Bill Lockwood: Islam, Christianity, and Roman Catholicism

by Bill Lockwood

Julia Ioffe, writing in Foreignpolicy.com, makes a classic mistake in an article entitled “If Islam is a Religion of Violence, So Is Christianity” (6-14-2016). Apparently miffed that the general populace draws such conclusions as that “Islam is bad and Christianity is good” in the wake of mass shootings in America, Ioffe says it is a “hateful hypocrisy” to “single out Islam.”

She overtly blares out “I am tired of hearing, from Bill Maher and from Donald Trump, that Islam is inherently violent. “I am even more tired of hearing that Christianity is inherently peaceful.”

And how does she demonstrate that Christianity can be a “religion of violence”, and that Islam can be peaceful? She slogs through history, recent and ancient, to show atrocities committed by those who claimed to follow Christ, such as the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. On the other hand, she gives illustrations of peace-loving Muslims. “Islam, as it was practiced in medieval Span, was beautiful and peaceful, too.”

Since Ioffe’s investigative method is flawed, she erroneously concludes, “No religion is inherently peaceful or violent, nor is it inherently other than what its followers make it out to be.”

What About These Things?

While it is true that observers of religious people judge and asses the religion itself by the examples that people live before them, this does not explain the religion itself, nor the formative teachings of that religion. This methodology is about as thin as seeking to determine the official Democratic Party platform by asking Democrats on the street what are their feelings about the issues of the day.

This is clumsiness, to say the least. Many atheists have used this same flawed principle in defending atheism. Many atheists live admirable lives, they tell us. No argument here—but their morality does not derive from their atheism. It is bootlegged straight out of Christianity.

Severed branches of trees have enough sap left to keep the leaves green for a while. So also, atheists have enough “moral sap” leftover to keep them moral–but neither humanism nor atheism provide in and of themselves any moral substance.

This illustration now sets us up to examine Ioffe’s assertions.

Christianity

How should one assess a religious standard? How should one examine what that religion teaches? How can one determine what a religion “inherently is?” Ioffe condemns that Christianity can be violent. How so? She uses the illustration of Dylan Roof, who killed nine people in the middle of a Bible study in Charleston, S.C. but who declared allegiance to “the white supremacist cause” and “pointing to the Council of Conservative Citizens” which claims to “adhere to ‘Christian beliefs and values.’”

Christianity cannot be accurately assessed by examining people who did not live up to the standard set by Christ in the New Testament, regardless of the institutions to which they belong. The Lord Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, taught completely the opposite of what Roof practiced, including love your neighbor as yourself.

The same is true regarding the endless pointing to the Middle Age Roman Catholic Church and its atrocities, which Ioffe does in her article. She does this to point to bloodletting committed by Catholics in the “name of Christ.” She is not alone here—men such as Bill Maher do the same thing.

The American people need desperately to learn that the Roman Catholic Church is not a representative of Christ upon the earth, nor is it the church about which one reads on the pages of the New Testament, regardless of what the papacy asserts, and regardless of what name is invoked while perpetrating crime.

The Roman Catholic Church is the direct result of a brazen apostasy from the New Testament over the ages. Read the New Testament yourself and see that there is no pope, no papal infallibility, no Vatican State, no infant baptism, no baptism of desire, no baptism of blood, no rule of celibacy, no monasticism, no inherited sin, no immaculate conception, no bodily assumption of Mary, no praying to the saints, no rosary, no purgatory, no indulgences, no canonized saints, no veneration of saints, no sacraments, no lent, etc.

Official Roman Catechism’s and Encyclopedia’s admit that these doctrines “developed over the centuries.” The Roman Church through the ages simply adopted myriads of foreign doctrines, then wedded itself to a state apparatus and became a mixture of “church and state” which even sent armies into the field to shed blood on behalf of the Vatican!

Yet, this is what Ioffe uses to say that “Christianity” can be violent. It is interesting that journalists are supposed to go original sources. But not in this case. She wants us all to assess the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ by means of Rome. We are not so easily misled.

Islam

Here we come to something entirely different. Muslims as a group, behave in different ways, depending upon how many of them occupy a territory or nation. As percentages to population rises, so does violence. Why is this? Once again—go back to the original source, Ioffe. What do you find?

