THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
Translate
Showing posts with label American History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American History. Show all posts
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
DARLENE ZSCHECH SOLD HER SEASIDE MANSION FOR $4 MILLION
(Friday Church News Notes, May 22, 2020, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -
Darlene Zschech, former worship leader of Hillsong Sydney, has sold her seaside mansion for a reported $4-$4.4 million. The cliffside property, with a nearly 360 degree view of the ocean, is 1,258sqm with three levels, multiple entertainment areas, private movie theater, pool, and several cliff facing balconies (“Former Hillsong Church Leader,” Warwick Daily News, May 13, 2020). Zschech was “worship pastor” at Hills Christian Life Centre, Sydney, for 25 years, and published many of the most popular contemporary worship songs, including “Shout to the Lord,” “This Is Our God,” and “Mighty to Save.” In 2010, Darlene and her husband became the senior pastors of Hope Unlimited Church, but she continues to be involved in music projects with Hillsong. TheNew York Times reported that Hillsong is “without a doubt the most influential producers of worship music in Christendom” (“Megachurch with a Beat Lures Young Flock,” Sept. 9, 2014). Hillsong pushes one-world church ecumenism. Zschech says, “There is a new sound and a new song being proclaimed across the earth. It’s the sound of a unified church, coming together, in one voice to magnify our magnificent Lord” (“You Shine” album cover). Zschech and Hillsong performed for the Roman Catholic World Youth Day in Sydney on July 18, 2008. Pope Benedict XVI was present and conducted a papal mass. In July 2015, Darlene Zschech and Hillsong joined hands with the pope at the Convocation of the Renewal of the Holy Spirit at the Vatican. On her Facebook page, Zschech said: “Honoured to be singing this week, with Andrea Bocelli, Don Moen, Noa [Israeli singer], with Pope Francis and thousands of worshippers gathering in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican. This is a celebration of unity and peace in the Renewal of the Holy Spirit. Amazing days for the Body of Christ.” Sadly, she doesn’t know the “body of Christ” from a pineapple, has zero spiritual discernment, yet she has vast influence among all denominations, including independent Baptist. In January 2019 and 2020, Hillsong Phoenix hosted the annual Alpha Conference which featured a Catholic mass. Fundamental Baptists and Bible-believing churches that use charismatic contemporary praise music are playing with fire. They will learn, probably too late, that this music brings with it a philosophy that will change the character of any fundamentalist church. It builds bridges to the “broader church,” which is progressing toward the formation of a “one-world church.”
WHEN HEBREW WAS PROPOSED AS THE LANGUAGE OF AMERICA
(Friday Church News Notes, May 22, 2020, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -
The following is excerpted from “How Hebrew Almost Became the Language of America,” Israel Today, May 5, 2020: “William Gifford, an English poet and essayist, received a report that ‘In the rebellion of the Colonies, a member of that state seriously proposed to Congress the putting down of the English language by law, and decreeing the universal adoption of Hebrew in its stead.’ Some believe this was intended as a mockery of the mutinous colonists, but there is sufficient evidence to show that this was a very real and serious consideration. New England Puritans held a profound connection with Israel, the Hebrew language and the Jewish people. In their conviction that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, they held the original Hebrew in great reverence and of particular importance in interpreting and understanding Scripture. ... William Bradford (1590-1657) was a Puritan separatist who immigrated to the Plymouth Colony on the Mayflower in 1620. Bradford, who went on to serve as governor of the new colony for 25 years, taught himself Hebrew because he wanted to read the Scriptures in their original language. On his gravestone he had inscribed in Hebrew, ‘The LORD is the help of my life’ ... Their love of Hebrew led these early New England Christian ministers to develop relationships with Jewish rabbis. Rev. Ezra Stiles, who was driven out by the British in 1776 and immigrated to New England, struck up a close friendship with Rabbi Haim Isaac Carigal. ... With his knowledge of Hebrew, Stiles translated large portions of the Hebrew Old Testament into English. As did many Christian ministers at the time, he understood that knowledge of the original Hebrew was crucial to the proper interpretation of Scripture and even the basis upon which one could properly understand the New Testament as well. Credit is sometimes given to Stiles for proposing that Hebrew replace English as the official language of the newly forming United States. When Stiles was elected president of Yale University, he initiated a course in Hebrew as a freshman requirement. The Hebrew words Urim and Thummim worn on the breastplate of the High Priest, perhaps signifying ‘Light and Perfection,’ became part of Yale’s official seal along with the Latin Lux et Veritas (light and truth).”
