YOU TUBE CENSORS VIDEO OF PRO JEWISH MUSLIM AS “HATE SPEECH”

 YOU TUBE CENSORS VIDEO OF PRO JEWISH MUSLIM AS “HATE SPEECH”
BY CHRISTINE WILLIAMS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

It’s peculiar that Islamic supremacists can get away with spewing
hatred and propaganda on YouTube against Israel, Christians, Jews, and
generally against the West, largely because of the ubiquitous fear of
their critics being branded racists or “Islamophobes.” Westerners also
have been bullied into a collective fear of Muslims because of global
jihad violence and threats of the same. Interesting, however, that an
Israel-supporting Muslim no longer has the cover of the “Islamophobia”
propagandists. Had Kasim Hafeez been blasting the Jewish state, falsely
accusing it of crimes against humanity and of practicing apartheid, and
pushing the Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions (BDS) narrative, he
would not have been censored by YouTube.

Kudos to Kasim Hafeez. Let’s hope that more peace-loving Muslims
speak the truth about jihad propaganda and Islamic anti-Semitic hatred
and indoctrination.

The hallmark of democracy is freedom of speech, and this YouTube
stunt is yet another indication of how endangered this freedom is
becoming, as fearful Westerners self-impose Sharia. Whether YouTube’s
reasons may be some leftist-jihadist alliance, political correctness or
threats by jihadists, it is troubling when truth, explained in a
personal testimony, is stifled by YouTube.

The video, titled, “Born to Hate Jews,” shows an
interview with Kasim Hafeez, a British Muslim and pro-Israel activist,
explaining how he overcame the anti-Semitic indoctrination that
convinced him to try and join a terrorist group.

Fortunately, freedom fighters spoke out and YouTube responded, but with unacceptable restrictions:

A petition to restore the video promptly gathered over 105,000 signatures in less than a day.
Late Monday evening, YouTube re-uploaded the video in “Restricted
Mode,” partially restoring it. This mode marks the video as explicit
content, similar to pornography, and effectively makes the video
impossible to view on public internet connections at libraries and
schools.

“YouTube Censors Video Of Pro-Israel Muslim As ‘Hate Speech’”, by Andrew Follett, Daily Caller, December 6, 2016:

YouTube removed a Prager University video of a Muslim
explaining how visiting Israel “de-radicalized” him, claiming that the
video was hate speech.

The video, titled, “Born to Hate Jews,” shows an interview with Kasim
Hafeez, a British Muslim and pro-Israel activist, explaining how he
overcame the anti-Semitic indoctrination that convinced him to try and
join a terrorist group.

“In the video, Hafeez explains how he overcame the anti-Semitic
indoctrination that radicalized him from an early age,” according to an
email sent by Prager. “Within hours of the video’s release Monday
morning, YouTube flagged it for ‘hate speech’ and took it down. PragerU
is disputing YouTube’s removal of the video.”

A petition to restore the video promptly gathered over 105,000
signatures in less than a day. Late Monday evening, YouTube re-uploaded
the video in “Restricted Mode,” partially restoring it. This mode marks
the video as explicit content, similar to pornography, and effectively
makes the video impossible to view on public internet connections at
libraries and schools.

Prager is a conservative, nonprofit educational organization that
produces short, educational videos. This isn’t the first time YouTube
has targeted the group. YouTube put 21 of Prager University’s videos on
“restricted mode” in October and currently still lists 18 PragerU videos
under that mode.

Many parents set their children’s YouTube accounts to restricted mode
to prevent viewing of inappropriate or obscene content, but none of
Prager’s videos contain adult material……

GATES FOUNDATION SUPPORTS TIME RELEASED VACCINES COATED WITH ALUMINUM OXIDE

 GATES FOUNDATION SUPPORTS 
TIME RELEASED VACCINES 
COATED WITH ALUMINUM OXIDE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has awarded a $1.1 million
grant to the University of Colorado at Boulder to develop
next-generation vaccines that do not need to be refrigerated. The money
will fund research conducted by Robert Garcea, PhD, Theodore Randolph,
PhD, and Alan Weimer, PhD, who work in the university’s Jennie Smoly
Caruthers Biotechnology Building (JSCBB).1

A major goal is to develop genetically engineered vaccines that deliver time-released doses in the body.

Dr. Garcea, who is with the Department of Molecular, Cellular and
Developmental Biology and the BioFrontiers Institute, has teamed up with
Dr. Randolph and Dr. Weimer of the Department of Chemical and
Biological Engineering. The collaboration is intended to build on
Garcea’s work on the development of vaccines such as the human
papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and efforts by Randolph and Weimer to make
vaccines “thermostatable” (able to resist temperature fluctuations) by
converting them into a “glassy powder” form.1

The research is intended to address the problem of “bad batches” of
vaccines resulting from improper transport, handling, and storage,
exposing vaccines to temperature variations that can reduce their safety
and efficacy. Occasionally, there are reports of people subjected to
revaccination against the same disease after having been injected with
doses from a bad batch of vaccines.2

According to an article by Patrice La Vigne in The Vaccine Reaction last year:

[I]t seems that bad batches of vaccines, due to
temperature variations, may be occurring more often than people realize,
creating a largely overlooked and growing global problem of waste and
revaccination.2

As a glassy powder, a vaccine can be safely stored in temperatures up
to 120 degrees Fahrenheit for as long as four months. The grant from
the Gates Foundation will seek to combine these vaccine powders with
techniques that “allow uniform nanoscopic protective layers of aluminum
oxide to be applied to vaccine microparticles”—a protective coating
process called “atomic layer deposition” which also reportedly helps to
stimulate an immune system response.1

A key application of the coating process technique being pursued is
“extended release, multilayer microparticulate vaccine dosage forms.”
These dosage forms would be made up of an “inner core of stabilized
vaccine coated with aluminum oxide layers and an outer layer of vaccine,
all embedded in a glassy powder.” Upon injection, the vaccine’s outer
layer would provide an initial dose of the vaccine. A second dose—the
inner core of the vaccine—would be released when the aluminum oxide
layers dissolve.1

The concept is similar to the time release technology used by the
pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of pill tablets or capsules
to allow for the gradual release of a drug into the bloodstream.

NVIC CALLS 21ST CENTURY CURES ACT “A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING” & URGES PRESIDENTIAL VETO TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH

olf and eagle in suits shaking hands
 “Congress has handed the liability-free
vaccine industry another free pass to make unlimited profits by
exploiting Americans legally required to purchase and use inadequately
tested vaccines.” — 
Barbara Loe Fisher, National Vaccine Information Center
NVIC CALLS 21ST CENTURY CURES ACT 
“A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING” 
& URGES PRESIDENTIAL VETO TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

The non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) says the 21st
Century Cures Act (H.R. 34), which was pushed through the U.S Congress
this week with a 94 to 5 vote in the Senate yesterday, is a threat to
public health and should be vetoed by the President. The 996 page Act
has been promoted by Congress as a consumer friendly bill to fund
medical research and make new prescription drugs and medical devices
more quickly available in the U.S., but it also lowers licensing
standards used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to fast track
experimental vaccines to market that will be federally recommended and
state mandated for use by all children and many adults in America.

“Instead of building a firewall between industry and
government to protect the public health and safety, Congress has
allowed the pharmaceutical industry to further co-opt the federal
vaccine licensing and policymaking process,” said NVIC co-founder and
president Barbara Loe Fisher. “The 21st Century Cures Act is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and should be vetoed by the President.”
The 21st Century Cures Act introduced in
2015 and expanded in 2016 weakens informed consent protections for
people participating in experimental vaccine clinical trials. It allows
drug companies to use surrogate endpoints to evaluate the effectiveness
of vaccines and permits the FDA to accept novel statistical analyses and
clinical experience related to a new vaccine’s reactivity, instead of
requiring drug companies to conduct large randomized clinical trials to
demonstrate safety. It prevents vaccine manufacturers from being sued in
civil court if an FDA licensed vaccine given to a pregnant woman causes
the injury or death of her unborn child in the womb.
“There is a difference between prescription drugs
and medical devices designed to help sick people get well, which are
subject to product liability in civil court, and vaccines given to
healthy people that are not,” said Fisher. “Congress has handed the
liability-free vaccine industry another free pass to make unlimited
profits by exploiting Americans legally required to purchase and use
inadequately tested vaccines.”
In 1986, Congress gave the pharmaceutical industry a partial civil liability shield from vaccine injury lawsuits in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which created a federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) that to date has awarded $3.5 billion for vaccine injuries and deaths. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court
declared FDA licensed vaccines to be “unavoidably unsafe” and
effectively removed all product liability from vaccine manufacturers.
The U.S. government recommends that children receive 69 doses of 16 vaccines between day of birth and age 18 and all 50 states have mandated
dozens of doses of at least 10 of those vaccines for children to attend
school. Since Congress shielded pharmaceutical companies from vaccine
injury lawsuits three decades ago, there has been a 2900 to 3700 percent
increase in the cost to vaccinate a child with all federally
recommended vaccinations. The current per child vaccination cost
is about $2,100 per child vaccinated in a public health clinic and
$3,000 per child vaccinated in a private pediatrician’s office.
In 2015 and 2016,
more than 200 vaccine bills backed by the pharmaceutical industry and
medical trade were introduced in multiple states. Most of those bills
mandated the use of more federally recommended vaccines for school
attendance and employment, and restricted or eliminated personal belief
vaccine exemptions, including those protecting freedom of conscience and
religion. All but two state legislatures voted against eliminating
vaccine exemptions, but seven vaccine bills
have already been filed in the Texas legislature for consideration in
2017 that restrict informed consent rights and threaten vaccine
exemptions.
Dawn Richardson, who is NVIC’s director of advocacy and co-founder of Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education (PROVE) in Texas, said, “The erosion of vaccine licensing standards in the 21st
Century Cures Act makes it even more important for state legislatures
to protect flexible medical, conscientious and religious vaccine
exemptions. No state should legally require citizens to purchase and use
vaccines or face societal sanctions, especially when vaccine
manufacturers have no product liability in civil court and are not
required to adhere to high licensing standards.”
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)
was founded in 1982 to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through
public education and advocates for inclusion of informed consent
protections in U.S. health policies and laws, including flexible
medical, conscientious and religious belief vaccine exemptions.
Read a referenced video commentary published by NVIC in 2015 after the 21st Century Cures Act was first introduced into Congress.

UK PRIME MINISTER MAY FACES PARLIAMENTARY REBELLION OVER REFUSAL TO PUBLISH BREXIT PLANS

UK PRIME MINISTER MAY FACES PARLIAMENTARY REBELLION 
OVER REFUSAL TO PUBLISH BREXIT PLANS
BY PAMELA GELLER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

She says she won’t publish them so as not to weaken her negotiating
position. But she opposed Brexit before she became Prime Minister, and
is likely to be dragging her feet and trying to keep it from happening.
Theresa May is the enemy of freedom who banned me from the UK for
opposing jihad; it would be no surprise if she was working against the
best interests of the British people here again.

theresa-may

“UK PM May faces parliamentary rebellion over refusal to publish Brexit plans,” by Kylie MacLellan, Reuters, December 6, 2016 (thanks to Van):

LONDON (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Theresa May
faces a rebellion among her own lawmakers when parliament debates
whether the government should set out its Brexit plan before triggering
formal divorce talks with the European Union.

May, who plans to kick off the exit process by the end of March next
year, has said the government will not give a running commentary on its
preparations for Brexit as this would damage its negotiating position.

The opposition Labour Party has put forward a motion, to be debated
on Wednesday, calling on the government to publish its plan for leaving
the bloc before it invokes Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty to begin
the formal Brexit process.

The BBC reported that one former minister had predicted between 20
and 40 lawmakers from May’s ruling Conservatives could support the
motion, which is not binding on the government but would increase
pressure on it to be more open.

“These things are incredibly important. This actually transcends
party politics and tribalism. There is nothing in it which I don’t agree
with,” remain-backing Conservative lawmaker Anna Soubry told BBC Radio,
referring to the motion.

“The contents of that motion are eminently supportable.”

While asking May to commit to publishing the government’s Brexit
plan, the motion also says there should be “no disclosure of material
that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to
depart from the European Union”.

“This is a real opportunity to finally get clarity on the
government’s plan for Brexit,” Labour Party Brexit spokesman Keir
Starmer, who put forward the motion, said in a statement.

“Parliament and the public need to know the basic terms the
government is seeking to achieve from Brexit. This issue is too
important to be left mired in uncertainty any longer.”…

TRUMP PICKS GENERAL JOHN KELLY AS SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY~HERE’S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_49/1823931/161207-trump-john-kelly-1252p_085db9277682029b8d2994c74d45f719.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg
 http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/03/Gen-John-Kelly-ap.jpg
TRUMP PICKS GENERAL JOHN KELLY AS SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY~
HERE’S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW 
BY PAMELA GELLER
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Marine Gen. John Kelly is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to be
the next secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, CBS News
reported Wednesday morning. Kelly is the third general Trump has tapped
for his Cabinet, along with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as national
security adviser and retired Gen. James Mattis as defense secretary.

You need generals to clean out ….. the Augean Stables.
The Department of Homeland Security, like the Department of State and
the Department of Justice, require an agency-wide purge. Under Obama,
who stacked them with uber-left ideologues and Muslim Brotherhood
members, these agencies became hostile to the American people.

The Department of Homeland Security targeted tea party members, veterans and patriots. The DHS had a Muslim Brotherhood agent on its advisory board; he leaked intel and shopped classified data to the media (and who knows who else).
Over the past eight years the Department of Homeland Security has turned its guns on …. us:
screen-shot-2016-12-07-at-11-59-53-am

sovcit


Key points on Kelly:

  • General found himself at odds — and eventually on the outs — with the Obama White House.
  • General Kelly oversaw operations at GITMO. He opposes the Obama’s plan to shut it down. “There are no innocent men down there.”
  • The general has a scholar’s appetite for reading and sharp viewpoints on America’s role abroad.
    He has extensive experience in the Middle East, having spent about two
    years leading combat forces against the Islamic State’s Sunni Arab
    forerunners in Iraq’s Anbar province.
    But perhaps most important to Trump, Kelly is an expert on Latin America
  • The general found himself at odds — and eventually on the outs — with the Obama White House. He spoke out forcefully and publicly on a range of issues beyond Guantanamo.
  • He lost his son Marine 1st Lt. Robert Kelly in combat, killed six years ago in Afghanistan.
  • Trump’s Pick for DHS Secretary Warned About Iranian Infiltration of South America


Donald Trump picks Gen. John Kelly for Department of Homeland Security secretary

CBS News, December 7, 2016:
Donald Trump is tapping Gen. John Kelly to run the Department of Homeland Security, CBS News confirms.
The final request and acceptance, sources told CBS’ Major Garrett,
occurred while Kelly was traveling in Europe. His pick for DHS secretary
will be announced by the transition staff in the coming days.

Like Mattis, Kelly is a Marine with a reputation for bluntness.
Kelly was the commander of U.S. Southern Command until earlier this
year. In that posting, he oversaw American military operations in South
America and Central America.

Before that, he commanded American forces numerous times in Iraq, and
spent a year as the top Marine in that country. He then was an aide to
defense secretaries Leon Panetta and Robert Gates.

Created after the 9/11 attacks, the Department of Homeland Security now
employs nearly 250,000 people. Trump pledged repeatedly to better
secure America’s borders on the campaign trail, and it is likely that
Kelly, should he take the position, will be central to that effort.

Unlike Flynn, Kelly did not endorse Mr. Trump during the campaign and
indicated he would be open to serving in either a Republican or
Democratic administration. He has also referred to domestic politics as a
“cesspool” in an interview over the summer with Foreign Policy
magazine.

Kelly, who served nearly 46 years in the Marine Corps, is the
highest-ranking American military official to lose a child in combat
since 9/11. His son, Marine Lt. Robert Michael Kelly, was killed in
action in Afghanistan in 2010.

Military Times did this in-depth piece on Kelly last month: 

John Kelly shares many Republicans’ position on the U.S.
military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. For three years prior to his
retirement last winter, the Marine Corps general oversaw operations at
the controversial detention facility where, despite President Barack
Obama’s determination to close it, dozens of alleged wartime combatants
and notable terror suspects remain incarcerated.

As the head of U.S. Southern Command, Kelly’s first and only
four-star assignment, he was prepared to carry out a directive to shut
down the prison complex. At the same time, the general made no secret of
the fact that he believed the president’s goal was misguided. “They’re
detainees, not prisoners,” Kelly told Military Times back in January,
during one of multiple interviews and less formal on-the-record
exchanges as his 45-year career came to a close. “The lifestyle they
live in Guantanamo is — they can’t simply be put in a prison in the
United States.

“Every one,” he added, “has real, no-kidding intelligence on them
that brought them there. They were doing something negative, something
bad, something violent, and they were taken from the battlefield. There
are a lot of people that will dispute that, but I have dossiers on all
of them, built and maintained by the intelligence community, both
military and civilian.

“There are no innocent men down there.”
Gen. John Kelly, photographed in January 2015 at the Pentagon. Photo Credit: Mike Morones
Kelly, 66, is one of at least four candidates under serious consideration
to become President-elect Donald Trump’s Homeland Security secretary,
though Reince Priebus, whom Trump appointed as White House chief of
staff, indicated on “Meet the Press” last week
that Kelly also is being eyed to lead the State Department. Either role
would afford him considerable influence as Trump begins to shape
policies on national security, foreign policy and immigration, including
his controversial calls to erect a 2,000-mile barrier along the
U.S.-Mexico border and deport millions of people who’ve come to the
United States illegally.

Kelly has declined to comment about his prospective role in the Trump administration.
He is one of several former senior military officers in whom Trump
has taken an interest as he seeks to fulfill his campaign promise to
“drain the swamp” of establishment insiders filling key posts within the
executive branch. The general has a scholar’s appetite for reading and
sharp viewpoints on America’s role abroad. He has extensive experience
in the Middle East, having spent about two years leading combat forces
against the Islamic State’s Sunni Arab forerunners in Iraq’s Anbar
province. But perhaps most important to Trump, Kelly is an expert on
Latin America — and he is decidedly not one of Obama’s guys.

Head of SOUTHCOM says partnership and cooperation are vital in the Americas
The general found himself at odds — and eventually on the outs — with the Obama White House.
He spoke out forcefully and publicly on a range of issues beyond
Guantanamo. Having lost a son in combat, Marine 1st Lt. Robert Kelly was killed six years ago in Afghanistan,
the general delivered several pointed, passionate speeches about the
sacrifice being made by American families as the country’s war with
violent extremists seemed only to be worsening. And he spoke to Congress
in very stark terms about the perceived vulnerability of America’s
borders.

The question now is whether Trump, as president, would tolerate a
Cabinet secretary with an unapologetic record for, as the general puts
it, telling “truth to power.” During the campaign Trump declared that he
knows more than America’s generals and admirals do, but he also
lamented that they’ve been “reduced to rubble” under Obama. So perhaps
the more important questions are: How would Kelly’s experience come to
bear on whichever agency he may be asked to run, how do his views
dovetail with the president-elect’s and, ultimately, would Trump even
heed this general’s best advice?

James Mattis, another retired Marine general whose tenure in uniform
and on the battlefield often intersected with Kelly’s, is said to be
Trump’s leading candidate to run the Defense Department. A source
familiar with Trump’s discussions said Mattis told the president-elect
that Kelly also would make a solid defense secretary. Kelly reportedly
said the same about Mattis. The source spoke to Military Times on the
condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity surrounding internal
deliberations.

Like Kelly, Mattis clashed with the Obama White House. He was most
vocal about the president’s stance toward Iran, with which the
administration negotiated a nuclear proliferation accord that’s been
endlessly criticized among those on the political right. It’s believed
by many observers that both generals’ military careers ended prematurely
because they refused to publicly support Obama’s agenda while
holding convictions to the contrary.

“When I first came to know General Kelly, he was just a war fighter.
But as time wore on in this administration, Kelly transformed,” said
Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Marine Corps veteran who served under Kelly during
the Iraq war. Hunter, a California Republican and member of the House
Armed Services Committee, said that he and Kelly remain close.

“It killed him to not be able to talk about what he saw happening,”
the congressman said. “He gives honest, unadulterated advice. It was
interesting to see the change from ‘everything’s fine, we’re not going
to say anything, we’re going to go execute our duties,’ to ‘this is
wrong and I’ve got to talk about it.’ And in the end that’s probably
what did John Kelly in.”

THREATS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER
Trump and Kelly met in New Jersey on Nov. 20. They discussed the
general’s diplomatic background and a host of global security concerns.
The meeting included Priebus, who also chairs the Republican National
Committee, and Steve Bannon, the Breitbart News executive whom Trump
made his chief strategist. The discussion largely focused on the
general’s experience at Southern Command, one the military’s nine
unified combatant commands. SOUTHCOM, as it’s known, gave Kelly purview
not only of Guantanamo Bay but also the massive criminal network that
has metastasized from the trafficking of drugs, weapons and people
throughout South America, Central America and the Caribbean.

President-elect Donald Trump talks to media as he stands with retired
Marine Gen. John Kelly, right, at the Trump National Golf Club
Bedminster clubhouse Sunday, Nov. 20, 2016, in Bedminster, N.J. Photo
Credit: Carolyn Kaster/APIn that role, Kelly worked closely with several
federal and nongovernmental agencies. Many of the larger ones,
including Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, operate under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security.

And if not Kelly, whoever heads up Homeland Security or State may be
hard-pressed to match the general’s wealth of contacts in this part of
the world, and his depth of understanding about the socioeconomic and
geopolitical dynamics there. The source close to Kelly said the general
has “better relationships in Latin American than the State Department
does.”

That source highlighted the Alliance for Prosperity,
which Kelly played a lead role brokering during late-2014 and
early-2015. It resulted in an initial U.S. investment of nearly $1
billion for Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, which has experienced  more murder per capita than any other nation
in the last two decades, according to the World Bank. The initiative
aims to spur economic development, promote education, and curtail
criminal activity and human trafficking.

In Washington, it was an important win for the general. He felt the
administration had largely ignored many of his assessments about threats
facing the U.S. that emanate from Latin America. Just days after the
White House announced its support for the alliance, in mid-March 2015,
Kelly appeared on Capitol Hill to offer his annual overview of Southern
Command’s budgetary needs. With his tenure about to expire, he used the
opportunity — “my third and likely final year in command,” he told
lawmakers — to highlight in stark terms what he considered the American
government’s dangerous underestimation of the threat posed by what he
branded “transnational organized crime.”

“Unless confronted by an immediate, visible, or uncomfortable crisis
our nation’s tendency is to take the security of the Western Hemisphere
for granted,” the general wrote in prepared remarks for the Senate Armed
Services Committee. “I believe this is a mistake.”

The smuggling routes used by drug cartels and other criminal elements
active in Latin America are ripe targets for international terror
groups — specifically the Islamic State, Kelly warned Congress, citing
online message traffic calling for ISIS adherents to seek entry into the
U.S. via its southern border. “Southern Command has accepted risk for
so long in this region that we now face a near-total lack of awareness
of threats and the readiness to respond, should those threats reach
crisis levels.”

He’d issued a similar warning to Congress the year prior.
A WALL ALONE WON’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM
Beyond his call to build a wall, Trump has promised to impose an
aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration. When asked about those
plans earlier this year, Kelly told Military Times that while he
supports enhanced border security, that alone won’t address the
underlying reasons people flee Latin America en masse.

“I think you have to have — we have a right to protect our borders,
whether they’re seaward, coastlines, or land borders,” Kelly said. “We
have a right to do that. Every country has a right to do that.
Obviously, some form of control whether it’s a wall or a fence. But if
the countries where these migrants come from have reasonable levels of
violence and reasonable levels of economic opportunity, then the people
won’t leave to come here.”

Military Times
‘Hypocrisy’ of legalizing pot undermines America’s war on hard-core drugs, general says
In his final statement to Congress as the head of Southern Command,
Kelly addressed the role of human-rights education and training, calling
it essential to U.S. objectives not only in Latin America but wherever
America seeks to gain influence. Governments should be accountable to
their citizens, he said.

While at Southern Command, Kelly also leveraged America’s military,
diplomatic and intelligence assets to encourage impoverished or
otherwise unstable nations in the region to provide better security and
opportunity for their populaces. A big focus has been on teaching
foreign militaries and law enforcement how to counter the powerful,
wealthy drug cartels that perpetuate violence and drive people from
their communities.

For that reason Kelly is fiercely opposed to illegal and recreational
use of drugs, though he makes some exception where there is emerging
evidence to suggest medical benefits may exist. Notably, marijuana has
shown some promise in mitigating the anxiety some military personnel
face as a result of post traumatic stress. Kelly is OK with that. But he
opposes widespread legalization of pot, saying it undermines efforts to
curtail the distribution of hardcore drugs like heroin, methamphetamine
and cocaine.

Video by Daniel Woolfolk/Staff
“The solution there,” Kelly said, “is for Americans to stop using
drugs. Now, you’re never going to go to zero, but we’ve got great
programs to convince Americans not to do things — or to do things. We’ve
got great anti-smoking programs. I think when I was a kid a pack of
cigarettes was 25 or 30 cents, and 70 percent of Americans smoked. Now I
think it’s 23 percent and, of course, it costs you a million dollars to
buy cigarettes. Years ago, people didn’t wear seatbelts. Now most
people wouldn’t get in a car without putting a seatbelt on.

“We know how to influence people. I just don’t think we have any kind
of a drug-cessation program to speak of. Consequently, the drugs are
imported and consumed. I think if Americans understood that doing a
little blow on the weekend — on a college campus or here on Capitol Hill
— isn’t harmless, if they understood what it’s doing to Honduras or El
Salvador, or what it was doing to Colombia, I think they’d responsibly
realize that this is not a good thing.”

‘TRUTH TO POWER’
Kelly is a Boston native who speaks with a thick, tough-guy New
England accent. He’s a very close friend of Marine Corps Gen. Joseph
Dunford, whom Obama made chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2015.
Kelly is well regarded throughout the military’s officer and enlisted
ranks, where he spent two years in the early 1970s before leaving as a
sergeant to attend college and earn a commission.

Coincidentally, his first military deployment was to Guantanamo Bay.
He was a 20-year-old enlisted infantryman in 1971. And then, as now, all
new personnel arriving on the island are given a briefing about the
wildlife there, he recalled. Notably, everyone is told “don’t screw with
the iguanas,” the general said, grinning as he thought back to another
Marine in his unit, a rough-hewn corporal from West Virginia who
captured one of the the reptiles anyway — and then proceeded to butcher
and cook it.

During his final trip to Cuba, in 2015, Kelly shared Thanksgiving
dinner with the troops who manage Guantanamo’s day-to-day operations,
personnel under endless scrutiny from human-rights advocates and other
watchdogs who oppose the facility’s existence and remain skeptical of
the detainees’ treatment there after revelations that many were
subjected to vicious interrogation methods
both at Guantanamo and at CIA-run “black sites” overseas. In his
discussions with Military Times, Kelly touted those troops’
professionalism, saying everyone held at the prison is well cared for
and treated “humanely.”

The source close to Kelly said he built “extraordinary relationships”
with the human rights groups who monitor the prison, that this was such
an intense focus of the general’s that he brought all of his
subordinates at Southern Command to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in
Washington. “And he told them ‘this is what happens when you abuse your
power,’” the source said.

Today, 60 suspects remain at Guantanamo Bay, and Trump has indicated
he may look to expand the facility. Hunter, the congressman, said that
Kelly understands “the value of Guantanamo,” and that because of him,
Congress successfully blocked Obama’s efforts to close it.

“We’re in Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan. We’re not bringing anybody
home to Guantanamo, right? We don’t have prisons anymore where we can
interrogate people. What are we doing with the people that we’re
capturing now?” Hunter said “… These guys are making IEDs. They’re
killing Americans. They’re killing our allies. Yet there’s nothing we
can do with them. Guantanamo was the perfect place for that. Kelly
understands that Guantanamo is a necessary thing for the type of war
that we’re fighting right now. And he talked about it.”

By the time Kelly retired, his relationship with the administration
had become so strained that in the weeks before the general signed off
at Southern Command, multiple White House officials accused him and
other military leaders of actively undermining efforts to close Guantanamo.
Kelly disputed those claims while the White House, at least publicly,
sought to distance itself from them. But those closest to him see the
episode as evidence that the president neither valued nor benefited from
such unvarnished advice.

Gen. John F. Kelly and Defense Secretary Ash Carter listen to remarks
during the U.S. Southern Command change of command ceremony at SOUTHCOM
headquarters in Doral, Fla., Jan. 14, 2016. Photo Credit: EJ Hersom/DoD

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, for whom Kelly worked as a senior
military adviser in 2011, told Military Times that the general’s
candidness was an asset at the Pentagon. The pair worked together for
about four months, from the first days after Kelly’s son was killed,
through the Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan and
early implementation of several budgetary moves designed to rein in
wartime spending.

In recalling the bin Laden operation, Gates said that Kelly, then a
three-star general, played a subtle but key role arranging an important
11th-hour meeting between the secretary and Mike Vickers and Michèle
Flournoy, then the department’s top executives for intelligence and
policy. That was “an otherwise very busy day,” said Gates, who’d had
reservations about sending the SEALs into the compound in Pakistan where
bin Laden was hiding.

He worried there would be grave consequences if the mission failed,
and preferred instead to let an airstrike do the job. Vickers and
Flournoy made “one last effort to persuade me to support the raid, and
they were successful,” he said. “I called the national security adviser
[Tom Donilon] and told him to tell the president that I was completely
on board. John [Kelly] played a key role in making sure those folks got
into my office at that time to make their case.”

Kelly, Gates recalled, always tried to be constructive, never
hesitating to offer his opinion if he felt people were not leaning
forward. “Or, in the event of a military operation or initiative, if he
thought the constraints were too great or that it was ill conceived,” he
said. “He wasn’t afraid to speak his mind to civilian superiors. Always
respectfully. And always prepared to move on whatever the decision.”

Obama chose Kelly for the Southern Command job in 2012. It was a
prestigious assignment, and a good fit. As a one- and two-star combat
commander in Iraq, Kelly was integral to what became known as the Anbar
Awakening. The movement succeeded, for a time, in curtailing the
sectarian bloodshed that had gripped the country since Saddam Hussein’s
fall in 2003, bringing with it the tenuous prospect of stability as
Sunni militias fought alongside forces fielded by the Shiite-led
government to flush al-Qaida from key cities such as Ramadi and
Fallujah.

In many ways, it was the success of Kelly and others in managing that
fragile alliance which enabled Obama to make good on his campaign
pledge to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

U.S. Marine Maj. Gen John Kelly, the top U.S. commander in Anbar
Province, left, and Anbar Governor Maamoun Sami Rashid, center, sign
papers during a handover ceremony at the government headquarters in
Ramadi, capital of Anbar province, in Iraq on Monday, Sept. 1, 2008.
Photo Credit: Wathiq Khuzaie/AP

As a three-star general, Kelly led the Marine Corps Reserve while
simultaneously overseeing the service’s element within U.S. Northern
Command, which coordinates with other federal agencies to monitor
potential threats against the homeland. NORTHCOM also tracks criminal
activity in Mexico, whose military, with U.S. advisement, continues to
fight the powerful drug cartels responsible for fueling violence
throughout the region. He also served as the senior military adviser to
Gates’ successor as defense secretary, Leon Panetta. And with multiple
prior assignments that brought him through Washington, dating back to
the 1980s, Kelly had developed a keen understanding of Congress and the
dynamics (and theatrics) that define political life inside the Beltway, a
skill that complemented his demonstrated strategic abilities.

Once at SOUTHCOM, it wasn’t long before Kelly took aim at the
national security issues central to that part of the world. His tenure
there coincided with steep federal spending cuts that threatened to
hinder his command’s focus on drug interdiction and specialized military
training for indigenous security forces battling the drug trade in
places such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The immigration
crisis that peaked in 2014, when tens of thousands of women and children
streamed to the U.S.-Mexico border, was the direct result of the surge
in drug-related violence gripping Central America, Kelly told Congress
at the time. And Americans’ demand for those drugs was to blame, he
said.

Moreover, the general had warned, the network those individuals
leveraged to pay their way north presented a legitimate national
security threat. He was asked about this during his annual testimony
before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Kelly gave a
straightforward response. It made headlines. And the administration
wasn’t happy about it.

“We had defined the fact that hundreds of tons of cocaine make it
across the southwest border,” Kelly said in recalling the hearing. “And
then another line of questioning. All of the heroin consumed in the
United States makes it across the southwest border. The methamphetamine
produced in Mexico makes its way across the southwest border. There were
70,000 unaccompanied children who’d come across the border in the
previous several months. You get the point. And Senator Lindsey Graham
said to me, once we’d established all of the facts, ‘would you say that
the southwest border is secure?’ You know, what are you going to say? I
said no, I don’t believe it is secure. And anything that wants to get in
can get it. They just have to pay the fare. Well, that didn’t go over
well.”

But Kelly proved to be on point. He told the armed services committee
that a small but growing number of radicalized Muslims from countries
in the the Caribbean and South America had gone to wage jihad in the
Middle East alongside the Islamic State group. And when they return, the
general warned, there’s little that would stop them from coming north
to kill Americans.

“Boy,” Kelly said, “Washington didn’t like that one either. But it’s
funny, a year later, everyone acknowledges that there is an ISIS,
radical Muslim threat in the Caribbean.”

It’s a sensitive issue with Obama. Republican lawmakers and
presidential hopefuls have assailed the president for initially
downplaying the threat posed by ISIS while being slow to articulate how
he intends to stop the spread of the group’s ideology. Indeed, it was
only after last November’s terror attack in Paris that the
administration began to ramp up the military component of its
counter-ISIS strategy, which coincided with a robust marketing campaign
aimed at reassuring the American public that federal, state and local
authorities were working nonstop to prevent a Paris-style attack inside
the United States.

Heading into the 2015 Thanksgiving weekend, as Kelly flew to
Guantanamo Bay one final time, Obama, flanked by members of his national
security team, gave a six-minute televised address to the nation. He
highlighted the 8,000-plus airstrikes that U.S. warplanes had conducted
to that point on ISIS positions inside Iraq and Syria, alluding to
concurrent efforts targeting the group’s finances and recruiting
efforts, and plans to intensify the air campaign.

“Right now,” the president said, “we know of no specific and credible
intelligence indicating a plot on the homeland.” Exactly one week
later, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San
Bernardino, California. The married couple had sworn allegiance to the
Islamic State, but authorities concluded they had acted as lone wolves,
saying there was no intelligence that would’ve tipped them to the
attack. It rattled a nation already on edge, and eroded many Americans’
confidence in what their leaders were telling them.

Today, although ISIS has been significantly degraded in Iraq and
Syria, the group remains a serious threat as its ethos spreads to other
parts of the world.

Kelly acknowledged that his final years in uniform were the most
difficult to navigate. As he sees it, providing honest advice to those
who run the government is a fundamental responsibility of someone in his
position. While rising through the ranks, “the one thing I was always
told is you absolutely have to tell truth to power,” the general said.
“Whether you’re a second lieutenant working with a captain and a
lieutenant colonel, or a four-star general working with the Office
Secretary of Defense and the White House, the decision makers have got
to have ground truth. Otherwise, the decisions they make could be flawed
— and that can be dangerous.

“I’ve learned that, in many cases, people say ‘I want ground truth’
and they don’t really mean it. There are warts all over this
organization, as there are in many organizations, but you just have to
tell truth to power and let the chips fall where they may. I know a lot
of people may read that, if you put it in your story, and say ‘easy for
him; he’s a four-star.’ But I would say some of the most challenging
periods in my life, as a Marine officer, have been fairly recently,
where you get into that civilian-military thing and the truth is not
always welcome. It can cause some heartburn when you get a call from
certain people in Washington who say ‘it’s probably not a good idea to
go down that road anymore.’ But I say ‘hey, that’s the truth. I’m at a
congressional hearing, and they asked me a question. What am I going to
do, lie?’”

PEARL HARBOR: HAWAII WAS SURPRISED; FDR WAS NOT

PEARL HARBOR: HAWAII WAS SURPRISED; 
FDR WAS NOT 
BY JAMES PERLOFF
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
On Sunday, December 7, 1941, Japan launched a sneak attack on the
U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, shattering the peace of a beautiful
Hawaiian morning and leaving much of the fleet broken and burning. The
destruction and death that the Japanese military visited upon Pearl
Harbor that day — 18 naval vessels (including eight battleships) sunk or
heavily damaged, 188 planes destroyed, over 2,000 servicemen killed —
were exacerbated by the fact that American commanders in Hawaii were
caught by surprise. But that was not the case in Washington.


Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in
advance of the attack, but that it deliberately withheld its
foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the
“surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II. Oliver
Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, stated in 1944: “Japan was
provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of
history to say that America was forced into the war.”

Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the
Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public
pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans
opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that
U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a
1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: “I have said
this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are
not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”


But privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt
dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime
Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: “The
President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall
win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to
tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through,
no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far
as he has human power.” William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid
that American-British military staff talks began that same month under
“utmost secrecy,” which, he clarified, “meant preventing disclosure to
the American public.” Even Robert Sherwood, the president’s friendly
biographer, said: “If the isolationists had known the full extent of the
secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands
for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land.”


Background to Betrayal

Roosevelt’s intentions were nearly exposed in 1940 when Tyler Kent, a
code clerk at the U.S. embassy in London, discovered secret dispatches
between Roosevelt and Churchill. These revealed that FDR — despite
contrary campaign promises — was determined to engage America in the
war. Kent smuggled some of the documents out of the embassy, hoping to
alert the American public — but was caught. With U.S. government
approval, he was tried in a secret British court and confined to a
British prison until the war’s end.


During World War II’s early days, the president offered numerous
provocations to Germany: freezing its assets; shipping 50 destroyers to
Britain; and depth-charging U-boats. The Germans did not retaliate,
however. They knew America’s entry into World War I had shifted the
balance of power against them, and they shunned a repeat of that
scenario. FDR therefore switched his focus to Japan. Japan had signed a
mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy (the Tripartite Treaty).
Roosevelt knew that if Japan went to war with the United States, Germany
and Italy would be compelled to declare war on America — thus
entangling us in the European conflict by the back door. As Harold
Ickes, secretary of the Interior, said in October 1941: “For a long time
I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of
Japan.”


Much new light has been shed on Pearl Harbor through the recent work
of Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy veteran. Stinnett has
obtained numerous relevant documents through the Freedom of Information
Act. In Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor
(2000), the book so brusquely dismissed by director Bruckheimer,
Stinnett reveals that Roosevelt’s plan to provoke Japan began with a
memorandum from Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far
East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The memorandum advocated
eight actions predicted to lead Japan into attacking the United States.
McCollum wrote: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an
overt act of war, so much the better.” FDR enacted all eight of
McCollum’s provocative steps — and more.


While no one can excuse Japan’s belligerence in those days, it is
also true that our government provoked that country in various ways —
freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her
shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally
joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the
Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its
Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the
Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as
prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from
China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with
Germany and Italy.


After meeting with President Roosevelt on October 16, 1941, Secretary
of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary: “We face the delicate question
of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into
the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move.” On November 25,
the day before the ultimatum was sent to Japan’s ambassadors, Stimson
wrote in his diary: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the
Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot….”


The bait offered Japan was our Pacific Fleet. In 1940, Admiral J.O.
Richardson, the fleet’s commander, flew to Washington to protest FDR’s
decision to permanently base the fleet in Hawaii instead of its normal
berthing on the U.S. West Coast. The admiral had sound reasons: Pearl
Harbor was vulnerable to attack, being approachable from any direction;
it could not be effectively rigged with nets and baffles to defend
against torpedo planes; and in Hawaii it would be hard to supply and
train crews for his undermanned vessels. Pearl Harbor also lacked
adequate fuel supplies and dry docks, and keeping men far from their
families would create morale problems. The argument became heated. Said
Richardson: “I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken
word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into
the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected.”


Richardson was quickly relieved of command. Replacing him was Admiral
Husband E. Kimmel. Kimmel also informed Roosevelt of Pearl Harbor’s
deficiencies, but accepted placement there, trusting that Washington
would notify him of any intelligence pointing to attack. This proved to
be misplaced trust. As Washington watched Japan preparing to assault
Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel, as well as his Army counterpart in Hawaii,
General Walter C. Short, were completely sealed off from the
information pipeline.


Prior Knowledge

One of the most important elements in America’s foreknowledge of
Japan’s intentions was our government’s success in cracking Japan’s
secret diplomatic code known as “Purple.” Tokyo used it to communicate
to its embassies and consulates, including those in Washington and
Hawaii. The code was so complex that it was enciphered and deciphered by
machine. A talented group of American cryptoanalysts broke the code in
1940 and devised a facsimile of the Japanese machine. These, utilized by
the intelligence sections of both the War and Navy departments, swiftly
revealed Japan’s diplomatic messages. The deciphered texts were
nicknamed “Magic.”


Copies of Magic were always promptly delivered in locked pouches to
President Roosevelt, and the secretaries of State, War, and Navy. They
also went to Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall and to the
Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold Stark. However, although three
Purple decoding machines were allotted to Britain, none was sent to
Pearl Harbor. Intercepts of ciphered messages radioed between Tokyo and
its Honolulu consulate had to be forwarded to Washington for decrypting.
Thus Kimmel and Short, the Hawaiian commanders, were at the mercy of
Washington for feedback. A request for their own decoding machine was
rebuffed on the grounds that diplomatic traffic was of insufficient
interest to soldiers.


How untrue that was! On October 9, 1941, the War Department decoded a
Tokyo-to-Honolulu dispatch instructing the Consul General to divide
Pearl Harbor into five specified areas and to report the exact locations
of American ships therein.


There is nothing unusual about spies watching ship movements
— but reporting precise whereabouts of ships in dock has only one
implication. Charles Willoughby, Douglas MacArthur’s chief of
intelligence, later wrote that the “reports were on a grid system of the
inner harbor with coordinate locations of American men of war …
coordinate grid is the classical method for pinpoint target designation;
our battleships had suddenly become targets.” This information was
never sent to Kimmel or Short.


Additional intercepts were decoded by Washington, all within one day of their original transmission:

• November 5th: Tokyo notified its Washington ambassadors that November 25th was the deadline for an agreement with the U.S.

• November 11th: They were warned, “The situation is nearing a climax, and the time is getting short.”

• November 16th: The deadline was pushed up to November 29th. “The
deadline absolutely cannot be changed,” the dispatch said. “After that,
things are automatically going to happen.”


• November 29th (the U.S. ultimatum had now been received): The
ambassadors were told a rupture in negotiations was “inevitable,” but
that Japan’s leaders “do not wish you to give the impression that
negotiations are broken off.”


• November 30th: Tokyo ordered its Berlin embassy to inform the
Germans that “the breaking out of war may come quicker than anyone
dreams.”


• December 1st: The deadline was again moved ahead. “[T]o prevent the
United States from becoming unduly suspicious, we have been advising
the press and others that … the negotiations are continuing.”


• December 1st-2nd: The Japanese embassies in non-Axis nations around
the world were directed to dispose of their secret documents and all
but one copy of their codes. (This was for a reason easy to fathom —
when war breaks out, the diplomatic offices of a hostile state lose
their immunity and are normally overtaken. One copy of code was retained
so that final instructions could be received, after which the last code
copy would be destroyed.)


An additional warning came via the so-called “winds” message. A
November 18th intercept indicated that, if a break in U.S. relations
were forthcoming, Tokyo would issue a special radio warning. This would
not be in the Purple code, as it was intended to reach consulates and
lesser agencies of Japan not equipped with the code or one of its
machines. The message, to be repeated three times during a weather
report, was “Higashi no kaze ame,” meaning “East wind, rain.” “East
wind” signified the United States; “rain” signified diplomatic split —
in effect, war.


This prospective message was deemed so significant that U.S. radio
monitors were constantly watching for it, and the Navy Department typed
it up on special reminder cards. On December 4th, “Higashi no kaze ame”
was indeed broadcast and picked up by Washington intelligence.


On three different occasions since 1894, Japan had made surprise
attacks coinciding with breaks in diplomatic relations. This history was
not lost on President Roosevelt. Secretary Stimson, describing FDR’s
White House conference of November 25th, noted: “The President said the
Japanese were notorious for making an attack without warning and stated
that we might be attacked, say next Monday, for example.” Nor was it
lost on Washington’s senior military officers, all of them War College
graduates.


As Robert Stinnett has revealed, Washington was not only deciphering Japanese diplomatic messages, but naval dispatches
as well. President Roosevelt had access to these intercepts via his
routing officer, Lieutenant Commander McCollum, who had authored the
original eight-point plan of provocation to Japan. So much secrecy has
surrounded these naval dispatches that their existence was not revealed
during any of the ten Pearl Harbor investigations, even the mini-probe
Congress conducted in 1995. Most of Stinnett’s requests for documents
concerning Pearl Harbor have been denied as still classified, even under
the Freedom of Information Act.


It was long presumed that as the Japanese fleet approached Pearl
Harbor, it maintained complete radio silence. This is untrue. The fleet
barely observed discretion, let alone silence. Naval intelligence
intercepted and translated numerous dispatches, some clearly revealing
that Pearl Harbor had been targeted. The most significant was the
following, sent by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet on
November 26, 1941:


The task force, keeping its movement
strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and
aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening
of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet
and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of
x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.


So much official secrecy continues to surround the translations of
the intercepted Japanese naval dispatches that it is not known if the
foregoing message was sent to McCollum or seen by FDR. It is not even
known who originally translated the intercept. One thing, however, is
certain: The message’s significance could not have been lost on the
translator.


1941 also witnessed the following:

On January 27th, our ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, sent a message
to Washington stating: “The Peruvian Minister has informed a member of
my staff that he has heard from many sources, including a Japanese
source, that in the event of trouble breaking out between the United
States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack
against Pearl Harbor with all their strength….”


On November 3rd, still relying on informants, Grew notified Secretary
of State Cordell Hull: “War with the United States may come with
dramatic and dangerous suddenness.” He sent an even stronger warning on
November 17th.


Congressman Martin Dies would write:

Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came
into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the
intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The
strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military
Intelligence Department. As soon as I received the document I telephoned
Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him what I had. Secretary Hull
directed me not to let anyone know about the map and stated that he
would call me as soon as he talked to President Roosevelt. In about an
hour he telephoned to say that he had talked to Roosevelt and they
agreed that it would be very serious if any information concerning this
map reached the news services…. I told him it was a grave
responsibility to withhold such vital information from the public. The
Secretary assured me that he and Roosevelt considered it essential to national defense.


Dusko Popov was a Yugoslav who worked as a double agent for both
Germany and Britain. His true allegiance was to the Allies. In the
summer of 1941, the Nazis ordered Popov to Hawaii to make a detailed
study of Pearl Harbor and its nearby airfields. The agent deduced that
the mission betokened a surprise attack by the Japanese. In August, he
fully reported this to the FBI in New York. J. Edgar Hoover later
bitterly recalled that he had provided warnings to FDR about Pearl
Harbor, but that Roosevelt told him not to pass the information any
further and to just leave it in his (the president’s) hands.


Kilsoo Haan, of the Sino-Korean People’s League, received definite
word from the Korean underground that the Japanese were planning to
assault Hawaii “before Christmas.” In November, after getting nowhere
with the State Department, Haan convinced Iowa Senator Guy Gillette of
his claim’s merit. Gillette briefed the president, who laconically
thanked him and said it would be looked into.


In Java, in early December, the Dutch Army decoded a dispatch from
Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, forecasting attacks on four sites
including Hawaii. The Dutch passed the information to Brigadier General
Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer. Thorpe sent Washington a
total of four warnings. The last went to General Marshall’s intelligence
chief. Thorpe was ordered to send no further messages concerning the
matter. The Dutch also had their Washington military attaché, Colonel
Weijerman, personally warn General Marshall.


Captain Johann Ranneft, the Dutch naval attaché in Washington, who
was awarded the Legion of Merit for his services to America, recorded
revealing details in his diary. On December 2nd, he visited the Office
of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Ranneft inquired about the Pacific. An
American officer, pointing to a wall map, said, “This is the Japanese
Task Force proceeding East.” It was a spot midway between Japan and
Hawaii. On December 6th, Ranneft returned and asked where the Japanese
carriers were. He was shown a position on the map about 300-400 miles
northwest of Pearl Harbor. Ranneft wrote: “I ask what is the meaning of
these carriers at this location; whereupon I receive the answer that it
is probably in connection with Japanese reports of eventual American
action…. I myself do not think about it because I believe that
everyone in Honolulu is 100 percent on the alert, just like everyone
here at O.N.I.”


On November 29th, Secretary of State Cordell Hull secretly met with
freelance newspaper writer Joseph Leib. Leib had formerly held several
posts in the Roosevelt administration. Hull knew him and felt he was one
newsman he could trust. The secretary of state handed him copies of
some of the Tokyo intercepts concerning Pearl Harbor. He said the
Japanese were planning to strike the base and that FDR planned to let it
happen. Hull made Leib pledge to keep his name out of it, but hoped he
could blow the story sky-high in the newspapers.


Leib ran to the office of his friend Lyle Wilson, the Washington
bureau chief of United Press. While keeping his pledge to Hull, he told
Wilson the details and showed him the intercepts. Wilson replied that
the story was ludicrous and refused to run it. Through connections, Leib
managed to get a hurried version onto UP’s foreign cable, but only one
newspaper carried any part of it.


After Pearl Harbor, Lyle Wilson called Leib to his office. He handed
him a copy of FDR’s just-released “day of infamy” speech. The two men
wept. Leib recounted his story in the History Channel documentary,
“Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor.”


The foregoing represents just a sampling of evidence that Washington knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack. For additional evidences, see Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland, and Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.*
So certain was the data that, at a private press briefing in November
1941, General George Marshall confidently predicted that a
Japanese-American war would break out during the “first ten days of
December.”


However, none of this information was passed to our commanders in
Hawaii, Kimmel and Short, with the exception of Ambassador Grew’s
January warning, a copy of which reached Kimmel on February 1st. To
allay any concerns, Lieutenant Commander McCollum — who originated the
plan to incite Japan to war — wrote Kimmel: “Naval Intelligence places
no credence in these rumors. Furthermore, based on known data regarding
the present disposition and deployment of Japanese naval and army
forces, no move against Pearl Harbor appears imminent or planned for in
the foreseeable future.”


Sitting Ducks

To ensure a successful Japanese attack — one that would enrage
America into joining the war — it was vital to keep Kimmel and Short out
of the intelligence loop. However, Washington did far more than this to
facilitate the Japanese assault.


On November 25th, approximately one hour after the Japanese attack
force left port for Hawaii, the U.S. Navy issued an order forbidding
U.S. and Allied shipping to travel via the North Pacific. All
transpacific shipping was rerouted through the South Pacific. This order
was even applied to Russian ships docked on the American west coast.
The purpose is easy to fathom. If any commercial ship accidentally
stumbled on the Japanese task force, it might alert Pearl Harbor. As
Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner, the Navy’s War Plans officer in 1941,
frankly stated: “We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war
was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that
the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic.”


The Hawaiian commanders have traditionally been censured for failing
to detect the approaching Japanese carriers. What goes unsaid is that
Washington denied them the means to do so. An army marching overland
toward a target is easily spotted. But Hawaii is in the middle of the
ocean. Its approaches are limitless and uninhabited. During the week
before December 7th, naval aircraft searched more than two million
square miles of the Pacific — but never saw the Japanese force. This is
because Kimmel and Short had only enough planes to survey one-third of
the 360-degree arc around them, and intelligence had advised
(incorrectly) that they should concentrate on the Southwest.


Radar, too, was insufficient. There were not enough trained
surveillance pilots. Many of the reconnaissance craft were old and
suffered from a lack of spare parts. The commanders’ repeated requests
to Washington for additional patrol planes were turned down. Rear
Admiral Edward T. Layton, who served at Pearl Harbor, summed it up in
his book And I Was There:
“There was never any hint in any intelligence received by the local
command of any Japanese threat to Hawaii. Our air defenses were stripped
on orders from the army chief himself. Of the twelve B-17s on the
island, only six could be kept in the air by cannibalizing the others
for spare parts.”


The Navy has traditionally followed the rule that, when international
relations are critical, the fleet puts to sea. That is exactly what
Admiral Kimmel did. Aware that U.S.-Japanese relations were
deteriorating, he sent 46 warships safely into the North Pacific in late
November 1941 — without notifying Washington. He even ordered the fleet
to conduct a mock air raid on Pearl Harbor, clairvoyantly selecting the
same launch site Admiral Yamamoto chose two weeks later.


When the White House learned of Kimmel’s move it countermanded his
orders and ordered all ships returned to dock, using the dubious excuse
that Kimmel’s action might provoke the Japanese. Washington knew that if
the two fleets met at sea, and engaged each other, there might be
questions about who fired the first shot.


Kimmel did not give up, however. With the exercise canceled, his
carrier chief, Vice Admiral William “Bull” Halsey, issued plans for a
25-ship task force to guard against an “enemy air and submarine attack”
on Pearl Harbor. The plan never went into effect. On November 26th,
Admiral Stark, Washington’s Chief of Naval Operations, ordered Halsey to
use his carriers to transport fighter planes to Wake and Midway islands
— further depleting Pearl Harbor’s air defenses.


It was clear, of course, that once disaster struck Pearl Harbor,
there would be demands for accountability. Washington seemed to artfully
take this into account by sending an ambiguous “war warning” to Kimmel,
and a similar one to Short, on November 27th. This has been used for
years by Washington apologists to allege that the commanders should have
been ready for the Japanese.


Indeed, the message began conspicuously: “This dispatch is to be
considered a war warning.” But it went on to state: “The number and
equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces
indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra
Peninsula, or possibly Borneo.” None of these areas was closer than
5,000 miles to Hawaii! No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended
with the words: “Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures
against sabotage.” The message further stated that “measures should be
carried out so as not repeat not to alarm civil population.” Both
commanders reported the actions taken to Washington. Short followed
through with sabotage precautions, bunching his planes together (which
hinders saboteurs but makes ideal targets for bombers), and Kimmel
stepped up air surveillance and sub searches. If their response to the
“war warning” was insufficient, Washington said nothing. The next day, a
follow-up message from Marshall’s adjutant general to Short warned
only: “Initiate forthwith all additional measures necessary to provide
for protection of your establishments, property, and equipment against
sabotage, protection of your personnel against subversive propaganda and
protection of all activities against espionage.”


Thus things stood as Japan prepared to strike. Using the Purple code,
Tokyo sent a formal statement to its Washington ambassadors. It was to
be conveyed to the American Secretary of State on Sunday, December 7th.
The statement terminated relations and was tantamount to a declaration
of war. On December 6th, in Washington, the War and Navy departments had
already decrypted the first 13 parts of this 14-part message. Although
the final passage officially severing ties had not yet come through, the
fiery wording made its meaning obvious. Later that day, when Lieutenant
Lester Schulz delivered to President Roosevelt his copy of the
intercept, Schulz heard FDR say to his advisor, Harry Hopkins, “This
means war.”


During subsequent Pearl Harbor investigations, both General Marshall,
Army Chief of Staff, and Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations,
denied any recollection of where they had been on the evening of
December 6th — despite Marshall’s reputation for a photographic memory.
But James G. Stahlman, a close friend of Navy Secretary Frank Knox, said
Knox told him FDR convened a high-level meeting at the White House that
evening. Knox, Marshall, Stark, and War Secretary Stimson attended.
Indeed, with the nation on war’s threshold, such a conference only made
sense. That same evening, the Navy Department received a request from
Stimson for a list of the whereabouts of all ships in the Pacific.


On the morning of December 7th, the final portion of Japan’s lengthy
message to the U.S. government was decoded. Tokyo added two special
directives to its ambassadors. The first directive, which the message
called “very important,” was to deliver the statement at 1 p.m. The
second directive ordered that the last copy of code, and the machine
that went with it, be destroyed. The gravity of this was immediately
recognized in the Navy Department: Japan had a long history of
synchronizing attacks with breaks in relations; Sunday was an abnormal
day to deliver diplomatic messages — but the best for trying to catch
U.S. armed forces at low vigilance; and 1 p.m. in Washington was shortly
after dawn in Hawaii!


Admiral Stark arrived at his office at 9:25 a.m. He was shown the
message and the important delivery time. One junior officer pointed out
the possibility of an attack on Hawaii; another urged that Kimmel be
notified. But Stark refused; he did nothing all morning. Years later, he
told the press that his conscience was clear concerning Pearl Harbor
because all his actions had been dictated by a “higher authority.” As
Chief of Naval Operations, Stark had only one higher authority:
Roosevelt.


In the War Department, where the 14-part statement had also been
decoded, Colonel Rufus Bratton, head of the Army’s Far Eastern section,
discerned the message’s significance. But the chief of intelligence told
him nothing could be done until Marshall arrived. Bratton tried
reaching Marshall at home, but was repeatedly told the general was out
horseback riding. The horseback ride turned out to be a long one. When
Bratton finally reached Marshall by phone and told him of the emergency,
Marshall said he would come to the War Department. Marshall took 75
minutes to make the 10-minute drive. He didn’t come to his office until
11:25 a.m. — an extremely late hour with the nation on the brink of war.
He perused the Japanese message and was shown the delivery time. Every
officer in Marshall’s office agreed these indicated an attack in the
Pacific at about 1 p.m. EST. The general finally agreed that Hawaii
should be alerted, but time was running out.


Marshall had only to pick up his desk phone to reach Pearl Harbor on
the transpacific line. Doing so would not have averted the attack, but
at least our men would have been at their battle stations. Instead, the
general wrote a dispatch. After it was encoded it went to the Washington
office of Western Union. From there it was relayed to San Francisco.
From San Francisco it was transmitted via RCA commercial radio to
Honolulu. General Short received it six hours after the attack. Two
hours later it reached Kimmel. One can imagine their exasperation on
reading it.


Despite all the evidence accrued through Magic and other sources
during the previous months, Marshall had never warned Hawaii. To
historians — ignorant of that classified evidence — it would appear the
general had tried to save Pearl Harbor, “but alas, too late.” Similarly,
FDR sent a last-minute plea for peace to Emperor Hirohito. Although
written a week earlier, he did not send it until the evening of December
6th. It was to be delivered by Ambassador Grew, who would be unable to
receive an audience with the emperor before December 8th. Thus the
message could not conceivably have forestalled the attack — but
posterity would think that FDR, too, had made “a valiant, last effort.”


The Roberts Commission, assigned to investigate the Japanese attack,
consisted of personal cronies of Roosevelt and Marshall. The Commission
fully absolved Washington and declared that America was caught off guard
due to “dereliction of duty” by Kimmel and Short. The wrath of America
for these two was exceeded only by its wrath for Tokyo. To this day,
many believe it was negligence by the Hawaii commanders that made the
Pearl Harbor disaster possible.


* Though a major exposer of the Pearl Harbor
conspiracy, Robert Stinnett is sympathetic regarding FDR’s motives. He
writes in his book: “As a veteran of the Pacific War, I felt a sense of
outrage as I uncovered secrets that had been hidden from Americans for
more than fifty years. But I understood the agonizing dilemma faced by
President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade
an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom.” In our view, a
government that is allowed to operate in such fashion is a government
that has embarked on a dangerous, slippery slope toward dictatorship.
Nonetheless, Stinnett’s position on FDR’s motives makes his exposé of
FDR’s actions all the more compelling.


This article, slightly revised, originally appeared under the
title “Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction” in the June 4, 2001
issue of
The New American.


Photo at top: AP Images

Related articles:

Pearl Harbor: Motives Behind the Betrayal

Pearl Harbor: Scapegoating Kimmel and Short

THE ULTIMATE FAKE NEWS LIST

 The Ultimate "Fake News" List
THE ULTIMATE FAKE NEWS LIST 
 The mainstream media is the primary source of the most harmful, most inaccurate news ever
BY  Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Isn’t it ironic how the mainstream media has the nerve to lecture everyone else 
about “fake news” when they are the primary source of fake news on a 
consistent basis stretching back years?
Fake
news stories and fake narratives put out by the mainstream media have
resulted in deaths, destruction and people’s lives being ruined.

RELATED: PETITION: DEFEND INDEPENDENT MEDIA FROM ‘FAKE NEWS’ ATTACKS

The most harmful fake news is routinely published by the mainstream media. They are the main progenitors of fake news.
– The fake news that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was involved in 9/11,
dutifully regurgitated without question by the mainstream media,
resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, thousands of dead and
injured U.S. troops, and the destabilization of an entire continent.
– The fake news that the rebels in Syria were “moderates” who did not have jihadist sympathies and should be supported led to the destruction of Syria, Libya and the rise of ISIS.

The fake news narrative that the media was balanced in its coverage of
the presidential election was completely obliterated when Wikileaks
emails revealed that countless mainstream media reporters were in bed with the Clinton campaign, feeding them debate questions beforehand and conspiring with Hillary’s staff to portray her in a positive light.
– The fake news that George Zimmerman was obsessed with Trayvon Martin’s race before the altercation that led to Martin’s death was accomplished by means of NBC deceptively editing an audio tape.
This incident stoked racial tensions across the country and laid the
groundwork for the violent ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement that was to
follow.
– The fake news that produced the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative, which was proven to be completely fraudulent,
led to riots, violent attacks and looting in Ferguson, Missouri, as
well as numerous other U.S. cities. Even after the rioting began, the
mainstream media continued to legitimize the unrest. Fake news outlets continued to parrot the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative even after it was proven false.
– The fake news that saw innumerable people accused of rape at college campuses across America, claims that were proven wrong, ruined people’s lives and perpetuated the myth (fake news) that one in five women are raped on college campuses.
– The fake news that George W. Bush served dishonorably during his time in the Air National Guard was broadcast by CBS News with the aid of fake documents.
In circulating this fake news, CBS tried to influence the 2004
presidential election but only ended up crucifying their own
credibility, leading to Dan Rather’s resignation six months later.
– The fake news that NBC anchor Brian Williams faced enemy fire
while helicoptering into Iraq in 2003 was exposed when soldiers who
were aboard the helicopter blew the whistle on his lies. Despite
admittedly putting out fake news, Williams still has a career in
broadcast journalism.
– The fake news narrative that Donald Trump somehow represents the next coming of Hitler has provoked a hysterical anti-Trump hate crime wave
across America, with people and property being attacked on a routine
basis. The same hysterical fake news narrative was also responsible for
violence and riots at Trump events throughout the campaign cycle, as
well as assassination attempts on Trump’s life.
– The fake news that Donald Trump had no chance whatsoever of winning the presidential election was proudly pushed by countless mainstream media outlets, with the Huffington Post
even predicting that Hillary Clinton had a 98% chance of winning the
presidency. When this fake news narrative was completely demolished on
November 8, it swept away trust in political polling and the mainstream
media to an even greater degree, prompting the backlash that you now see
with the corporate press calling everyone else “fake news” when they
are the real fake news.
FULL LIST OF FAKE NEWS OUTLETS
– The New York Times
– The Washington Post
– CNN
– NBC News
– MSNBC
– CBS News
– ABC News
– Salon.com
– The Huffington Post
– Rolling Stone
– BBC News
– Sky News
– Financial Times
– Politico
– New York Daily News
– L.A. Times
– USA Today
– US News & World Report
– CBC
– Gawker
– Newsweek
– Time
– Business Insider
– Daily Beast
– VICE
– Yahoo News
– Daily Kos
– Young Turks
– Slate
– NPR
– PBS
– Raw Story
– New Yorker
– Buzzfeed
– MoveOn
– Think Progress
– Media Matters
– Wonkette
– Center for American Progress
– Little Green Footballs
– The Economist
Below is a list of fake news reporters who colluded with the Clinton campaign to promote fake news.
This
list is by no means exhaustive, and there are many reporters within
these organizations who do not peddle fake news and have spoken out
against the mainstream media’s effort to brand dissenting opinion as
“fake news”.
For example, Matt Taibbi (no fan of Infowars), has called the Washington Post’s fake news blacklist “disgusting” and “shameful”.
Glenn Greenwald, who has worked with several of the organizations on this list in the past, also completely eviscerated the credibility of the “fake news list” being used by the Washington Post.
The
entire “fake news” narrative being pushed by the mainstream media has
nothing whatsoever to do with concerns over people being misled.
If
that were the case, the mainstream media itself would stop habitually
lying to the American people and it’s trustworthiness wouldn’t be in the
toilet.
The whole “fake news” narrative is clearly part of a dirty tricks campaign to pressure governments,
Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other tech giants to censor
information that is inconvenient to the establishment, for which the
mainstream media serves as a mouthpiece.
We
are competing with the mainstream media and they’re not happy about
dissident voices challenging their monopoly on reality. That’s why
they’re forced to resort to underhanded and deceptive means through
which to silence their ideological opposition.
By
circulating this article and this fake news list, we are not calling
for these outlets to be censored, we are simply drawing attention to the
fact that the very same entities who cry “fake news” are the primary
sources for the most damaging, harmful and woefully inaccurate fake news
stories in the history of modern journalism.


 
 

MAX LUCADO’S HERESIES & ECUMENICAL CONFUSION

 max-lucado
MAX LUCADO’S HERESIES & ECUMENICAL CONFUSION 
BY DAVID CLOUD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Enlarged December 8, 2016 (first published September 4, 1998)
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143,
[email protected] 
 
Max
Lucado [pictured] is one of the most prominent and influential
evangelical leaders on the scene today. His positive-oriented books and
sermons are sold in most Christian bookstores, including the Southern
Baptist LifeWay stores. He is a popular speaker at a wide range of
conferences, including Promise Keepers, National Religious Broadcasters,
and National Association of Evangelicals.

BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION
Lucado
is pastor of the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas. In
June 1997, I talked with Lucado on the phone as well as with Elder Doyle
Jennings of the Oak Hills Church. Both stated that they believe that
baptism is necessary for salvation, but they do not believe in
“baptismal regeneration.”

Thus we see that they have added
baptism to the grace of Christ for salvation. This is standard Church of
Christ error, and it is a very serious matter for it constitutes a
false gospel.

Lucado has never renounced Church of Christ heresy
and has maintained a close relationship with Pepperdine University and
Abeline Christian University, both staunch Church of Christ
institutions. A Pepperdine spokesman told Dennis Costella, editor of Foundation magazine, that Lucado has been featured seven times at Pepperdine lectureships (Foundation,
March-April 2000). Costella was in a unique position to judge these
things because he grew up in the Church of Christ and graduated from
Pepperdine before repenting of Church of Christ heresies.
ETERNAL SECURITY NOT AN ISSUE
Elder
Jennings said he does not accept the doctrine of eternal security,
while Lucado said this doctrine is not an issue in the church and elders
and people are free to accept it or reject it. This is very telling
since a proper understanding of salvation results in eternal security
for the believer. Those who believe a born again child of God can lose
his salvation simply do not understand the gospel.

Consider the following biblical truths about salvation. These could be greatly enlarged.

1. Salvation cannot be lost because it is a free gift of God’s grace that cannot be mixed with works (Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 3:3-8; Rom. 3:19-24; 4:4-6; 11:6).
A gift means I receive something I do not earn; it refers to something
that it absolutely free and unmerited. How can a gift be taken away? If
it can be taken away, it ceases to be a gift!

2. Salvation cannot be lost because it is by imputation and substitution (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 2:20; Heb. 9:10; Rom. 4:5).
Salvation is an exchange. Christ takes the believing sinner’s place in
condemnation, and the believer takes Christ’s place in righteousness.
Christ imparts to the sinner something he does not have and does not
deserve (righteousness). That is the meaning of the term
“justification.” It means that the believing sinner is declared
righteous on the basis of Christ’s atonement. How can such a thing be
lost?

3. Salvation cannot be lost because it is an eternally new
position in Christ. See Ephesians 1-3. The phrase “in Christ” is used
25 times. The theme of those chapters is the believer’s position in
Christ. In contrast, Ephesians 4-6 describe the believer’s walk in this
world. The term “walk” is used nine times in those chapters. This
teaches us the important truth that salvation is a matter of position
and practice, relationship and fellowship, union and communion, standing
and state. The believer’s position and relationship with Christ is
eternally secure the moment he is born again into God’s family, whereas
his practice and fellowship change according to how he lives. The
believer is a child of God forever though he might not be walking in
sweet fellowship every day of his earthly sojourn. See Eph. 4:1, 30; 5:1, 3, 8, where this teaching is described.

4.
The blessings of salvation cannot be lost because of the teaching of
election. Election does not destroy human responsibility (2 Th. 2:10-13; also compare Acts 13:46 with Acts 13:48). But divine election does promise security for the believer (Rom. 8:28-39). Predestination is not God choosing only some to be saved; it is God choosing the destiny of those who are saved (Rom. 8:29). Election guarantees glorification (Rom. 8:30) and promises that there will be no condemnation (Rom. 8:31-34; 1 Pet. 1:2-5).

5. Salvation cannot be lost because of the value of Christ’s blood (Rom. 3:24-25).
The term “redeemed” refers to the price that was paid for our
salvation. It describes the purchase of a slave and the setting free of
that redeemed slave to serve the new loving Master. The term
“propitiation” also refers to the price of salvation. It refers to the
satisfaction of a debt or the price that is paid for the slave. 1 Corinthians 6:20 says we are bought with a price. 1 Peter 1:18-19 says the price was the blood of Christ, which is precious, meaning valuable. Romans 5:20
teaches that the price paid is much greater than the debt. If I can
lose my salvation, it means that the price paid for it was not
sufficient, that I must add something to it and if I do not add my part,
I will be lost. Such a teaching greatly devalues the blood of Christ.

The doctrine of eternal security is the natural result of a right understanding of the gospel of salvation.
DOCTRINE NOT VERY IMPORTANT
In
my phone conversation with Max Lucado and with Elder Jennings, I got
the distinct impression that doctrine was not very important to them.
After I hung up the phone from talking with Lucado, I wrote the
following summary of my observations:

“Lucado said he represents
a ‘movement of grace’ in the Churches of Christ, ‘a move away from
legalism.’ I sense that we are seeing a movement away from the older
rigid doctrinal positions of the various denominations by the younger
men who have taken charge. I saw another example of this in a recent
article in Charisma
magazine about the United Pentecostal Church. It said some of the
younger men are not satisfied with the past legalism and are willing to
modify some of the finer points of their doctrinal position for the sake
of ecumenism. Even the cults are joining in this movement, represented
by the Worldwide Church of God. These new leaders are ecumenical and
make no great issue of doctrine. Finer points of doctrine are
meaningless. That is why something as important as eternal security is a
non-issue with them. IT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY MORE DIFFICULT TO
PINPOINT THE HERESY OF HERETICAL CHURCHES. THE EASY-GOING,
DOCTRINALLY-GENERIC CHURCH IS BECOMING THE NORM” (David Cloud, June 9,
1997).
ECUMENISM
Lucado
holds an unscriptural view of Christian unity that is helping to break
down the walls of separation between truth and error and that is
preparing the way for the building of a one-world apostate “church.”

Lucado
helped organize an ecumenical alliance of pastors in his hometown,
which had grown to more than 100 some years back. The pastors were
learning to “put away differences” in order to deepen personal
relationships. The alliance includes women pastors, charismatics, and
others. Cindy Daniel, for example, is co-pastor with her husband of
Expect a Miracle Church. Newman Dollar, pastor of City View Christian
Fellowship, who, with Lucado, was one of the founders of this ecumenical
fellowship, told the San Antonio Express-News (Feb. 19, 2000) that he wants to see more pastors from Catholic churches participating.

Lucado
was a signer of the deceptive “The Gift of Salvation” agreement between
evangelicals and Catholics in November 1997. This declaration was also
known as “Evangelicals and Catholics Together II.” We exposed the danger
and error of this statement in the article “Evangelicals and Catholics
Confusing the Gift of Salvation.” We observed that “The Gift of
Salvation” is a bland and, in the ecumenical context, insufficient
affirmation of the doctrine of biblical justification. In typical New
Evangelical fashion, the evangelical authors and signers omitted many
things that are necessary to properly delineate the true Bible Gospel
from the false Roman Catholic one. For the most part, what they stated
about justification is not inherently unscriptural; THE MOST SERIOUS
PROBLEM LIES IN WHAT THEY FAILED TO STATE. This, of course, is the root
error of New Evangelicalism.

Lucado’s unscriptural view of unity
was also evident when he spoke at the 1996 Promise Keepers Clergy
Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. According to Promise Keeper leader Dale
Schlafer, priests, bishops and pastors were present from every
denomination in America. In fact, Promise Keepers had a Roman Catholic
director for a couple of years, and Catholic priests have spoken at
Promise Keepers events.

Lucado’s message at the Clergy
Conference dealt with “Denominational Harmony: From Bondage to Freedom.”
Lucado said, “I submit myself to the Word and there are core beliefs.
However, for too long we have allowed our differences to divide us
instead of our agreements to unite us.” He urged the men to subscribe to
the premise, “In essentials unity–in non-essentials charity.”

The
principle “in essentials unity–in non-essentials charity” is a
smokescreen for disobedience to God’s Word. While not every teaching of
Scripture is of equal importance, the Bible does not divide doctrine
into essential and non-essential. Timothy’s job in Ephesus was to make
certain that NO OTHER DOCTRINE be allowed (1 Timothy 1:3).
There is no hint here that some portions of apostolic truth are
“non-essential.” Paul labored to preach THE WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD (Acts 20:27).
The man who strives to be faithful to every part of New Testament truth
will find it impossible to be comfortable in an ecumenical environment.
As one wise man observed, “You will have a limited fellowship, or you
will have a limited message.”

Lucado had the 40,000 men shout
the names of their denominations all together. The result was confusion,
of course. Lucado then asked the crowd to state who was the Messiah.
The ensuing response, “Jesus,” was heard plainly. The evident goal of
this clever little exercise was to demonstrate the beauty and simplicity
of ecumenical unity.

In Atlanta, Lucado claimed that “the sin of disunity causes people to go to hell!”

He
then stated: “The step to unity is acceptance and no longer to speak
evil of one another. WOULD IT NOT BE WONDERFUL NOT TO BE KNOWN AS EITHER
PROTESTANT OR CATHOLIC? This is a God-sized dream and no one in our
generation has ever seen the Church united.”

This is not a
God-sized dream; it is the vision of the religious Harlot that John
recorded in Revelation 17. Promise Keepers is confused about the church.
The true church is not composed of all of the alleged Christian
denominations. The focus on the New Testament Scriptures is upon the
church as a local body of baptized believers organized according to the
apostolic pattern for the fulfillment of the Great Commission. This is
the church that is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
To define the “church” as the denominations of our day and to call for
this hodgepodge of doctrinal and moral error “to stand together” is
utter confusion. The denominations today are more akin to the Harlot of
Revelation 17 than to the church of Jesus Christ.

According to
Ralph Colas’s eyewitness report of the 1996 Promise Keepers Clergy
Conference, “LUCADO THEN PLEAD THAT EVERY CLERGYMAN WHO HAD EVER SPOKEN
AGAINST ANOTHER GROUP OR DENOMINATION, FIND A MEMBER OF THAT GROUP AND
APOLOGIZE. Contemporary Christian singer Steve Green then belted out
repeatedly ‘Let the Walls Come Down.’ The 40,000 ministers shouted,
whistled, clapped, and cheered as they worked to a higher and higher
pitch of emotion” (An Eyewitness Report on the 1996 Clergy Conference for Men, Atlanta, Georgia, February 13-15, 1996).

We
are to apologize for warning people of false gospels and false baptisms
and false spirits and false Christs and false sacraments and false
mediators and false views of the church and false views of Scripture? We
are to apologize for warning of sin and worldliness and compromise? I
have spoken against many Christian groups and denominations, because God
commands me to preach the truth AND to expose error (2 Timothy 4:1-6).
I refuse to apologize for striving to obey God. By God’s grace I am
going to keep on exposing error until the Lord takes me to Glory. And by
God’s grace I am going to name names and be specific about the error
and the sin so that those who have an ear will be able to heed the
warning.

In his book In the Grip of Grace, Lucado thanks God for the Pentecostals, Anglicans, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics.

Lucado
is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He would have God’s people ignore false
teaching for the sake of unity, and that is nowhere taught in Scripture.
We are to mark and avoid false teachers (Rom. 16:17) and avoid those who “have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:5).
We are to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints
(Jude 3), and it is impossible to earnestly contend for sound doctrine
and to strive for ecumenical unity at the same time. Paul didn’t seek
unity with heretics; he reproved them sharply (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:35-36; Gal. 5:7-10; Col 2:8).
CONTEMPLATIVE MYSTICISM
Lucado gave his support to contemplative prayer with the publication of Cure for the Common Life. In this dangerous book he promotes the Buddhist-Catholic monk Thomas Merton who taught panentheism and universalism.
Merton was “a strong builder of bridges between East and West” (Twentieth-Century Mystics, p. 39). The Yoga Journal made the following observation:
“Merton
had encountered Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Taoism and Vedanta [Hinduism]
many years prior to his Asian journey. MERTON WAS ABLE TO UNCOVER THE
STREAM WHERE THE WISDOM OF EAST AND WEST MERGE AND FLOW TOGETHER, BEYOND
DOGMA, IN THE DEPTHS OF INNER EXPERIENCE. … Merton embraced the
spiritual philosophies of the East and integrated this wisdom into [his]
own life through direct practice” (
Yoga Journal, Jan.-Feb. 1999, quoted from the Lighthouse Trails web site).
Merton was a student of Zen master D.T. Suzuki and Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh. The titles of Merton’s books include
Zen and the Birds of the Appetite and Mystics and the Zen Masters.
Merton said: “I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity.
The future of Zen is in the West. I intend to become as good a Buddhist
as I can” (David Steindl-Rast, “Recollection of Thomas Merton’s Last
Days in the West,”
Monastic Studies, 7:10, 1969, http://www.gratefulness.org/readings/dsr_merton_recol2.htm).
Merton
adopted the heresy that within every man is a pure spark of divine
illumination and that men can know God through a variety of paths:
“At
the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by
sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which
belongs entirely to God. It is like a pure diamond blazing with the
invisible light of heaven. It is in everybody. I have no program for
saying this. It is only given, but the gate of heaven is everywhere” (
Soul Searching: The Journey of Thomas Merton, 2007, DVD).
Merton
said that monks of all religions are “brothers” and are “already one.”
At an interfaith meeting in Calcutta, India, in 1968, sponsored by the
Temple of Understanding, Merton said:
“I
came with the notion of perhaps saying something for monks and to monks
of all religions because I am supposed to be a monk. … My dear
brothers, WE ARE ALREADY ONE. BUT WE IMAGINE THAT WE ARE NOT. And what
we have to recover is our original unity. What we have to be is what we
are” (“Thomas Merton’s View of Monasticism,” a talk delivered at
Calcutta, October 1968,
The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, 1975 edition, appendix III, p. 308).
Merton used the terms God, Krishna, and Tao interchangeably.

In
2009 I visited the Abbey of Gethsemani in Kentucky, where Merton lived
and where he is buried. Many books were on display that promote
interfaith unity. These include
Zen Keys by Thich Nhat Hanh, Bhagavad Gita (Hindu scriptures), Buddhists Talk about Jesus and Christians Talk about Buddha, Meeting Islam: A Guide for Christians, and Jesus in the World’s Faiths.

For
Lucado to quote Merton and to refer to him in a positive way is
inexcusable and is evidence that he has made a total commitment to
contemplative mysticism, regardless of what lame excuses he might make.

Lucado also quotes New Age mystic Martin Buber’s The Way of Man.
Lucado promotes Buber’s New Age heresy that every man has a “divine
spark.” He further quotes Catholic “saint” Thomas Aquinas, Eugene
Peterson, and Richard Foster, the most prominent popularizer of Catholic
mysticism today.

Lucado tries to package Catholic contemplative
mysticism as an innocent and Scriptural evangelical practice. He even
says it is not “mystical,” but this is false as we have proven in our
free eBook Evangelicals and Contemplative Mysticism.
May
God help us have the courage in these evil hours to honor and obey Him
rather than man, to refuse to follow the crowd that refuses to follow
the Bible.

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you
of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and
exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).