new

Those of you who have had some degree of understanding about the New World Order -- that fiendishly clever conspiratorial movement to slowly bring about a super-centralized one-world dictatorship -- have no doubt experienced the frustration of trying to convince family and friends that A: You are not "crazy," and B: The trans-generational monster plot to take down America is real and not even that well-concealed any more. The torment that comes with seeing the world as it really is, while the willfully blind ridicule you, is a terrible burden that we "conspiracy theorists" have always had to bear, in spite of the world's stupidity and hostility. After all, "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." (Thomas Paine).

But what if one of the 20th Century's best known and most trusted news media "rock stars" was to confirm, on camera, the validity of our nutty "conspiracy theory" . And what if an equally famous woman, the First Lady of the United States at the time, who came damn near close to becoming our 45th President, then congratulated that same man for his honest remarks while expressing full agreement with his totalitarian world government scheme? Would the doubters still be laughing? Try using this piece on them, and let us know what kind of reaction you get.

The logo of Cronkite's CBS depicts the same all-seeing eye as the logo for the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (New World Order for the Ages) found on the back of a $1 dollar bill.

THE SETTING

CBS propaganda had dubbed the legendary anchorman "the most trusted man in America” and the people believed it. From those early 1962 days of TV News (when there were only three networks and no cable stations) through 1981, Cronkite's carefully cultivated marketing image as a grandfatherly sage was unquestioned. In those naive pre-Internet, pre-talk radio days, "Uncle Walter's" leftist propaganda was difficult for amateurs to detect -- but it was always there.

In 1999, Cronkite, who was by then retired, appeared at a United Nations room to accept the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the openly pro-world government World Federalists Association. He told those assembled, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (watching by video feed), that he had always believed in world government but could not say so openly because of his position as CBS Anchorman.

Some excerpts, coupled with editorial analysis:

Cronkite: I am greatly honored to receive this award for two reasons: first, I believe as Norman Cousins did that the first priority of humankind in this era is to establish an effective system of world law that will assure peace with justice among the peoples of the world; second, I feel sentimental about this award and this organization because half a century ago Norman offered me a job as spokesman and Washington lobbyist for the World Federalist organization, which was then in its infancy.

Analysis: Norman Cousins was a Jewish-American journalist, author, professor and tireless activist for world government. The fact that Cousins offered young Walter a job with the World Federalists a "half century ago" confirms that Cronkite was always a Globalist-Socialist, if not a full blown "McCarthy-era" communist.

Cronkite: For many years, I did my best to report on the issues of the day in as objective a manner as possible to achieve. When I had my own strong opinions, as I often did, I tried not to communicate them to my audience.

Analysis: Nonsense! Cronkite's reporting was always heavily slanted leftward. It was harder to notice in those days because the viewing public had few alternatives to compare with.

Cronkite: Now, however, my circumstances are considerably different. I am in a position to speak my mind. And by God I'm gonna do it! (loud applause)

Analysis: You see, now that the retired old man has got nothing to lose, he can finally and completely drop his mask of "objectivity."

Cronkite: Those of us who are living today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether through a monumental educational and political effort we will achieve a world of peace under a system of law ...

Analysis: A "monumental educational and political effort." -- Cronkite is talking about mass brainwashing, beginning in grade school, such as is now the case with the Global Warming / Climate Chamnge hoax to usher in world taxation.

Cronkite: ... where individual violators of that law are brought to justice.

Analysis: An "individual violator" is any foreign government that dares to defy the New World Order. The term "brought to justice" means that the "violator" is to be killed.

Cronkite: For how many thousands of years now have we humans been what we insist on calling "civilized"? And yet, in total contradiction, we also persist in the savage belief that we must occasionally, at least, settle our arguments by killing one another.

Analysis: Classic projection tactic. It is the warmongering "one worlders" who have, directly or indirectly, engineered just about every major conflict of the past two centuries! (Read: "Planet Rothschild")

1. "Peace...Peace ...Peace" -- the phony mantra of Globalists like Norman Cousins.

2. The "Planet Rothschild" two-volume set blows the cover off of this monster plot to turn humanity into a global bee-hive of raceless alienated tax and debt slaves.

Cronkite: While we spend much of our time and a great deal of our treasure in preparing for war, we see no comparable effort in establishing peace.

