A Long Obedience in the Same Direction: Discipleship In An Instant Society. A Christian who stays put is no better than a statue, waiting to be pulled down when the tides changed..

by Eugene Peterson …   Psalm 132 explained.

I was recently introduced to the author Eugene Peterson by my friend Chuck so I ordered the four books he suggested but have only completed three so far savoring them like quality ice cream after an tasty meal (actually ice cream is welcome here anytime) .  And to think I had been incorrectly assuming all along, he had only written The Message! No longer! I find it noteworthy and indicative of the wordsmith he was, that Peterson once commandeered a key word phrase associated with atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche – that the only way to live life is to find a standard and stick to it – and repurposed it to be about following Jesus nonetheless! Peterson literally stole the nonbeliever’s catchphrase, “a long obedience in the same direction,” and made it the name of his own best-selling Christian book first released in 1980. What makes Peterson’s message so unique today is he exudes the bedrock transformation offered only by Jesus Christ, whereas many believers today tend to view the Nietzsche and Marxist deception as smoke and mirrors leading to death. Take note for The Message, his paraphrase of the Bible, has transformed the dusty, ancient Christian scriptures into imaginative literature for contemporary readers seeking truth.

While I was reading this chapter 14 (which I’ve summarized below – now with the Preface (verbatim) over 2300 words long; perhaps you can read it in installments while rationing out your ice cream) when I just laughed out loud thoroughly enjoying the lead off hospital incident. The truths of his Kelly parable and the pollster’s definitive “frivolous” report resonates with me as I too at times can mistake a sore throat for a descent into hell.(“Peterson, pray for me!”) Perhaps the best possible antidote is when we can combine an accurate memory of God’s ways with a lively hope in his promises, the essence of Psalm 132.

20th– Anniversary Preface.. verbatim, not summarized.

As I sat down to revise A Long Obedience In The Same Direction I was prepared to do a lot of changing. I have hardly done any. It turns out there are some things that just don’t change. God doesn’t change: He seeks and He saves. And our response to God as He reveals himself in Jesus doesn’t change: we listen and we follow. Or we don’t. When we are dealing with the basics – God and our need for God – we are at bedrock. We start each day at the beginning with no frills.

So the book comes out in this new edition substantially as I first wrote it. I added an epilogue to reaffirm the ways in which Scripture and prayer fuse to provide energy and direction to those of us who set out to follow Jesus. A few celebrity names have been replaced by new ones (celebrities change pretty rapidly!), and I have changed a few references to current affairs. But that’s about it. It is reassuring to realize once again that we don’t have to anxiously study the world around us in order to keep up with God and his ways with us.

The most conspicuous change has been the use of a fresh translation of the Holy Scriptures, The Message, that I have been working on continuously since the publication of A Long Obedience. In fact, the fifteen Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120-134) that provide the text here for developing “discipleship in an instant society” provided the impetus for embarking on the new translation. All I had in mind at first was translating the Psalms into idiomatic North American language that I heard people using on the streets and in the shopping malls and at football games. I knew that following Jesus could never develop into a “long obedience” without a deepening prayer life and that the Psalms had always been the primary means by which Christians learned to pray everything they lived, and live everything they prayed over the long haul (No wonder I missed the boat spiritually so long. Only recently did I begin to read the Psalms).

But the people I was around didn’t pray the Psalms. That puzzled me; Christians have always prayed the Psalms; and why didn’t my friends and neighbors? Then I realized it was because the language, cadenced and beautiful and harmonious, seemed remote from their jerky and messy and discordant everyday lives. I wanted to translate these fifteen Psalms from their Hebrew original and convey the raw, rough and robust energy that is so characteristic of these prayers. I wanted people to start praying them again, not just admiring them from a distance, and thereby learn to pray everything they experienced and felt and thought as they followed Jesus, not just what they thought was proper to pray in church.

And so it happened that the unintended consequence of the writing of A Long Obedience in the Same Direction was this new translation of the Song of the Ascents, and then all the Psalms and then the NT and eventually the whole Bible. The inclusion of that translation in this new edition completes the book in a way I could not have anticipated twenty years ago.

Chapter 14. Obedience: How He Promised God

 “True knowledge of God is born out of obedience.” John Calvin

An incident took place a few years ago that has acquired the force of a parable for me. I had a minor operation on my nose and was in my hospital room recovering. Even though the surgery was minor, the pain was great and I was full of misery. Late in the afternoon a man was assigned to the other bed in my room. He was to have a tonsillectomy the next day. He was young, about twenty-two years old, good looking and friendly. He came over to me, put out his hand and said, “ Hi, my name is Kelly. What happened to you?”

I was no mood for friendly conversation, did not return the handshake,  grunted my name and said that I had gotten my nose broken. He got the message that I did not want to talk, pulled the curtain between our beds and let me alone. Later in the evening his friends were visiting, and I heard him say, “There’s a man in the next bed who is a prizefighter; He got his nose broken in a championship fight.” He went on to embellish the story for the benefit of his friends.

Later in the evening, as I was feeling better, I said, “Kelly, you misunderstood what I said. I’m not a prizefighter. The nose was broken years ago in a basketball game, and I am just now getting it fixed.”

“Well, what do you do then?”

“I’m a pastor.”

“Oh.” he said and turned away; I was no longer an interesting subject.

In the morning he awoke me: “Peterson, Peterson – wake up.” I groggily came awake and asked what he wanted. “I want you to pray for me; I’m scared.” And so, before he was taken to surgery, I went to his bedside and prayed for him.

When he was brought back a couple of hours later, a nurse came and said, “Kelly, I am going to give you an injection that should take care of any pain you might have.”

In twenty minutes or so he began to groan, “I hurt. I can’t stand it. I’m going to die.”

I rang for the nurse and, when she came, said “Nurse, I don’t think that shot did any good; why don’t you give him another one?” She didn’t acknowledge my credentials for making such a suggestion, told me curtly that she would oversee the medical care of the patient, turned on her heel and, a little too abruptly I thought, left. Meanwhile Kelly continued to vent his agony.

After another half hour he began to hallucinate, and having lost touch with reality, began to shout, “Peterson, pray for me; can’t you see I’m dying! Peterson, pray for me!” His shouts brought the nurses, doctors, and orderlies running. They held him down and quieted him with the injection I had prescribed earlier.

The parabolic force of the incident is this: when the man was scared he wanted me to pray for him, and when the man was crazy he wanted me to pray for him, but in between, during the hours of so-called normalcy, he didn’t want anything to do with a pastor. What Kelly betrayed in extremis is all many people today know of religion: 1.) religion is to help them with their fears but that is forgotten when the fears are taken care of; 2.) religion is made of moments of craziness but those are remote and shadowy in the clear light of the sun and routines of every day. In fact, I believe the most religious places in the world are not churches but battlefields and mental hospitals. You are much more likely to find passionate prayer in a foxhole than in a church pew, and you will certainly find more otherworldly visions and supernatural voices in a mental hospital than you will in church.

Stable, Not Petrified

Nevertheless we Christians don’t go to either place to nurture our faith. We don’t deliberately put ourselves in places of fearful danger, and we don’t put ourselves in psychiatric wards so we can be around those who clearly see visions of heaven and hell and distinctly hear the voice of God. What most Christians do is come to church, a place that is fairly safe and moderately predictable. For we have an instinct for health and sanity in our faith. We don’t seek our death-defying situations, and we avoid mentally unstable teachers. But in doing that we don’t get what some people want very much, a religion that makes us safe at all costs, certifying us as inoffensive to our neighbors and guaranteeing us as good risks to the banks. We want a Christian faith that has stability but is not petrified, that has vision but is not hallucinatory. How do we get both a sense of stability and a spirit of adventure, the ballast of good health and the zest of true sanity? How do we get the adult maturity to keep our feet on the ground and retain the childlike innocence to make the leap of faith?

What would you think of a pollster who issued a definitive report on how the American people felt about a new television special, if we discovered later that he had interviewed only one person who had seen only ten minutes of the program? We would dismiss the conclusions as frivolous. Yet that is exactly the kind of evidence that too many Christians accept as the final truth about many much more important matters-matters such as answered prayer, God’s judgment, Christ’s forgiveness, eternal salvation. The only person they consult is themselves, and the only experience they evaluate is their most recent ten minutes. But we need other experiences, particularly the community of experience of brothers and sisters in the Church and our local congregation, as well as the centuries of experience provided by our biblical ancestors. A Christian who has David in his bones, Jeremiah in his bloodstream, Paul in his fingertips and Christ in his heart will know how much and how little value to put on his own momentary feelings and the experiences of the past week. (clearly a choice definitive sentence! merlin)

A Christian with a defective memory has to start everything from scratch and spends far too much of his or her time backtracking, repairing, perhaps even starting over. A Christian with a good memory avoids repeating old sins, knows the easiest way through complex situations and instead of starting over each day continues what was begun in Adam.

You ever notice for all its interest in history the Bible never refers to the past as “the good old days.” The past is not, for the person of faith, a restored historical site that we tour when we are on vacation; it is a field we plow, disc, harrow and plant, fertilize, lovingly work to insure a bountiful harvest.

Christians who master Psalm 132 will be protected from one danger, at least, that is always a threat to our obedience: the danger that we should reduce our Christian existence to ritually obeying a few commandments that are congenial to our temperament and convenient to our standard of living. It gives us, instead, a vision into the future so that we can see what is right before us. If we define the nature of our lives by our mistake of the moment, or the defeat of the hour, or the boredom of the day, we will define it wrongly. We need roots in the past to give our obedience ballast and breadth just as we need a vision of the future to give our obedience both direction and goal.

If we never learn to do this – to extend the boundaries of our lives beyond the dates merely enclosed by our birth and death, and actually acquire an understanding and appreciation of God’s way as something larger and more complete than those anecdotes in our private diaries – we will forever be missing the point of things, by making headlines out of something that ought to be tucked away on page 97 in section C of the newspaper, or putting into the classified ads something that should be getting a full page color advertisement – perhaps mistaking a sore throat for a descent into hell! (“Peterson, pray for me!”) For Christian faith is a full revelation of a vast creation and a grandly consummated redemption. I prefer to define my faith, or your faith, by witnessing our obedient actions in the same direction, as led by the Holy Spirit

Christian living demands that we keep our feet on the ground, but it also asks us to make a leap of faith. A Christian who stays put is no better than a statue, waiting to be pulled down when the tides change. A person who leaps about constantly is under suspicion of being not a man but a jumping jack or worse. Our obedience requires we possess the strength to stand as well as a willingness to leap, and the good sense to know when to do which. Which is exactly what we get when our accurate memory of God’s ways are combined with a lively hope in his promises.         

