Welcome to The Daily Herb: A Country Woman’s Journal

This is the entry page to Sara’s blog.  These pages will dally in poetry and practicality–herb as metaphor and remedy.  The thoughtful reader may find book reviews, cultural/political commentary and eclectic bric-a-brac.  The pragmatic of mind will find seasonal garden advice,  herbal knowledge, recipes and crafts.  Below is the theme poem for the blog.


The Daily Herb

Healing is no easy matter.
At times, bitter herbs are needed.
One must kneel daily
to discern among the many leaves.
I nibble around the margins
and consider the whole plant.
I examine the root for fractures.

In this placid place
we must choose the remedy
for spirit, soul or body.
We may salt the flesh or savour the symbol,
all being reconciled
where He became hyssop.

©  “Copyright October 11, 2010 by Sara Hall”
All Rights Reserved.
Posted in Agrarianism, Blog, Herbalism, Nature Writing, Nature Writing, rural life, Social Commentary, The Garden | 1 Comment

The Malheur Wildlife Refuge Situation: The Revolution Conundrum, Part 1

Breaking Silence About the Malheur Wildlife Refuge Situation

Good Advice

Good Advice for Patriots

In my last post I wrote that I would forego posting my own insights regarding the situation at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge at Burns, Oregon. I didn’t want to prejudice anyone against the people who had gone to Burns to protest and who were (and still are) in a precarious position. I didn’t think it could end well for them, and I didn’t want to add to their troubles. Even though not everyone is out, I think the time has come for me to speak, as my words are weighing heavily on my heart.

For some time, I have been concerned about the direction in which I see the Liberty Movement headed. I have actually debated writing an article outlining my concerns for about a year, but I didn’t know if I could make myself understood or if anyone would listen.

First of all, I have been concerned for a long time that something like the Malheur Wildlife Refuge situation would take place. This was not too difficult to foresee, but the dynamics leading up to this unfortunate event were more challenging to unravel. Let me just say that I believe that movers and shakers among the globalists were hoping that something like the takeover at Burns would happen, and the more violent the incident, the better for their purposes.

Self-fulfilling Prophecy

My first intimation that something like the ranchers’ protest at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge had been foreseen, and was hoped for, was an article about a study conducted by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism under the Department of Homeland Security. This study showed a couple of places in North Idaho as being the site of a terrorist attack.

I was astonished at this warning, as I have never known a single domestic terrorist in the almost forty years since I first came to Northern Idaho and Northwest Montana. I couldn’t imagine what made people think we were at risk for domestic terrorism. In my experience, the vast majority of Idahoans are law-abiding, conventional people who believe in their 2nd Amendment rights, like to hunt, are patriotic, easygoing, love the outdoors, and, if anything, have been a bit too complacent about national politics. I thought maybe the authors of the study must be thinking about the Aryan Nations at Hayden, Idaho who were not liked by anyone I knew. But there at the top of Idaho was a little dot in Boundary County. There was a larger dot in the Coeur d’ Alene area.

The study looked at domestic terrorism across the political spectrum including the extreme right-wing. The report held that rural areas were not exempt from domestic terrorism. Since I didn’t know too many leftists here, and since sociologists believe rural areas the world over are more conservative than urban areas, I was especially interested in seeing what the study had to say about the profile of extreme right-wing potential terrorists. Their definition follows:

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

Anatomy of a Terrorist:  That’s Me?

I found this definition to be both disturbing and puzzling. I have to say that I value my personal liberty and independence greatly, and since I was part of the back-to-the land movement in the seventies, you might say I’m a survivalist in a certain sense, though I had never considered myself to be one. I never thought we could survive completely apart from civilized society, and why should we? After all, why spend all one’s time surviving when one could practice a profession or the arts? When I finished my bachelors degree and teaching certificate, I couldn’t wait to get back to the old-fashioned skills I practiced before I had to leave to get an education. I couldn’t wait to get back to the land again. I wanted to practice herbalism, have bees and a garden. Mostly because it is a way of life I loved as a young woman and I wanted to preserve the knowledge for the next generation. But as the economy has become unstable, I believe that, yes, Americans need to return to these skills to survive hard times. Also, since 9/11, I have believed that American citizens should be prepared to defend their homeland, which to me is a sensible, traditional and reasonable outlook. Committing an act of terrorism is abhorrent to me and to everyone I know. It never occurred to me that anyone could consider this outlook to be indicative of a terrorist.

I was also puzzled about what could be meant by references to people being “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal or international in orientation)” “anti-global” believing in “conspiracy theories that involve grave threats to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.” And what on earth could they mean by beliefs that our personal or national “way of life” is under attack? People here have lived much the same way for decades. How could anything change that?

Then I learned about Agenda 21, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade treaty and the push for global governance and, little by little, it all became frighteningly clear. And yes, just like the ranchers protesting at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, I began to see that the BLM, the Forest Service and the U.S. Wildlife Service were engaged with corporatists, radical environmentalists and globalists in making it all but impossible to live as we had lived before.

I also saw that this study report was set up to portray us as potential domestic terrorists should we dare to speak out and resist. I have watched this false narrative move forward with an almost mesmerizing predictability. I posted some of my research and concerns last year in the article Tools of Social Control? The Southern Poverty Law Center Watch Lists.  As I researched, I continued to explore our options.

What Not to do

I’m not the only one. Michael Coffman, one of the true leaders of the Liberty Movement warns us, in his book, Rescuing a Broken America, that

As people wake up and get fired-up they will want to know what they can do to stop this behemoth from taking total control of their lives. Violence of any form is not the answer. Violence only plays into the hands of a corrupt government because it provides them the public excuse to clamp down on all opposition….Evidence suggests that Americans are waking up and realizing they are being deliberately deceived. There is also a growing concern that it is only a matter of time before leftists extremists will use provocateurs within otherwise peaceful tea party protests to provoke a violent confrontation to discredit all opposition and invite repression of all dissent.