DUTCH SUPREME COURT RULES THAT DOCTORS CAN EUTHANIZE ELDERLY WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT
(Friday Church News Notes, May 22, 2020, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -
The following is excerpted from “Dutch Supreme Court Rules,” Reformation Charlotte, May 6, 2020: “If abortion against the unwilling infants still inside the mother’s womb isn’t bad enough, why not legalize abortion against elderly patients with dementia against their will? In a landmark ruling last month, the Dutch Supreme Court said that a doctor who committed euthanasia on an elderly patient with dementia while her family physically restrained her is not legally responsible for any wrongdoing. The Guardian reports: ‘Doctors in the Netherlands are able to carry out euthanasia on patients with severe dementia without fear of prosecution even if the patient no longer expresses an explicit wish to die, the country’s highest court has ruled. The supreme court’s decision followed a landmark case last year in which a doctor was acquitted of wrongdoing for euthanizing a woman in 2016 with severe Alzheimer’s who had requested the procedure before her condition deteriorated.’”
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT REVIVES CHURCH’S LAWSUIT AGAINST CALIFORNIA ABORTION INSURANCE MANDATE
(Friday Church News Notes, May 22, 2020, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -
The following is excerpted from “Ninth Circuit,” Christian Post, May 15, 2020: “A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has revived a California church’s lawsuit against a state law mandating insurance coverage for abortion. Skyline Wesleyan Church of La Mesa sued the California Department of Managed Health Care over letters from 2014 stating that insurance companies could not limit abortion coverage. ... The [Ninth Circuit] panel vacated the earlier district court ruling in a unanimous decision released Wednesday, sending the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland authored the panel’s opinion, concluding that ‘Skyline has suffered an injury in fact. Before the Letters were sent, Skyline had insurance that excluded abortion coverage in a way that was consistent with its religious beliefs,’ Friedland wrote. ‘After the Letters were sent, Skyline did not have that coverage, and it has presented evidence that its new coverage violated its religious beliefs. There is nothing hypothetical about the situation.’ The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative law firm that represented the church before the Ninth Circuit, celebrated the panel’s decision. ‘The agency has unconstitutionally targeted religious organizations, repeatedly collaborated with pro-abortion advocates, and failed to follow the appropriate administrative procedures to implement its abortion-coverage requirement,’ said ADF Senior Counsel Jeremiah Galus.”
LOOKING FOR CHRIST’S RETURN THE MARK OF A TRUE CHRISTIAN
(Friday Church News Notes, May 22, 2020, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -
“I believe it is a mark, that every true believer should be continually at,--to live so as to be ready to meet Christ. ... It is vain to tell me that a man may be a very good man, and yet not be ready for the kingdom of Christ. I deny it altogether. I say that every justified and converted man is ready, and that if you are not ready you are not a justified man. I say that the standard I put before you is nothing more than the New Testament standard, and the Apostles would have doubted your religion, if you were not looking and longing for the coming of the Lord. ... Yet a little while and the last sermon shall be preached,--the last congregation shall break up. Yet a little while and carelessness and infidelity shall cease and pass away. The believers among us shall meet with Christ, and the unbelievers shall be in hell. The night is far spent, and the day is at hand” (J.C. Ryle, Coming Events and Present Duties, 1879). “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Hebrews 9:28).
OPPOSE H.R. 6666, THE COVID–19 TESTING, REACHING & CONTACTING EVERYONE
(TRACE) ACT
Contact your U.S. Congressional Representative and ask them to vote NO on H.R. 6666
THE NVIC ADVOCACY PORTAL
THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Dear NVIC Advocacy Team Members,
H.R. 6666, otherwise known as the COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on 5/1/2020. This bill is sponsored by Representative Bobby Rush (D) of Illinois District 1. The bill has 59 cosponsors, 58 Democrats and 1 Republican. We need your help to stop this terrible bill.
Summary
H.R. 6666 provides 100 billion dollars this year and unlimited federal funding in future years to create and operate a massive and likely unconstitutional surveillance, testing, and tracing enforcement system under the guise of “protecting” Americans against coronavirus.
