AI Exploring Palantir with Quinn Michaels Promise Software Matrixx Mark of the Beast Virtual World Project

AI World Takeover Live in Las Vegas with Quinn Michaels

Gary Richard Arnold – Globalist Agenda 21 Pedigree People and Plans

Governor Brown Strengthens California’s Climate Ties with Europe, Blasts “Denialists”

11-8-2017

https://www.gov.ca.gov/images/newsimages/i20058lb0.png https://www.gov.ca.gov/images/newsimages/i20058lb1.png https://www.gov.ca.gov/images/newsimages/i20058lb2.png https://www.gov.ca.gov/images/newsimages/i20058lb3.png https://www.gov.ca.gov/images/newsimages/i20058lb4.png

BRUSSELS, Belgium – In forceful remarks before the Baden-Württemberg State Parliament and nearly three hours of wide-ranging debate and dialogue with members of the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today forged closer ties with European leaders committed to climate action and blasted the “denialists” who continue to reject the scientific consensus on global warming.

“We have to wake up – wake up Europe, wake up America, wake up the whole world to realize we have a common destiny and we are all human beings on this one planet,” said Governor Brown in his address to the state parliament of Baden-Württemberg, co-founder of the Under2 Coalition. “This is daunting but it’s also an opportunity to pull people together.”

From Stuttgart, Germany, the Governor traveled to Brussels, Belgium, where he joined dozens of members of the European Parliament’s top climate and environmental committee and the leaders of the Parliament’s political parties for more than three hours of debate and discussion on climate change, its impacts, and opportunities for further collaboration. During the final hour of the exchange, the Governor confronted several members that used their remarks to openly question the science of climate change.

“The truth is that any kind of catalogue of the scientific community indicates that climate change is real, it’s having impacts. Even the Trump administration couldn’t, with a straight face, curb a report that underscores the very opposite of what you denialists have expressed here,” said Governor Brown during the discussion with the European Parliament Conference of Presidents. “With the denialists getting more attention, the people, instead of growing in their skepticism, are growing in their conviction that climate change and global warming are real matters – and we have to deal with them.”

Tomorrow, the Governor will conclude his visit to Brussels with a moderated conversation hosted by the German Marshall Fund. Later this week, the Governor will travel to Oslo, Norway, where he will meet with the country’s Prime Minister and Environment Minister and convene scientists from the world’s top national science academies before arriving in Bonn, Germany, where he will serve as Special Advisor for States and Regions at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP23).

Yesterday, Governor Brown met with Baden- Württemberg Minister-President Winfried Kretschmann in Stuttgart, Germany after delivering opening remarks at a high-level conference on clean energy organized by the European Parliament and European Commission and meeting with European Parliament President Antonio Tajani and the European Union’s top representatives at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP23) – Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Caüete and European Commission Vice-President for Energy Union Marosh Shefčovič. Over the weekend, the Governor delivered keynote remarks at a symposium on climate change hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican, where he called on global faith leaders to help awaken the world to the threat of toxic carbon pollution.

Governor Brown was named Special Advisor for States and Regions in June by Fiji’s Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama – president of COP23. The Governor continues to build strong coalitions of partners committed to curbing carbon pollution in both the United States through the U.S. Climate Alliance and around the globe with the Under2 Coalition, which has grown to include 188 jurisdictions collectively representing more than 1.2 billion people and $28.9 trillion GDP – equivalent to over 16 percent of the global population and 39 percent of the global economy.

The Governor also joined United Nations Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change Michael Bloomberg to launch America’s Pledge on climate change to help compile and quantify the actions of states, cities and businesses to drive down their greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. In September 2018, the State of California will convene the world’s climate leaders in San Francisco for the Global Climate Action Summit, where representatives from subnational governments, businesses, investors and civil society will gather with the direct goal of supporting the Paris Agreement.

This year, Governor Brown traveled to China to build closer climate ties with President Xi Jinping, Russia to call for deeper trans-pacific collaboration on climate change at the Eastern Economic Forum, Canada to officially link California’s carbon market with Quebec and Ontario and New York to discuss subnational climate action with the UN Secretary-General and open Climate Week NYC 2017.

Photo captions:
1.) Governor Brown delivers remarks at European Parliament climate dialogue.
2.) Governor Brown at European Parliament climate dialogue.
3.) Governor Brown addresses Baden-Württemberg State Parliament.
4.) Governor Brown at Baden-Württemberg State Parliament.
5.) Governor Brown at European Parliament climate dialogue.

For high-resolution copies of these photos, contact Danella Debel at Danella.Debel@gov.ca.gov.

Anti-Trump US coalition tells UN climate talks: ‘we’re still in’

ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT ALISTER DOYLE
Nov 9th 2017 11:30AM

BONN, Nov 9 (Reuters) – A coalition of U.S. cities, companies and other groups said on Thursday that many in the United States remained committed to the 2015 Paris climate agreement despite plans by U.S. President Donald Trump to pull out.
The “we are still in” coalition opened a 2,500-square meter (27,000-square foot) tent pavilion outside a venue in Bonn, Germany, where delegates from almost 200 nations are working on details of the pact aimed at ending the fossil fuel era by 2100.
By contrast, the U.S. government delegation office at the talks covers only 100 square meters.
“There is a tradition of non-partisanship for protecting our planet,” said James Brainard, Republican mayor of the town of Carmel, Indiana, at an opening event.
SEE ALSO: Syria plans to join Paris climate agreement, leaving US in isolation
“It is unfortunate we have moved away from it.”
Trump, who doubts mainstream scientific findings that global warming is primarily caused by man-made greenhouse gases, said in June he would pull out of the Paris Agreement and promote the U.S. coal and oil industries.
The “we are still in” coalition of states, cities, universities, faith groups and environmental activists, aims to show delegates from other nations at the Nov. 6-17 U.N. talks that many Americans are working to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

It says its signatories represent more than 130 million Americans and $6.2 trillion of annual economic output.
Fiji, which is presiding at the U.N. talks, welcomed the coalition as a “perfect example” of how the Paris accord aims to widen action beyond national governments.
RELATED: What President Trump has said about climate change

The “we are still in” pavilion is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, The Hewlett Foundation and NextGen America.
California Governor Jerry Brown also urged more action on climate change. “Relative to the threat, the urgency is not there … and nobody is in charge. That’s the biggest problem,” he told a news conference in Brussels. Brown travels to Bonn on Saturday. (Additional reporting by Robert-Jan Bartunek in Brussels; editing by Andrew Roche)


Hide message history
W

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Grandfather
Grandmother
Unknown
Grandfather
Unknown
Grandmother

 

 

 

 
Birth Father
Birth Mother

 

 
Philip Jessup Jr
 
Partner of 
 Philip Jessup Jr
 

Philip Jessup Jr

Philip Caryl Jessup Jr
Age
86
Born
Died
28 Aug 2013
Philip Jessup Jr
Bio Details
Full name
Philip Caryl Jessup Jr
Gender
Male
Age
86
Date of birth
Birth place
Utica, New York, USA
Date of death:
28 Aug 2013
Place of death
New York City, New York, USA

http://www.famechain.com/family-tree/34852/philip-jessup-jr/helen-ibbotson

Married
24 Jan 1969

______________________________________________________________

Original Articles

The Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC) and the framing of Local Climate Policy

 

ICLEI (1993b) Cities for Climate Protection. An International Campaign to Reduce Urban Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Written by Jeb Brugmann, Secretary General of ICLEI and Phillip Jessup, Director for the Urban CO2 Reduction Project, 15 February 1993 (Toronto, ICLEI) 

 

Urban reactions to the global warming issue: Agenda setting in Toronto and Chicago
Jessup, Philip: ICLEI, interview March 11, 1992.
 

These two cities illuminate the policy-making process for global warming at the urban level and the role ‘{at policy entrepreneurs}’ can play at this level. In comparing the two cities, a common model of policy development is utilized.

While pursuing his Ph.D., and for a good time thereafter (1925–1946), Jessup served as a lecturer and professor in international law at Columbia Law School. In 1946, he was named the Hamilton Fish Professor of International Law and Diplomacy at Columbia Law, a post he held until 1961.[2][3]
Jessup served as assistant secretary-general of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) conference in 1943 and the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference (the “Bretton Woods” conference) in 1944. He was a technical advisor to the American delegation to the San FranciscoUnited Nations charter conference in 1945.
Jessup became a primary target of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who charged in the 1950 Tydings Committeehearings that Jessup was a security risk who had “an unusual affinity… for Communist causes.” McCarthy wasn’t allowed by the Tydings Committee to outline his case regarding Jessup but the committee did allow Jessup to fly in from Pakistan and give his defense. Jessup was subsequently cleared of all charges by the Loyalty Board of the State Department and the Tydings Committee, and McCarthy was rebuked by many fellow senators and other statesmen. However, in two speeches on the floor of the Senate, McCarthy gave his evidence regarding Jessup’s “unusual affinity for Communist causes”:
1.That Jessup had been affiliated with five Communist front groups; 2.That Jessup had been a leading light in the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) at a time that organization was reflecting the Communist Party line; 3.And that he had “pioneered the smear campaign against Nationalist China and Chiang Kai-shek” and propagated the “myth of the ‘democratic Chinese Communist'” through the IPR magazine, Far Eastern Survey, over which he had “absolute control”; 4.That Jessup had associated with known Communists in the IPR; 5.That the IPR’s American Council under Jessup’s guidance had received more than $7,000 of Communist funds from Frederick Vanderbilt Field; 6.That Jessup had “expressed vigorous opposition” to attempts to investigate Communist penetration of the IPR; 7.That Jessup had urged that United States atom bomb production be brought to a halt in 1946, and that essential atomic ingredients be “dumped into the ocean”; 8.That Jessup had appeared as a character witness for Alger Hiss, and that later, after Alger Hiss’s conviction, Jessup had found “no reason whatever to change his opinion about Hiss’s veracity, loyalty and integrity.”
McCarthy’s allegations severely damaged Jessup’s reputation and career .
Nonetheless, President Harry S. Truman appointed Jessup as United States delegate to the United Nations in 1951. However, when the appointment came before the Senate it was not approved, largely because of McCarthy’s influence. Truman circumvented the Senate by assigning Jessup to the United Nations on an “interim appointment.”
Shortly after John F. Kennedy took office as president, the State Department approved the appointment of Jessup as U.S. candidate for the International Court of Justice, a post that did not need Senate confirmation. He served from 1961 until 1970.

