Lessons on Communism from ‘Doctor Zhivago’

Artistic works oftentimes reflect the times in which they are created.

Music, books, films, and the like, particularly those that endure the test of time, may serve as vessels of information, entertainment, and enlightenment for a culture.

Some artistic works may reveal truths that governments with malicious intent would rather suppress.

“Doctor Zhivago” is a 1957 novel penned by Russian author Boris Pasternak.

Pasternak’s book made its debut on the big screen in 1965 under the same title. The film was produced by Carlo Ponti, directed by David Lean, and stars Omar Sharif, Julie Christie, and Geraldine Chaplin, among others.

The widely read best seller is actually one of the most famously censored pieces of literature.

The author embedded in his work the notion that every person is entitled to a private life and deserves respect as a human being. This was fundamentally irreconcilable with the communist maxim that the individual must be sacrificed to the collective.

Consequently, the book was banned in the old Soviet Union, and the movie was not allowed to be made there. Instead it was filmed mostly in Spain.

The then-Soviet government hid the book from the Russian people, because the “Doctor Zhivago” story explicitly reveals the dark truths of communist tyranny.

The communists censored anything that had the capacity to hinder their despotic drive for political power.

Like those who preceded them, the Soviet tyrants did nothing to restrict individuals that parroted the establishment narrative.

However, when it came to those whose speech constituted a threat to their power, they routinely demonized, silenced them, or worse.

According to a book by Peter Finn and Petra Couvée called “The Zhivago Affair,” Pasternak thought his novel would never be published in the old Soviet Union, because of the manner in which authorities viewed it. So the author gave the manuscript to an Italian publishing scout, which ultimately led to Pasternak’s book becoming a global best seller.

De-classified documents have revealed that, during the late 1950s, the CIA actually distributed copies of his novel to Soviet citizens in order to spread the word about communism’s inherent dangers.

Providentially, the movie became one of the top-grossing films of all time and ranks high on most of the lists of best movies ever made. In 1966 it was awarded five Oscars.

It is the backstory of “Doctor Zhivago,” though, that makes the book and film so notable and amazingly timely.

It tells the story of a Moscow physician-poet, who struggles to cope with the changing landscape of his homeland as a group of communist commissars literally take over the country.

The film stars Sharif in the title role, while Julie Christie portrays his love interest Larissa “Lara” Antipova.

“Doctor Zhivago” uses a flashback technique, with the main character’s half-brother narrating the tale of his search to find his niece, who is the daughter of Lara and Yuri.

Early in the movie young Yuri is orphaned. His only earthly possession is a Russian stringed instrument that he inherited, the balalaika, which weaves its way through the film’s musical score.

The youth is taken in by friends of his family, Alexander and Anna Gromeko, and is subsequently moved to Moscow.

He grows up to become a doctor and soon takes Tonya, daughter of the Gromekos, as his wife.

During World War I, Yuri provides medical care to soldiers fighting on the battlefield. Lara enlists as a nurse. She eventually encounters the love of her life.

For the next six months they serve together at a field hospital, while unrest foments in Russia, following the return of exiled Vladimir Lenin.

Yuri and Lara fall deeply in love. The doctor initially remains faithful to wife Tonya, but passions eventually prevail.

One particularly meaningful scene in the movie occurs after Russia exits WWI. Yuri returns to his Moscow home only to find that the residence has been taken over by the Soviet government and now houses a large group of strangers.

Yuri’s dream of a privately-owned home has vanished. Now a dozen other families live in the space that the good doctor once had for himself and his family.

The chairman of the residence committee, Comrade Kaprugina, tells Yuri, “There was living space for 13 families in this one house.”

“Yes,” Yuri says. “Yes, this is a better arrangement, comrades. More just.”

His words, of course, are a lie that he is forced to say out loud. No longer does he have control over who lives in what was once his home.

He knew his poems had been condemned. He also knew the sheer ruthlessness of his nation’s captors. Now he lives in a place where truth no longer is permitted to be spoken in public.

“Doctor Zhivago” is worth watching and re-watching, not only because it is a great movie, but because it pertains to the present in a way that aptly illustrates how top-down government control can so easily slip into full-blown communism.