H.R. 6666 is a federal funding bill. It proposes to create a surveillance infrastructure that can be used by the federal government, as well as local and state governments and private businesses, to require medical testing and tracking of all citizens in violation of fundamental civil liberties as set forth in the Bill of Rights, which include the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution designed to protect individual rights and limit the power of the government.
H.R. 6666 lacks safeguards and conditions related to funding of the proposed surveillance operation to prevent it from being applied to intrusive programs mandating testing and surveillance without an individual’s voluntary consent. If this legislation is passed by Congress and enacted into law, it could lead to denial of an individual’s right to appear in public spaces and travel; the right to employment and education or participation in government-funded services, and the right to receive care in a government funded hospital or other any other medical facility.
H.R. 6666 specifically allows for funded entities to home quarantine a person against their will, even while they are healthy. Once a vaccine is available, the testing and tracing results potentially could be used to force individuals to be injected with a COVID-19 vaccine against their will.
According to a Press Release from the sponsor Congressman Bobby L. Rush, “Reopening our economy and getting back to normal will be all but impossible if we do not step up our testing efforts and implement robust and widespread contact tracing,” said Rep. Rush. “Until we have a vaccine to defeat this dreaded disease, contact tracing in order to understand the full breadth and depth of the spread of this virus is the only way we will be able to get out from under this.”
The Devil is in the Details
H.R. 6666 would allow The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to award federal grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID–19, to trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals, and to support the quarantine of such contacts. Through the use of mobile health units, as necessary, individuals would be tested and provided with services related to testing and quarantine at their residences.
The amount of money appropriated for fiscal year 2020 would be $100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion dollars) and more money may be appropriated by Congress as necessary for any subsequent fiscal year during which the emergency period continues.
A grant recipient may use the federal grant funds, in support of the above referenced activities to hire, train, compensate, and pay the expenses of individuals; and to purchase personal protective equipment and other supplies.
Priority will be given to applicants in “hot spots” and medically underserved communities and to entities that hire residents of the community where the activity will occur. Hot spots are defined as a geographic area where the rate of infection with the virus that causes COVID–19 exceeds the national average. Medically underserved communities are communities given that term in section 799B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295p).
Entities eligible for the grant money are defined as a federally qualified health center, school-based clinic, disproportionate share hospital, academic medical center, nonprofit organization, institute of higher education, high school, and any other type of entity as determined by the Secretary of HHS.
H.R. 6666 Does Not Guarantee Privacy
Section 2 (e) of H.R. 6666 is entitled “Federal Privacy Requirements”, but it does little to protect privacy. It states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy or confidentiality requirement, including the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–191; 110 Stat. 2033) and section 543 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290dd–2).
In actuality, H.R. 6666 offers few privacy protections for Americans who will be surveilled and tested without their consent under programs funded with this grant. In fact, Americans can expect their privacy to be violated under TRACE funded programs. That is because the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(i) has always allowed disclosure of private health information to government officials and other government approved entities including foreign governments without the knowledge or consent of the individual for the purpose of conducting public health surveillance, investigations or interventions.
Bill of Rights Cannot Be Suspended During A “Public Health Crisis”
The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution cannot be set aside by the federal government or state governments during pandemics or other public health emergencies. In The United States Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs, filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a case last month in which church goers attending a drive-in sermon were issued citations for violating an executive order in Mississippi, the DOJ stated;
“There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.” In re Abbott, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.”
H.R. 6666 sets the stage for multiple violations of our constitutional rights.
The 4th Amendment right of American citizens is to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The proposed law would provide government funding of entities that create and implement programs to trace and monitor healthy people potentially exposed to the coronavirus. However, the bill does not allow individuals to exercise their Constitutional right to be safe in their homes free from warrantless government intrusion, and does not provide for voluntary refusal of testing and monitoring by a government funded entity. The bill also does not set forth how the contacts of persons with COVID-19 will be traced and whether the Constitutional rights of those infected with COVID-19, as well as their contacts, will be upheld.
The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This legislation provides government funding of entities that will enforce testing and potentially enforce vaccination of healthy individuals, who are suspected of having come into contact with COVID-19 positive persons whether or not they are exhibiting symptoms, without requiring the voluntary consent of the individual.