SCP4_FN-000011.jpg

LOIS KELLOGG JESSUP, CLASS OF 1920

Lewis Greenleaf Adams, AIA, (1897–1977), was an American architect based in New York City
Adams attended the Groton School,[2] graduation in 1916.[3] earned his Bachelor of Architecture from the Yale University[2] in 1920.[1][3]

There, Lewis Adams was a member of the secret society, Skull and Bones.In a double-marriage ceremony on July 24, 1921, Adams married Emiline Kellogg, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Kellogg of Utica, New York,
and younger sister of Lois Kellogg who was married that same day to Philip C. Jessup, son of Mr. and Mrs. Henry Wynans Jessup, of 20 Fifth Avenue.

Charles Seymour (1908), President of Yale (1937–1951), founding member of The Council on Foreign Relations
All of the Lindsay children attended the best schools. John went to Buckley in Manhattan before prepping at St. Paul’s, in Concord, New Hampshire. He then became a member of the class of 1944 at Yale, where he rowed crew and was elected to Scroll and Key. (David Lindsay also attended Yale; he was selected for the more prestigious Skull and Bones, and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.) David A. Lindsay

David L. Boren (1963), Governor of Oklahoma, U.S. Senator, President of the University of Oklahoma

Michael Gates Gill (1963), advertising executive, author

William Dawbney Nordhaus (1963), Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University

Orde Musgrave Coombs (1965), author, editor, first black member of Skull and Bones

John Shattuck (1965), US diplomat and ambassador, university administrator

John Forbes Kerry (1966), U.S. Senator (D-Massachusetts 1985–2013); Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts 1983–1985; 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee; 68th United States Secretary of State 2013-present

David Rumsey (1966), founder of the David Rumsey Map Collection and president of Cartography Associates

Frederick Wallace Smith (1966), founder of FedEx

David Thorne (1966), United States Ambassador to Italy

Victor Ashe (1967), Tennessee State Senator and Representative, Mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee, US Ambassador to Poland

Roy Leslie Austin (1968), appointed ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago by George W. Bush

George W. Bush (1968), grandson of Prescott Bush; son of George H. W. Bush; 46th Governor of Texas; 43rd President of the United States. His nickname was “Temporary” since he failed to choose a name
Paul Giamatti (1989), Academy Award-nominated American actor

https://www.scribd.com/document/44403338/Skull-and-Bones-Portraits

http://alexconstantine.blogspot.com/2009/11/urantia-cult-is-skull-bones-spin-off.html

Jessup was Chairman of the Institute for Pacific Relations (IPR) American council from 1939 to 1940 and chairman of its Pacific council from 1939 to 1942. Both councils were high-level policy-making bodies. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee found in 1954 that:
“ The IPR has been considered by the American Communists and by Soviet officials as an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda andmilitary intelligence. . . . A small core of officials and staff members carried the main burden of IPR activities and directed its administration and policies. Members of the small core of officials and staff members who controlled the IPR were either Communists or pro-Communists. ”
Through the IPR Jessup was closely associated with Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Frederick Vanderbilt Field and Lauchlin Currie.
Jessup served as assistant secretary-general of the United Nations Refugee and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) conference in 1943 and the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. He was a member of the American delegation to the San Francisco United Nations charter conference in 1945. He was also the United States representative on the fifteen-man United Nations committee of jurists that had drafted the World Court statute. Continuing as a technical expert and advisor to various important UN commissions, Jessup prepared the State Department’s “White Paper” on China. Written at the time when the Chinese Communist Party were overrunning the mainland, this report praised the CCP and condemned the Kuomintang forces. Jessup later became one of the early advocates for the admission of Peoples Republic of China to the United Nations.
President Truman appointed Jessup as United States delegate to the United Nations in 1951. When the appointment came before the Senate, however, it was not approved because of Jessup’s openly pro-Communist record. President Truman circumvented the Senate action by assigning Jessup to the United Nations on an “interim appointment.” [1]
Institute for Pacific Relations
Senator McCarthy’s first comments regarding Jessup were made during the Tydings Committee hearings where McCarthy stated that Jessup had an unusual affinity for Communist causes. McCarthy was never allowed by the Tydings Committee to outline his case regarding Jessup but the committee did allow Jessup to fly in from Pakistan and give his defense against charges that McCarthy had not yet even made. Needless to say, the Tydings Committee cleared Jessup as they did with everyone that appeared before them. However, in two speeches on the floor of the Senate, McCarthy gave his evidence regarding Jessup’s “unusual affinity for Communist causes”. They are as follows:
That Jessup had been affiliated with five Communist front groups;
That Jessup had been a leading light in the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) at a time that organization was reflecting the Communist Party line;
And that he had “pioneered the smear campaign against Nationalist China and Chiang Kai-shek” and propagated the “myth of the ‘democratic Chinese Communist'” through the IPR magazine, Far Eastern Survey, over which he had “absolute control”;
That Jessup had associated with known Communists in the IPR;
That the IPR’s American Council under Jessup’s guidance had received more than $7,000 of Communist funds from Frederick Vanderbilt Field;
That Jessup had “expressed vigorous opposition” to attempts to investigate Communist penetration of the IPR;
That Jessup had urged that United States atom bomb production be brought to a halt in 1946, and that essential atomic ingredients be “dumped into the ocean”;
That Jessup had appeared as a character witness for Alger Hiss, and that later, after Alger Hiss’s conviction, Jessup had found “no reason whatever to change his opinion about Hiss’s veracity, loyalty and integrity.”
While it may be questionable that Jessup pioneered the smear campaign against Chiang Kai-Shek, it’s clear that he aided in it. There’s no doubt that every single one of these allegations was essentially correct. Solid evidence shows that Jessup was associated with four Communist front organizations. They are as follows:
the American Russian Institute, the National Emergency Conference (and its successor, the National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights), theAmerican Law Students Association, and the American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations. According to the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) each of these organizations was cited as Communist front groups at the time of Jessup’s association with them. Although the Tydings Committee did not allow McCarthy to present his evidence against Jessup, the Tydings Committee did refer to some of McCarthy’s evidence that were made on the floor of the Senate. Of course, as usual, the Tydings Committee either ignored the significance of the evidence or downplayed it. It was up to the McCarran Committee a year later to do the real investigating and in discussing the IPR, it stated, “The IPR was a vehicle used by Communists to orientate American Far Eastern policy toward Communist objectives.” The McCarran Committee Hearings clearly indicate that the IPR was more than just a Communist front organization in that there was an active Communist “cell” that put the services of the IPR at the disposal of “Communist imperialism”. And that this was achieved by “manipulating” the IPR’s policy-making officials.
The McCarran Committee reported that ten of the thirty-three individuals whom Jessup recommended as delegates to the IPR Hot Springs Convention in January 1945 have been named as members of the Communist Party. Jessup was well aware that Frederick Vanderbilt Field was a member of the Communist Party, and especially so when Field resigned from the IPR to devote full-time to the Communist front organization, American Peace Mobilization.
Jessup also presided over the State Department Policy Conference of October 1949 that was not only stocked with Jessup’s pro-Communist associates but also, in the words of the McCarran Committee, which stated, “…the prevailing [majority] view at the conference advocated (a) the recognition of Communist China; (b) normal trade relations between the United States and Communist China; (c) encouragement of trade between Japan and Communist China; (d) economic assistance to Communist China; (e) recognition that Communist conquest in Asia was a natural and inevitable consequence of revolutionary ferment in Asia with its Communist nature being incidental.”

Harold Stassen and General Joseph Fortier have respectively testified that Jessup not only ignored advice to disregard the pro-Communist direction of the conference and that Jessup was in favor of recognizing Communist China. The above evidence clearly demonstrates that Jessup was at least a security risk and that the State Department Loyalty program failed to identify him as such. [2]
World Court
Shortly after John F. Kennedy took office as president, the State Department approved the appointment of Jessup as U.S. candidate for the International Court of Justice, a post that did not need Senate confirmation. He served from 1961 until 1970.

