Part 4 of Fake Prophets

Read Part 1: The White Lab Coats
Read Part 2: The Fishbowl
Read Part 3: Fake Normal 


 Or what man is there of you,
whom if his son ask bread,
will he give him a stone?
Or if he ask a fish,
will he give him a serpent?

(Matthew 7:9-10)

Think of government-controlled choice this way:
The State asks you,

Do you want your chocolate cake
on a white plate 
or on a blue plate?

Either way you get chocolate cake.

Never mind if you chose vanilla,
you get chocolate.

~Don Farrell, 1993


Part 1: The Short Story
Excerpted from: The Choice Charade

The Pizza Choice Game

By Sarah H. Leslie*
It is 7 o’clock in the evening and your stomach is rumbling. You walk into the neighborhood pizzeria with your wife and a group of friends, hungrily anticipating a hot cheesy crust slathered in tomato sauce and your favorite toppings. As you sit down to order, wonderful smells drift out of the kitchen to your nose. Out of the corner of your eye, you notice a few irregular things about the restaurant, but you ignore them for the moment. 
As you are seated the waiter comes by to offer you drinks. “I’ll have a cola,” says one friend. “I’ll have a lemon-lime,” says another. The waiter gives everyone at the table a funny little smile and says very precisely, “We only have water.” 
“Oh,” says your friend at the head of the table, with a perplexed look. The waiter leaves abruptly and there is no chance to ask him why. Now you look around the restaurant and notice that on every table there is only water. Then you glance down at the menu with its enticing descriptions, and your stomach starts growling again. 


When the waiter comes back with the water, he very carefully sets each glass on the table specifically aligned with each customer’s right shoulder. One of your friends attempts to move the water glass over to his left side, since he is left-handed. The waiter quickly reaches across the table, and moves the glass back, with a condescending expression on his face as if he were tolerating a small child’s antics. 
The waiter then asks for each person’s order. He doesn’t pull out a notebook, so you hope that he has a good memory. Fred, on the right, asks for a dish of cavatelli smothered in sausage and onions. Shari, next to him, orders a small deep dish cheese pizza for one. Barbara and her husband Tim order a medium vegetarian pizza on a chewy crust. Smith orders a pepperoni calzone and his wife Susan orders a salad with cheese, ham and olives. You and your wife agree to share a deluxe medium pizza with everything but anchovies. You are hungry! 


While you are waiting for your order, you overhear some animated conversation and commotion from other tables in the room. It appears that several waiters are conducting some sort of group activity at other tables, and at first you think somebody has a birthday. But then you notice that one woman is actually crying. The others at her table are pressuring her to be quiet and stop crying. But she abruptly stands up and begins to march out of the restaurant. The hostess rushes over to insert herself in front of the door and begins to plead with the lady. “You cannot leave here. It would hurt our rating. Every customer must be satisfied. Every customer must be happy. Please go back and eat your meal.” 
Just then your attention shifts to another table where a man stands up and begins to shake a finger at one of his children sitting at the table. “You will eat what I say!” he commands loudly. The waiter grabs his arm and gently forces him to sit down. “We can work this out peacefully,” he says in a quiet, pleasant voice, smiling playfully at the three children. The preteen girl fakes a retching noise by sticking her finger down her throat and the preschooler is scowling. The waiter then walks around the table, coaching each child over and over again until they eek out a half-grimace, half-smile. 
Your dinner companions seem oblivious to this activity as they are engaged in a vigorous discussion about the recent federal restaurant law. Fred is convinced that food quality will improve with added accountability measures. “Look how many people have died of listeria!” he exclaims. His wife Shari nods in agreement, “And look how many cockroaches they have found in the back rooms! I for one am glad they now have stricter sanitation standards.” 
Tim proudly announces that Barb’s uncle sits on the new national accreditation board. “Her uncle says they have oversight over every single facet of restaurant operation, including waiter and waitress training, food service criteria, customer satisfaction, quality control, and supply and demand,” he brags. “Now we can be assured of a consistent, high quality product throughout our food service industry.” 
Smith’s wife Susan jumps into the conversation to relate a recent editorial in the newspaper which decried the lack of responsibility people have shown nowadays towards eating wholesome foods. The impact on the insurance industry will be severe unless steps towards implementing a healthy diet are put into effect immediately. Smith pats his belly and chortles, “I’m just glad I can contribute to healthy outcomes tonight.” 

