Friday, October 20, 2017

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
With all of the focus on the alleged (yet never demonstrated, much less proved) connections between President Trump and Russia over the past year, the liberal mainstream media have bent over backwards to keep the attention off of the demonstrable (and likely soon to be proved) connections between Hillary Clinton and Russia. New reports may make it impossible to continue that ruse.
Hillary Clinton got quite a bit of political play out of calling Trump “Putin’s puppet” during debates and throughout the election cycle. In the end, though, her attacks missed their mark and she missed the necessary votes to secure the White House and the advent of a Clinton 2.0 presidency — an administration that would certainly have continued (and escalated) the corruption of the Clinton 1.0 presidency.
Newly released information confirms that it is Hillary Clinton — as secretary of state — and not Trump who can be shown to be “Putin’s puppet. The Hill, Fox News, Newsweek, and others are reporting that a deal between Clinton’s State Department and Russian interests that transferred 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russian control involved bribery, collusion, and coverup. And Clinton’s fingerprints are all over it.
This confirms reports published by The New American even as the failed Clinton campaign and its accomplices in the liberal mainstream media continued to beat the stillborn horse of Trump/Russia collusion. In an article originally published in our print magazine and later published online, this writer addressed the evidence of “unethical, illegal, and corrupt behavior” revealed in the leaked Clinton campaign and DNC e-mails and documents published by WikiLeaks:
Those e-mails and documents serve as a box full of smoking guns against the DNC and Clinton campaign. A quick look at just a few of those smoking guns — any of which alone would be damning — illustrates why Clinton (with the help of the liberal media) wanted to keep the attention on the supposed source of the leak, rather than on what the e-mails show about Clinton and her comrades in the DNC....
As secretary of state, Clinton “reset” relations with Putin’s Russia, which helped the Clinton Foundation and its donors make millions of dollars off a deal that sold the mining company Uranium One (and 25 percent of our strategic uranium production) to Russia.
That report by The New American — in February — was published months before The Hill “broke” this story.

Now, more is known about that deal. And the more that comes out, the worse it looks for both Clinton and Obama: FBI and court documents show that the Obama-era FBI (under the “leadership” of ousted FBI Director James Comey) was aware that Putin’s regime in Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, according to a report by The Hill. As an aside, does anyone still think it was a mistake for Trump to fire Comey?
The evidence of bribes and kickbacks is not mere conjecture and innuendo (as in the case of allegations against Trump), but is solidly supported by “a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry” who gathered “extensive financial records,” made “secret recordings,” and intercepted “emails as early as 2009,” according to The Hill. Moreover:
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
And yet — even with the FBI and other federal authorities being aware of this in 2009, the DOJ dragged the investigation out until 2015, allowing a deal to go through that transferred between 20 and 25 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia in the Uranium One deal that fattened the coffers of the Clinton Foundation, strengthened Putin’s Russia, and weakened the United States. For the anti-American element (for whom Clinton was the perfect candidate), that is a win/win/win scenario.
As Newsweek put it, “The Obama administration signed a controversial nuclear deal with Moscow despite prior FBI findings that Russian officials were bribing their way into the U.S. atomic energy industry, according to government documents just published by The Hill.”
So, while Hillary Clinton was using Russia as a bogeyman during the campaign by claiming that if Trump were elected, Putin would gain control of the United States, the reality is that she had — as secretary of state — already laid that groundwork. As president, she would likely have continued to build upon it, doing exactly what she accused Trump of planning to do.
As a result of this information coming to light, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is calling for his committee to conduct a real investigation into the Uranium One deal, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton. As Fox News is reporting:
Grassley on Wednesday released a series of letters he fired off last week to 10 federal agencies, addressing those issues in detail and raising the question of whether the committee that approved the transaction was aware of the FBI probe. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) included then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
At the beginning of a hearing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions today, Grassley said, “This committee has an obligation to get to the bottom of this issue.” So true. And the bottom of this issue could be a long way down for Clinton and Obama.
As for those Democrats who have been raising the roof calling for an end to “Russian collusion,” none appears to have come forward to celebrate this break in the case. It appears they are only interested in ending alleged collusion when it involves their opponent, but not actual collusion when it involves at least two of their darlings.
This is a developing story and The New American will continue to keep our readers updated.
 Documents Show Other Democrats, Not Just Clintons, on Russian Payroll
 Uranium One scandal threatens to bring down the entire Democratic Party
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – While the mainstream media continues to obsess over Paul Manafort and Gen. Michael Flynn’s supposed “Russian collusion,” totally ignored are the ties Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman John Podesta, had to both Uranium One and to Sherbank, Moscow’s largest state-run bank with close ties to international terrorism and to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
As the Russians gained control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 through 2013, the Podesta Group was paid a total of $630,000 between 2010 and 2015 to represent Uranium One, the Russian-controlled firm with close financial ties to the Clinton Foundation that today controls 20 percent of all U.S. uranium produced.
Podesta ties to Russian Money, Putin, and Russian clandestine operations
 Among the revelations made public through the 11.5 million documents leaked by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists detailing the legal and financial arrangements behind secretive off-shore banking transactions dating back to the 1970s was the disclosure Russia’s largest bank, the state-owned Sherbank, uses the Podesta Group as its registered lobbyist in Washington.
“Sberbank (Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its public image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being known for their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s hard-hit financial sector,” wrote former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler in an article entitled “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection” published by the Observer on April 7, 2016.
“It’s hardly surprising that Sberbank sought the help of Democratic insiders like the Podesta Group to aid them in this difficult hour, since they clearly understand how American politics work,” Schindler continued.
“The question is why the Podesta Group took Sberbank’s money,” Schindler asked. “That financial institution isn’t exactly hiding in the shadows—it’s the biggest bank in Russia, and its reputation leaves a lot to be desired. Nobody acquainted with Russian finance was surprised that Sberbank wound up in the Panama Papers.”
Schindler noted that since the 1990s, Sberbank has grown to be Russia’s dominant bank, controlling nearly 30 percent of Russia’s aggregate banking assets and employing a quarter-million people.  The majority stockholder in Sberbank is Russia’s Central Bank, making Sberbank functionally an arm of the Russian government, though officially Sberbank is a private institution.
“Certainly, Western intelligence is well acquainted with Sberbank, noting its close relationship with Vladimir Putin and his regime. Funds moving through Sberbank are regularly used to support clandestine Russian intelligence operations, while the bank uses its offices abroad as cover for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service or SVR,” Schindler pointed out.
A NATO counterintelligence official explained that Sberbank, which has outposts in almost two dozen foreign countries, “functions as a sort of arm of the SVR outside Russia, especially because many of its senior employees are ‘former’ Russian intelligence officers.” Inside the country, Sberbank has an equally cozy relationship with the Federal Security Service or FSB, Russia’s powerful domestic intelligence agency.
On April 17, 2014, the Moscow Times reported Ukraine opened criminal proceedings against Sberbank and 13 other banks on suspicion of “financing terrorism.”
Schindler noted the Ukrainian criminal infestation concluded Sberbank had distributed millions of dollars in illegal aid to Russian-backed separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine, with the bank serving as “a witting supporter of Russian aggression against Ukraine.”
On April 5, 2016Lachlan Markay reporting in the Washington Free Beacon published the lobbying registration form the Podesta Group filed with the U.S. government proving Sberbank had contracted with the Podesta Group to advance their interests with banking, trade, and foreign relations.
Markay further reported that according to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a consortium of journalists exploring the Panama Papers leak, Sberbank and Troika Dialog have ties to companies used by members of Putin’s inner circle to funnel state resources into lucrative private investments.
“Some of these companies were initially connected to the Troika Dialog investment fund, which was controlled and run by Sberbank after the bank bought the Troika Dialog investment bank. Troika and Sberbank declined to comment,” Markay noted the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, concluded in a report published in April 2016.
On March 30, 2016, Politico reported the Podesta Group registered to lobby for the U.S. subsidiary of Sherbank to see if relief could be obtained for the bank in the easing of U.S. sanctions against Russia for Russia’s role in the Ukraine conflict.
The Podesta Group and the Russian uranium scam
As first documented in Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book “Clinton Cash,” and confirmed in Jerome Corsi’s bestselling book “Partners in Crime: The Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the White House,” Uranium One directed millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company.
New York Times reporters Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, in an article entitled “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” that the newspaper printed on April 23, 2015, documented the tie between the Russians and the Clinton Foundation as the Uranium One deal evolved.
“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation,” Becker and McIntire wrote.
“Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million,” the New York Times reporters continued.  “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”
Becker and McIntire further noted that shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
CIFUS is the acronym for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the inter-agency committee of the U.S. government, operating out of the U.S. Treasury, that is responsible to review and authorize transactions of a U.S. business that could result in a foreign person or entity undermining U.S. national security interests.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was a member of CIFUS and she was the only presidential candidate in 2008 to make an issue of the importance of strengthening CIFUS to protect U.S. economic sovereignty and national security.
In October 2010, CIFUS reviewed and approved the Rosatom acquisition of majority control in Uranium One before the deal was done.
In 2013, Rosatom acquired all remaining shares of Uranium One. Becker and McIntire estimated that by 2015, after getting CIFUS approval, the Russians ended up controlling one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.
John Podesta served as Clinton Foundation CEO
According to a New York Times report published Aug. 13, 2013, in 2011, a wave of midlevel program staff members departed the Clinton Foundation, “reflecting the frustration of much of the foundation’s policy personnel with the old political hands running the organization.”
Around that time, in 2011, Bruce Lindsey, then the Clinton Foundation’s CEO, suffered a stroke, underscoring concerns about the foundation’s line of succession. John D. Podesta, a chief of staff in Mr. Clinton’s White House, stepped in for several months as temporary chief executive.
An earlier version of this report was published by Jerome R. Corsi, “Media Neglect Clinton-Linked Firm’s Role in Russia Scandal,, Sept. 28, 2016,
 New Details Expose Clinton & FBI Devils
 18Oct17 - New details show the REAL devils in the Russian/Putin collusion — Hillary, Obama’s DOJ, and the FBI who gagged a whistleblower and pushed the Uranium One deal through 15 months AFTER they knew of fraud, bribery and money laundering by those involved
 Mueller Transferred Uranium To Russia, 
Hid Clinton Crimes 
 Robert Mueller, the man who is investigating President Donald Trump for ties to Russia has been shown to have ties to Russia himself.
 Confirmed Mueller & The Clintons 
Were On The Russian Pay Roll All Along
 Once more it's proven that it's the lying democrats and not Donald Trump 
who are in bed with the Russians.



