - collectively known as the NAFTA Superhighway. The program forms the framework for the advancement of the North American Union - a collective governmental, border and trading bloc that President Bush has signed the U.S. over to under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of March 2005.
As we previously reported, US citizens will be forced to adopt a de-facto national identification card and have their freedom of mobility defined by behavioral fealty to the government under proposals set to derive from NAFTA superhighway toll road systems and the implementation of the American Union.
"This is a movement that's gone on all over the world," said Stiglitz, "the movement of trying to turn over basic facilities - water, roads, to the private sector."

----------------------------------------Launch of Aaron Russo's From Freedom to Fascism on DVD!Neither left- nor right-wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America, the federal reserve scam and the plan to track and trace the movements of every US citizen.Click here to get your copy!------------

Speaking about the agenda of the World Bank since the installation of Paul Wolfowitz, Stiglitz highlighted the shift which began back in August 2001 whereby the Bush administration moved to block transparency of secret bank accounts, which in part facilitated the 9/11 terror attacks.
"Unfortunately in this current administration, the defense industries and the energy industries have really been running the show and it has been disastrous," said Stiglitz.

Discussing the warning signs of plummeting real estate prices in the U.S., Stiglitz stated that a global economic depression could only be avoided if a correction was made but at the moment all the indicators are that the situation is not being well managed.
"If it's well managed it will only be a slow-down, if it's not well-managed it could be a recession," said Stiglitz.
Asked if the debt bubble was being well-managed Stiglitz plainly responded in the negative.
"It's gonna be difficult....this has been perhaps the worst six years of mismanagement of the macro economy....I think we can avoid an implosion if we manage this carefully but it's going to be very risky," said Stiglitz, agreeing that if the same course continued to be followed a global depression would occur within 12-24 months.
Stiglitz said his reason for leaving the World Bank was that he was told he would not be able to speak his mind on the issues he considered paramount to the press, summarized as helping make the world a better place, and that the two "amicably parted ways." He also said that the IMF were particularly upset that his predictions about their disastrous policies quickly came true - which is an ominous portender for his thoughts on the possibility of a global crash.
Stiglitz also slammed the recently passed Military Commissions Act, stating that the bill, "really did compromise some of our basic rights," and that it was a "disaster" for American freedom.


Prison Planet.tv members can hear this exclusive interview right now by clicking here. Not a member? Consider the great benefits of subscribing by clicking here.



Why Not Open Sharing?


81: Statist Kuo – Part I

From http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=715

81: Statist Kuo – Part I

Printer friendly E-Mail this page

In our 8lst “The American View” we discuss the new book by David Kuo titled “Tempting Faith: An Inside Story Of Political Seduction” (Free Press). Kuo was second in command of President Bush’s un-Biblical and un-Constitutional Office Of Faith-Based And Community Initiatives. Kuo, who says he is a Christian, believes fervently in this project. His major complaint is that Mr. Bush over-promised and did not give it enough Federal tax dollars to this lawless boondoggle and the President (gasp!) politicized this Office! Shocking, no? No. Kuo also reveals how White House staffers mocked and ridiculed come of the so-called “Christian leaders” who showed up to thrust their respective snouts into this public trough.
81: Hear it now (10,597 kb)

Also, please, if you would like to help us keep our program on the air, you may send us a donation of $25, $50, $100 or more. Make your check or money order out to: “The American View” and send it to:

The American View8028 Ritchie HighwaySuite #315Pasadena, MD 21122
And do, please, continue to pray for the success of our program that it might glorify God. Because, as He says in Psalm 127:1: “Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”

Friday, October 27, 2006

N American Union Highway has Texas Candidates up in arms

From http://infowars.com/articles/nwo/n_american_union_highway_has_texas_candidates_up_in_arms.htm

N American Union Highway has Texas Candidates up in arms
You Tube October 24 2006

The North American Union NAFTA Super-Highway, which is taking form first through the Trans-Texas Corridor, is a massive land-grab, with plans to seize over 1 million acres in Texas alone through eminent domaign. This has candidates like Texas Democrats Hank Gilbert (running for Commissioner of Agriculture) and David Van Os (running for Attorney General in Texas) up in arms and discussing the possibility of an armed populist revolution in response to the North American Union's sovereignty-seizing actions.