Just then the waiter arrives, balancing a large tray on one hand. You note that a waitress comes with him, acting as if she is making minute observations of his behavior and recording them in a little hand-held computer. She stands by to observe your waiter’s performance as he flawlessly executes a rapid placement of orders. With a sheepish grin, your waiter mumbles, “Don’t mind her, I am undergoing retraining.” 
Smith blurts out, “Well, then you’d better start by taking this tray back to the kitchen, because you got everyone’s order wrong!” 
The waiter looks perplexed for a moment, glancing nervously at the waitress evaluating his performance. “This is your order,” he says with a saccharine smile. “Everybody ordered what they wanted.” He pauses briefly for effect, and then continues, “Everybody receives what is best for the community. Tonight it was determined that the best value is a small anchovy and sausage pizza.” 
Fred begins to protest. “But I ordered cavatelli,” he sputters. 
“Of course you did,” says our waiter with great positive inflection, glancing furtively to his right where the waitress is punching buttons on the palm pilot. He holds his hands together and begins to recite in a lilting voice, “We all want good choices. Why, I even want better choices. Tonight everyone will get the best choice, the optimal choice for their group. That is why this was your choice tonight. Everyone must exhibit happiness with this choice….” His voice trails off. His eyes twitch over to his right again and he resumes his charge. “My choice for you is for your best. My best depends upon your best. You really must agree to accept this very best choice for your meal tonight. Then I will be happy, the restaurant will be happy and we will meet our outcomes.” 
At this point, the waiter throws out his arms as if to embrace the whole group, taking a deep breath. It is obvious that this little speech has been very taxing. The waitress continues to punch buttons. But you notice that she is also looking around the table, carefully analyzing each person. Barb tentatively begins to speak, “I don’t think you fully understand. My husband and I are vegetarians. We cannot eat meat because it would violate our beliefs.” 
The waiter gets excited. “Yes!” he exclaims. “That is exactly what many people believe. And, of course, we all know that they have a right to believe anything they want to believe. But, it is not in the best interests of the common good for each person to practice their individual beliefs. It might cause disharmony and disunity.” The waiter pauses to inhale deeply again, obviously invigorated by the challenge. “Therefore, your table will have to agree that it is in the best interests of your team to eat anchovy pizzas tonight. Another night — why, the choice might be vegetarian pizza. Then you can come back and all enjoy vegetarian pizzas together.” He glances off to his right with a big, genuine smile on his face. He knows he is performing well. 

In the meantime, however, you notice that the waitress is furiously punching buttons while Fred and Barb are talking. Reluctantly, you speak up, “Just what are you recording?” you ask the waitress in your most forced, pleasant voice. 

“I am evaluating each customer’s performance according to the set criteria,” she says matter-of-factly. Then, as if reciting something by rote, she drones, “Each customer shall exhibit happiness with their order. Each customer will exhibit positive food satisfaction. Each customer shall express full and complete dietary compliance with the established mandate.” She pauses and glances knowingly at the waiter, then back to you. “As you may know, your individual and group rating will affect your waiter’s rating, which will affect this restaurant’s rating. As group trainer, I am here to ensure positive performance reviews for all. So far, none from this group has correctly responded to the menu assessment.” 
“What?!” you ask, incredulously. 
“There is only one acceptable response to the menu,” she answers, in a patronizing tone of voice. “You are evaluated according to the established menu selection standards.” 
By this time Barb is cowering in her chair, and her husband Tim’s arm is around her. “We simply can’t eat anchovies and sausage,” she begs. Tim nods in agreement. 
The waiter uses this opportunity to begin coaching the rest of the group. “You can see the importance of this,” he said to Fred and Shari. “And you two,” he looked at Smith and Susan, “don’t want any negative markings on your records, now do you?” 
Susan gets a look of dismay on her face. “I am allergic to wheat,” she says blandly. I can’t eat this,” pointing to the anchovy and sausage pizza in front of her. 
“Yes, we know,” interjects the waitress. 
Susan’s eyes suddenly get wide. “How do you know?” 
“Oh, it is all on your record.” states the waitress in that matter-of-fact tone again. 