Coffman then shares his views on why an armed revolt has no chance of success in this day and age:

Violence is not the answer. A military revolution is even worse, to the point of being idiotic. In the 1700s, the British army and the colonists both were armed with the same weapons. While it is true that many militias have assault rifles and automatic weapons, they are no match to the sophisticated weapons that the police and military forces have today. A careful review of what happened in 2001 to the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and the Republican Guard in Iraq in 2003 should clearly illustrate that the use of force cannot take back the United States.

Coffman has a firm grasp of reality. Yes, I am aware that the Declaration of Independence grants Americans the right of revolution, and I do not dispute the fact.  We also have the right to take a flying leap off a pier, but would any rational person undertake an ocean voyage by doing so?

Since reading Coffman’s  informative book, a new development has come to pass—that is–a move toward using a global army to fight extremism in the United States. See the article, Obama/UN Announce Global Police Force to Fight Extremism in U.S at Technocracy News.

It is certainly true that I have seen a significant number of people in Idaho wake up to what is happening to us since I first started speaking out and writing about Agenda 21 and some other issues. I have, however, noted some troubling trends in the directions I see some of those newly awakened people taking.

 Warnings from the Past that Should have been Made Known to Protesters at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge

Before getting into my particular concerns, I am going to share something I read while going through archived editions of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) by the LaRouche team.  Now I will tell you at the outset that LaRouche is controversial. He served roughly three years in prison and has been alternately dubbed a fascist and a Marxist, as well as a political extremist. You can investigate LaRouche for yourself: his side of the story can be found here.   You might want to begin by watching the video, “The Man in the Iron Mask.”

After reading about how the media has been influenced by the CIA and the FBI for decades, I read everybody’s work and sort it all out later. I compare how a writer’s work jibes with what is said by other sources, how well their ideas describe the observable world and how well they predict or logically presage the future. I have to say that I don’t agree with LaRouche on everything, but claims that the man is an extremist right-winger are dubious.  He did serve in the Reagan administration, but he was also a staunch supporter of Bill Clinton (none of us is perfect) and ran for President as a Democrat seven times.  In addition, he detested George Bush. Charges that LaRouche is a fascist are questionable when we find that many of his early works charge the global cabal, including the Club of Rome, with being, themselves, fascists who were inflicting genocide on Africans using the pretext of dealing with overpopulation  In many ways, LaRouche defies categorization.

But having laid this foundation I want to get to LaRouche’s views on the militias, especially in the rural context. LaRouche is no friend of militias. He is genteel and committed to high culture in art and music. He does not appear to be familiar with the people of the rural West, or to understand their ways. That being said, it behooves us to read warnings regarding the manipulation and co-option of the militias in his magazine, EIR June 2, 1995 Vol. 22 No. 23.

The LaRouche team considered the Oklahoma City Bombing to be an act of international terrorism and named agents of the British Club of Isles, allied with the British Royal House of Windsor, as propagandists responsible for setting up a climate designed to use the American militias as patsies. Here is a quote:

By no later than December 1994, one of the two leading British propagandists directing the assault on the U.S. Presidency [Clinton], had begun regularly featuring the rise of the populist militias as a theme in his Clinton-bashing propaganda. The second of the two, has been overseeing an effort to spread anti-U.S. government paranoia among American populists and self-styled militiamen since no later than early March 1995.
These two figures, Lord William Rees-Mogg and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, fraudulently built up the militias as a ‘major’ political phenomenon. Then following the April 19 attack [on the Oklahoma City Building], they set up the militias to ‘take the fall’ for a bombing that they had neither the capability nor the motive to carry out.

Scott Thompson describes how Lord William Rees-Mogg had insinuated his way into the American right in order to promulgate anti-government propaganda while being cheered on, at the same time, by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. The article also cites the involvement of right-wing spokespeople such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh and others.

Rees-Mogg’s colleague, Evans-Pritchard, is described as a second-generation British Secret Service asset who then worked in the Washington D.C. bureau of the Sunday Telegraph. Playing both sides in a conflict was evidently nothing new to Evans-Pritchard, as, during the mid-1980’s Nicaraguan covert war, he “maintained close links to both the Sandinista regime and the U.S.-sponsored Contra rebels.”

This edition of EIR describes how Lord William Rees-Mogg went about spreading fear, paranoia and anti-government sentiment among the militias by writing publications warning of government takeovers, internment camps and imminent raids, while on the other hand, his colleague, Evans-Pritchard, and the Anti-Defamation League alarmed the general American public with warnings of a vast, well-equipped army of militias being raised to launch the next American Revolution.

According to EIR writers, these two propagandists did all of this to further what is known as a “strategy of tension” noting that this pattern imitates an Italian and European strategy that involves the sudden killing and maiming of innocent civilians without warning by groups on the extreme left or the extreme right, and which also involves attempted assassinations of public figures.  The object of this strategy is to destabilize a country.

In 1995, Evans-Pritchard paticularly named Idaho as “the state to watch,” saying a peasants revolt was in the making due to a reaction to federal interference in people’s ability to earn a living, and the loss of constitutional liberties. Evans-Pritchard cites Samuel Sherrwood, then head of the U.S. Militia Association in Blackfoot, Idaho as saying that half of 44 counties had organized militias that wanted a bloodless revolution but were prepared to use force if Congress did not restore the Constitution.

Who knew?

EIR writer, Jeffrey Steinberg, chides the militias for allowing themselves to be played as fools:

The susceptibility of the populist militias to manipulation by British agents and fellow-travelers, as well as Bush-league ‘asteroid’ American intelligence networks often allied with London, over the period since January 1993, has set the populist militias up as the prime suspects in the Oklahoma bombing.