Variety and Unity


Jumping on new challenges is part of living. So much information is coming out about the real world and reality. Tons of secularists want us to be intimidated into believing that there was no religious influence in early America. This is false for many reasons. Although, nothing in the Constitution supports a theocracy, the vast majority of early American citizens were professing Christians. There was Masonic/pagan influence in the creation of Washington D.C. (which the Jesuit-connected Carroll family had a strong power base at. The Jesuits were involved in so much intrigue that the Pope suppressed them in 1773) and other aspects of early America, but Judeo-Christian influence is still in early America via the Great Awakening, the preachers fighting for the American Revolution, and the strong Christians who birthed the Constitution plus Bill of Rights (like John Witherspoon, John Leland, and others). A lesson I do recieve from skeptics and people from the other side is about accurate. I must be as accurate as possible to make the best quality of articles. I believe I've done that, especially since the Summer of 2006.

It's necessary to oppose illegal immigration. I realize that compassion must be made unto anyone suffering whether illegal or legal immigration (I don't believe in assualting or mistreating any human being), but illegal immigration must be opposed for it's violation of the law. It's also a stripping of national sovereignty (which could lead to a ful blown American Union, which is advocated by the SPP Document of the Council on Foreign Relations). It gets deeper. Students are brainwashed on the how a North American Parliament merging the countries of America, Canada, and Mexico is a good thing. What's interesting that the Minutemen and other groups who dissent with open borders are made up of a wide variety of backgrounds. For example, the membership of the Minutemen is about 25 percent non-whites and 55 percent women. So, racism isn't a motivation behind most people who want the borders secured. It is bigger than illegal immigration. Documents and sources prove that corporate powers and Elite want to chip as many people as possible in a cashless society (As soon as May of 2008, the new Real ID Act mandate all states to have its citizens to have a national ID card). As for knowing what's going on, you'll be suprised. Many even in the wordly crowd (like those in Hollywood, famous people in popular culture) understand about vaccines, the evil population control agenda, embrace the 911 Truth Movement, understand the evil founding of the Federal Reserve, are pro-Second Amendment, and numerous real issues. Some of them are scared to go public with their views.


A Marine (who is stationed in Iraq) accused the place where he recieved the Internet of censorship. He said that he tried to search for topics like Foley, but the search engine called that forbidden. People have a right to go into the Interent without any censorship. Far being liberated, Iraq and Afghanistan are elected dictatorships under perpetual martial law. Civil liberties problems aren't just in the Middle East and Central Asia. In Great Britian (where Freemasonry or "the Craft" is firm), Home Secretary John Reid (of the UK) said that he wants crackdown on Internet sites classified as "propaganda." The truth is that anyone should write what they want on the Internet. The Internet was created by DARPA in the 1960's. I may disagree with some of the stuff on the Internet, but I don't agree with censorship. Programs are easily avaliable to get rid of stuff that you don't like without government-mandated censorship. It's here in America of course. Even Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff said that the Internet is a haven for "terrorists." Chertoff also said that the Netwhich "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills." The truth is that governmnets throughout human history have done terrorism, not innocent bloggers.