So what if we do possess “A Long Obedience in the Same Direction” if the big “O” (obedience) is predominately “cultural” and has not been “visibly transformational” for a century or two and just perhaps there are persons within and without, that tell us we’ve lost our way? One thing is certain though. if strife and chaos either emerges or invades, unknown leaders will be born as the flames rise and the love of Christ will be witnessed by the masses before the ashes cool. And some leaders may well die for their obedient actions. And some of His witnesses among the masses may be sacrificed. But rejoice that the exiting witnesses will directly enter Glory! But do pray for the millions of the masses who know not God and are ignorant of His Ways.

The blood of the martyrs has always built the Church. Martyrdom has been happening around the world for centuries. Our communities may no longer be exempt. Believers may even become endangered species. Prepare your heart, your mind, and your soul for the battle of your life. And rejoice abundantly in the event our country and the world is granted a reprieve from the imminent strife and chaos all about us; simply more time for believers to prepare and be a witness to the lost masses of the Hope that lies within us.

Peace does not mean to be merely in a place where there is no noise, trouble, or hard work. It means to be in the midst of those things and still be calm in your heart, which is only possible by centering on Christ’s love for you.

Leaders don’t force people to follow. They merely invite them to join them on their journey to Glory.

Think about this. A true leader does not lead with the intent to only create followers, BUT with the intent to create an abundance of more Leaders!

Leaders become great leaders not because of THEIR power, BUT because of their ability to spiritually EMPOWER others!

Next Up: YouTube of Pastor Carl’s Sermon Sunday past On Being Blessed… And Oh, Are We Ever!! Start at 32:00 minutes for the reading of the text…

Putting An End To The Blame Game & Saying Goodbye To Entitlement Mentality!

Last week I listened to nationally syndicated radio host and columnist Michael Brown’s handbook “Saving A Sick America,” (SASA) a biblically-based moral and cultural renaissance, revealing that the key for the inspiration and guidance necessary for a moral and cultural revolution for recapturing America’s greatness consists in returning to our spiritual and moral roots.

And yes indeed, at first blush, this book too appears to be just one more of the thousands continually appearing for decades now. But from my perhaps yet immature perspective as a blogger, I’ve already realized effective sustainable life change do not occur easily without significant reorientation of our perspectives and desires. And I particularly found Chapter Twelve in SASA titled “Putting An End To The Blame Game & Saying Goodbye To The Entitlement Mentality,” as a key document for exploration. But may I remind us as readers, since we are all to encourage and mentor others in various capacities every day, perhaps this has a wider application than I originally considered, therefore I am sharing it with you. Even though I spent considerable time attempting to condense this eleven page chapter, this document is still nearly 3000 words long. Make no mistake! This document remains a chapter. Pace your reading accordingly!

Ecclesiastes 1: 9–10 Tells us there is nothing new under the sun. The problems and challenges we face today, although packaged differently than in past centuries, are the same problems and challenges experienced by previous generations. We have the same fears, desires, lusts, loves, hopes, and dreams, whether we live in the 21st -century A.D. or the 21st – century BC. This is another reason God‘s word is so amazingly relevant: Our Maker knows us better than we know ourselves, and the sins and the shortcomings and the weaknesses of our forefathers, going all the way back to the garden of Eden – are our sins and shortcomings and weaknesses today. In many ways, we are just like Adam and Eve.

Let’s go back then, to the beginning, to an earthly paradise called the garden of Eden. We know the story all too well. Eve was deceived by the serpent, and she ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, giving the fruit to her husband Adam, who also ate of it. This is what is known as the fall of man.

Immediately, Adam and Eve were conscious of their nakedness. Before that they had the innocence of little children and were one unaware they were unclothed. Now they had to cover up. For the first time they also experienced guilt and fear. They hid from the presence of the Lord, whose commandments they had violated. They also learned to make excuses and pass the buck. The narrative in Genesis 3 is remarkable:

Then the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

He replied, “I heard you walking in the garden, so I hid. I was afraid because I was naked.“

“Who told you that you were naked? “asked the Lord God. “Have you eaten from the tree whose fruit I commanded you not to eat?“

The man replied, “It was the woman you gave me who gave me the fruit, and I ate it.“

Then the Lord God asked the woman, “What have you done?“

“The serpent deceived me, “she replied. “That’s why I ate it.” (v. 9–13 NLT)

This sounds just like you and me: “Lord, it’s not my fault! Someone else is to blame!“

When God confronted Adam, the man in essence replied, “It is not my fault! It was that woman that you gave me. She is guilty. And for the record, I never asked you for a companion. That was all your idea. You are the one who put her in the garden with me, so in reality, you’re the one responsible for what I did.”

When God confronted Eve she replied, “It is not my fault! The snake tricked me! And just for the record, although I’m not actually saying it out loud, you were the one who put that deceiver in the garden with me. Otherwise, I would never thought of disobeying you. Not in a million years. So, if there’s anyone to blame here, it’s you for putting that arch deceiver right in my own backyard.”

How did God respond? First, he pronounced a curse on the snake, then on the woman, then on the man (Genesis 3:14-19). Everyone is responsible before the Lord, and excuses evaporate in his presence. The blame game doesn’t work before an all-seeing God. To paraphrase the old joke, you can’t kill your parents and then plead for leniency from the court because you’re an orphan. Not in God’s court!

The Lord calls us to take responsibility for our actions, refusing to entertain her fragile excuses. This is something you find throughout the Gospels, where Jesus, who was so full of compassion and long-suffering and kindness and tenderness, showed no tolerance for excuses. He cut through them like a knife cuts through butter. He exposes them for what they were: empty words used to cover up the lack of willingness. That’s why, when Jesus was on the earth, he didn’t trust himself to people, “because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man” (John  2:24–25). He also knew that there was nothing new under the sun when it came to the human race.

When, in response to Jesus command to “follow me, “the man said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father,“ Jesus replied, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as  for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God“ (Luke 9:59-60).

The fact is that Jesus was sensitive, and he was committed to honoring one’s parents (see especially Mark 7:1-13). But he saw through this man’s excuse, recognizing that the man was procrastinating. Today Jesus might seem harsh and uncaring. He is hardly like the Jesus we hear preached from our pulpits these days. The contemporary Jesus would never hurt any one’s feelings like this. But that, of course, is one of the big differences between the real Jesus – the Jesus of the Scriptures who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, (Heb 13:8) – and the modern, fairy tale version of Jesus.

It is absolutely true that we are saved by grace, not by works, and that eternal life is a gift. But Paul also made clear that with grace came responsibility, writing, “I therefore a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called” (Ephesian 4:1). And “Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God to present your bodies as a sacrifice – alive, holy, and pleasing to God – which is your reasonable service. Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well pleasing and perfect” (Romans 12:1-2).

Paul also had no places for empty excuses, telling the believers in Rome that “each of us will give an account of himself to God” and explaining to the believers in Corinth that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” Rom. 14:12; II Corinthians 5:10).

These are sobering words. As children of God, we will give account to our Father one day, not to determine if we are saved or lost but to determine our future rewards.

It is true that he is for us, not against us; that he desires to bless, not curse; that there is no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Jesus; that Christ himself is our advocate, which means he is pleading our cause. Therefore we submit to the Lord out of love rather than cower before him in servile fear. This means we will take responsibility for our sins, which is something else we don’t hear about too often these days. As a Christian apologist Jeremiah Johnson observed, instead of repentance we hear “a lot of talk about brokenness and negativity, as if Christ humbled Himself to the point of death to cure depression and fix bad attitudes. The modern church has largely done away with the biblical language of sin and salvation, replacing it with gooey postmodern verbiage that appeals to a generation raised on psychobabble and self-help seminars.“

Johnson then quoted Pastor John MacArthur:

That kind of thinking has all but driven words like sin, repentance, contrition, atonement, restitution, and redemption out of public discourse. If no one is supposed to feel guilty, how could anyone be a sinner? Modern culture has the answer: people are victims. Victims are not responsible for what they do; they are casualties of what happens to them. So every human failing must be described in terms of how the perpetrator has been victimized. We are all supposed to be “sensitive“ and “compassionate“ enough to see that the very behaviors we used to label “sin“ are  actually evidence of victimization.

Victimization has gained so much influence that as far as society is concerned, there is practically no such thing as sin anymore. Anyone can escape responsibility for his or her wrongdoing simply by claiming the status of a victim. It has radically changed the way our society looks at human behavior.

We are not sinners anymore; we are morally challenged. We don’t break God‘s commandments; we have a disease. We are not wicked; we are weak. And above all, we’re not guilty, since guilt implies responsibility and God knows we are not responsible. Someone else is to blame!

The bottom line is this: if you want to grow spiritually, if you want to become mature, if you want to fulfill your God-given destiny, then adopt a no-excuses policy for your life.

You alone are responsible for your success or failure, and the quicker you learn to embrace this way of thinking, the quicker you will make progress – real, discernible progress. No one will be able to stop you from living a productive, meaningful life, and every stumbling block will become a steppingstone. His grace will empower you as you give yourself to him.

It is true that people often hurt us and that circumstances are often against us, and many times we do suffer because of other people‘s sins and negligence and misdeeds. But making excuses will make things worse, not better, while shifting the blame will not provide you with the single constructive solution.

But there is one more step to take if you really want to swim against the tide in today’s society, and so I encourage you to embrace this attitude as well: nobody owes me anything, and I’m not “entitled“ to a wonderful life. Unfortunately, many Americans hold the exact opposite of this belief, and this crippling entitlement mentality dominates much of our nation today. It is the mindset that says, “Society owes me a better life.“

Conservapedia.com defines entitlement mentality as a “a state of mind in which an individual comes to believe that privileges are instead rights, and they are to be expected as a matter of course.“ In the words of Alethea Luna, “a sense of entitlement is established upheld by the belief that we are the center of the universe, and if the universe doesn’t meet our needs and desires, all hell will break loose.“

According to Conservapedia.com, entitlement mentality is characterized by:

1.) A lack of appreciation for the sacrifices of others

2.)Lack of personal responsibility 

3.)An inability to accept that actions carry consequences

4.) Increased dependency on the Nanny state big government intervention, and expectation that the government will intervene to solve personal problems. Upon losing a job, for instance, someone with an entitlement mentality is likely to turn to the government for unemployment handouts rather than immediately seeking another job.

5.) Ignorance of the Bill of Rights. Those within entitlement mentality frequently imagine so-called rights that are in no way guaranteed – for instance, the “right to employment,“ or the “right to not be offended” or “the “right to healthcare.” Moreover, they misinterpret the Declaration of Independence’s affirmation of their right to pursue happiness as a Constitutional guarantee of happiness.

6.) Support for wholesale expansion of Welfare state social programs as a cure all for perceived “injustice.”

Now, if we go back to the garden, back to Adam and Eve, we can see that the entitlement mentality is the flip side of the blame shifting mentality. Blame-shifting says I’m not responsible for my failure; someone else is,“ while entitlement says, “I’m not responsible for improving my situation; someone else is.” Either way, someone else is to blame for my current situation, and if I don’t find myself where I want to be today, it’s someone else’s fault.

