SMYRNA - September 1995





o The FBI's New Thought Police
o An Intimidating "Law"
o Barney Who?
o Hate Crime Protection for Everyone
o The New Federal Thought Police
o Crafting Model Hate-Crime Legislation
o Government-Approved "Experts"
o Smyrna's Comments on "Thought Police"
o Defection Unlimited
o Smyrna's "Letter to the Editor" of the Times-Standard
o More Defection
o Enter Alan Dershowitz
o Truth Endures
o "Protocols on Evolution".
o Chromosome Study Stuns Evolutionists
o The "Extremists" Must Be Eliminated
o Jerusalem 3000
o Remember Janet Reno?


(Reprinted from the August 1995 issue of Media Bypass, with permission from the author, Lawrence W. Myers)

      All of a sudden, dissent has become dangerous. Under a number of new state and federal laws, an American citizen may no longer be permitted to present his or her thoughts in public, if the expressed opinion is considered by anyone to be in any way offensive. In fact, expressing yourself in certain jurisdictions can be prosecuted as a criminal act, should any member of a protected group feel in some way intimidated or harassed by your comments.

      If you are accused of such a crime, a federal statute (Public Law 101-275) requires that your name be reported to the FBI within three months of the date of occurrence of the alleged offense.

      Recent court rulings have held that the First Amendment may not protect speech if what is said is considered offensive or harmful in some way. Under federal law, what you think and believe can indeed be a prosecutable offense, if your thoughts and opinions are publicly expressed. You can lose your job, have your property seized under civil law, have heavy fines assessed against you and actually be thrown in jail for having an opinion.

      Many Americans may be unaware that the enforcement mechanisms in place to combat hate crime are also being used to attack opinions or so called hate-speech , when it is expressed in a manner considered inappropriate under the evolving standards of political correctness. Furthermore, if a government approved expert in bias-motivated crime identifies a citizen or a group as racist or homophobic, the expert opinion is recognized and entered into the official record without scrutiny or question. Who these so-called experts and authorities are and what they are saying about the constitutional and patriot movement is particularly disturbing in light of recent attempts to craft legislation against citizen militias and the so-called promoters of hate speech.

Return to Table of Contents


      Since 1991, if the expression of an opinion is identified as in some way intimidating to a growing number of protected groups in America, a citizen can be charged with a crime and have his or her name placed permanently in a centralized registry compiled and maintained by the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI.

      Humor is particularly 'uuJnerable in this new atmosphere of criminalizing communication. Radio talk show host Howard Stern,(1) for example, had a warrant issued for his arrest in the state of Texas in April, for making allegedly insensitive comments concerning the shooting death of a popular Hispanic recording star.

(1) Our culture has been so degraded that a vulgar, repulsive show such as Howard Stern's must be protected. - Smyrna.

      In May, an Indianapolis police sergeant and commander of the Johnson County Militia was demoted to the rank of patrolman and suspended without pay for a month after a local television station showed him addressing a public meeting of the Sovereign Patriots Militia group and making a humorous, but apparently inappropriate and "anti-Semitic" comment about Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith. Sergeant James Heath referred to Goldsmith as Mayor Goldstein in his speech. Allthough fellow police officers considered the punishment for Heath's humor to be harsh and unfair, local members of the Jewish community, have demanded that Heath be fired for the comment.

Return to Table of Contents


      Many laws are particularly pervasive concerning homophobic expressions. When Representative Dick Armey (R-TX) recently called homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, Barney Fag during a National Public Radio interview, for example, Armey could have been prosecuted under the statutes of Frank's home state of Massachusetts. Chapter 27 of the Massachusetts General Law, Section 16, makes it a crime to...disrupt a person's exercise of Constitutional rights through harassment or intimidation, [if] motivated by... sexual orientation prejudice.

      So called hate speech can also be prosecuted in civil court. The State Code of Virginia, for example, allows punitive damages to be awarded to anyone who feels harassed or intimidated because of his or her race, religion or ethnicity. Section 8.01-42.1, Paragraph A, states, An action of injunctive relief or civil damages, or both, shall lie for any person who is subjected to acts of (I) intimidation or harassment or (II) vandalism directed against his real or personal property, where such acts are motivated by racial, religious or ethnic animosity.