The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment of citizens. The proposed law provides government funding to entities that will create and implement programs that trace, monitor and support the enforced quarantine of healthy individuals, who are suspected of coming into contact with COVID-19 persons, whether or not they are exhibiting symptoms and whether or not they may already be immune.
The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bestows upon the people rights not specifically set forth in the Constitution. H.R. 6666 provides funding for entities to create and implement undefined “related activities” to COVID-19 testing and unnamed “other purposes.”
H.R. 6666 should be opposed because it provides federal funding to entities to create and enforce unrestricted surveillance, testing, tracing and quarantine mechanisms and has no set end date. There is simply no way to know how many inalienable rights protected under the U.S. Constitution could be infringed upon or taken away from citizens if this bill becomes law.
1) Call and Email your own U.S. Congressional Representative and ask them to vote against H.R. 6666, the “COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.” Pick a few points in the discussion about that resonate with you to personalize your message. You may need to leave a phone message as many staff members are working remotely.
If you do not know who your U.S. House Representative is or their contact information, you can login to the NVIC Advocacy Portal, http://NVICAdvocacy.org, click on the “NATIONAL” tab, and your elected Congressional Legislators are automatically posted on the right hand side of the page. Click on their name to display links to all of their contact information. If a district office is close to your home, you may also consider trying to set up a longer phone call, video chat or meeting with your Representative or staff to discuss your concerns.
2) Login to the NVIC Advocacy Portal, http://NVICAdvocacy.org, OFTEN to check for state and U.S. updates and action items. We review bills and make updates daily. Bills can change many times over the legislative process and your timely visits, calls, and emails directed at the correct legislators are critical to this process.
3) Please forward this email to family and friends and ask them to register for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at http://NVICAdvocacy.org and share their concerns with their Representative as well.
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) works diligently to prepare and disseminate our legislative advocacy action alerts and supporting materials. We request that organizations and members of the public forward our alerts in their original form to assure consistent and accurate messaging and effective action. Please acknowledge NVIC as originators of this work when forwarding to members of the public and like-minded organizations. To receive alerts immediately, register at http://NVICAdvocacy.org, a website dedicated to this sole purpose and provided as a free public service by NVIC.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In recent weeks, American adults have been subjected to the word “allowed” at levels they’ve not seen since elementary school.
America’s gun owners have had this word thrown at them for decades, and many have, unfortunately, gotten used to it. Some of us have always bristled at the cavalier way this word has been bandied about in reference to our fundamental rights.
Now more Americans are discovering that it’s unnerving and maybe a little ominous to hear politicians, bureaucrats, and “reporters” explaining what we are and are not “allowed” to do.
While the word “allow” is sometimes chosen out of simple laziness, the word contains a disturbing presumption of authority, which suggests that its use is not always accidental. When a reporter talks about whether the Governor will “allow businesses to reopen,” that statement, unconsciously or not, grants as fact that the governor has the authority to decide whether businesses can be in business. When bureaucrats say that lawful carry of firearms has been “allowed” in the Michigan State Capitol for decades, the use of that word implies a privilege that was bestowed upon the people by a higher authority, and which can be revoked by that authority at any time.
Americans should be outraged whenever the word “allow” is applied to almost anything that they might choose to do.
The word “allow” rightly belongs almost exclusively only to parents, teachers, and property owners. Parents might not allow certain words to be used by their children. Teachers might allow a designated amount of free time for students to work on personal projects, and property owners might not allow smoking on their premises. Those are all valid and acceptable uses of the word “allow.” What is not valid or acceptable is the use of the word “allow” in relation to what a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, may decree regarding the rights of the people.
The government of the United States and the governments of the several states, along with their subsidiary governments, derive their authority from “we the people.” We allow these governments certain powers and privileges, for our convenience and the general welfare. We allow them to institute certain laws and regulations for the public good. We do not authorize politicians and bureaucrats to manage our lives or dole out our God-given rights as they might see fit.
Whether the media and government operatives are using the word “allow” intentionally to suggest certain authority, or they’re just lazy about how they express themselves, the result is the same. They are reinforcing the idea that “the state” is the authority, and “the state” may mandate or proscribe virtually any action or behavior of “the people.”
That’s not how it works. Not under our Constitution and the philosophy of liberty upon which our system of government is founded.