The Russian revolution divided the populace, pitting neighbor against neighbor, poor against rich, rural against urban, faith-filled against secular, and so on.

Community organizers consolidated power and eventually seized total control.

Media outlets joined forces in protection of the almighty state, working undercover as allies of the government in the public indoctrination business.

Children in schools were propagandized too, and parental rights were methodically stripped away.

Hundreds of millions were deprived of the right to speak, worship, and travel freely.

Under communism and its other unholy titles, people the world over have been subjected to man-made famines, forced labor, deadly purges, show trials, extrajudicial executions, lethal gulags, and outright genocide.

The infamous track record of communism speaks for itself.

Americans used to fight against the political leviathan with everything in them, rushing to rescue citizens of other nations in peril as well.

In the end, we pray that we will still be able to say, individually and collectively, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Timothy 4:7)

The Real Dangers of Artificial Intelligence

Over the past year, the technological development surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) has advanced much more rapidly than ever anticipated.

A recent letter, signed by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk, and additional AI experts and entrepreneurs, cautioned that a six-month pause needs to be placed on all new AI models.

Time published an article by founder of AI alignment Eliezer Yudkowsky, encouraging the implementation of a permanent global ban and international sanctions on any country pursuing AI research.

The high-profile figures are warning that AI technology is accelerating so quickly, machine systems will soon be able to perform, or even exceed, human intellectual functioning.

A majority of the nation shares the same concerns as the experts. According to a recent Monmouth University poll, 55% of Americans are worried about the threat of AI to the future of humanity.

And according to a Morning Consult survey, nearly half of those who participated would support a pause on advanced AI development.

Because the public has been able to access generative AI platforms that are capable of creating text and participating in human-like conversations, the two-letter acronym itself has been absorbed into the national lexicon.

The term “AI” was coined by a computer scientist back in 1956. At its simplest, Artificial Intelligence combines computer science algorithms with data in order to solve problems.

An algorithm is a list of instructions for specific actions to be carried out by computer technology in a step-by-step fashion. AI utilizes “machine learning,” which enables learning and adaptation to occur without explicit instructions being given.

The type of AI that is presently in use is designed to specialize in a single task; for instance, conducting a web search, determining the fastest route to a destination, or alerting the driver of a car to the presence of a vehicle in the car’s blind spot.

Such functions have oftentimes served to make the lives of individuals better, easier, safer, and so on.

However, it is critical to understand that existing AI is starkly different from the type of AI that is in the pipeline – Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

This type has a benign sounding title, but it is nothing of the sort.

AGI can, and no likely will, match and even exceed human capability.

The point at which AGI exceeds human intelligence is known as “the singularity.” There have been gobs of books and films that have featured AI themes, based on the assumption that advanced AI could somehow turn against humans.

“2001: A Space Odyssey,” “The Matrix,” “The Terminator,” and “Blade Runner” all contained AGI warnings about things to come.

The fact of the matter is human beings program machines. So it stands to reason that should a given programmer err during the programming process, the resultant technology that is created will be flawed.

When it comes to ethics, the possession, or lack thereof, on the part of the programmer can result in the type of programming that may have catastrophic consequences.

This is because AI possesses the capacity to learn from its mistakes and adjust on its own, It may be able to improve itself to the point where human beings will lose control of their own invention.

The nightmare begins when the stop mechanism no longer functions.

In one of the unimaginable situations, we could have a super intelligent AI advance in a way that runs counter to all human morals, ethics, and values.

This tips into the realm of the spiritual, which requires a great deal of critical thought and further discussion.

For now, a pause is not only advisable, it’s a must.

Elon Musk’s Plan to Set the Bird Free

Tesla founder Elon Musk currently owns the singular status of being the wealthiest person in world.

Back in April of 2022, amid a modest amount of fanfare, he purchased a 9.2 percent stake in Twitter. This caused the keepers of the predominant media narrative to come unglued.

Amusingly, he was able to explain his motives on the very platform that he was in the early stages of acquiring.

“Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy,” Elon tweeted, and then asked his followers, “Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?”

Over 70 percent of the 2 million participants in his poll responded “No.”