The one perfect Muslim was Mohammed. What did he do? How did he behave? Multiple verses in the Koran command the use of the sword (Surah 9:5; 9:73; 47:4, etc.). Islam, in its inception, waged war on all who did not accept Allah and Mohammed as his prophet. Mohammed was a war-lord of the Middle Ages style who led his followers in numerous battles. Violence is not an “apostasy” from a peace-loving Mohammed, but an imitation of him and his “inspired” commands from Allah.

When Mohammed died, not one person on the entire peninsula of Arabia disagreed with the man. This is not explained on the basis of freedom. His dying words were to carry on to “fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (Surah 9:29).

Note the choices the founder of Islam gives to conquered peoples. One, Accept Islam. Two, pay the jizya (poll-tax on non-Muslims). This is the cornerstone of the entire system of humiliating regulations that institutionalize inferior status for non-Muslims in Islamic law. Three, prepare to war with Muslims.

Peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society, of which Ioffe writes, is not one of the choices.

Does any of this sound anything like what was taught by the Savior of the world? No, Julia Ioffe. The religions of the world are inherently what their founders actually taught, not what later followers may or may not do. It is interesting that Ms. Ioffe did not once reference Christ Himself or His teaching when cross-examining Him. Nor did she look to see what Mohammed actually taught. Both are easily referenced.

It is something for which we ought to be thankful that not all Muslims faithfully carry out Mohammed’s “inspired” orders. But this is only because they do not live down to the standard set by their founder. On the other hand, it is sad that many professed Christians do not live up to the standards set by the Lord Jesus Christ found on the pages of the New Testament.

Bill Lockwood: Does Family Matter to the State of Texas?

by Bill Lockwood

LifeSiteNews.com has picked up a story from Texas Homeschool Coalition which is said to be the “most significant parental rights case” in Texas history. The Texas Supreme Court is set this week to hear oral arguments in a parental rights case “that could shape up to be truly groundbreaking.”

The case centers around a father who is battling in the courts against a non-relative for custody of his four-year-old daughter. The non-relative was the boyfriend of the daughter’s now deceased mother. Most remarkable, all parties in the case openly acknowledge that the father is an entirely fit parent. Nevertheless, the boyfriend of the deceased mother argues he should be allowed custody rights as well.

The child’s mother died in a tragic car accident in 2018. At the time, she and the child’s father were already divorced and sharing a 50/50 custody of the girl. During the last 11 months of her life, the mother was “living with” her boyfriend. Courts have amazingly ordered “partial custody” to this live-in boyfriend. “In fact,” according to LifeSiteNews, “the judge agreed with the boyfriend’s argument that he should be allowed to come before the court on an equal footing with the actual father. The judge concurred that there should be no presumption in favor of the father’s having sole custody of his own daughter.”

“What makes this case so disturbing is that a non-parent was not simply given custody of another man’s daughter — he was given custody on the grounds that the biological father had no greater right to custody of his own daughter than did a virtual stranger.”

LifeSiteNews properly laments that horrible damage could be done to the constitutional rights of parents to raise their own children, if this case goes in the direction of awarding joint custody to a live-in boyfriend.

But I am going to add another shocking result that is already occurring and perhaps will be set in stone. It is this. The basic God-given unit of society—the FAMILY, consisting of Mom, Dad, and the Kids—is by implication considered by law as nothing worth protecting.

Christians have already witnessed “no fault divorce” in the 1970’s—encouraging the rise in divorce rates; the Obama Reorientation of what constitutes a family with the legalization of homosexual “marriage”; and now, as a matter of course, not only will biological parents have no presumption of legal custody over children which will later lead to the “state ownership of offspring”—but marriage itself will be relegated to absolute nothingness but a burden to be thrown off by a hedonistic society.

Should a “live-in boyfriend” have as much custody as a biological father? If so, this means that we are equating co-habitation with marriage in the eyes of the law. So much for the family.
Pray that the Texas Supreme Court will do the right thing—even at this late hour.

Bill Lockwood: Illegal Immigration and Christianity

by Bill Lockwood

I worship with a church that supports a missionary family in Cape Town, South Africa. Several churches of Christ in the United States have pooled their resources to finance the work there, which includes feeding the poor in a soup kitchen, providing shelter to those who live in cardboard boxes, and preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to them. The giving of our finances in the church is, of course, strictly voluntary.