Now I don’t have any strong opinions as to who did the Oklahoma City bombing, but the EIR writers’ naming of the two British propagandists, along with their affiliations and activities, suggests to me that both the political right and the left are implicated in psychological warfare operations. This impression is backed up by Kelleigh Nelson’s series of articles warning of controlled opposition: Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right. These articles suggest to me that this is an ongoing dialectic with both the right and the left ensnaring Americans in false perceptions, Idaho citizens not excepted.

Concerns with What I see Happening in Idaho

Now I will briefly list some issues I have with the current direction of the Patriot Movement in Idaho:

• I believe there is controlled opposition at work here in North Idaho that has infiltrated the Tea Party and other groups. I believe they are busy misdirecting our actions and perceptions.
• I am concerned when people with ties to Yale and Harvard come to the West and advocate starting militias in every little town, and do so in an open-air park with people walking around who don’t know Idahoans from Adam. When individuals tell Idahoans in a public meeting that “You are the militia!” over and over, it raises an eyebrow to say the least.
• It disturbs me when Idahoans run after the above supposed leaders without reservation. Edward G. Griffen, who wrote about the Federal Reserve scam, notes that the first thing that gets done to oppose liberty is to send out people (agents) to take over the leadership of groups and to control those people who are struggling to form a political resistance. Look to see who has commandeered local groups and consider what their real motives might be.
• It alarms me when I go to a peaceful protest and strangers try to pull me into a head-on conflict with federal authorities.  I am also nonplussed when people try to emotionally manipulate me by calling my patriotism into question when I refuse.
• My suspicions are further raised when someone, supposedly in leadership, calls for open-carry at a public rally, but then they, themselves never do show up with arms.
• And I don’t like it when public officials have themselves photographed in front of the Confederate flag, as if the Liberty Movement is about the South rising again. This does nothing but play into the hands of those who wish to change the subject. I will go into this issue more extensively at another time.

Heading into the Future

This article is likely to raise the ire on all sides. Please know that I don’t write this to malign anyone in particular. I understand that Patriots are endeavoring to correct problems while struggling in uncharted waters, however our actions have sometimes earned us an A for zeal, but a D for knowledge. We must take the time to understand the issues clearly and not go off half-cocked. Don’t make rash public statements or let people lead you around by the nose. If someone tries to stampede you into a conflict, they are either crazy or treacherous.  You don’t have a patriotic duty to let somebody pull you into a head-on collision.  Know your enemy and know yourself. Read more history and political theory. We cannot act like parodies of ourselves. All this does is give the impression that we are cartoon characters who can’t be taken seriously. Please let cooler heads prevail.

Though I have fallen short in the past, I am trying to retain an element of human compassion. We need to realize that both sides in any debate are probably suffering under the kind of polarizing influences I describe above. Verify everything and have patience. Have respect for everyone involved in our communities. Local employees of land use management agencies are often doing their best and are our neighbors. If any of us falls short, it’s because we are all subject to human frailty.

Making Hay While the Sun Shines on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge

And above all, remember that our real opposition wants nothing more than an excuse to crush the awakening of America while it is yet budding. Violence, rash actions and the uncritical following of bad actors, such as took place at Burns, Oregon, give our opposition that chance.

Of course it may not be the Patriots or the militias who are entirely guilty of those mistakes at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.  Some individuals claim that that much rash and violent talk was done by operatives to make the Patriots look like terrorists and to draw those that wanted a war into the conflict.  There are eyewitnesses who tell us that there was no (zero, zilch) violence on the part of the authentic protesters.   I do think however that their naiveté was dangerous to themselves and to the Liberty Movement

Nevertheless, whoever was responsible, the opposition is losing no time in furthering their plans. Not only did President Obama start an aggressive push for gun control the minute the Burns, Oregon situation got national headlines, but the globalists, as predicted by Dr. Michael Coffman, are pushing forward with new efforts to shut down dissent while the incident is fresh in the minds of American citizens.  Read US Seeks To Redefine Terrorism Rules To Include Anti-Government Protesters.  What took place at Burns helps give the globalists more excuse in the eyes of the world for using their global/United Nations army.  In fact some people are saying that global forces are already on the ground in the area around Burns, Oregon.  See There’s Something Strange Happening Here in Burns, Oregon.

That’s what they’ve been looking for.

In part 2 of this series, I will share some more history and insights on the revolution conundrum. Until then, peace be unto you.

Posted in Agenda 21, Blog, politics, politics, rural life, Social Commentary | Tagged , | 7 Comments

In the Interest of a Free Press: Links to Articles and Video on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge Situation

Free Press: One element of a free society

Free Press: One element of a free society

Evidently, there is an effort to block alternative media coverage of the situation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, where a group has taken over a federal building as a protest over injustices perpetrated against ranching families.

Pete Santilli is covering the situation on the ground.  Last night he posted a video describing how the FBI is seeking to shut down alternative coverage of the situation.  He believes that the motivation is so that the federal government can have only mainstream media present who will allow them to feed them whatever narrative they wish to have published.  He points out that this would endanger the lives of men, women and children on the ground, perhaps enabling another Waco situation.

Breaking: FBI Attempting To Shut Down Independent Media

Also seen in the above video is Michael Emry of The Voice of Idaho News (TVOI).  Emry is on the scene, as is Vicky Davis, who has written articles on TVOI News regarding the event.   Becky Hudson, the Editor of TVOI News, sent me a link to the above articles because Face Book will not allow her or Michael Emry to share.  Vicky Davis has also written a  thought-provoking article asking questions about who owns local authorities in Harney County, the county where this is taking place.