This dangerous attitude is crippling a whole generation, but once again, this attitude is nothing new. It is just greatly on the rise in our day. As expressed by Kate S Rourke, “Children in the most recent generation of adults born between 1982 and 1995, known as ‘Generation Y,’ were raised to believe that it is their right to have everything given to them more than any other previous generation.” This mind-set has been here before; it has just become much worse.

Once again, God‘s word has a major word of correction and redirection for us today. Entitlement mentality is destroying our culture and hurting a whole generation. The Bible’s directive to take full responsibility for our lives and quit making excuses is just what we need.

Notice the admonition in the Ephesians 4:28, “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.” And now since the former thief is also a follower of Jesus, he is working not only to make a living, but he is working to have extra money to help those in need. This is the complete crucifixion of the entitlement mentality. Others are not responsible for me; I am responsible for others.

I believe the entitlement mentality is one of the greatest strongholds in our society today. It undercuts initiative, encourages apathy, and discourages visionary sacrifice. Worst of all, it is so deeply in bedded that we’re not even conscious of it, making it harder to resist and overcome. But resist it and overcome it we must. Otherwise, we’ll be stuck on a merry-go-round of blame shifting and victim hood, getting angry, pointing our fingers, making accusations, and going nowhere.

Jesus gives us three practical principles in Luke 16:

1.) “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much“ (v.10). You will not be trusted with much until you prove yourself trustworthy with very little. In my early days of radio broadcasting when I was on the few smaller stations, I said to the Lord, “If you will give me a million listeners a day, I’ll make this the best radio show possible.” No sooner did I say the words that I knew what his answer would be: “Make this the best show possible, and I will give you a million listeners.”. 

2.) If you’re not faithful with money (what Jesus calls “the unrighteous wealth“), you won’t be faithful with true riches. (v.11). Many of us want to be spiritual heroes, but our earthly lives are a wreck due to our own irresponsibility, particularly when it comes to handling money. Of course, God doesn’t expect all of us to be financial wizards, but he does require us to be good financial stewards, and that means paying our bills on time, being generous, and being wise.

3.) “And if you’ve not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own?“ The principal again is simple: If you are irresponsible with the things that don’t belong to you, caring for them as if they were your own, then you’ll never be entrusted with things that are your own. If you don’t care take care of your parent’s car when they loan it to you, you’re not ready for a car of your own.

In summary, the bigger the stakes, the more our good habits (and bad habits) will be magnified. So, faithful with a little, faithful with much; faithful with earthy riches, faithful with spiritual riches; faithful with that which belongs to someone else, faithful with that which belongs to you.

None of this is rocket science but once again, that’s what is so wonderful about God‘s Word. It is as practical as it is profound and as pragmatic as it is penetrating. The Word of God is wise, and we do well to live by the wisdom of the Word. And the word of God destroys the entitlement mentality, giving us something far better in its place.

Dr. John Townsend wrote,

“There is a solution to entitlement, which I called the Hard Way. The Hard Way is the entitlement cure. It is a path of behaviors and attitudes that undo the negative effects of entitlement whether in ourselves or others.” This was his definition of the Hard Way: “The habit of doing what is best, rather than what is comfortable, to achieve a worthwhile outcome.“

It is the hard way that pays long-term dividends, the hard way that produces long-term fruit, the hard way that yields long-term gratification. So quit passing the buck and shirking responsibility; don’t blame others for where you find yourself today; and determine, with God’s help, to be a giver not a taker, a producer and not a drainer, one who lifts others up rather than drags them down. To quote Paul once again, “Do everything without complaining and arguing, so that no one can criticize you. Live clean, innocent lives as children of God shining like bright lights in a world full of crooked and perverse people” (Phil. 2:14-15 NLT).

That’s our calling, that’s who we are, and that’s who our nation needs us to be. So, let’s wake up from our slumber. It’s a literally time to rise and shine.

Next Up Sun 4/14: Snippets from Saturday Nights Live Bill Maher’s comments via Brad Jersak’s book “A More Christlike God, A More Beautiful Gospel.”

SERIOUSLY NOW: Silence in the face of evil is evil itself!

Letter to the American Church

Not to speak is to speak.

Not to act is to act.

God will not hold us guiltless.

Can it really be God’s will that His children be silent at a time like this? Decrying the cowardice that masquerades as godly meekness, Eric Metaxas summons the Church to battle.

The author of a bestselling biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Metaxas reveals the haunting similarities between today’s American Church and the German Church of the 1930s. Echoing the German martyrs’ prophetic call, he exhorts his fellow Christians to repent of their silence in the face of evil.

An attenuated and unbiblical “faith” based on what Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace” has sapped the spiritual vitality of millions of Americans. Paying lip service to an insipid “evangelism,” they shrink from combating the evils of our time. Metaxas refutes the pernicious lie that fighting evil politicizes Christianity. As Bonhoeffer and other heroes of the faith insisted, the Church has irreplaceable role in the culture of a nation. It is our duty to fight the powers of darkness, especially on behalf of the weak and vulnerable, well beyond the widow, orphan

            Silence is not an option. God calls us to defend the unborn, to confront the lies of cultural Marxism, and to battle the globalist tyranny that crushes human freedom. Confident that this is His fight, the Church must overcome fear and enter the fray, armed with the spiritual weapons of prayer, self-sacrifice, love, and focused on being the obedient, forgiven, transformed, empowered discipling Bond Servants of Jesus Christ until death permits retirement.

Eric Metaxas, author of fourteen books, including Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy; Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery; and If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty.

Introduction

I have written this book because I am convinced the American Church is at an impossibly – and almost unbearably – important inflection point. The parallels to where the German Church was in the 1930s are unavoidable and grim. So the only question – and what concerns us in this slim volume – is whether we might understand those parallels, and thereby avoid the fatal mistakes the German Church made during that time, and their superlatively catastrophic results. If we do not, I am convinced we will reap a whirlwind greater than the one they did.

            The German Church of the 1930s was silent in the face of evil; but can there be any question whether the American Church of our own time is guilty of the same silence? Because of this, I am compelled to speak out, and say what – only by God’s grace – I might say to make plain where we find ourselves at this moment, at our unavoidably crucial crossroads in history.

            It is for good or for ill that America plays an inescapably central role in the world. If you have not read Alexis de Tocqueville on this subject, you likely nonetheless understand that the extent to which that central role has been used for the good and God’s purposes has had everything to do with our churches, or with the American Church, as we may call her. So if America is in any way exceptional, it has nothing to do with the blood that runs through American veins and everything to do with the blood shed for us on Calvary, and the extent to which we have acknowledged this. America has led the world in making religious liberty paramount, knowing that this is only with a deep regard for it that we may speak of liberty at all. It was this that made Tocqueville marvel most: that while in other nations – and especially in his own nation of France – the Church was adamantly opposed to the idea of political liberty, in America it was the churches that helped, encourage, create, and sustain a culture of liberty.

            Because of the outsized role America plays in the world today, the importance of whether we learn the lesson of what happened to the German Church ninety years ago cannot be overstated. Though it may be a gruesome thing to consider, the monstrous evil that befell the civilized world precisely because of the German Church’s failure is likely a mere foretaste of what will befall the world if the American Church fails in a similar way at this hour.

            And at present we are failing.

            We should underscore the idea that the centrality of our nation in the world does not mean that we are intrinsically exceptional, but rather that God has sovereignly chosen us to hold the torch of liberty for all the world, and that the Church is central to our doing this. So the idea that He has charged us with this most solemn duty should make us tremble. Nonetheless, we must carry out that duty in a way that is the opposite of prideful and that is meant to be an invitation to all beyond our shores. If we should aspire – in the words of Jesus, as quoted by John Winthrop – to be a  ”shining city on a hill,” the idea is that we should exist and shine for the sake of others and not for ourselves alone.

President Abraham Lincoln said that we in America were God’s “almost chosen people,” and acknowledged this placed upon us an almost unbearable burden. It is certainty from the Scriptures and from our experience over the centuries that apart from God we can do nothing. So if God has chosen us for some task, we must do all we can to shoulder that task, and must know more than anything that unless we lean on Him and acknowledge Him in all our ways, we are guaranteed to fail.

            We must also remind ourselves that when God chooses anyone – whether the nation of Israel or a single person – to perform any role or any task, it is never to be celebrated, as though the one chosen has won a contest. So if the Lord Almighty has chosen America and the American Church to stand against the evils and deceptions of this present darkness, we had better be sure we understand what is required of us, and had better make sure we do all that is possible to fulfill our charge.

            Throughout this book I will touch on some issues we are facing, but let us say here that it is something almost unprecedented: the emergence of ideas and forces that ultimately are at war with God Himself. It’s easy to see this with regard to Germany in the 1930s, when we think of death camps and the murder of so many millions, but we need to understand that in the beginning they had no idea where it was leading, and had no idea they were facing nothing less than the forces of the anti-Christ. We are now facing those same forces in different guises. But the extent of it is even worse than it was ninety years ago, because these forces today do not have an agenda that is hyper-nationalistic, as in Germany, but that is actually anti-nationalistic – which is to say that is the globalist agenda.

            These ideas seemed to have emerged lately, but they have been growing quietly in our midst and we have not taken them seriously enough. Many have been fooled into thinking them essentially harmless. We are today like the proverbial frog in the saucepan, simmering along and never realizing that unless we see our situation and leap out now, we are very soon to be cooked and beyond all leaping. The ideas and forces we face have an atheistic Marxist ideology in common, although it never declares itself as such. It knows that doing this would wake up many people who are still asleep, and that would ruin everything.

            But what we must dare to see is that these many ideas share a bitter taproot that leads all the way to Hell. Critical Race Theory – which is atheistic and Marxist – and radical transgender and pro-abortion ideologies are all inescapably anti-God and anti-human. So they are dedicatedly at war with the ideas of family and marriage, and with the idea of America as a force for good – as a force for spreading the Gospel and Gospel values throughout the world. These atheistic  ideas have over many decades infiltrated our own culture in such a way that they touch everything, and part of what makes them so wicked is that they smilingly pretend to share the biblical values that champion the underdog against the oppressor. As Stalin and Hitler and Mao would butcher millions in the name of fighting for “the people,” so these forces do the same and are angling to do much, much more of the same – if we will allow them the time to strengthen themselves, if we do not fight with all our might against them right now.