Analysis: Here is the "inside joke." -- In the Globalist code language, "peace" is defined as the absence of resistance to the Globalists. When all nations finally and unconditionally surrender to the New World Order (a global EU), then and only then will the Globalists finally stop their endless bombings, sanctions, bribing, blackmailing, coups, assassinations, "color revolutions," wars, and proxy wars against the "violators" -- thus bringing about "world peace." See the trick?

Cronkite: It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. ... We Americans are going to have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That's going to be to many a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith and a lot of persuasion for them to come along with us on this necessity. ... But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.

Analysis: Cronkite leaves no doubt. He and his ilk seek the end of America (and all nations) and the emergence of all powerful one-world-super-state to be erected behind the phony platitudinous facades of "federalism" and "democracy" and "peace" and "human rights" . And if they don't get it done "peacefully," they will have no choice but to unleash an "eventual catastrophic world conflict." (World War III)

Cronkite: Today we must develop federal structures on a global level. We need a system of enforceable world law --a democratic federal world government. ... Today the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy. We must replace the anarchic law of force with a civilized force of law.

Translation: National sovereignty = chaos and anarchy. Nations = bad. World Government = good.

Cronkite: Ours is never going to be perfect world, nor a world without disagreement and occasional violence. But it will be a world where the majority of national leaders will consistently abide by the rule of world law, if we have our way, and those who won't will be dealt with effectively and with due process by the structures of that same world law.

Translation: Those who dare to defy our New World Order will be "dealt with" (Hussein of Iraq, Chavez of Venezuela, Qaddafi of Libya, Lil' Kim of North Korea, Assad of Syria, Putin of Russia et al.)

Cronkite: Consider... the possibility of a more representative and democratic system of decision making at the U.N. This should include both revision of the veto in the Security Council and adoption of a weighted voting system for the General Assembly. The World Federalists have endorsed Richard Hudson's Binding Triad proposal.

Analysis: By removing the veto of Security Council members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) each of the major powers will be powerless before the General Assembly's mob rule -- a mob directly controlled by the top Globalist mobsters who will have by then discarded "hit man" America like a used-up lemon.

Cronkite: George Soros, in his recent book "The Crisis of Global Capitalism," has given serious attention to this concept which would be based upon not only one-nation-one-vote but also on population and contributions to the U.N. budget.

Analysis: There it is!!! Mafia journalist Cronkite and George Soros (a "capo" of the Rothschild gang) dream of a "one-nation-one-vote" system in which hundreds of Turd World mini-gangster states get to rob the "evil rich White people" of America and Europe blind while flooding the West with their dirt-poor and criminal elements -- all done "democratically," of course. (rolling eyes sarcastically) Mind you, this was stated 20 years before the Soros-funded immigration invasion that we are witnessing today!

For nearly 40 years, the notorious billionaire George Soros has been pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in radical leftist causes, Globalist political campaigns worldwide, and world government groups. Gangsters like Soros make and promote men like Cronkite.

Cronkite: Resolutions adopted by majorities in each of these areas would be binding, enforceable law.

Analysis: "Binding, enforceable law" means that no power on earth, including the de-balled USA of the future, will ever be able to rebel against the New World Order. And that is why "liberals" are so obsessed with disarming all those millions of American "good ol' boys" who might find world government to be "a bitter pill to swallow." And you thought "gun control" was about "saving children." Ha!

Cronkite: Within the powers given to it in the Charter, the U.N. could then deal with matters of reliable financing,

Analysis: "Reliable financing" means a system of world taxation. That's what the Climate Change hoax and its proposed "solution" of imposing "carbon taxes" on "wealthy nations" is really all about.

Cronkite: ... a standing U.N. peace force, development, the environment ....

Translation: Cronkite envisions a multi-ethnic global goon squad enforcing tax collection and compliance with the world system.

Cronkite: ... and human rights.

Analysis: More code language. When Globalists speak of "human right," , they are referring to the "rights" of their paid trouble-makers within any "violator" nation to subvert that particular government. When the target government is forced to crack down on the CIA-NGO backed agitators, saboteurs, terrorists and subversives, the Globalist media, led by the New York Slimes, will immediately accuse that nation of "human rights violations" and call for sanctions, bombing, war etc.

Cronkite: As with the American rejection of the League of Nations after World War I, our failure to live up to our obligations to the U.N. is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation's conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing.

Analysis: In order to avoid the sound logical and moral arguments against One World Government, Cronkite is setting up the straw-man of the goofy televangelist Pat Robertson.

Cronkite: Their leader, Pat Robertson, ....