Just look at Operation Barbossoa, Operation Ajax against Iran, Operation Paperclip (the U.S. sent Jesuit-based Nazis into America. Papal Knight Reinhard Gehlen became a founder of the CIA), Sephradic children being radiated in Israel (This was during the time of Labor Zionist David Ben Gurion. His fellow Labor Zionist Rudolf Kastner was involved with Eichmann in deporting 400,000 Jews to Auschwitz shortly before the end of the war (proven in Ben Hecht's book called "Perfidy." Barry Chamish wrote that these people are interrelated to the pro-occult plus pro-Zohar [anti-Torah] Frankists. This is not to say that all Jewish people are evil. I always believed in the right of Israel to exist and praising good Jewish people. I also expose radical Muslims working with the Nazis to kill human being in SE Europe like Grand Mufti Al-Husseini. Many of these radicals are involved with the Muslim Brotherhood {which was funded if not created by British & Middle Eastern Freemasonry}. St. John Philby helped Ibn Saud to be a leader in Saudi Arabia. This occured after the 1916 Sykes Picot Agreementcarved up the Middle East when the Ottomon Empire was defeated. Rumored Freemason TE Lawrence was also pro-Arabic in his interests), deliberately feeding radioactive cereal to kids for experimentation, and other atrocities. The U.N., U.S., and the E.U. have wickedely talked about controlling the Internet into Internet 2. Internet 2 is not free, but you might have to pay money to go on it. It's nothing more than a restricted information superhighway like the toll roads across the nation. Darren Murph from Engadget on October 27, 2006 cited information about smart surveillance system detecting violent behavior.

Recently, I've had problems with My Myspace. Just yesterday, I've shown videos about the new world order, the Kabbala, Freemasonry, the Knights Templar, corporate-occult influenced logos, and a wide variety of subjects. Also, in my Myspace account, I listed tons of real, damaging history about those in power from the past to the present.

Regardless of the censorship and other problems, I will still not compromise my core convictions. There is corruption inside of groups from the CFR (Many kingpins are promiment roles in it like Joseph O'Hare, the Rockefellers, and Peterson), the Pilgrim Society, FBI, NSA, the CIA (whose past heads were Knights of Malta like William Casey), MI6, the Pentagon, CSIS, the United Nations, the World Bank, The WTO, the Trilateral Commission, many Pharmaceutical companies (whose heads include Knights of Malta and CFR members), etc. Our responsibility is to educate ourselves and be active. It's not enough to know the facts on the new world order. We need to be active and help our neighbors. People are varied in their backgrounds, but we can unify to help others. I'm not talking about a false unity or unity for unity sake. I mean a real unity full of worth and vigor.

By Timothy

A Debate: “Atheist”* Embraces Inalienable Rights But, Of Course, Clueless Re: Origin Of Such Rights

From http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=662&print=1


A Debate: “Atheist”* Embraces Inalienable Rights But, Of Course, Clueless Re: Origin Of Such Rights

By John Lofton, Editor

The business card of Ed Buckner — who debates as an “atheist” — says he is “Southern Director” of the “Council For Secular Humanism.” Just exactly how many “Secular Humanists” there are in the South to direct, I do not know — probably not many, at least not many who are out-of-the-closet and in-your-face like Buckner.

In any event, I saw Buckner “debate” the egregious William Federer at Gary DeMar’s Christian Worldview Conference in Toccoca, Georgia — hometown of our friend and valiant Christian soldier Jim Rudd, head-honcho of Covenantnews.com. During this debate, Buckner got my attention by saying that even though he was an atheist, he, too, believed in “inalienable rights,” rights which the government cannot take away. Hmmmmm. Interesting, Ithought. So, the next morning I interviewed him as follows, with slight editing:

NATURE FALLEN, not normative and, thus, tells us nothing about what our ‘rights’ are.NATURE FALLEN, not normative and, thus, tells us nothing about what our ‘rights’ are.

Q: I was very interested last night to hear you say, enthusiastically, you also believe in inalienable rights, rights which the government cannot take away. I believe in inalienable rights. I believe in them because I believe in the God mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. How can you believe in inalienable rights? Where would inalienable rights come from [for you]?

