Will There Be An Election In November?

by Al Benson Jr.

Within the past three days I have received emails from three different sources, all noting the possibility that there may not be an election this coming November because there will be some sort of an October surprise that will cancel out the probability for an election.

Sounds far out, I realize, and I cannot personally verify the accuracy of any of these, but all have come from sources that have been accurate in the past, so it does give me some concern. I pass this along for your reflection and possibly a prayer concern if you feel so led. I am sure some folks will and that is good.

One source has noted that someone in Washington has designated what we refer to as a false flag event to occur before the election to make it appear as if Obama has been the victim of “racist hatred by white gun owners and people concerned about the Constitution…”This sort of ploy would be in keeping with such events that have occurred in the past. For other sources relating to this please check out http://chasvoice.blogspot.com  and  http://beforeitsnews.com

Also, you might want to check out an article in The American Thinker  for August 21, 2012, written by Stella Paul. The title of the article is: Will Obama Keep Power “by Any Means Necessary”?

Paul starts out by saying: “Let’s go there: If Obama thinks he’s losing, will he allow safe and fair elections on November 6? And if he does lose, will he peacefully turn over power to Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013? Or will he cling to power “by any means necessary,” as a highly placed insider alleges?” Those are some interesting questions. Toward the end of her article Paul again notes: “If all else fails, Obama and his investors may be prepared to keep power ‘By Any Means Necessary.’ This information comes from an uncannily predictive website called The Ulsterman Report. Those who have followed its fascinating interviews over the last couple of years with two anonymous sources, Wall Street Insider and White House Insider, have seen its scoops confirmed again and again.” One thing this report observed was that “Valerie Jarrett ran the White House and that Obama was strangely disengaged from the actual tasks of governing.” That should surprise no one who knows what goes on in Washington. Obama wasn’t put there to “govern” he was put there to push a Marxist agenda down the throats of the American people and make then think he was feeding them apple pie when actually it was bovine fertilizer covered up with lots of crust–Comrade Obama supplying the crust.

I hope I am wrong here, and I’d like it if my sources of information were also wrong, but let’s wait and see. And then the question naturally arises–if we do in fact, have an election, will the results make any real difference to the average American? Another good question.

Michael Savage recently commented on the dearth of any real conservatives at the Republican National Convention. If he is correct, what does that tell you? That its all a charade? That no matter who wins, both major political parties are merely different wings on the same socialist, One World bird?

Happy election day–if we have one. You just might end up with Robamney as president.

Cultural Marxism and Christianity

By Al Benson Jr.

A few years ago on my website http://www.albensonjr.com I did an article about a college professor in Delaware who made the absurd claim that only white people have the ability to be racists and no one else has that ability.

My first thought at that time was “how can people pay good money to these schools and send their kids there to be taught such drivel?” Such drivel is cultural Marxism and it seems even to have insinuated itself into the church in general, whether due to lack of spiritual discernment or what I don’t know, but it is now there. Examples abound.

Awhile back a Reformed denomination had its yearly meeting at which someone introduced a resolution that the denomination should issue and apology for the “sin” of slavery. It was discussed and some spoke against it, but it was almost a foregone conclusion that it would be passed. So now the denomination is on record as having “apologized” for the “sin” of slavery and so all the do-gooders could go home and pat themselves on the back that they had really done something worthwhile. Some might call that cheap repentance. It was somewhat like the situation that author Fred Reed noted a few years ago when a black man wanted him to pay reparations for slavery. Mr. Reed beautifully summed up his argument in this way: “You want me to pay you for something I’ve never done and you’ve never experienced.” That’s about the way the reparations scam works—certain blacks, not all, want to be paid for the “sin” of slavery which ended in this country over 150 years ago now and they would love whites today, who have never been slave owners, to pay them big bucks when they’ve never been slaves. This is one aspect of cultural Marxism today and, sad to say, lots of Christians fall for it. And even if Christians are gullible enough to buy into this it is still a scam.

We can’t even adequately apologize for our own sins. That’s why we all needed Jesus Christ to die on the cross for us to cleanse us of our sins. So how in Heaven’s name are we going to apologize” for the sins of people who lived 150 years ago? We aren’t, really. But so many white Christians have bought into this cultural Marxist guilt trip that they now feel they have to do “something” to atone for the “sins” of their great grandfathers when they can’t even atone for their own.