Video: Graham Ledger & Michael Emry – BURNS, OREGON – TVOI News

Also, for a good article giving the background of this situation see the below post.  Place your cursor on the large print below and the type will turn red:

Full Story About What’s Going on In Oregon – “Militia” Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution…

Representative Greg Walden of Oregon (Video and transcript):

 In defense of the Oregon protesters on the floor of the House


The Clintons: is the Oregon standoff really about uranium?


I am posting these links because I think it is essential that we have both sides of the issue to consider and not just the mainstream media’s spoonfed version.  I am not posting my own insights on the matter for awhile.

Posted in Agrarianism, Blog, politics, politics, Social Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In the Interest of a Free Press: Links to Articles and Video on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge Situation

Jesus: God’s Gift to Women

…And our iniquity is pardoned

vintage-christmas-angels-baby-jesusSo goes a refrain from The Messiah. This refrain from Handel’s Christmas classic refers to the revelation that our Lord has bestowed his grace on women according to his great love, and according to God’s looked-for promise of redemption from sin.

During his earthly sojourn, Jesus demonstrated his friendship to women, freeing us from sin’s slavery into the liberty of health, devotion to learning and scholarship, ministry and worship, and equality in the home and church (see Ten Things Jesus Taught About Women.)

Indeed our Lord accomplished these acts for the entire human race, male and female, yet much of the church has been slow to accept the freedom that Jesus wrought for women. A large segment of the Church still teaches men that they are born to preeminence in all things, especially in the family and the church.

Just here, in Boundary County, pastors belabor wives’ submission to husbands for over an hour at summer weddings, while guests stand shifting from side to side in the sweltering heat. Sunday sermons are routinely studded with overbearing reminders to women parishioners that their part is to submit, while men’s part is to lead. These sermons issue forth on the opinion that men are the heads of their wives and families, the priest of the home, and fitted for leadership in the family and in the church, while women must not usurp man’s authority. There is usually little, or nothing, mentioned about the need for mutual submission in the body of Christ.

Yes, some churches will begrudgingly grant that women may minister, to a lesser or greater degree, as long as she is under the authority of her husband and church leadership. I have observed, however, that any woman who is allowed to do so is in a tenuous position. A woman who seems too bold or sure of herself is liable to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. I have seen women who, even while leading worship, hold themselves in a posture of exaggerated humility, their eyes downcast, bowed as if in fear to lift their heads. They mustn’t appear to forget their place, lest the little that is granted to them be taken away.

They do well to walk on eggshells: I have seen more than one mighty woman of God removed from her ministry on no other basis than that her husband, or some other man in the church, didn’t think it appropriate that a woman publicly minister in any capacity whatever.

I have attended one congregation in this county where, when the assembly was called to prayer, the women were twice admonished emphatically to “just let the men pray.” Evidently, women’s participation in public prayer was considered too usurping of man’s natural authority and leadership.

In another local group, women were denied the privilege of getting together for a regular prayer breakfast, because they might engage in gossip and create division in the church.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. No wonder that at least one counselor/psychologist found a high incidence of depression among local Christian women. This finding has been confirmed to me by others in Boundary County.

Standing in Eve’s Lineage

One might naturally ask why women allow this. One reason is that many people have never closely examined distorted doctrines, based on Eve’s part in the Fall, that have been in place for thousands of years. Since before the time of Christ, religious leaders have taught that women participate in Eve’s nature and in her sin. Women, more often than not, have been told they are the Daughters of Eve, and this label has served as justification for keeping women perpetually under men’s thumb. (Of course, pre-Christian societies have had other justifications, too, but I am here discussing the Church). The idea is that Eve got ahead of Adam and wandered from his authority. This is why she fell under Satan’s deception.

Women who are reminded periodically of this are easier to control, in part because they are kept off balance. If any strong woman in the congregation stands up boldly in the church, she is likely to be shamed by being reminded that she participates in Eve’s sin and has forgotten her place. She is then often intimidated into submission. Dr. Susan Hyatt calls this tactic “Blame, shame and tame.”

Some women are more vulnerable to this control tactic, due to their need for male affirmation. Others are confused because they don’t realize that a psychological tactic is being foisted off on them.

Throughout history, uppity women have been warned that they are Eve’s Daughters, and should, therefore, walk in shame. But here is where the Gift of God has set us free: We are not Eve’s daughters. Through Jesus and his atonement we have received the power to become the daughters of God.

Through Adam, sin entered the world, but through Jesus, the Second Adam, we have been redeemed from sin. Jesus took our iniquities upon himself, and our acceptance of his sacrifice brings us into direct relationship with God, the Father. No husband or pastor stands as a mediator between us and our Creator.

Now Martin Luther understood this doctrine full well, and he called it The Priesthood of All Believers. Martin Luther was a great man, though limited in his understanding of the consequences of this revelation. He therefore waffled when it came to extending this doctrine to women as well as men, but it is now understood by many Christian women that we, too, may come boldly before the throne of God—yes, with our heads lifted, our eyes flashing with joy, and our mouths filled with the high praises of God.

At his feet we receive vision for our lives that no man may take away from us. Like the daughters of Zelophehad in the Book of Numbers, we receive an inheritance alongside the men. Katherine Bushnell warns us not to sell our birthright, as did Esau. It is our inheritance to preach the gospel, teach, prophesy, minister to the needy and lay hands on for the healing of the sick. We are responsible to God for the vision and talents that have been given to us, and we cannot allow these precious gifts to be wasted in exchange for the approval of others.

It has come to my notice that there is a resurgence of Reformed Theology in the Patriot Movement, among conservatives, and even in the Charismatic Church. Previously, I had been at a loss for reasons explaining the rigidity I observed among conservatives regarding women. Of course this isn’t a church matter only, but is encountered throughout society. Little by little, I realized that Reformed Theology is currently one major source of Christians’ refusal to acknowledge women’s gifts and authority.