“Of course,” agrees the waiter in a velvet voice. “This all goes on your records. It is best if you can exhibit the most positive outcomes for this assessment, but in the event that there is trouble, of course we’ll have to make a notation” He darts a knowing glance towards the waitress with the computer. 
Susan then explodes, “Well, I can’t eat this or I’ll get violently ill.” 
“Yes, yes, of course,” says the waiter patiently. “But for the common good, for your team….” 
Fred interrupts. “Well, I for one, am not going to have a reduction in food quality because of YOU, Barb! Or YOU, Tim! Or YOU, Susan! You three had just better join with the flow here and eat what is set in front of you.” He grabs a fork and jabs furiously at his anchovies. 
The waiter is obviously very pleased. “Of course, of course,” he smiles. He is standing behind Susan and pats her patronizingly on the shoulders. “You wouldn’t want to cause any divisions, now, would you? We just can’t tolerate extremists. This just isn’t acceptable.” 
Across the table Barb stands up, and then Tim. “I guess we just won’t eat tonight then,” she says sadly. Susan remains seated, with her eyes downcast and her hands folded in her lap. 
“Wait!” exclaims the waiter, rather alarmed. He rushes over to force them back into their chairs. “You can’t choose that option! That isn’t one of the choices! You have to eat what is set in front of you.” He then leans down close to the table and begins to whisper, “I don’t like anchovy pizza either!” With that admission, he begins looking anxiously from face to face. “Now I can make a few allowances, and go back to the kitchen to get a blue plate for your pizza and substitute it for the white plate. Or, I could put a parsley garnish on the side.” There is another pause for dramatic effect. “I could even let you order extra cheese if you would like. But, of course, everyone would have to have that, too, and it does cost extra.” 


“You don’t get it,” Tim sighs deeply. “Barb and I cannot violate our consciences by eating meat.” 
“Well, then, pick it off!” said Shari in a disgusted tone of voice, for the first time entering the conversation. She has already eaten half of her pizza. 
“We have philosophical objections to eating anything even contaminated with meat,” explains Tim with a very pained expression. 
The waiter acts as if he is internally debating something. He turns and whispers something to the waitress doing the evaluations. The only part of the conversation you overhear is his whispered exclamation, “I have no idea what this philosophical ‘conscience’ stuff is all about! Phooey! I wasn’t taught that!” The waitress shrugs her shoulders, trying to act somewhat aloof, indicating she doesn’t know either. 
“Listen,” the waiter turns back to our table, beginning to sound weepy, “You don’t understand. This is my job! I need my job!” 
At this point, the waitress rushes over to the table, acting very alarmed. She sets down the palm pilot, with her hand resting on the screen so no one can get a peek. “It’s you guys who just don’t get it! There shall be no leftovers,” she hisses emphatically, again as if reciting something from memory. “Everyone must eat every morsel. No sharing, No exchanges. No leftovers.” Her eyes get a glazed-over appearance, “We must ameliorate extremes. Fanatics must not be tolerated This is for the common good. This promotes civic values…. ” She stops in midstream, changing her expression to a business-like manner. “But seriously, folks, this is going on your record. I really don’t think you will want to face the consequences of any adverse decisions tonight. This kind of situation doesn’t get erased, you know!” Her eyes glance knowingly at the little computer and then back to us. 
The waiter has a terrible, panicked look on his face. “Now let’s be reasonable, folks,” he pleads, as if talking to little children. “Tonight we’ve had a considerable discussion about rights and responsibilities. Tonight we have learned that everyone has a right to eat what they choose, and they also have a responsibility to eat what is chosen for them. It is all very simple: I give you pizzas, and you eat them. We all go away with a positive rating, even despite this little ‘incident.’” He is nodding his head, as if the act of agreeing with himself will help the others agree. Then he glances from face to face, triumphantly beaming, as if everything is now fine and good. 