_________________________________________________________________

A Small World
photo credit: Shutterstock

President Barack Obama
Six years after he was first elected President of the United States, Barack Obama remains something of an enigma to the public he presides over.
Ironically, this isn’t due to the President being particularly reticent about himself. After all, judging from his two books, the subject Obama finds most enthralling is Obama. For example, Obama’s 2012 eulogy for Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), the Japanese-American war hero, used 48 first person pronouns or adjectives (such as “I,” “me,” or “my”) to recount how the young Obama had noticed Inouye on TV.
Understandably, Obama hasn’t been in any hurry to answer his political opponents’ questions, toying with them for years over his birth certificate. Meanwhile, few of his supporters have felt much urge to ask him the detailed questions about his background that he’d probably love to expound upon at length. As Obama has explained, being a “blank screen” upon which voters can project their political fantasies has its advantages.
One reason for this obscurity is that aspects of Obama’s personal background are genuinely exotic to almost all Americans, which limits the quality of questions. For example, Obama’s Indonesian connections—as a child he lived in Jakarta from 1967-1971, shortly after the notorious massacre of Communists and Chinese; then in the 1980s Obama came fairly close to marrying a wealthy Australian woman with striking family ties to the highest circles of power in Indonesia—are perplexing to even the best-informed Americans.
Indonesia is an immense country (current population: a quarter of a billion), but it’s culturally remote from America. For instance, there are almost no prominent Indonesian-Americans (the Van Halen brothers, who are one-quarter Indonesian, may come closest). Movies about Indonesian history well-known in the West are limited to two curious ones about the downfall of the leftist ruler Sukarno in 1965 and the subsequent slaughter of Communists: The Year of Living Dangerously and last year’s documentary The Act of Killing.
Democrats, even Obama, don’t find Indonesians terribly interesting. It’s impossible to imagine Obama achieving anything in Democratic politics if he had not suddenly switched in the mid-1980s from what his friends called an “international” or “multicultural” identity to being Our First Black President.
“It’s impossible to imagine Obama achieving anything in Democratic politics if he had not suddenly switched in the mid-1980s from what his friends called an “international” or “multicultural” identity to being Our First Black President.”
And Republicans have generally found Indonesia a frustrating dead end in tying Obama to Islam or Communism. For example, the President’s stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, child of a wealthy Indonesian family, eventually died of liver failure at age 52, which doesn’t suggest he was terribly devout about abstaining from alcohol.
Lolo worked for an American oil company because his brother-in-law was a high official in General Suharto’s regime that had marched to power in 1965-66 over the dead bodies of hundreds of thousands of its leftwing opponents.
Likewise, Obama’s mother’s first job in Indonesia was at the American embassy.
The CIA/Ford Foundation policy tended to be to try to attract everybody in the Third World even slightly to the left of Che Guevara. (I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama’s maternal grand-uncle, a Ph.D. named Ralph Waldo Emerson Dunham, who worked for the Naval Personnel Research agency on the ultra-confidential Polaris submarine missile project, had vouched for his niece her being a good Jayhawk Unitarian liberal.)
She went on to a long career in Indonesia and Pakistan with the Ford Foundation, which during the Cold War served as the NGO avatar of the liberal American Establishment’s soft power. Inderjeet Parmar writes in The US Government, Citizen Groups and the Cold War: The State-Private Network:
For example, in Indonesia, where ‘anti-American’ popular and government feelings ran high in the 1950s and 1960s, the Ford Foundation played a vital role in building key educations institution with an underlying pro-western philosophy favoring capitalistic modernization and development strategies.
And that sounds like the President’s mom’s career, which eventually focused upon promoting microfinance for women entrepreneurs.
A major American nerve center for waging the Cold War in Asia was the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii. Janny Scott writes in her bestselling biography of the President’s late mom, A Singular Woman:
The summer Ann arrived in Hawaii [1960], Congress appropriated $10 million to set up the East-West Center, an institution that more than any would go on, over the next twenty-five years, to influence the direction of her life.
Lolo, an Indonesian Army officer, had arrived in Hawaii on an East-West Center grant in 1962.
Similarly, Barack Obama Sr. had gotten to the U. of Hawaii on another Cold War ploy, the Tom Mboya Airlift of promising African students to American universities. When Barack Sr. got back to Kenya, he too worked awhile for an American oil company. Although his ideological sympathies tended to be with the pro-Soviet Luo tribal leader Oginga Odinga, his all-important personal connections were with the pro-American Luo labor leader Tom Mboya.
Patrick J. Buchanan’s new book The Greatest Comeback recounts accompanying Richard Nixon to a 1967 meeting in Kenya with Mboya. Nixon and Buchanan were impressed by Mboya, but also picked up the impression that Mboya was perceived as too pro-Washington to make it all the way to the top in the rough world of Kenyan politics.
“And Tom Mboya never did,” Pat writes. After Mboya was assassinated by a Kikuyu hired gun in 1969, the final witness called by the prosecution in the hit man’s trial was the dead man’s protégé: Barack Obama Sr.
One of the more intriguing ties the President’s mother had in Indonesia was to Subud. Scott’s A Singular Woman recounts that Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro went to work for a Ford Foundation-financed English-language school at the end of the Sixties:
The school … had been started several years earlier … with the intention of helping build an Indonesian elite. … In 1970, the Ford Foundation made the first in a series of grants to the institute … She was looking for teachers. A half-dozen of them accepted her invitation, many of them members of an international spiritual organization, Subud, with a residential compound in a suburb of Jakarta.
Obama’s mom became particularly close to a Portuguese-American convert to Subud. Scott writes:
Mohammad Mansur Medeiros, a reclusive and scholarly Subud member from Fall River, Massachusetts, and Harvard, whom Ann hired as a teacher, had immersed himself so deeply in Javanese culture, language, and religion that friends nicknamed him Mansur Java. Samardal Manan … used to listen awestruck and in silence, to Ann’s freewheeling conversations with Medeiros. “You would think they were in love, but they were not,” Manan said.
Founded by a Javanese aristocrat known as Bapak, Subud’s theology was a sort of “Coexist” bumper sticker avant la lettre. You could believe in whatever religion you wanted as long as you practiced the addictive group exercise called latihan, a sort of Javanese equivalent of an est encounter session.
 
And did whatever you were told.
While Subud’s lack of overt dogmas sounded low-key and appealing to educated Westerners, in practice it was a classic charismatic cult with all power over the communes in the hands of the anointed leaders. The cult accumulated enough wealth to build a skyscraper in Jakarta and today seems most active in running amining company in Indonesian Borneo.
I only became aware of Subud recently, from a friend who had the misfortune of growing up in a totalitarian Subud commune in England.
While Subud’s most ardent followers lived in communes, its political connections tended to be anti-Communist. Indonesia’s new dictator, General Suharto, publicly backed Subud.
It had been introduced to the English-speaking world in the 1950s by John G. Bennett, who had been a British intelligence agent in Istanbul and then a mining engineer. Subud was also a natural fit at the East-West Center at the U. of Hawaii.
Subud seems to have been especially influential among Australian elites posted to Jakarta. For example, novelist / adventuress Blanche D’Alpuget, the second wife of former Aussie prime minister Bob Hawke, was married to an Australian diplomat in Jakarta when she began her affair with the rising politician.
Murray Clapham, a legend among Australian foreign correspondents for his hard man’s role in the 1965 Indonesian countercoup, was another Subud follower. His 2011 obituary in the Sydney Morning Herald read:
Clapham appears to have been the model for at least one fictional Australian secret intelligence service officer in the Jakarta of the 1960s, when he was posted there as a diplomat in the Australian embassy. Clapham certainly looked the part and could have walked off the pages of the Christopher Koch novel The Year of Living Dangerously. It was a dangerous time and Clapham went well beyond the normal role of a diplomat in contacting and encouraging the anti-communist student groups known as KAMI and KAPPI. …
Like various other Western diplomats, Clapham was drawn to the spiritual group Subud, founded by the Javanese teacher Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo.
During the later 1960s, Subud became popular among Southern California rock stars, most famously Jim McGuinn, the frontman of The Byrds, who changed his name to Roger at Bapak’s command.
There exists an elaborate conspiracy theory that the SoCal rock scene of the 1960s was a front for the CIA to exercise cultural control over the new generation: the denizens of Laurel Canyon often came from old money (fellow Byrd David Crosby was both a Van Cortlandtand a Van Rensselaer) or military-industrial complex families. For instance, Jim Morrison’s father was the admiral who commanded the fleet during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which you must admit couldn’t possibly be a coincidence (assuming you are as high as the Lizard King).
But all that’s unnecessary: California in the 1960s was full of people who wanted to be hippies without being Communists. Tom Wolfe’s Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test argued that California hippies were drawn in two polar directions: toward Ken Kesey’s superhero-inspired “flag-flying neon Day-Glo America” or toward Timothy Leary’s Eastern-leaning Oriental quietism. (By the way, it’s not implausible that the Yale American Studies program where Wolfe earned his Ph.D. in 1957 was something of a CIA front.)
For those “seekers” attracted to the Wisdom of the East, Subud offered a syncretic Asian religion without any worries that you were coming under Chi-Com influence.
The marriage of Lolo and Stanley Ann was on the rocks by the time she enrolled in 1972 as a grad student at the East-West Center under anthropologist Alice Greeley Dewey (a descendant of two of the WASPiest figures in American history: philosopher John Dewey and newspaper editor Horace Greeley  hired Leon Trotsky ). But Obama’s mother kept returning to Indonesia (with the exception of a spell in Pakistan.)
An odd passage in the President’s life was his love affair in New York in 1983-1985 with Genevieve Cook, the daughter of the future Australian ambassador to the United States. She kept quiet about this until cooperating with Washington Post reporter David Maraniss for his exhaustive 2012 biography of Barack Obama. Maraniss describes their meeting at a Manhattan party from Miss Cook’s point of view, emphasizing how pleasantly surprised she was by how both had so many Indonesian connections. But Maraniss pointedly doesn’t mention the names of the people who must have carefully set up the meeting of the two Indophiles, Barack and Genevieve.
 Genevieve Cook  father, Michael J. Cook, had been the number two man in the Australian embassy in Jakarta (and now served as Prime Minister Hawke’s chief guru of intelligence).
 
Genevieve Cook’s  her mother’s second husband, Philip C. Jessup Jr., was the son of a famous Truman Administration  official, who himself was head lawyer for the International Nickel CompanyThe Washington Post reported in Jessup’s obituary:
In the late 1960s and 1970s, the company, known as Inco, entrusted him to help create a billion-dollar mining and smelting operation on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi.
Was getting Obama and Cook together a Subud operation?
That doesn’t sound impossible, but I haven’t found any evidence to support it.
A more straightforward explanation is that Genevieve’s stepbrother Tim Jessup is an anthropologist in Indonesia who knew the President’s mom.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!                    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!               !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s a small world, after all.



Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights.
 

 
 