He had already secured a significant degree of celebrity status, having previously grabbed headlines numerous times over and had even taken to the iconic “Saturday Night Live” stage to perform host duties.

Now it looks as though he has become a historical figure of sorts, due in large part to his $44 billion purchase of the company he has characterized as “the de facto public town square.”

Along with the entire world he had watched as a small group of corporations worked hand in hand with the government, under the guise of eliminating “misinformation.”

It was a warped process at a minimum, one in which people were stripped of the ability to engage in the free exchange of ideas, something that Americans had previously enjoyed and had even taken for granted.

The stifling of speech in this manner had an additional treacherous impact; that being, the authentic pursuit of truth became a virtual impossibility.

Ironically, many of those who considered themselves to be champions of free speech seemed to have suffered a degeneration in their ability to reason.

CNN ran a piece that carried the headline “Analysis: Elon Musk owning Twitter should give everyone pause.”

“The Guardian” did a one-up op-ed with the title “Elon Musk’s Twitter Is Going To Be a Disaster.”

And a “Wired” piece offered the prediction “Elon Musk’s Twitter Will Be Chaos.”

For his part, Elon shared a series of text images explaining why he had acquired Twitter.

“There has been much speculation about why I bought Twitter and what I think about advertising,” he posted. “Most of it has been wrong.”

The tech mogul apparently perceived the societal risk that was inherent in the direction social media had been trending.

“There is currently great danger that social media will splinter into far right-wing and far left-wing echo chambers that generate more hate and divide our society,” Elon wrote. “In the relentless pursuit of clicks, much of traditional media has fueled and catered to those polarized extremes, as they believe that is what brings in the money, but, in doing so, the opportunity for dialogue is lost.”

“It is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner without resorting to violence,” he added. “…that is why I bought Twitter. I didn’t do it because it would be easy. I didn’t do it to make more money. I did it to try to help humanity, whom I love.”

Leftists on Twitter reacted to Elon’s sentiments in a spiteful adolescent manner.

Writer for “The Intercept” Jon Schwarz stated, “This would be the traditional kind of town square that’s owned by one guy and funded by huge corporate advertisers.”

Deadline Hollywood associate editor Valerie Complex tweeted, “Im glad I already started distancing myself from Twitter so when this is finalized I can be at peace being on here even less.”

Condé-Nast legal affairs editor Luke Zaleski posted, “What’s the point of being the richest man in the world if you can’t own free speech?”

The Prospect managing editor Ryan Cooper tweeted, “Sounds like curtains for this place.”

Entertainment outlets and Hollywood figures also displayed their collective displeasure.

In its opening, “Saturday Night Live” telegraphed the producers’ loyalties to the Democratic Party via an attack on three mid-term election GOP candidates: Dr. Oz, Herschel Walker, and Kari Lake. It then took aim at its former host through its “Weekend Update” segment, targeting Elon’s purchase.

Writer-producer Shonda Rhimes tendered her judgmental farewell, tweeting, “Not hanging around for whatever Elon has planned. Bye.”

Marina Sirtis, the actress who plays Deanna Troi on “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” announced the following: “I’m sorry but I cannot be a part of anything owned by #ELONMUSK and his cabal of deplorable‘s. I’ll stay on for a couple of days so that we can say goodbye but after that I’m gone.”

“I’m out of here,” Ken Olin, executive producer of “This Is Us,” tweeted.

Elon, who has comically dubbed himself “Chief Twit,” indicated that no decisions on content or reinstating of accounts will be made until a “content moderation council” is put in place.

Still, one potential reinstatement has leftists in an absolute frenzy; that would be the reinstatement of the man of their nightmares and the years-long target of their obsession, former President Donald J. Trump.

Anxieties were heightened when reports came out in May of 2022 that Elon had stated the following: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump; I think that was a mistake.”

Although what Twitter will ultimately become still remains to be seen, the new chief has been using his account to celebrate the personal ownership of the platform.

A recent message posted by the entrepreneur perhaps best captures feelings on the part of a vast majority of Twitter users.

Elon tweeted the liberating song lyrics of the late great B.B. King, “Let the good times roll.”