            One of the principal ways in which they have gained strength is in persuading so many in the American Church that to fight them is to abandon the “Gospel” for pure culture warring or for politics. This is not just nonsense, but it is a supremely deceptive and satanic lie, designed only to silence those who would genuinely speak for truth. So those who behave as though there is nothing to worry about, who seem to think – as such prominent pastors as Andy Stanley and others do – that we ought to assiduously avoid fighting these threats and be “apolitical” are tragically mistaken, are burying their heads in the sand and exhorting others to do the same. Or to put it another way, they are in their churches singing more and more loudly to drown out the cries of those in the boxcars heading to their gruesome deaths. Sing with us, they say, and don’t worry about all of those other issues out there. They don’t concern us. Our job is to focus on God, and to pretend that we can do so without fighting for those He loves, whose lives and futures are being destroyed.

            So to restate our situation, this is not a task or duty we in the American Church have asked for. Nonetheless, just as the German Church had a painfully important task and did not rise to that occasion to perform it, so we have a painfully important task, whether we have asked for it or not. God calls us to do something, but the choice whether we do it is entirely ours. Because we are made in God’s image, we are perfectly free, and therefore cannot be compelled to do what is right. It is a chilling prospect, especially in light of the failure of the German Church.

            If anyone would feel that believing God has chosen the American Church for such a vital role somehow smacks of an egotistical nationalism, they have already bought into the Marxist and globalist lie that America is nothing special – or is probably a force for evil at this point. In any case, they miss the point and have only leapt away from one ditch to fall headlong into another. It is a fact that God in His sovereignty chose the German Church to stand against the evils of its day, but it shrank from acknowledging this and from standing. Germany has been living with deep shame over it unto this day. So for the American Church to say that God has not chosen us is as bad as saying He must choose because we deserve to be chosen. Both stances are equally guilty of the sin of pride. It is far easier to ignore God’s call than to acknowledge it and rise to fulfill it, but it is more difficult and painful than anything to live with the results of ignoring God’s call. Let the reader understand.

Table of Contents

Ch. 1  What Is the Church?

Ch. 2  Does God Ask Us to See the Future?

Ch. 3  “Unless You Repent”

Ch. 4  “The Church and the Jewish Question”

Ch. 5  12,000 Pastors

Ch. 6  The Spiral of Silence

Ch. 7  Two Errors of Faith

Ch. 8  The Church Paralyzed

Ch. 9  The Idol of Evangelism

Ch.10 Speaking the Truth in Love

Ch. 11 Be Ye Not Political

Ch. 12 Who Do You Say God Is?

Ch. 13 The Parable of the Talents

Ch. 14 Justifying Ourselves

Ch. 15 “Religionless Christianity”

Ch. 16 The Final Push

Accept His Love.  Live His Joy.  Grow His Fruit.  Embrace His Peace.  Share His Hope.  Refute Satan’s Evil.  merlin

Weekly Dobson Policy Center Update

Gary Bauer, Senior Vice President of Public Policy

This is included today only FYI. To be on the JDFI email list, add enews@drjamesdobson.org to your contacts or Safe Sender List to insure delivery to your inbox.

Another FYI today, since there are a few folks who believe we’re getting too political here. My simple answer is just because we answer to a higher calling, and a higher standard of truth and righteousness, does not mean we’re not to be involved in the life of our nation and our world, for that is where the church is… Yet, So Get Ready!

Is it conceivable that Christians could be banned from teaching in public schools? Some radical secularists have advocated for it. Now, a school board in Arizona has gone a step further. The Washington Elementary School District, serving students in the Phoenix area, just cancelled a contract the district had with Arizona Christian University (ACU). The contract made it possible for ACU’s student teachers to be placed in local schools for “field experience.”

There were no complaints from parents or students about the arrangement, which has been in place for five years. Then some school board members read ACU’s website where they found a mission statement that said the university is “committed to Jesus Christ – accomplishing His will and advancing His kingdom on earth as in heaven.” The university also stated that it believed in “the centrality of family …traditional sexual morality and lifelong marriage between one man and one woman.”
 
That simple statement of biblical belief was too much for the three members of the board who identify as LGBTQ+. The effort to cancel the contract was led by board member Tamillia Valenzuela, who describes herself as “a bilingual, disabled, neurodivergent Queer Black Latina.” She attends board meetings wearing cat ears. Another board member attacked Arizona Christian University for “teaching with a biblical lens.”
 
ACU has now filed a lawsuit represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The lawsuit asserts: “This civil rights action seeks to protect a Christian university and its students’ fundamental rights to religious exercise and speech, and to be free from unlawful governmental discrimination simply because of their religious status and beliefs … Despite there being zero complaints about an Arizona Christian student teacher or alumnus, the School District decided to terminate its relationship with Arizona Christian and its students solely because of their religious status and beliefs on biblical marriage and sexuality.”
 
If history is any guide, what started in this school district will not stay in that school district. This outrage is a perfect example of what Dr. James Dobson and our team has argued for years. Someone’s values win. America once universally welcomed morally upright men and women to teach in our public schools. Today, there is increasing hostility to Christian teachers and acceptance of radical teachers who are exposing children to inappropriate LGBTQ propaganda. 
 
This is a good time to remember the importance of voting, going to school board meetings and taking every initiative you can to save your children and grandchildren. 
 



Biden Budget Disaster
 
James Dobson Family Institute (JDFI) does not usually weigh in on the, sometimes, arcane budget battles in Washington, D.C. But we cannot ignore the budget proposal just unveiled by the Biden administration. From economic policy to social policy impacting faith, family and freedom, the budget is a disaster. 
 
Biden’s budget includes, what even the pro-Biden Washington Post called, “unprecedented tax hikes” of five trillion dollars. The administration claims taxes have to be increased because our national debt is growing. But the same budget does not decrease the national debt – it increases it another $20 trillion over the next 10 years. That means President Biden is proposing major tax hikes and major new spending. In fact, the budget is 40% bigger than the last budget before COVID! All of this new debt will be left to our children and grandchildren to deal with. That amounts to an immoral generational transfer that will destroy their economic hopes and dreams.
 
Under the budget, big government grows even bigger and more powerful, while everything else, including economic growth, will get smaller. One of JDFI’s priorities is stopping America’s drift away from free enterprise and toward the “dead hand of smothering big government socialism.” This budget takes that disturbing trend and puts it on steroids. The IRS alone will get 86,000 new agents!
 
The priorities in the budget are also distorted. In a computer analysis of its 184 pages, the police are only mentioned four times, during a time when America is experiencing a nation-wide crime wave. Unbelievably, words like “transgender” (8 times), “intersex” (7 times) and the offensive slur “queer” (7 times) are all used more often, reflecting the Biden administration’s commitment to pushing the radical “52 genders” woke agenda. 
 
How about our veterans? The budget includes $137.9 million for the Department of Veteran Affairs, but bizarrely sets part of the money aside for “providing gender-affirming care to the nation’s veterans,” including sex change operations. At a time when homelessness impacts many veterans, are sex change operations really a top priority?
 
Of course, the budget does have its “fans.” One of the most powerful supporters is Planned Parenthood, the nation’s top abortion provider. Biden calls for providing them another $1.2 billion of your hard-earned tax dollars for their “vital” work of abortion on demand. This budget will be and should be “dead on arrival.” America can do a lot better. 
 



Biden HHS Attacks Rights of Conscience – Pro-Life Members of Congress Fight Back
 
Unfortunately, the Biden administration continues to be obsessed with keeping the number of abortions performed in the U.S. as high as possible. Fortunately, 25 pro-life senators and representatives are fighting back. 
 
Biden’s regulators have proposed a new rule that threatens to erase the conscience protections that prevent medical professionals from being forced to participate in abortions. The proposed rule states, “our health care systems must effectively deliver services, including safe, legal abortions, to all who need them in order to protect patients’ health and dignity.” Predictably, the “health and dignity” of the innocent preborn child, who will be dismembered or scalded with powerful chemicals, is not mentioned.
 
The Biden administration’s proposed rule is morally repugnant and also likely violates federal conscience statutes that have been passed by Congress, including the Conscience Protection Act.
 
The pro-life members of Congress, led by Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) and Senator James Lankford (R-OK), along with Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) in the House of Representatives, have filed a public letter with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), demanding they “enforce all conscience protections” Congress has passed. The senators remind Biden’s HHS bureaucrats that those statutes protect all medical professionals from performing or assisting in any health care services, procedures or research to which “they may object for religious, moral, ethical, or other reasons.”
 
JDFI believes this battle over the “conscience rights” of Christians and people of other faiths should be a wake-up call to the Church. This attack on conscience safeguards along with the continued effort to force all taxpayers to subsidize abortions, euthanasia and radical gender surgeries is a direct attack on our basic liberties and freedom of religion.
 
JDFI is working diligently to encourage additional pro-life members of Congress to sign the letter. Those who have currently signed include: Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Boozman(R-AR), Mike Braun (R-IN), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), John Kennedy (R-LA), James Lankford (R-OK), Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-KS), Jim Risch(R-ID), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Thune (R-SD), Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Representatives Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Jim Banks (R-IN), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Andy Harris (R-MD), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), Christopher Smith (R-NJ) and Brad Wenstrup (R-OH).


Gary Bauer’s New Podcast, “Defending Faith, Family, and Freedom”

Listen to Gary Bauer’s new podcast, “Defending Faith, Family, and Freedom” on our website or on your favorite platform, including Google, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher. Click the button below to subscribe. Every episode will help you stay informed and engaged on the policy and cultural issues that matter most to you and your family.

This is included today only FYI to add enews@drjamesdobson.org to your contacts or Safe Sender List to insure delivery to your inbox.

Accept His Love. Live His Joy. Embrace His Peace. Share His Hope. Refute Evil…... merlin

Alert: Democrats Developing New Form of Vote Harvesting

Both documents below are FYI on this blog’s designated Political Wednesday without comment. merlin

A stunning revelation from the Restoration of America (ROA) Political Action Committee (PAC) is exposing a new scam by the Democrats to harvest votes. The way this is reportedly being done is through non-profit groups.

Democrats have found a way to sign people up behind the scenes via non-profits, even though non-profit groups are not allowed to have any partisan leanings.

Here’s How It’s Being Done

The report from Restoration of America comes in two parts. It digs deep into how the Democrats are using 501c3 non-profit groups to sign people up who will likely vote Democratic.

Non-profits are barred by US law from engaging in partisan activities or checking who somebody will vote for before registering them.

However, groups like the Center for Voter Information and Voter Participation Center simply go sign people up that they know will almost definitely vote Democratic, based on the groups they’re in.

CVI and VPC already mailed out almost 86 million mailers to 32 states ahead of the 2022 midterms to boost the vote, especially states that were hoped to turn left, like Pennsylvania and Georgia.

As the ROA report notes, both of these groups use “microtargeting techniques” to find out where members of non-profits live to send them mailers and outreach.

They then target those in districts that need more votes to flip the districts or other key races like the Senate.

Digging Deeper Into the Fraud

Digging deeper into this backhanded scheme, we see a lot of shady stuff emerge. One influential PAC called Mind the Gap, for example, was started by the mom of former FTX head Sam Bankman-Fried.