Hide message history
 

He talked quite a lot about discontent in a quiet sort of way—balancing the tendency to be always the observer, how to effect change, wanting to get past his antipathy to working at B.I.
“A SUPERHERO LIFE”
The initials “B.I.” in that journal entry stood for Obama’s employer, Business International, located at 1 Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza, on Second Avenue between 47th and 48th Streets. Business International had been operating for nearly 30 years by the time Obama went to work there. Established in 1954, its stated goal was “to advance profitable corporate and economic growth in socially desirable ways.” What that entailed, for the most part, was compiling and constantly updating newsletters and reference materials for corporations that did business around the world. Obama was a very junior employee, doing research and writing reports.
By early 1984, Obama was absorbed with Genevieve and with figuring out his place in the world. Whatever and wherever that would be, it would certainly not involve Business International or anything like it. He had turned away from the rhetoric of the left, dubious of its practicality and turned off by radical remnants of the 1960s, but was also leery of succumbing to the allure of the business world. Genevieve knew that he harbored faintly articulated notions of future greatness, of gaining power in order to change things. Once, when they were in Prospect Park, in Brooklyn, they saw a young boy in costume, playing out a superhero role. They started to talk about superheroes, the comics he enjoyed as an adolescent in Honolulu, and intimations of “playing out a superhero life.” She considered it “a very strong archetype in his personality.” But he was not to be drawn out—he shut down “and didn’t want to talk about it further.”
Wednesday, May 9, 1984
But he is so wary, wary. Has visions of his life, but in a hiatus as to their implementation—wants to fly, and hasn’t yet started to take off, so resents extra weight.
Saturday, May 26
Dreamt last night for what I’m sure was an hour of waiting to meet him at midnight, with a ticket in my hand. Told me the other night of having pushed his mother away over past 2 years in an effort to extract himself from the role of supporting man in her life—she feels rejected and has withdrawn somewhat. Made me see that he may fear his own dependency on me, but also mine on him, whereas I only fear mine on him He wants to preserve our relationship but either felt or wanted it to be well protected from some sense of immediate involvement.
Genevieve was out of her mother’s Upper East Side apartment by then. Earlier that spring she had moved and was sharing the top floor of a brownstone at 640 Second Street in Park Slope. The routine with Barack was now back and forth, mostly his place, sometimes hers. When she told him that she loved him, his response was not “I love you, too” but “thank you”—as though he appreciated that someone loved him. The relationship still existed in its own little private world. They spent time cooking. Barack loved to make a ginger beef dish that he had picked up from his friend Sohale Siddiqi. He was also big on tuna-fish sandwiches made the way his grandfather had taught him, with finely chopped dill pickles. For a present, Genevieve bought him an early edition ofThe Joy of Cooking. They read books together and talked about what they had read. For a time they concentrated on black literature, the writers Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, Toni Cade Bambara, and Ntozake Shange.
If Barack and Genevieve were in social occasions as a couple, it was almost always with the Pakistanis. Hasan Chandoo had moved back from London and taken a place in a converted warehouse on the waterfront below Brooklyn Heights. Wahid Hamid, starting a rise up the corporate ladder that would take him to the top of PepsiCo, lived on Long Island with his wife. Sohale Siddiqi was part of the crowd, along with Beenu Mahmood. It was a movable feast, and invariably a matter of bounty and excess, friends losing themselves in food and conversation. Barack for the most part declined alcohol and drugs. “He was quite abstemious,” Genevieve said. She enjoyed the warmth of the gatherings, but was usually ready to go home before him. He was pushing away from the Pakistanis, too, politely, for a different reason, she thought. He wanted something more.
Beenu Mahmood saw a shift in Obama that corresponded to Genevieve’s perceptions. He could see Obama slowly but carefully distancing himself as a necessary step in establishing his political identity as an American. For years when Barack was around them, he seemed to share their attitudes as sophisticated outsiders who looked at politics from an international perspective. He was one of them, in that sense. But to get to where he wanted to go he had to change.
Mahmood remembered that “for a period of two or three months” Obama “carried and at every opportunity read and reread a fraying copy of Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man. It was a period during which Barack was struggling deeply within himself to attain his own racial identity, and Invisible Manbecame a prism for his self-reflection.” There was a riff in that book that Mahmood thought struck close to the bone with Obama. The narrator, an intelligent black man whose skills were invisible to white society, wrote: “America is woven of many strands; I would recognize them and let it so remain. It’s ‘winner take nothing’ that is the great truth of our country or of any country. Life is to be lived, not controlled; and humanity is won by continuing to play in the face of certain defeat.” His friend Barack, Mahmood thought, “was the most deliberate person I ever met in terms of constructing his own identity, and his achievement was really an achievement of identity in the modern world. [That] was an important period for him, first the shift from not international but American, number one, and then not white, but black.”
Obama disciplined himself in two activities—writing and running. When he was on the Upper West Side, he would run in Riverside Park. When he was in Brooklyn, he would run in Prospect Park. He was what Genevieve called “a virtuous daily jogger,” and that was one of the differences between them. For weeks that summer, Genevieve challenged Barack to a footrace. Not long-distance but a sprint. If they sprinted, she insisted, she would beat him. Barack kept putting it off. “His response was merry disbelief,” Genevieve recalled. “By merry I don’t mean he laughed at me, though he was amused. He had this way … where he inhabits a mocking space—it’s sort of a loving mocking—as if to imply ‘Ah, the frailties and tendencies we all have to be delusional, self-deceiving, preposterous even, but you are cute, and I like you better for it.’ ” Finally, he relented. They picked a day, went to the park, and chose a walkway lined by lampposts for the dash. Her journal entry:
On Sunday Barack and I raced, and I won. I ran so fast my body transformed itself onto another plane. We ran, he started off behind me and I just said to myself stay ahead, stay ahead and my body became a flat thin box w/ my arms and legs coming each precisely from a corner. And I didn’t know how long I could keep it up, but I was going to try—my whole sight concentrated on the lamp post when I felt him slow and yell you beat me, at first I thought he was giving up, but then I realized he’d meant the lamp post on the left and I’d really won! The feel of the race was exhilarating, but I didn’t feel very victorious. Barack couldn’t really believe it and continued to feel a bit unsettled by it all weekend, I think. He was more startled to discover that I had expected to win than anything else. Anyway, later in the shower (before leaving to see The Bostonians) I told him I didn’t feel that good about winning, and he promptly replied probably cos of feelings of guilt about beating a man. In which case, no doubt, he’d already discovered the obverse feelings about being beaten by a woman. Nevertheless, it was a good metaphor for me, despite, as I confessed to Barack, that in some ways it would have appeased some aspect of my self-image to have tried and lost. But I didn’t; I won.
THE DREAM
Kenya had been weighing on Obama’s mind since the death of his father, and he talked to Genevieve about wanting to visit his family in Kenya. On one occasion he had a vivid dream about his father. It was a dream of a distant place and the lost figure brought back to life, a vision that later inspired his memoir’s title. In this dream, as he recounted it in Dreams from My Father, Barack rode a bus across a landscape of “deep fields of grass and hills that bucked against an orange sky” until he reached a jail cell and found his father before him “cloth wrapped around his waist.” The father, slender, with hairless arms, saw his son and said, “Look at you, so tall—and so thin. Gray hairs, even,” and Obama approached him and hugged him and wept as Barack Hus­sein Obama Sr. said the words Barack Hussein Obama II would never hear in real life—“Barack, I always wanted to tell you how much I love you.”
Genevieve recalled the morning he awoke from that dream. “I remember him being just so overwhelmed, and I so badly wanted to fix him, help him fix that pain. He woke up from that dream and started talking about it. I think he was haunted.”
Genevieve and Barack talked about race quite often, as part of his inner need to find a sense of belonging. She sympathized and encouraged his search for identity. If she felt like an outsider, he was a double outsider, racial and cross-cultural. He looked black, but was he? He confessed to her that at times “he felt like an imposter. Because he was so white. There was hardly a black bone in his body.” At some point that summer she realized that, “in his own quest to resolve his ambivalence about black and white, it became very, very clear to me that he needed to go black.”
Early in Barack’s relationship with Genevieve, he had told her about “his adolescent image of the perfect ideal woman” and how he had searched for her “at the expense of hooking up with available girls.” Who was this ideal woman? Genevieve conjured her in her mind, and it was someone other than herself. She wrote, “I can’t help thinking that what he would really want, be powerfully drawn to, was a woman, very strong, very upright, a fighter, a laugher, well-­experienced—a black woman I keep seeing her as.”
In Dreams from My Father, Obama chose to emphasize a racial chasm that unavoidably separated him from the woman he described as his New York girlfriend.
One night I took her to see a new play by a black playwright. It was a very angry play, but very funny. Typical black American humor. The audience was mostly black, and everybody was laughing and clapping and hollering like they were in church. After the play was over, my friend started talking about why black people were so angry all the time. I said it was a matter of remembering—nobody asks why Jews remember the Holocaust, I think I said—and she said that’s different, and I said it wasn’t, and she said that anger was just a dead end. We had a big fight, right in front of the theater. When we got back to the car she started crying. She couldn’t be black, she said. She would if she could, but she couldn’t. She could only be herself, and wasn’t that enough.
None of this happened with Genevieve. She remembered going to the theater only once with Barack, and it was not to see a work by a black playwright. When asked about this decades later, during a White House interview, Obama acknowledged that the scene did not happen with Genevieve. “It is an incident that happened,” he said. But not with her. He would not be more specific, but the likelihood is that it happened later, when he lived in Chicago. “That was not her,” he said. “That was an example of compression I was very sensitive in my book not to write about my girlfriends, partly out of respect for them. So that was a consideration. I thought that [the anecdote involving the reaction of a white girlfriend to the angry black play] was a useful theme to make about sort of the interactions that I had in the relationships with white girlfriends. And so, that occupies, what, two paragraphs in the book? My attitude was it would be dishonest for me not to touch on that at all … so that was an example of sort of editorially how do I figure that out?”
Obama wrote another scene into his memoir to serve a dual purpose, exposing what he saw as a cultural gap with Genevieve. He described how his New York girlfriend finally persuaded him to go with her to the family’s country estate in Norfolk, in northwestern Connecticut, for a weekend.
The parents were there, and they were very nice, very gracious. It was autumn, beautiful, with woods all around us, and we paddled a canoe across this round, icy lake full of small gold leaves that collected along the shore. The family knew every inch of the land. They knew how the hills had formed, how the glacial drifts had created the lake, the names of the earliest white settlers—their ancestors—and before that, the names of the Indians who’d once hunted the land. The house was very old, her grandfather’s house. He had inherited it from his grandfather. The library was filled with old books and pictures of the grandfather with famous people he had known—presidents, diplomats, industrialists. There was this tremendous gravity to the room. Standing in that room, I realized that our two worlds, my friend’s and mine, were as distant from each other as Ken­ya is from Germany. And I knew that if we stayed together I’d eventually live in hers. After all, I’d been doing it most of my life. Between the two of us, I was the one who knew how to live as an outsider.
The differences in this case between Barack’s portrayal and Genevieve’s recollections are understandable matters of perspective. It was her stepfather’s place. They rode the Bonanza bus up from New York and got off at the drugstore in Norfolk. It was indeed a beautiful autumn weekend, though colder than expected, and Obama complained about it. He did not bring warm enough clothes, so he had to borrow a woolen shirt from Genevieve. The Jessup property was 14 acres, with woods, brook, and pond. The library was exactly as he described it, cluttered with photographs and memorabilia of the grandfather’s distinguished career. The family mostly watched the evening news in there, and played charades.
From the distance of decades, in reading the memoir, what struck Genevieve most was Obama’s description of the gravity of that library, and the vast distance between their worlds, and his conviction that he alone was the one who knew how to live as an outsider. She felt as estranged from that milieu as he did, and he knew it, and over the ensuing decades it was Barack, not Genevieve, who would move closer to presidents, diplomats, and industrialists, the world of an insider. “The ironic thing,” she noted, “is he moved through the corridors of power in a far more comfortable way than I ever would have.”
“I PUSHED HER AWAY”
Genevieve had started teaching at P.S. 133, on Butler Street in Park Slope, that fall of 1984. She had fretted about it all of the previous summer, and now that she was in the classroom it proved even more difficult than she had anticipated. She confided to Barack one day that she had mentioned the idea of leaving to a colleague, who told her that if she stayed she would end up with a nice pension. “That was the only time he raised his voice and got really, really upset with me,” she recalled. “He went berserk about the trade-offs he saw his grandparents make for some supposed safety net at the ex­pense of something He meant at the expense of their souls.”
That was something Obama, in his own self-assessment, deeply wanted to avoid. He said he would never keep a job just for security. In early December, after one year at Business International, he quit. He also left the apartment on 114th Street and moved in with Genevieve. It was to be a temporary arrangement until he left for Hawaii over the Christmas holidays. When he returned, he would find another place of his own, he said. Their time living together did not go well.
Monday, December 10
After a week of Barack and I adjusting to each others constant presence and his displacement, I expect that this week will make it hard to be alone again when he has gone [to Hawaii for Christmas]. We got very irritated w/ each other Fri. night and Saturday, talked about it.
Thursday, December 13
Induced a flare-up yesterday between Barack and me over a suddenly felt irritation at doing the breakfast dishes. Then I was less than honest when I broached my irritation w/ Barack in the vein of, I’m going to tell you I’m irritated, but only because I don’t want to be, and expected him to just let it roll off his back … living w/ someone, you inevitably turn your private frustrations out on that person, because that kind of projection is such a basic and pervasively influencing ego defense mechanism. And too, as one is so unaware of the other person’s living reality, I had not taken into account Barack’s feeling of being displaced and in the way. In the end he said I know it’s irritating to have me here, and I wanted to say and mean, no of course it isn’t, but I couldn’t. That has been the biggest surprise, that rather than enjoying his extended presence like a very long weekend, as I think I thought I would, and reveling in the comfort of reliably having someone to eat dinner with, and talk to and go to sleep with, I’ve been …resentful I suppose—no—as he said, impatient and domineering How beneath the surface things are after all.
Before Obama left for Hawaii, she bought him an expensive Aran-wool cable-knit white sweater at Saks Fifth Avenue to replace an old one he had inherited, likely from his grandfather, that had holes in it and that Genevieve liked to wear. He was embarrassed that she had spent so much money on it.
When he returned from his western travels in mid-January, he was still without a place of his own and back in her apartment in Park Slope. He had landed his first or­ganizing job for the New York Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit founded in the state in 1973 and inspired by the national organization created by citizen activist Ralph Nader. Obama had focused his ambitions on organizing since his last year at Columbia, while acknowledging that he was not entirely certain what it meant. He was hired at a salary that was barely more than half what he had earned at B.I., and his job was to organize students up on the Harlem campus of the City University of New York, focusing on environmental and student-­aid issues.
He succeeded at the job, by most standards, bringing more students into the organization and rejuvenating the chapter. But the issues seemed secondary to him, and he went to work every day with that same sense of remove and distance that he had carried with him at Columbia. Looking back on it decades later, he said that that first organizing job “had always felt sort of like a tryout of organizing as opposed to plunging into it in a serious way.” When he talked about the job with Genevieve, he mostly just said that it was depressing, which captured his mood much of that winter and early spring of 1985.
In his memoir, explaining his relationship with Genevieve to his Kenyan sister, Auma, he wrote: “I pushed her away. We started to fight. We started thinking about the future, and it pressed in on our warm little world.” All in the perspective, again. From Genevieve: “My take on it had always been that I pushed him away, found him not to be ‘enough,’ had chafed at his withheld-ness, his lack of spontaneity, which, eventually, I imagined might be assuaged, or certain elements of it might be, by living together. Because it felt so intrinsically to be part of his character, though, this careful consideration of everything he does, I saw it, then, as a sort of wound, one which ultimately I decided I was not the person he would ‘fix’ it with.”
At the end of March, Genevieve moved from Second Street to another apartment, on Warren Street, in Brooklyn. Barack helped her move, then found a place for himself in the 30s, off Eighth Avenue, in Hell’s Kitchen. He and Genevieve continued their earlier routine of seeing each other on weekends, but things had changed. By the middle of May, their relationship was over.
Thursday, May 23, 1985
Barack leaving my life—at least as far as being lovers goes. In the same way that the relationship was founded on calculated boundaries and carefully, rationally considered developments, it seems to be ending along coolly considered lines. I read back over the past year in my journals, and see and feel several themes in it all … how from the beginning what I have been most concerned with has been my sense of Barack’s withholding the kind of emotional involvement I was seeking. I guess I hoped time would change things and he’d let go and “fall in love” with me. Now, at this point, I’m left wondering if Barack’s reserve, etc. is not just the time in his life, but, after all, emotional scarring that will make it difficult for him to get involved even after he’s sorted his life through with age and experience.
Hard to say, as obviously I was not the person that brought infatuation. (That lithe, bubbly, strong black lady is waiting somewhere!)
A DIRECTION
Obama had been thinking about Chicago since April 29, 1983, when Harold Washington made history, sworn in as the city’s first black mayor. Obama’s hope initially had been that he could land a job in the Washington administration after he graduated, which only showed how unschooled and naïve he was. Not until a decade later, when he was fully immersed in the give-and-take world of Illinois politics, would he learn how crucial it was to have a patron, or “Chinaman,” as it was called in that inimitable legislative milieu. In the spring of 1985—from the remove of New York City, having visited Chicago only once in his life, on a summer tour of the mainland with his family when he was 12 years old—Obama had no Chinaman, but he did have something. He had a telephone call from Jerry Kellman.
The connection began when Obama was at the New York Public Library and came across the latest copy of Community Jobs, a publication of six to eight pages that listed employment opportunities in the social-­justice and social-services fields. One listing was for a group called the Developing Communities Project, which needed a community organizer to work in the Roseland neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago. Right city. Right line of work. Obama sent in his résumé and cover letter, something he had done many times before with no luck. Two matters left unstated in the ad were that Kellman, who oversaw the project, specifically wanted an African-American for the job, and that he was getting desperate.
Obama’s application seemed intriguing, though it gave no indication of his race. The ré­sumé noted his Hawaiian childhood. The sur­name sounded Japanese. Kellman’s wife was Japanese. He knew that Obama could be a Jap­anese name and that Japanese-­Americans were common in Hawaii. It would take a conversation to find out more, so he reached Obama in New York and they talked on the phone for about an hour. At some point, without asking directly, Kellman came to the realization that Obama was black. It was even more apparent to him that this applicant was smart and engaging and interested in social issues. Definitely worth a deeper look. Kellman told Obama that he would be in Manhattan soon to visit his father, a theatrical-­copyright attorney who lived at 92nd and Broadway, and suggested they get together then. The meeting took place across town and down in Midtown, at a coffee shop on Lexington Avenue.
Kellman challenged Obama, throwing questions in his path as obstacles, one after another. Why did he want this line of work, with its low pay, long hours, and endless frustration? How did he feel about living and working in the black community for the first time in his life? “I asked him, ‘Why do you want to do this? Why do you want to organize? You graduated from Columbia. You are an African-American when corporations are looking for people like you. Why don’t you do something else?’ But first, Why? Where does this come from? What place and how deep does it come from? And what I got from him was that the people in the civil-rights movement were his heroes. And I also got from him that his mom was a social activist, an academic social activist, but a social activist.”
As the coffee-shop conversation progressed, Obama turned the tables and started interviewing Kellman. He wanted to make sure that the Developing Communities Project was legitimate and serious. This wasn’t some far-left enterprise, was it? He had moved beyond that, he said. Obama turned his questioning to Chicago and what this disheveled white man could teach him. Kellman wondered what Obama knew about Chicago. Not much. Hog butcher for the world, Obama said, reciting the famous Carl Sandburg line. Not anymore—the stockyards had closed, Kellman responded. Obama mentioned the Cubs, perennial losers, and Harold Washington, the town’s new winner. He pressed Kellman for more observations about the city and the South Side neighborhoods, what was happening with the steel mills, the decline of factory work, the fraying of families and communities. The more they talked, the more it became obvious to Kellman that Obama was his man.
Before leaving New York, Barack spent $2,000 on a blue Honda Civic that he would drive into the heartland to start his new life. He also took along the white cable-­knit sweater that Genevieve had given him for Christmas. It would comfort him in the cold Chicago winter.
Adapted from Barack Obama: The Story,by David Maraniss, to be published this month by Simon & Schuster; © 2012 by the author.