May he keep the bird free.

The Dangers of a Digitally Controlled Dollar

There’s a trend going on in the U.S., and for that matter in the whole wide world.

It’s one that people for the most part, both here and abroad, haven’t had the time or inclination of late to focus their energies on.

The trend is toward a completely cashless society.

There is good reason to be afraid. The timeline for its arrival is on an accelerated trajectory.

Recently in our own country, the Biden administration moved America closer to the death knell of physical money by its exploration and potential implementation of a government-created digital currency.

Ever since the advent of cryptocurrencies, government officials around the globe have longed to get in on the digital money action.

The best known crypto is Bitcoin, which was created in 2009 by a software engineer who used the name Satoshi Nakamoto. Numerous other digital coins followed, including the second-most popular, Ethereum.

The exchange of cryptos occurs on decentralized computer networks and takes place between individuals who use their virtual accounts.

Cryptocurrencies are shared on tamper-proof records known as “blockchains.”

As most folks are aware, computers and devices hold gobs of information in the form of data. A blockchain provides a specialized manner in which to hold data. It records information in a way that prohibits hacking or alteration.

Blockchain data are not contained within a central server, but instead are shared across a vast network of computer systems.

The Biden administration is pursuing something called a central bank digital currency (CBDC), also sometimes referred to as the “digital dollar.”

In March 2022 an executive order was issued, calling on federal agencies to research a number of topics that include the pros and cons of the digital dollar.

The Treasury, Justice Department, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Securities and Exchange Commission as well as other agencies were asked to contribute to the reports.

After the agencies came up with their reports, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen publicly cited a Treasury Department recommendation that the United States “advance policy and technical work on a potential central bank digital currency, or CBDC, so that the United States is prepared if CBDC is determined to be in the national interest.”

On the current necessity for digital dollars, Yellen explained, “Right now, some aspects of our current payment system are too slow or too expensive.”

So here we are on our way to a world in which everyday money will be held in the form of CBDCs.

According to the nonpartisan think tank Atlantic Council, 105 countries, representing more than 95 percent of global gross domestic product, are currently in the process or have already created a CBDC.

With regard to the inherent dangers of these developments, there is a whole lot to be concerned about.

CBDCs are very different from cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are private and untraceable. CBDCs are controlled by government.

Not only are CBDCs able to collect personally identifiable financial information and track the transactions of each and every individual, they are also programmable.

Programmable digital currency gives government leaders something they have never had before – the ability to limit or even stop altogether the purchases of all persons engaged in the digital currency’s use.

Money spent on things that for whatever reasons are deemed by government as “inappropriate” could be restricted, or said purchases could be totally halted.

How could a plan such as this be implemented? With the flick of a virtual switch.

Programmable currency has the capacity to have a built-in off switch. The government powers that be could then de-activate such digital currency and render it worthless, if they so choose.

Additionally, use of CBDCs would enable all shopping records to be stored in government databanks. Records could then be evaluated and measured against government created standards.

The stored data on purchases could also be used to establish a social credit system much like the one already in place in China.

Thankfully, some lawmakers on Capitol Hill are paying attention to the issue and have submitted various pieces of legislation regarding cryptocurrency and other digital assets.

One championed by Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, stands out.

Sen. Cruz has introduced legislation to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing CBDCs directly to individuals. The Texas senator’s bill is co-sponsored by Senators Braun, R-Indiana, and Grassley, R-Iowa.

The legislation prohibits the Federal Reserve from developing a direct-to-consumer CBDC, which could be used by the federal government as a financial surveillance tool, among other things.

Should the digital dollar arrive in our virtual wallets, the longstanding U.S. motto that has graced our coin and paper currency is unlikely to be visible.

But it will prove to be more important than ever.

Justice Samuel Alito’s Words of Warning on Religious Freedom

Justice Samuel Alito recently delivered the keynote speech at Notre Dame Law School’s Religious Liberty Summit in Rome.

The justice’s participation in the conference came as a surprise to many, since his speaker role had not been announced in advance.

He is one of the present Supreme Court’s most fervent advocates of religious freedom.

