From page 3 of her 1985 Bachelor's Thesis at Princeton:
"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich (sic) I interact with Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and student second."
Can you discern her hypocrisy? She claims that she'll always be "Black first and student second," yet she begins by highlighting her "White professors and classmates." So, Michelle, it seems that to you these people will always be "White first and students and classmates second."
American Vision: "Homeschoolers are only good for cleaning toilets"
Gary DeMar can draw out the most vile god-haters. That's probably because for nearly 30 years he's been pressing a strong, consistent argument for the Christian faith, creationism, Christian history, and Biblical reconstruction. Here's a post in which DeMar shares just a portion from a hateful screed of an atheist who thinks Christian homeschooled children are only good to clean his toilets and mow his lawn. DeMar offers a great suggestion in response that YOU may want to participate in. Read more.
"Our view of prophecy is too often exotic and lawless. Men want to know about a future which makes itself and is not an outcome of historical forces."[1]
Prophecy is typically seen in these terms, a foresight or prediction of a future event usually disconnected from any present circumstances. Nostradamus is the epitome of such wizardry. It is laughable that people are still curious to see if contemporary events fulfill this false prophet's soothsaying.
Biblical prophecy does not function in that manner. The prophets of the Bible spoke in terms of the covenant, and each prophecy was the historical development of either the obedience or disobedience of the past. This is not an attractive definition in the age of Charismania where charlatans sporting prolific gifts of prophecy make both individual and national predictions as signs of their authority.
Still, these modern prophecies have nothing to do with covenantal obedience or rebellion. They are merely predictions of disconnected events in a future without context. These false prophets sit on top of the church world only because the people themselves are curiously indulgent--they want to know the "secret things."
The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Deut. 29:29
There are "secret things," and there are "revealed" things. What should be of concern to us are obviously the things that are revealed. The reason for this is stated clearly by Moses: "that we may do all the words of this law."
What God reveals is so that we may more fully obey His law-word. In other words, true prophecy reveals a future curse upon person and property--or a future blessing--in order to better secure our obedience in the present. If we are seeking "revelation," let it be something that inspires you to greater faithfulness. As Rushdoony says, "The purpose of the revealed things is to command our obedience."[2] This is what Rushdoony refers to as a legitimate future:
As against curiosity and a probing about "secret things," we are plainly commanded to obey God's law and to recognize that the law gives us a knowledge of the future which is legitimate...The unfolded or revealed things are with us for all time, to the end that we may obey all the orders of the law.[3]
What is revealed, Rushdoony writes, "means 'the unfolded issues of the day' in terms of the law-word of God."[4] If I have anything "prophetic" to say to you, it's only to better secure your obedience in the present. A desire for the secret things means, like Israel in the wilderness, that we despise God's manna, i.e., "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Man will not consider God's law-word for his future. He will rather spend billions of dollars to search for ice on Mars before he'll consider the patience and comfort of the Scriptures. He'll search the depths of the oceans before he'll plunge the deep things of God.
For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, thou mayest do it. Deut. 30:11-14
This makes life simple, but man avoids the simplicity of Biblical living because his heart is evil. He is perpetually tormented by the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He is tormented for having his eyes opened and being made like a god. Now, his drive to "know" exhausts and haunts him. He cannot rest until he has examined every molecule in the universe in the name of achieving his godhood--omniscience. He cannot predestine and control unless he knows all things. But his answer lies in salvation and in the law-word which is near him, in his mouth, and in his heart.
The secret things belong to God, but man lusts to possess them. The things revealed belong to us and our children, but instead we turn away from His revealed Word and raise our children to be equally curious for what God has hidden from us. The Word is near us, in our mouth, and in our heart. We do not need to search high and low for God's will. It's lying at your door. I can say to every Christian that their future is bright, if they are faithful to the law-word of God.
Tune in at 3:00pm today (EST) to "I Object: Justice Examined" (Right Talk Radio) to hear Chalcedon Vice-President, Martin G. Selbrede, discuss preemptive war and the Biblical idea of just war. This is must-hear, and you can listen online.