Under our system, “We the People” allow government specific authority and duties, but the government doesn’t “allow” us to do anything. We might allow the government to establish laws and regulations, such as the penalty for a serious crime or a speed limit. But we wouldn’t – or shouldn’t – say that the government “allows” us to drive 65 MPH on the freeway. Instead, we would say that driving faster than 65 MPH is prohibited. It is semantics, but the semantics are important. We, the People, have given the government the authority to set speed limits on public roadways. That’s very different from the government granting the privilege of driving and setting restrictions on our exercise of that privilege, but that is what is implied when the word “allow” is used. The word “allow” assumes wide authority and implies that anything falling under that broad authority, is a privilege granted by the “allowing” entity.
Long-time AmmoLand News readers will recall that I’ve raised this issue in the past. When I’ve raised it before, only a few people, mostly within the gun rights community, have seen the significance of this argument. With the whole Chi-Comm virus mess going on now, more people are seeing the word “allow” used against them, and they’re beginning to understand the nefarious nature of that word.
For many, it’s just a feeling. They’re not sure why, but when they see or hear a report that uses the word “allow,” they feel somehow insulted. The same thing with the term “Essential Workers”. Well, all workers are essential, but that is another debate.
Well, they shouldfeel insulted. We should all feel insulted when any reporter, politician, or bureaucrat suggests that our rights are actually privileges bestowed upon us by a benevolent state, and which the state can revoke for any reason, or no reason at all, at any time. The suggestion is an outrage, and we should all be livid every time we hear or see it.
Rights, liberty, freedom – these are not things that the state “allows.” These are core human rights, and they run through virtually everything we do.
Just a few months ago, it would have been outrageous for any reporter or politician to use the word “allow” in reference to churches meeting. Still, today, we have governors, mayors, and the media openly discussing whether or not to “allow” church services. A major metropolitan police force has declared that “Protest is not essential,” and only essential activities are “allowed.” Gun shops and ranges have had to sue to demand that they be able to remain open and operating lawfully.
Suddenly, thanks to fear of this latest Chi-Comm Virus, the word “allow” is being applied to virtually everything we say or do. That must not be allowed to continue. Every time you see the word “allow” in a news story unless it is talking about what “we the people” allow the government to do properly, you should be outraged and should leave a comment or write a letter to the editor calling out the writer’s use of that word. If the reporter is quoting a politician or bureaucrat, challenge the reporter to question the use of that word, and then send a letter or email to the politician or bureaucrat – and their boss – demanding that they stop using language that suggests subjugation of the American people.
Rights are not “allowed” by politicians or bureaucrats. While the word “allow” can be convenient when reporting about government restrictions, it is lazy, inaccurate, and undermines the perception of rights across the board.
So be outraged. Be angry. Be indignant, and let the reporters, bureaucrats, and politicians know that you’re outraged and that you demand that they stop undermining rights and misinforming the public with their sloppy, lazy, or intentionally subversive choice of words. Demand better. Don’t allow them to get away with this reprogramming effort. Spread this message far and wide, and demand that our rights be respected – in deed and in word.
Jeff Knox
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- I had been saving the idea I put forth to you now for a rainy day. I wanted to avoid scaring anyone as I challenged you to think properly through a subject fraught with controversy. I personally see this very simply, but too few do.
As I pen notes such as these, I know I’m writing to an educated and steadfast crowd of patriots. What I’m unable to quantify is just how deeply you all believe in your civil rights. Scarce among you are those who don’t recognize “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” as goes one of Benjamin Franklin’s most famous quotes. We continue to see various states, government sanctions, and high-powered proclamations telling us what we can and cannot do and that doesn’t pass the smell test for me.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety ~ Benjamin Franklin
Do you know where your rights come from? As much as I’m itching to tell you, I’m going to resist.
This question you should know, but if you don’t, search long and hard for the answer. I’ll offer you a hint. I will share with you where rights DO NOT come from. Rights don’t come from man. Why? Any right conveyed to you by man is one that man himself will most assuredly curtail or remove. Think about it. Anything granted by man can be removed by man. Are you comfortable with the idea that your civil rights are offered up by a seemingly benevolent government when that government is comprised of men that can later negate them at will? What about only negating them when people are growing sick? Would that make you more comfortable? …And just how sick would you need to be in order for a man – the man – to remove your rights? Re-cue Ben Franklin’s quote from above.