A: Well, of course, I …am a counselor for secular humanism. I don’t therefore believe in God and I don’t therefore in fact think that our inalienable rights come from God, but I don’t think they come from government either. And I think it more dangerous to believe that they come from government than to believe that they come from God, even [being the] atheist that I am. I believe that they are inherent, they are natural and I actually think that’s pretty much what’s implied in the Declaration of Independence. The truth is, and it’s a dangerous thing, the fragile thing, [is that] we will have these rights only as long as we have a document, like the Constitution, and enough of a consensus so that we can’t eliminate these rights with super majorities.

Q: What is it about nature that tells us that we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — How do you deduce that from nature?

A: Each individual being has desires and wants and certain abilities to fulfill natural desires and wants. As we look around us, we see that success for us as individuals depends on successful social arrangements as well. None of us can function on our own, so I think we have evolved, and I’m not talking about biological evolution help, but cultural evolution — have evolved these ideas and these values that make us realize that if we don’t — that it’s arrogant to believe that individuals should control other individuals.

It’s arrogant for any of us — whether we’re secular humanists, Christians, or anybody else — Muslims included, of course, to believe that we have the one true correct way and that therefore we have the right to interfere with somebody else’s belief or tell them what they have to believe. We disagree with each other on lots of things and there’s no good sound way to arrive at the truth on some of these very important issues.

‘GOLDEN RULE’ of Confucius NOT the same as what our Lord says.‘GOLDEN RULE’ of Confucius NOT the same as what our Lord says.

Well, I mean I know that if you accept the Bible as authoritative — then that is considered a good way, but first you have to get to accepting that the Bible is authoritative, and I don’t, so how do you convince me of the importance of not murdering somebody? Well you convince me, easily by saying look, you don’t want to be murdered. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Now I know that’s the Christian formulation, but that principle has been with us long before Christianity, and even before Judaism — Confucius, and many, many other variations on the thing.

(Comment: Wrong. In “The Analects,” the third of the Confucian Four Books, Confucius says, in answer to queries from students: “What you do not want done to you, do not do to others.” Thus, Confucius’ statement is not the same “principle” of what our Lord says. The obvious difference is that the “Golden Rule” stated by Jesus requires positive actions of doing good to others.)

Q: But, of course, from where you stand there is no truth and there is no way to get to truth [from where you stand.] Do you believe there’s something that is true for everybody regardless of whether those people believe in it? If so, what is [this truth?]

A: Well, I think the material reality is in the fact that if I walk off the top of a building I’ll crash to the ground is true for everybody. The fact that we human beings are subjective and incapable of a full grasp of all truth at all time, does not keep the truth from being real.

Q: OK, let me narrow it down. Let’s return to inalienable rights — life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, things that you think are inalienable rights that the government can’t take away.

A: Well, governments over the course of human history and churches and other groups have attempted to take those things away and have succeeded — they’ve succeeded in taking away life — our government has done it in many ways, but not nearly as bad as — Stalin or Hitler or Mao Tse-tung or a lot of other leaders and a lot of other systems.

Q: But, that didn’t occur over night.

A: Freedom has not been won over night either. The American Constitutional system didn’t spring full blown from the mind of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. It developed over many generations — English Common Law.

Q: It came from about a thousand years of Christian History. I want to go back to these inalienable rights which the government cannot take away. You said they were inherent in nature. And I’m saying, when I look at nature, nature is fallen, you see all kinds of good things and bad things in nature. I don’t deduce any way of behaving or acting in nature so I don’t understand how you see that nature shows this, that we have a right that the government can’t take away? Where is that in nature?

A: Well, I think you do deduce in nature…that every human being not dedicated to eating is going to die and rather quickly.

Q: I’m sorry, let me make myself clear. I don’t see that nature tells me or anybody, that I have inalienable rights that the government can’t take away — that’s what I’m talking about. Where do you see that in nature?

INALIENABLE RIGHTS not from Constitution or ‘consensus’ but from God of the Bible, the only true God there is.INALIENABLE RIGHTS not from Constitution or ‘consensus’ but from God of the Bible, the only true God there is.