I’ve been watching this con game go on for over four decades now, all the way back to the late 1960s when James Foreman basically conned the Episcopal Church out of around $200,000 with his “Black Manifesto.” Of course some of the leadership in the Episcopal Church at that time was more than willing to be conned, but not all. However, those that spoke against it were like Ron Paul supporters at the Republican National Convention—they had to be silenced and suppressed at all costs. And they were. Although we didn’t call it cultural Marxism at that time, that’s what it was. Class warfare—take from the “haves” and pass it out to the “have nots.” Redistribution of the wealth ecclesiastically. What it amounted to was well-heeled whites on “stools of everlasting repentance” forking over lots of money to radical black activists so they could practice class warfare with it. I have often wondered what would have happened had the leadership in the Episcopal Church at that point had the courage to tell Mr. Foreman to take his Black Manifesto and go light his cigar with it. We might have less class warfare in the church today.

Admittedly, the Episcopal Church was and is a liberal denomination, but, as noted previously, the Reformed denomination that ended up voting to apologize for slavery was not.

It appears that even truly conservative Christian groups seem ready to bend over backwards to ditch their heritage the minute someone complains about something. I heard of a case recently where one black family complained about the name of the denomination they had joined because it reminded them of the “old South” and that made them uncomfortable I guess and so they sought a name change so they would be less uncomfortable. So for the sake of this one family, the name of the denomination was changed. What about the feelings of all those that had no problem with the name as it had been previously? It seems their feelings don’t matter—only the feelings of this one family matter.

What it all amounts to is that white Christians are learning the lesson that their feelings do not count in churches as well as most other places. If some minority person complains about something that has satisfied most Christians for decades it will be changed to suit them and the dickens with those who would rather leave it as it is. One question here—some of these black folks knew the name of the denomination when they joined up. If the name bothered them then why did they join in the first place?

It seems to me that the way many churches keep on backing up when challenged that the day may come for some of them when they will end up apologizing for the Gospel because it might “offend” some Marxist somewhere. And in some evangelical bodies the last thing we want to do is to offend an anti-Christ Marxist. It’s okay to throw diatribes at those miserable people over on the political right but we must never say a negative word about those dear souls on the far left—lovable creatures that they are!

Until more churches start waking up and realizing how the cultural Marxist con game is being played on them and once they find out, exposing it, we will continue to have problems.

“The South Under Siege”—It’s about time we woke up!

By Al Benson Jr.

About five years ago now author Clint Johnson wrote a revealing book called The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South (and Why It Will Rise Again). I expect a book with that title did not gladden the hearts of the many liberals and socialists out there who have dedicated their efforts toward destroying what was left of the Old South so they could replace it with the “new” (Marxist) South where Obama is king and we eagerly await the next boatload of illegal immigrants from anywhere so they can be registered to vote for the “Great One.”

In an article by Ivy Sellers in Human Events Clint Johnson noted: “The South is under attack because it is the last region of the nation to resist being homogenized into an amorphous mass of people who think alike, sound alike, vote alike, buy alike. Nothing angers politicians, marketers, pollsters, and the politically correct crowd more than a group of people who absolutely refuse to get into line…While the South has always been rebellious, these days it’s become a cultural battlefield where the whole concept of Southern history is under attack. Displaying the Confederate battle flag, preserving Confederate statues on public and private property, even singing the song Dixie are under fire as ‘divisive,’ ‘racist,’ ‘hate-filled,’ ‘bigoted,’ and every other PC description imaginable.” I can attest to the truth of Mr. Johnson’s statements. My wife and I have lived in the South for ten years now and I see a constant, ever-increasing stream of vitriolic anti-Southern propaganda coming down the pike with every passing year.

It used to surprise me how those liberals and socialists who constantly talked about “love and diversity” could be so hate-filled when it came to the South and its people. Their “diversity” includes no white Southerners except those few guilt-ridden wretches that are forever willing to bemoan their “guilt” over the slavery question. They will be tolerated but no others. For years it never struck me that this irrational hatred was really anti-Christian. and that it wasn’t really irrational. It was consistent with the Marxist agenda.