This individual, Barbara Fried, helped use her PAC to get rich leftists to funnel their money into groups like CVI and VPC. Fried promised people this could net up to 500% more votes for them for the same amount of money.

This shows that funneling money towards CVI and VPC and other groups isn’t just some innocent support of “democracy” and signing people up.

Wealthy donors and Democratic PACs know what’s happening; voters are being systematically targeted and reached if they are likely to vote blue. This is their strategy and the right had better wake up before they get a permanent stranglehold on elections.

Can This Be Stopped?

Stopping this kind of sneaky fraud is difficult to do. That’s because these kinds of leftist groups are getting around the IRS ban by finding backdoor ways to geographically target voters and sign them up.

Suing federally can’t work because they aren’t technically violating IRS rules. Though suing at the state level is possible and eventually, this issue seems likely to reach the Supreme Court as well.

The Bottom Line

We can’t afford to take our eyes off the ball. Dirty Democratic tricks are constantly increasing, especially as we head into 2024.

This article appeared in FreshOffThePress and has been published here with permission.

https://open.substack.com/pub/seymourhersh/p/whos-your-george-ball?r=690o5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

WHO’S YOUR GEORGE BALL?

Every President Needs a Voice of Dissent – Does Joe Biden Have One?

This is an account of another American who, like Daniel Ellsberg, did the right thing at the right time in the middle of a war. But unlike Ellsberg’s, his act of courage did not make the headlines, and he suffered little for it. His name is George W. Ball. He was a Midwestern lawyer who did not politically support John F. Kennedy in his 1960 presidential campaign and did not serve bravely or endure violence during World War II. But he had played a key role in the American postwar rebuilding of Europe and was appointed early in 1961 as an undersecretary of state in the Kennedy Administration. His main task was to deal with international economic and agricultural affairs.

Ball had directed the American postwar bombing survey in London at the end of the war. He understood, as the survey had shown, that the intense daytime bombing of German cities had not destroyed morale, as had been assumed, but had increased citizen support for the Nazi regime—and perhaps extended the duration of the war. Ball would later be the only senior Kennedy Administration official who directly warned the president of the dangers of committing American soldiers to the Vietnam War, as had been recommended by his generals. In his 2000 book Our Vietnam: The War 1954-1975, A.J. Langguth, who covered the war for the New York Times, recounted Ball’s gutsy warning in late 1961 to the president: “If we go down that road we might have, within five years, 300,000 men in the rice paddies of the jungles of Vietnam and never be able to find them.” 

In a 1982 memoir, Ball recalled Kennedy’s irritated response: “George, you’re just crazier than hell. That just isn’t going to happen.” Back in his office, Ball told an aide, “We’re heading hell-bent into a mess and there’s not a goddamn thing I can do about it. Either everybody else is crazy or I am.”

Ball, who had worked with and supported Adlai Stevenson, the liberal former governor of Illinois, in two failed presidential campaigns in the 1950s, was disdained by many of the tough-minded and tough-talking war planners inside the administration not as a truth teller but as a “dove.”

Kennedy had been shaken by his early failure to oust Fidel Castro, Cuba’s communist leader, in the first months of his administration and a brutal summit meeting weeks later with a dismissive Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. He would make a stand in South Vietnam. In 1962 he also chose to become the first American president to try to thwart what Washington saw as the Soviet Union’s ambitions to weaponize its enormous reservoirs of oil and natural gas. Russia had announced its intention to build a 2,500-mile pipeline from its oil and natural gas fields in Tatarstan, 700 miles to the east of Moscow, that would be capable of supplying much-needed cheap energy to countries in the Soviet bloc within five or so years, with smaller pipelines that could spread deeper into Europe. All were still struggling to rebuild from the devastation of World War II.

Kennedy responded through NATO in a futile effort to impose an embargo on the imports from Western Europe to Russia of the materials to build the pipeline. In a 2018 study, Nikos Tsafos, an expert who was named last year as the energy adviser to the prime minister of Greece, described what happened next: Kennedy’s “goal was to delay or even stop the . . . pipeline that would increase Soviet oil exports. The embargo split the [NATO] alliance, with the United Kingdom being the most vocal against it; the pipeline was completed with only a slight delay, and the embargo was removed in 1966.” Tsafos quoted a colleague as noting that “one could argue that the pipe embargo caused more damage to US-European relations than to the Soviet economy.” That assessment, Tsafos noted, “applies to almost every transatlantic effort against Soviet and, later, Russian hydrocarbons.”

President Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981 determined to confront what he would come to call the “evil empireand quickly escalated tensions between Washington and Moscow. He revived the B-1 bomber program that had been canceled by the Carter Administration; announced that his Administration would invest billions in an anti-ballistic missile defense system; and deployed Pershing II missiles, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, to West Germany. In a 1982 speech he talked of consigning the Soviet Union to “ash heap of history.”

Reagan, too, attempted to block a second Soviet pipeline that would run from Western Siberia to Western Europe. The West German government had approved the concept and agreed in principle to lend $4.75 billion to help finance it. Reagan offered to supply the West German government with coal and nuclear power if it would withdraw from its agreement with Moscow. The Germans said no. France subsequently signed a multi-million dollar contract with the Soviet Union for the purchase of the Siberian gas. The Reagan Administration responded by escalating the existing sanctions against American business support for the pipeline to include any foreign companies doing business with Russia. All such firms would be barred from doing any business with the United States.

Enter George Ball again, now just retired after many quiet years as a managing partner of Lehman Brothers in New York. He published an essay, “The Case Against Sanctions,” in the New York Times Magazine in the fall of 1982 that is eerily prescient of the anti-Russian views repeatedly voiced today by President Biden, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland. 

“The Reagan Administration,” Ball wrote, “has now brought to the shaping of governmental decisions an ideological bias one might call the Manichaean Heresy. Present day Manichaeans espouse the doctrinal concept that Soviet Communism is the Antichrist—an evil element that must be extirpated if we are to have peace in the world. . . . [T]hat view is now shared by neo-conservative intellectuals. . . . As their major operational tactic, the Manicheans would have the United States seize every pretext to harass the Russians. . . .The Soviet economy is huge, the Soviet Union commands vast raw materials resources within its borders. . . . Niggling sanctions, no matter how persistently applied, could never prove more than a marginal nuisance. . . . With arrogance in inverse proportion to their own credentials of experience, Administration leaders are using crude methods to try to ride roughshod over the considered judgments and interests of allied governments, acting as though the United States had a monopoly of wisdom.”

Three decades later, in 2014, Vice President Joe Biden would reprise Reagan’s language and his fears of Russia’s gas and oil reserves in a speech to the Atlantic Council Energy and Economic Summit in Istanbul. Russia’s use of its energy was “a weapon undermining the security of nations,” he warned. “Here in Europe energy security is an especially vital regional security interest because of Russia’s track record in using the supply of energy as a foreign policy weapon.

“My message here,” Biden continued, “is not that Europe can or should do away with Russian imports. That is not the case at all. I have no doubt that Russia will and should remain a major source of energy supplies for Europe and the world . . . but it has to play by the rules of the game. It shouldn’t be able to use energy policy to play with the game.” Biden was warning Russia that it must play by America’s rules. Therein lie the seeds of the demise of the Nord Stream pipelines eight years later.

In his 1982 essay, Ball offered a future America what would be unheeded guidance about the way to deal with an unwanted Russian pipeline: “If our government thinks, for whatever reasons, that the pipeline is not a good idea, it should quietly urge that view on its allies and try to persuade them to pursue a different course; that is what alliances are all about.”

President Biden chose last September to ignore America’s European allies. More than that, he put those allies at risk of not being able to keep their people warm by approving the destruction of Nord Stream pipelines. He and his national security team did not have the courage or integrity to say what was done and why. At this point, barring a major defection among the few in the know, Biden and his aides will likely never admit the truth.

It is impossible to know, pending disclosures by the administration, why Biden chose that day to destroy the pipeline, but it is a fact that ten days earlier he had been indirectly mocked by Vladimir Putin during a press conference following a summit meeting of the Russian-sponsored Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Uzbekistan. Putin was asked about the rising price of natural gas throughout Europe, which was depicted as a consequence of the war he chose to start with Ukraine. Putin claimed that the energy crisis in Europe was not triggered by the war but was the result of what he called “the green agenda” and the shutting down of gas and oil facilities in response to environmental protests.

The Russian president then said if the West needs more gas “urgently . . . if things are so bad . . just go ahead and lift sanctions [that had been applied by the German government, with American approval] against Nord Stream 2 with its 55 billion cubic meters per year. All they have to do is press the button and they will get it going. But they chose to shut it off themselves . . . imposed sanctions against the new Nord Stream 2 and will not open it. Are we to blame for this? Let them [the West] think hard about who is to blame and let none of them blame us for their mistakes.”

Ball’s criticism of sanctions is little remembered now, but his courage in confronting Kennedy early on in the Vietnam War has lingered in the minds of a few senior Washington policymakers. While reporting for the New Yorker on the pernicious and secret foreign policy intrigues of Vice President Dick Cheney in the years after 9/11, I was called one afternoon by the secretary to Representative David Obey. The Democrat from Wisconsin was chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, and he was unquestionably one the most important, and reclusive, members of Congress. He’d been in the House since 1969 and was one of those almost invisible representatives who made Congress what it should be. Obey was also one of four members of a subcommittee, two Democrats and two Republicans, with access to the CIA’s secrets—the findings on all covert operations that the agency under law has to provide to Congress. Obey’s message to me was very direct: he was reading in my dispatches about alleged covert operations that were not known to him. What happened next remains a private matter, but sometime after Obey retired in 2011, two years into Barack Obama’s first term, I made a point to get in contact with him.

Obey told me a story about George Ball of all people. It turned out that the memory of Ball’s willingness to confront Kennedy with an unwanted truth about the Vietnam War still burned brightly in some. Obey said that as a ranking Democratic member of the House he had been invited by Obama to a small meeting early in the new administration to discuss the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Obey told me that he had stayed quiet while generals and legislators discussed how many troops the new president should add to current levels. His worry was a matter of budget concerns. (The only hint of dissent voiced in the meeting, Obey recalled, had come from Joe Biden. This early caution foreshadowed Biden’s decision last year to admit defeat and pull the American military out of Afghanistan. It was a decision marred by poor planning, a lack of sufficient force, and a suicide bombing that killed thirteen American soldiers in the evacuation process.) 