A: Well, once it’s developed that far — that develops from along cultural evolution — starting with basic physical needs and social needs that human beings have. We agree on various things. We wind up agreeing at some point that individual rights make a difference, and that individuals should in fact have freedom, that we all gain as a society, but of course as individuals.

Q: But, if you look around the world there’s no such agreement whatsoever on what’s good or evil or right and wrong.

A: Oh, there’s plenty of agreement around the world, virtually any place you go. Anywhere in the world murder is considered to be immoral and unacceptable.

Q: But they disagree on what constitutes murder.

A: Oh, indeed they do, and that’s true amongst Christians too, and there are Christians who consider abortion murder, and I’m willing to bet that you are probably one of them. There are plenty of other Christians who don’t think abortion is murder. There is nothing in the Bible that considers that abortion is murder. These moral absolutes that I am told that Christians have seem not to be things that people say they are Christians agree on.

Q: Well, but you see you can’t do it that way because you’re not simply a Christian because you say you’re are a Christian. It tells us in the Scripture how to tell if someone is a Christian. A Christian is someone who believes and obeys the word of God. You aren’t just a Christian simply because you declare yourself to be one.

A: I’m not trying to say that you are a Christian just because you declare yourself to be one.

Q: You’re saying that all Christians disagree, and I’m saying some of those who say they are Christians are not Christians and that’s why they disagree.

A: Thomas Jefferson declared himself to be a Christian, and he said he did not believe in the atonement, he didn’t believe in the resurrection and he didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, and therefore, should not be considered a Christian. So I’m not trying to say that it makes no difference and all you have to say is that you are a Christian and that makes you a Christian. I agree with you that there are some crucial things that make you a Christian or not a Christian.

Q: “If you love Me, you’ll obey My Commandments” is what Jesus says. That’s one test of a Christian — do they obey what God says?

A: Well, if it were only that simple, but you know it’s not.

Q: Apart from God, it’s impossible. But with God all things are possible.

A: But the problem comes with this part, what you were saying a minute ago, you just obey God’s commandments. But did God say that abortion was murder?

Q: Well, sure, the taking of innocent human life is murder. Is an unborn baby not human and growing?

A: I’m not trying to get into the abortion debate. [This would be a] much longer interview than I have time for.

Q: Is an unborn baby not human and growing?

PSSSSST, Ed! This is NOT a human being.PSSSSST, Ed! This is NOT a human being.

A: An unborn baby is human, innocent and growing and I think sperm and eggs before they are joined are human, innocent and growing.

Q: How old are you? I’m 65.

A: Gosh you’re old. I’m 60.

Q: And you don’t know that an egg and a sperm separately are different from a conceived human being?

A: Of course I know that.

Q: Then why did you drag sperm and egg into it? They’re not human, they’re not a human being.

A: If I’m going to be serious, and I get to say what I want to say about me, then you are not going to make me say these statements. I didn’t say they were the same thing. I said they are human.

Q: They are not a human life. They are not a human being.

A: And you know this how?

Q: That sperm [by itself] is [not] a human being?

A: It’s not a human being.

Q: That’s what I’m talking about [a human being.] — an innocent human being inside of a woman is a baby that is innocent human life that is growing. You already said an unborn baby is an innocent human life that’s growing. So, what do you call it when an innocent human life is snuffed out? What do you call it? I call it murder.

A: So, if [someone’s] sperm is killed — those are human cells they are living. There’s no question that they are living. They’re human though — these are not dog cells.

Q: But I just asked you something that we agreed on. We agreed that an unborn baby is a human being and it’s innocent and it’s growing . And I said —.

A: We didn’t agree that it’s a human being.

Q: What else could it be if two humans made it?

A: I would just be so delighted to give you an answer, all right? But I kind of need you to hold that microphone in this direction for a minute or two if you want me to give an answer.

Q: But, you were moving away from the question of the unborn baby being an innocent human life, which it is. So, if you snuff out the unborn baby’s life, that is murder. What word would you use?

A: When a fetus that is human, but not yet a human being, I do not think that it is murder.

