Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Reading PCG's Booklet, Lawless: Why America Is Losing Its Rule of Law

Let us now read Gerald Flurry's booklet Lawless: Why America Is Losing Its Rule of Law. This booklet was published in early 2014 to denounce the liberals within the United States (such as Barack Obama and Al Gore) and the Supreme Court for having too much power and leading America in a way Flurry disapproves of. Flurry also says that Satan is attacking America so America is about to fall apart. This booklet may be read on their website.

Let us see what he has to say.

(Parts of this booklet are lifted from Gerald Flurry's 2001 booklet, No Freedom Without Law. That booklet was discussed in a previous post.)
There is a radical spirit of lawlessness in America today. Leaders flagrantly ignore the laws of the land. The president issues executive orders to selectively enforce the law—or to explicitly circumvent it. And politicians increasingly rule as tyrants, treating the nation as their own personal fiefdom where they are free to do whatever they wish. (p. 2.)
At first glance it may appear as though Flurry is talking of politicians in general. But he is mainly vilifying the Democratic Party. PCG is a right wing organization. Their politics lean far to the right. So this condemnation is mainly directed at the Democratic Party.

This may be seen in Flurry's use of the word "radical". In this context he is using that word in a right wing sense of referring to a stereotypical scary leftists.

Also note how it is emotively said that "politicians increasingly rule as tyrants". This is mainly referring to the Democratic Party. This is demonization of those he disagree with. Where is any sense of sportsmanship or trust that if the people are persuaded their best interests are to vote for Republican candidates then the people will do so in such a situation?

In saying all this I do not condemn PCG for being right wing. But it is important that we recognize that PCG is right wing because this explanation explains so much about the political stances PCG chooses to express including this booklet.
This trend toward lawlessness is deadly! And I guarantee, based on biblical prophecy, that it is going to get far worse. (p. 1.)
Flurry has made dire predictions like this for decades now. It will never come to pass because of anything he says. PCG can't see the future. They are but false prophets.
The people of Britain and America lack the will to even sacrifice a few soldiers’ lives to fight a ground war. Our generals know that we lack the will to win any hard-fought battle—even if it directly relates to our own freedom. For example, America had to be bombed into World War II. Even one of the most diabolical leaders in history, Adolf Hitler, could not rouse us to fight until we were bombed by Japan. And America is far more isolationist today. (p. 4.)
What an insult to the thousands of US and British soldiers who fought and died for their country as well as to their families and friends who have to live without their loved ones. Does Flurry know what it is like to have a family member serve in war?

These words come from Gerald Flurry's 2001 booklet, No Freedom Without Law, which was published shortly before 9/11. How morally revolting it is for Flurry to use words written before those events to now condemn the peoples he supposedly loves.

In fact Flurry orders his PCG followers to not serve in the armed forces as it is viewed as sinful. This doctrine is inherited from HWA who plagiarized this idea from the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Considering that Flurry won't let his followers serve in war how dare he should denigrate the "people of Britain and America" when he won't let his followers in PCG even serve in the armed forces.

There is a phrase to describe people like Gerald Flurry: chicken-hawk.
The Constitution is the foundation of our republic. And the Ten Commandments were, in many ways, the foundation of the Constitution. Our forefathers believed that if we didn’t keep God’s Ten Commandments, our republic would collapse! We can’t afford to take the words of our founders lightly if we want to see our nation stand. (p. 6.)
Flurry insinuates that America might be destroyed because of the liberals Flurry despises. But what an unsuspecting reader unfamiliar with the intricacies of Armstrongism will not know is that Flurry teaches that it is inevitable that America will be destroyed by a German led European superpower that (he claims) will arise soon in the future just before Christ's return.

Why is Flurry misleading the reader by insinuating that America can be saved when he teaches that America will not be saved at all until Christ returns? How is that not a lie?
The Constitution was based to a great extent on God’s law. That is why I believe it is the most noble document ever written by a government of this world.

What a rare document it is. We received some foundational direction from Britain’s Magna Carta, but Britain has no Constitution.  (p. 7.)
Actually Britain has an unwritten constitution.
 Our forefathers had the awesome opportunity to establish the rule of God in the wealthiest country ever. So they established a Constitution to protect all of us from the extremes of human reason. Tyrants, unjust judges and biased leaders were controlled by this law. (p. 7.)
Note again Flurry's use of the highly charged word tyrant.