What do Americans think of my preaching that we all need to assist the poor in foreign countries and “preach good tidings” to them? Obviously, they recognize that is my right. Most would probably agree that such works need be funded by American dollars.

But it is also their right to reject that work. They may prefer works closer to home than South Africa. What then if, in reaction to their rejection, I would then insist that all MUST give to this specific work or be counted as unchristian and hard-hearted? I could add some biblical warnings about assisting others in need and threatening the judgment of God if they did not.

Some may answer—“look here, we support other works that are just as charitable. Why do you insist that we participate in the specific work you and your church are engaged in?” That itself would be a charitable answer seeing the approach I had taken. Others would probably ignore me. Still others would rightly question my ability to think clearly.

Let’s take it one step further. Suppose I have influence through powerful lobbyists in the legislature of the State of Texas. Because of my frustration with my fellows for their “lack of compassion” to those in South Africa, I work through these lobbying influences until legislation is passed in the State that mandates portions of public tax dollars to the South Africa work. Now everyone WILL support the work that I have been preaching!

What Has Occurred?

First, no one could classify the money that comes because of legal action as “charitable giving.” Legislative action does not spawn charity. The very reason “legislation” is passed is to compel compliance. Money may flow and people may benefit—but charity it is not. It is redistribution by force. The socialists dream. Not only so, but no one in their right mind would consider forcible redistribution a part of the “charitable giving” of the Congressmen who so legislated. They will not write this off on their tax returns.

Second, the legislative action has a deleterious effect on real avenues of giving. As long as the government compels from me more money to apply to one specific work that bureaucrats have selected, my ability to give to other needs that I personally would rather support has depleted. And how many charitable works are there that the government demands I sponsor? As many as there are legislators. That being the case, how much of my own money do I have remaining with which to support works that I select? Other works are just as fine as supporting missionary work in South Africa, but they will have to do with less.

Third, are those who oppose the legislation that FORCES tax money to flow to South Africa “unchristian?” Are they “uncharitable?” Shall I go about bellowing how “unchristian” my fellows are because they oppose that specific piece of legislation? Since it is not charity to begin with, it hardly is logical to say that those who oppose it are stingy, greedy, unchristian Scrooges. Common sense and even-handed reasoning recognizes that many people support many different causes and if you do not support the cause which I prefer it does not make you unchristian.

The Border

Now look at the southern border. Border states have been crying for as long as I have been alive for the federal government to do its job and curtail illegal crossings. But no politician has been brave enough—or desirous enough– to get that job done–until President Trump. President Obama even single-handedly, without constitutional authorization, negated some of our own laws in order to allow more foreigners to pour into America.

Now we are told we need to assist these foreigners from poor countries because that is our Christian duty! Translation: this is the charitable work that the liberal intelligentsia has selected for you to participate in, and money will be forced from your pocketbook to sponsor it. Not only so, but these poverty-stricken people that beg to come in will be housed in your neighborhoods at your expense. If you have misgivings about it, you are unchristian. Christian duty demands open borders, so the story goes.

Here are some questions. If it is Christianity to force Americans to pull down our border fences, is it not also Christian duty to allow the poor to camp in your front yard? Does ‘Love your Neighbor’ mean pull down the fence? Why are all of those who preach “open borders” shored up behind walled communities and housing area, normally in white middle-class neighborhoods? Is it not hypocritical to demand your neighbors to care for the poor, while we do very little? Why have front doors on our homes?

Shall American families be required to sponsor various families from south of the border? If so, should these families be forced to adopt-a-family by bringing them inside your homes? If not, why not?

If one selects some other charity work instead of the “open borders” program, is that less charitable? Is it necessary to follow the government’s agenda in order to be charitable? What if, as a Christian, I am for closing the border completely and funneling my resources to care for the poor among us?

Would it not be better just to GO to the country of origin of many of these people and do voluntary charity work there?

If I do NOT give charitably, should the government take control of my finances to make me be more charitable? Would that be charity at all?