Analysis: I didn't know that Pat Robertson was "our leader," -- did "youse guys" (New Jerseyese for the plural of you) know that?

Cronkite: ... has written that we should have a world government but only when the messiah arrives. "Attempts for world order before that time must be work of the Devil." -- Well, join me, I am glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan.

Analysis: Given the freaky fascination with the occult that many of these elites have been known to dabble in, Cronkite's shout-out to Satan might very well have been literal. Indeed, Cronkite was, for many years, the voice of Molech the Owl for the creepy-as-all-heck "Cremation of Care" ceremony at the secretive annual gatherings at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California. (here).

Cronkite: The only way we who believe in the vision of a democratic world federal government can effectively overcome this reactionary movement is to organize a strong educational counteroffensive stretching from the most publicly visible people in all fields to the humblest individuals in every community.

Translation: We still have got a lot of brainwashing to do before the American people will accept the New World Order as a good thing.

Now, here's the kicker. After Commie Cronkite wrapped up his open call for treason and full NWO "democratic" takeover, First Lady, future US Senator, future Secretary of State and 2016 Presidential nominee Killary Rotten Clinton appeared on the big screen to congratulate "the most trusted man in America" on his treason award.

IN HER OWN WORDS

Clinton: "Good evening and congratulations, Walter, on receiving the World Federalist Association's Global Governance Award. For more than a generation in America, it wasn't the news until Walter Cronkite told us it was the news. Every night at 6 o'clock, we listened as you explained the complex events of the day. ... You became a trusted member of my family and the families across America. For decades, you told us "the way it is," but tonight, we honor you for fighting for the way it could be. .. So thank you, Walter. Thank you for inspiring all of us to build a more peaceful and just world. We are still listening to your every word. And with your continuing leadership, we can sail across these un-navigated seas into the 21st Century, and there is no better captain that I can imagine than you."

Cronkite and Clinton --- "the most trusted man in America" and the neurotic hag who, were it not for Donald Trump, almost became "the first woman President" -- just a couple of meaningless and non-influential "conspiracy theorists" , eh? Believe it, there are plenty more big names who think just like them. Actually, the entire PRC (Predatory Ruling Class) is on board with the America-busting New World Order, or at least afraid of bucking "the tide of history."

Now, as much as the pro-Globalist prostitutes of the Piranha Press, Hollyweird, Corporate America (and Europe) and Academia all love Killary and Walter (who died in 2009), that's as much as they hate Trump and Putin. So why do the "great and the good" of the bought-and-paid-for pseudo-intelligentsia all hate on Trump and Putin so much? Read the quotes below, and the world situation will begin to make more sense to you.

Trump: “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. My foreign policy will always put the interest of the American people and America security above all else. That will be the foundation of every single decision I will make.”

“America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration,”

Putin: "What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within....I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. "

Putin and Trump certainly sound like "violators" who need to be "dealt with" -- eh Walter? If you still think the New World Order is just "paranoid conspiracy theory," then there is little else that can be done to enlighten you --- short of an economic calamity and/or World War III with Russia and China (which kingpin George Soros had already strongly hinted at (here)). But if you are intrigued by this subject and would like to learn more, then please have a look at "Planet Rothschild" (also linked below). Your world-view will never be the same.

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

Major denominations ordaining homosexuals, priests and clergy presiding over same-sex weddings, sanctuaries invaded by boisterous gay activists, debates over homosexuality ripping congregations apart-who would have guessed we would ever reach such a point in church history?

A vigorous debate between Christians and homosexuals shouldn't be surprising in and of itself. If author and commentator Dr. Dennis Praeger is right when he says the Judeo-Christian ethic is responsible for the Western World's disapproval of homosexuality,[1] then conflicts between the Church and the gay rights movement are not only understandable, they are inevitable. (While acceptance of homosexuality in ancient cultures is well documented,[2] the past 2000 years of Western thought have, by and large, rejected it,[3] and the influence of both Old and New Testaments can be credited for that.)[4]

What is surprising, though, is the current trend in which these ethics are not only being challenged, but rewritten as well, most notably in the form of the pro-gay theology.