But everything is not fine and good. At this very moment a tall man with a restaurant manager nameplate on his right pocket is approaching the table. He has a very severe expression on his face and holds yellow papers in his hand. He begins reading from them, “There shall be no food left behind,” he states slowly in a commanding voice. “Everyone shall eat their pizza. We expect full compliance. There are no exceptions. I am not going to have a poor rating on my food! Nor my personnel! And I surely am not going to put up with penalties that would shut my restaurant down!” 
Your wife jabs you in the ribs with her elbow. “Lets go to the fast-food place across the street! They’ll have a decent menu selection, and besides it’s cheaper” she whispers loudly so that everyone can hear. She looks around the table to see who agrees. 
Before anyone has a chance to answer, the manager steps in, places his free hand on her shoulder and points out the window, “Yes, you have a right to eat over there if I’ve failed over here. But you’ll take your chances with that competition. I’ll warn you: they don’t have to comply with health and sanitary regulations, they have waivers for food safety, storage temperatures, preparation, and shelf life. Why, food inspectors don’t even have to set foot in that place!” 
The manager leans over and shakes his papers menacingly in front of your nose, “Go ahead! Just try going to any other restaurant in town! But you’ll find out. You’ll learn. Everyone has anchovy and sausage pizza on the menu tonight. Everyone pays the same price eventually — before they eat, or afterwards. And everyone shall be happy about it!” 
“Then I think we’ll just eat at home!” your wife exclaims, backing her chair away from the table. 
At this, the manager suddenly becomes very subdued and quiet. “Oh, lady,” he sighs, “you’ve got a lot to learn. You won’t be cooking meals at home anymore. Nope. Everything is going to be carry-out in a few years. Even my restaurant kitchen won’t be cooking.” His voice cracks as he unexpectedly adds, “I like to cook.” Then he glances down at his papers and reads slowly and sullenly, “Every customer shall eat the daily, nutritionally complete menu item selection. What every customer should chew and be able to swallow….” 
“What, the crazy!… Here, let me see those papers,” you say, grabbing them out of the manager’s hands. 
Suddenly it dawns on you. “Oh my!” you exclaim. “Oh my!”
In your hands you are holding a summary of the regulations from the No Food Left Behind Act recently passed by Congress. 
 *The Pizza Choice Game, Copyright 2003, 2021 Sarah H. Leslie
 Part 2: The Back Story to this short story
Envy not the oppressor,
and choose none of his ways.

(Proverbs 3:31)


When is freedom of choice not really a choice, not really free? Thirty-two years ago a group of Iowa mothers stumbled across a state document that explained how choice in
the future would be controlled by the government. It was ostensibly a
proposal for education reform but it had nothing to do with reading, writing and arithmetic. Instead it laid out
a Master Plan, based on the programmed indoctrination of children, to forge societal transformation. This effort would comprise all of human
life from womb to tomb. It was explicitly intended to undermine such
basic institutions such as the family and the church. There were direct connections between education reform, workplace reform and Hillary Clinton’s original health care plan.


The Master Plan
The Iowa document was part of a campaign that was simultaneously launched state by state. The
document above was still in draft form when it was prematurely released to
the public in 1990. There was a problem with it: it was too explicit. It laid
out the entire Plan in elaborate detail. By the time the draft was leaked, extensive groundwork had already been laid. The media was in cahoots with the business community, and together with the Department of Education they stifled any alternative facts or opinions. An elaborate disinformation campaign was orchestrated to make it appear that there was a grassroots demand for this transformation. Well-funded national education entities sponsored workshops on how to profile citizen and parent resisters as “extremists.”
The Plan detailed how systemic operant conditioning
methods would be exercised on both individuals and organizations to coerce
adherence to universalist globalist beliefs. Tangible rewards for obedience and penalties for
those who resisted were mandated and eventually codified into state and federal laws. Feedback mechanisms would continually monitor and assess human
performance. This effort cruelly began with vulnerable little Johnny and Susie sitting at their
desks in the classroom. These children had to pass a test by agreeing with State-prescribed values, beliefs, attitudes, opinions, worldview, and
behaviors. If they didn’t perform up to par, they were to be
remediated until they exhibited the proper State outcomes. If too many
students couldn’t meet the psycho-social standards the teacher would be penalized.
And if the schools and districts didn’t score well on the tests they
would be taken over by remote governance structures, removed from local
citizen control.
The ultimate purpose of the Plan was to monitor,
assess, remediate and databank all of a person’s
life information, including intimate psycho-social, ethnic and racial,
spiritual and political, locale, medical and economic data. Eventually Social Media big tech, in cahoots with State, took over these functions of human surveillance. These gigantic corporations now use their global plaforms for the monitoring and
marketing of a person’s intimate information. In the past two years, in a
coordinated assault, people on earth have experienced the clamping down of a global regime whose power is based on the systemic use of operant conditioning methods, rewarding the compliant and penalizing those who resist.