Calvin, like Luther, was also a man of his times and limited in his understanding of the full consequences of the Reformation. He was still greatly used of God, who is able to use us despite our shortcomings, but Reformed Theology never acknowledged the activity of the Holy Spirit and the operation of the gifts of the Spirit in the body of Christ. Hyatt points out that, “following the lead of Calvin and Luther, Reformed Protestants have related to the charismatic activity of the Spirit on a scale ranging from cautious acceptance to stern rejection and violent denouncements that they are ‘of the devil.’ This rejection of the charismata—which could be defined as a restriction on the Holy Spirit—appears to coincide with a restriction on women.”

I adamantly agree with Hyatt’s insight. The rejection of the Spirit’s operation in Boundary County’s congregations has coincided with a silencing of women and a curtailment of our liberty.

In-house Discussions

Now my brethren (brothers and sisters) are free to believe as their conscience dictates, but they have no reasonable expectation that I will assent to such doctrines by my silence. They have no inhibitions about broadcasting their own views on women, and so neither shall I.

Nor do I think their stated beliefs are in harmony with the rational tradition to which they make claim through Reformed Theology, or even the intellectual tradition of Aquinas or Augustine. Women, more godly and learned than I, have brought their case before the church in language every bit as stately and lucid as that used by any doctor of the Church. These spokeswomen include, but are not limited to, Margaret Fell, Catherine Kroeger, Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz, and Mary Daly, as well as Daly’s female contemporaries who made appeals to the leadership of the Catholic Church around the time of Vatican ll in the 1960’s.

The fact that the above women differ from Aquinas, Augustine and other early church fathers in their opinions about women doesn’t automatically make them wrong.  C.S. Lewis tells us how our understanding of truth may legitimately develop within a system of absolutes into that understanding which is more perfect. Lewis calls a fixed system of absolutes The Tao. Lewis distinguishes The Tao from systems invented by philosophers who believe that there is no objective truth, and that humankind creates its own moral system as it goes along.  Lewis tells us that The Tao is not “one among a series of possible systems of value”, but is the “sole source of all value judgments.” Other traditional names for the Tao are Natural Law, Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason.

Lewis tells us we may not invent any other moral code, but goes on to say: “Does this mean, then, that no progress in our perceptions of value can ever take place? That we are bound down forever to an unchanging code given once for all?” Lewis goes on to explain that a Poet who loves, and is well-nurtured, in his or her mother tongue may make alterations to the language because changes are made from within the language tradition, rather than from without. He tells us that these kinds of changes are as different as the works of Shakespeare are from Basic English:

“It is the difference between alteration from within and alteration from without: between the organic and the surgical. In the same way The Tao admits development from within. There is a difference between a real moral advance and a mere innovation…It is the difference between a man who says to us: ‘You like your vegetables moderately fresh; why not grow your own and have them perfectly fresh?’ and a man who says ‘Throw away that loaf and try eating bricks and centipedes instead.’ Those that understand the spirit of the Tao and who have been led by that spirit can modify it in directions which that spirit itself demands.”

It is by showing where current perceptions within the Tao are inadequate to the demands of its principles that we can legitimately make changes to those perceptions. In the same way,  women must show that woman’s equality in church and home lies within the precepts of the Word of God, and how this is an advancement of truth that makes our understanding of those precepts more perfect.  Women must make it clear where the current understanding of women’s status falls short of biblical precepts.

I believe that women have done that very thing in the past and are doing it now, but that much of the church has been recalcitrant for a variety of reasons. Many leaders have not even taken the time to look into the issue fairly, nor have they encouraged their parishioners to give the matter a fair hearing. Past writings and the history of women in the Church have been suppressed. For example, the books and lectures of Bible expositor and translator, Katherine Bushnell, have been ignored for almost a hundred years. Bushnell speaks of women translators before her who have been excluded from Bible translation committees, and whose work has been buried.

Nevertheless, the work goes on. I believe that Susan and Eddie Hyatt are currently on the cutting edge for making a rational argument within the Christian Tradition for the biblical equality of women. Another group doing this is Christians for Biblical Equality.

Leaving the Building

Due to the Catholic Church’s resistance to hearing rational arguments brought by Mary Daly and her contemporaries, many of these women left the church—not just the Catholic Church, but Christianity as a whole. Some have sought a new canon, that is, a source of authority outside the Bible, or advocated using portions of it combined with other sources.

William J. Abraham, teacher of philosophy and theology at Perkins School of Theology and Albert Cook Outlier Professor of Wesley Studies at Southern Methodist University, examines feminist philosophers and their epistemological theories of canon in his book, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology. Abraham shows that the feminist theories he examines fail to ground their epistemologies in anything absolute, and notes deconstructionist tendencies in their efforts. Moreover, he notes that their efforts to transcend the Bible and Christian canon appear to result in a move toward a new religion other than Christianity. I think Mary Daly would both agree and approve. This is why she calls her new creed postchristian. These women believe that Christianity is hopelessly patriarchal and can never grant equality to women. How tragic that much of the church seems to agree with their perception.

Hyatt recounts how the World Council of Churches, including 2,000 women, ushered in Sophia worship in 1994. Hyatt informs us that “participants rejected the incarnation and atonement of Jesus Christ as patriarchal constructs.” They prayed to Sophia, goddess of wisdom, and praised her as a deity. In addition, they praised her for her sexual characteristics.

In this context, I sense more than a little pathos in the John 6:68 account of Jesus, who, when abandoned by many of his disciples, asked the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”

Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

It’s my desire to reassure discouraged women that Jesus is still our friend. We will find no rock for our weary feet outside of His truth, word and salvation.