 Drone Footage Reveals A First Look Of Trump's Border Wall Prototypes
 After they are done, CBP will move to the “test and evaluation” of each of the eight structures
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Over the past four weeks, workers have been toiling (mostly in intense 90+ degree heat) to put final touches on eight possible versions of President Donald Trump’s long-promised border wall, ahead of an October 26 deadline to finish the prototype border-wall designs located just a few dozen years from the border that divides San Diego from Tijuana. U.S. Customs and Border Protection awarded eight contracts to six companies to build the prototypes. Four are made of reinforced concrete, and another four incorporate additional construction materials. Construction began on Sept. 26, giving companies 30 days to finish, according to the Arizona Republic.
By Wednesday, five of the wall designs had already been completed and were fenced off with caution tape, but – as the following video shows – crews were still at work on others, installing vertical concrete panels on one design, using cranes and bulldozers to place them upright. Another two prototypes were in various stages of construction on the demonstration site, located about 2 miles east of San Diego’s Otay Mesa border crossing, in the foothills of the Otay Mountains. At roughly 30 feet, the designs dwarf the petite, primary fence that currently designates the international boundary — it’s made of rusted Vietnam War-era landing mats. They are also nearly twice the height of the secondary metal-mesh fence, which ends near where the prototypes are being built.

Their height, officials quoted by the AZ Republic said, is intended to make a statement to criminals and would-be unauthorized crossers: Stay away.
“The 30 feet is very impressive,” said Mario Villareal, the division chief for the San Diego Sector Border Patrol. “What we’re trying to accomplish is by putting tactical infrastructure on the border, by having all-weather roads, by putting Border Patrol agents on the immediate border is the deterrence.”

Of course, whether the border-wall prototypes “keep people away”, is what matters, and will be closely scrutinized in the coming weeks. After they are done, CBP will move to the “test and evaluation” of each of the eight structures.
What do the prototypes look like?

One built by a Maryland company uses concrete at the base with the top two-thirds featuring blue metal panels. Another, built by an Alabama company, has a wide concrete base that gives way to a thinner frame halfway up the structure.  Also, only one of the completed designs incorporates see-through features that would allow Border Patrol agents to monitor activity on the other side of the border.
Initially, Trump called for a solid reinforced concrete design, and several of the finished prototypes seemed to fit that description. Under advisement from CBP, the administration later included “see-through features” in its call for submissions. A second design by the Alabama company features metal bars for the first half of the prototype, narrowly spaced and resembling the bollard-style fencing commonly used at the border in Arizona’s urban areas. But the top half has what appears to be solid concrete panels.
Quoted by the AZ Republic, Border Patrol Agent Theron Francisco said the ability to see across the border can be beneficial. It’s an option they don’t have now with landing-mat fencing in the area. “It’s good to be able to see through the south side. We can see them, they can see us,” he said. “But in a way, it can be negative because we’re always being watched. They always can see us. It goes both ways.” Meanwhile, the concrete design is made up of three long, concrete frames that gently slope upward from the U.S. side, but are completely vertical on the south side. The concrete is a light tan, nearly the same color as the dusty soil it stands on.
The cost of eight contracts ranges from $320,000 to $480,000. CBP has already appropriated the funds to pay for them. However, funding for additional construction is still up in the air and remains the object of major political disagreement in Congress.
And until we find out if Trump’s wall will ever amount to anything more than a pipe dream, here is drone footage taken earlier today of the Border Wall prototypes.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 Iran’s supreme leader has pilloried Donald Trump with 
degrading epithets in his latest speech following the US President’s 
refusal to recertify the nuclear deal. Trump is, according to Ayatollah 
Ali Khamenei, “foul-mouthed”, uttering “nonsense,” and “suffering from 
The rogue, jihadist regime of Iran had it good with Barack Obama, and became increasingly emboldened as the former administration continuously relented to Iran’s dictates. Obama not only signed on to the disastrous Iranian deal but then secretly airlifted 400 million dollars in “ransom” to Iran for a prisoner exchange which the Democrats at first denied before going on to call it “a deal for taxpayers.” Then there was the $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed before the 1979 fall of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
In other words, the Obama Administration was pumping big bucks into Iran with full knowledge of its jihadist proxies, its goal to obliterate Israel, and the apocalyptic vision of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
According to an expose by the Washington Free Beacon, former Obama officials and loyalists then went so far as to wage a secret campaign to oust former national security adviser Michael Flynn in order to preserve the Iranian deal.
So there should be little wonder that Khamenei would resort to his own “foul-mouthed” temper tantrum over Trump’s refusal to re-certify the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iran Deal), leaving the regime nervous over the future of its aggressive quest to expand its regional and global powers.

“‘Foul-mouthed’ Trump suffers from ‘retardation’ – Iran’s supreme leader”, RT News, October 19, 2017:
Iran’s supreme leader has pilloried Donald Trump with degrading epithets in his latest speech following the US President’s refusal to recertify the nuclear deal. Trump is, according to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “foul-mouthed”, uttering “nonsense,” and “suffering from retardation”.
“The President of the United States displays nonsense; however, this should not lead us to ignore the mischief of the US regime,” Khamenei told a group of students and academic elites on Wednesday, according to his website.
Khamenei declined to comment on Trump’s “irrational behaviour towards Iran,” saying that it would be “a waste of time to respond to such blatherings and nonsensical remarks by the foul-mouthed US President.”
Follow @khamenei_ir
I don’t want to waste time on answering the rants and whoppers of the brute US president. It’s a waste of time for anyone to answer him.
5:05 AM – Oct 18, 2017
87 87 Replies 439 439 Retweets 1,213 1,213 likes
The supreme leader claimed that the US President and his team were “suffering from retardation because they do not understand the developments in Iran and the region.”
Last week, the US President proceeded with his disavowal of the Iran deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and refused to recertify Tehran’s compliance with the agreement. Later, Trump added that there was “a very real possibility” that the deal would be terminated altogether.
Khamenei said that the pact “serves its interests.”
“We will not tear up the deal before the other party does: if they tear up JCPOA, we shred it,” he cautioned.
Follow @khamenei_ir
Replying to @khamenei_ir
#JCPOA benefits Europe. We won’t tear the JCPOA up, as long as the other side doesn’t, but if they do, we will shred it.
7:05 AM – Oct 18, 2017
21 21 Replies 86 86 Retweets 294 294 likes
The supreme leader went on to urge the European nations that are also signatories to the agreement “to stand up against the US measures” such as sanctions, which “they anticipate to emerge from Congress.”
Trump referred the matter to American lawmakers, who have 60 days to decide whether to re-impose sanctions on Tehran, which were lifted in exchange for capping its nuclear program under the deal.
“They want to take back young, faithful and developed Iran to 50 years ago,” Khamenei added, saying that this was not possible.
“Due to backwardness, they are incapable of understanding this reality, and for this reason they have made a miscalculation and suffered, and will suffer successive defeats at the hands of the Iranian nation,” the supreme leader continued…..


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — An Air Force colonel was recently punished for declining to 
sign a document affirming a retiring subordinate’s same-sex “marriage.”
Col. Leland Bohannon, who serves at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, found himself in a predicament in May when he was handed a number of awards and certificates to sign for a master sergeant’s retirement ceremony. Among the certificates was a “certificate of spouse appreciation,” which is an optional document of recognition.
Because the master sergeant is an a homosexual relationship, Bohannon did not feel as a Christian that he should sign the certificate, as it would be a gesture of affirmation. He signed all of the other awards and certificates, and requested a religious accommodation from his superior for the spouse appreciation certificate.
The request was returned six weeks later “without action,” and in the meantime, Maj. Gen. Sami Said offered to sign the certificate instead. Bohannon agreed.

However, when the master sergeant discovered that Bohannon did not personally sign the spouse appreciation certificate, he filed an Equal Opportunity complaint, claiming that Bohannan discriminated against him.
Following an investigation, it was determined by Brig. Gen. Paul Tibbets in August that even though he sought a religious accommodation, Bohannon was guilty of violating Air Force regulations by discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation.”
As a result of the findings of an Equal Opportunity investigator, Lt. Gen. Anthony Rock suspended Bohannon from his command position, withheld decoration and submitted a letter recommending that Bohannon not receive the brigadier general promotion for which he is eligible.

Bohannon has now obtained assistance from the religious liberties organization First Liberty in filing an appeal of the determination.
“[T]here is no requirement that a commander issue a spouse certificate. Moreover, the instruction does not require the commander to personally sign a certificate, should one be issued,” the appeal letter, written by attorney Michael Berry, reads. “Yet the MSgt’s spouse nevertheless received a signed spouse certificate bearing the signature of a two-star general, far superior than one signed by Col. Bohannon.”
“In essence, the MSgt’s complaint is that the person of his choosing did not sign the certificate,” it notes, “even though the certificate presented was in fact superior as a result of Col. Bohannon’s efforts to balance his sincerely-held religious beliefs with the need to serve all airmen regardless of their beliefs.”
First Liberty believes that Tibbets’ determination is faulty, as he had asserted that a religious accommodation would not have changed the discrimination conclusion.
“Moreover, the EO investigator’s statement that ‘even if [a religious accommodation] were granted, excusing [Col. Bohannon] from signing a spouse certificate for same sex marriages, it would not apply in this case’ defies comprehension,” Berry wrote. “Such a position renders religious accommodations meaningless.”
“The primary purpose of a religious accommodation is to provide a legal justification for engaging, or refusing to engage, in particular conduct that is motivated by sincerely-held religious beliefs,” he contended. “Religious accommodations exist to avoid placing service members in the religious and moral dilemma of having to violate their religious convictions in order to serve.”
Read the appeal letter in full here.
First Liberty says that it is prepared to take legal action should the Air Force not overturn the determination.