As the meeting ended, Obey said, he asked the president if he had a moment for a quick chat. Obey warned Obama that expanding the Afghan War “would crowd out [from the budget] large portions of your domestic program—except perhaps health care.” He asked the new president if he remembered the White House recordings of Lyndon Johnson in the days after the assassination of Kennedy that were released a few years earlier and had become constant Saturday morning public radio fodder. Obama did. Did the president remember Johnson’s talk within a few months after the he took office with Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, the conservative head of the Armed Services Committee, in which both men acknowledged that adding more troops in Vietnam, then sought by the U.S. commanders in Saigon, would not help the war effort and could even lead to a disastrous war with China? Johnson also worried, he told Russell, that many thousands of American soldiers would die in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Again Obama said yes, he remembered those exchanges. Obey then asked Obama, “Who’s your George Ball?” There was silence. “Either the president chose not to answer,” the disappointed Obey told me, “or he did not have one.” With that question the conversation was over. Obama subsequently authorized an increase of 30,000 troops for the war.

Refute the Evil. Live the Joy. Share the Hope. merlin

My Fifty Years With Dan Ellsberg

the man who changed America by Seymour Hersh 03/7/23, written for you aging historians still desirous for the rest of the story…

I think it best that I begin with the end. On March 6, I and dozens of Dan’s friends and fellow activists received a two-page notice that he had been diagnosed with incurable pancreatic cancer and was refusing chemotherapy because the prognosis, even with chemo, was dire. He will be ninety-two in April.

Last November, over a Thanksgiving holiday spent with family in Berkeley, I drove a few miles to visit Dan at the home in neighboring Kensington he has shared for decades with his wife Patricia. My intent was to yack with him for a few hours about our mutual obsession, Vietnam. More than fifty years later, he was still pondering the war as a whole, and I was still trying to understand the My Lai massacre. I arrived at 10 am and we spoke without a break—no water, no coffee, no cookies—until my wife came to fetch me, and to say hello and visit with Dan and Patricia. She left, and I stayed a few more minutes with Dan, who wanted to show me his library of documents that could have gotten him a long prison term. Sometime around 6 pm—it was getting dark—Dan walked me to my car, and we continued to chat about the war and what he knew—oh, the things he knew—until I said I had to go and started the car. He then said, as he always did, “You know I love you, Sy.”

So this is a story about a tutelage that began in the summer of 1972, when Dan and I first connected. I have no memory of who called whom, but I was then at the New York Times and Dan had some inside information on White House horrors he wanted me to chase down—stuff that had not been in the Pentagon Papers. 

I was planning to write about my friendship with Dan after he passed away but last weekend my youngest son reminded me that he still had some of the magic trick materials that Dan had delighted him with in the mid-1980s, when Dan was crashing with our family, as he often did when visiting Washington. “Why not write about him now?” he asked. Why not? 

I first learned of Dan’s importance in the summer of 1971, when he was outed for delivering the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times a few weeks after the newspaper began a series of shattering stories about the disconnect between what we were told and what really had been going on. Those papers remain today the most vital discussion of a war from the inside. Even after the New York Times exposures, their seven thousand pages would be rarely read in full.

I was then working for the New Yorker on a Vietnam project and had learned that it was Dan who did the leaking a week or so before his name became public. His outing was inevitable, and on June 26, after hiding out in Cambridge, Dan strolled to the U.S Attorney’s office in Boston—there were scores of journalists waiting—and had a brief chat with the reporters before turning himself in for what all expected would be the trial of the decade. He told the crowd that he hoped that “the truth will free us of this war.” And then, as he fought his way to the courthouse steps, a reporter asked him how he felt about going to prison. His response struck me then and still makes me tingle: “Wouldn’t you go to prison to help end this war?”

I had done my bit in exposing the My Lai massacre and publishing a book about it in 1970. I was then in the process of writing a second book on the Army’s cover-up of the slaughter. “Hell, no,” I thought to myself, “No way I would go to jail—especially for telling an unwanted truth.” I followed Ellsberg’s subsequent trial in a Los Angeles federal court and even wrote about the wrongdoing of the White House creeps who broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychoanalyst—at the request of President Nixon. (The government’s case was thrown out after the extent of the White House-ordered spying on Ellsberg became public.)

It was early in the election year summer of 1972 when Ellsberg and I got in touch with each other. I was banging away on the losing Vietnam war and CIA misdeeds for the Times. Nixon looked like a sure thing, despite continuing the hated war, because of stumble after stumble for the campaign of the Democratic nominee, Senator George McGovern. Dan had two stories that he thought could change the dynamics of the November election.

I liked him right off the bat. He was so earnest, so bright, as handsome as a movie star, and so full of the kind of inside information about the Vietnam War that few others had. And so willing to share them with no worry about the consequences. He understood that as the source of highly secret information and procedures he was taking all the risks and that as a reporter I was going to write stories that would get acclaim and put me at no risk. At some point in our chats, I brought him home for a good meal. His campaign against the Vietnam War was literally consuming him, and he immediately engaged with my wife and our two small children. He did magic tricks, he was marvelous on the piano—Dan could play the Beatles and Beethoven—and he connected with all of us. Our friendship was locked in—forever. I confess that late at night—we were both night owls—he and I would walk the dog and find time to sit on a curb somewhere and smoke a few Thai sticks. How Dan always managed to have a supply of these joints from Southeast Asia I chose not to ask. He would talk about all the sealed and locked secret files of the Vietnam War that he could recall, with his photographic memory, in near perfect detail.

In the early 1980s I was writing a long and very critical book about Henry Kissinger’s sordid days as Nixon’s national security adviser and secretary of State, with a focus on Vietnam. At one point, Dan spent more than a week in our home, rising at 6 am to read the 2,300 pages of typed manuscript. He understood that I did not want his analyses or disagreements with my conclusions, but only factual errors. One morning Dan told me I had misread a mid-1960s Washington Post piece on the war by Joe Kraft, whose column was then a must-read. I argued, and he was adamant. So I drove downtown to my office, dug through boxes of files and found the column. Dan had remembered the details of a two-decade-old column in a daily newspaper. His memory was scary.

There were two White House abuses he wanted me to expose before the presidential election in the fall of 1972. Dan told me that Nixon and Kissinger—for whom Dan had written an important early policy paper he was appointed national security adviser—had been wiretapping aides and cabinet members. The second tip Dan had for me was that Kissinger had ordered some of his aides to produce a plan for using tactical nuclear weapons in South Vietnam, in case they were needed to end the war on American terms. If I could get one or two sources—by this time there were a number of former Kissinger aides who had quietly resigned over the Vietnam War—on the record, Dan said, it just might get the Democrats into office. It was the longest of long shots, but I tried like hell all summer to find someone who had firsthand information, as Dan did not, and who was willing to confirm Dan’s information, even if on background. Of course, it was understood I would have to tell Abe Rosenthal, executive editor of the Times, who my off-the-record source was.

It was a lousy summer for me, because there were a few former Kissinger aides who easily confirmed Dan’s information, but would not agree to my providing their names to the Times. In one case, with a very decent guy who very much hoped he would get a senior job in a future administration, I came close, aided by the fact that his wife—I always conducted such visits at night—said to her husband, “Oh, for God’s sakes just tell him the truth.” She said it over and over. Talk about a painful experience. Needless to say, their marriage did not last long. The wife’s anger that the truth was not being told helped me understand Dan’s obsession with a war whose worst elements were simply not known to the public. I wasn’t able to get any source on the record in time for the election, but in subsequent years I did get the stories. 

There was one story Dan told me in late 1993 that seemed to capture the secret life on the inside of a major war. He had gone back and forth on short missions to South Vietnam while working as a senior State Department official, but he jumped at a chance in mid-1965 to join a team in Saigon committed to pacification—winning hearts and minds—of the villagers in the South. Its leader was Ed Lansdale, a CIA hero of counterinsurgency for his earlier efforts in routing communist insurgents in the Philippines.

I always took good notes in my meetings with Dan, not because I planned to write about him at some point—I knew he would write his own memoirs—but because I was getting a seminar on how things really worked on the inside. Read his words, and you can judge for yourself how complicated life could be at the top.

“In 1965,” Dan began, “I had done a study of the Cuban missile crisis and I had four operational clearances above top secret, including U-2 clearances” and National Security Agency clearances. He had also interviewed Bobby Kennedy two times about his role in the crisis. Ellsberg’s clearances were so sacrosanct that he was supposed to register in a special office upon arrival in Saigon and from then on he would not be allowed to travel outside of Saigon without an armored car or in a two-engine airplane or better. He got around the system by not deigning to register, a rarity in a world of war where top secret clearances were seen by many as evidence of machismo.

And so Ellsberg went off to work in Saigon with Lansdale. “For one and one half years,” Ellsberg said, “I spent nearly every evening listening to Lansdale talk about his covert operations in the Philippines and earlier in North Vietnam in the 1950s. By this time I’d been working with secrets for years and thought I knew what kind of secrets could be kept from whom. I also thought Ed and I had a good working knowledge of each other and our secrets. Every piece of information was cataloged in your mind and you knew to whom you could say and what you could say. In all of this, Jack Kennedy was mentioned and so was Bobby, but there was no mention by Lansdale of Cuba and no mention that Lansdale had ever worked for Jack and Bobby Kennedy.” 

A decade later, after both Kennedy brothers had been assassinated, I wrote a series for the New York Times on the CIA’s spying on hundreds of thousands of American anti-Vietnam war protesters, members of Congress and reporters—all in direct violation of the agency’s 1947 charter barring any domestic activity. It led to the establishment of the Senate’s Church Committee in 1975. It was the most extensive Congressional inquiry into the activities of the CIA since the agency’s beginning. The committee exposed the assassination activities of the CIA, operations undertaken on orders that clearly came from Jack and Bobby Kennedy, although no direct link was published in the committee’s final report. But the committee reported extensively on a secret group authorized by Jack Kennedy and run by his brother Bobby to come up with options to terrorize Cuba and assassinate Fidel Castro. The covert operation had the code name Mongoose. And it was led, the committee reported, in 1961 and 1962 by Ed Lansdale.

Ellsberg told me he was flabbergasted. “When I heard about Lansdale and Mongoose,” he said, “it revealed to me an ability to keep secrets on an insider level that went far beyond what I had imagined. It was like discovering your next-door neighbor and your weekend fishing companion”—Ellsberg, it should be noted, never went fishing in his life—“and close, dear friend who, when he died, turned out to have been the secretary of State.

“It was astounding, because Mongoose was exactly the kind of operation I’d expected to hear about from Lansdale. He told about covert operations all the time. I think Ed had been told by President Kennedy to ‘keep his fucking mouth shut.’

“When you’ve been in a system with as high a level as possible of secrecy, you understand that things do get talked about. And you get a sense of what is usually held back. I was hearing all about other covert operations, but somebody—not Landsdale—had put a lid on Mongoose.”

After the assassination of Jack Kennedy, Ellsberg theorized, “any far reaching investigation into his death would have to lead to many covert operations.” His point was that there was no evidence that the Warren Commission set up to investigate the assassination had done so.

In all of Dan’s many hours of tutoring, as I understood years later, he understood and empathized with my eagerness—even my need—to learn all that I could about his world of secrets and lies, things said out loud and hidden in top-secret documents. And so he happily became my tutor and taught me where and how to look inside the recessed corners of the American intelligence community.