And those that complain so loudly about “racism” see everything in life as connected to race—exactly what they accuse others of doing. If you fly a Confederate flag you are a racist; if you want to preserve a statue or other piece of Confederate history you are a racist; if you won’t vote for Obama you are a racist and on and on their tired litany continues. What it all amounts to is that if you won’t do what they want you to do you are a racist. This is a favorite tactic of Marxists and other assorted leftists and unfortunately it seems to work on many people who end up doing all manner of mental gyrations so they won’t appear to be “offending” anyone. It’s time we all quit playing the guilt game for the satisfaction of those racists who accuse us of what they are guilty of.

On April 3rd of this year the Southern Nationalist Network http://southernnationalist.com blog spot carried an article in which the author quite clearly stated that: “I think it helps to be clear. The goal of the NAACP, ADL, La Raza and SPLC is the elimination of our people, not just our heritage. We have to understand this to even be in the struggle. Any compromise with someone who opposes our existence is a step toward your own elimination. Any adoption of their language (‘racist,’ ‘hate group,’ etc) or ideas (multiculturalism) is self-defeating. The South is not just battlefields, dates in history books, flags and monuments—it is a specific people, culture and worldview. Again, the NAACP, ADL, La Raza and SPLC oppose that people, culture and worldview. Support of Southern heritage that is to be of any use at all has to start with a recognition of the existence of the Southern people and a desire to protect and advance them. A Southern heritage advocate has to be an advocate for the Southern nation (ethnic/cultural group) of people…If you ask the ADL or NAACP they will tell you that they are out to promote their ethnic/cultural group. They make that clear and they are effective at it. Meanwhile, they promote ‘diversity’ for us—meaning they wish to water us down and eventually eliminate us.” Their policies, which are basically Marxist in worldview claim that it’s alright for them to promote their own cultural groups but its “racist” for us to do the same thing.

If these people have a Marxist worldview you must understand they are not being hypocritical in this. Their position is consistent with Marxist “truth.” For them to do this promotes the Marxist agenda, while for us to do it resists the Marxist agenda and so, in their thinking, it is wrong for us to do it because our doing it will not further the program of Marxist world domination.

You cannot effectively oppose those people until you begin to understand how they think. Being “nice” to them won’t cut the mustard. Trying to compromise with them won’t either. They take that as a sign of weakness and exploit you all the more. There needs to be opposition to the Marxist agenda, in this country and elsewhere—Christian opposition, based on knowing how they think. Christians don’t need to be nasty or vicious (the other side will do enough of that) but they do need to stand firm and call evil what it is.

Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000  has noted that “…the present day vilification of the Confederacy is part of a long-term ideological war being waged against the conservative white South for the purpose of destroying the Southerners as a people and rendering them socially, politically, and economically impotent” I doubt that anyone could have said it any better than Mr. Conner did.

The major thrust of the Marxist agenda is to be rid of us one way or the other. We are the opposition and therefore we must be dealt with—any way they have to, any way they can.

We in the South need to realize what kind of ideological war we are in. Heritage violations are a lot more than just “heritage” violations—they are open warfare on our way of life, what is left of it. Situations such as the current one going on in Selma, Alabama are more than just a few people not liking Nathan Bedford Forrest—they are part of a culture war directed against us and we had better grasp that and learn how to fight back effectively.

We need to develop a battle plan; otherwise we will lose this Marxist-driven ideological war with few people even realizing it has taken place. Think about that.

Is Obama’s Christianity Real Christianity?

by Al Benson Jr.

In an interview with the Blaze http://www.theblaze.com author Dinesh D’souza who has written Obama’s America: Unmaking The American Dream has made some interesting comments regarding the president’s theological foundations.

D’souza was asked if he believed Obama was a Christian. He replied that Obama is a “disciple of the radical Third World Liberation Theology.”

According to a short article by Benny Johnson which appeared on the Blaze website: “…this brand of Christianity openly subscribes to Marxist philosophy, their support for revolutionary movements, and their criticisms of traditional church institutions: ‘Marxism and liberation theology condemn religion for supporting the status quo and legitimizing the power of the oppressor.’ D’souza explained that Third World Liberation Theology ‘sees Jesus as a guerrilla revolutionary. It sees the Romans as the capitalist system or the American power.'” Some may remember that back during the 1970s we had a leftist theological push that claimed that Jesus was a revolutionary. The leftists pictured him with a “Peace” symbol in one hand and an AK 47 in the other. Their idea was to change Him from Redeemer to revolutionary, and many in some churches bought some of that. I heard sermons about why Jesus was a revolutionary. I heard one once from a seminary student who I talked to after his sermon. I sensed his sincerity and so tried to explain to him why picturing Jesus as this kind of revolutionary was in error. I don’t know if he bought what I said or not, but I felt I had to at least try.