 Soros transfered $18 Billion dollars to his Open Society Foundations
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 Robert Brown of the John Birch Society joins Alex Jones to discuss George 
Soros and his attempts to overthrow the United States by providing millions to 
protester organizations that do his bidding.
 George Soros Dumps His Fortune into War 
on America, Humanity
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and 
research purposes:
    Billionaire globalist George Soros (shown) has transferred the bulk of his wealth — almost $18 billion — to his Open Society Foundations, a sprawling global network of entities and front groups pushing everything from globalism and Big Government to abortion, racial hatred, radical politicians, nationalized police, Hillary Clinton, mass Islamic migration, illegal war, and open borders. Some analysts have suggested that the massive transfer of funds was a scheme to avoid the estate tax. However, the deeply controversial extremist and self-styled “god,” now 87-years old, is also reported to be laying the foundation for his anti-freedom agenda — described by Soros as a “New World Order” that the mass-murdering Communist Chinese regime will “own” — to be perpetuated with his billions long after he meets his Maker.
Either way, the globalist establishment now has even more funds to wage war on America, liberty, the U.S. Constitution, humanity, gun rights, unborn babies, Christianity, morality, national sovereignty, self-government, conservatives, and other longtime targets of Soros and his minions. Indeed, Soros' “philanthropic” outfit is now the second largest in the United States, behind the ideologically incestuous Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Without a surge in giving by conservative and liberty-minded donors, analysts say American patriots, conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists may find themselves on the losing end of even more political battles in the years ahead. Reports said Soros was expected to transfer billions more to his network in the years ahead. 
    News of Soros transferring most of his fortune to his foundation was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. Within hours, the news was making headlines worldwide. According to reports, the $18 billion represents more than three fourths of his total net worth, estimated at around $23 billion. It is one of the largest “transfers of wealth” ever made by a single person to a single foundation, the leftist New York Times reported. (Soros is intimately involved with his foundation.) For perspective, one analyst noted that the transfer was about the size of Afghanistan's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Another pointed out that $18 billion is about three times more than all spending by all political parties, in all races combined, during the 2016 election. In short, with an $18 billion war chest, Soros' minions will be able to wreak a lot of havoc.
Even fellow globalist foundation bigwigs acknowledge that Soros' network is the most powerful on the planet when it comes to influence. “There is no foundation in the world, including the Ford Foundation, that has had more impact around the world than the Open Society Foundations in the last two decades,” Darren Walker, president of the globalist, CIA-linked Ford Foundation, was quoted as saying by the globalist New York Times. “Because there is no part of the world that they have not been. Their footprint is deeper, wider and more impactful than any other social justice foundation in the world.” The term “social justice,” when used by establishment globalists and their propaganda organs, generally refers to globalism and Big Government.
Despite posing as a “philanthropist,” Soros has used his money mostly to spread an anti-freedom, anti-life, anti-Christian agenda around the world. According to media reports, he has showered his money on organizations across more than 100 countries. He has also bankrolled multiple bloody “revolutions” around the world, not to mention revolutionary organizations. And while far-left establishment propaganda organs help perpetuate the claim that Soros promotes “democracy” and “human rights,” they rarely discuss the dark underbelly of his “philanthropy,” or the dark truth about Soros himself. Consider: Soros even said in a TV interview that he had no feelings of guilt for his role helping National Socialists (Nazis) steal Jewish property as a youngster.
While describing himself as “some sort of god” and boasting openly of his atheism, Soros has funded multiple outfits and initiatives aimed at undermining Christianity and corrupting Christian teachings on marriage, life, and more. As this magazine documented last year, Soros was caught showering money on pseudo-Christian groups that aimed to promote abortion, homosexuality, the European Union's ongoing destruction of nations and self-government, and much more — within the church. A leaked memo from Soros’ foundation even outlined a plot to co-opt Catholic officials and push Soros' views within the Catholic Church and within the Christian world more broadly by funding front groups that would battle conservative Christians.
Soros also funds groups such as “Catholics for Choice,” which promotes the slaughter of unborn children, while targeting for political upheaval nations with laws protecting babies from abortion. “With one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, a win there [in Ireland] could impact other strongly Catholic countries in Europe, such as Poland, and provide much needed proof that change is possible, even in highly conservative places,” explained another leaked document from Soros' vast network, outlining a subversive plan to overturn the section of Ireland's Constitution that enshrines the right to life of unborn children in a bid to spark a global domino effect.
Other efforts to neutralize and hijack Christian churches emerged in the socially conservative Christian nation of Georgia. As The New American reported last year, Soros, with additional support provided by unwitting Western taxpayers, was caught showering money on Orthodox pastors and churches there to “train” them in the alleged benefits of surrendering national sovereignty and self-government in exchange for rule by the increasingly autocratic European Union. To that end, Soros funded an Astro-Turf group called, ironically, the “Center for Development and Democracy,” to co-opt Georgia's churches and pastors to serve the globalist EU agenda.
In the United States, Soros and his minions have funded a broad range of political agendas as well, ranging from abortion giant Planned Parenthood, which snuffs out the lives of hundreds of thousands of babies each year, to Black Lives Matter, a radical leftist group with leaders who openly praise communists and organize protests that advocate the murder of police. Soros has also helped finance Occupy Wall Street and efforts to nationalize local and state police departments, documents show. Soros pumps money directly into political campaigns, too, with the billionaire globalist dumping millions on both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
But in parts of the world, including the United States, the public is beginning to wake up. In Hungary, for instance, political leaders have accused Soros of improperly meddling in nations' affairs, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban even accusing Soros of being a “political puppet master” whose machinations have “ruined the lives of tens of millions of people.” That may be an underestimate, considering Soros' giant globalist footprint everywhere from Syria and Libya to Ukraine and beyond. Aside from the role of his foundation in advocating for the illegal wars and interventionism that have destroyed so many countries, Soros has also attracted outrage across Europe for encouraging and bankrolling the tsunami of Islamic immigration in recent years. “National borders are the obstacle,” he famously said.  
As for what sort of world Soros hopes to eventually see as a result of his “philanthropy,” his own statements, along with those of other like-minded establishment globalists, offer a powerful indication of just how totalitarian that vision really is. In 2009, for instance, Soros called for the communist regime ruling mainland China to “own” what he referred to as the “New World Order.” Speaking to the Financial Times, the self-styled philanthropist declared that the United States and the U.S. dollar were on their way down, and that the Communist Party regime must step up to the plate. “I think you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order,” Soros said, without noting that the regime has murdered more people than any other in human history. “I think you need a new world order, that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns … the current order.”
It was hardly a slip up. The next year, while receiving the Globalist of the Year award from the Canadian International Council, Soros again called for China to play a lead role in the emerging global-governance regime. “They have now got to accept responsibility for world order and the interests of other people as well,” declared Soros. “Today, China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States.” As this magazine has documented extensively for decades, Soros is hardly the only senior globalist who has been openly celebrating and promoting the rise of Communist China’s rulers as key players in their emerging “New World Order.” From Beijing to Moscow and Washington, D.C., to London, globalists are all openly pushing for this new order.
While the self-styled “god” is often portrayed by the establishment media as a business-savvy but charitable tycoon who made smart investments through his hedge fund, his well-documented connections to the unfathomably wealthy Rothschild banking dynasty are rarely mentioned. Indeed, with Soros consistently making the right bets at the right time, more than a few of his critics have suggested that it may not be all business acumen. In fact, while he maintains his innocence, Soros has already been convicted of insider trading — the only question is just how much of his success was due to illegal help from other insiders, and whether that “help” was offered in exchange for his cooperation in promoting globalism, statism, and global revolution.
Either way, as The New American magazine's William F. Jasper documented extensively earlier this year, Soros the wannabe “god” appears to have violated a broad range of state and federal laws in his fiendish quest to create his diabolical global order. “It is our contention that the prima facie evidence of criminal activity by George Soros and those he funds is sufficient to demand official investigations — by Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice, and state attorneys general,” Jasper wrote. Concerned Americans should look at the evidence and ask their elected representatives to do the same.
Related articles: George Soros: The “God” Who Should Be Jailed
Globalist Soros Pours Money Into Manipulating U.S. Elections
In Abortion Push, Soros Exposed Trying to Corrupt Christianity
Soros Co-opting Churches to Push New World Order
George Soros Distorts Religious Teachings
Hacked Documents: Soros Funded Black Lives Matter
Hacked Docs Expose Soros-Obama-UN Refugee Invasion Network
Soros Migration Rent-a-Mob Amps Up for Aug. 28 Wash., D.C. Refugee Rally
Soros Exposed Orchestrating Ferguson Chaos
Soros and CFR Exploit Refugee Crisis for New World Order
George Soros’ Giant Globalist Footprint in Ukraine’s Turmoil
George Soros Funded by the House of Rothschild
George Soros Touts China as Leader of New World Order
Big Soros Money Linked to Occupy Wall Street
George Soros' Doublespeak
Soros Provides Pressure From Above, Below
Soros Spends Millions to Unseat Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Soros Exposed Plotting to Nationalize American Police


