Natural Law

Natural Law– “All humans have impressed upon them from the beginning of creation the principles of Natural Law…”

by Bill Lockwood

Sir William Blackstone was an English jurist, judge and politician of eighteenth century England. His Commentaries on the Laws of England were a profound study of natural law and the founders of our nation carried Blackstone with them as a reference and guide. Even Abraham Lincoln loved Blackstone and studied him copiously.

One paramount principle which our founders loved was Blackstone’s explanation of Natural Law. Blackstone wrote in 1765:

This natural law, being as old as mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, from this original.

Note the following: (1) These laws are dictated by God himself. (2) They are binding to all men everywhere. (3) No human law that violates natural law is of any validity. One can hear echoes of this in the Declaration of Independence. Again, from Blackstone:

Thus when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, He impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When He put the matter into motion, He established certain laws of motion, to which all movable bodies must conform. And, to descend from the greatest operations to the smallest, when a workman forms a clock, or other piece of mechanism, he establishes at his own pleasure certain arbitrary laws for its direction; as that the hand shall describe a given space in a given time; to which law as long as the work conforms, so long it continues in perfection, and answers the end of its formation.

All humans have impressed upon them from the beginning of creation the principles of Natural Law—reasoning ability concerning right and wrong.

Even Cicero, whose full name was Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.), the greatest orator of the ancient Roman Republic, and was raised in a pagan society, recognized true law imbedded within the heart of each person to which each is responsible.

True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions….It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.

One can hear in this echoes of Jefferson’s famous lines “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” Based upon this clear principle of natural law our founders disobeyed the unjust laws of King George.

Romans

Paul writes essentially the same thing in Romans 2:14-16, except Paul was inspired of God.

For when the Gentiles, that have not the law, do by nature the things of the law [OT revealed law, bl], these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their thoughts, one with another, accusing or else excusing them …

Here the apostle shows clearly that those without God’s written law have knowledge of the existence of a law within themselves. All humans instinctively have within them the understanding that some things will always be right and other things wrong.

For example, ABORTION. The forcible taking of innocent human life is wrong. The Roe v. Wade (1973) decision at the Supreme Court does not change this and one-half of our nation rightly continues to recognize it as murder. The depth of America’s sin can easily be gauged by this horrific transgression. Because our nation has been adrift for at least fifty to a hundred years or more does not mitigate our guilt.

Another illustration is, HOMOSEXUALITY. It matters not that the Supreme Court Obergefell (2015) decision dictates to states that same-sex couples may marry—it is still sinful activity and godly Americans will not simply accept it and move along. Nor should we. As Blackstone rightly said, these types of human laws “have no validity” before God nor with those who honor Him.

Kathleen Marquardt: THE DEFINITION OF “IS”

Kathleen Marquardt: THE DEFINITION OF “IS” – “I do not want to believe that Trump is just using blue smoke and mirrors…”

by Kathleen Marquardt

No, this has nothing (or very little) to do with Bill Clinton. My question is, ‘Is President Trump’ for or against Sustainable Development? He and his cabinet give mixed signals. Yes, Trump has done more positive things than any president in the last decade, that I can remember, anyway. But then there is this:

Oh, boy! Here we go. Actually, Zinke needs to go.

I emphasized the text in bold to indicate the usual farce of Agenda21/2030 that is going to be the destruction of Western Culture. Keep in mind that the usual disclaimer for A21/2030 is “strictly advisory” and “soft-law”, horse pocky! This piece brags that the Department of Interior will be blanketing all public lands with public/private partnerships, as if this is a good thing. They are painting with words so pretty to make you think Interior is the most patriotic of all departments, while what they are doing is so insidiously evil the devil will celebrate them if they pull this off. Zinke calls it Made in America, but instead it is the unmaking of America, the tearing apart of the Constitution. PPPs help SD destroy property rights – the bedrock of freedom.

As Tom describes PPPs in the link below this one: “It is little understood by the general public how Public/Private Partnerships are actually used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power. In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies. These privileged few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, free use of eminent domain, non-compete clauses in government contracts, and specific guarantees of return on their investments. That means the companies, in partnership with the government, can fix their prices, charging beyond what the market demands. They can use their relationship with government to put competition out of business. This is not free enterprise, nor is it government controlled by the people.”