      Political influence can be brought to bear on the enforcement of insensitive speech. Election year conservatives in Washington are currently attempting to pass a Constitutional amendment which reads, The Congress and the states shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. This attempt at legislating patriotism is based on the notion that burning our national symbol as a form of protest is somehow harmful to the rights of all Americans. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled five years ago that flag burning was Constitutionally protected speech, however hateful and offensive it may be, Congress has decided to change the Constitution.

      The politics of controlling speech has serious risk. The Federal Election Commission, for example, fined the Christian Action Network $1.26 million in 1992 for mailing out letters to its members which asserted that then-candidate Bill Clinton supported special rights for homosexuals. Although Clinton did indeed order a number of new social endorsements and protections for gays and lesbians in government service within days of being elected into office, the FEC arbitrarily ruled that the Christian group may not use non-profit funds to advocate the defeat of a presidential candidate. A federal court in Virginia overturned the FEC fine on Friday, 30 June 1995, asserting that the Christian Action Network's comments were protected under the First Amendment. It is unclear if the heavily homosexual Clinton Administration will appeal the ruling.

Return to Table of Contents


      Despite recent court rulings, speech is not necessarily protected in many states. Some jurisdictions have such broad-based definitions of the supposed protected group that virtually anyone can claim membership and victimization under the statute. In the state of Oregon, for example, the statute in section 181.550 states that a hate crime includes speech that intimidates or harasses an individual and is motivated by prejudice based on the perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, political affiliation or beliefs, membership or activity in or on behalf of a labor organization or against a labor organization, physical or mental handicap, age, economic or social status or citizenship of the victim.

      Speech is being prosecuted in other ways as well. In the state of Montana, several citizens have recently been charged with an obscure crime called criminal syndicalism for expressing their opinions in public or in written form. A recent example involved a letter written by a resident of Indiana to a Montana state official, F. Joe Holland, of the North American Freedom Council, mailed an angry letter to a Montana government official, which has resulted in his being charged with the offense. Holland has railed against government corruption in dozens of states for decades. His writings are certainly unfriendly to government, however, Holland has no history of communicating threats, conspiring to harm American citizens or advocating violence against anyone in government. In Ravalli County, Montana, local dissident Cal Greenup has also been charged with criminal syndicalism for saying hateful things about the government. The Montana law is about to become a national issue. Both sides agree that the Holland case is expected to be litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

      Historically, the First Amendment has had to be saved from government intrusion by the free press and the free speakers who are frequenfly disdained by society in general, said former state senator and civil rights attorney John W. DeCamp of Lincoln, Nebraska, who is representing Holland. This is just one example.

      DeCamp, the chief legal counsel for the family of slain tax protester Gordon Kahl and representative of various militia leaders (with, incidentally, a 12-0 record in court) points out that the free speech issue is under fire across the country as intensely as ever in our [nation's] history.

      Although many states have enacted a variety of laws restricting communications deemed offensive, hate speech legislation is not specifically a state's rights issue in the 1990's. The federal government has taken control in many respects. One of the prosecutors in the Holland case, Montana State Assistant Attorney General John P. Connor, Jr., has privately implied that the U.S. government is involved with the litigation against Holland. Perhaps the most disturbing element in this new atmosphere of prosecuting thought crime is the involvement of the Reno Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in assisting state governments and local law enforcement agencies in writing legislation, formulating prosecution policy and establishing the reporting procedures for this type of crime. The origins of this new federal authority is rather revealing.

Return to Table of Contents


      In the 1992 Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, distributed to all law enforcement agencies nationwide by the FBI, a newly designed police report has been introduced that seems to be more focused on the supposed bias motivation of crime than on the actual offense under investigation.

      This new nationally standardized Incident Report is the most frequently used document in police work. Line officers and patrol supervisors fill out dozens of these reports each shift, for every offense from vandalism and property thefi to assault and homicide. Note on the federally approved version of this report, almost 20 percent of the first page of the document concerns the socalled bias motivation associated with the incident.