Thursday, October 19, 2017


 Garen Wintemute, M.D., M.P.H.
 ABOVE: Garen J. Wintemute, M.D., M.P.H.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 U.S.A.-( An article by UC Davis emergency department 
physician,  Garen Wintemute, in the Annals of Internal Medicine is calling on 
primary care physicians to confront their patients over guns that they might 
own. Dr.Garen Wintemute is a gun control advocate who believes that doctors 
should counsel their patients on firearms. He considers himself a “gun violence” 
Dr. Garen Wintemute came to this conclusion by what he considers inaction by Congress and the Whitehouse. According to Dr. Wintemute these bodies of government, “have abdicated their responsibility on this complex and pressing problem as on so many others.” Dr. Garen came to fame by multiple articles trying to link gun ownership and violent tendencies.
He calls for doctors to hold interventions with their patients over their firearms. This intervention would include such intrusive question as of where ammunition and guns store and informing the patient of firearm death statistics. Dr. Wintemute likens firearm ownership to smoking in that the first time to doctors urge their patients to quit smoking they usually do not, but over time the pressure might cause them to abandon the habit.
According to Dr. Wintemute, doctors should address these conversations as a caring doctor by saying such things as “If you’re going to be effective you have to be able to say, ‘I’m asking you this because I care,’ ” He stresses doctors should frame the questions in a way not to offend the patient.
Dr. Wintemute, in the past, has applauded the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision over Florida’s Privacy of Firearm Owners Act. This act would have prevented doctors from asking their patients about their guns. In the court decision, it was ruled in a 10-1 majority decision that the statute would have violated the first amendment rights of the doctors.
What is disturbing is what Dr. Wintemute list as warning signs of gun violence. These include such things as acute injury, a difficult diagnosis, a job loss, or having an impulsive teenager, children or impaired adults living the same home as the gun owner. Since most people have been through one or more of these scenarios, it would mean almost everyone is susceptible to gun violence.
Dr. Wintemute believes that a lot of doctors have reached a personal tipping point with the tragedy in Las Vegas. He wrote, “I frequently hear from physicians who have reached a personal tipping point and decided to stay on the sidelines no longer.” He also stated that they would not be acting alone in their crusade. He urged doctors to band together to combat gun violence.
Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada
Dr. Wintemute has asked all primary care physicians to sign a pledge stating that they will talk to their patients about firearms. He also encourages doctors to email, call, and push their colleagues to sign the pledge. According to Dr. Wintemute, they will use the list to distribute aids that will help doctors confront their patients on guns.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on the history of the patriot movement and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss or at
 Garen J. Wintemute MD ’77 (School of Medicine) is the recipient of the Distinguished Achievement Award for exemplary professional achievements and service to the university. In addition to saving lives as a front-line emergency medicine physician at UC Davis Medical Center, Wintemute works to prevent people from ever becoming patients in an emergency department. Previously honored with the UC Davis Distinguished Scholarly Public Service Award, Wintemute is internationally known for his groundbreaking studies on gun violence and has been quoted in The New York Times, BBC, and PBS. As the director of the Violence Prevention Research Center at UC Davis, Wintemute has been a powerful voice for change and the author of two books on the subject. He was featured in the 2010 HBO documentary "Gun Fight", directed by Oscar-winning filmmaker Barbara Kopple, which brought to light the complex issues surrounding firearms and the debate over how best to reduce violence.


 Alex Jones breaks down the Globalists plan to cull, or selectively slaughter, 90% of the world's population in an attempt to cleanse the genetic makeup 
of human beings across the planet.
 Globalists Engaged In Chemical Holocaust 
Against Americans
 Alex Jones exposes the Globalists' plan to poison Americans across the country using chemicals found in consumer products that the average person exposes themselves to on a daily basis.




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
October 19, 2017
The following is excerpted from THE DISCIPLING CHURCH: THE CHURCH THAT WILL STAND UNTIL CHRIST COMES. New for March 2017. This church planting manual aims to establish churches on a solid biblical foundation of a regenerate church membership, one mind in doctrine and practice, serious discipleship, thorough-going discipline, and a large vision for world evangelism. We examine the New Testament pattern of a discipling church, and we trace the history of Baptist churches over the past 200 years to document the apostasy away from the biblical pattern to a mixed multitude philosophy. We also document the history of “sinner’s prayer” evangelism which has affected the reality of a regenerate church membership. The book deals with biblical salvation with evidence, care in receiving church members, the church’s essential first love for Christ, the right kind of church leaders, the right kind of preaching, training church members to be Bible students, the many facets of church discipline, building strong families, youth ministry, training preachers, charity, reproof, educating the church for spiritual protection, maintaining standards for workers, the church’s prayer life, the church’s separation, spiritual revival, the church’s music, and many other things. The last chapter documents some of the cultural factors that have weakened churches over the past 100 years, including the theological liberalism, public school system, materialism and working mothers, the rock & roll pop culture, pop psychology, the feminist movement, New Evangelicalism, television, and the Internet. There is also a list of recommended materials for a discipling church. 513 pages.

Following are some of the factors that have weakened the character of Bible-believing churches over the past 70 years and helped create a mixed multitude philosophy.

Theological Liberalism

Confidence in the Bible was weakened by theological liberalism and Darwinian evolution, and this greatly weakened the spiritual power of churches.

Though liberalism took many forms, at its heart it was an attack upon the authority of the Bible and it was an application of the theory of evolution to Bible history. 

The Northern Baptists became liberal in theology at the beginning of the 20th century. (They were known as the Northern Baptist Convention until 1950, when the name was changed to American Baptist Convention.) For example, in 1918, Harry Emerson Fosdick, pastor of the influential Riverside Church in New York City, published The Manhood of the Master, denying that Jesus Christ is God. In 1926, the Northern Baptist Convention voted by a margin of three to one not to evict Riverside Church from the convention.

Liberalism entered the Southern Baptist Convention in the first half of the 20th century. 

By 1902, J.W. Bailey of North Carolina wrote in the Biblical Recorder that there were a multitude of “theologies” in the Southern Baptist Convention. He said, “Theologies change every day. ... [Baptists do not stand for] formulated dogmas.”

A Baptist pastorate that was probably largely unregenerate stopped depending on spiritual weapons and turned to carnal weapons such as programs and an efficient organization. 

There was an emphasis on “efficiency” and “pragmatism” (using whatever works to produce a desired goal).

“Efficiency consisted not in purity or obedience, but in system, organization, and rationality in all areas of church activity. ... progressive church leaders held that the church in the modern age needed a polity based not on ancient authority but on science, rationality, and system. They looked to social scientists and efficiency experts such as Frederick Winslow Taylor, who in this era developed management into a science for producing efficient organizations” (Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches, Kindle loc. 2167-2174).

In the 1920s, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary appointed Gaines Dobbins as a “professor of church efficiency.” His 1923 book The Efficient Church had a wide influence. He claimed that Christ’s ministry in the Gospels was “the perfection of efficiency” and Paul was the “world’s greatest efficiency expert in religion.”

The churches began leaning to the spirit and wisdom of the times instead of God’s Spirit and God’s Word. Instead of separating from the world and its unenlightened thinking, they learned from the world.

They bowed to the American spirit of individualism and consumerism. They stopped requiring evidence of salvation and practicing discipline so as not to offend potential members. The churches appeased the people’s idolatrous, me-centered desire to shop for a church that met their felt needs. They lowered the spiritual standards, became entertainment-oriented, borrowed the world’s music to make Christian music more appealing to the unsaved and carnal, softened the preaching, created “youth ministries” that encouraged the generation gap and were merely Christianized versions of the world’s pop culture. By the last half of the 20th century, this spiritual appeasement produced the seeker-sensitive, megachurch movement.

The churches bowed to the influence of the “new morality” and allowed church members to live worldly lives. Such things as dating, pre-marital sex, drinking, jazz, rock, divorce, unisex fashions flooded the weak churches. 

The churches bowed to the philosophy of non-judgmentalism and non-dogmatism that permeated society.  

The concept of church as pilgrims and strangers in a foreign country was replaced by Americanism and flag waving. 

The Social Gospel produced an emphasis away from evangelism and church planting. Building God’s kingdom on earth through social-justice projects and maintaining good social order began to replace “saving brands from the burning.” 

In 1910, William Poteat, president of Wake Forest College, told the annual Southern Baptist Convention that Baptists were in the best position to save civilization.

In 1920, Richard Edmonds wrote, “Upon the Baptists of the South may rest the salvation of America and of the world from chaos and from sinking back into the darkness of the middle ages” (The South, America and the World).

The Public School System

Few things have done more to weaken Bible-believing churches than the public school system with its anti-God, anti-Bible, evolutionary, socialistic, globalistic agenda. It is a major tool of the “god of this world” in these end times. Christian parents have foolishly turned their children over to the hands of the devil to be brainwashed and sexualized and converted to the devil’s agenda. 

Public school attendance is a major reason why so few of the young people in the churches are true disciples of Christ, why, in fact, many of them become open enemies of Christ.

The public school system was one of the most negative spiritual and moral influences in my youth, and that was in a day wherein the schools in America were not nearly as degenerate as they are today. I entered grammar school in 1955 and graduated from high school in 1967. As I recall, we weren’t taught evolution or communism or multiculturalism or feminism or transsexualism. 

In fact, for much of that time, we still had Bible reading and prayer in the schools. But even then the secularized environment and the blossoming rock & roll pop culture and the godless friends were devastating to my Christian profession. 

My parents took me to church every time the doors were open, but how can a few hours in a weak church per week overcome 30 and more hours of immersion in the world?

By the time I was in junior high school, the Bible and prayer were kicked out of the nation’s schools by fiat of the U.S. Supreme Court. Creationism was replaced by evolution. Biblical morality was replaced with moral relativism. The sexual revolution was glorified. 