 

Hide message history

The Manafort Indictment: Not Much There, and a Boon for Trump Robert Mueller on Capitol Hill in 2013 (Reuters file photo: Larry Downing)

The Manafort Indictment: Not Much There, and a Boon for Trump Robert Mueller on Capitol Hill in 2013 (Reuters file photo: Larry Downing) SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 PRINT ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY October 30, 2017 2:20 PM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading. The Paul Manafort indictment is much ado about nothing . . . except as a vehicle to squeeze Manafort, which is special counsel Robert Mueller’s objective — as we have been arguing for three months (see here, here, and here). Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading on Count One (page 23 of the indictment). This case has nothing to do with what Democrats and the media call “the attack on our democracy” (i.e., the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election, supposedly in “collusion” with the Trump campaign). Essentially, Manafort and his associate, Richard W. Gates, are charged with (a) conspiring to conceal from the U.S. government about $75 million they made as unregistered foreign agents for Ukraine, years before the 2016 election (mainly, from 2006 through 2014), and (b) a money-laundering conspiracy. There are twelve counts in all, but those are the two major allegations. The so-called conspiracy against the United States mainly involves Manafort’s and Gates’s alleged failure to file Treasury Department forms required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Specifically, Americans who hold a stake in foreign bank accounts must file what’s known as an “FBAR” (foreign bank account report) in any year in which, at any point, the balance in the account exceeds $10,000. Federal law also requires disclosure of foreign accounts on annual income-tax returns. Manafort and Gates are said to have controlled foreign accounts through which their Ukrainian political-consulting income sluiced, and to have failed to file accurate FBARs and tax returns. In addition, they allegedly failed to register as foreign agents from 2008 through 2014 and made false statements when they belatedly registered. UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT UP NEXT Powered by In the money-laundering conspiracy, they are alleged to have moved money in and out of the United States with the intent to promote “specified unlawful activity.” That activity is said to have been their acting as unregistered foreign agents. On first glance, Mueller’s case, at least in part, seems shaky and overcharged. Even though the Ukrainian money goes back to 2006, the counts involving failure to file FBARs (Counts Three through Nine) go back only to 2012. This is likely because the five-year statute of limitations bars prosecution for anything before then. Obviously, one purpose of the conspiracy count (Count One) is to enable prosecutors, under the guise of establishing the full scope of the scheme, to prove law violations that would otherwise be time-barred. The offense of failing to register as a foreign agent (Count Ten) may be a slam-dunk, but it is a violation that the Justice Department rarely prosecutes criminally. There is often ambiguity about whether the person’s actions trigger the registration requirement, so the Justice Department’s practice is to encourage people to register, not indict them for failing to do so. It may well be that Manafort and Gates made false statements when they belatedly registered as foreign agents, but it appears that Mueller’s office has turned one offense into two, an abusive prosecutorial tactic that flouts congressional intent. Specifically, Congress considers false statements in the specific context of foreign-agent registration to be a misdemeanor calling for zero to six months’ imprisonment. (See Section 622(a)(2) of Title 22, U.S. Code.) That is the offense Mueller charges in Count Eleven. But then, for good measure, Mueller adds a second false-statement count (Count Twelve) for the same conduct — charged under the penal-code section (Section 1001 of Title 18, U.S. Code) that makes any falsity or material omission in a statement to government officials a felony punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. Obviously, one cannot make a false statement on the foreign-agent registration form without also making a false statement to the government. Consequently, expect Manafort to argue that Mueller has violated double-jeopardy principles by charging the same exact offense in two separate counts, and that the special counsel is undermining Congress’s intent that the offense of providing false information on a foreign-agent registration form be considered merely a misdemeanor. Finally, the money-laundering conspiracy allegation (Count Two) seems far from slam-dunk. For someone to be guilty of laundering, the money involved has to be the proceeds of criminal activity before the accused starts concealing it by (a) moving it through accounts or changing its form by buying assets, etc., or (b) dodging a reporting requirement under federal law. Now, it is surely a terrible thing to take money, under the guise of “political consulting,” from an unsavory Ukranian political faction that is doing the Kremlin’s bidding. But it is not a violation of American law to do so. The violations occur when, as outlined above, there is a lack of compliance with various disclosure requirements. Mueller seems to acknowledge this: The money-laundering count does not allege that it was illegal for Manafort and Gates to be paid by the Ukrainian faction. It is alleged, rather, that they moved the money around to promote a scheme to function as unregistered foreign agents, and specifically to avoid the registration requirement. That seems like a stretch. To be sure, the relevant money-laundering statute includes in its definition of “specified unlawful activity” “any violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.” (See Section 1956(c)(2)(7)(D) of Title 18, U.S. Code.) But the prosecution still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the money was the proceeds of unlawful activity in the first place. Moreover, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Even from Paul Manafort’s perspective, there may be less to this indictment than meets the eye. Manafort and Gates (a) knew the money was the proceeds of illegal activity and (b) transported the money the way they did with the specific intent of avoiding having to register as foreign agents. This count will thus fail if there is any doubt that the Ukrainian money was illegal under American law, that Manafort and Gates knew it was illegal, that they knew the work they were doing required them to register as foreign agents, or that it was their intention to promote a failure-to-register violation. Even from Paul Manafort’s perspective, there may be less to this indictment than meets the eye — it’s not so much a serious allegation of “conspiracy against the United States” as a dubious case of disclosure violations and money movement that would never have been brought had he not drawn attention to himself by temporarily joining the Trump campaign. From President Trump’s perspective, the indictment is a boon from which he can claim that the special counsel has no actionable collusion case. It appears to reaffirm former FBI director James Comey’s multiple assurances that Trump is not a suspect. And, to the extent it looks like an attempt to play prosecutorial hardball with Manafort, the president can continue to portray himself as the victim of a witch hunt. READ MORE: A Guide to Understanding the Manafort Indictment What the Paul Manafort Indictment Means Trump Advisor Pleads Guilty to Lying about Seeking Hillary Emails from Russia — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453244/manafort-indictment-no-signs-trump-russia-collusion