By ANDREW E. KRAMER New York Times Published: June 19, 2008
BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.
Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.
Paulson To Urge New Fed Powers Bank Would Help Police Wall Street
By Neil Irwin Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 19, 2008
Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. plans to call today for the Federal Reserve to be given new, explicit powers to intervene in the workings of Wall Street firms to protect the financial system, adapting his vision of how the financial world should be regulated to reflect the lessons of the collapse of Bear Stearns.
"Our nation has come to expect the Federal Reserve to step in to avert events that pose unacceptable systemic risk," Paulson plans to say in a speech today, according to prepared remarks obtained by The Washington Post. But the central bank "has neither the clear statutory authority nor the mandate to anticipate and deal with risks across our entire financial system."
"We should quickly consider how to appropriately give the Fed the authority to access necessary information from highly complex financial institutions and the responsibility to intervene in order to protect the system," Paulson plans to say, "so they can carry out the role our nation has come to expect."
As I suggested back in November of 2007, the likely motive behind the rising oil prices was to convince the majority of Americans and their lawmakers to allow domestic drilling. This should have been a simple prediction for anyone. Crises of this magnitude don't just happen overnight. One day you're paying $1.50 per gallon, and two years later you're over $4.00 per gallon. C'mon folks, smarten up! The game is rigged.
"The problem is not the big oil companies, the problem is not the foreigners, the problem is not begging the Saudis," said Gingrich. "The problem is getting Congress to do its job."
That's right, folks. The problem is Congress. Well, not really. The problem, if Newt was honest, is the public opinion that affects congressional action. I can guarantee that after a couple years now of high gas prices congressional leaders are getting an earful from their constituencies. The Democrat resistance doesn't stand a chance. Even soccer moms are ready for cheaper gas.
Here's what I wrote in November of 2007:
So, why the price hikes at the pump? Well, my third-grade explanation was always that rising fuel prices would frustrate the American population to pressure Congress to expand U.S. drilling in the Western Hemisphere, i.e., more drilling in the Gulf, Alaska, and domestic regions. I believed that because I recall that being a primary debate before 2001. Granted, oil companies are raking in huge profits from the rising price of oil, but again, their motives--in my opinion--could not be isolated to short-term thinking. I think they still long for the days of "J.R. Ewing" extracting millions of barrels out of his own backyard. They must want more than record quarterly profits in the short term. There must be a more extensive agenda that reaps billions without inspiring anger in the American people. By that I mean the anger of Joe Citizen at the pump. I doubt the U.S. oil cartels care a rip about Greenpeace. They want the legislation changed, and the Green Movement can whine as much as they want. The majority of Americans will welcome homeland drilling for reduced pump prices.
The meaning of most things elude us. We do not understand the meaning of mosquitos, for example, or the hairs that fall from our head, nor of the often unhappy events in our lives, because we tend to look for their meaning in terms of ourselves. The meaning of all things is theocentric -- God-centered, not man-centered -- which means that of necessity things are meaningless if we try to read them in terms of man, in terms of ourselves.[1]
What is the meaning of life? We only ask this question, as Rushdoony suggests, because life is filled with millions of supposedly meaningless events. The sheer diversity of creaturely existence is enough to rattle the assurance of anyone. Why need we the cockroach? What of microscopic organisms, strange fish in the deepest portions of the sea, or the insane life cycle of the Penguin? What do they have to do with my choice of a career, spouse, or political party?
For ease of thought, we ignore these diverse realities; keeping things simple for the sake of getting through life. But the Bible highlights these random, obscure realities as revealing of the omniscience of God Almighty and His benevolence toward man:
Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. Mt. 10:29-31
The many sparrows and strands of hair are meant to reveal God's detailed control and concern for all things in the universe; nothing being more important than the dominion man He placed to rule over it. This is the message to us about creation's mysterious diversity. However, our tendency is to see events in terms of ourselves. We wonder if we did something to cause the death of the sparrow or the strand of hair to fall from our head.