Also noteworthy is Flurry's mention of "unjust judges". This a foreshadowing of his condemnation of the Supreme Court later in this booklet.

And in regards to "biased leaders" it must be pointed out that PCG has loaded the word, "bias". Outside of the PCG information bubble "bias" simply means an inclination to view things a certain way thus making it likely that one has missed perceiving something contrary to the bias. But PCG uses the word "bias" to mean any opinion contrary to what PCG's leaders teach.

Flurry then promotes a book by Robert Bork, a candidate for the Supreme Court who was rejected by the legislature.
When Mr. Bork wrote that book in 1990, he believed America was more than halfway along in the destruction of our Constitution. Look at what has happened in the decades since, particularly under the current presidential administration! We live today under a government and within a culture that is far more anti-law and anti-God. Our republic is in grave danger. (p. 8.)
Flurry says the United States "is in grave danger" because the Presidency is controlled by the party Flurry does not like. Flurry is right wing. So of course he does not like the Obama Administration or the Democratic Party. That is the real reason Flurry singles out "the current presidential administration".
If the Constitution is to be changed, it should be done lawfully, by our legislative branch, or Congress—with the consent of the president, or the executive branch. Today, instead, we see lawful procedures for altering the law being routinely ignored and trampled upon by all three branches of government, especially the executive branch and the judiciary! (p. 8.)
Meaning Flurry does not like the Obama Administration because he is a rightist who wishes a Republican was President and who does not like various decisions of the Supreme Court.

Flurry then proceeds to denounce the Supreme Court arguing that it has usurped the power to change the Constitution from the legislature. But Flurry neglects to mention that the Supreme Court has had this power to strike down laws it rules as being unconstitutional since 1803 at the least with the landmark Marbury v. Madison case.

The Supreme Court's power to strike down laws it rules as being unconstitutional is no new thing. But instead of explaining things Flurry seeks to make the reader panic that the Supreme Court will somehow overthrow America.

Flurry cites one example of a Supreme Court justice making a decision in favor of slavery to discredit the Supreme Court to the reader. 
In America’s history, one judge wanted slavery. He kept searching the Constitution to support his belief. He found the phrase “substantive due process,” and he twisted these words to show that slavery was “constitutional.” (pp. 8-9.)
As painful as such memories are this does not change the fact that the Supreme Court does have this legal power to interpret the Constitution and to even strike down a law ruled unconstitutional. They have had this power since 1803.

To complain that their power is somehow illegitimate is a vain exercise. The Supreme Court has this legally recognized power. Rather if one disagrees with a ruling of theirs he or she should work to get the decision legally overturned.

Flurry serves no one by wrongly insisting the Supreme Court should not have this power to strike down laws it rules to be unconstitutional. This is misleading misinformation. It creates a sense of grievance based on misinformation.
The great heresy being taught in our law schools is that the judges are not bound by law. Some are saying the Constitution isn’t even law! (p. 9.)
Whether we like it or not the Supreme Court has the power to strike down a law it rules to be unconstitutional. It has had this power since 1803. This is not some "great heresy" as Flurry hysterically proclaims but the practice of the judiciary of the United States since 1803. The reader is not told of this.
Today, the Constitution is being used by the liberal culture to force their unlawful ideas on people! (p. 9.)
And so we see error added onto error. By denouncing the power of the Supreme Court to strike down a law it rules to be unconstitutional as some kind of scary usurpation Flurry creates an ill informed sense of grievance towards the Supreme Court. The reader is taught to see persecution and repression when in fact the Supreme Court has had the power to strike down unconstitutional laws since 1803.    
That means we are being led by the human reasoning of a liberal culture. (pp. 9-10.)
In other words Flurry is moaning that the Democratic Party, the party he does not like, now has the Presidency after gaining it in a democratic election. Flurry and his PCG are right wing. So of course they do not approve of the American people electing a Democratic Party candidate as President. Hense Flurry's denunciation of "a liberal culture."

In PCG's jargon "human reasoning" is a term that means any opinion contrary to what is taught by PCG's leaders, often with the nasty implication that the opinion in question is inspired by Satan. In PCG's jargon it is similar to "bias" but it has a stronger religious implication.
The founders of the Constitution put in place the walls, roofs and beams of our Constitution, as Mr. Bork said. The judges’ purpose is to preserve the architectural features—adding only filigree or ornamental work. Instead, lawyers and judges are changing the very structure of our representative democracy.