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453244/manafort-indictment-no-signs-trump-russia-collusion

Methods of Depopulation YouTube

What’s Trending This Day In History: Countdown to the Death of Protestantism 10.31.2016 to 10.31.2017

What’s Trending
This Day In History: Countdown to the Death of Protestantism 10.31.2016 to 10.31.2017
October 30, 2016
|
Andrew Henriques

Download and Print Video Transcript as Brochure [8.5 x 14 legal size paper]
Download The Real Truth Behind Christmas, Easter, and Halloween
Download The Great Controversy

For many, October 31 is a day for festivities such as children knocking on doors, dressing in costumes and asking neighbors for candies and treats. For others it is a day to celebrate the harvest; while still others engage in dark practices of witchcraft and other pagan rituals. While some unsuspecting parents and children engage in the traditions surrounding Halloween, viewing them as harmless pastimes, they are subjecting themselves to demonic influences and spirits. For more on the origin and paganism associated with Halloween and how participants in the holiday are consciously and subconsciously affected, please read The Real Story Behind Christmas, Easter, and Halloween written by Vance Ferrell and be among the millions whose eyes have been opened.

All this is just as Satan has designed it, to so encumber October 31 with paganism and gaiety that the important history of October 31 is lost. October 31 of the year 1517 was the historic day that Martin Luther, the reformer, nailed his 95 theses against the corruptions, abuses and abominations of the Roman Catholic Church on the church door of Wittenberg, which gave a strong impetus to the Protestant Reformation. From that very door, the 95 theses, were transcribed, translated and widely disseminated throughout Germany and Europe at large in language easily understood by the common people. For the first time the eyes of the people were opened to the truths of the scriptures and thus broke the chains of error that held them captive for so long. This evoked the bitterest and most vehement fury from ecclesiastical authorities as well as staunch Roman Catholic adherents, which can scarcely be imagined or described. Over and over again Martin Luther was sought for and hunted as a beast of prey, bribed, threatened, tried by the church and finally excommunicated; but never did he recant his writings or soften his tone or message. When he was to appear before the Diet at Worms his firm resolution was “Expect anything from me but flight or recantation. Fly I cannot; still less can I recant… My recantation shall be this: I said formerly that the pope was Christ’s vicar; now I say that he is the adversary of the Lord, and the apostle of the devil… I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me. Amen.”1

The purpose of this brochure is not to recount the entire history of Martin Luther and his 95 theses, but to lead the reader to a reliable source that will present the factual history while showing its bearing upon the present and the future and how it affects each person. This source is a bestselling, widely translated book that has enlightened millions of minds for over a century, which is, Ellen White’s The Great Controversy. The chapters dealing specifically with Martin Luther and the work he was called of God to perform and that he faithfully carried out are under the following titles: “Luther’s Separation from Rome,” “Luther before the Diet,” “Progress of Reform in Germany,” and “Protest of the Princes.” The work of reform that Protestants today are to continue can be read in the chapters, “Liberty of Conscience Threatened,” “The Impending Conflict,” and “The Final Warning.”

The important history of the rise and progress of the Protestant Reformation is not to be forgotten considering that the Bible prophesies that the same tyrannical and arbitrary control exercised by the Papal power in times past, she will regain. See Revelation 13:1-18 and the chapter God’s Law Immutable in the book The Great Controversy. The sad reality is that professed “Protestants” have abandoned the protest and have joined hands with Roman Catholicism in an effort to have her decrees enforced and her institutions sustained by the governments of the world, beginning in America, signaling the death of Protestantism.

Lutherans, Catholics and other Evangelicals are jointly declaring that the reformation has ended and there is no longer a need for protest and therefore Protestantism is dead, and the reformation over. Catholic Herald reports, “Somewhere in Pope Francis’s office is a document that could alter the course of Christian history. It declares an end to hostilities between Catholics and Evangelicals and says the two traditions are now ‘united in mission because we are declaring the same Gospel.’ The Holy Father is thinking of signing the text in 2017, the 500th [year] anniversary of the Reformation, alongside Evangelical leaders representing roughly one in four Christians in the world today. Francis is convinced that the Reformation is already over. He believes it ended in 1999, the year the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation issued a joint declaration on justification, the doctrine at the heart of Luther’s protest…When Francis wanted to reach out to Evangelicals…he rang his old friend [Tony Palmer]. During a leisurely meeting at the Vatican, Palmer recorded a video of the Pontiff on his iPhone… Palmer took the film to a ministers’ conference in Texas organized by prosperity gospel preacher Kenneth Copeland. Palmer introduced the film with what must count as one of the great Christian orations of the 21st century. ‘Brothers and sisters, Luther’s protest is over, is yours?…If there is no more protest how can there be a Protestant church?’ he said. He told the audibly stunned audience that he was speaking to them ‘in the spirit of Elijah,’ who prepared the way for something greater than himself…Francis then proclaimed that ‘the miracle of unity has begun.’”2

Additionally, October 31, 2016 is another step in achieving full unity between Catholicism and other evangelical denominations including Lutherans, leading up to October 31, 2017, the 500th year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, where Protestantism will officially be dead. “Pope Francis will visit Sweden in October to participate in an ecumenical service and the beginning of a year of activities to mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. Leaders from the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation had already been set to meet Oct. 31, 2016, for the ecumenical celebration in Lund, Sweden…Pope Francis ‘intends to participate’ in the joint ceremony to commemorate next year’s anniversary…Pope Francis will lead the ecumenical commemoration in Lund.”3

Since Catholics and Evangelicals are declaring and celebrating that the protest is over, it is evident that a change has come, which has been in progress for some time. The question is, who has changed? The Bible depicts the Roman Catholic Church in Revelation 13:1-10 as having the body of a leopard, which Jeremiah 13:23 declares cannot change its spots. Therefore, the change has come with “Protestants,” along with the civil leaders of America.

Decades after the founding of America, then President Abraham Lincoln made a significant statement regarding the work of the Roman Catholic Church and what the American peoples’ response should be toward it. “‘If the American people could learn what I know of the fierce hatred of the priests of Rome against our institutions, our schools, our most sacred rights, and our so dearly bought liberties, they would drive them away tomorrow from among us, or they would shoot them as traitors.’ ‘I know that Jesuits never forget nor forsake. But man must not care how and where he dies, provided he dies at the post of honor and duty.’”4

Any person even vaguely familiar with the founding of the United States understands that the pilgrims were fleeing the Papal tyranny existent in the Old World, thus establishing their government on the principles of Republicanism and Protestantism, promising both civil and religious freedom, having a clear separation between church and state. The founding fathers of America would never have agreed to or invited any pope or ecclesiastical representative of the Roman Catholic Church to speak at Independence Hall, the very place where the Declaration of Independence was adopted, or to address the American people at a joint session of Congress. However in September of 2015, the Protestants and civil leaders of America have both invited and allowed Pope Francis to do just that, indicating a drastic change.

Even former U.S. President, John F. Kennedy, himself a Catholic, who like Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, saw the danger of providing an influential platform for the Pope to give his message to the American people. In his very words, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute…I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope.”5

While the majority of Protestants and civil leaders were in agreement with the unprecedented visit of Pope Francis to America in 2015, a few individuals saw the same danger and what the visit represents, an utter repudiation of the founding principles of Protestantism and Republicanism. Bart Barber said to the Baptist Press, “‘For Congress to treat a church as though it were a state and the head of a church as though he were the head of a state runs contrary to basic First Amendment principles of disestablishment.’” Said Albert Mohler “‘Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others.’”6

“The time was when Protestants placed a high value upon the liberty of conscience which had been so dearly purchased. They taught their children to abhor popery and held that to seek harmony with Rome would be disloyalty to God. But how widely different are the sentiments now expressed! The defenders of the papacy declare that the church has been maligned, and the Protestant world are inclined to accept the statement. Many urge that it is unjust to judge the church of today by the abominations and absurdities that marked her reign during the centuries of ignorance and darkness. They excuse her horrible cruelty as the result of the barbarism of the times and plead that the influence of modern civilization has changed her sentiments… Have these persons forgotten the claim of infallibility put forth for eight hundred years by this haughty power? So far from being relinquished, this claim was affirmed in the nineteenth century with greater positiveness than ever before. As Rome asserts that the ‘church never erred; nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever err…’ how can she renounce the principles which governed her course in past ages? The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.”7

“God’s word has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare. She is silently growing into power. Her doctrines are exerting their influence in legislative halls, in the churches, and in the hearts of men. She is piling up her lofty and massive structures in the secret recesses of which her former persecutions will be repeated. Stealthily and unsuspectedly she is strengthening her forces to further her own ends when the time shall come for her to strike. All that she desires is vantage ground, and this is already being given her. We shall soon see and shall feel what the purpose of the Roman element is. Whoever shall believe and obey the word of God will thereby incur reproach and persecution.”8

1. White, Ellen. The Great Controversy (1911), pages 581 and 160
2. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/july-24th-2015/the-popes-great-evangelical-gamble/
3. http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/pope-visit-sweden-commemorate-reformation-anniversary.cfm
4. Chiniquy, C. P. T. (1886). Fifty years in the Church of Rome, pages 697, 664.Toronto: S.R. Briggs.
5. http://www.beliefnet.com/news/politics/2000/09/i-believe-in-an-america-where-the-separation-of-church-and-state-is-absolute.aspx#fqZWLHOxKz6ysBMf.99
6. http://www.bpnews.net/45555
7. White, Ellen. The Great Controversy (1911), pages 563 and 564
8. White, Ellen. The Great Controversy (1911), page 581
Tags:
articles

President Trump and Congress move against ‘hate speech.’ Could this include quoting the Bible?