In 2015, I received the following testimony from a public school teacher:

“I teach math to twelve- to fifteen-year-old children in public school in a heavily Protestant-churched community in North Carolina. The students are absolutely addicted to cell phones. Many walk around campus plugged into their devices. Music and games are the most addictive. Posting of ‘selfies’ on Snapchat is very popular. All the immorality that we had to work hard to find when we were young is available to children in a second. Few, if any, are strong enough to resist biting the apple.”

The truth of 1 Corinthians 15:33 guarantees that a church populated by kids educated in the public school system will be a weak church with weak Christian homes and weak youth. See also Psalm 1:1; Proverbs 19:27; Jeremiah 10:2; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

Pastor David Sorenson makes the following wise comment: 

“I know of no greater passage of Scripture dealing with the matter of Christian education than Psalm 1. There probably is no institution in this country that more embodies the counsel of the ungodly, the way of sinners, and the seat of the scornful than the national public education establishment. With its systemic teaching of evolution which mocks creation, it certainly occupies the seat of the scornful. With its institutionalized sex education (that is little more than sex encouragement), it certainly is in the way of sinners. As it tacitly ignores the things of God under the guise of separation of church and state, it certainly is the counsel of the ungodly. The objective of Psalm 1:1 is to get our families out of the world and to get the world out of our families” (Training Your Children to Turn out Right, pp. 92, 93).

Pastor Kerry Allen comments on 1 Samuel 13:19-20:

“Children are arrows to be sharpened and shot at our enemy, the devil. Are we foolish enough to believe that if we give our arrows to the enemy, he is going to sharpen them for us? No, rather he will see to it that they are dull and useless against him. Wise warriors will never allow the enemy to tamper with their weapons of warfare” (How Can I Except Some Man Guide Me?)

I realize there are situations in which a child must attend public school for reasons that might be out of the parent’s control. For example, there are divorced Christians that have to share custody with an unsaved parent. And in some situations, missionaries have chosen to send their children to a public school in a foreign country after weighing all of their options before the Lord. I know of two cases like this that have turned out right, and those children are serving the Lord. But I must hasten to add that I personally know of only two! 

If children must attend public school, the key to having them turn out right for the Lord is intimate, godly involvement by the parents and a committed relationship with a strong church. 

The same thing can be said about secular university. Pastor Mike Sullivant has the following observation:

“Very few that go off to secular university go on to serve the Lord. I’ve got one guy that is in engineering, but he lives with a Christian family off campus and comes home every weekend. His family is active in the church and during the summer he comes home to work and is faithful to church and goes to the activities. Pastor Bob Kelly said that the only way that a saved person could go to a secular school and turn out right is that he not be just an ATTENDER of a good church but that he be ACTIVELY INVOLVED in the church. I’ve seen some of our young people leave here and go to the university in Winnipeg and attend a church but they are not active in a church, and it seems that it is no better for them than if they weren’t going to church at all. I’ve never seen a non-active one make it without being scorched big time.”

Materialism and Working Mothers

Another key factor in the weakening of churches over the past 60 years is the breakdown of the home, and one of the chief causes of this is the frenzied pursuit of wealth and comfort with the accompanying phenomenon of working mothers.

During World War II, women entered the work force in great numbers because so many men were fighting overseas. (This phenomenon had begun in World War I, but it exploded in World War II.) When the war ended, the trend toward working moms did not stop. 

Instead of being content with living on the father’s paycheck while the mothers attended to the essential business of keeping the home and caring for the children, mothers and fathers both entered the work force.

This was direct and brazen disobedience to God’s Word, and it was evidence that many homes and churches were following society rather than Scripture.

“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Titus 2:4-5).

The working mother phenomenon left children without close parental supervision and training, and the devil has filled the void.

Ron Williams, founder of the Hephzibah House in Winona Lake, Indiana, has many decades of experience working with troubled children from Christian homes. He issues the following warning:

“Small wonder many children and young people forge such strong loyalties to peers even though they are an adverse influence on them. In the absence of a full-time mother, a child will naturally seek guidance, companionship and fulfillment from another source. Loyalties that should have been cemented with his parents and family are instead farmed out to evil-charactered peers readily provided by a satanically-dominated world. Mom, your children need you, not a surrogate hireling. You cannot be replaced by another. God has called you to be a ‘keeper at home,’ not to stunt your creativity or imprison you in an unfulfilling, demeaning role, but because you have been called to the high and noble office of a homemaker; a responsibility with unmeasureable rewards, heavy demands, great fulfillment, and inestimable blessing for you, your husband, and your children.”

If a married woman doesn’t have children or if her children are grown or if she can work part time without causing any harm to her family, that is a different situation. 

The Rock & Roll Pop Culture

Rock music is the heart and soul of an ungodly global pop culture. It is the soundtrack of the modern youth culture. Originating in America and England, it spread throughout the world. 

In most nations today, young people share the same philosophy, have the same values, wear the same fashions, love the same techno gadgets, have the same heroes, display the same attitude.

Rock music and the pop culture that it began to create in the 1950s weakened churches almost immediately and it has been weakening them ever since. 

Young people were enticed, addicted, and brainwashed. The Pied Piper of rock reached into the church in which I was raised and captured the hearts of all of the young people. I don’t know of any exceptions.

I remember how I was affected by early rock & roll records in 1962, the year I turned 13. I was mesmerized. The feelings produced by the music were so powerful. Church was boring, but this new world was amazing! I couldn’t wait to quit church and live out my rock & roll fantasies, and I did that at age 17 when I graduated from high school and had my own car. 

Rock music is enticing and transformational because it brings the philosophy of self-centeredness, rebellion to authority, and moral license.

The rock culture is not morally neutral. Rebellion against God’s holy laws is not a sideline of rock & roll; it is the heart and soul.

From its inception in the 1950s and 1960s, rock has preached rebellion and moral license. The rock philosophy is the philosophy of “do your own thing; don’t let anyone tell you what to do.” It’s the me-first philosophy that lies at the heart of the self-esteem culture.

Rock preaches the ancient lie that the devil uttered to Eve: “God’s laws are restrictive; He is keeping you from enjoying life to the fullest; throw off His yoke and live as you please; be your own god.”

Elvis changed our hairstyles, dress styles, our attitudes toward sex, all the musical taste” (David Brinkley, NBC News, cited by Larry Nager, Memphis Beat, p. 216).

I’m free to do what I want any old time” (Rolling Stones, 1965).

It’s my life and I’ll do what I want/ It’s my mind, and I’ll think what I want” (The Animals, 1965).

You got to go where you want to go/ do what you want to do” (Mamas and Papas, 1966).

It’s your thing/ do what you want to do” (Isley Brothers, 1969).

We don’t need no thought control” (Pink Floyd, “Another Brick in the Wall,” 1979).

I’m gonna do it my way. ... I want to make my own decision ... I want to be the one in control…” (Janet Jackson, “Control,” 1986).

Nothing’s forbidden and nothing’s taboo when two are in love” (Prince, “When Two Are in Love,” 1988).

“... the only rules you should live by [are] rules made up by you” (Pennywise, “Rules,” 1991).

“So what we get drunk/ So what we smoke weed … Living young and wild and free” (“Young, Wild and Free,” Snoop Dog and Wiz Khalifa, 2011).

We can do what we want; we can live as we choose” (Paul McCartney, “New,” 2013).

“The whole Beatles idea was to do what you want” (John Lennon, cited by David Sheff, The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono, p. 61).

Little Richard “freed people from their inhibitions, unleashing their spirit, ENABLING THEM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY FELT LIKE DOING” (Life & Times of Little Richard, p. 66).

At the heart of rock music is sexual liberty, which is brazen rebellion against God’s holy law of marriage. Again we quote the rock and rollers themselves as evidence for this:

Everyone takes it for granted that rock and roll is synonymous with sex” (Chris Stein of the rock group Blondie, People, May 21, 1979).

Rock music is sex. The big beat matches the body’s rhythms” (Frank Zappa of the Mothers of Invention, Life, June 28, 1968).

“The sex is definitely in the music, and sex is in all aspects of the music” (Luke Campbell of 2 Live Crew).

Rock ’n’ roll is synonymous with sex and you can’t take that away from it. It just doesn’t work” (Steven Tyler of Aerosmith, Entertainment Tonight, ABC, Dec. 10, 1987).

Rock ‘n’ roll is 99% sex” (John Oates of Hall & Oates, Circus, Jan. 31, 1976).

Pop music revolves around sexuality. I believe that if there is anarchy, let’s make it sexual anarchy rather than political” (Adam Ant, From Rock to Rock, p. 93).

Perhaps my music is sexy ... but what music with a big beat isn’t?” (Jimi Hendrix, Henderson, cited from his biography ‘Scuse Me While I Kiss the Sky, p. 117).

Rock ‘n’ roll is sex. Real rock ‘n’ roll isn’t based on cerebral thoughts. It’s based on one’s lower nature” (Paul Stanley of KISS, cited from The Role of Rock, p. 44).

That’s what rock is all about—sex with a 100 megaton bomb, THE BEAT!” (Gene Simmons of Kiss, Entertainment Tonight, ABC, Dec. 10, 1987).

Rock ‘n’ roll is all sex. One hundred percent sex” (Debbie Harry of Blondie, cited by Carl Belz, “Television Shows and Rock Music,” The Age of Communication, Goodyear Publishing Company, 1974, p. 398).

Rock music represents the world of the sexual revolution: shacking up, hooking up, the homosexual agenda (LGBT, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual), no-fault divorce, polyamory (multiple marriage partners).

The rock world is a sleazy, filthy world. It is impossible for a Bible-believing Christian to watch the Grammys or to read Rolling Stone and other rock magazines or even to browse the Walmart pop music department or the pop music section of the Apple iTunes store without seeing the continual flaunting of nakedness and fornication.

The lives of popular rock musicians have been filled with profanity, fornication, adultery, multiple marriages, homosexuality, lesbianism, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, tumult, covetousness, theft, and suicide.