Life's meaning is not found in us but in God's eternal decree. This was the message of the Book of Job--at least the message masterfully interpreted for us in Rushdoony's insightful, yet brief, commentary on Job's plight:
God's creative purpose transcends the life of Job and the purposes of Job, that Job cannot expect that God's providence move in terms of himself when not only the creation but the Creator has priority over Job.[2]
Both Job and his three friends were seeking to interpret his personal tribulation in terms of himself. His friends declared that God never condemned a righteous man, and Job persistently claimed that he had been righteous throughout his life. Why was God harming Job, if Job was righteous? The answer came down to an understanding of sovereignty:
Thus what God required of Job was that he recognize His sovereignty in every respect, recognize that the only standard for judging his own personal life and his own problems was not in terms of himself but in terms of the sovereignty of God, in terms of the Triune God in Himself. Job could not declare of any event in the course of his life that this thing was wrong because it impressed and affected him adversely, since all events in the life of Job could only be judged in terms of one standard, the purpose of the sovereign God. When Job acknowledged these things to be true, the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than the former.[3]
The apparent meaninglessness to our diverse universe of strange creatures and inexplicable events is a convenient confirmation to man's theory of an evolutionary, impersonal, universe of process. For those who are less existential, they see things developing in relation to their own lives. Both would be incorrect. In the ultimate sense, all things move in terms of God's eternal decree. He has good reason for cockroaches, falling hair, underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. He may never share that meaning with us, but the intent is to humble us. For all Job's righteousness and love of God, there was still a measure of pride because he saw his plight as God's reaction to himself. Adding even more insult, the Book of Job begins by showing Job's plight originating over a wager between God and the devil. In other words, if God wants to wage a bet with the devil over our lives, who are we to stop it? The will of God be done.
Does that mean we should expect an equal experience? The Book of Job is hyperbolic, so I would anticipate better treatment in a general sense. The point should be obvious: life's meaning is found in God's sovereignty, and that thought is intended to comfort us. We should also embrace the lesson that blessing follows our living in this theological awareness.
A large percentage of Michael Reagan's audience is conservative Christian, but I don't hear a peep of protest against this type of bloodthirst. No Christian should ever use or endorse such rhetoric. This is why the rest of world thinks conservative Christians are the new Brown Shirts of Americo-Fascism. Do pastors actually pray this way? Do they say, "Oh God, please shove grenades up the backside of Palestinian babies and blow them away. And, Lord, while you're at it, please kill the mothers as well?"
Reagan justifies his violent speech by claiming the children are being raised to kill Americans. I'm pretty sure we're safe from the ghetto-ized suicide bombers in the Gaza Strip, so I'm not sure what he's referring to historically. The simple answer is that Palestinians as a whole are evil and Michael Reagan will sleep like a baby if they were all wiped out. He even claims the only way peace will come in the Middle East is if everyone is dead. He's a genocidal maniac. I cannot call such a man a follower of Christ.
Lee Duigon on the SBC's Failure to Stand for God's Children
Once again, the Southern Baptist Convention has failed to stand up for Christian children.
Once again, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination has agreed to leave Christian children in anti-Christian schools.
At the SBC’s annual meeting last week, the church’s Resolutions Committee stifled a resolution calling on the SBC to urge the removal of Christian children from California public schools. The resolution was not allowed out of committee for a vote on the convention floor.
The SBC has rejected similar resolutions at recent annual meetings. But this time the resolution addressed specific circumstances in a specific state.
Under a new state law, SB 777, California public schools are now required to teach the moral equivalency of all forms of sexual behavior, including homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. (for details, see “Now It’s the Law! California Schools Must Push Homosexuality). Schools are not given any options. They are forbidden to say or do anything that might imply that one sexual “lifestyle choice” is morally preferable to another.Read More.
NEW YORK, New York — Anheuser-Busch gave him six figures, Colgate-Palmolive shelled out $50,000 and Macy's and Pfizer have contributed thousands to the Rev. Al Sharpton's charity.