The Constitution is being altered dramatically. And it is the foundation of our republic! We are experiencing a constitutional earthquake, and most of our people don’t even know it—yet. Your future is being changed for you, and often you have no input.

This process is sure to lead to anarchy! That is why you and I should be deeply concerned. (p. 10.)
The unsuspecting reader driven into a state of horror and shock at these words will not know that the Supreme Court has had the power to strike down laws it rules to be unconstitutional since 1803. It has always been like this since then. And all this time the United States has not fallen into anarchy despite the Supreme Court's power to rule laws to be unconstitutional.

Having read this it seems that one reason Flurry opposes the Supreme Court is because he does not trust them to act as right wing as he is. The Supreme Court makes decisions and he does not trust them to consistently rule in a way he pleases.

Flurry now begins to turn his attention to liberal politicians like Barack Obama and Al Gore. 

Flurry then cites Bork mentioning that an unnamed Harvard professor told him that the Constitution is not a law.
A Harvard law professor is actually stating that the Constitution is not even law! That view comes from our most prestigious university. The very fact that he would even make that statement reveals extreme lawlessness! The majority of our leaders now agree with that Harvard law professor. (p. 11.)
In other words Flurry is denouncing political leaders and ideas he disagree with as being "lawlessness".

Flurry then uses this unnamed Harvard professor to condemn President Obama.
President Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School, has been at the forefront of this movement. In his book The Audacity of Hope, President Obama argues that the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” As a senator, he characterized the Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties” and called for the courts to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted.” The real issue here is lawlessness. (p. 11.)
Flurry is right wing. So of course he is no fan of President Obama. But instead of just admitting that fact he hysterically denounces President Obama's political ideas as "lawlessness".

Also does Flurry even understand what "negative liberties" even mean? Flurry shows no sign in this booklet that he understands that. Negative liberties refer to being free from something unwanted. The opposite of this is "positive liberties" in which one has the liberty to do something he or she wants to be, like get a good education or to advance one's career.

Flurry then cites an article to repeat his claim that these liberals he despises are somehow ruining America.

On page 13 is a picture of a stern looking Al Gore. The picture is accompanied with the following caption:
UNCONSTITUTIONAL: When campaigning to be president, Al Gore said he would appoint Supreme Court judges who view the Constitution as a “living” document. This philosophy, which has become common in liberal circles, is aimed at undermining the law.
In other words Flurry is demonizing attempted reforms by the Democratic Party as "undermining the law". Changing a law or striking down a law ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court is not "undermining the law."

The Supreme Court has had this power to rule a law to be unconstitutional since 1803. Although Flurry does not like it that is how the United States judiciary has operated. This is perfectly lawful. Flurry is confusing and misinforming his readers using such hysterical rhetoric.
The liberal culture in politics wants a “living Constitution.” Mr. Bork stated that many liberals imply the Constitution is dead. They don’t want unchanging truth, established 200 years ago, to direct their lives.

Members of the mass media—about 80 percent of them—are also a big part of the liberal culture. Destroying of our constitutional republic [sic] would not be possible without their support. All too often they are deceived, and in turn they have the power to deceive our citizens. (p. 13.)
What paranoid demonization! Has Flurry ever talked to these liberals to see if they think "the Constitution is dead" as he hysterically accuse them of teaching.

Flurry says these liberals he oppose are somehow "[d]estroying ... our constitutional republic". How exactly does one "destroy" the United States? What does Flurry even mean? These are words made not to explain but to horrify the reader into thinking these liberals must be loathed and are a personal threat to the reader.

And Flurry accuses "the mass media" of helping these liberals. Such an accusation is designed to make the reader lose his or her trust in the media and make them dependent upon PCG for information about how to "properly" understand what is happening.

Flurry then somewhat confusingly starts to condemn mainstream churches.
The liberal religious culture similarly wants a “living Bible.” Their “intelligence” demands that they adapt the Bible to modern times—even though every word was inspired by God .... Most religions preach that God’s law was done away... (p. 13.)
Flurry is trying to attract more tithe paying members into PCG. Consequently he condemns every church aside his own as being false and unworthy in (PCG's) God's eyes.
But whether secular or religious, we are racing into lawlessness, and our nation is plunging toward disaster. Any good history book will show us that! The Bible should be even more convicting. Study it and see the deadly danger of lawlessness. (p. 14.)
Flurry is right wing. Because of this he opposes the Democratic Party. Now that the Democratic Party had the Presidency and the Senate (this booklet was published before the 2014 mid-term elections) and since Flurry cannot trust the Supreme Court to act in a consistently right wing manner Flurry condemns the fact that they have too much power (in his opinion).