Boxed In

Abraham seems somewhat interested that these learned feminists, many of them holding doctorates in theology and philosophy, have mostly dismissed Pentecostal women who read the Bible in ways that liberate them to public ministries. According to those feminist philosophies examined by Abraham, Pentecostal women are included with other Christian women who have internalized the symbols of patriarchy, such as God the Father and God the Son in the Trinity, and hence we participate in our own oppression by remaining loyal to the Bible and Christianity. We are mistaken in our perception that Christ has set us free.

Many within Christianity who reject the baptism of the Holy Spirit and its operation within the body of Christ seem to agree with this dismissal of Pentecostal women. Insights on liberty in Christ Jesus gained and acted upon by Christians within the Charismatic/Pentecostal movements are dismissed as specious. There has been a great effort to squelch any such understanding of the Bible. Indeed, many even within the Charismatic/Pentecostal traditions have left off allowing the gifts of the Holy Spirit a place in their assemblies and worship.

In addition, many Christians either ignore or don’t understand the fact that there are several schools of feminism, therefore they lump all forms into one and reject them out of hand. They either don’t know, or won’t acknowledge, that feminists who base their doctrine on Liberation Theology are very different from Evangelical feminists who believe that the Bible, properly translated, speaks for the equality of women. They also do not distinguish Marxist feminism apart from any other school of feminist thought. Abhorring the relativism and confusion that are the bi-products of those philosophers who have abandoned the quest for objective truth founded on the Word of God, these Christians have reacted to the message of woman’s equality without making critical distinctions, and so are like an army that has boxed itself into a canyon from which they think there is no exit save into the camp of the enemy. Personally, I think this mentality suits the purposes of their opposition far better than they realize.

The Way Out

I applaud William J. Abraham’s proposed solution to the problems uncovered in his examination of feminist philosophies in the church:

“We can identify what is needed. The problem, if it to be resolved, can be addressed in part by articulating a comprehensive vision of the canonical heritage of the Church, which shows that the doctrine of the Trinity is good for all of us , which shows that salvation from all sin, including salvation from male oppression, can be found in Christ. In short, this problem can be solved by showing that the salvation brought by Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit saves all humankind to the uttermost. Clearly, such a challenge is likely to evoke in time the full, self-critical response it so richly deserves.”

To sum up and conclude, some feminists have responded to the refusal of many church leaders to fairly consider rational arguments for the equality of women by leaving Christianity. Rather than continuing to make the case within the precepts of Christianity, they have abandoned those precepts and attempted to bring in a new canon and a new religion. In other words, they have opted for radical surgery, rather than continue to advocate for organic change.

For its part, the church is still changing, but many Christians seem to be hardening in their refusal to consider the case for women’s equality. This includes quite a few groups here in Boundary County, who seem to be doubling down on their insistence that women remain secondary in the Church.

There are those of us in Boundary County who have studied these issues for a number of years. We will continue to set forth the case for Biblical equality in home studies. I would suggest that any persons who are interested listen to Eddie and Sue Hyatt’s YouTube videos and explore their International Christian Women’s History Project and Hall of Fame.   They also oversee the God’s Word to Women site.  One may profit by visiting the Christians for Biblical Equality web site.

Praise be to God, who gave His only begotten Son, so that all who believe on Him may receive eternal life.

Works Cited and Consulted

Abraham, William J. Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology. Oxford University Press: New York, 2006.

Bushnell, Katherine C. God’s Word to Women. God’s Word to Women, Inc.: Grapevine Texas, 2004.

Daly, Mary. The Church and the Second Sex: With a New Feminist PostChristian Introduction by the Author. Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.: New York, 1975.

Hyatt, Susan C. In the Spirit We’re Equal: The Spirit, The Bible, and Women: A Revival Perspective. Hyatt Press: Tulsa Oklahoma, 1998.

Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man: How Education Develops Man’s Sense of Morality. Macmillan Publishing: New York, 1955.


Posted in Blog, Social Commentary | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Telling On Themselves: Rural Cleansing in Idaho and Montana

Rural cleansing in Idaho & MontanaI just love it when someone slips up, and tells us country folk what’s really being planned for us.

Rural cleansing is the purposeful removal of rural citizens from the countryside and the relocation of rural populations into urban areas. Many public officials and media pundits scoff at the mere suggestion that rural cleansing is taking place, but the problem, you see, is that there are people who have inadvertently left tell-tale clues we can use to piece together things for ourselves.

One of the most startling clues I’ve run across lately comes from a July 1, 1998 newspaper article in The Montanian, which is published in Libby, a tiny rural town in Northwest Montana.

Did She Just Say That?

In the article, Libby County Commissioner, Rita Windom, informs us that she and other commissioners were approached by Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) state land manager, Darlene Edge, with a proposal to cooperate in driving rural residents out of the Montana countryside into cities. When commissioners responded with horror, Windom says Edge replied

“Can’t you see we are doing you a favor by forcing people to move from rural areas into the urban areas. That way you can close roads…Why don’t you work with us and move these people out of the rural areas and into the urban areas so cities can shoulder more of the responsibilities and the county can save money?”

This exchange took place in a meeting regarding a document called The Wildlife Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), of which only 300 were published. According to Windom, there was very little public input because the few public meetings held were so poorly advertised.

But was this just an isolated, though shocking, incident? Did this public policy only affect Montana?  I don’t think so.  I’ll tell you why.

Sometime around 1997 I called a Boundary County, Idaho resident from Washington State regarding possible job openings in my field in Boundary County.  Her answer was that the woods had been shut down and 300 families had left.  She continued on to tell me she had seen a public land management agency document outlining a plan to empty North Idaho of people and turn the entire area into a wildlife corridor.  Naturally, she was outraged.

About ten years later, another reliable eyewitness told me that the same document had arrived at his home first.  The document was marked not for public view.  He had purchased a house that had previously been occupied by a public land management agency employee who had moved.  My source had opened the document and read it.  He confirmed that it said what my other friend had previously described to me.  In fact, he had lent her the document, which is how she happened to know what was in it.