      The 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act (Public Law 101-275) requires all law enforcement agencies to provide quarterly and annual reports concerning bias motivated crime to the federal government. Americans are learning, often at great expense, that the key problem with the language in the law is the usage of the terms intimidate and harass.

      Defense attorneys have argued that the standard for definition of a hate crime is purely subjective, and should have no bearing on other criminal charges in state courts. The danger is that a misdemeanor charge example, can become a federal offense under the statute. If the complainant or alleged victim of any crime claims that the suspect used a racial slur or made an inappropriate comment concerning the individual's sexual preference, the officer is required by federal law to report it. The officer's agency is then required to compile and send all such reports every three months to the FBI in Washington. Even if no overt criminal act has actually occurred, if the alleged victim tells a law enforcement officer that he or she feels intimidated or harassed, because of membership in a protected group, a hate crime has occurred and the agency is required by law to report it to the federal government.

      In the Quarterly Hate Crime Report expected to be sent to the FBI, the suspect in the crime does not actually have to be charged. Note in the instructions for preparing the federal of vandalism, for hate crime incident report the offense of intimidation.. is to be reported . . regard-less of whether arrests have taken place.

      For example, Republican Representative Dick Armey could have found himself a suspect in a criminal act, with his name entered on the NCIC computer with the following UCR Codes:

UCR Offense 10 (Intimidation)
Location 11 (Government Building)
Bias Motivation "41"
(Anti-Male Homosexual [Gay])
Victim Type "4" and "1"
(Government) and (Individual)

Return to Table of Contents


      Who decides what group will be protected and what type of legislation will be enacted to prosecute hate crimes in the United States? According to the FBI's Hate Crime Statistics, 1990, A Resource Book, the government "recommends" several groups and organizations to the individual states to provide resources for writing laws dealing with hate crime. On page 100 of this book, the FBI has this to say about the ADL, one of the so-called "experts":

      "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a human relations organization with 31 regional offices across the country. ADL is dedicated to promoting intergroup cooperation and interfaith understanding. Over the past decade, ADL has become a leading resource in crafting responses to hate violence, including model hate crime legislation, a 17 minute hate crime training video, a handbook of existing hate crime policies and procedures at both large and small police departments and a general human relations training program for law enforcement, designed to examine the impact of discrimination, while promoting better cultural awareness and increased appreciation for diversity."

Return to Table of Contents


      The FBI also recommends the American Jewish Committee, the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force as groups able to help state legislatures craft laws against "hate".

      By endorsing these particular agencies as experts" in bias motivated crime, the FBI has essentially facilitated the introduction of legislation throughout America based on the often biased political opinions of these groups, many of which raise tax-free funds based on the number of so-called hate crimes they report.

      For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADL have recenfly written "Militia Task Force" reports which assert that citizens who acquire and train with firearms in an organized manner are linked with racist hate groups and anti-minority violence. In a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, dated 25 October 1994, Morris Dees with the Southern Poverty Law Center claimed that the militia movement has been "infiltrated" by white supremacist leaders. This letter resulted in a response from the Justice Department that it was indeed investigating the militias in Montana, Michigan and Ohio for possible civil rights violations.

      Perhaps the most disturbing consequence of a federal government endorsement of any private group's agenda or expertise is the ultimate authority these organizations exert on the state and federal legislative process. The FBI hate crime training manual endorses the ADL and the SPLC as experts, whose expert testimony is then subsequendy worthy of congressional committee consideration.

      During the April Senate Judiciary committee hearing concerning legislation directly involving the militia movement, for example, Dees was introduced as the preeminent expert on organized militias in the United States. His inflammatory comments concerning an alleged linkage between these groups and racism was taken without question and is now part of the official record in Washington. His testimony will further be used to "craft legislation" against the militias in Amenca.