But instead of just plainly stating that the party he does not like have too much power for his taste Flurry hysterically and vindictively condemns the influence of the Democratic Party as "lawlessness" that is supposedly a "deadly danger" which is "[d]estroying ... our constitutional republic". What wild denunciations! What bitterness and contempt lies in his heart!
When the nation’s leaders show such contempt for the law, that has a profound effect on the people. Most people know very little about how the law works. But they know enough to lose respect for our governmental institutions. They also lose interest in the whole political system. (p. 14.) 
This is a curious and strangely misanthropic statement Flurry makes. Could it be possible that Flurry views his followers in such a way? He does not even say "Most people know little about how the law works" but "Most people know very little about how the law works."

Flurry then insinuates that the United States will soon be conquered because the political party he does not like (the Democratic Party) has too much power for his taste.
Today, we have no king or president or real authority figure that we look to for leadership. We are a nation without strong leadership. The same is true of Britain. No ship of state can find its way to a safe harbor without a captain to guide it. That is exactly the way it was in ancient Israel just before it was conquered! And that is exactly where America and Britain are today! There is no leader who can or will establish the rule of law. (p. 14.)
So we can see that Flurry calls leadership he admires and support "strong leadership" that establishes "the rule of law." In the context of American politics Flurry is clearly talking about right wing politicians. But in contrast he denounces those he opposes of "undermining the law" and of being "lawless".

How crudely partisan Flurry is. Instead of just hoping that a new election will put other right wing persons in charge he denounces the party he disapproves of with such vituperative words.

But Flurry's not done yet. He then brings up Lucifer and compares him to the "lawless" liberals he demonizes.
Even angelic empires fell because of lawlessness. This was Lucifer’s problem. ... He sinned, and sin is the transgression of God’s law..... Then violence was all around him. (p. 15.)
Flurry then cites various proof texts to teach the traditional Armstrongite view of Satan as an all powerful and controlling being who influences all of humanity outside of one's favored Armstrongite group.
Ephesians 2:2 calls Satan “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” He is stirring up people’s emotions, moods and attitudes. When people get into a negative emotion, a bad attitude or a wrong mood, he works on those people. He has power to influence those wrong emotions; he has deceived the world through them! People don’t understand God’s Word—they don’t have any depth spiritually—so they just follow along emotionally, and Satan deceives them all. That is amazing, but it’s biblical and you can prove it to yourself, and you certainly should. (p. 16.)
Flurry then insists that Satan has been cast out of Heaven and he and his demons are now on the Earth doing all kinds of mischief. 
What are these evil spirits doing? These are beings with awesome power. Surely their being cast down to this Earth would have enormous impact on world affairs. We must be seeing things happen that would indicate the reality of this end-time Bible prophecy. How did it affect this world? And how much is it going to impact your life? Their dirty work is going on now, but do you see it? Do you understand it? If this is actually true, then there must be a lot of damage. (pp. 16-17.)
These words are made to make the reader fearful and afraid. This is no need to fear Flurry's words.

It is not mentioned in this booklet but Flurry teaches this happened upon the death of HWA in January 1986 and this is taught to explain why the Tkach changes occurred within WCG. Other COG groups tend to teach that this will be a future occurrence.

After this Flurry fear mongers about Satan being on Earth. What could Satan possibly be up to? Flurry asks.
What is happening to America’s leadership, its domestic policy and foreign policy is not just a quirk of history. The fact that Americans are casting the Constitution to the ground and encouraging lawlessness in their marriages, in their government and in their policy toward other nations has a very definite cause. The worst of it traces back to Satan having been cast down —and who Satan has now gotten control of.

Once you understand when Satan was cast down to the Earth, the radical changes in America and this world suddenly make sense. You can understand why America has taken such a self-destructive turn against the Constitution—the foundational document which is the basis for the rule of law and the foundation upon which the nation is built. (p. 18.)
Flurry ends this booklet with advertising for another booklet of his.
If you are concerned about where the current administration is leading this country, and whether the nation can survive the next several years, you need to read my booklet America Under Attack. It explains the hidden cause of society’s deadly decline, the attack from within, and why the attack on the law is so deadly serious. The conspiracy is worse than you think, and there is only one way to solve this gigantic problem. Request a copy of America Under Attack, and understand what the Bible says is ahead for America. This issue is so important, we will send you a copy absolutely free. (p. 19.)
In that booklet Gerald Flurry insinuates that President Obama is under the influence of Satan the Devil. What a paranoid way for him to say he does not approve of the Democratic Party.