I was never able to get my hands on that document, but when someone sent me a camera shot of the above article in The Montanian describing much the same policy being announced at much the same time as the eyewitness accounts, I wasted no time in getting a copy of the article.

Other evidence for believing that this article in The Montanian represents policies that affect Idaho, as well as Montana, is that, not too long ago, at a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service public meeting about listing the wolverine on the Endangered Species list, we were told that Idaho and Montana are now considered to be in the same management region by the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  The land and wildlife management policies are pretty much the same now.  This is why huge blocks of land, taking in N.W. Montana, Northern Idaho and N.E. Washington, are included in management plans for grizzly habitat, caribou habitat, wildlife corridors, etc.

Where Did Rural Cleansing Come From?

Commissioner Windom remarks, in the Montanian article, that the Draft EIS that had upset her and other commissioners was the product of five to six years’ labor by the FWP. That puts us back to around 1992, or a year later, when the Rio Earth Summit trotted out the document, Agenda 21: the Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, and other supporting documents, for our enjoyment.

Documents and resolutions introduced at the Rio Earth Summit had been in the works for years before being introduced to the world.

Policies leading to rural cleansing are found in the document, Agenda 21: the Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, but another important source is associated with one of the other documents introduced at Rio.  That was the Convention on Biological Diversity.  It has been shown that the Wildlands Project is the central mechanism by which the Convention on Biological Diversity is to be implemented.  The Wildlands Project calls for humans to be removed from one-half of the American land mass, and to create uninhabited corridors for wildlife to move freely from Alaska to Yellowstone Park, or farther south.  It was written by radical environmentalists working in United Nations nongovernmental organizations with the full knowledge and aid of U.S. federal agencies such as U.S. Forest Service, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA and others.

It appears that the Wildlands Project is now being implemented, under another name, in Idaho and the West through the Western Governors Association’s Wildlife Corridors Initiative (WCI).  To learn more about that, please see my blog, Infiltration of LittleTown U.S.A.: The Wildlands Project and Agenda 21 in Idaho.  Particularly, pay attention to the section subtitled “Nudging Us into the Cities.”

If we are paying attention, we can catch public officials and media pundits additionally telling on themselves by their perpetual use of disinformation.  One common bit of disinformation used to mislead the public is the repeated statement that Agenda 21 is an outdated and nonbinding document.  You can always tell a trained operative when statements similar to this come out of their mouth. Here is an article displaying this strategy: How the U.N.’s Agenda 21 Affects Kootenai County, Idaho.

Just two to three weeks ago, I submitted a comment on the above article.  I commented that Agenda 21 is no outdated or irrelevant document, because in 2012, the United Nations held another summit called Rio+20, in which the members reaffirmed Agenda 21 as the working document for the 21st century.  They also reaffirmed their commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity.  The webmaster declined to publish my comment.

To back up my comment, here is a quote found on Wikipedia’s entry for Agenda 21:

“Rio+20 (2012)
Main article: United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
In 2012, at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development the attending members reaffirmed their commitment to Agenda 21 in their outcome document called “The Future We Want”. 180 leaders from nations participated.”

Bringing it Home

When the Wikipedia entry calls the Agenda 21 document a voluntary and nonbinding action plan, the writer fails to outline the process whereby former President Clinton issued an executive order and created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), which then formed policies and plans to implement Agenda 21 under soft law. Sustainable Development is the term used at United Nations and national levels to describe the goals of Agenda 21.  The PCSD generated documents and guidelines, notably Sustainable America: A New Consensus for the Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the Future, used by federal agencies, such as the Forest Service, EPA and others, to form policies.

These guidelines have become the overarching vision for our nation, not only for federal agencies, but also for city planners, corporate trade groups, and environmental groups, as this excerpt from Sustainable America shows.

Federal grants, monies, and other inducements, have drawn local and state governments into that implementation.  I’m sure many of those public officials were ignorant of the consequences of accepting those grants at the time.  Some are either still ignorant or too stubborn, or maybe even too complicit, to admit that they were duped.  When soft law becomes the new normal, it can be upheld by case law.  These practices are also now being codified in piecemeal legislation, comprehensive land use plans and zoning regulations.

There You Go Again

Now you will be told that county comprehensive land use plans, likewise, are nonbinding documents with no real clout.  Oops—wrong again.  For example, the U.S. Forest Service uses comprehensive land use plans when writing forest plans for your region.  If your plan just happens to agree with their goals (and what are their goals? why, Sustainable Forestry, of course) the plan serves as cover for their management policies, because the Forest Service claims that they have coordinated with your county, as required by law, by having read and taken under consideration your comprehensive land use plan.  See this video and hear F.S. employees state this over and over again, as they are being questioned regarding their latest forest plan for Idaho.  I have also read that comprehensive land use plans can be used as a basis for zoning regulations and other county ordinances.

This is why various groups want to embed statements that are conducive to Sustainable Development in your county comprehensive land use plans.

Though the disinformation campaign strategy in Idaho is still one of denial and Alinsky-like mockery of Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists, as exemplified in this Spokesman-Review article, the strategy is now shifting elsewhere.  Rosa Koire, speaking of California, describes how the charge of conspiracy theory is there giving way to the position that Agenda 21, and its related documents and policies, are real, but that these policies are the only feasible and just way of coping with global problems such as climate change, overpopulation, poverty and environmental degradation.

It’s the New normal, Just Accept it.

It’s no surprise, then, that FOX News just published an article entitled Foundations plan to pay news media to cover radical UN agenda. The article describes how a cadre of journalists is being trained to win the public over to U.N. Sustainable Development policies.