      This trend is expected to continue. Expression that is considered "subversive", "offensive" or "racist" is about to be regulated. Indeed, based on the recent case in Montana, the government is about to be legislatively protected as a "victim group" when it comes to insensitive speech. There is little that can be done to halt this pattern of erosion against freedom of expression when protected groups in America are permitted to claim they have somehow been "assaulted" by words. From burning flags to fiery rhetoric, certain speech can result in regulatory or judicial intervention. Until the courts or Congress decide to control this corrosive pattern of legislating political correctness, or for that matter, patriotism, the First Amendment may no longer apply. Many attorneys are now advising their clients to be cautious in their public statements.

      Hold your tongue, patriot. The "thought police" are on patrol. And they're looking for you. (End of Myers' article)

Return to Table of Contents

Smyrna's Comments On "Thought Police"

      As Christians we must recognize that the sinful nature in people is the controlling factor in human interaction. Thus, there is no such thing as perfect conduct and perfect government. Law enforcement officers are human and part of government and they are subject to sin like everyone else - but their temptations are far greater. Therefore, there has always been a certain amount of corruption in law enforcement, waxing and waning at different times.

      However, in the present case, we are not dealing with sin in general. We're concerned about leadership in government agencies and the thrust toward the New World Order, or whatever it may be called. The men and women of our police forces in the field exhibit propensities toward individual sin, but they're not in positions to plan strategies on a global scale; they can only implement tactics in order to get their paychecks. If they must be politically correct under pressure, they'll do it. Most of them will follow their leaders. This doesn't mean that they're bad cops.

      From the 1960's to the present, strategists in influential places have sought to destroy the "thin blue line" for political reasons. In the 60's it was the socialists-leftists, but now the "right wing" has been included in the putsch. The O.J. Simpson lawyers, especially Alan Dershowitz, have given a tremendous boost to this plan. They have used racism and individual police sin to advance this cause, so that the overall plan to discredit and destroy local law enforcement is nearer completion. Even solid Americans are now believing that the vast majority of police officers are corrupt. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Return to Table of Contents


      R.C.H. Lenski was an excellent Bible scholar. In his The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel(2) dealing with chapter 24 and its eschatology, he stated something which is very important for us today. Smyrna readers will recall this famous chapter because it has been used and misused by preachers for many years.

(2) Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1943.

      "And as he was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him in private saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what us the sign of thy coming and of the consummation of the age?" Jesus then began what is called the Olivet Discourse, in which He predicted many things. We will not enter into a discussion of all of these predictions, but simply highlight that which is necessary to the essence of this article. Jesus told them to be on guard against deceivers, and to be cognizant of the signs of the times. Then He said in verses 9-12: "Then they shall deliver you up to tribulation, and they shall kill you, and you shall go on being hated by all the nations because of my name. And then many shall be trapped and shall deliver up each other and shall hate each other. And many false prophets shall rise up and shall deceive many. And because of the multiplying of the lawlessness the love of many shall grow cold."

      Today, the love of many for the things of Christ has grown cold. Unfaithfulness to the New Testament is a cancer. Alarming numbers of churches and individuals have abandoned the faith as it was once delivered to the saints, thus typifying the condition of the church at Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22). As Lenski stated: "Doctrinal defection and laxity automatically entail moral defection and laxity. When one plays fast and loose with a doctrinal statement of the Scripture and does not permit it to bind his conscience, how can he play firm and fast with a moral requirement and let that bind his conscience?" (p.933-934)

      The moral laxity in America today is directly attributable to the abandonment of biblical principles, especially those of the New Testament. Recently, a letter to the editor of our local newspaper, written by the pastor of a Lutheran church, was a prime example of the defection that should concern all of us, and it points up the truth of what Jesus taught in Matthew 24 about defection from the faith.