D’souza noted that this is a “marginal, eccentric and some would say heretical” wing of Christianity. D’souza thinks that Obama is more secular than Muslim, but, if he claims to be a Christian, then the brand of Christianity he embraces is this Third World Liberation Theology. Some think he is a Muslim, and I would not totally rule out that possibility, given some of his performances when he has visited the Middle East.

But let’s be real. Any brand of the Christian faith that embraces the principles of Marxism is, in my opinion, not Christian. I have read enough about Marxism over the past few decades to know that it is a belief system that is thoroughly and completely anti-Christ. If it were not so why would Marxists the world over have persecuted Christians as they have. Any belief system that tortures and persecutes Christian believers is anti-Christ. It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Therefore, any attempt to equate the orthodox Christian faith with any brand of Marxism is truly heresy. The two theologies are mutually exclusive of one another. A man may be a Marxist and convert to Christianity. Some have. But if a man is a Christian and converts to Marxism then he constitutes himself an apostate.

Let’s don’t try to create a hybrid “Marxist Christianity” for such can never exist and those that tell you it can are either hopelessly naive or they hope you are. If Obama’s “Christian” theology is rooted in Marxism then it is not Christian. It is part of the competing theology of Marx and as such should be resisted and exposed by Christians. Whether enough spiritual discernment remains in most churches to do that is another matter.

The “Peace” Symbol—but whose “peace”?

By Al Benson Jr.

Back during the Viet Nam era college students and other brainwashed and “useful idiots” were noted for carrying or wearing images of the infamous “peace” symbol. We were told the symbol represented “peace and love.” Whose “peace”? Seeing that it was those on the political and theological left that touted this symbol I think that is a fair question. Hippies, Yippies, communists and others wore this symbol on their jeans, shoes, shirts, and painted it on their faces on some occasions. Having done a bit of reading on the occult origins of this symbol I once talked to a college student who was a Mennonite and explained some of this to him. His naïve comment was “Well, I don’t think it means that anymore.” How, in his infinite wisdom he was able to ferret out that deep truth I have no idea—but then many college students seem to be much more brilliant than the rest of the common herd. At least in their own minds they are. How do I know that? One told me once, quite explicitly.

After we surrendered “with honor” in Viet Nam the “peace” symbol seemed to disappear but I have noticed of late that it seems to be making somewhat of a comeback and I see it all over clothing, book covers, etc. Of course having a Marxist in the White House probably doesn’t hurt the re-emergence of this symbol. I am sure Mr. Obama would heartily endorse it.

My concern is that people so casually endorse it without realizing its origins. Even Christian young folks seem to have no problem with it. And I ask the question again—whose “peace” does it promote? Christian peace? I think not.

Dr. Richard Swier, writing on http://www.redcounty.com  noted in an article published on June 12, 2011 that: “When I walk through the local mall I see clothing, jewelry and patches featuring the peace symbol…When driving down the road I see cars with a peace symbol proudly displayed on a bumper or rear windshield. I often wonder if those displaying the symbol truly understand its meaning.” No doctor, the majority of them probably don’t, but they have been told that by displaying it they are doing their bit for world peace and so it’s their way of putting their two cents worth in on a subject they really know nothing about but think they do. We would all like to see peace. However we live in the real world, full of sinful people who do horrible things and we live in a world where some governments seek absolute power over their people,  a situation that is becoming more and more evident in this country. There will be no peace under such conditions.

Dr. Swier continued: “The peace symbol dates back to ancient times. The fifth and final Roman emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, Nero, (born Lucius Domitius Ahenabarbus 37-68 AD) is remembered in history for persecuting Christians. Nero’s rule was so wicked he even had his mother executed. The First Roman-Jewish War (66-70 AD) started during his reign and today the term ‘Nero Cross’ (today’s peace symbol) is the symbol of the ‘broken Jew’ or ‘broken cross.” Dr. Swier noted that the “Nero Cross” or the inverted “Latin Cross” was used by anti-Christian and satanic groups to symbolize all that is the opposite of Christianity. The broken cross, turned upside down, with the arms broken is used that way to deny the power of the cross and the truth that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for the sins of the world.