Bill Lockwood: “The Glory of God” Emphasized by President Trump in State of Union

by Bill Lockwood

House speaker Nancy Pelosi theatrically tore up the copy of Trump’s speech as soon as he concluded on Tuesday night. Why? Perhaps it is in the fact that our president emphasized that which should cause Christians everywhere to celebrate.
Religious Freedom, The Glory of God, and the Celebration of the Life of the Unborn—these were major themes of the State of the Union on Tuesday night.
The News Division of Pulpitandpen.org wrote, “In what was quite possibly the most Christian-affirming State of the Union in history, President Donald Trump defended Freedom of Religion, denounced anti-religion ‘cancel culture’ and lauded the glory of God.”
“My administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the constitutional right to pray in the public schools.” He added, “In America, we don’t punish prayer. We don’t tear down crosses. We don’t ban symbols of faith. We don’t muzzle preachers and pastors.”
White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney declared at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Tuesday morning that “faith drives the Trump administration’s policy proposals, arguing that ‘the principles of our faith are being manifest” under the president’s watch (RNS News).
Apparently, however, belonging to the Democrat Party “trumps” religious considerations and moral principles, for Democrat Russell Moore, who chairs The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, has offered “no accolades to Trump for his remarks about religious liberty.” Instead, pulpitandpen.org notes, “the ERLC research fellows began a new round of attacks against Trump in social media.”
This freedom is why Nancy Pelosi demonstratively tore up the speech as soon as the final word was spoken. Cut liberty — especially religious liberty.

Wayne Allyn Root: Meet the ‘Moderate’ Candidate of the Democrat Party

by Wayne Allyn Root

The Democrats have a big problem — yuge, as President Donald Trump might say.

Right now the Democratic presidential front-runner is Sen. Bernie Sanders. His views are stark-raving crazy. The things he believes in turn off and frighten average Americans. You know, the ones who aren’t communists and didn’t choose to honeymoon in the Soviet Union.

Elizabeth Warren is trying to outdo Sanders. Recently, she claimed that transgender illegal aliens are the most important issue on the border. I kid you not. She was panicking over transgender people being stuck on the other side of the border because “mean Trump” won’t let them in.

To radical nut jobs such as Warren, it isn’t bad enough that open borders are draining the U.S. Treasury … that illegal aliens are adding hundreds of billions of dollars to our national debt … that they’re using up limited resources for welfare, food stamps, education and health care that should rightfully be spent on American citizens. Warren wants to pour salt in the wound. She wants to bankrupt this country even faster. She clearly also wants to spend $150,000 each on illegal aliens so they can have free gender reassignment surgery. She thinks you and I should pay for that.

Then, just days ago, it got worse. Warren said she wants her nominee for education secretary to be vetted by a “young trans person,” apparently referring to a 9-year-old trans child she met at a CNN town hall. To radicals such as Warren, transgender kids are the most important issue in education.

Now, more rational Democrats might say: “Warren will never be the nominee. Everyone realizes she’s too radical. A moderate such as Mike Bloomberg will win the nomination.”

OK. So let’s meet the “moderate” Democratic candidate.

Bloomberg just released his vision for LGBTQ rights. Keep in mind I’m actually enlightened on gay rights issues. I’ve always been a pro-gay rights Republican. I support gay marriage. But Bloomberg’s LGBTQ vision is so far out of the mainstream he might as well be running for president of Pluto. It includes:

• Free sex surgery and hormone treatment for transgender people, thereby costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

• Restricting the sale of health insurance that doesn’t provide coverage for gender-affirming care, including sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy, thereby dramatically increasing the cost of health insurance for all. Would you pay double or triple health insurance premiums so Jack can become Jill? That’s Jack’s problem, not ours. Here’s my simple solution: Let Jack work three jobs to pay for his own surgery.

• The right to seek shelter based on so-called gender identity, meaning Bloomberg would allow men who think they are women to stay in homeless and domestic violence shelters for women. This is just insanity and would potentially lead to women being assaulted and brutalized inside these shelters at the hands of men masquerading as women.

• The passage of the Equality Act, which bars governments, schools and sports organizations from recognizing biological/physiological differences between men and women and instead recognizes gender identity, meaning your daughters would be competing in sports with boys who think they’re girls, and showering, using bathrooms and rooming on road trips with boys who think they’re girls.

This Bloomberg agenda is so radical that I can’t even read it without getting physically sick. This isn’t “moderate.”