The pro-gay theology is much like the broader gay rights philosophy, in that it seeks legitimization (not just tolerance) of homosexuality. Gay spokesmen have made no secret of this as being their goal in secular culture; activist Jeff Levi put it plainly to the National Press Club during the 1987 Gay Rights March on Washington: "We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right-as heterosexual Americans already have-to see government and society affirm our lives. Until our relationships are recognized in the law-in tax laws and government programs to affirm our relationships, then we will not have achieved equality in American society.[5]"

But pro-gay theology takes it a step further by redefining homosexuality as being God-ordained and morally permissible:

"I have learned to accept and even celebrate my sexual orientation as another of God's good gifts." -gay author Mel White[6]

When God is reputed to sanction what He has already clearly forbidden, then a religious travesty is being played out, and boldly. Confronting it is necessary because it (the pro-gay theology) asks us to confirm professing Christians in their sin, when we are Biblically commanded to do just the opposite. As Christ's ambassadors on earth, we unfaithfully represent Him if a professing believer's ongoing sin has no effect on our relationship with that believer...which is, in essence, what Paul told the Thessalonians:

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2 Thes 3:6, 14- 15)

Likewise, when Paul heard of a Corinthian church member's incestuous relationship with his stepmother, he ordered the man be excommunicated (1 Cor 5:1-5), then explained the principle of confrontation and, if necessary, expulsion from the community of believers:

Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast. (1 Cor 5:6-7)

A healthy body purges itself of impurities; the Body of Christ cannot afford to do less. Error, like leaven, has a toxic effect.

The pro-gay theology is a strong delusion-a seductive accommodation tailor-made to suit the Christian who struggles against homosexual temptations and is considering a compromise. Some who call themselves gay Christians may be truly deceived into accepting it; others might be in simple rebellion. What compels them to believe a lie we cannot say. What we can say is that they are wrong...dead wrong.

But even as we say so, the caution of a proper spirit is in order. When we answer the pro-gay theology, we do so as sinners approaching other sinners, nothing more. Rev. Andrew Aquino of the Columbus Baptist Association expressed it perfectly during a recent interview:

My message to the homosexual is: We love you. Come and struggle with us against sin. Don't give in to it.

The Pro-Gay Theology in Brief

Exactly what do the "gay Christians" believe, and how did they come to believe it? The first question is more easily answered than the second. Explaining what a group believes is not hard. Explaining how they have come to believe it is another matter.

We cannot read minds or motives. That, I am sure, is one reason Jesus warned against judging (Mt 7:1). We can be certain the teachings themselves are false; why people have accepted them is something we cannot prove one way or another. Yet the Bible offers clues, and testimonies from members of the gay Christian movement are also enlightening, in helping to understand what the gay Christian movement believes, and what personal and spiritual factors may have influenced their beliefs.

The pro-gay theology is the cornerstone of the "gay Christian" movement (which is comprised of whole denominations, like the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, as well as gay caucuses within mainline denominations) just as the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds are the foundation of most Protestant's beliefs.[8] The movement is diverse; some of its spokespersons-Episcopal Priest Robert Williams and Bishop John Shelby Spong, for instance -promote flamboyant and blatantly heretical ideas. But most groups within the gay Christian movement ostensibly subscribe to traditional theology. (The Statement of Faith of the Metropolitan Community Churches, for example, is based on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.)[9]

Although the pro-gay theology claims a conservative theological base, it includes additions and revisions to basic, traditional ethics. First, homosexuality is seen as being God ordained. As such, it's viewed as being on par with heterosexuality. Gay author Mel White points out, quite accurately, that "if you don't see that premise (that God created homosexuality) then gay marriage looks ridiculous, if not insane."[10]

But to be seen as created by God, the traditional understanding of homosexuality needs to be discredited. This is done four basic ways within the "gay Christian" movement. First, prejudice against homosexuals is blamed for the understanding most Christians have of the Biblical references to it. The founder of the Metropolitan Community Churches, Rev. Troy Perry, asserts this is his writings:

To condemn homosexuals, many denominations have intentionally misread and misinterpreted their Bibles to please their own personal preferences.[11]

So, according to Perry and others, not only are most Christians wrong about homosexuality, but many or most are intentionally wrong- deliberately reading their prejudice against gays into the Bible.

White goes even further, stating that major leaders in the Christian community-Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy and Pat Robertson-take public stands against the gay rights movement for the sake of raising funds and increasing their visibility.[12]

Casting doubt on the motives of conservative leaders, and numerous denominations, makes it easier to discount their Bible-based objections to homosexuality. No wonder this tactic is so common in the "gay Christian" movement. Others within the movement contend the scriptures we understand to condemn homosexuality have actually been mistranslated. According to this view, the Bible should be taken literally in its original language; the problem with most Christians, they say, is that they don't know Biblical Greek and Hebrew well enough to realize our modern translations on homosexuality are all wrong.