      Smyrna is not picking on Lutherans; the pastor who wrote the letter just happens to be a Lutheran of the ELCA, and merely reflects the condition of so many others in every denomination. Below is our response to him in a letter to the editor: September 6, 1995

Eureka, CA

      Pastor Andrew S. Olsen of Calvary Lutheran Church said he can no longer keep silent (Times-Standard 9/1/95?) about the issue of homosexuality and the Bible. He then gave his interpretation of certain passages of Scripture, essentially concluding that responsible homosexuals are not the kind that are condemned by those passages. The wrong committed by the Sodomites described in Genesis 19:4-9, he believes, was lack of hospitality to strangers. He understates the case by several megabytes. Imagine God destroying two cities with sulphur and brimstone just because they were inhospitable! And yet Pastor Olsen admits that the Sodomites intended to gang rape the two men who visited Lot, Abraham's nephew. That's pretty inhospitable, I'd say.

      Pastor Olsen's rationalization of Romans 1:27 is even more bizarre. The Apostle Paul described the insatiable sexual appetites of men and women who had abandoned the natural practice of copulation, i.e., heterosexuality, and lusted for others of the same sex, which is scientifically called homosexuality. Pastor Olsen says those men were heterosexuals who had become idolatrous in their religious practices. Of course! If heterosexuals abandon that lifestyle and lust after those of the same sex, by definition they become homosexuals. Incidentally, he stated that the Bible doesn't mention women as lesbians, nor men as gays. He errs because he doesn't equate "gay" or "lesbian" with "homosexual". Where did he take his science courses? The prefix "homo" means "same", therefore since lesbians (females) and "gays" (males) cohabit with others of the same sex, that's the scientific meaning of "homosexual". I fear that Pastor Olsen has fallen victim to contemporary euphemisms designed to legitimize an otherwise illegitimate practice.

      Olsen's final example of unorthodox biblical interpretation deserves a prize. He explains I Corinthians 6:9, "the issue of pederasty", as simply the exploitation of one human by another. Of course it is! That's quite obvious! But its more than that. An older man who keeps a boy as a sex slave is not only exploiting another human, he is committing the crime of sexual molestation! Would Mr. Olsen say that an older man who keeps a young girl as a sex slave is only exploiting another human? Dear God! How far some churches have fallen from their original state to this contemporary madness called "tolerance, understanding and acceptance"!

Return to Table of Contents


      Jewish media are careful to report Christian controversies when those controversies vindicate Jewish interests. Nothing is of greater importance to Jewish leaders than how Christians look upon anti-Semitism and the "holocaust". They have worked long and hard to receive historical absolution for the part played by Jewish leaders in the cruciflxion of Christ, and they press ever more persistently for the "excommunication" of Christians who criticize Judaism and Zionism. Thus, the article in the May 20, 1994 issue of the Jewish newspaper Forward, headlined "Lutherans Rebuke Luther For Anti-Jewish Diatribes", was to be expected. Its sub-title was: Church Repudiates Writings of Its Founder. These two headlines are, of course, quite misleading, for it was only the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) that "issued an unambiguous condemnation of Luther's anti-Jewish teachings."

      According to the Forward, the ELCA issued a " 'Declaration to the Jewish Community' "in which church leaders expressed " 'sorrow over its tragic effects on subsequent generations' ". The article continues: "But while both Lutheran and Jewish leaders are saluting the statement as historic, some Lutheran scholars point out that 'it is only a first step' or, at least, one of many steps that need to be taken by Christianity to attempt a true reckoning with anti-Jewish elements in the Christian bible itself." Pay special attention to the Jewish reference to "the Christian bible itself". This is the heart of the problem. Over the centuries Jewish leaders have longed to discredit and destroy the "Christian bible", which they believe to be the New Testament. They are within striking distance of doing this in these times of Christian defection, with new legal and social mores gradually and unobtrusively filtered into American culture and the churches.

Return to Table of Contents

Enter Alan Dershowitz

      According to the Forward article, the production of the ELCA's "Statement of Repentance" was sparked by none other than the infamous Alan Dershowitz, Jewish Harvard Law School instructor and manufacturer of inflammatory remarks against police officers, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and all other fundamentalist Christians of every stripe. Dershowitz is on the defense team of O.J. Simpson. It seems that one Rev. Richard Koenig, a retired Lutheran minister who submitted the initial resolution to the ELCA, read Dershowitz's book Chutzpah and became sorrowful at the part his church had played in Germany and the "holocaust", and also became personally repentant. Koenig was " 'transfixed' " by photographs of the death camps. After years of efforts by both Jews and some Lutherans to effect an apology to the Jewish community for Germany's part in Jewish sufferings in World War Two, "a conference on Luther's anti-Semitism was organized in New York City by the late Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum [who was very close to Billy Graham] of the American Jewish Committee and by the Rev. Eric Gritsch, a former Austrian Hitler youth."