President Trump and Congress move against ‘hate speech.’ Could this include quoting the Bible?

The US Bill of Rights

COGwriter

A reader tipped me off to the following:

WASHINGTON — President Trump signed Thursday a Senate resolution condemning white supremacist groups and calling on the White House “to use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups.”

The Senate on Monday passed the resolution — introduced last week by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) with original co-sponsors Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) — by unanimous consent. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/09/15/trump-signs-unanimous-resolution-calling-white-house-battle-white-supremacists/

The five page document … refers to violence on the side of Neo Nazi protesters, but fails to mention Antifa, or any other leftist-inspired violence, including but not limited to the Bernie Sanders supporter who recently attempted to murder Republican congressmen.

It demands signatories “speak out against hate groups that espouse racism, extremism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and White supremacy” — laudable aims were it not for the fact that the political left has abused and debased these terms, effectively stripping them of all meaning.

Today, a “racist” is someone who believes in legal immigration. An “extremist” is someone who doesn’t believe in mass, state-funded abortion. A “xenophobe” is someone who takes pride in their nation. An “anti-Semite” is — curiously — someone who supports the State of Israel, and “white supremacy” now occupies the Oval Office. The Overton window has shifted so far that even practicing Muslims are now decried by the most heavily quoted sources as “Islamophobes”.

Speaking of Islamophobia, why has that been left out of this resolution? Will there be — as Islamic supremacists often demand — a special case and motion for Muslims alone, to go before the President later this year? Will the White House be equally excited to sign what would effectively be a blasphemy law?

Perhaps the most insidious part of this document comes right at the end, where the President will accede to ensuring “the heads of other Federal agencies… improve the reporting of hate crimes and… emphasize the importance of the collection, and… reporting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of hate crime data by State and local agencies”.

Given the precedent set in Europe for the monitoring and prosecution of so-called “hate crimes”, it should be of gravest concern that the White House has been so readily bounced into endorsing the idea — recently rejected by the Supreme Court — of limiting speech and the freedom of assembly. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/13/kassam-the-swamp-just-bounced-trump-into-a-european-style-assault-on-free-speech/

Condemning racial hatred is good, but the above declaration does seem to go past that.

The second article above also had the following:

KASSAM: The Swamp Just Bounced Trump Into A European-Style Assault on Free Speech
Many Americans don’t seem to appreciate as much as outside admirers do, that the United States is the only country in the world with a commitment to free speech enshrined in the nation’s Constitution. Many nations do not even have codified constitution of which to speak. …
Personally, I believe sunlight is the best disinfectant for hateful beliefs.

The U.S. Constitution is perfectly clear on this too. No matter how vile your views — as those of the KKK and Neo Nazi groups are — you still have a right to express them in America.

The fact the Supreme Court had to readdress this fact only earlier this year is harbinger enough of the assault on liberty we are about to witness.

In June, Justice Kennedy opined in the case of Matal v. Tam:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

Justice Alito said at the time:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Obvious enough to you or me. But not self-evident enough for your representatives or even your President … http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/13/kassam-the-swamp-just-bounced-trump-into-a-european-style-assault-on-free-speech/

From various governments, organizations, and the media, there are calls to restrict speech to not discuss matters that some do not want discussed. Perhaps, it should be pointed out that something much worse will be coming from Europe (Revelation 13:16-18).

Now, again, I am not defending the KKK or Antifa, but pointing out that speech restrictions and hate speech labels are getting thrown around in many ways that they should not be.

Consider also the following:

The First Amendment to our Constitution has enshrined our right to offend as the bedrock of free speech, but in recent years the right not to be offended has taken precedence. Political correctness is running rampant and it may be destroying our country. http://www.app.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/09/15/free-speech-liberals-pc/105648100/

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the Family Research Council a “hate group” because of its orthodox position on homosexuality, and its occasionally incendiary defenses of that position. …

Unfortunately the center’s hate group designation remains extremely influential. Recently, a payment servicer cut off the Ruth Institute because of that “hate group” label. This piqued my interest, because I knew Morse’s work on liberty and the family from long before the gay marriage debate dawned on the political horizon. I’d always found it interesting and thought provoking, and I was surprised to see her lumped in with Holocaust deniers and white supremacists. My astonishment seems to have been well-founded.

“Hate group” is, of course, not a scientific term with a precise definition. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s entries do highlight a lot of language about various groups that may not strike me as the equivalent of Klan rhetoric, but does make me uncomfortable. And who am I to say that “discomfort” is a better characterization than “hate speech”? In criticizing them, am I not committing the same sin of which I accuse the SPLC, trying to leverage my platform to curtail speech I don’t like through unofficial censure?

Well, yes, indeed, the SPLC has a perfect right to decide what they mean by “hate group.”

Unfortunately, it also has an incentive to apply this term broadly. When people see that the SPLC lists over 900 hate groups — 900! — this seems like good reason to panic. And maybe write a check to the SPLC.

Even fairly large institutions that theoretically have ample resources to investigate the SPLC’s list often rely on it, to their detriment. CNN published the list under the headline “Here Are All the Hate Groups Active in Your Area,” then had to alter the story upon realizing that this was effectively joining the SPLC in branding local churches and conservative nonprofits as “hate groups.” Guidestar, which rates nonprofits, added the SPLC designations to its listings, then had to make an embarrassing volte-face when conservatives called them out. Given the increasing tendency of powerful tech companies to flex their muscle against hate groups, we may see more and more institutions unwittingly turned into critics or censors, not just of Nazi propaganda, but also of fairly mainstream ideas.

That’s not just a problem for the groups that will be burdened when the “hate group” label is slapped on them; it’s also a problem for the rest of us. The broader the definition, the more Americans will be swept up under that label, and the less sustainable it will be. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-07/southern-poverty-law-center-gets-creative-to-label-hate-groups

The SPLC changed from its original focus. Wikipedia reported:

In 1986, the entire legal staff of the SPLC, excluding Dees, resigned as the organization shifted from traditional civil rights work toward fighting right-wing extremism. (accessed 09/17/17)

The SPLC lost its way and now has more of a political, and less of a truly social justice, agenda.

By the way, today is US Constitution and Citizen’s Day in the USA. 230 years ago, on September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed by its authors, and began its journey toward ratification.

As many realize, in order to protect the rights of the citizens of the USA nation to speak even against the government, the Bill of Rights came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791. Here is the first amendment:

First amendment — Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We have seen troubles with people who wish to peaceably assemble to speak peaceably.

As far as free speech and freedom of religion goes, the USA has had real problems with federal courts as they have ruled against religious freedom and have moved further away from freedom of speech. Here are links to a couple of examples: US Federal Judge rules religious freedom law unconstitutional and another US Supreme Court delivers another blow to ‘freedom of religion’.

The State of California has had politicians propose bills to limit freedom of speech. One proposed earlier this year would have allowed the government to essentially shut down websites that did not like certain political statements–which would seem to be something that the First Amendment was specifically supposed to protect against (see California considering internet political censorship; Canada again restricts speech). The State of California also wants laws related to ‘transgender’ speech (see Ba’al-ifornia: California’s intent to change gender definitions).

Could speech restrictions affect those who wish to teach about or quote from the Bible?

Yes.

Also, it should be noted that various government officials in Canada are officially opposed to people citing/teaching scriptures that go against the LGBTQ crowd (see Anti-biblical censorship in Canada and Canada celebrates its 150th, but pushes internet and biblical censorship).

As far as freedom of speech about such matters, consider that the Bible teaches:

1 Cry aloud, spare not;
Lift up your voice like a trumpet;
Tell My people their transgression,
And the house of Jacob their sins. (Isaiah 58:1)

The time of Jacob’s trouble (Jeremiah 30:7), also known as the Great Tribulation (Matthew 24:21), is coming and the USA and its Anglo-Saxon allies (including Canada) will be affected. The USA will be eliminated (cf. Daniel 11:39; watch Do these 7 prophesies point to the end of the USA?).

National repentance is the only way to prevent it, and that does not look likely. The advocacy of homosexuality and abortion, and increased indebtedness and acceptance of various forms of pornography (including what would be considered soft pornography involving the current ‘first lady’ of the USA) that we have seen the past few years suggests that national repentance is about the furthest thing on the minds of the national political leaders and most of the mainstream media in the USA.

Personal repentance, however, is still possible. If you are an American, your personal future can still be much brighter than that of your country.

Consider, also, that the prophet Amos was inspired to record the following:

11 “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord God,
“That I will send a famine on the land,
Not a famine of bread,
Nor a thirst for water,
But of hearing the words of the Lord.
12 They shall wander from sea to sea,
And from north to east;
They shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the Lord,
But shall not find it. (Amos 8:11-12)

Notice that the Bible tells of a time that will come when the word of God will not be found. I do not believe that this means that there will be no more Bibles–but that those wanting to better understand it will have trouble finding explanations and there will be governmental restrictions related to teaching what the Bible teaches. Groups, like the Continuing Church of God, may be labeled as “hate groups” for teaching what the Bible says should be taught!

We are seeing more improper labeling now–and restrictions will intensify (cf. Revelation 13:16-18).

That is part of why we in the Continuing Church of God are preparing for the ‘short work’ (Romans 9:28) and the coming ‘famine of the word.’