Q: Well, now you told me what you think it is not. Now, can you tell me what you think it is?

A: Fetuside. Is that a suitable word for you?

Q: Why do you suddenly lapse into Latin when you talk about the unborn baby.

A: Because I don’t think that it’s an unborn baby yet. I don’t want to agree with you when I don’t agree with you which is not a very smart thing for me to do. It’s harder than that.

Q: What’s the difference between an unborn baby and a fetus?

A: A fetus is a potential baby. It’s a —.

Q: Do you know what fetus means in Latin?

A: [No, I] don’t know what the literal translation of the word is, no.

Q: Well, it might be good to know [what a word means] before you use it.

A: Sir, I don’t think it will at all — if in fact the Latin word fetus does mean a fully developed one, then I don’t agree with that word and will have to find another one.

Q: Well it doesn’t mean unborn one. It just means small one, it just means small one. Why do you resist calling it an unborn baby?

A: Because it’s not an unborn baby.

Q: It’s unborn, it’s inside the mother’s womb is it not? It’s unborn.

A: These are semantic games, they really are silly, semantic games. When the, when does the soul, when does it become a —.

Q: I’m not talking about ensoulment — not talking about that. By the way —.

A: You just want to talk about what you want to talk about, is that right?

Q: I said I’m not talking about ensoulment. But you want to drag in some metaphysical argument when I’m talking about the being that’s inside a mother’s womb, the actual physical being that’s inside a mother’s womb.

A: I’m talking about the actual physical process. In my opinion, humanity, human beings, because we are biological beings, are part of a continuous process. And that part of the development of you — as a human being, started when your great-grandfather first had sex — not when your father did. And I don’t think that any place you break that chain is an arbitrary break in the chain. When I say arbitrary — I don’t mean there’s no grounds or no justification for which place you choose. I think it’s very important — I don’t think that this is mere academic games and I don’t think that it is of no importance, not very important, I think it is very important. But there are competing interests when you talk about whether a woman can control her own body and whether a baby has a right to live.

Q: It does have a right to live?

A: Yes, and if in fact a baby is born with terrible defects and so forth, I don’t think you have a right to say “oh, well that’s inconvenient I’ll cut it’s throat and be done with it”

Q: So a baby has a right to live.

A: Yes. You sound amazed; you ought to not be so quick to assume what they always think and not assume that it —.

Q: Does a baby have a right to live when it’s inside its mother’s womb?

A: Well, it’s not a baby then.

Q: Ah, of course not, it’s a fetus! Now, this is not semantics see. You’re very wrong. You said a minute ago that we’re like quibbling over semantics. It’s very important what the entity is that you are killing when you are killing it. It’s very important whether or not an unborn baby is a human being, whether it’s alive, and whether it is innocent. When does it become a baby? Only when it’s born?

A: [Abortion] is murder, right?

Q: The taking of innocent human life is the very definition of murder. That’s correct.

A: Therefore, you are in favor of capital punishment for mothers and doctors who perform abortions, am I right?

Q: I would not want to limit it to those people. I would say that anyone who commits murder should suffer the death penalty, yes.

A: I am not in favor of the death penalty, but I do agree that anyone who commits murder should suffer serious penalties. Now, so we’re in agreement on that, except what the penalty should be.

Q: Well, that’s not an insignificant agreement.

A: It’s a very significant agreement, and we also have a significant disagreement. We could spend hours talking about capital punishment as well.

Q: Well, let me ask you one more question about abortion, about what constitutes murder.

A: Well, let me make one point I’m wanting to make. When you start talking about what constitutes murder you have to have agreement on in the society. I don’t mean every individual. We have to have agreement as to what constitutes murder and we don’t have agreement that abortion is murder amongst Bible believing Christians. And I mean those people who say, and I have no reason to doubt that they are telling the truth, that they believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for their sins, that they believe that they are following all of the commandments of God, including the command that says “Thou shall do no murder” because they don’t believe that it is murder. Now, are they right or wrong? Well, I’m not a god either, so I can’t give you any absolute answers to that.