      The Jewish article quoted Norman A. Beck, instructor at Texas Lutheran College who said that anti-Semitism ultimately has its source in the New Testament. This writer telephoned Beck Aug.26, 1995, and learned that he agrees with the Jesus Seminar(3) literature, although he said he is not a member of the group. He believes that the Gospels and the letters Paul wrote to the churches were changed by later Christians. He says that the Bible as we have it is the product of Church development. We don't know that God exists, or that Jesus rose from the dead, he said. He told this writer that the New Testament is the source of "anti-Jewish attitudes - not anti-Semitic, because the term 'anti-Semitism' is a modern creation." (Smyrna agrees that "anti-Semitism" is a modern creation.) Finally, Beck said that churches should not read those parts of the Bible that are anti-Jewish; instead, they should emphasize other passages.

(3) See Smyrna's coverage of the Jesus Seminar in back issues.

      Bible scholar R.C.H. Lenski was right. When sound doctrine is abandoned, moral laxity follows as night follow's day. Leaski wrote something else. He stated: "Such is Jesus' picture [in Matt. 24] of the sign which marks his Parousia and the end of the world. It is dark, and the darkness increases steadily. Does this picture suggest a wonderful golden age that will rise in triumph in the world prior to the end? No, in his description of the future Jesus says not one word about a millennium." (p. 934).

      Dear reader, if this dark picture depresses you, you need to feast on the meat of the Word of God, ingesting and digesting it so that your very being assimilates it. Remember Philippians 4:6-7: "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."

Return to Table of Contents

Truth Endures

      Some of you may recall the various reports and histoncal accounts of the infamous "Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925 John Scopes, a high school teacher, was tried for teaching evolution. The event was rigged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in order to discredit belief in special creation. It was a time when evolutionism was gaining popularity among liberal "intellectuals", and the Bible was under fire.

      Although the trial should have been conducted by county authorities, the famous William Jennings Bryan, the golden throated orator who ran for president three times, became the prosecutor because he was an avid Bible believer. Opposing him was Clarence Darrow of the ACLU, a well known lawyer (leftist, of course). The atmosphere surrounding the trial was circus-like. Booths of various items for sale, hawkers of their wares, and reporters from everywhere, decorated the town. It was a showdown between the Bible and "science" - the Bible and evolutionism.

      Many years ago this writer, as a sophomore in college, submitted a paper to his history instructor on the Scopes Trial. Unknown to yours truly at the time, the instructor was Jewish and very liberal. The paper received a C; it deserved a B+ at least.

      Even in 1925 the mass media were liberal. Headlines praised the skills of Darrow while making Bryan the butt of typical liberal jokes. One of Darrow's more "famous" questions was whether the serpent in the Garden of Eden crawled on its belly or walked upright. In retrospect, we now can see that Christian ministers had been taken in by the propaganda of the evolutionists. Even though evangelicals did not believe in evolution, they were not prepared for intelligent debate, and just as today, the mass media served the interests of anti-Christians. It is more than interesting that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion made this boast about evolutionism:

"...think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzscheism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim."
(Protocol 2)
      Why would Smyrna quote the Protocols? Don't we realize that the Protocols are forbidden? Don't we know that they were fabricated and not to be trusted? Well, Smyrna doesn't believe everything we see or hear in the media about the Protocols being illegitimate. The fact is, if they are lies they are very accurate "lies". World Jewry is, in essence, doing the things the Protocols describe. We find amazingly similar ideas and purposes in the Jewish Talmud and other Jewish writings.