And this shrill, mean spirited and misinformed denunciation and demonization of liberals come to an end.

Clearly the paranoid style of politics is alive and well in Flurry's booklet.


  1. I have a question. It has bothered me for some time.

    How can we classify the Armstrongist Churches of God as being "conservative" or "right wing"?

    It's a serious question because I see quite liberal mores for the leadership. Oh, sure, rank and file members must live by strictures cast as conservatism: They must obey the Law. However, when it comes to the Leaders, there is a lot of liberalism: For example, Flurry takes great liberties keeping any sort of rules and has absolutely no accountability. There certainly isn't any conservativism in spending money -- it's spent liberally in rather profligate style. Would a true conservative spend millions of dollars in borrowed money for a rather questionable investment of building an auditorium? Would a conservative spend $6 million for rights to Herbert Armstrong publications? Another example is David Pack spending thousands of dollars for a Steuben Crystal desk paperweight. Just how is that conservative?

    Boozing? Is that conservative? What about that DUI Flurry got? Was he acting as a conservative when he was arrested (and attempted to resist arrest)?

    So how do we categorize this hypocritical beast?

    Can we really call it conservative?

    Help me out here.

    1. When I refer to PCG and the other COGs in general as being right wing I am referring to their political stances, not their personal behavior.

      It seems to me that in regards to politics they tend to reflectively side with right wing positions. Their political stances tend to be much closer to the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. That is why, even though they do not vote, I consider myself fully justified in calling them right wing.

      (In regards to LCG I will say that they tended to not talk about politics as much as PCG. But I would still classify them as right wing.)

      When the Obama Administration proposed health care reform PCG said they opposed it and tried to make people scared of it. That is a right wing position.

      PCG have quoted right wing media outlets like WorldNetDaily, The Washington Times and Arutz Sheva. And what is noticeable is that they never as far as I can tell even bother to note that these media outlets are right wing.

      In 2013 PCG hosted Republican Congressman (now Senator) James Lankford in a meeting at Armstrong Auditorium.

      In chapter 2 of Gerald Flurry's 2001 booklet No Freedom Without Law he roundly condemned the Al Gore campaign for contesting the election result in Florida after the 2000 elections. Flurry made no attempt to understand events from their perspective. He merely condemned the Al Gore campaign. That is a right wing position.

      PCG once insinuated in a radio broadcast that President Obama was deliberately letting illegal immigrants come into the United States through Mexico in order to get more votes for the Democratic Party. (That happens to be paranoid nonsense.) If PCG were left wing or even neutral why would they fear monger about that? But they do fear monger about that because they are right wing. Or rather right wing extremist. That is such a paranoid idea. It is right wing extremism.

      As for being conservative personally I do not tend to call them that. I do not use that word for PCG. So I do not tend to use that word for them.

      Back in February 2011 Joel Hilliker once wrote an article entitled "Amazing What Passes for 'Conservative' These Days" in which he condemned a group of gay Republicans, GOProud, appearing at CPAC and wrote approvingly of some, including WorldNetDaily, boycotting CPAC for including GOProud. He cares about that because he is right wing.

      But I will say that learning political jargon is hard. Right wing, left wing, conservative, liberal, progressive, RINO, socialist, big government, libertarianism, dog whistle politics, etc. It is hard to learn.

      I hope that helps.

      And let me just say a big thank you for commenting. Your comments are much appreciated here.

  2. The worst part about all this is that "rendering unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" is denounced. It WAS formerly a key issue to respect the powers that be - but it seems like Flurry Six-Pack is also above that former rule.

    It was a crazy rule anyway since participating in the democratic system IS an integral part of civilization, but just yet another proof Gerald isn't as faithful to his claimed idol, Herbie...

    1. I agree. I have come to view Armstrongism's ban on voting as a most terrible thing since it was imposed to force people to not think about politics and public affairs but instead to just focus on the group. It was made to isolate us from society so that we could be more effectively exploited. It is a terrible dogma to forbid people from voting or to participate in public affairs.

  3. The idea that voting was wrong was probably deliberately fixed in members' minds just in case someone decided that Old Hog Jowls could be outvoted by his board, or voted out of office by the members of his church.