I’ve studied the origin of rights and I’ve also thought through how those in positions of perceived authority offer you the notion that when they’re in charge your submission is not only encouraged, but correct. During my research, I ran across a study from Yale in the 60s by a psychologist named Stanley Milgram. Milgram was concerned that acts of genocide, like those he’d followed during the Nuremberg War Criminal trials, post-WWII, could be propagated over and over should a people adhere to obedience. But it wasn’t simply obedience at the core of the concern. It was obedience to authority that was problematic for Milgram. Thus, he devised a procedure to offer a test to see how people randomly chose would respond to the power of authority.
The experiment surrounded increasing electric shocks, a “learner,” a “teacher,” and of course an “experimenter” who was dressed in a lab coat, complete with a clipboard, and all the accouterments necessary to ooze “authority” over the unsuspecting subjects. The rates of shock were labeled and the highest rates were clearly labeled as a danger to health.
Milgram sought to quantify how far people would go in terms of obedience while harming another person. Milgram appeared equally interested in how easily influenced or coerced people would become by those in perceived positions of authority.
He believed this would indicate an answer to his question of how likely another atrocity like those committed by Germans in WWII would be. Below is a video of the experiment with conclusions at the end. I suggest you watch it in its entirety.
Milgram summed his findings in an article titled, “The Perils of Obedience” which is easily found with a Google search. Granted, many have criticized Milgram for the testing locale, the use of only men, and some other variables. However, the point was not lost on me, when I saw the rates of shock people were offering coupled with far too many that completed that testing in full.
Authority will make you do things you never thought you would or could actually do. Authority isn’t automatically bad. We just have to be darned careful about Whose authority we’re submitting to and whose we are not. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I am not for one moment suggesting you ignore best practices when dealing with a highly communicable disease. I’m of the opinion that only a few of us actually benefit from a restriction, as the balance of us love our neighbors, friends, and family enough we can do what is best without the hand of government on our shoulders. What I am placing before you is the necessary mandate to guard your liberty from attack. In times such as these, we see opportunistic politicians and self-proclaimed experts exercising their authority too far and wide. Be careful and think through what you’re being told to do. Watch and compare how states outside your own handle things.
St. Augustine – “libido dominandi” – the lust to dominate – Writing during the collapse of the Roman Empire, St. Augustine offered vital insight into the core premise of freedom. A man was no longer a slave by nature or by law according to St. Augustine. No. His freedom was a function of his moral state. A man had as many masters as he had vices. This precept is the foundation for an intricate form of social control over man and continues to grow nearly unchecked today.
Augustine of Hippo – 13Nov 354 – 28Aug 430 AD
I encourage you all to love your neighbor as yourself. I’ve read that before and many know where. Don’t place them or yourself at risk. But diligently observe the authority figures in our state and nation. Watch both their actions and their attitudes. Are they seemingly eager or reluctant to exercise power over their fellow citizens? Do they incline toward liberty and personal responsibility or do they default to strict regimentation, enforced by the government’s police powers? Those are character traits of which you should be mindful, and they indicate the core of a person. We must choose our representatives and public servants wisely.
I began this communication to you all with a reference to saving this sentiment for a rainy day. I was reminded today in an op/ed offered by Andrew Napolitano titled “Coronavirus fear lets government assault our freedom in violation of Constitution“, what St. Augustine branded, “libido dominandi” – the lust to dominate – when the government chooses between liberty and force.
Where do you think they’ll land if the government entertains this false choice? Be very careful my friends, it is pouring outside.
About Michael Ware:
Michael is a Christian husband and father to two children. He owns and operates Controlled Chaos Arms, a premier custom weapons shop in the Midwest. He serves as Chairman of the board of Directors at the Iowa Firearms Coalition. The pursuit of truth drives him in research and his writing.
Michael enjoys shooting, hunting, and fishing throughout the Midwest and Rockies. An avid outdoorsman and tireless supporter of all Second Amendment virtues, he can be found in his gun shop, in a tree stand with his kids, or on Capitol Hill lobbying in support of Freedom and Liberty at any given time.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
On the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, the paramount question becomes: What happened to the American people?
Is this the nation whose soldiers braved withering fire wading ashore on Omaha Beach, that produced the Battling Bastards of Bastogne -- whose Marines raised the flag over Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima after a month of brutal fighting?
What happened to the American spirit? We’ve gone from the nation of rugged individualism and the pioneer spirit to shutdowns, social distancing, and face masks. Citizens who are treated like children meekly obey.