In return, I gave him my friendship and welcomed him into my family. He loved long talks with my wife, a doctor, teaching the kids magic tricks, and playing Billy Joel songs and similar stuff on the piano for them. We all sensed early on that there was a need for him to be an innocent kid, too, if only to serve as a brief respite from his constant anxiety and the guilt he carried in his soul about what his America had done to the Vietnamese people.

Dan was showing me an insider’s love, just as he and Patricia radiated love and acceptance to all their many friends and admirers who, like me, will never forget the lessons he taught us and what we learned. 

No way I’m going to wait for him to move along without saying what I want to say right now.

To watch Ellsberg speaking to a press conference on New Year’s Eve 1971, click here. To watch the 2009 documentary on Ellsberg, The Most Dangerous Man in America, click here.

Seymour Hersh is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Historical Roots of Our Beloved Doxology

I will give thanks to Thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart, and will glorify Thy name forever. Psalms 86:12

It’s been a productive week here on the blog, hopefully being purposeful, intentional, informative, reflective, sourcing both healing and renewal, and as always, to offer praise and worship to our Triune God. I’ve been told “the Father begets, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit presides,” which I learned after I did due diligence this morning on the “Doxology” whose words are below:

Praise God from whom all blessings flow;

praise Him, all creatures here below;

praise Him above, ye heavenly host;

praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

These lines are likely the most sung words now for more than 300 years in congregations. Perhaps the Doxology has been more instrumental in teaching the doctrine of the Trinity than all theology books ever written. More than a hymn, Christ-Followers regard it as an offering or sacrifice of praise for God’s continual flow of blessings to us the past week, but even millenniums.

Too often as a child, I remember the Doxology marked the climax of a long Sunday morning sermon signaling the final march of the pastor to the rear door to encourage or admonish those in attendance, at least those who chose not to skip out the other doors. I just realized how this concluding church routine is all is so similar to the stadium antics with the national anthem being sung immediately prior to the teams taking the field. We boys too, took to the parking lot when the Doxology concluded as the pastor simultaneously pivoted at the rear door. Of course, we all clamored for the other exits, and no, there was definitely no sports gear present!

Perhaps your memories with the Doxology are similar, or maybe, you’re totally clueless. However, of interest to us keen on history, is that the author was a bold, perhaps brash, outspoken 17th century Anglican bishop named Thomas Ken (1637-1711). Orphaned, he was raised by his older sister and her husband, Izaak Walton, noted for his classic The Compleat Angler. A scholar at Winchester College, he spent most of his life intertwined with Winchester, both College and Cathedral. There the small statured prelate, through his preaching and music, sought to uplift the spiritual lives of his students.

His illustrious career was stormy and colorful. For a short while he served as the English chaplain at the royal court in the Hague, Holland, but being so outspoken in denouncing the corrupt lives of those in authority at the Dutch capital, he was sent home. Evidently by then, Dutch anabaptists were enjoying the ensuing Dutch Renaissance’s economic prosperity that followed their earlier reformational persecution, as they were already perfecting their later popular stance of being the “quiet in the land,” or at least, in their pew.

Thomas Ken however, upon returning to England, continued to reveal the same spirit of boldness in rebuking the moral sins of his dissolute monarch. Despite this, King Charles II always admired his courageous chaplain, reminding me of biblical Daniel who uniquely I believed served three leadership regimes during his captivity, and always, was admirably capable! Perhaps the question begging to be asked today, is why is the church discouraging our brightest and best from seeking to fill responsible positions as Daniel did so well? Even the NYC mayor, Eric Adams is trying. See below.

Bishop Ken was lauded by historian Macaulay with this tribute: “He came as near to the ideal of Christian perfection as human weakness permits.” See Kenneth W Osbeck, comp., Amazing Grace: 366 Hymn Stories for Personal Devotions, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications , 1990) p. 342.  

Indeed, a most worthy or envious epitaph, especially during this moment of historical chaos, likely as during Bishop Ken’s life. Reminds me of the clip sent me yesterday of NYC mayor Eric Adams speech this past Tuesday at an interfaith prayer breakfast. I wonder if they concluded with the Doxology? Click the link below to learn more.

I’m thinking perhaps a similar fire was/is present in their bellies? All three were simply obedient, forgiven, transformed, and empowered to disciple TODAY! If you can, sing the Doxology today with gusto, whether during the commute or in your shower! Live the Joy! It’s our privilege, even our mandate.

Does It Have To Take A War?

For you history buffs, many of us lived through these events as are brought to life today in his post, “Does It Take A War” by Seymour Hersh. But, for too many on the deck of life today who did not, and are now without historical moorings, in conjunction with his post I suggest you must read Romans 8: 22-39 from your favorite version to facilitate your internal moorings with His perspective, as that is the only one that will count in the end. Seriously! FYI, I prefer The Message Version here. Here’s Seymour:

There is an inevitable gap between what a president tells us about a war—even a proxy war—and the reality on the ground. It is true today as Joe Biden struggles for public support for the war in Ukraine, and it was true six decades ago as Jack Kennedy struggled to understand the war he chose to pursue in South Vietnam.

Early 1962 was a critical time for President John F. Kennedy. After his image and leadership had been tarnished by the Bay of Pigs disaster three months into his term, he had decided that he must make a stand in South Vietnam and confront the spread of communism there. The president spent the rest of 1961 secretly increasing American defoliation, bombing, and the number of US troops inside South Vietnam. His fight against international communism was on. His foil was Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who had overwhelmed the young president at a summit meeting on June 4, 1961, with his knowledge, toughness, and lack of respect for Kennedy’s floundering in Cuba. “So he just beat the hell out of me,” the president later told New York Times columnist James Reston.

Nonetheless, America was smitten by the glitz and glamor of Jack and Jackie and their life inside the White House, with parties and social events that brought together the best America had to offer from the worlds of music, the arts, and the academy. So it was that David Herbert Donald, the most prominent Lincoln scholar of his time, found himself asked to give a private briefing in the White House. The small group he addressed—it numbered no more than twenty—included longtime friends of the president and some key members of his government. Donald would be the guest of the president and his wife. He was delighted.

Donald, who had won a Pulitzer Prize that year for his work on the Civil War, wrote a long chatty letter to an old friend a few weeks later about his night at the White House. I learned of the meeting during the 1990s while researching a book on the Kennedy Administration. Donald sent me a copy then of the letter, but urged me to publish very little of it in my book. I did what he asked. Donald died in 2009, after decades of teaching American history at Harvard University, and I’d like to think he would have approved of my quoting it at greater length here.

Donald reported in the letter that he talked for forty minutes about the difficulties of Reconstruction after the Civil War, and the trouble he and other historians were having, as he wrote, “in writing a new synthesis of the period.” There was a long period of chatter, with both the president and his wife Jacqueline actively participating. “Mrs. Kennedy,” Donald reported, was “extremely simple and unassuming, very young, very shy, and a little unsure of herself. . . . That radiant beauty which appears in her photographs and in her television appearances is not apparent, but she strikes me as an enthusiastic and highly intelligent young woman.”

The letter went on: “The President himself, too is far less handsome than his pictures. . . . The boyish look which his photographs give him is simply not there. . . . [H]e led off the questioning and continued very active in the discussion throughout; and afterward we had a long, private discussion. It is clear that this is a man determined to go down in our history books as a great President, and he wants to know the secret.

“One thing he said troubled me considerably,” Donald wrote. In discussing the great presidents, Kennedy “asked whether, in sum, did [it] not take a war to put a man in that category? I firmly denied this. He seemed to agree and, since he is bent on being a great President, I hope he really did.”

In a brief telephone conversation I had with Donald in 1996, two decades after the American debacle in Vietnam, the professor expressed far more concern about Kennedy’s view of greatness. He told me that Kennedy was fascinated with Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt because “he thought to be a great President you had to be a wartime President. That was scary to me. I came away feeling that this was a young man who doesn’t understand history.”

Donald’s chat with Kennedy came—as the professor could not have known at the time—at a crucial early moment in Vietnam. The president had continued moving, in secret, to increase dramatically the number of American military men flooding in the South under the guise of special advisors. He also was fascinated by the derring-do of those who fought in World War II in undercover units organized by the Office of Strategic Services. OSS agents often worked in enemy zones in Europe and Asia with partisans and guerrillas. The head of intelligence for the State Department at the time was Roger Hilsman, an army officer who saw combat and later served undercover with the OSS in Burma. After the war, Hilsman joined the newly formed Central Intelligence Agency. He left the Agency to get a doctorate in political science at Yale University. Now, in the early days of the Kennedy Administration, he had special caché at the State Department. He had been wounded in battle and was part of a team that liberated American prisoners, including his own father, from a Japanese prisoner of war camp.

With his experience, confidence, and academic credentials, Hilsman became a favorite of the president and his brother Robert, the attorney general, and both became avid supporters of an innovative solution that Hilsman was advocating. The plan promised to resolve a vexing issue of the war: how to separate the anti-government and pro-communist guerrilla fighters known as the Viet Cong from the peasant villagers who, willingly or not, provided them with food, protection and support. Known as the Strategic Hamlet Program, the concept won immediate approval from the US and South Vietnamese military as well from those Americans seeking more social programs for the peasantry. “It was Kennedy’s last hope for winning hearts and minds,” I was told years ago by an American intelligence expert. The historian Christian G. Appy, in American Reckoning, an incisive study of the limits of American exceptionalism, described the project that emerged as “a coercive plan that forced villagers off their land and relocated them in armed camps. . . . What they [Kennedy, Hilsman and the White House advisors] did not take into account was how the villagers might feel about being forcibly removed from their ancestral lands and stuck in fortified compounds behind barbed wire.”

I had learned firsthand about the ignorance and cruelty of forced peasant relocation while reporting on the My Lai massacre in 1969. The massacre had taken place in March of 1968 and most of the GIs involved had finished their tour of duty in the war and were back home—at work, in school, or doing nothing. The Strategic Hamlet Program was long gone but villagers in some contested areas were still being forced off their lands into resettlement areas to enable the American military to slaughter all who refused to leave with impunity. The evacuated areas were designated Free Fire Zones. My Lai was not such an area. Some of the GIs who had participated in the murders and rapes at My Lai justified their brutality by telling me, with much contempt, about how the mothers in Vietnam, when being evacuated from their native villages, insisted on being the first to hop onto the waiting helicopters. I was told again and again by GIs, who had grown up in a culture that called for children to go first, that they had to beat the mothers—sometimes violently with the butts of their rifles—to allow the children to board first. None of the GIs had been told that in Vietnamese society the mother always crosses a new threshold first, to assure that all who follow will be safe. 