      But back to the "Monkey Trial". The liberal media, liberal historians, and liberal scientists reported a great victory for the ACLU lackey Clarence Darrow. They said he chewed William Jennings Bryan to pieces and spit him out. But wait a minute! As the saying goes, proof of the pudding...

      According to the Institute for Creation Research,(4) "As we look back, we see that each one of the arguments for evolution [used in the Scopes trial] are now known to be wrong." ICR says that Darrow's defense was based upon the hypotheses that organs such as tonsils and appendixes are vestigial (no longer useful), and that the Neanderthal man, Piltdown man, Java man, Australopithicus africanus, et al., were examples of "missing links". ICR says that all of these used by the ACLU's Clarence Darrow have now been proven to be hoaxes or no longer recognized as viable evidence for evolution.

(4) Acts & Facts of Aug. 1995, page d.

      Truth endures! Look around. All of the hype that is being currently propagated by liberal and leftist sources will have its day of reckoning. Like evolutionism, the fantastic falderall of Madison Avenue and friends will rot in the dust of history.

Return to Table of Contents


      Dr. Hugh Ross, in his Facts & Faith (3rd quarter 1995), reports that a new study by evolutionary biologists Robert Dorit of Yale, Hiroshi Akashi of the University of Chicago, and Walter Gilbert of Harvard "...flies in the face of prevailing origin-of-man scenarios. In an attempt to trace the ancestry of humans, these researchers looked for genetic differences in the Y chromosome of 38 men living in different parts of the world and having different ethnic backgrounds."

      Ross says that the study showed no nucleotide differences at all "in the nonrecombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men." This suggests that no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.

      "When the Y chromosome of modem humans is compared with that of modern chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, another great challenge [to evolutionism] arises. Large species-to-species genetic variations occur, but within each species very little, if any, variation is found."

      What response do Darwinian biologists make to these findings? They express hope that future studies of the genetic code will bridge the gap by finding less variation among species and greater variation within species, reports Dr. Ross.

      Isn't that the norm for evolutionists? They're always looking for future corroboration of their nonsensical hypotheses, never willing to let the facts dictate the formation of their ideas. We can look back on the enormous darnage done to our culture by evolutionism and agree with the Protocols that influential propagandists effected the widespread dissemination of this destruction. And yet, many Christians who understand the damage done by evolutionism nevertheless balk at the thought of implicating Jewish media management in the scenario. This reticence is caused by the doctrinal error of dispensationalism (the Jews are God's chosen, etc., etc.) that pervades the churches. Dispensationalists are caught in the dilemma of rejecting evolutionism while supporting those who have been most instrumental in its propagation.

Return to Table of Contents

The "Extremists" Must Be Eliminated

      Congressman Tom Lantos from California is the center of a storm in Washington about his use of an "anti-Semitic" letter written to him by an "extremist" in North Dakota. Lantos is said to be the only survivor of the "holocaust" ever elected to Congress. He received a letter recently that accuses the Jews of child molestation because they circumcise male children,(5) and accuses them of ritual murder, etc. Mr. Lantos, who also served in the California legislature some years ago, reproduced the letter and mailed it out as part of a fund-raising effort on behalf of his son-in-law Dick Swett who is running for a New Hampshire Senate seat.

(5) Perhaps one day Smyrna will publish an account of the repulsive method used by some rabbis in circumcising babies.

      However, his use of the letter is under fire because he inferred that Swett's opponent, Senator Robert Smith, a conservative Republican, is anti-Semitic. Not only this, but Lantos used the names of Senators Patrick Moynihan and Joseph Lieberman (Democrats) as supporters in his son-in-law's campaign. They rose up in anger, claiming that their names were used without permission, and also denying that Senator Smith is anti-Semitic. Thus, Congressman Tom Lantos finds himself in hot water, and justly so, for he has always been a liberal/leftist on the wrong side of truth.