Almost 50 companies - including PepsiCo, General Motors, Wal-Mart, FedEx, Continental Airlines, Johnson & Johnson and Chase - and some labor unions sponsored Sharpton's National Action Network annual conference in April.
Terrified of negative publicity, fearful of a consumer boycott or eager to make nice with the civil-rights activist, CEOs write checks, critics say, to NAN and Sharpton - who brandishes the buying power of African-American consumers. In some cases, they hire him as a consultant.
The cash flows even as the US Attorney's Office in Brooklyn has been conducting a grand-jury investigation of NAN's finances.
A General Motors spokesman told The Post that NAN had repeatedly - and unsuccessfully - asked for contributions for six years, beginning in August 2000.
The standard prejudice of many elites in media and politics against Southern Americans should come as no surprise. It certainly doesn't to those who live in the South. It is routine that a "redneck" will be discussed and portrayed in the most bigoted terms without any fear of consequence. Yet, if a Southern man or woman refers in a derogatory manner to any other group, they are denounced as bigots and slandered.
The Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization committed "to secure justice and fair treatment for ALL," will probably not utter a word over the recent bigoted statements by the Jewish media pundit, Andrea Mitchell, who referred to Bristol, Virginia as "redneck, sort of bordering-on-Appalachia country."
"I owe an apology to the good people of Bristol, Virginia, for something stupid that I said last week. I was trying to explain based on reporting from Democratic strategists why Barack Obama was campaigning in southwest Virginia. But without attribution or explanation, I used a term strategists often use to demean an entire community."
That's fine and dandy, but we cannot allow this to go without the standard punishment--something like a good ol' fashioned Don Imus excommunication! Or, how about some Mel Gibson-like groveling? She claims she "made a mistake," but that is an inaccurate portrayal of her sin. Spilling milk is a mistake. Calling a group of people rednecks of Appalachian stock is an intentional statement of bigotry. If Imus goes, then so does she. This double-standard among Jewish elites is pathetic. From one side of their mouth they position themselves as the great champions against prejudice, while out of the other side of their mouths they spew disdain for the southern Christian backbone of what's left of the West.
Bristol, Virginia--and the whole Tri-Cities area--remains as one of the more Reformed sectors of the United States. In fact, the best of America is out there. They're not an MTV, Eastern Establishment, gay marriage, war mongering community. They're Christian.
As of the 2000 census, Bristol was 92.54% White. That may have to do with the disparaging of the community by the Northeastern know-it-alls. A high concentration of anglo-americans must be full of ignoramuses, and since they have no national voice, this delightful territory cannot adequately defend itself from the stereotyping of elites like Mitchell.
One might ask, "Chris, why are you highlighting the fact that she's Jewish? Why not simply say that she's a secular media personality?" That wasn't the charge brought against Don Imus when he referred to a Black woman's basketball teams as "nappy-headed ho's":
Imus, like Mitchell, quickly apologized for his comments:
But Imus' apology was insufficient. The rage came from all quarters. The usual soapboxing of Al Sharpton was expected, but the ADL jumped in stating the Imus' firing was "a long time in coming":
"It is about time that Imus has finally been called to account for engaging in racism and intolerance on his program," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "He's gotten away with insensitive and stereotypical remarks about Blacks, Jews, women, homosexuals and others far too often. His suspension by CBS Radio and MSNBC was a long time in coming. Mr. Imus has to be held accountable, and must continue to be held accountable for his use of the public airwaves to promote racism and anti-Semitism."
I don't believe we'll hear from Mr. Foxman regarding the bigotry of Andrea Mitchell. After all, she was ambiguous in only disparaging a "region" instead of a people group. But, that would be a gross misstatement. Bristol, Virginia/Tennessee--and the Tri-Cities region--is a nearly all-White community and Mitchell understands this to be the case. When say "Appalachian," you're not referring to Asians, Latinos, or Blacks. You're referring to longstanding Southern Whites.