It’s reckless and dangerous, and it borders on insane. Mark my words: Middle-class America will never, never, never vote for anyone promoting this radical and offensive an agenda.

Please keep in mind that Bloomberg is the moderate candidate of today’s Democratic Party.

TH: https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2020/02/02/meet-the-moderate-candidate-of-the-democrat-party-n2560536


Wayne Allyn Root is a CEO, entrepreneur, best-selling author, nationally syndicated talk show host on USA Radio Network and the host of “The Wayne Allyn Root Show” on Newsmax TV nightly at 8 p.m. ET.

Bill Lockwood: Methodist Church Asks the Elderly to Leave the Congregation

 

by Bill Lockwood

This headline appeared last week in The Washington Post. The Cottage Grove United Methodist Church on the outskirts of Minneapolis-St. Paul, is a small dwindling church of about 30 members that has put in place a new “strategic plan” for church growth among “younger people” such as Millennials. A major part of that plan, which one 70-year-old member calls “age discrimination,” is to ask the elderly to leave and worship elsewhere.

After this news went national, Dan Wetterstrom, the “head pastor” of the church, claimed that these allegations of “age discrimination unfairly represented the strategy for a church that has been on the decline for two decades.”

Instead, he explained, the church’s services are “being cancelled” and will re-open after a major refurbishing of the building, its staff, and its worship services, including replacing the traditional hymnals. A church memo also recommended that “current members stay away for two years, then consult with the pastor about reapplying.” That is according to the local news outlet, the Pioneer Press.

“The plan is to shut down the church in June and reopen later this year with a new pastor, new programming and building updates ‘aimed at engaging more members of a growing community.’” “While older members will not be physically barred from attending, the expectation is that they will not.” Wetterstrom added, “We are asking them to let this happen. For this to be truly new, we can’t have the core group of 30 people.”

So, it is technically not “disinviting” the elderly. They are only “physically shutting the doors” and the current elderly membership must “re-apply” to get back in after a recommended two-year absence.

Bruce Ough, the Methodist “bishop” of the Dakotas-Minnesota region and provides oversight to congregations, defended the strategy as part of a “relaunch effort” that has been “successful in other parts of the region.”

It is difficult to know where to begin to comment on such items as this. It does give a frightening insight into the mindset of many Americans which sees the elderly as a hindrance instead of an opportunity to serve. No wonder many churches have completely capitulated to a godless culture that demands the ceasing of preaching against sin.

 

Bill Lockwood: “Bring on the Lions!” — Homosexual Agenda Seeks to Destroy Christianity

by Bill Lockwood

Several years ago a relative of mine was in a major northeastern city for a short visit and it so happened that a “Gay Pride” parade was occurring. Shocking as it seems, some of the marchers were carrying signs that read: “Bring on the Lions!” That, of course, referred to the extermination of Christians after the order of the ancient bloody Roman Empire and presented a completely different picture of the Homosexual Goal for America than the MSM would like for you to see.

The entire political & cultural battle today may be boiled down to a War on God by the political left, which is being driven by the Homosexual Agenda. Nothing can be clearer than this. Even Islam joins with homosexuals—for now–in this same goal of eradication of Christianity. Read the text of the Democratic Party’s so-called Equality Act (H.R. 5) and be in the dark no more. It completely eradicates The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), originally passed in 1993, let alone respect the First Amendment which promised that the federal government is FORBIDDEN to touch religious speech and freedom.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et. seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application of enforcement of a covered title.”

The RFRA began as a reaction following a 1990 Supreme Court decision (Employment Division v. Smith) which concerned Christians that religious liberty might be threatened. This resulted in a huge national movement of Christians to protect their God-given rights.

How does this link to the Homosexual Agenda? GrasstopsUSA re-published a portion of homosexual activist Michael Swift’s Manifesto from 1987. For a real stomach-turner, read the entire text on Fordham University’s website entitled, “Michael Swift, ‘Gay Revolutionary,’” reprinted from the Congressional Record itself.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity … Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding … All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men… There will be no compromises … All churches who condemn us will be closed … All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice … Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

As Grassroots correctly stated, “Disguised as a measure to extend civil rights protections” to homosexuals and “transgendered individuals,” H.R. 5 actually “forces every man, women and child in the United States to not simply accept anti-biblical behaviors but to actively affirm them under penalty of law.”