The Choice Charade
curious feature emerged as the original plan for education reform unfolded. At first, there was a full frontal assault to eradicate the freedom to homeschool. When that effort failed (read about it HERE), the Plan B compromise was instituted. The conservative Right adopted a stance that claimed to support freedom of parental choice. But parents began cynically referring to this as the “controlled choice” sponsored by the “controlled Right.” It was a fake choice. Their version of “choice” in education would only be permitted if it was contained
within the feedback System, i.e., computer surveillance. Thus little Johnny and Susie needed to be hooked in to a computer and/or an assessment system to monitor their conformance continually. 

Twenty years ago a group of national homeschool leaders met together, representing both the political Left and Right. The purpose of our gathering was to issue a public statement in support of true educational freedom and in opposition to fake choice. As part of this effort I authored 5-part article series titled The Choice Charade to warn about the insidious agenda that was deceptively
calling itself homechooling.  This series was posted online but parts 1-4 eventually disappeared. Part 5, this short story, remained posted at Berit Kjos’s website. All five parts are now once again online, posted at Deception in the Church HERE

light of unfolding events the past two years, this old article series
gains a new relevance. The broader Plan against freedom of choice in all human decisions, which
we had unearthed in that original Iowa Plan, is now clearly visible and
quite tangible across the globe, adversely affecting the lives of everyone, not just
children, on earth.
The Church and Fake Choice
I n the 1990s Ed Tarkowski was the first one to connect the dots between what he was watching develop in education reform and church transformation. Ed lived in Pennsylvania, a testing grounds for implementing education reform, specially its psycho-social experimentation done on children that was being warned about by Anita Hoge. When Ed set up his Internet discussion loop, it brought many of us together where we began to compare notes. Eventually Nancy Flint would travel across country to meet with all of us individually to tell us about her research into Fuller Theological Seminary and the U.S. Center for World Mission. Some of her research was eventually compiled into a book authored by Al Dager titled The World Christian Movement (Sword Publishers, 2001).
When we learned about Peter
Drucker, the business guru, and his influence over several generations
of evangelical pastors via Leadership Network, especially Rick Warren, we noticed its connection to the same Plan. We warned about the similarities our 2004 monograph The Pied Pipers of Purpose: Part 1: Human Capital Systems and Church Performance (Conscience Press, 2004). I would follow this up by writing a comprehensive overview of the Plan in the article Dominionism and the Rise of Christian Imperialism. And we began to follow up with numerous posts on Herescope, such as HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE
And here is the clincher: the original Iowa Plan repeatedly stated that ALL children must be in the system. All must obey. No child would be exempted. Thus the 2001 federal bill No Child Left Behind was intentionally named to reflect this mandate. Meanwhile Peter Drucker was training evangelical pastors in this same ideology! His deeply compromised leaders set up a church structure that would be perfectly compatible with emerging global networks. This has nothing to do with human freedom or respect, nor the Gospel of Salvation, but rather tyranny
At this moment in history on earth, we are witnessing the formation of the First Church of the Big Data. And the Christian church, which should be an outspoken bulwark against such totalitarianism, instead has been neutralized by leadership training since the early 1980s that taught pastors that ALL sheep must be herded into the System. Or else…. Watch out for the rewards and penalties as they unfold. Beware of fake choice. “Stand fast in the Lord” (1 Th. 3:8)
The Truth:
Meanwhile we are to occupy until He comes (Luke 18:13) to preach, witness and teach the Gospel of Salvation in Jesus Christ while there is yet time and freedom to do so. The Gospel is literal, rational, and based on human ability to read the Word of God and think cognitively. If you do not have these skills, particularly if you were not properly educated during the 1990s onward, it is still possible for to teach yourself how to read and think. We also have the Gospel promise that we are renewed in the spirit of our mind (Eph. 4:23; Col 3:10) and the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). Be strong and be encouraged:
For which cause we faint not:
but though our outward man perish,
yet the inward man is renewed day by day

(2 Cor. 4:16)
And when there had been much disputing,
Peter rose up, and said unto them,
Men and brethren,
ye know how that a good while ago
God made choice
among us,
that the Gentiles by my mouth
should hear the Word of the Gospel,
and believe….