HITLER DENOUNCED but he, too, was God-hating secular humanist.HITLER DENOUNCED but he, too, was God-hating secular humanist.

Q: What you said just a minute ago, is not true. If people in a society do not believe that a certain crime is murder and the Biblically prescribed procedure is the death penalty, that will not be enforced. But law does not come from the people in the society as you seem to think. You seem to think that some kind of agreement is necessary. By the way, to use that line of thinking, if you and I were sitting here in Nazi Germany, I was talking how we needed some law to stop the killing of the Jews, you would be telling me there’s no agreement on this. We can’t have such a law because there’s no agreement. But law doesn’t come from people. Law comes from God, and God’s Law is God’s Law whether people agree with it or not. You know, those inalienable rights, remember?

A: Well, if there is a God and He puts out laws then you are right. But, you are not right.

Q: Well, where does law come from?

A: I think the law does come from agreement and I think, unfortunately, it’s bad in some instances and we have societies with very bad laws, and Nazi Germany was certainly one of them.

Q: Well, where does the law come from? Who must agree to make it law?

A: Well, it’s not a simple minded thing, you know, [where] people vote and 61% say this and therefore that’s the law. I’m not trying to say that, it’s much more complicated. It’s a development of a consensus over not days or years, but over generations. The British Common Law developed over many generations….

Q: I’m sorry but I’m not getting it. So, law comes from people agreeing? By the way, when enough people agree does that make something right?

A: It does not.

Q: Well, then how do we know what’s right or wrong?

A: Well we don’t. We have to keep working at it, but it helps if you start —.

Q: (laughing, derisively) But, what is the “it” we’re working at?

A: Well, you can laugh at my answers, sir, I don’t care, I mean —.

Q: And I don’t care if you care if I laugh. But, how do we know what we’re working toward if we don’t know what right and wrong are? That’s what I’m asking.

A: Well, instead of laughing, you know, go ahead, go for it (the “it” I asked about). I understand, sir, that you believe that God has told you and that settles it and there’s no more discussion needed.

Q: Well, you would formally agree — would you not? — that if there is a God, and He says something, that would settle it, wouldn’t it?

A: You betcha. I don’t know why you asked to interview me. You’ve got a right to ask me, and I’ve got a right to turn you down or accept. And I accepted, but you don’t seem to have an interest in my point of view.

Q: Well, I do.

A: You don’t demonstrate an interest in my point of view,

Q: I don’t respect it, but I’m interested.

BUCKNER VAIN in his imaginings, wise in his own eyes; one for whom we should pray so that he will not be ‘without excuse’ before God.BUCKNER VAIN in his imaginings, wise in his own eyes; one for whom we should pray so that he will not be ‘without excuse’ before God.

A: You didn’t demonstrate that. If you were interested in my point of view you would ask me a question and let me finish answering and trying to explain it. You might say well, now I don’t fully understand on this part, but you can disagree, I fully understand, I expected that. Do you, have you, do you think you understand well enough to tell what my opinion is, can you answer me back accurately what I think?

Q: No, I wouldn’t say so because you haven’t been specific enough. The most recent thing was when I asked you where does law come from? Well, you said, it comes from agreement over time, and then I said who exactly would agree and you said it is kind of complex to explain and then you said what if 61% of the people agreed, does that make something right, and you said no, and I asked you where do wrong and right come from and you said we don’t really know, we have to keep working toward it. But, of course, you have to know what something is before we can work toward it, don’t you?

A: Well, I think you can get closer and closer without knowing what the final absolute is. But I don’t really think there is such a thing as an absolute moral standard.

Q: You don’t? So you think in some cases murder might be okay?

A: In some cases killing might be okay, but I don’t think that killing and murder are the same thing.

Q: That’s why I asked you about murder. So, murder is always wrong?

A: Murder is always wrong by definition. If you are defining it as murder, then you’re defining it as murder, always something that is wrong. That’s circular but obviously true.