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo, a homosexual Opinion Writer for USA Today and who wishes to “outlaw” “conversion therapy”, while claiming to be “libertarian,” headlines the following, “Gay Conservative: Equality Act would crush religious freedom. Trump is right to oppose it.”

Polumbo calls the “Equality Act,” “the landmark LGBT rights bill.” “From my vantage point as a gay conservative, I can see that the Equality Act goes too far for any level-headed gay rights advocate to support, and its blatant disregard for the basic right to religious freedom is appalling.”

The bill purports to protect LGBT Americans like me by prohibiting discrimination ‘based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit and the jury system.’ On the surface, this sounds unobjectionable—after all, no one deserves to face discrimination. Yet the bill defined ‘public accommodations’ so loosely and called for regulations so sweeping that it would crush religious freedom and radically reshape American society.

Polumbo warns that “The Equality Act could potentially see houses of worship deemed ‘public accommodations’ and subjected to anti-discrimination law. It would also declare any hospital or establishment providing medical services a ‘public accommodation,’ which would include religious organization and hospitals.”

Steve Warren

Homosexual activist Steven Warren issued in 1987 a “Warning to homophobes.” In it he stated that homosexuality will be spoken of in your churches and synagogues as an “honorable estate” and “you can either let us marry people of the same sex, or better yet abolish marriage altogether.”

Throwing down the gauntlet to Christianity, he warned, “You will be expected to offer ceremonies that bless our sexual arrangements” and you will “instruct your people in homosexual as well as heterosexual behavior, and you will go out of your way to make certain that homosexual youths are allowed to date, attend religious functions together, openly display affection, and enjoy each others’ sexuality without embarrassment or guilt.”

If the older people object “you will deal with them sternly, making certain they renounce their ugly and ignorant homophobia or suffer public humiliation.” “Finally, we will in all likelihood, want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and rewrite others …”

The final warning: “If all these things do not come to pass quickly, we will subject Orthodox Jews and Christians to the most sustained hatred and vilification in recent memory.”

Bring on the Lions.

Bill Lockwood: The American War on God & the First Amendment

by Bill Lockwood

American leaders have been hostile to God for over a century. Our cultural landscape has been re-shaped because of it. One of the most recent battles involves a High School in West Virginia.

The Rutherford Institute, led by John Whitehead, has a press release this week which once again shows the depth and nature of this war against Christianity. A high school student-led club called Youth Alive in Weston, West Virginia has practiced posting sticky notes with inspirational messages to encourage each other on a bulletin board in one of the hallways. It is student-led, featuring Young Republicans, Young Democrats, Youth Alive, and other groups–all which use the board.

The trouble apparently came when students began posting Bible verses of a self-help nature on the board. That was too much for the Lewis County High School administration, which promptly shut down the bulletin board completely. No Bible allowed. It probably would have still been in use had students posted a quote from Karl Marx such as “Workers of the World, Unite!”

The nature of the America’s struggle is here seen. It is The Bible that is under assault. With concerns over a non-constitutional measure called “Separation of church and state,” the Lewis County High School actually has capitulated to the onslaught of secular forces in America.

John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney, comments, “What a missed opportunity to support young people in their efforts to find positive, constructive methods of engaging with fellow students who might be struggling with feelings of depression, unhappiness and stress.”

Whitehead has been fighting this secular onslaught for forty years. “Not only is the removal of these inspirational notes a clear act of censorship that violates the First Amendment,” he said, “but it also sends the disheartening message to young people that school officials care more about doing what is politically correct than doing what is right.”

The Rutherford Institute is leading the legal fight for liberty in Lewis County, demanding the Youth Alive be allowed to re-post inspirational notes, including selections from Bible verses. Students need faith, encouragement and forgiveness in a world where people are broken-hearted, alone, insecure, stressed and confused. The Lewis County High School has actually violated the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act, a federal statute that guarantees religious and political clubs equal rights in public schools.

First Amendment?

Two things here. One, the First Amendment is designed to forbid government from endorsing or supporting one particular church in the Christian world—nothing to do with removing Bible, Christianity, or godly principles from the public square. The forbidding of “establishment of religion” in the First Amendment simply refers to a “National Denomination” in the sense that America was to have a State Church supported by public taxes.