Consider, however, that Jesus said:

4 I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. (John 9:4)

Philadelphian Christians want to respond to the doors that Christ opens to proclaim the gospel (2 Corinthians 2:12; 1 Corinthians 16:8-9; Colossians 4:2-4) and do the work.

Philadelphia means “love of the brethren.” It is LOVE to properly teach what the Bible teaches, even if some group calls that “hate speech.” The Apostle Paul wrote:

1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. (Galatians 6:1)

It is almost impossible to assist one who ” is overtaken in any trespass” if you are not allowed to speak according to the Bible, as it is in the Bible that we learn what the trespasses are.

We in the Continuing Church of God will teach and stand up for the truth (watch also the short introduction to our YouTube channel: ContinuingCOG Channel), despite realizing that the ‘famine of the word’ that the prophet Amos referred to is coming. We must do the work and persevere to the end–despite government restrictions and others who do not truly respect the Bible.

Some items of possibly related interest may include:

God’s Grace is For All Is being Jewish a hindrance to salvation? What about not being a descendant of Israel? What does the Bible really teach? Here is a link to a related sermon titled Race and Grace; Do you view race as God does?
Christian Repentance Do you know what repentance is? Is it really necessary for salvation? A related sermon is also available titled: Real Christian Repentance.
Preparing for the ‘Short Work’ and The Famine of the Word What is the ‘short work’ of Romans 9:28? Who is preparing for it? Here is a link to a related video sermon titled: The Short Work.
Should the Church Still Try to Place its Top Priority on Proclaiming the Gospel or Did Herbert W. Armstrong Change that Priority for the Work? Some say the Church should mainly feed the flock now as that is what Herbert W. Armstrong reportedly said. Is that what he said? Is that what the Bible says? What did Paul and Herbert W. Armstrong expect from lower level leaders? A related sermon is available titled Priority of the Philadelphia Work.
Persecutions by Church and State This article documents some that have occurred against those associated with the COGs and some prophesied to occur. Will those with the cross be the persecutors or the persecuted–this article has the shocking answer. There is also a YouTube video sermon you can watch: The Coming Persecution of the Church. Here is information in the Spanish language: Persecuciones de la Iglesia y el Estado.
The Gospel of the Kingdom of God This free online pdf booklet has answers many questions people have about the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and explains why it is the solution to the issues the world is facing. Here are links to three related sermons: The World’s False Gospel, The Gospel of the Kingdom: From the New and Old Testaments, and The Kingdom of God is the Solution.
Are You Being Called by God? Norman Shoaf wrote various points to consider.
Is God Calling You? Alfred E Carrozzo wrote this.
What Did Christ Mean – Many Are Called, But Few Are Chosen? This article was by Raymond McNair.
USA in Prophecy: The Strongest Fortresses Can you point to scriptures, like Daniel 11:39, that point to the USA in the 21st century? This article does. A related sermon is titled: Do these 7 prophesies point to the end of the USA?
Anglo – America in Prophecy & the Lost Tribes of Israel Are the Americans, Canadians, English, Scottish, Welsh, Australians, Anglo-Saxon (non-Dutch) Southern Africans, and New Zealanders descendants of Joseph? Where are the lost ten-tribes of Israel? Who are the lost tribes of Israel? What will happen to Jerusalem and the Jews in Israel? Will God punish the U.S.A., Canada, United Kingdom, and other Anglo-Saxon nations? Why might God allow them to be punished first? Here is a link to the Spanish version of this article: Anglo-América & las Tribus Perdidas de Israel. Information is also in the YouTube sermons titled Where are the Ten Lost Tribes? Why does it matter? and British are the Covenant People. A short YouTube of prophetic interest may be Barack Obama and the State of the Apocalypse.
Will the Anglo-Saxon Nations be Divided and Have People Taken as Slaves? Will the lands of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand be divided? What about Jerusalem? What does Bible prophecy teach? Are there non-biblical prophecies that support this idea? Who will divide those lands? Who will end up with the lands and the people? Here is a link to a video titled Will the USA and other Anglo-nations be Divided and Their People Made Slaves? Here is a related item in the Spanish language ¿Serán divididas las naciones anglosajonas?
Who is the King of the West? Why is there no End-Time King of the West in Bible Prophecy? Is the United States the King of the West?
When Will the Great Tribulation Begin? 2017, 2018, or 2019? Can the Great Tribulation begin today? What happens before the Great Tribulation in the “beginning of sorrows”? What happens in the Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord? Is this the time of the Gentiles? When is the earliest that the Great Tribulation can begin? What is the Day of the Lord? Who are the 144,000? Here is a version of the article in the Spanish language: ¿Puede comenzar la Gran Tribulación en 2016 o 2017? ¿Es el Tiempo de los Gentiles? You can also see the English language sermon videos: The Great Tribulation from the Mount of Olives and Can the Great Tribulation begin before 2020? A shorter video is: Will the Great Tribulation Start in 2017?
The Bible Condemns Homosexuality “Same-sex marriage” for “gays” and lesbians is becoming more acceptable to many. What does the Bible teach about homosexuality? Can homosexuals change? A related video sermon is titled What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?
Pornography: A scourge on society Is pornography harmless fun? Does the Bible teach anything about it? What are the views of some involved with it? Here is a link to a YouTube video Pornography: Harmless Fun or a Scourge on Society?
Cross-dressing and other assaults against your children. What should you do? Is there an agenda to turn your children and/or grandchildren away from biblical morality and towards practices promoted by homosexuals? What does the Bible teach about cross-dressing? What should parents do? If there is an agenda, what has been going on? There is also a YouTube video on this, titled Cross dressing and Other Assaults Against Your Children.
Abortion, the Bible, and a Woman’s Right to Choose Do you know what the Bible teaches on this? Has the Roman Catholic Church allowed abortions? What about the real Church of God? Some may also, or instead, wish to view the YouTube video Abortion, the Bible, and US Debt.
Pornography: A scourge on society Is pornography harmless fun? Does the Bible teach anything about it? What are the views of some involved with it? Here is a link to a YouTube video Pornography: Harmless Fun or a Scourge on Society?
Donald Trump in Prophecy Prophecy, Donald Trump? Are there prophecies that Donald Trump may fulfill? Are there any prophecies that he has already helped fulfill? Could a Donald Trump presidency be apocalyptic? A related video is titled: Donald: ‘Trump of God’ or Apocalyptic?
Trump Presidency Magic 8 Ball or Bible Prophecy? BBC reported that one might as well use a ‘Magic Eight-Ball’ to try to predict what will happen in the remaining time of Donald Trump’s presidency. What is a ‘Magic Eight-Ball’? Dr. Thiel not only explains that, but also briefly goes over 10 biblically-based warnings he wrote would happen if Donald Trump were elected that have already began to come to pass. He also goes over something he wrote back in 2008 that the Trump presidency is also helping lead to fulfillment. Should you trust Bible prophecy or not? Dr. Thiel says that Bible prophecy can be trusted, despite the view of skeptics and others that either overlook or despise the Bible. This is a video.
Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse This 188 page book is for people truly interested in prophecies related to Donald Trump and the United States, including learning about several that have already been fulfilled and those that will be fulfilled in the future. The physical book can be purchased at Amazon for $12.99 from the following link: Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse.
Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse-Kindle Edition This electronic version of the 188 page print edition is available for only US$3.99. And you do not need an actual Kindle device to read it. Why? Amazon will allow you to download it to almost any device: Please click HERE to download one of Amazon s Free Reader Apps. After you go to for your free Kindle reader and then go to Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse-Kindle Edition.

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 17th, 2017 at 3:00 pm and is filed under Prophecy.

Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse Kindle offer soon to expire: Last chance to get the book totally free!
Free Book: Donald Trump and America’s Apocalypse
Free ‘Hillary Clinton Prophecy, What About Donald Trump?’ book
‘Internal Documents Reveal Bizarre Facebook Rules for Censorship of ‘Hate Speech’’
Barack Obama signed the ‘Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act’
CBS: Viewers strongly approve of Trump’s speech to Congress
Last Chance for free ‘Hillary Clinton, Prophecy, and the Destruction of the USA, What About Donald Trump?’ book
Berkeley protests against speech; Record year for anti-Semitism in UK
Republican Donald Trump and China’s Xi Jingping want control over the internet
‘Obama Enters Media Wars: Why His Recent Attack On Free Speech Is So Dangerous & Radical’

Get news like the above sent to you on a daily basis

Enter your email here
GET UPDATES!
Your email will not be shared. You may unsubscribe at anytime.
Church of God News
COGwriter ©2009-2013 B. Thiel

BREAKING: BANKERS’ NEW SDR CRYPTO BLOCKCHAIN WILL ENSLAVE HUMANITY?? – Lynette Zang

 

The new Chinese-created ACChain crypto currency blockchain will be the SDR-related world currency that will allow the international banking elite to digitize every tangible asset on earth, and they will then exert total control over all of it. Lynette Zang explains: “The goal is to capture your wealth, and when the say this is the LAST wealth transfer mechanism they mean it because they want it all. All of it.” Intel Software designer Brad peters takes it one step further, saying: “If a global crypto coin controlled by the Bank For International Settlements (BIS) comes to internationalize PROPERTY onto their crypto blockchain, they get their one world government and one world currency all in the same stroke. This IS your 1988 (2018 prediction) Economist magazine cover.” Here’s the original video Lynette posted on August 8, 2017: The Global Unit of Account is now shifting from the USD to the SDR – Lynette Zang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYPsy… RELATED ACChain VIDEOS: ACCHAIN GLOBAL LINK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVR5a… Join ACCHAIN.ORG become super node https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ73h… Thanks for tuning in. For REAL news 24/7: http://sgtreport.com/ http://thephaser.com/ http://thelibertymill.com/

Continuing History of the Church of God from the 1st to 21st centuries By Bob Thiel, Ph.D.

http://www.cogwriter.com/continuing-history-of-the-church-of-god.pdf

CONTENTS
1. Two Possibilities and Seven Church Eras p. 3
2. Location of the Early Church: Jerusalem,
Pella, and Asia Minor p. 6
3. Rome, Jerusalem, and Asia Minor p. 13
4. Smyrna of Asia Minor and Polycarp p. 28
5. Apostolic Succession List in Asia Minor p. 48
6. Heretics Were Often in Rome, but Were
Denounced by Church Leaders in Asia Minor p. 50
7. Mithras’ Pontifex Maximus Constantine Led to
Other Changes p. 56
8. 1,260 Years in the Wilderness p. 60
9. The Sardis Church Era p. 76
10. Herbert W. Armstrong and the Start of the
Philadelphia Era p. 84
11. J. Tkach and the Start of the Laodicean Era p. 92
12. The Philadelphian Church and the
Global/Living/Continuing Church of God p. 94
End Note References p. 118
Website Information p. 127