As a member of the highest court in the land and as a Catholic Christian himself, he has firsthand knowledge of the importance of faith in a higher power and the freedom to express it, both to the individual and to the greater society at large.

The justice used the occasion of his Rome summit appearance to express his concern over potential effects that may result from a “growing hostility to religion.”

In addition to the highly publicized Roe reversal, the Supreme Court upheld religious rights in a number of rulings in which Justice Alito was with the majority.

Kennedy v. Bremerton protected the right of a high school football coach to lead students in prayer at games.

– Carson v. Makin determined that the state of Maine cannot discriminate in the funding of tuition at religious schools.

Morrissey v. Beru held that anti-discrimination laws cannot force religious schools to ignore incompatible beliefs of teachers.

– Shurtleff v. Boston ruled that Boston’s City Hall was not entitled to maintain a policy disallowing religious flags.

During his speech, Justice Alito expressed concern that as the world becomes more secular in nature, people will no longer understand the vital role that religion plays in society.

Additionally, if there is a growth of secularism in society and a simultaneous reduction of religious involvement, the free exercise of religion will be in jeopardy.

Emphasizing that the decline of faith in the Western world has contributed to an antagonism toward religious traditions, which conflict with the trending moral relativism held by a sizable segment of society, Justice Alito stated the following:

“The problem that looms is not just indifference to religion, it’s not just ignorance about religion. There’s also growing hostility to religion, or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors.”

He remarked that religious liberty is “under attack” by those who seek complete power.

The drive to obtain power over others is in direct opposition to the values that religious beliefs instill, which presents an enormous obstacle for those who seek to achieve such power.

He also pointed out that Christians have been persecuted for centuries. He listed examples from history in which faith-filled individuals endured horrific torture, such as that which occurred at the Colosseum.

He reminded audience members, too, about Nero’s purported macabre use of Christians “as human torches.”

Moving forward in history, Justice Alito stated that despite the persecution of the past “more Christians are killed for their faith in our time than in the bloody days of the Roman Empire.”

He discussed the current challenge for religious liberty in the United States and Europe, where large percentages of the population have abandoned religion and are therefore no longer interested in safeguarding it.

“Unless the people can be convinced that robust religious liberty is worth protecting, it will not endure,” he warned.

He also included in his talk the tragic treatment of people of various other faiths, including the victims of the Holocaust, the slaughter of Yazidi in Iraq by Isis, and China’s “unspeakable treatment” of the Uyghurs.

Justice Alito has been an integral member of the Supreme Court since 2006. He has authored majority opinions in numerous landmark cases, including the one that is now most familiar to the public, the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

As an assistant solicitor general in the 1980s, he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court, winning 10 of them.

Recognized as an ardent seeker of justice, after an FBI agent was shot in the line of duty in 1988, Justice Alito assigned himself to the case and secured the shooter’s conviction by personally handling the trial.

During the same year, he sought the re-hearing of extradition proceedings against two foreign nationals who were accused of being terrorist assassins. He had uncovered that death threats the prosecutor had received were actually sent to her by herself.

In the recent keynote speech in Rome, he raised the hackles of the compromised press and left-wing social media, when he made some humorous remarks about foreign leaders who had suddenly become legal analysts of the Dobbs opinion.

The objects of his lighthearted barbs included outgoing UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Prince Harry, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“I had the honor this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law,” Justice Alito said, adding, “One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but he paid the price.”

As the audience broke into applause and laughter, he quipped, “Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right?” a reference to the logical fallacy that creates a questionable causal relationship between two events that follow each other in time.

The justice kidded about a speech that Prince Harry gave at the United Nations in which the royal tried to give a lecture on American jurisprudence and described the Supreme Court’s decision overruling Roe as a “rolling back of constitutional rights” in the U.S.

“What really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision, whose name may not be spoken, with the Russian attack on Ukraine,” he said.

The reaction of many leftists to Justice Alito’s speech suggests that the reason hostility against him continues may be because he remains delightfully unfazed by their hate campaign. In fact, he consistently projects a personal optimism and professional demeanor.

One theme of his speech that truly stands out was meant to inform and/or remind people of how fragile religious freedom really is.