As a matter of fact, Fisher Ames was the Founding Father who offered the final wording of the First Amendment. From his own writing it is clear that “religion” means “single Christian denomination.” The original version of the amendment, proposed in the Senate on Sep. 3, 1789, stated, “Congress will not make any law establishing any religious denomination.” The second version read, “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination.” The third version reads similarly.

Note that the word “religion” is interchangeable with “denomination.” The founders were unanimous that the First Amendment merely forbade the establishment of a National Church. It had nothing to do with excluding God from the public square, least of all from schools. But what do secularists care about original intent?

Second, Dr. Samuel Mitcham, Jr., a military historian who has authored the recent It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War, stated in a recent interview on the American Liberty with Bill Lockwood radio show, that which we term “political correctness” is actually nothing less than Cultural Marxism. Everything has a place in the market-place of ideas—except the Bible.

Dr. Mitcham knows whereof he speaks. A college professor for over twenty years and author of more than 40 books on military history and the culture, Dr. Mitcham is right on target. Who would have guessed that none the less than Karl Marx would have been the dominant force in American political “correctness” within two hundred-fifty years of his Manifesto?

 

Alex Newman: UN Throws Cash at North Korea to Fight “Global Warming”

by Alex Newman

A United Nations agency led by a Communist Chinese agent is sending large amounts of American taxpayer money and Western know-how to the mass-murdering dictatorship ruling North Korea, official UN documents show. Officially, at least, the cash and training is supposed to help the brutal regime in Pyongyang fight alleged man-made “climate change” and access even more UN money. But in reality, analysts suggested the UN funding would almost certainly be used to prop up dictator Kim Jong Un’s savage tyranny and lavish lifestyle.

The initial funding will be almost a million dollars, but that round of funds is supposed to help the regime unlock even more going forward. The decision to fund North Korean oppression with Western tax dollars was made last month by the UN “Green Climate Fund” (GCF). The outfit, often ridiculed by critics as the Green Climate Slush Fund to subsidize Third World kleptocrats, is a wealth-transfer mechanism that claims it supports “developing countries” responding to “climate change.” “GCF helps developing countries limit or reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to climate change,” it says online.

As part of that, the GCF approved a program known as “Readiness and Preparatory Support for Capacity Building of NDA (National Designated Authorities) and establishment of a National Strategy Framework for engagement with GCF in the DPRK.” The confusing and deliberately verbose title serves to conceal a simple agenda: Prop up the mass-murdering dictatorship with Western money, technology, and expertise under the guise of battling the mythical bogeyman known as “man-made global warming.”

According to the dictatorship’s request for funds, which has been published online by the GCF, activities under the project will involve developing a “package of training and capacity building exercises.” These training programs will help support the regime to “better coordinate and manage GCF and other climate finance,” and to “better engage with GCF and providers of climate finance.” In other words, a team of UN bureaucrats will be teaching Kim’s minions how to keep the “climate finance” loot flowing from Western taxpayers to his regime.

The lead ministry dealing with the program in Pyongyang will be the Ministry of Land and Environment Protection, according to the regime’s submission. The 43-page document, filed in the summer of 2019, explains that North Korea needs more help preparing to access “climate finance,” and so, the regime will be working with the UN to help “address” the “barriers” that currently exist to accessing even more “climate” loot. Other ministries that will receive support under the plan include those in charge of agriculture, electronic industry, urban management, fisheries, emergency management, and even “academic institutions.”

Leading the scheme on the UN side will be the scandal-plagued UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Last summer that controversial agency, one of the UN’s largest, was brought under control of the Communist Chinese dictatorship in Beijing, a very close ally — if not an outright puppet master — of the Kim regime enslaving the people of North Korea, when it managed to get its candidate elected to run the FAO by UN representatives. According to diplomatic sources, Beijing was able to secure enough votes for its candidate, Qu Dongyu, using a combination of bribery and threats. It was the fourth UN agency that fell under Communist Chinese control.