Q: What’s your authority for saying that by definition murder is always wrong? Who says so?

A: Says all of humanity over thousands of years. Moral standards have evolved and developed and changed, and they’ve changed amongst Christians of course, as well as amongst anybody. Christians in this part of the country were just really quick and easily able to defend human slavery and they brought their Bibles out and showed plenty of Bible verses that support human slavery and not condemn it, and they were of course correct about that. Slavery is immoral and it is immoral for all modern Christians, and it’s immoral for all modern free thinkers, but over all the generations of human history, it wasn’t considered immoral — in fact preachers in this part of the country told people that it was instituted by God, that it was a way to bring those terrible suffering savages from Africa here and giving them a chance at having their souls saved.

Q: Well, I think you have just given me an example of why your way of trying to find right and wrong, sort of deducing it from the mass of millions of people that have lived throughout history, doesn’t work. You just pointed out there’s all kinds of mixed opinions on everything. So, how does one deduce from that what’s right or wrong?

A: You are not guaranteed success, and you are certainly not guaranteed success if you say that God told you that whatever you believe. You believe slavery is right or you believe it’s wrong and then you add to that, well God told me that it is and it says so in this holy book — hey, that just gives folks more killing basis when they disagree with them so now they’re not arguing with something that’s arguable, they’re arguing about something that’s absolute that God told them that slavery was right.

Q: Well, the kind of slavery that’s in the Bible, I assume you know, is not the kind of slavery that was in this country.

A: I’m well aware that that’s what modern Christians say, but that is still not what Christians said in 1830 and 1840.

Q: Well, not all Christians. There were Christians on both sides of that fight…there were Christians on both sides of the slavery issue as far back as Augustine. And see that’s — if I may say so — one of your problems. You see a bunch of people claiming contradictory things, both sides claiming to be Christians. And, since you don’t believe the Bible, you don’t have a program to know the players [who the real Christians are.]

A: Well, if it’s the people who do know the Bible and who do know the players — they don’t agree with each other on all kinds of things, about whether it’s moral to go into Iraq and invade that country, about whether abortion, or taking a woman’s right to control her body is more important —.

Q: Well, I wish you wouldn’t say that because an abortion [involves what is] really not part of the woman’s body — it’s not her body that’s destroyed. In an abortion, there is another body, is there not, in a woman’s womb?

A: We’ve already had this dispute.

Q: Well, I continue to be fascinated by the fact that you appropriate [Christian] thoughts and ideas of inalienable rights, but then when I try to get you to be specific —.

A: On your thoughts and ideas, sir, I think inalienable rights are now American ideas,

Q: Well, yes, the Christian idea was the original American idea!

A: That’s correct, but I think that it’s much more likely that it came from Enlightenment sources and anti-Christian sources — or it was a combination of both. I think the fact that Christians value individuals as individuals is important.

Q: [As] images of God.

A: I think that’s been very important.

Q: But you don’t believe human beings are made in God’s image.

A: Well, obviously not. If I don’t believe there’s a God, I wouldn’t believe that human beings were made in this non-existent image….I have a suggestion, Mr. Lofton. Let’s schedule a debate, you and me….

Q: Well, I end by commending you on the fact that you believe in inalienable rights which government can’t take away, and I hope some day you’ll understand the true source of those rights, which is not history or the people.

A: Well I do believe in inalienable rights, and I sure as heck hope that we both continue to believe in them — whatever we think the source.

Q: But [unless, as is the case, such rights come from God], the words “inalienable rights” have no meaning. They are just hot air.

A: Well, let’s have a debate.

Q: I think we just did.

*There’s no such thing as an “atheist,” as St. Paul tells us in Romans 1:18ff. There are those who, by God’s grace, know there is a God — acknowledge Him, love Him, strive to obey Him. And there are those who know there is a God but they lie; they say He doesn’t exist. There is no one who really believes there is no God.

Discuss this article