The Strategic Hamlet Program was a disastrous, and mysterious, failure for the young Kennedy Administration, and it hardened the resolve of the peasant population against the American interlopers. Jack Kennedy did not live long enough to learn that a major reason for the program’s demise was the work of a South Vietnamese army colonel named Pham Ngoc Thao, who had fought against the French with the nationalist and communist Viet Minh after World War II. Thao was one of eleven children born into a highly respected Roman Catholic family that held French citizenship, but joined the successful post-World War II opposition to the French led by Ho Chi Minh. Thao’s religion and social background, and his military leadership in the war against the French, made him attractive to President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, who ran the secret police. Thao was a logical choice to run the new American-endorsed and financed resettlement project for the nation’s Buddhist peasants.

It would not be known until after his assassination in 1965 that Thao had been one of North Vietnam’s most successful sleeper agents, one of many who had been infiltrated into the South’s military and political leadership. One of his first moves as overseer of the Strategic Hamlet Program was to rush the construction of the new villages. They were poorly built and poorly defended. Thao also ensured that the hated villages were placed in areas that were open to Viet Cong encroachment or attack with little fear of interference by the South Vietnamese army.

Jack Kennedy’s hopeful relocation project was doomed, as he could not know, even as he explained his view of presidential leadership, over cognac and a cigar, to an increasingly troubled Professor Donald. The setting—in the private family quarters of the White House—was dramatic, but in terms of the reality of the war then underway the two men could have been chatting in the captain’s quarters on the Titanic as the ship neared the ice flows.

Our current president, and his foreign policy team, in their unwillingness to seek an immediate ceasefire in the war between Vladimir Putin’s Russia and a NATO-backed Ukraine, could be on the same boat.

The Biden Administration is feeling no pressure from Congress or the American mainstream media about its fervid political, economic, and political support for Ukraine in its ongoing war against Russia. But protests and public anxiety over the war are surging in Germany, along with polls showing dwindling public support for Biden’s policy. Last weekend there were noisy anti-war rallies in Berlin, with crowds estimated at 13,000 by the police and 50,000 by the protest organizers. A “Manifesto for Peace” calling on German officials to halt the flow of weapons to Ukraine attracted 650,000 signatures in two weeks.

The clock is ticking.

https://open.substack.com/pub/seymourhersh/p/does-it-take-a-war?r=690o5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Out There, Away From the Noise

By Erick-Woods Erickson Feb 25, Confessions of a Political Junkie.

Joy Behar thinks the people of East Palestine, OH got what they deserve because they voted for Trump. The National Transportation Safety Board says the braking regulation rolled back under congressional pressure by Donald Trump would not actually have impacted the derailment. It was a different issue. But Behar does not care. She does not like those people because they voted for Trump.

Adam Wren, the Politico reporter who exposed a Republican congressional candidate’s sexual assault against her will, posted a tweet with “scenes from East Palestine” and it was four pictures of pro-Trump, right-wing sentiment. It seemed to be in the “they got what they deserved” vein of Behar’s sentiment. Why were those pictures relevant to a disaster?

Over the past few weeks, left wing groups have trotted out a series of “studies” that “red states” get more federal government subsidization, have worse standards of living, have more crime, etc. Each another drip in smug justification to hate the people who vote differently, often with skewed framing and data to get the results just right.

Marjorie Taylor Greene wants her national divorce. The serial adulteress is holding herself out as the patron saint of Christian Nationalism in America. I’m guessing she’s all for it so long as the millstones aren’t brought back. She hates the left. The left hates her. They are two sides of the same coin.

There’s a small mindedness in these fights and a common thread is how very online so many of these people are. They don’t think the United States is great. They don’t think we are capable of taking care of ourselves and others. They have given up on each other, on their nation, and on a future that is better than yesterday.

Offline, driving across America, from red state to blue and purple and back, you have to work to really find people who want to break apart the country and not help those in need because of who they voted for. It’s easy to find online and hard to find out there where the people actually are.

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature,” Abraham Lincoln said in his in his first inaugural address. His words could not keep the country together for a time, but he fought like hell to keep it together.

Victory in sight, four years later, he said in his second inaugural, “With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace…”.

We could all use more grace and charity towards each other to think differently, vote differently, work differently, live differently, and still be American together. We should listen to our better angels and not the people who entertain through national dissection.

And into this environment, a series of candidates will come on stage for 2024. I hope they embrace America for all, not just America for their supporters. Out there, away from the noise and the constant tweets, Americans love America and their neighbors. Our leaders, on both sides, should remind us of that instead of stirring the divisions.

merlin now:

So, considering Erick’s words and prodding you for your response, the question begging to be asked, “What could/should be the churches response? OR, their responsibility? Consider these three verses form the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew 5 from the MSG; actually all three chapters, 5 through 7.

[8] “You’re blessed when you get your inside world— your mind and heart— put right. Then you can see God in the outside world.

[9] “You’re blessed when you can show people how to cooperate instead of compete or fight. That’s when you discover who you really are, and your place in God’s family.

[10] “You’re blessed when your commitment to God provokes persecution. The persecution drives you even deeper into God’s kingdom. …

FYI, speaking of being away from all the noise, the clip below highlights “White Noise,” a movie released last fall, occurring even in the same town, eerily similar to the events in the Palestine OH tragedy that unfolded February 3. Simply more dysfunction? Family? Mechanical? OR?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/white-noise-netflix-movie-about-train-derailment-b2283419.html

More Damming Evidence On Norway’s Complicity Taking Out Nord Stream…

Time to Pay Attention Folks! For such times as this I really do miss Paul Harvey and his “And Now For the Rest of the Story.” But rest assured, the two recent Seymour Hersh’s news clips I posted are now elevating Paul Harvey’s original concept several Quantum Leaps; and just-in-time-too! Do not be deceived. Truth ultimately prevails!

Lyndon B. Johnson delivering his televised report on the Gulf of Tonkin incident, August 4, 1964.

Why Norway? In my account of the Biden Administration’s decision to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines, why did much of the secret planning and training for the operation take place in Norway? And why were highly skilled seamen and technicians from the Norwegian Navy involved?

The simple answer is that the Norwegian Navy has a long and murky history of cooperation with American intelligence. Five months ago that teamwork—about which we still know very little—resulted in the destruction of two pipelines, on orders of President Biden, with international implications yet to be determined. And six decades ago, so the histories of those years have it, a small group of Norwegian seamen were entangled in a presidential deceit that led to an early—and bloody—turning point in the Vietnam war.

After the Second World War, ever prudent Norway invested heavily in the construction of large, heavily armed fast attack boats to defend its 1,400 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline. These vessels were far more effective than the famed American PT boat that was ennobled in many a postwar movie. These boats were known as “Nasty-class,” for their powerful gunnery, and some of them were sold to the US Navy. According to reporting in Norway, by early 1964 at least two Norwegian sailors confessed to their involvement in CIA-led clandestine attacks along the North Vietnam coast. Other reports, never confirmed, said the Norwegian patrol boats where manned by Norwegian officers and crew. What was not in dispute was that the American goal was to put pressure on the leadership in North Vietnam to lessen its support of the anti-American guerrillas in South Vietnam. The strategy did not work.

None of this was known at the time to the American public. And the Norwegians would keep the secret for decades. The CIA’s lethal game of cat-and-mouse warfare led to a failed attack on August 2, 1964, with three North Vietnamese gunships engaging two American destroyers—the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy—on a large body of contested water known as the Gulf of Tonkin that straddled both North and South Vietnam.

Two days later, with the destroyers still intact, the commander of the Maddox cabled his superiors that he was under a torpedo attack. It was a false alarm, and he soon rescinded the report. But the American signals intelligence community—under pressure from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was doing President Johnson’s bidding—looked the other way as McNamara ignored the second cableand Johnson told the American public there was evidence that North Vietnam had attacked an American destroyer. Johnson and McNamara had found a way to take the war to North Vietnam. 

Johnson’s nationally televised speech on the evening of August 4, 1964, is chilling in its mendacity, especially when one knows what was to come.

“This new act of aggression,” he said, “aimed directly at our own forces, again brings home to all of us in the United States the importance of the struggle for peace and security in Southeast Asia. Aggression by terror against the peaceful villagers of South Vietnam has now been joined by open aggression on the high seas against the United States of America.” 

Public anger swelled, and Johnson authorized the first American bombing of the North. A few days later Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution with only two dissenting votes, giving the president the right to deploy American troops and use military force in South Vietnam in any manner he chose. And so it went on for the next eleven years, with 58,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese deaths to come.

The Norwegian navy, as loyal allies in the Cold War, stayed mum, and over the next few years, according to further reporting in Norway, sold eighteen more of their Nasty Class patrol boats to the U.S. Navy. Six were destroyed in combat.

In 2001, Robert J. Hanyok, a historian at the National Security Agency, published Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2–4 August 1964,a definitive study of the events in the gulf, including the manipulation of signals intelligence. He revealed that 90 percent of the relevant intercepts, including those from the North Vietnamese, had been kept out the NSA’s final reports on the encounter and thus were not provided to the Congressional committees that later investigated the abuse that led America deeper into the Vietnam War.

That is the public record as it stands. But, as I have learned from a source in the US intelligence community, there is much more to know. The first batch of Norwegian patrol boats meant for the CIA’s undeclared war against the North Vietnamese actually numbered six. They landed in early 1964 at a Vietnamese naval base in Danang, eighty-five miles south of the border between North and South Vietnam. The ships had Norwegian crews and Norwegian Navy officers as their captains. The declared mission was to teach American and Vietnamese sailors how to operate the ships. The vessels were under the control of a long-running CIA-directed series of attacks against coastal targets inside North Vietnam. The secret operation was controlled by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington and not by the American command in Saigon, which was then headed by Army General William Westmoreland. That shift was deemed essential because there was another aspect of the undeclared war against the North that was sacrosanct. US Navy SEALs were assigned to the mission with a high-priority list of far more aggressive targets that included heavily defended North Vietnamese radar facilities.

It was a secret war within a secret war. I was told that at least two SEALs were ambushed by the North Vietnamese and severely wounded in a fire fight. Both men managed to make their way to the coast and were eventually rescued. Both men were awarded the Medal of Honor, America’s highest decoration, in secret.

There also were far less dramatic movements as the war unraveled. At some later date, it was decided to arm bats with incendiary devices and drop them, by air, over areas of high interest in the south. The release came at high altitude, and the bats quickly froze to death.

This bit of top secret and heretofore unknown history raises, to this reporter, an obvious question: what else do we not know about the secret operation in Norway that led to the destruction of the pipelines? And is there anyone in the Senate and the House, or in the American press, interested in finding out what was going on—and what else we do not know?

 The link below opens the video clips for your review and start your seven day free trial.

https://open.substack.com/pub/seymourhersh/p/from-the-gulf-of-tonkin-to-the-baltic?r=690o5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email