The battle cry of America the Wuss (“People are dying”) has drowned out “Give me liberty or give me death!”
Where totalitarians have failed, a triumvirate of the political left, fake news and medical bureaucrats have succeeded in subjugating the American people and ruining the U.S. economy.
Many Americans want to live in a bubble, avoiding contact with anything that might threaten their comfortable existence. Their fear makes them easy to stampede.
In reality, safety is an illusion. Step out your front door and you risk your life. As of May 3, 67,595 had died from the coronavirus in the United States.
In 2018, 647,457 Americans died of heart disease, 599,108 of cancer, 169,936 from accidents of all kinds (including roughly 40,000 highway fatalities), 55,672 from influenza and pneumonia and 47,173 from suicide.
To stay safe, don’t smoke or drink, don’t get too excited, get in a car or climb a ladder, stay indoors, lose weight, avoid human contact during flu season and don’t get depressed. Try not to think about Fingers Biden as president.
Despite the initial hype (first one million would die, then 500,000, then less then 100,000), the coronavirus turns out not to be more contagious or lethal than a really bad flu. The probability of dying from COVID-19 in the United States is 1.5 out of 10,000. Not bad odds.
In Sweden without a draconian shutdown regime, the probability of death from the coronavirus rises slightly to 2.0 out of 10,000. In the United States, the risk for healthy individuals under 55 is probably 1.5 in 100,000.
COVID-19 isn’t the first time a flock of squawking Chicken Littles, feathers flying in all directions, has tried to terrify us with dire warnings of impending doom, just the most successful.
Overpopulation – In “The Population Bomb” (1969) Paul Ehrlich predicted worldwide starvation in the 1970s, due to population growth outstripping food production and the depletion of natural resources. If you missed that, don’t feel bad. Everyone else did too. New methods of cultivation increased the yield per acre. Greater demand led to new discoveries of oil and other resources.
Nuclear War – In 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock, which was supposed to show how close we were to planetary annihilation, due to stockpiles of nuclear weapons among other factors. When the clock started ticking, it was seven minutes to midnight – or the big bang. In January 2020, with Trump in office, we were just 100 seconds away from Armageddon. Ban the bomb! Trust Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, and the leaders of Iran.
Man-Made Climate Change – Due to burning fossil fuels, the ozone layer is shrinking. Soon, sea-levels will rise to unimagined heights, polar bears on surfboards wearing Hawaiian shirts will glide by the island of Manhattan (if it isn’t under water) and they’ll be growing tropical fruit in Antarctica. Al Gore made a fortune with “An Inconvenient Truth.” Little Greta Thunberg mesmerized the U.N. General Assembly whining that grownups “stole my future.” And Commissar Ocasio Cortez devised a Green New Deal to deindustrialize America. Almost the entire Democratic Party is now onboard. Man-made climate change is based largely on those infallible computer models.
And now we have a lockdown going into its sixth week, so Dr. Fauci can do nightly briefings and Democratic governors can be little Caesars. And when it’s all over, they’ll present themselves as saviors. If It weren’t for social distancing and the lockdown, you’d all be dead, the Michigan Dominatrix and New York’s Il Duce will tell voters. If you object, they’ll label you anti-science.
Add to the current death toll civil liberties, representative government and all of the economic gains since the end of the last recession.
Earlier generations of Americans wouldn’t have stood for it. Tar and feathers would been in short supply.
We cheerfully comply. According to an April 29 NPR/Marist poll, 65% say they’re opposed to letting Americans get back to work without more testing. Presumably, that includes pets.
The Corono-crats won’t let you go to church, won’t let Dads play catch with their sons in parks, and won’t let healthy men and women go to work or dine in restaurants. It makes us wear face masks to buy groceries. It forces some independent businessmen to witness the deaths of what it took a lifetime to build.
How did we get here? Was it the feminization of America, whereby we’ve been taught to spurn what used to be called “manly virtues”? In an era of transgendered rights, micro-aggressions and drag-queen story hours, manhood is out of fashion.
People are no longer even ashamed to admit they’re cowards. The Land of the Free depends on the brave. That’s why we’re losing more territory every day.