No wonder the rock culture has weakened churches. Very few churches have been strong enough to overcome its pull and its influence on the people.

Pop Psychology 

Pop psychology has also greatly influenced society over the past half century and in turn weakened the churches. 

Humanistic psychology has greatly undermined biblical morality. It is based on the premise that man is basically good rather than a fallen sinner. It de-emphasizes personal responsibility for one’s actions. Man is not a sinner, he is a victim (of his home life, his society, etc.). It has transformed sins into diseases (e.g., drunkenness is alcoholism).  

At the heart of pop psychology is self-esteemism, which is exactly what fallen man wants. He wants to be the center of his universe. He wants to follow his heart and chase his dreams, and that is exactly what psychology encourages him to do.

The doctrine of self-esteem was developed by the fathers of the psychological counseling movement and has spread throughout that field and beyond to every level of modern society. 

According to the doctrine of self-esteem, man must pursue his own self-love or self-confidence for the sake of psychological wholeness, and anything that damages self-esteem is wrong. The mystical path to the development of self-esteem is psychological counseling. Since absolute rules produce guilt in those who don’t live up to them, the pursuit of self-esteem emphasizes the need for “new rules which will allow us more freedom of movement and encourage us to accept ourselves just as we are” (E.S. Williams, The Dark Side of Christian Counselling, p. 116). 

Atheist Abraham Maslow emphasized the need for self-esteem in books such as A Theory of Human Motivation (1943), Motivation and Personality (1954), and Toward a Psychology of Being (1955). He taught that a lack of self-esteem can lead to “neurotic trends.” Rejecting the doctrine of the fall, he believed that man is basically good and there is “a positive, self-actualising force within each person that is struggling to assert itself” (Williams, The Dark Side, p. 114). If it is “permitted to guide our life, we grow healthy, fruitful, and happy” (Motivation and Personality, 1970, p. 122).

Dr. Nathaniel Branden has had a massive influence in the promotion of self-esteem through books such as Psychology of Self-Esteem (1969), How to Raise Your Self-Esteem (1987), and the Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (1995). He treats self-esteem as a basic human need that is essential for mental health. He says, “The first love affair we must consummate successfully in this world is with ourselves; only then are we ready for a relationship.” 

Douglas Groothuis identifies the self-esteem doctrine as New Age in character. 

“Maslow’s past-breaking efforts cleared the way for an exodus from the old psychological view of humanity toward a new human that is essentially good and has within himself unlimited potential for growth. A whole host of thinkers--Erich Fromm, Rollo May, Carl Rogers and others--sound this call. In humanistic psychology the self is seen as the radiant heart of health, and psychotherapy must strive to get the person in touch with that source of goodness. ... This is the message at the core of New Age teaching” (Unmasking the New Age, 1986, p. 78).

The pursuit of self-esteem puts one into contact with the god of end-times apostasy. 

Though fashioned by God-haters such as Abraham Maslow, self-esteem doctrine has been promoted far and wide in Christian circles by a slew of Christian psychologists, with James Dobson leading the way. 

Dobson claims that “lack of self-esteem produces more symptoms of psychiatric disorders than any other factor yet identified” (Dr. Dobson Answers Your Questions about Confident Healthy Families, 1987, pp. 73-74). His 1974 book Hide and Seek was designed “to formulate a well-defined philosophy--and approach to child rearing--that will contribute to self-esteem from infancy onwards.” He says, “If I could write a prescription for the women of the world, I would provide each one of them with a healthy dose of self-esteem and personal worth (taken three times a day until the symptoms disappear). I have no doubt that this is their greatest need” (What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew about Women, p. 35). He says, “... lack of self-esteem is a threat to the entire human family, affecting children, adolescents, the elderly, all socioeconomic levels of society, and each race and ethic culture” (What Wives Wish, p. 24). 

Dobson believes that lack of self-esteem is the cause of every social ill.

“Thus, whenever the keys to self-esteem are seemingly out of reach for a large percentage of the people, as in twentieth-century America, then widespread mental illness, neuroticism, hatred, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, and social disorder will certainly occur. Personal worth is not something humans are free to take or leave. We must have it, and when it is unattainable, everybody suffers” (Dr. Dobson Answers Your Questions about Confident, Healthy Families, p. 67).

To the contrary, the Bible lays the ills of society at the feet of fallen man and his rebellion against God. Jesus taught that murder, adultery, fornication, covetousness, deceit, theft, and such come from man’s wicked heart (Mark 7:21-23). 

David Seamands is another pioneer of the Christian self-esteem movement. His hugely popular books Healing for Damaged Emotions and Healing of Memories seek to heal the believer of “Satan’s most powerful psychological weapon” which is “low self-esteem.” He aims to take the client back into the past to recover and heal memories of events that injured one’s self-esteem. 

Seamands has been widely recommended by evangelicals, including James Dobson and George Verwer (Youth With A Mission), who wrote the foreword to Healing for Damaged Emotions.

Seamands’ mystical path toward self-esteem is “healing of memories” through psychological counseling and New Age techniques. He promotes things as positive visualization, guided imagery, dream analysis, and venting of emotions. Through visualization, the individual is taught to imagine painful past events in perfect detail and to imagine Jesus entering the scenes to bring healing. This is not only vain fantasy; it is occultic and it is a recipe for communing with deceiving spirits masquerading as angels of light.
The self-esteem doctrine downplays and redefines sin. 

The very popular and influential Robert Schuller, who was a pioneer in the “Christian” self-esteem movement, defined sin as “any act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem” (Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 14). He defined the new birth as “being changed from a negative to a positive self-image--from inferiority to self-esteem” (p. 68). He even said that Christ was “self-esteem incarnate” (p. 135). Schuller has been praised and promoted by a whose-who of evangelicalism, including Billy Graham, W.A. Criswell, R.C. Sproul, Christianity Today, National Association of Evangelicals, World Vision, Promise Keepers, James Dobson, Tony Campolo, Bill Bright, Paul Yonggi Cho, Jack Hayford, Ralph Reed, Bill Hybels, Paul Crouch, John Wimber, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, Chuck Colson, and Rick Warren, to name a few. (See “Evangelicals and Heretic Robert Schuller” at the Way of Life web site.)

The self-esteem doctrine promotes an unscriptural view of the conscience. While acknowledging that the conscience (an “inner voice”) produces guilt and negative thoughts, the proposed solution is not the biblical path of regeneration through repentance and faith followed by a Christian walk of obedience and confession. The proposed solution, instead, is to lower the standards of morality. 

The atheistic founders of the self-esteem doctrine hated the holy God of the Bible and His holy law and sought to destroy His authority over men by denying His existence and teaching moral relativism and the pursuit of Self. Christian counsellors who have borrowed the self-esteem doctrine also tend to downplay the absoluteness of God’s law, the necessity of strict obedience, and they replace the biblical means of soothing the conscience with psychological mumbo-jumbo.

Humanistic psychology has had a major influence on modern society, and it has caused the thinking of church members to be corrupted away from biblical thinking. Since most church members were educated in the public school system and are otherwise influenced by psychology, and since most of them are not serious students of God’s Word, their thinking is more secular than biblical. 

Most churches have not been strong enough to resist the onslaught of humanistic psychology. Most pastors have not properly educated the people or properly warned them. They have not stood plainly against heretical psychological principles. They do not want to “offend” the people and “drive them away.” 

The result has been weakened churches and mixed multitudes. 


Democracy is another factor that has weakened the discipline of churches.

The democratic political movement of modern times was birthed in America. The rule of kings was replaced with the rule of the people. Though America is not strictly a democracy; it is a democratic republic, which is a democracy under the rule of law, the emphasis is still on the rule of the people. The Declaration of Independence championed “the right of the people,” while the United States Constitution begins with the words, “We the people.” President Abraham Lincoln described the U.S. government as one “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Multitudes of people flocked to America in search of people’s rights. 

In a great many ways democracy has been a great blessing, primarily in the areas of liberty and economic prosperity. It liberated men from the dictates of autocratic kings and state churches. It created a climate in which churches multiplied and world evangelism prospered. It was the search for liberty and economic prosperity that brought the masses to America’s shores and that spread American democracy to many nations.

A danger of this is in transferring the philosophy and attitude of “people’s power” from the political realm into the church. The church is not a democracy. It is not “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The believer in Christ is spiritually translated into Christ’s kingdom (Col. 1:13), and the church is an outpost of Christ’s coming kingdom, and it is obligated to live under His Headship. The church is a theocracy ruled by Christ and His Word. Christ appoints governors, who are called pastors, elders, and bishops, and they have the rule over the church under Christ (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pe. 5:1-2). They don’t have have legislative power, because the church’s laws are already settled in the canon of Scripture. Rather they have executive and judicial powers. 

In the New Testament, we see the congregation participating in decisions, particularly in the selection of deacons (Acts 6:1-6). But this is not “people’s power” in that it was done under the direction of and in coordination with the leaders. 

What has happened in American churches, in particular, and in churches influenced by them, is the intrusion of the attitude of people’s power. Too often, an attitude of “we are the people, and we will decide what we do” has replaced that of “we are the Lord’s people and we will live strictly by His will.” 

This can best be seen by comparing churches today with those of former times. 

Consider the following description of church discipline 150 years ago:

“The oversight of the members was minute and persistent. Their general conduct, their domestic life, their business, their connections in civil society, their recreations, and even their dress, were all deemed legitimate subjects for the strictest supervision” (J.J. Goadby, Discipline in Early Baptist Churches, 1871).

This was a perfectly biblical position, and people in that day commonly submitted to such discipline. The level of democracy and the modern focus on self had not yet ruined church discipline.

But today the attitude on the part of vast numbers of church members is that these things are not the business of the church. The attitude is more alongs the line of, “You can’t tell me what I can or cannot do, how I dress, what music I listen to, how I conduct my family life and business, whom I associate with. Who do the pastors think they are?”