I have not given you all of Dr. Swier’s commentary, but enough that you know the origins of this symbol. And he is not alone in this assessment.

An article on http://jeffords.blogspot.com for December 10, 2009 noted: “A popular, but false explanation of the peace symbol’s origin is that Gerald Herbert Holtom created it in 1958 to represent the nuclear disarmament movement. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), a philosopher, staunch anti-Christian, and nuclear disarmament backer supported Holtom’s claim. Russell was well aware of the symbol’s long history prior to Holtom. The symbol was used by Hitler’s 3rd Panzer Division from 1941 to 1945. The symbol can be found on some SS soldiers’ tombstones. But the peace symbol dates way back further than that. It was used as an anti-Christian symbol by the Saracens as early as 711 AD. For the Saracens, the image placed on their shields symbolized the breaking of the Christian cross.” Another site you might check out is http://www.illuminati-news.com which also deals with the “peace” symbol.

It should be evident that this symbol has nothing to do with Christian peace and everything to do, in our day, with anti-Christian, Marxist “peace”—the definition of which is “absence of resistance to Marxism.” So the “peace symbol” as it is used in our day and has been used down through history is really a declaration of spiritual warfare against anything Christian. It is an anti-Christ symbol that should not be tolerated in Christian circles and it should be exposed by Christians for what it really stands for. Unfortunately such will probably not happen because most Christians remain happily clueless.

The “peace” that the supporters of the “peace symbol” want to promote is that of the destruction of Christianity. Only with that will they have “peace.” Unfortunately for them that will never happen, no matter how hard they work for it. The peace of Christ will win in the end, even if we don’t live to see it.

Gun Control–it’s really people control

by Al Benson Jr.

In the most recent article on Obama and Agenda 21, one must realize that a big part of Agenda 21 is gun control. After all, how are you going to be able to herd people into UN created ghettos unless you have their guns? Some of them just might not want to surrender their private property, homes, cars and other things and might be disposed to resist. But that would prove difficult for them if they are disarmed. Hence, government wants your guns so you are unable to resist their tyranny.

The Second Amendment was never about hunting rights or target shooting rights–it was always all about being able to protect yourself and your family against a tyrannical government. That’s the sum total of the reason for it.

All those nice-sounding folks that try to tell you that gun control is all about protecting the public from crime are throwing tons of bovine fertilizer in your face and hoping you think its chocolate pudding. Gun control has never been about protecting the public from crime and it has always been about finding ways to control the public so they won’t resist government tyranny.

On July 26th Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America, an organization I recommend, wrote: “Last week’s shooting in Colorado shows us, once again, the failure of gun control. The Century 16 theaters in Aurora were ‘gun free’ zones, where citizens are prohibited from carrying weapons for self defense…If this sad scenario sounds familiar, it should–as almost every large-scale massacre in this country has occurred in an area where guns are outlawed: Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, etc. In all of these shootings, the victims were disarmed by law or regulation–yes even the one at Fort Hood. They were made mandatory victims by restrictions which never stop the bad guys from getting or using guns.” He’s right. But the restrictions were never meant to stop the bad guys from getting guns–Fast and Furious proved that. Our own government was in the process of making sure the bad guys got guns–and it was all part of a plan to make it look like the guns of ordinary citizens were ending up in Mexico so that the feds could then impose more gun control on honest citizens in the name of “peace and safety.”

You have to remember, with the Marxist clique that presently controls the government no one is considered safe and secure unless he is completely under the control of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” (government). We have to begin to understand the Marxist mindset of those the electorate put into office because they do not think like ordinary people and their “truth” is not our truth. Those dedicated to Marxist principles will never see things our way. There is no use talking to them. Marxist “truth” is all they will ever understand and anyone that dares oppose that “truth” is at war with them. This is why they wage war on the Christian Church, at least those parts of it they cannot subvert. Jesus
Christ, for them, is only a competing God and the Marxist “god”–the state, will brook no competition or opposition.

Gun owners in this country who wish to keep their firearms are considered to be at war with the current Marxist regime that wants to “protect” us all by suppressing us all. So hang onto your guns and don’t for a minute think gun control is about anything except people control.

Our Agenda 21 President

By Al Benson Jr.