But there are still some patriots left. You can see them in the growing number of protests and in the City of Stillwater, Oklahoma which amended a rule requiring the use of face masks in restaurants and stores (which are still open) after “employees have been threatened with physical violence and showered with verbal abuse,” in the words of the city manager.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
All my life, I have dismissed paranoids on the right ("America is headed to communism") and the left ("It can happen here" — referring to fascism). It's not that I've ever believed liberty was guaranteed. Being familiar with history and a pessimist regarding the human condition, I never believed that.
But the ease with which police state tactics have been employed and the equal ease with which most Americans have accepted them have been breathtaking.
People will argue that a temporary police state has been justified because of the allegedly unique threat to life posed by the new coronavirus. I do not believe the data will bear that out. Regardless, let us at least agree that we are closer to a police state than ever in American history.
"Police state" does not mean totalitarian state. America is not a totalitarian state; we still have many freedoms. In a totalitarian state, this article could not be legally published, and if it were illegally published, I would be imprisoned and/or executed. But we are presently living with all four of the key hallmarks of a police state:
No. 1: Draconian laws depriving citizens of elementary civil rights.
The federal, state, county and city governments are now restricting almost every freedom except those of travel and speech. Americans have been banned from going to work (and thereby earning a living), meeting in groups (both indoors and outdoors), meeting in their cars in church parking lots to pray and entering state-owned properties such as beaches and parks — among many other prohibitions.
No. 2: A mass media supportive of the state's messaging and deprivation of rights.
The New York Times, CNN and every other mainstream mass medium — except Fox News, The Wall Street Journal (editorial and opinion pages only) and talk radio — have served the cause of state control over individual Americans' lives just as Pravda served the Soviet government. In fact, there is almost no more dissent in The New York Times than there was in Pravda. And the Big Tech platforms are removing posts about the virus and potential treatments they deem "misinformation."
No. 3: Use of police.
Police departments throughout America have agreed to enforce these laws and edicts with what can only be described as frightening alacrity. After hearing me describe police giving summonses to, or even arresting, people for playing baseball with their children on a beach, jogging alone without a mask, or worshipping on Easter while sitting isolated in their cars in a church parking lot, a police officer called my show. He explained that the police have no choice. They must respond to every dispatch they receive.
"And why are they dispatched to a person jogging on a beach or sitting alone in a park?" I asked.
Because the department was informed about these lawbreakers.
"And who told the police about these lawbreakers?" I asked.
His answer brings us to the fourth characteristic of a police state:
No. 4: Snitches.
How do the police dispatchers learn of lawbreakers such as families playing softball in a public park, lone joggers without face masks, etc.? From their fellow citizens snitching on them.
The mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, set up a "snitch line," whereby New Yorkers were told to send authorities photos of fellow New Yorkers violating any of the quarantine laws. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti similarly encouraged snitching, unabashedly using the term.
It is said that about 1 in every 100 East German citizens were informers for the Stasi, the East German secret police, as superbly portrayed in the film "The Lives of Others." It would be interesting, and, I think, important, to know what percentage of New Yorkers informed on their fellow citizens. Now, again, you may think such a comparison is not morally valid, that de Blasio's call to New Yorkers to serve a Stasi-like role was morally justified given the coronavirus pandemic. But you cannot deny it is Stasi-like or that, other than identifying spies during World War II, this is unprecedented in American history at anywhere near this level.
This past Friday night, I gathered with six others for a Shabbat dinner with friends in Santa Monica, California. On my Friday radio show, I announced I would be doing that, and if I was arrested, it would be worth it. In my most pessimistic dreams, I never imagined that in America, having dinner at a friend's house would be an act of civil disobedience, perhaps even a criminal act. But that is precisely what happens in a police state.
The reason I believe this is a dress rehearsal is that too many Americans appear untroubled by it; the dominant force in America, the left, supports it, and one of the two major political parties has been taken over by the left. Democrats and their supporters have, in effect, announced they will use state power to enforce any law they can to combat the even greater "existential" crisis of global warming.
On the CNN website this weekend, in one of the most frightening and fanatical articles in an era of fanaticism, Bill Weir, CNN chief climate correspondent, wrote an open letter to his newborn son. In it, he wrote of his idealized future for America: "completely new forms of power, food, construction, transportation, economics and politics."
You cannot get there without a police state.
If you love liberty, you must see that it is jeopardized more than at any time since America's founding. And that means, among other things, that at this time, a vote for any Democrat is a vote to end liberty.