This thinking is evident in the way that so many churches “hire and fire” preachers, not on the basis of biblical truth and righteousness, but on the basis of the whims of the people, as if pastors exist to do the bidding of the people and to please them. I think of a Baptist church in Tennessee that fired the preacher nearly every year and got a new one. Typically, it took a new preacher about a year to offend the main families in the church! 

The Feminist Movement

The feminist movement has had a very powerful influence on modern society and on the churches. 

It began in the second half of the 19th century with the push for women’s suffrage, political equality (an equal voice and place for women in politics), workplace equality (equal pay for equal work), and female education. The first gathering devoted to women’s rights was in 1848 with about 100 people in attendance. It was led by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. Full voting rights were granted to women in America in 1920. 

By the early 20th century, the feminist movement was pushing for “reproductive rights,” which refers to birth control and abortion. Many 19th century feminist leaders were opposed to abortion, but by the 20th century, feminism was at the forefront of the abortion rights movement which has resulted in the destruction of millions upon millions of unborn children. 

The feminist movement has become ever more radical. It has pushed for “non-sexist” or “gender neutral” language (e.g., chairman becomes chairperson). It has often been an opponent of traditional marriage and has been at the forefront of homosexual rights. It has reconstituted goddess theology. Pressure for accommodation of women in all positions, has resulted in the lowering of physical standards for police, firefighters, and the military. 

Feminism created the unisex movement and paved the way for homosexual rights. The pantsuit was invented in 1966 by homosexual fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent. Feminist Linda Grant said that the pantsuit “put women on an equal sartorial footing with men and “is what fashion gave to feminism” (“Feminism Was Built on the Trouser Suit,” The Guardian, June 3, 2008). The breaking down of the created distinction between male and female in the pop culture has, in turn, greatly encouraged the homosexual movement.

The feminist movement has had an influence in Bible-believing churches because so many professing Christian women are more influenced by feminist thinking than by the Bible. They consider feminine characteristics such as “a meek and quiet spirit” (1 Pe. 3:4) and modesty, shamefacedness, and sobriety (1 Ti. 2:9) to be outdated. As Don Boys points out, “For us to suggest that women be modest in apparel, attitude, and actions as Paul commanded is almost quaint. Moreover, not only do feminists go ballistic but also many closet feminists in our churches are quick to demand the right to wear whatever they choose, even if the Apostle Paul or their husbands disagree” (“Megyn Kelly, Whatever Happened to Modesty?”, Nov. 17, 2016).

Christian mothers aren’t content to be keepers at home (Titus 2:5). They resist the Bible’s command that the wife submit herself to her husband as unto the Lord. The Scripture’s command that a woman not teach or usurp authority over the man is thought to be outdated (1 Ti. 2:12). They want an equal voice with the men in church affairs. They want their daughters to “follow their hearts,” even if that means playing male-dominated sports or pursuing something like a career in the infantry. 

They bob their hair and wear pants (as a product of the feminist-influenced unisex fashion movement), and woe be to that preacher who tries to reprove them. It has been a long time since a Baptist preacher published a book by the title of Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers! (That was the title of a 1941 pamphlet by Evangelist John R. Rice.)

Rice wrote, “The pulpit is a place for the strongest men that we have. The preacher in the pulpit should speak with an authority that is absolutely forbidden a woman to exercise.” 

Where are those strong men today? 

The feminization effect has resulted in a softening of the preaching and the militant stance of the church. God is a “man of war,” but very few preachers are. Christ took on the Pharisees and Sadducees, and Paul took on every heretic that raised his head, but such zeal is foreign to most so-called preachers. Martin Luther took on Rome and called the pope the antichrist and called the pope’s bull “all impiety, blasphemy, ignorance, impudence, hypocrisy, lying.” Charles Spurgeon took on the Baptist Union and railed against “soft manners and squeamish words” in the pulpit, calling for “dinging our pulpits into blads” [smashing them with forceful preaching]. Gilbert Tennent took on the Presbyterians of his day, lifting his voice in 1740 in the midst of a synod (a regional governing body) to warn that many preachers were unregenerate and calling them “rotten-hearted hypocrites, and utter strangers to the saving knowledge of God and of their own hearts” (Joseph Tracy, The Great Awakening, 1842).

This type of boldness is entirely unknown among convention Baptists, and it is exceedingly rare among fundamental Baptists. The protest has long gone out of Protestants, and the “fundamentalism” has largely gone out of fundamentalists. 

I am convinced that the feminization of society has resulted in a weakening of even the best churches and a rapidly growing de-emphasis on biblical militancy (being a soldier in Christ’s army). 

The feminization of the churches can even be seen in a softening of the hymns. There is less forthrightness in the lyrics and less military boldness in the music.

New Evangelicalism

New Evangelicalism has greatly influenced and seriously weakened Bible-believing churches, even many of those who would say that they are opposed to New Evangelicalism. 

The weakening came after World War II with the advent of a religious philosophy which its own leaders branded “new evangelicalism.”

During the first half of the 20th century, evangelicalism in America was synonymous with fundamentalism. Many historians make this connection, including George Marsden says, “There was not a practical distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical: the words were interchangeable” (Reforming Fundamentalism, p. 48).

When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was formed in 1942, for example, participants included such fundamentalist leaders as Bob Jones, Sr., John R. Rice, Charles Woodbridge, Harry Ironside, and David Otis Fuller.

By the mid-1950s, though, a clear break between separatist fundamentalists and non-separatist evangelicals occurred. This was occasioned largely by the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham. Most of the stronger men dropped out of the National Association of Evangelicals. The terms “evangelicalism” and “fundamentalism” began “to refer to two different movements” (William Martin, A Prophet with Honor, p. 224).

The sons of evangelical-fundamentalist preachers determined to create a “New Evangelicalism.” They would not be fighters; they would be diplomats; they would have a positive rather than a militant emphasis; they would be infiltrators rather than separatists. They refused to be restricted by “a separatist mentality.”

The term “New Evangelicalism” defined a new type of evangelicalism to distinguish it from those who had heretofore borne that label. The term “new evangelicalism” was probably coined by Harold Ockenga (1905-1985), one of the most influential evangelical leaders of the 1940s. He was the pastor of Park Street Church (Congregational) in Boston, founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder and one-time president of Fuller Theological Seminary, first president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, president of Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and one-time editor of Christianity Today. In the foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible, Ockenga stated the philosophy of new evangelicalism as follows:

“Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals. ... It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life.”

Ockenga did not create the movement; he merely labeled and described the new mood of positivism and non-militancy that was permeating his generation. Ockenga and the new generation of evangelicals, Billy Graham figuring most prominently, determined to abandon a strong Bible stance. Instead, they would pursue dialogue, intellectualism, and appeasement. They determined to stay within liberal denominations to attempt to change things from within rather than practice separation.

The New Evangelical would dialogue with those who teach error rather than proclaim the Word of God boldly and without compromise and separate from them. The New Evangelical would meet the haughty liberal on his own turf with human scholarship rather than follow the humble path of being counted a fool for Christ’s sake by standing simply upon Scripture. New Evangelical leaders also determined to start a “rethinking process” whereby the old paths were to be continually reassessed in light of new goals, methods, and ideology. 

Dr. Charles Woodbridge, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary in its early days, a founding member of the National Association of Evangelicals, and a personal friend of men such as Harold Ockenga and Carl Henry, rejected the New Evangelicalism and spent the rest of his life warning of its dangers. In his 1969 book, The New Evangelicalism, he traced the downward path of New Evangelical compromise:

“The New Evangelicalism is a theological and moral compromise of the deadliest sort. It is an insidious attack upon the Word of God. ... The New Evangelicalism advocates TOLERATION of error. It is following the downward path of ACCOMMODATION to error, COOPERATION with error, CONTAMINATION by error, and ultimate CAPITULATION to error!” (Woodbridge, The New Evangelicalism, pp. 9, 15).

Each passing decade has witnessed more plainly to the truth of Dr. Woodbridge’s observations. Toleration of error leads to accommodation, cooperation, contamination, and capitulation. This is precisely the path that evangelical Christianity in general has taken during the past 50 years, as New Evangelicalism has spread across the world.

The New Evangelical philosophy has been adopted by such well-known Christian leaders as Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Harold Lindsell, John R.W. Stott, Luis Palau, E.V. Hill, Leighton Ford, Charles Stanley, Bill Hybels, Warren Wiersbe, Chuck Colson, Donald McGavran, Tony Campolo, Arthur Glasser, D. James Kennedy, David Hocking, Charles Swindoll, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and a host of other men. New Evangelicalism has been popularized through pleasant personalities and broadcast through powerful print, radio, and television media. Christianity Today was founded in 1956 to voice the new philosophy. Through publishing houses such as InterVarsity Press, Zondervan, Tyndale House Publishers, Moody Press, and Thomas Nelson--to name a few--New Evangelical thought was broadcast internationally. New Evangelicalism became the working principle of large interdenominational organizations such as the National Association of Evangelicals, National Religious Broadcasters, Youth for Christ, Campus Crusade for Christ, Back to the Bible, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, World Vision, Operation Mobilization, the Evangelical Foreign Mission Association, World Evangelical Fellowship, the National Sunday School Association, etc. It was spread through educational institutions such as Fuller Theological Seminary, Wheaton College, Gordon-Conwell, BIOLA, and Moody Bible Institute.

Because of the tremendous influence of these men and organizations, New Evangelical thought has swept the globe. Today, almost without exception, those who call themselves evangelicals are New Evangelicals; the terms have become synonymous. Old-line evangelicals, with rare exceptions, have either aligned with the fundamentalist movement or have adopted New Evangelicalism.