But we believe that through the grace
of the Lord Jesus Christ
we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 15:7, 11

This short story has been posted for many years with permission at: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/sarah-leslie/pizza.htm.
Shortly after posting, a woman sent Berit graphic illustrations to
accompany this story. Although the technology is very old I was able to
gain access to them and save them. I’ve added one of her images to
illustrate this story but I apologize that I do not know her name to
credit her for these illustrations. Berit Kjos linked this story to a
January 9, 2009 Herescope post “Food Tactics”: https://herescope.net/2009/01/food-tactics.html, also republished with permission at: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/009/discernment/1-9-food-tactics.htm. Berit classified this short story under a broader category of articles, “Surveillance & Loss of Freedom”: http://www.crossroad.to/News/surveillance.html.
I was personally connected with the Ohio situation, and it was due the courage of John Loeffler, Berit Kjos and Brannon Howse that this story was widely disseminated and stopped a dreadful national agenda. Here is an example of the current state of imperiled food freedom: THIS. Berit Kjos was one of the original researchers who dug into education
reform documents with us beginning in the early 1990s, exposing the bigger New Age plan for
societal transformation. Her website www.crossroad.to contains valuable historical archives documenting this agenda.

The Plan that we originally read in Iowa was authored by David W. Hornbeck and addressed to “The Iowa Business-Education Roundtable Task Force” on September 19, 1990, titled “First Draft of Recommendations on the Iowa Initiative for World Class Schools.” During the early 1990s we tracked David Hornbeck from state to state as he made nearly identical recommendations, but later documents were sugar-coated to hide the real agenda. Hornbeck would go on to author a pivotal book titled Human Capital and America’s Future: An Economic Strategy for the Nineties (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991). This work, along with Peter Drucker’s concept of “knowledge capital” and “knowledge workers” that we wrote about in our monograph The Pied Pipers of Purpose desensitized Americans to the Red concept of humans as Social Capital, meaning that each person must have be assessed to have a value to Society/the State. Read: “When Is Assessment REALLY Assessment? Measuring the Value of Human Capital” by Cynthia Weatherly.
The original Iowa mothers who opposed education reform included Marla Quenzer, Sarah Leslie, Johann Hicks, Paula Morlan, Karen Kurth, Mary Stuart, including the prayer partners Sharon Campbell and Joyce Priebnow. Don Farrell, who is quoted at the top of this post, was the first one to explain state-controlled fake choice to us, and this cake on a plate was his favorite example. In 1994 we set up the Iowa Research Group, Inc. to continue the publishing efforts begun by Wayne Wolf with his original Free World Research Report newspaper that had served to warn the entire nation of the far-reaching effects of the original education reform plan in Iowa. The Christian Conscience magazine was published for the next few years, and in 1999 we published Charlotte Iserbyt’s massive tome documenting the entire history of the larger Plan for education/societal reform: the deliberate dumbing down of america (free download). During the years 2014-2015 I helped Charlotte Iserbyt publish her blog
ABCs of DumbDown which has archived much updated material warning about
the fake choice inherent in education reform.
The Michigan IDEA “hub” diagram was one of dozens that came out state by state in the early 1990s that depicted the idea that schools were to become comprehensive womb-to-tomb social service agencies for ALL people in the community. Many diagrams included churches and religious charities in these diagrams. For an overview of the “hub” concept, see page 253 of the deliberate dumbing down of america for the whole Plan as described by Dr. William Lepley, who headed the Iowa Department of Education at that time. 
The Cradle graphic was run as an ad in the September 1997 issue of The Christian Conscience, which cover is also depicted as a graphic in this post. The original article “When Johnny Takes the Test” is no longer posted online, but it documented the databanking and marketing of little Johnny and Susie’s assessment test scores. So it wasn’t just that the powers-that-be wanted to know these children’s intimate psycho-social data; they also wanted to turn them into human capital to exploit and market. I have helped edit many of Anita Hoge’s numerous articles on NewsWithViews.com that tell how worse this got the next few decades.

For homeschooling information read: Render Them NOT Unto Caesar
For more information about the global nature of the Iowa Plan, read Big Bad Cows and Cars
The “Hillary’s Choice” cartoon was published in June 1993 issue of Free World Research Report.  
The quotation under this post’s The Truth section is a screen shot of the opening paragraph of the Truth for Life devotional sent out October 17, 2021. 
READ this series which explains more about how this all entered the Church:
“The Culture Which Gave Rise to Mark Driscoll