“We can’t assume that the religious liberty we enjoy today will always endure,” he said.

He encouraged us all to be bold in our advocacy of freedom of religion, and in closing gave us the following scriptural reference to cling to:

“The champions of religious liberty who go out as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves can expect to find hearts that are open to their message.”

Words to live by and to share.

Glenn Beck and Fellow Citizens to the Rescue in Afghanistan

On August 18, 2021, syndicated radio talk show host Glenn Beck launched an effort to raise tens of millions of dollars for a non-profit entity called the Nazarene Fund.

The purpose of the fundraising effort was to raise money, which was to be earmarked for an ambitious and highly dangerous task; that being, to try and rescue thousands of Christians and at-risk Afghans following the Biden administration’s abrupt withdrawal of the U.S. military from Afghanistan.

Within a few weeks Beck had reportedly raised more than $30 million. As of this writing, he and his organization have used the funds to save 5,200 people from the group that is holding the innocent captive, the Taliban.

Beck’s daring mission was given a major assist, which arrived in the form of a private jet that would help facilitate the venture to the Middle East. The owner of the aircraft is a familiar name to many of the Christian faithful, televangelist Kenneth Copeland.

Beck used the jet to travel to an undisclosed Middle East location that is serving as a base for the rescue effort.

In a video posted to his Twitter account, Beck shared how immensely grateful he is to the Kenneth Copeland Ministries for providing the airplane that assisted in making the rescue effort possible.

He also indicated that The Nazarene Fund is not being used to pay for his travel costs. Instead, he is paying for his own expenses.

In a Twitter video, Beck discussed the financing of the project.

“We view your money as sacred money. It’s like tithing to me,” he said.

“None of my travels or my team’s travels, none of it is paid for by the Nazarene Fund. I insisted it. Not a single meal, not a cupcake-and yes there will be cupcakes on this trip. Everything is paid personally by me,” Beck noted.

Those who have been saved through his efforts from the clutches of the ruthless have been relocated to a number of undisclosed countries.

In a post on Facebook, he explained that those who had been left behind in Afghanistan had experienced the freedom of “being able to say I’m a Christian” because of the protection provided by the United States.

Tragically, that very protection quickly evaporated prior to their delivery to safety.

“We will not forget those left behind,” Beck said. “Our mission there gets tougher and more dangerous.”

Lord David Alton, a British politician known for his humanitarian efforts, praised Beck for his rescue work.

“As the world abandons Afghan minorities to the Taliban,” Lord Alton wrote, “Glenn Beck — emulating Oscar Schindler — did something about it, putting into practice the injunction to ‘rescue those who are being taken away to death…and those stumbling to the slaughter.’”

Beck is part of a valiant effort, one, however, that sadly is not being conducted by our government but instead by private individuals and groups

An example of the type of non-governmental efforts that are taking place is an operation called “Pineapple Express,” in which a volunteer group of U.S. military veterans have been assisting hundreds of Afghan elite forces and their families to exit Afghanistan.

A leader of the effort, retired Green Beret commander Lt. Col. Scott Mann, provided an explanation to ABC News regarding the operation.

“Dozens of high-risk individuals, families with small children, orphans, and pregnant women, were secretly moved through the streets of Kabul throughout the night and up to just seconds before ISIS detonated a bomb into the huddled mass of Afghans seeking safety and freedom,” Lt. Col. Mann stated.

Rescue efforts have become even more urgent in light of the reports that the Taliban has been preventing planes containing American passengers from leaving the country.

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has said that he received classified briefings indicating that American citizens and Afghan allies are stuck at an airport in northern Afghanistan and have been unable to leave, despite approval from the State Department.

“In fact we have six airplanes at Mazar-i-Sharif airport, six airplanes, with American citizens on them as I speak, also with these interpreters, and the Taliban is holding them hostage for demands right now,” McCaul told Fox News.

As Virginia Rep. Rob Wittman recently told Newsmax’s “Wake Up America,” the U.S. citizens left behind by their own nation are “hostages by any definition.”

“Here’s the Taliban trying to shake down the United States,” Rep. Wittman said. “By any measure, you would say they’re being held as hostages. That needs to be addressed immediately.”