Comic Relief

That’s why I just chortle when I find articles like this one, from The Montanian, containing past candid (though Kafkaesque)  quotes from officials who hadn’t yet sufficiently learned to dissemble.  I hope you will read the entire article, as it has additional interesting comments about the changing use of conservation easements and the way Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks was circumventing the public and county commissioners to get its way. The article is reprinted by the gracious permission of The Montanian Newspaper.

And just so we can do a little mocking of our own, let me refer you to this funny, short short video called My Daughter’s New Agenda 21 Bedroom

But, then again, after having a good chuckle, let’s move past the mockery and get down to the debate–if we can get one.  If journalists are going to try to convince us that Sustainable Development, as envisioned by members and advisory groups to the United Nations, is the best path for America, we need to be ready to engage in a logical and reasonable discussion.  And that will be a serious conversation, indeed.



The Montanian.  “FWP plans big changes in hunting and rural living.”  Libby, Montana: July 1, 1998.

*Sorry, the print on the first page is small.  After posting this, I realized I had made a transcription of the first page of this article.  If you scroll down, past the header front page at the bottom, you will see page 1 transcribed.  Page 2 is large enough to read easily.  When I got this article from microfiche, the greater amount of print on page one inhibited our ability to make the print larger and, thus, more readable.


The Montanian Article page 1

The Montanian Article page 1

The Montanian Page 2

The Montanian Page 2

The Montanian Header

The Montanian Header








The The Montanian July 1, 1998 (TRANSCRIPTION Page 1)

FWP plans big changes in hunting and rural living

Social Engineering is in the Works

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has big changes planned for the way it manages wildlife, hunting and rural living patterns. And even though the proposed changes could impact hunters, property owners and anyone who enjoys the outdoors, most Montanians are unaware of the changes.

Lincoln County Commissioner, Rita Windom, says she has only recently learned about the plan, entitled “Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.”
“This is a document that should mean something to everybody,” Windom said Monday, June 29. “They only printed 300 copies of this document, and they only printed 250 of the actual EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). They had seven meetings in the state of Montana and I happened to get a hold of [it, because of] a meeting I had gone to back in 1992.”

Windom said the plan outlines big changes.  “We were just horrified because it changes the way lands are managed and…it dramatically (effects) counties,” she said.
“This document is called “The Wildlife Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.” The Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks prepared it. They’ve been working on it for five or six years at a cost of $600,000,” she said.

“There are five alternatives and they don’t list the preferred ones, which is unusual.”
Windom said she is concerned about the lack of public input into what are potentially major changes.

“One of the scary things about this document is that…the public input doesn’t go to the game commission for review (and) it doesn’t go to the people. Pat Graham, Director of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, is the decision maker. He gets to select which alternatives or a combination thereof.

“[The plan] allows some public comments…at meetings. [But] they were so ill advertised. They had the biggest one in Libby, which was the one we demanded, and we only had nine people. The meeting was May 26.”

Windom says the plan would allow FWP to sell more non-resident hunting licenses while reducing the number of licenses available for Montana residents.

“They are going to ask the Legislature to change the way they do hunting licenses. They want to allow more non-resident licenses in their formula for licenses. The way I understand it is that there will be fewer for resident hunters,” she said.
Worse, the non-resident licenses will be sold to the highest bidder.

“It will be all market-based, highest bidder. We think that is pretty unfair,” she said.
Windom says the plan goes way beyond the management of just wildlife. It also includes plans to manipulate human population in rural areas.

“They are saying they want social changes. They talk about the increasing importance of environmental concerns nationally, and the increasing reliance on referendums and grass-roots politics for political change. They [FWP] say that social and economic values towards natural resources are becoming less consumptive…nationally. The emergence of the animal rights movement exemplifies national pressure to shift to a less consumptive use at state and local levels,” Windom said, citing the plan.

Windom said she is disturbed that FWP is allowing national trends to dictate its policy.
“What is the reasoning behind allowing an animal rights movement to dictate policy on how we use Montana lands?”

Windom read aloud from Alternative 3 of the plan: “Land owners would increase, through expanded access, incentives and habitat programs. Local governments would benefit from expanded payments including those in lieu of personal property tax.” That means to me, currently we have conservation easements and they pay personal property tax on buildings, farm equipment and livestock. They they pay a payment in lieu of taxes on real estate, very small…. [FWP] is going to change the use of the land and take the personal property off the land on conservation easements, which would mean ranchers and farmers could no longer use the land the way it is currently being used. That is a big departure in the way we have known conservation easements in the past,” Windom said.
Windom said the plan would in essence tax rural property owners for the wildlife on their property.

“This is even more scary. Local governments would benefit from expanded payments, including those in lieu of personal property tax, however new initiatives pertaining to wildlife on the urban interface may [a]ffect some local residents through tax assessments, meaning that those who choose to live in the countryside would have to pay a tax to Fish, Wildlife and Parks so they could manage more effectively the wildlife there.”
Windom said one FWP employee told her the plan is designed to push rural residents into urban areas.

“When I was in Thompson Chain of Lakes meeting, Darlene Edge (FWP state lands manager) told me she didn’t understand the attitude of county commissioners. She said, “You are so reluctant to work with us on these issues…can’t you see we are doing you a favor by forcing people to move from the rural areas into the urban areas. That way you can close roads…you know your timber receipts are declining. You are going to have less money to work with. Why don’t you work with us and move these people out of the rural areas and into the urban areas so cities can shoulder more of the responsibilities and the county can save money,” Windom said.

“He said the general public knew about this before the game commission,” Windom said. “The game commission really doesn’t get any input in it.”
Windom said FWP is working to circumvent negative public opinion of the plan in at least one area.

“We had a situation up in the West Kootenai some months ago where they [FWP] came up and wanted to do a conservation easement, and the people were…

*Read the rest of the article on page 2 above

Posted in Agenda 21, Blog, politics, politics, rural life, Social Commentary | Tagged , , , | 71 Comments