Another claim pro-gay theorists make is that the Bible verses (Lev 18:22 and 20:13; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:9-10) which seem to prohibit homosexuality have actually been yanked out of context from their original meaning, or that they only applied to the culture existing at the time they were written. (Professor Robin Scroogs of Union Theological Seminary, for example, claims, "Biblical judgments about homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate."[13])

These arguments do not sit well with most serious Christians. The scriptures mentioned earlier are so clear and specific they defy interpretation of any sort. "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" requires no more interpretation than "Thou shalt not kill." It is intellectually dishonest to say conservatives "interpret" such verses out of prejudice against homosexuals. Those same "prejudiced" conservatives (Falwell, Kennedy, Robertson et al) also take scriptures against heterosexual sins quite literally. If they only prohibit homosexuality out of their own prejudice, why on earth do they, as heterosexuals, also condemn heterosexual sins? The argument makes no sense.

Neither does the "mistranslation" argument. We can allow some discrepancy in minor areas of translation, but, on something as important as sexual ethics, are we really to believe the Bible translators we rely on got it wrong five different times, in two different testaments? And only on the scriptures regarding homosexuality? (Pro-gay apologists seem to have no problem with the other scriptures condemning sins like adultery and child abuse.)

Equally poor is the "out-of-context" argument. The fact is, in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, homosexuality is mentioned in the context of sexual and immoral behavior! The context is quite clear-a variety of behaviors are prohibited; homosexuality-along with adultery, fornication and idolatry-is one of them.

The "cultural" argument fares no better. In some cases, a scripture may seem culturally bound (injunctions against long hair on men, or women speaking to their husbands during church.) But again-five times? Five different scriptures, from both testaments, addressed to highly different cultures (from the Hebrew to the Roman) are obviously not culturally bound. The cultures they address are just too different.

All of which leaves conservatives highly skeptical of the "gay Christian" movement's claim to respect Biblical authority. It takes mental gymnastics to accept these inadequate arguments; those not having a stake in accepting them are unlikely to do so. But those having a personal interest the pro-gay theology are another matter. Twist the Scriptures hard enough and you can make them appear to say anything you please. Author Paul Morris raises this very issue when he warns:

But if I were a Christian homosexual, I think this one question would disturb me most: Am I trying to interpret Scripture in the light of my proclivity; or should I interpret my proclivity in the light of Scripture?[14]

An unfortunate pattern of doing the former can be seen in the "gay Christian" movement's testimonials. Rev. Troy Perry writes about having already decided homosexuality was acceptable, then searching the Bible to equip himself to answer conservatives.[15] Mel White alludes, in his book, to some earlier studies of the destruction of Sodom[16] but his turning point seems to have come not from a careful, prayerful study of scripture, but from a psychologist who encouraged him to accept his homosexuality and find a lover![17] And gospel musician Marsha Stevens (composer of the beloved song "For Those Tears I Died" and now openly lesbian) gives a lengthy account of her acceptance of homosexuality without once explaining how she reached the point of believing homosexuality was scripturally acceptable. (The closest she comes is in telling how she prayed one night for confirmation that lesbianism was okay; the next morning someone gave her a pin saying "Born Again Lesbian.")[18] Considering the background and theological training of the above-mentioned believers in pro-gay theology, their acceptance of it is astounding.

Or maybe it is not. Paul predicts an abandonment of truth for the sake of personal fulfillment:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Tim 4:3-4)

Self over truth, man over God-can a Christian be so deceived? Evidently- Paul referred to the Galatian church as having been "bewitched" (Gal 3:1), and Jesus warned that a prominent sign of the days before His coming would be an increase in deception (Mt 24:14). To confront the pro-gay theology, then, is to confront a deceptive element of our time- the tendency to subjugate objective truth to subjective experience.

That is one reason confrontation is not enough to change a heart. Being knowledgeable enough to dismantle all the "gay Christian" movement's claims will not be enough to persuade a homosexual to repent. The heart, having been hardened through deception or rebellion or both, has to be softened. And that is the work of God alone. Ours is to simply speak the truth, trusting Him to quicken it to our hearers.

To that end, this three-part series will address the pro-gay theology by dividing its arguments-or tenants-into three categories: social justice arguments, general religious arguments, and scriptural arguments. A brief description of these arguments will be provided, followed by a response/rebuttal to each.