Unfortunately, the only hope for those left behind right now seems to be in the hands of private citizens who are willing to take matters into their own hands, just like Beck has done.

In a recent Instagram post, he criticized the Biden administration for its inaction.

“Biden will only take people [that] the cartels will charge, exploit and rape. Certainly, not those other people that are marked for death because of his policies,” Beck stated.

As his Afghanistan rescue efforts began to show real results, Beck posted a rallying cry on his Facebook page for those private citizens and organizations engaging in the difficult, but noble pursuit of delivering their fellow human beings from evil.

“America does care! America does not leave her own and the most vulnerable behind. WE CAN DO IT AS THE POWER IS WITH THE PEOPLE. We are America not our government. When they can’t do it, private citizens step to the plate,” the post read.

Down the Path to a One World Religion

The Bishop of Rome recently held a historic meeting with the chief figure in Shia Islam, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

One phrase was repeatedly used in press reports to describe the coming together of the Pope and Sistani; that being, “interfaith dialogue.”

Interfaith dialogue is an organized effort to engage in a discussion of beliefs, along with a sharing of religious and/or cultural-community oriented practices, which takes place between people of differing faiths.

The goal of such a dialogue is to break down barriers between adherents of differing faiths, and once accomplished purportedly leads to world peace.

Any attempt to persuade others to one’s religious way of thinking, i.e., evangelization, is an unwelcome guest in the interfaith dialogue arena.

In a very real way, it is seemingly a prerequisite that those involved in interfaith activities must first embrace the notion that no single religion could possibly lay claim to the “truth.”

A religious ideology that asserts this sort of exclusivity with regard to truth is considered to be an obstacle to the attainment of harmony in the world.

With this in mind, participants in interfaith dialogue must come to the discussion table with an open mind toward the acceptance of so-called multiple truths, as well as an openness with regard to the welcoming of multiple means of worshipping a deity or deities.

So who wouldn’t want world peace?

Well, it’s not what it appears to be.

Back in early 2019, an interfaith agreement was signed by Pope Francis and a different Muslim leader, the Sunni Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb.

Their meeting produced a written document that states the “diversity of religions” that exist in the world were “willed by God.”

The implication is that the hundreds of different religions in the world are all equally acceptable to the Creator of the Universe. Millions would beg to differ.

In 2016 a video released by the Vatican appears to similarly indicate that different religions are all just assorted paths to God. In the footage, the Pontiff expresses that although faiths may be “seeking God or meeting God in different ways,” we are all “children of God.”

Interfaith dialogue denies one crucially important reality; that being, there are incompatible fundamental distinctions between the deeply held beliefs of differing religions throughout the world.

Because of this fact, it is impossible for religions to be combined or somehow blended together, without suffering the loss of the vital integrity of the respective faiths.

In order to pursue the goals of interfaith dialogue, participants must act as though such differences do not exist. They must also accept and espouse that contradictory beliefs can be reconciled.

Other thorny issues have arisen, which pose additional problems for the interfaith movement. There are so-called faith entities that have adopted the practice of worshipping an anti-deity or deities; in other words, they are involved in occult beliefs and practices.

They, too, would like to be part of the movement. Don Frew provides an example.

Frew is a Wiccan Elder and a high priest of a coven in Berkeley, California. He has been involved in interfaith work for more than 30 years. He has served on the Board of the Berkeley Area Interfaith Council and is also a National Interfaith Representative for one of the largest and oldest Wiccan organizations.

Obviously, for those of the Jewish and Christian faiths, there could never be a reconciling of their beliefs with an organization such as Frew’s.

It is literally the First of the Ten Commandments: No other gods before me. That pretty much ends the discussion on multiple truths.

The bottom line is that the interfaith movement is a deceptive one. Its supposed goal is peace, but its hidden motive is to blend faiths together into a one world religion.

A one world religion would do away with the centuries-old religious tenets of millions. It would also be at odds with a belief system that is written on the hearts of human beings around the globe. And it totally conflicts with the essence of our souls to believe what we choose to believe.

In the context of this so-called interfaith dialogue, these fundamental principles are non-negotiable.