Recently someone handed me a copy of The Ashley News Observer, published in Crosset, Arkansas. It was the issue for August 8th and it contained some interesting editorial articles.

One in particular was written by Dr.Mark Hendrickson, an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College in Pennsylvania.

Dr. Hendrickson, in his article, reviewed a book written by Brian Sussman called Eco-Tyranny. Hendrickson has observed” “With the defeat of Cap and Trade legislation in 2010 and the increasingly discredited alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming, the greens may have lowered their public profile, however, with the full cooperation of the Obama administration, they are forging ahead with their illiberal agenda for gaining ever more control over the American economy and people.” That sounds about right. In the Marxist mindset no American can be truly “safe and protected” unless he is hedged about with endless government restrictions on his liberty. That’s the Marxist concept of “peace and safety.”

Dr. Hendrickson noted that: “On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed an executive order titled ‘Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.’ Although that title hints at the immense scope of the order, it understates the frightening extent to which it expands the power of the federal government and constricts the rights and liberty of private citizens.”

It seems that Mr. Sussman, in writing Eco-Tyranny, had an inside contact in the Interior Department who told him that the long-term goal of Obama’s “Green Team” is to “divide the country into sectors where all humans would be herded into urban hubs while most of the land would be ‘returned to a natural state upon which humans would only be allowed to tread lightly.’ The full text of the 14-page executive order is reproduced in the appendix of Eco-Tyranny.”

Sussman’s book would probably be worth getting for that information alone. While many have been subtly programmed to think the environmental movement only started with Earth Day in 1970 (which just happened by the sheerest of coincidences to fall on the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s birth), Sussman shows in his book that the environmentalist movement was active in the 1800s, all the way up to the present, and he gives a summary of the key dates, also in his appendix. I have not gotten this book yet, but if I can find it and afford it, I will definitely pick up a copy. Given some of the utter hogwash the establishment tries to feed us about the environment we need all the straight information and answers we can get

Dr. Hendrickson states: “Remarkably, Sussman shows readers that such destructive figures as Marx, Lenin, and Hitler were intellectual and political forerunners of the modern illiberal green movement. Readers will be interested to learn of the four left-wingers who influenced and shaped the thinking of Rachel Carson, whose 1962 book Silent Spring marked the birth of the modern environmentalist movement.” From this one quote alone, you can see why the environmentalists so wanted to celebrate Lenin’s birth and every year we are treated to this memorial to one of the greatest butchers the world has ever known.

Sussman’s book shows how the American left has labored to fulfill the United Nations’ plot to “hamstring American prosperity” while using billions of our own tax dollars to help cut our own economic throats.

Sussman’s book notes the environmentalist attacks against nuclear energy and fossil fuels, “with another chapter devoted to the wasteful, uneconomical boondoggles of wind and solar energy…It is with no little irony that Sussman retells the story of President Obama denouncing oil as an undesirable source of energy from the headquarters of the now-bankrupt solar energy firm, Solyndra.” Sussman also notes an environmentalist campaign lasting for decades that would limit Americans’ access to water. You’re not supposed to know any of this and a dutiful lap dog media makes sure you never hear about it.

Hendrickson says flat out that “The radical greens are committed to reforming life in America to make it less free and less prosperous.” And in that, they have a willing accomplice in Comrade Obama. That’s what he has been all about since day one—the reduction of this country to third world status.

You might observe that the part of Obama’s executive order herding humans into crowded hubs and taking them off the land is right out of Agenda 21’s “Rewilding Project.” Rural private property, homes, farms, etc. will be lost so that the animals will have travel corridors between government wildlife refuges.

Folks, you had better wake up and begin to realize all this is going on. If you live on a farm, or in a small town, and own your own car, all of those things may be sacrificed in the name of “economic sustainability” which goes right along with the confiscation of private property according to the Communist Manifesto.
At this point I can already hear many Christians saying “Well, I don’t have to do a thing. The Lord is in control of it all and He will take care of it.” They are half right—the Lord is in control, but the question is—will He bother to help a batch of spiritual couch potatoes who, knowing the truth, refused to act on it because they didn’t want to have the responsibility of doing something to deal with the problem?

Where would the Protestant Reformation be today if Martin Luther had decided he didn’t want to be bothered nailing up his 95 Thesis on the door of the Wittenburg Chapel because “the Lord will take care of it all so I don’t need to do anything?”