Before that, the UN FAO was run by Brazilian communist Jose Graziano, a close ally of disagraced Marxist leader Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva, the former Brazilian president who was jailed for looting the public to help fellow communists and his bank account. Like Qu, Graziano also used FAO funds to help out his communist buddies around the world. In fact, in 2017, Graziano, infamous for persecuting journalists who exposed him, helped the communist regime of Evo Morales in Bolivia secure access to “climate funding” via the “Green Climate Fund.” That scheme was worth $250 million.

In North Korea, the UN FAO, ensuring “diverse perspectives” by ensuring “equal representation of men and women,” promised not to ignore the current UN sanctions that have been slapped on the regime. However, the UN agency vowed to seek “sanctions exemptions” to facilitate the infusion of cash and know-how. Other UN agencies such as the World Intellectual Property Organization have come under fire for violating UN sanctions by transferring sensitive, dual-use technologies to the regime. But here, the FAO vowed to stay in “compliance.”

Explaining why the FAO was chosen to lead the project on the UN side, documents reveal that the Communist Party-controlled UN agency has spent decades providing “development assistance” to the North Korean regime. Ironically, one of the areas where FAO has been helping Pyongyang is “food security.” But literally millions of North Koreans have died from famine and hunger-related diseases since the mid-1990s — almost unique in the modern world— as the regime and its leader feasted at the expense of that nation’s enslaved population.

Incredibly, the regime attributes declining agricultural productivity not to communism and the inherent failures of central planning. Instead, the regime’s functionaries claimed that “climate change” was to blame. In the real world, though, agricultural yields are increasing worldwide, which is to be expected. Obviously, with CO2 (plant food) concentrations rising and the planet getting slightly warmer, largely as a result of natural causes, crop yields should be growing, not contracting. But not in North Korea, apparently.

Establishment-minded analysts trying to put a positive spin on all this sounded almost too ludicrous to be believed. Columnist John Burton, formerly with the establishment Financial Times, claimed that “the problems North North Korea is experiencing due to climate change are also due to the fact that it sits next to much bigger producers of greenhouse gas emissions,” namely, Communist China.

But the only example of these problems cited was “yellow dust” — basically soil dust mixed with Chinese pollution, which was made worse not by CO2 emissions, but by communists in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan drying up the Aral Sea. Records of “yellow dust” go back thousands of years.

Almost incredibly, Burton goes on to celebrate the unimaginable poverty caused by communism in North Korea. “Paradoxically, North Korea’s economic backwardness is another advantage,” claimed Burton in the Korea Times column pushing for Trump to end some sanctions as part of a “Green New Deal” for North Korea. “It does not yet have an extensive fossil fuel-based infrastructure. That makes it easier to turn to renewables to power future growth if the planning is right.” Yes, the fact that North Koreans are literally starving and living in stone-age conditions is great because, if Kim plans right, he can use “renewables” if he ever decides to allow his miserable slaves to access a little electricity.

Members of the Green Climate Fund’s board of directors represent a variety of governments, including more than a few brutal dictatorships. Among the regimes represented are oil-rich Islamic theocracies such as the regimes ruling Iran and Saudi Arabia, along with more than a few socialist governments from Europe and Latin America. Analysts have described it as a “slush fund” to bribe Third World regimes into getting on board with the UN’s global agenda — more “global governance,” more power for the UN, global taxes, and global wealth redistribution. Obama illegally funneled billions of American dollars to the GCF, in flagrant violation of federal law.

Of course, this is hardly the first time the UN has funneled American money to Pyongyang, helping to prop up one of the most brutal and totalitarian regimes in all of human history. The UN Development Program (UNDP), for instance, helped build the Pyongyang Semiconductor Factory in the 1980s. According to both U.S. and South Korean government sources cited by the Nuclear Threat Initiative in Washington, D.C., the regime uses that plant to produce electronic components for missiles, many of which are aimed at U.S. forces and American allies.

Under the guise of fighting “global warming,” the UN has been getting away with all sorts of criminal activities — extorting Western taxpayers, expanding its power, bullying industry, further infringements on liberty and free markets, brainwashing children with “climate education,” and so much more. Once again, allowing communists running UN agencies to transfer Western wealth to their mass-murdering allies can be added to the list. For the sake of Americans and Koreans, it is time for Congress and President Trump to step in and end these schemes now.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/34678-un-throws-cash-at-north-korea-to-fight-global-warming


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

« Older Entries