      The reason why Smyrna is reporting and commenting on this particular episode is not just that Lantos and other Jews often use "anti-Semitism" as an excuse or a cover for their ambitions, but that they also are vicious in their tirades against "right wing extremists". For example, Lantos' son-in-law Swett was quoted as saying:

"...there are people out there who are doing and writing this kind of thing [referring to the North Dakota letter], and we must fight to eliminate them from society, hopefully by changing their minds."
      Eliminate them, hopefully by changing their minds! What if you can't change their minds, Mr. Swett? What then? Would you physically eliminate them? That's exactly what your words mean! This is the core meaning of the Jewish mottos "Never again!" and "Never forgive, never forget!" Prime Minister Golda Meir once stated that Israel would use the atomic bomb against anyone who seriously threatened its existence. Smyrna believes that the ultimate plan of the one-worlders is to eliminate (annihilate) all those who oppose them. First, they will try to "reeducate" us. If that doesn't work they will get rid of us. This writer, when he tangled with the Communists at U.C. Berkeley in the late 60's, remembers that they demanded that he be "reeducated". This is a euphemism for "shut him up".
Return to Table of Contents


      "A laser fireworks show over Gracie Mansion is being planned [this was published Aug 18th] to kick off the yearlong celebration of Jerusalem 3000 in the United States Sept 11.

      "A gala reception for as many as 2,000 invited guests is planned for the back lawn of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's official residence. Numerous dignitaries are expected to attend, including Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert. He and Giuliani are expected to sign a proclamation affirming Jerusalem as the 'national capital of Israel and heart, soul and historic home of the Jewish people." The event will be (past tense as of this writing) co-hosted by the Israeli Consulate and the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.

      For a long time, Zionists have been agitating to move the capitol of "Israel" from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. They are determined that this will be accomplished. Why are they so desirous of this seemingly inconsequential political maneuver? For many centuries Zionists have reminded their people to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem" and "next year Jerusalem". This is because Jerusalem was the ancient center of Judaism, and prior to that it was the site of the temple originally built by Solomon. It is the heart of everything Jewish (exception: non-Zionist Jews), and they plan to rebuild the temple there. Their plans call for Jerusalem to be the capitol of the world, currently known as the New World Order.

      Christian dispensationalists support this move, as well as most of Congress. In a Los Angeles Times article, March 4, 1995, it was noted that more than half of the Senate is "signed on" and Congress is about to demand that the Clinton Administration move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. The article stated that Jews have been demanding relocation of the Embassy for decades. Speaker Newt Gingrich supports the move.

      In a special issue of Endtime magazine in 1993, a "Jerusalem Covenant" was published. It was composed and signed by many Israeli officials, from the President to the Chairman of the World Zionist Organization. Endtime magazine is a Christian publication with strong dispensationalist dogmas. It is clear that the Jerusalem issue is both political and religious in nature. Zionists have been determined for centuries to get control of the city. Christian dispensationalists have made it possible for them to succeed. Smyrna believes that biblical prophecy is clear that the anti-Christ system in the last days is led by the Talmudic-Zionist cabal, and Jerusalem is Babylon the Great described in the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ. If we are correct, dispensationalist Christians are in league with the leadership of the anti-Christ system. However, reaching them with this view is nearly, impossible. We urge all to study our booklets Strong Delusion,"Pop" Prophecy, and The Lion Out of Judah.

Return to Table of Contents

Remember Janet Reno?

      In Smyrna of March 1995 we asked for information leading to the documentation of the quote below, attributed to Reno by many conservative publications.
"A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the second coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to Christian causes; who home schools his children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the 2nd Amendment; and who distrusts big government."
      Recently, we received word from a Portland, Oregon resident that he observed Reno on TV give this definition of a cultist. He says he remembers that as he listened to her, he thought: "She's describing me." He is a Christian.

      While this still does not give us hard evidence, it at least furnishes an eye witness who adamantly claims to have seen and heard Reno's statement. If he is correct, this means that Janet Reno is covering up the facts. If he is not correct, we're back to square one in trying to pin down this rumor. We hope someone out there will be able to nail it down.

Return to Top
o Back to Apostasy
o Go to October 1995

Courtesy and care of: Be Wise As Serpents BBS
International Christian Educational Services