Evangelicalism’s compromise is seen in its repudiation of biblical holiness. It has broken down the walls of ecclesiastical separation as well as the walls of separation from the world. The old fundamentalism was staunchly opposed to worldliness. The New Evangelical crowd has modified this. The result has been incredible to behold. R-rated movies are given positive reviews in evangelical publications. Evangelical music groups look and sound exactly like the world. Evangelical Bible College campuses have the look and feel of secular colleges. The students wear the same clothes (or lack of clothes) as the world; they drink the same beer and liquor; they dance to the same music; they celebrate the same worldly events; they care about the same worldly concerns.

Richard Quebedeaux documented this more than 35 years ago in his book, The Worldly Evangelicals.

“The Gallup Poll is correct in asserting that born-again Christians ‘believe in a strict moral code.’ But that strictness has been considerably modified during the last few years … the monthly question and answer column (patterned after ‘Dear Abby’) in Campus Life, Youth for Christ’s magazine, gives the impression that more born-again high school age couples are having INTERCOURSE than is generally supposed. Among evangelical young people, MASTERBATION is now often seen as a gift from God. DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE are becoming more frequent and acceptable among evangelicals of all ages, even in some of their more conservative churches. This new tolerant attitude toward divorce has been greatly facilitated both by the publication of positive articles and books on the problem by evangelical authors and by the growth of ministry to singles in evangelical churches. … Some evangelical women are taking advantage of ABORTION on demand. Many younger evangelicals occasionally use PROFANITY in their speech and writing (though they are generally careful to avoid traditional profanity against the deity). Some of the recent evangelical sex-technique books assume that their readers peruse and view PORNOGRAPHY on occasion, and they do. Finally, in 1976 there emerged a fellowship and information organization for practicing evangelical LESBIANS AND GAY MEN and their sympathizers. There is probably just as high a percentage of gays in the evangelical movement as in the wider society. Some of them are now coming out of the closet, distributing well-articulated literature, and demanding to be recognized and affirmed by the evangelical community at large” (Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals, 1978, pp. 16, 17).

James Hunter in the book Evangelicalism the Coming Generation (1987) documents “the evolution of behavioral standards for students” at evangelical colleges:

“What has happened at Wheaton College, Gordon College, and Westmont College is typical of most of the colleges in this subculture. From the time of their founding to the mid-1960s, the college rules unapologetically prohibited ‘profaning the Sabbath,’ ‘profane or obscene language or behavior,’ playing billiards, playing cards and gambling, using intoxicating liquors or tobacco, theater and movie attendance, and any form of dancing—both on- and off-campus” (Hunter, p. 169).

Hunter goes on to observe that these rules have largely been dropped. Further, the worldliness on evangelical college campuses has increased significantly in the years since his book was published.

Describing this moral apostasy in The Great Evangelical Disaster, Francis Schaeffer said:

“How the mindset of accommodation grows and expands. The last sixty years have given birth to a moral disaster, and what have we done? Sadly we must say that the evangelical world has been part of the disaster. ... WITH TEARS WE MUST SAY THAT ... A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE EVANGELICAL WORLD HAS BECOME SEDUCED BY THE WORLD SPIRIT OF THIS PRESENT AGE” (Schaeffer, p. 141).

The apostasy of today’s evangelicalism was described by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals in the Cambridge Declaration. The declaration, signed by 80 theologians and church leaders, was released on April 20, 1996, at the end of a four-day conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The signers included James Montgomery Boice, J.A.O. Preus III, David Wells, Albert Mohler, and Michael Horton, and represented Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Congregational, and Independent denominations.

“Today the light of Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence is that THE WORD ‘EVANGELICAL’ HAS BECOME SO INCLUSIVE AS TO HAVE LOST ITS MEANING. … As Biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness, and its doctrines have lost their saliency, THE CHURCH HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY EMPTIED OF ITS INTEGRITY, MORAL AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION. … As evangelical faith becomes secularized, its interests have been blurred with those of the culture. THE RESULT IS A LOSS OF ABSOLUTE VALUES, PERMISSIVE INDIVIDUALISM, AND A SUBSTITUTION OF WHOLENESS FOR HOLINESS, recovery for repentance, intuition for truth, feeling for belief, chance for providence, and immediate gratification for enduring hope” (The Cambridge Declaration, 1996).

The Southern Baptist Convention is an example of the influence of New Evangelicalism. This is the largest “Protestant” denomination in America and it has a reputation of being staunchly and traditionally Bible believing, but when one examines the SBC at the congregational level one typically finds extreme worldliness.

The vast majority of SBC congregations do not preach separation from the world, and the teens in the churches commonly love the world’s music, fashions, entertainment, etc. Like the world, they go almost-naked to the beaches, dance to rock & roll, wear whatever immodest fashions are in style, even get excited about occultic entertainment trends such as Harry Potter.
I grew up in Southern Baptist churches, and it was in a Southern Baptist youth group that I first learned to love rock music. The pastor’s son and the deacons’ sons had all of the latest rock albums, and I listened to them when I visited their homes. Large numbers of those who attended the rock dances at my junior and senior high school were church kids. I don’t recall even one kid in our church that had a serious relationship with the Lord. We professed Christ with our lips, but we loved the world with our hearts.

That which is sadly true of the Southern Baptist Convention is true of most other denominations today. Even fundamentalist Bible churches and independent Baptist congregations are following suit. They do not preach or practice separation from the world. 


Television’s influence on modern society is nearly indescribable. 

In looking back on my childhood growing up in a Baptist church, attending services at least three times a week, the three major influences that stole my heart for the world were public school friendships, pop music, and television, and the three were intimately associated. We got a television when I was about nine years old (1958), and though the programs were innocent compared to today, they certainly did not encourage me spiritually. We got our television a couple of years after Elvis appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. By the time I reached junior high school, I did everything I could to stay home on Sunday nights, because that was when the most exciting programs were on, such as the Disney Hour and Ed Sullivan. I don’t remember if I was home that Sunday night in 1964 when the Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan, but I could have been. I was in high school and about that time my parents were having a lot of problems and had pretty much given up on trying to keep me in church. I had already started drinking and carousing with my public school buddies every weekend. There is no doubt that television and movies fed my carnal imagination and, together with rock & roll, inflamed me with a passion for the things of the world.

One of my sisters gives the following testimony:

“As a little girl, I can remember the television being on constantly. It was my ‘friend’ and a means of escape from the troubles and insecurities in my life. As I would watch a certain program, I would think, ‘If I just had her personality or looks, I would be happy.’ Later, when I was older and programming became increasingly wicked, I would stay up late and watch hours of mindless, foolish, empty sitcoms, totally oblivious to the damage it was doing to me. Like a drug, it was altering my mind. When I gave my life to the Lord in 1987, I realized how much of my life had been adversely affected by the media and television. The Lord cleansed my mind as I read His Word and replaced the vain, man-centered philosophies with Truth. We have made the deliberate choice not to have a television in our home today and have purposed to not set any wicked thing before our eyes (Psalm 101:3). A child needs to learn how to communicate with his family, not just sit in a trance in front of a TV.”

Brian Snider had a similar experience growing up. He says, 

“I always tell people that 3-4 hours of church a week can’t hold a candle to 30-40 hours of television as far as power and influence on a young kid. Church was boring; television was fun.”

The following testimony describes the addictive power of television and its negative influence on spirituality:

“I got saved when I was 19 and used to watch television 8-10 hours a day and 26 hours on the weekends. When I started going to church and then through Bible College, where there were no televisions, I realized how much it had influenced the way I thought and perceived life. When we got married we decided not to have a television and have been thankful for it. It was only on deputation when we had more access to TV’s and found when we turned them on that hours would easily be wasted, even just watching FOX News. Not to mention having to continually turn the commercials off. It got so annoying you either wanted to just leave it alone and not turn it off or miss something if you did turn it off. Unfortunately, leaving it on would win, and being aware of this we solidified in our minds we would not have a TV in our home, or cable for that matter. Both the programming and the commercials are written by non-Christians who are trying to influence others with their pagan humanistic philosophies and lifestyles. Cheating, illicit sex, drugs, homosexuality, teens in adult situations, Darwinism, cussing, and all kinds of things Christians shouldn’t be setting before their eyes. Numerous times, even on ‘conservative’ FOX News, they had a story on prostitutes and actually showed a video of pole dancers.”

Only the Lord knows how many Christian lives, homes, and churches have been spiritually weakened, even ruined, by television.

A few pastors of Independent Baptist churches used to preach against it and warn the people of its evil influence, but their number has decreased dramatically over the past 15 or 20 years.

The Internet/Smartphone

The great power of television has been eclipsed by that of the Internet. Today you don’t need a television to access moral filth.

It was the Internet (beginning in the 1990s) and the smartphone (beginning especially in 2007 with the introduction of the iPhone) that have made the world and apostasy all intrusive. No church today can escape the effect of this technology, from the cities of wealthy nations to the villages of Third World countries. 

In the Internet/smart phone generation, church young people can access the pop culture at the touch of a finger. Church people can connect with any song writer and be influenced by his or her music, philosophy, and lifestyle. 

Church women can be influenced by popular evangelical teachers such as Beth Moore. 


We have described theological liberalism, the public school system, materialism and working mothers, the rock & roll pop culture, pop psychology, the feminist movement, New Evangelicalism, television, and the Internet.

These and other cultural and doctrinal factors have combined to create a perfect storm of end-time apostasy that every church must face. 

And the Word of God tells us that this storm will grow stronger as the time of Christ continues to draw near.  

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. ... But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13).

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

The storm of end-time apostasy is amplified and empowered by the technology of our age.

Spiritual protection is available and victory is possible, but it requires that church leaders take everything to a higher, stronger level if they want to be standing for the Word of God in the future. 

Evangelism must be more biblical. The door to church membership must be guarded more carefully.  Love for Christ must be more fervent. Prayer must be taken more seriously. The church must be more deeply immersed in God’s Word. Holiness must be pursued more earnestly. Discipleship must be more scriptural. Discipline and separation must be stricter.