Redneckophobia is the problem here: an unnatural fear of White Southern people and culture. Hollywood and media have routinely ridiculed, mocked, and slandered the South for decades, and Mitchell's commentary goes unnoticed by a society brainwashed to believe such things. That's why nothing will likely happen to Mitchell. Just like nothing happens to Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, or Maury Povich, though all three peddle some of the most despicable media content in the history of American communications. There is a clear double standard, but if anyone--like myself--says such things, we are easily defeated by labeling us as anti-semitic, racist, or "redneck."
[T]he first great requisite for the Christian minister is fervent piety; and that to cultivate this should be the chief aim of his training; that there is no royal road to mental improvement, but the faculties are only improved by honest and diligent labor; that the doctrines, government and mode of worship of the Presbyterian Church in the United States compose the wisest and most scriptural set of religious institutions known to us; that the sacred Scriptures, interpreted according to the fair and customary sense of human language, all philosophy, all speculations, and all inferences must implicitly bend; and that the Holy Spirit, to be obtained by constant prayer and holy living, is the only sufficient interpreter of God's word.
There is one fact connected with the introduction of organs into those of our churches which have adopted them, which is exceedingly distressful. It is the reason which we always hear assigned, among other reasons, for their introduction, and which we believe has been in every case the most operative one. It is always urged: "we must have an organ to keep pace with other churches in attracting a congregation, and in retaining the young and thoughtless." Has it come then to this, that the chaste spouse of Christ is reduced to borrow the meretricious adornment of the "scarlet whore," in order to catch the unholy admiration of the ungodly? Not thus did the Apostles devise to bring sinners to the church. They were taught to go after them, into the highways and hedges, with the wooings of mercy and love; to allure them by the beauty of holiness; to urge them by the terrors of the law. If we are authorized to add to God's worship, forms purely of human device, in order to make it more palatable to sinners, to what corruptions shall we we not give entrance?...We believe that all such artifices, of human device, to catch popularity, are inconsistent with the genius of the Presbyterian Church, derogatory of her honor, and blasting to her interests. It was her glory and her strength, that she aimed to commend herself by her firm devotion to truth, by the purity of her discipline, the pre-eminence of her ministry, and the justice of her polity. If she will cleave to these traits and rest upon them in humble faith in her divine Head, she will prosper. But when once she descends from the high vantage ground of intellectual, theological, and moral superiority, to chaffer for popularity by human devices, and doubtful arts, her prestige will be gone. Other churches are better adapted to win in that race, and will surely outrun her.
An extremely offensive display of anti-white preaching--posted on YouTube--has gotten Father Michael Pfleger in hot water with Francis Cardinal George who temporarily removed Pfleger from his post at St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in Chicago. Father Pfleger, who feigns sounding like a Black preacher, mocked Hillary Clinton for her white sense of entitlement and shock that an almost Black man was taking the presidency from her. Here's the clip of the problematic preaching:
This is the best indicator by far that Putin is building a new Russia quite removed from the Bolshevism of Marx, Schiff, Trotsky, and Lenin. No wonder the media seeks to demonize him, since he represents resistance to the International Monetary Fund, and opposes wars in the Middle East--especially the possible Israeli-U.S. strike on Iran. Granted, keeping the "capitalists" (i.e., oligarchical monopolists) out of the new Russian infrastructure requires fascistic measures, Putin has set his nation's future over against those seeking to build a unipolar world (think "New World Order"):
It becomes apparent then why modern humanistic education, and especially Marxist education, is to hostile to the family, and so clearly dedicated to replacing the "old collectivity" of the family with "the new collectivity," the state. To destroy the monogamous Biblical family means, from their perspective, the destruction, first, or religion, and, second, of private property. The Marxist wants to "emancipate" woman by making her an industrial worker. This is "emancipation" by definition, because it frees woman from the Biblical religion-marriage-property complex. ~ R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, p.163
From page 3 of her 1985 Bachelor's Thesis at Princeton:
