According to American Thinker columnist, Pamela Geller, “That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit…According to journalist Avi Lipkin,  Gheit appeared on Nile TV’s ‘Round Table Show’ in January, on which he said that ‘he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda.’”

Geller reports that during a private meeting with Gheit, Obama said he would soon deal with Israel: “He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare) [sic], that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel.”

I don’t know if Gheit is telling the truth or not, but shouldn’t the mainstream media be reporting on this?  It would certainly explain a lot.

King believes that there is such a thing as evil.  But what sets him apart from others is that he recognizes that there is something supernatural about it.  Like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, I suspect he would recognize that the line between good and evil runs through the center of every human heart.  But he also understands that evil is not just a product of the human heart.   There is something spiritual and, yes, demonic about it.  One of the best examples I can think of to illustrate this is antisemitism and what Dennis Prager and Rabi Joseph Telushkin correctly identify as its “latest incarnation,” Israel-hatred. 

We are living in a time in which it has become fashionable to hate Israel.  It should be noted that there is a difference between criticism and hatred, and Israel is not above criticism.  But when examined closely, most “criticism” of Israel nothing more than antisemitism in a new suit.  New York Times Columnist, Thomas Friedman, said it well: “Criticizing Israel is not Anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile.  But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction – out of all proportion to any other part in the Middle East – is Anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.”

I encountered this evil recently at my mother-in-law’s funeral.  One of my wife’s cousins and I were talking about the possibility of a New War in the Middle East.  During the course of our conversation I expressed my concerns that Hezbollah might launch a chemical or biological attack against Israel.  To my astonishment, my wife’s cousin said, “Good, it would serve them right.”  

I was shocked to think that anyone would look upon the deaths of millions of men, women and children as a good thing, and I said so.  To which he responded, “They made their own bed, let them sleep in it.”

When I asked him what he was talking about, he pointed to the treatment of the Palestinian people.  I asked him what he thought Israel should do.  He said they should allow the creation of a Palestinian state.  I pointed out that Israel has been willing to do this from the beginning, and that such a state has been offered several times since, but that the Palestinians have refused it because they are unwilling to accept the existence of a Jewish State.    

The conversation began t o heat up at this point, as he insisted that the problem was that Israel is unwilling to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians.  I asked him how you can negotiate with someone whose starting point is  that you do not have the right to exist, especially if he refuses to negotiate that point?  With liberal brilliance he responded, “I would keep trying.” 

“But what if they still refused to compromise?”  I pressed.

“I would keep trying,” He said.

“But what if they refused to grant you the right to exist and what if you unilaterally gave them a portion of the territory they demanded, and what if they then used that territory as a base of operations to wage war against you, what would you do?  I demanded.

“I would keep trying,” was his only response.

 This, of course, is insane.  Any sane head of state would do exactly what Israel has done.  He would blockade the Gaza strip to prevent Hamas from acquiring the means to destroy your country.   The fact that an otherwise rational men refuse to recognize this response as a legitimate course of action suggests that something evil going on in our world today, and there is something eerie about it…like we have seen this sort of irrational hatred somewhere before.  Unfortunately, we have.

For those interested in reading more about this subject let me recommend this article from today’s (6/15) American Thinker.

Apparently the world is fine when Jews are brutalized but outraged when they defend themselves.  This is also seen in the reaction of the world to the blockade itself.  Israel did what the world was demanding when they unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza strip.  Since then, rather than concentrating on building a peaceful state, the Palestinians democratically elected government, Hamas — whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel — has waged war against Israel.   But the world has not condemned them.   For its part, Israel and Egypt have tried to prevent Hamas from obtaining the weapons it needs to carry out its goal.   Thus, the blockade. 

On the other hand Israel and Egypt have permitted humanitarian supplies (food and medicine) to be delivered to Gaza without interruption.   Because of this, there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.  In fact, the humanitarian supplies contained in the ships could have been unloaded in Ashdod and delivered by truck to Gaza.   Since the incident they were unloaded trucked to Gaza.  As of this morning, the authorities in Gaza are refusing to accept them.  They must not believe they need them.

Here is an undeniable fact: If Hamas would lay down its arms there would be no war, no blockade, no problem with Israel.   On the other hand, if Israel laid down its arms there would be no Israel.  And the international reaction to Israel’s recent efforts to defend itself reveals that the world would be fine with this outcome.

Christopher Ruddy of NewsMax.com has pointed this out in a recent article, “Glenn Beck should Revere Teddy Roosevelt.”   Like me, Ruddy believes that “Glenn has been right on many issues”, and he admits that “his views are resonating with Main Street.”  But insist that Beck is wrong in claiming that T.R. is “the root cause of President Obama’s intrusive, “big government” policies.”

In fact, Beck does not claim that T.R is THE root cause of Obama’s blueprint for “fundamentally transforming America”.   Beck gives the Progressive Movement credit for that.  He blames T.R. and Woodrow Wilson for embracing and advancing that agenda, and of the two, Beck paints Wilson as the bigger villain.  In fact, he has often pointed to a picture of Wilson and said, “I hate this guy.” 

It is not incorrect to say that the Progressive Movement is the path through which the ideas of the French Revolution made their way into the mainstream of American political thought.  But like Marxism, which informed that movement, Progressivism can be called a Christian Heresy, and like Marxism, there is just enough of the echo of Jesus in its doctrine to cause those lacking discernment from realizing they are really hearing the voice of the serpent doing a hissing imitation Christ.  Thus, like the false prophet of the Apocalypse, the prophets of Progressivism have the appearance of a lamb but the voice of the Dragon.

From the first time I can remember being exposed to Progressive ideas in High School I have found elements in them that I agreed with.  I still do.   To use a medical analogy, I think Progressives are good at diagnosis, but they are lousy when it comes to treatment.  They are like the doctor that prescribes decapitation to cure a head cold.  There is no doubt the treatment takes care of the problem, but obviously the surgery is a little radical given the nature of the disease.

The problem with Progressives is that they have come upon a miracle drug, government.   In fairness, government is a very good medicine… for certain diseases, but for other diseases it is deadly poison.  Unfortunately, Progressives prescribe it for everything.  After applying this medicine in ever increasing doses over the last 100 years or so, the patient is dying.  In Greece, which has had more of it than we have, the death of the patient is imminent. 

Seeing this Beck says, “We should never have used this medicine in the first place,” and curses the physicians, such as T.R., who first prescribed it.   In contrast, Ruddy recognizes that T.R. used it wisely.  While I disagree with Ruddy as to the wisdom of the Progressive Income tax, I do think he is correct in pointing out that T.R. was not a villain.  Wilson?  Now that’s another story.

OLD VERSION
 
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.  The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.  

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.   The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
 
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself! 
 

MODERN VERSION 
 
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up

supplies for the winter. 
 
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. 
 
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why
the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. 
 
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next
to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. 
 
America is stunned by the sharp contrast. 
 
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? 
 
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they
 sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green.’ 
 
ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing,’We shall overcome.’   Rev. Jeremiah Wright then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake. 
 
President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight. Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. 

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.  The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper. 
 
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the  last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t maintain it. 
 
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again. 
 
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.   The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it. 

These murders are part of a growing trend; violence against Christians.   Another example is the murder of Jim Pullion, who was killed in front of his granddaughter’s high school in Owasso Michigan.  His crime?  Handing out pro-life literature.   In an unrelated incident, Pastor Fred Winters was murdered while preaching in his pulpit in Maryville, Illinois.  Meanwhile in Texas, an arsonist has burnt 11 churches to the ground. 

The response of most of the national media to all of these events is to ignore them.  This prompted Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission to ask, “If two Muslims, or two feminists or two homosexuals were murdered, wouldn’t the media be all over it?”

So, what’s your theory?  Why do you think the media has largely ignored these stories and the growing trend of violence against Christians?

Whittaker Chambers was an American writer and editor. A Communist Party member and Soviet spy, he later renounced communism and became an outspoken opponent. He is best known for his testimony about the perjury and espionage of Alger Hiss.

It should be added that the left never forgave him for exposing Communism or Hiss.  He was much maligned for this during his lifetime even though he was completely exonerated – as was his contemporary, Joseph McCarthy – after historians gained access to the Soviet Union’s achieves after the cold war.  The record clearly show that Hiss was a spy, and that if anything, Chambers and McCarthy understated the extent to which Soviet agents had infiltrated the U.S. Government, Academia and the Media.

In spite of the now undeniable documentary evidence the left still continues to malign Chambers, even though it has been forced to admit that Hiss was indeed guilty of perjury and espionage.   This bias can still be seen in Wikipedia’s article on Alger Hiss:

Alger Hiss was an American lawyer, civil servant, businessman, author and lecturer. He was involved in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department and UN official. Hiss was accused of being a Soviet in 1948 and convicted of perjury connection with this charge in 1950.

On August 3, 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist party member, testified under subpoena before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (known as HUAC) that Hiss had secretly been a communist while in federal service, despite the fact that Chambers had previously testified under oath that Hiss had never been a communist. Called before HUAC, Hiss categorically denied the charge. When Chambers repeated his claim in a radio interview, Hiss filed a defamation lawsuit against him.

During the pretrial discovery process, Chambers produced new evidence indicating that he and Hiss had been involved in espionage, which each had denied under oath to HUAC. A federal grand jury indicted Hiss on two counts of perjury; Chambers admitted to the same offense, but as a cooperating government witness he was never charged. Although Hiss’s indictment stemmed from the alleged espionage, he could not be tried for that crime because the statute of limitations had expired.

The Wiki article says that Hiss was acquitted of being a Soviet spy.  Unmentioned is the now undeniable fact that he was a Soviet Spy.  And the statement that “Chambers admitted the same offense,” is far short of the whole story.  Such insinuations and aspersions on Chambers character, veracity, and motivation were even more common during his lifetime, and they continued until the Soviet achieves made it impossible to continue to deny that Chambers was telling the truth about Hiss and everything else he testified to.

Chambers died before the record was set straight.  In fact, he died not knowing if the truth would ever be known; so to set the record straight he wrote his side of the story in his book, Witness,.  History has shown us that Chamber’s Witness was faithful to the facts.

While the entire volume is well worth reading, I believe its introduction, a powerful letter to Chambers’ own children, ought to be required reading in every civics class in America.

In the “letter” Chambers says something that helps me respond to the criticism of one of our readers that I loathe Barrack Obama.  I don’t.  I believe he is a man being driven by high moral impulses.  But I do loathe the Marxist philosophy that this disciple of Saul Alinsky holds to.  And so I must oppose him with all my moral and intellectual strength.  Let me use the words of Chambers confession to his children to explain:

I see Communism as the focus of the concentrated evil in our times. Why, you will ask, then, do men become Communists? How did it happen that you, our gentle and loved father, was once a Communist? Were you simply stupid? No, I was not stupid. Were you morally depraved? No, I was not morally depraved. Indeed educated men become Communists chiefly for moral reasons. Did you not know of that the crimes and horrors of Communism are inherent in Communism? Yes, I knew that fact. Then why did you become a Communist? I would help more to ask: How did it happen that this movement, once a mere muttering of political outcasts, became this immense force that now contests the mastery of mankind? Even when all the chances and mistakes of history are allowed for, the answer must be: Communism makes some profound appeal to the human mind. You will not find out what it is by calling Communists names. That will not help much to explain why Communism whose horrors on a scale unparalleled in history are now public knowledge, still recruits its thousands and hold its millions – among them some of the best minds alive. (emphasis mine throughout)

These observations agree with my own, albeit, limited knowledge of Communism. 

Some time ago I spent some time studying early Soviet history, particularly Stalin’s rise to power.  What struck me was that many of these early Communists were not evil men, nor were they stupid.  In fact many of them, including Stalin himself, were first class intellectuals.  How then did they give birth to something as monstrous as the Soviet Union?  They did it from the best of motives.  They did it for moral reasons.  They sincerely thought they were doing good, but the road to hell was paved with good intentions.  

How, then, did so many smart, good and well intended men go so wrong?  Chambers explains:                                                                              

First let me say what Communism is not. It is not simply a vicious plot hatched by wicked men in a sub-cellar. In is not just the writings of Marx and Lenin, dialectical materialism, the Politburo, the labor theory of value, the theory of the general strike, the Red Army, secret police, labor camps, underground conspiracy, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the technique of the coupe d’état…These are expressions of Communism, but they are not what Communism is about….The tie that binds [Communists] together by no secret oath. The tie that binds them across the frontiers of nations, across the barriers of language and differences of class and education, the defiance of religion, morality, truth, law, honor, the weaknesses of the body and the irresolution of the mind, even death, is a simple conviction: It is necessary to change the world. Their power, whose nature baffles the rest of the world, because in large measure the rest of the word has lost that power, is the power to hold convictions and to act upon them. It is the same power that moves mountains it is also an unfailing power to move men. Communists are that part of mankind which has recovered the power to live or die – to bear witness – for its faith.

It is the vision of man’s mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world. It is the vision of man’s liberated mind, by the sole force of its rational intelligence, redirecting man’s destiny and reorganizing man’s live and world. It is the vision of man, once more the central figure of the Creation, not because He made man in His image, but because man’s mind makes him the most intelligent of animals….Communism restores men to his sovereignty by the simple method of denying God….[Communism] has taken the logical next step which three hundred years of rationalism hesitated to take, and said what millions of modern mind think, but do not dare or care to say: If man’s mind is the decisive force in the world, what need is there for God? Henceforth man’s mind is man’s fate.

So, if God is denied, who or what shall be put in His place?  The answer of Communism is, the State, and often, since men must worship some being, the leader of the state.  But what of Socialism?  Socialism and Communism are sprouts of the same bitter and poisonous root, the French Revolution.  (See my previous posts: How We Got in the Present Mess, parts 1 & 2)  Since both sprouts come from the same roots they contain the same seeds.  Socialism is really nothing more than Communism in slow motion; or as Marx saw it, a necessary precursor to it.

Beck has taken a challenge which Barrack Obama made during the campaign very literally.   Barrack issued this challenge in response to a question concerning the fact that he was relatively unknown to the American people.  He responded by challenging the American people to check out the people he had surrounded himself with, the people who were advising him.   

Beck has accepted the President’s challenge, and the results of the investigation are chilling.  Simply stated, Barrack Obama has surrounded himself with a frightening collection of radicals, and they seem to be using Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to advance their agenda, which is nothing less that a radical reshaping of America.    

So far Obama’s defenders have not refuted Beck’s charges.  In fact, they have not even attempted to do so.  Rather they have launched vicious personal assaults on Beck.  Their response reminds me of a truth I learned long ago, “when a person can not refute your argument they generally resort to personal attacks (ad hominem)”.

In his most recent program (8/28/09), he even proposed a plan of action.  Beck listed five pledges that every American should demand his Congress Person or Senator to agree to.  If not, they should be voted out:

• I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze on government spending until that goal is realized.
• I believe government should not increase the financial burden on its citizenry during difficult economic times therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.
• I believe more than four decades of U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a travesty therefore I will support any energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas, and coal as necessary.
• I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why and will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity, power over U.S. citizens.
• I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for the policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.  

I think a commitment to these five points is the least we should expect from our elected leaders since they have pledged to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.   

Clearly then, there is much in Glenn Beck’s view of things that I can agree with.  However, he said some things in his last program that disturbed me. Glenn Beck is a Mormon, and in his most recent presentation he displayed a certain triumphalism that can be traced to Mormon eschatological views.  

Mormons believe in the virtual Divine inspiration of the United States Constitution and they have a very Amero-centric view of things to come. Let me show you what I mean.  I will be quoting their own prophets.  First, Joseph Smith:

“You will see the constitution of the United States almost destroyed. It will hang like a thread…. A terrible revolution will take place in the land of America…. [T]he land will be left without a Supreme Government,… [Mormonism] will have gathered strength, sending out Elders to gather the honest in heart… to stand by the Constitution of the United States…. In these days… God will set up a Kingdom, never to be thrown down…. [T]he whole of America will be made the Zion of God.”  Joseph Smith, Jr., May 6, 1843

Now, a few words from Brigham Young:

“Will the Constitution be destroyed? No: it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, ‘The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.’ It will be so.”  –  Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 15, July 4, 1854

“[W]hen the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the ‘Mormon’ Elders to save it from utter destruction.” —  Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 182, February 18, 1855

 “I expect to see the day when the Elders of Israel will protect and sustain civil and religious liberty and every Constitutional right bequeathed to us by our fathers, and spread these rights abroad in connection with the Gospel for the salvation of all nations. I shall see this whether I live or die.” —  Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 262

Here’s one from Mormons “prophet,” John Taylor:

“The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto… [so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours… and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view.” — Journal of Discourses, v. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862

 Consider this from Mormon “apostle,” Orson F. Whitney: 

“To escape the judgments hanging over the wicked, and find a place where they might worship God unmolested, the Latter-day Saints fled to the Rocky Mountains. Here, and here only, during the temporary isolation sought and found by them in the chambers of “the everlasting hills,” could they hope to be let alone long enough to become strong enough to accomplish their greater destiny. For in that enforced exodus and the rounding of this mountain-girt empire there was more than the surface facts reveal. If tradition can be relied upon, Joseph Smith prophesied that the Elders of Israel would save this Nation in the hour of its extremest peril. At a time when anarchy would threaten the life of the Government, and the Constitution be hanging as by a thread, the maligned and misunderstood “Mormons”—always patriotic, and necessarily so from the very genius of their religion—would stand firm upon Freedom’s rocky ramparts, and as champions of law and order, liberty and justice, call to their aid in the same grand cause kindred [p.61] spirits from every part of the nation and from every corner of the world.

All this preparatory to a mighty movement that would sweep every form of evil from off the face of the land, and build the Zion of God upon the spot consecrated for its erection. This traditional utterance of their martyred Seer is deeply embedded in the heart and hope of the ‘Mormon’ people.”  Saturday Night Thoughts, pp. 60-61

I could offer many more similar quotations, but suffice it to say that it is commonly believed among Mormons that there will come a time when the Constitution of the United States will be “hanging by a thread,” and that the Mormon church will save it.    This is the unspoken sub-theme in Glenn Becks’ message that concerns me.  I am also concerned that he may use his new found notoriety as a recruitment tool for The Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints.  

Beck challenges his listeners to bravely follow truth wherever it leads.  I would challenge him to do the same.  I would challenge Glenn Beck to lay aside the “faith encouraging” books of the LDS church and read the actually early history of his church.  

I did this myself a couple of years ago.  I spent the better part of six months reading every all sorts of books on the early history of the Mormon church. I read books by Mormo nsand  non-Mormons.  I read books supportive of the church and those critical of it.  It was a fascinating area of study. 

Someday I plan to return to my Mormon studies  just because it is so interesting.  But I must confess that I was more impressed with the Joseph Smith of history than with the Joseph Smith of faith.  I can say the same about Brigham Young.  In fact, I find Smith among the most interesting American figures of the first half of the 19^th century.  But in my reading I came to realize that Joseph Smith looked and acted more like Warren Jeffs than Glenn Beck (Glenn’s more a a Parley Pratt), and the various Mormon settlements in Missouri or Nauvoo, Illinois bore a striking resemblance to  Warren Jeffs’ polygamist compounds.   The same would be true of Brigham Young’s Salt Lake City.

I must confess that I was more impressed with the Joseph Smith of history than with the Joseph Smith of faith.  I can say the same about Brigham Young.  In fact, I find Smith among the most interesting American figures of the first half of the 19^th century.  But I came to realize that were I able to go back in time and visit the various Mormon settlements in Missouri or Nauvoo, Illinois, I would be visiting communities just like Warren Jeffs’ polygamist compound outside of Eldorado, Texas.   And I have no question that Joseph Smith would have resembled Jeffs far more than he resembles the modern leaders of the Mormon church.  The same would be true of Brigham Young’s Salt Lake City.

Most Mormons I have known, like Beck, are very intelligent, except when it comes to critically evaluating their religion.  This they refuse to do and I am constantly amazed by their lack of intellectual rigor in this area.  Plato said that an unexamined life is not worth living.  I have an adaptation of that statement: An unexamined faith is not worth believing.  While Thomas Jefferson and I reach different conclusion, I agree with a state Glenn Beck himself quoted on a recent program:

“Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” 

So here is my challenge to Beck; Dare to ask the same questions of your faith that you ask of government.  I would suggest you start by reading the Book, The Mormon Murders, by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith.

“Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.”

This was no surprise to me. Many years ago my late mother wrote a book which was picked up and read by the wife of Colorado’s “duty to die” governor, Dick Lamb. Dotty Lamb subsequently had tea at the governor’s mansion with Dotty Lamb. Mom enjoyed the experience and enjoyed Mrs. Lamb. She found her very gracious. But in reporting to me on her conversation with Mrs. Lamb, which touched on abortion, she reported that Mrs. Lamb had made a similar argument, arguing that the costs to government of maintaining certain populations was a growing problem. My mom — who had a liberal streak — did not pick up on the nature of this argument, and really didn’t buy it when I said we were basically talking about eugenics aimed at certain racial or social economic groups.  

Mom and I had quite an argument about this because mom was quite taken with her new friend.  But I filed it away in the back of my mind with several other statements made by Governor Lamb. I didn’t like his politics, but I always felt he was ahead of his time and that what he said in his off-the-cuff comments was a good indication of where the country would ultimately go and what was being talked about by the liberal elite. So Ginsberg’s comments reminded me of that old argument with my mom, and what was being said at the time…which corresponds to what the Lambs were thinking about the same time. So surprise. Those familiar with Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, controlling the population growth among the unwashed masses has always been a secret part of the “pro-choice” agenda.

In 1919, just after the gut-wrenching trauma of the First World War, Oswald Spangler published the first volume of his monumental work, The Decline of the West.  In this work Spangler presented his theory of the rise and fall of nations.   It was a pessimistic work in which he theorized that Western Civilization was on the decline.   Several years later, in 1934, he published a second book, The Hour of Decision.  In this book he foresaw the Second World War and warned that it might well lead to the destruction of Western Civilization.

Years have passed and Spangler’s pessimistic book has been all but forgotten.  After all, the Second World War did come but it did not signal the end of Western Civilization.   But what is not appreciated by most is just how close Spangler’s prediction came to be fulfilled to the letter.  In fact had it not been for one aging English politician who foresaw the same thing Spangler did the West might well have fallen and the world could have slipped into a new dark age.   The politician I am referring to is Winston Churchill.  

Churchill was far from a perfect man.  In fact, one would not have to look too far to find things to dislike about the man.  But there was a moment when this flawed old Lion saved the West from the fate forecast by Spangler.  In his book, Five Days in London, John Lukas explains:[i] 

“The setting is London, and the five days are Friday through Tuesday, 24 to 28 May 1940.  Then and there Adolf Hitler came closest to winning the Second World War, his war.

One man knew how close Hitler had come to his ultimate victory, Winston Churchill.  In the years after the war he gave the title The Hinge of Fate to the fourth volume of his War Memoirs.  That volume dealt with the year 1942, near the end of which the Germans were turned back on many fronts.  In November 1942 he said to the British people that this was not yet the beginning of the end but perhaps the end of the beginning.  November 1942 was the military hinge of fate on the battlefields of Egypt, North Africa, and Russia: the military turning points.  Even then Britain could not win the war.  In the end America and Russia did.  But in May 1940 Churchill was the one who did not lose it. Then and there he saved Britain, and Europe and Western Civilization.”

As I read Lukas’ book I was stuck with just how close Spangler’s prophecy came to being fulfilled.  It really came down to that one stubborn man.  How different history would have been had Churchill not been there!  Simply stated, Britain would have capitulated and Hitler would have won the war. 

Of course, Hitler would have attacked Russia and who knows whether he or Stalin would have prevailed; but either way Europe would have entered a dark age.  Nazi or Communist.   Hitler or Stalin.  Take your pick. 

But as Lukas points out, defeating the one dark power required more than the grit of Churchill, it still took the United States, and perhaps even more importantly, that other dark power, the Soviet Union, to defeat the Nazis.  After that, had it not been for the United States’ willingness to fight the Cold War that other dark power would have prevailed and Spangler’s prophecy might still have been fulfilled.  So looking back it can be said that had it not been for Winston Churchill’s determination not to lose the war and the United States willingness to fight the Cold War Western Civilization would have fallen and the world would be in a dark age. 

In retrospect, Spangler was right.   The West, except for one old Englishman and the still vigorous United States, had run out of steam.  Spiritually and morally drained, Europe required the United States first to save them from the Nazis, to rebuild it after the war, and finally to save it from Communism. 

But has the danger past?   Alarmingly, the trends that signaled Spangler of a civilization in its twilight in 1919 are still there and they have spread, but this time there is no Churchill and the United States is running out of steam.  Ronald Regan said, “It’s morning in America.”  Perhaps it was, but the day seems to be passing quickly and there is a feel of twilight in the air.