In other words, PPPs are fascism in disguise. And, hopefully, America has seen enough of Sustainable Development in any form – Public/Private/Partnerships, carbon footprints, Common Core, social justice, you name it. Let’s tell Zinke that we just say, NO to calling an Agenda 21/2030 scheme “Made in America” as if it were baseball or apple pie, instead of the anti-American pile of horse-pocky that it is.

Secretary Zinke announces Creation of the “Made in America” Recreation Advisory Committee

“ Today, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke announced the establishment of the “Made in America” Recreation Advisory Committee. The Committee will advise the Secretary of the Interior on public-private partnerships across all public lands, with the goal of expanding access to and improving infrastructure on public lands and waterways.

The duties of the Committee are strictly advisory and will consist of, but not be limited to, providing recommendations including:

Policies and programs that:

  • Expand and improve visitor infrastructure developed through public-private partnerships;
  • Implement sustainable operations embracing fair, efficient and convenient fee collection and strategic use of the collected fees;
  • Improve interpretation using technology;
  • Create better tools and/or opportunities for Americans to discover their lands and waters.”

For more information on public/private partnerships

Which will also lead you to a 3-part primer on PPPs.

After reading the above, one must question whose idea was this?

THE BIGGER PICTURE HIDDEN IN TRUMP’S CUTS TO CLINTON AND OBAMA LAND GRABS

Following up on an April executive order to have Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke review 27 “National Monuments,” Trump on Monday signed an order to cut back the Dec. 2016 Obama-created Bears Ears National Monument in Utah by eight percent (1.35 million acres to 201,876 acres). He also signed an order to cut the 1996 Clinton-created Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument – also in Utah — by nearly 50 percent (1.7 million to 1 million). The remainder of Clinton’s giant plaything will be broken into three separate areas: Grand Staircase National Monument, Kaiparowits National Monument, and Escalante Canyons National Monument.”

All of that leads to something I have been pondering.

Trump has done quite a few things to undo onerous regs and executive orders put in place by Obama, Clinton and Bush. Just today I read in The New American, “One of the very first actions of my administration was to impose at two-for-one rule on new federal regulations. We ordered that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated … as a result, the never-ending growth of red tape in America has come to a sudden screeching and beautiful halt….

Within our first 11 months, we cancelled or delayed over 1,500 planned regulatory actions — more than any previous President by far….

And instead of eliminating two old regulations, for everyone new regulation we have eliminated 22 — 22. That’s a big difference. We aimed for two-for-one and, in 2017, we hit twenty-two-for one.”

Woohoo. That is wonderful. A great start. But . . .. But there is a gaping hole. Nothing has been done to stop the onslaught of Sustainable Development (SD) on property rights and the indoctrination of our children in the schools.

Betsy DeVos, the queen of Common Core is Secretary of Education. Our children are being brainwashed, dumbed-down, and turned into useful idiots, at best. Common Core is still going strong, our children are learning the five pillars of Islam, and there isn’t a single right from the Bill of Rights taught in the classrooms.

AFFH, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is still alive and destroying property rights through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. People’s life savings and very lives are being destroyed by this as well as neighborhoods are being uprooted, whole classes of people are being dumped in neighborhoods not of their choosing just because of their race or their financial status. What most people do not understand is that AFFH is being embedded into every town, city, county and state the same way Sustainable Development was. When, like SD, AFFH has been put in place everywhere in this country, the name Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing will be dropped (just like SD), and AFFH will be an unnamed cancer eating away at our lives.

Also thanks to Sustainable Development, cities and counties are notifying their residents that they cannot even maintain their properties without getting permission from the planning commissions and abiding by the International Building Codes. Our codes, the best in the world, no longer are acceptable – because every city, county, berg, state in the world must now obey the same standards and rules; it is far easier for the global elite to control us that way.

Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who loves Asset Forfeiture, is still the AG and is not reining in Asset Forfeiture. He has finally ordered an examination of the Bundy case, but should it have taken him the outrageous infractions exposed by the whistleblower to see there was malfeasance going on there?

There is a lot more, but I think the above shows that, unless things are in the works and will be unveiled soon, we might need to start putting pressure on Trump to do what he said he would do. A lot of the ‘Deplorables’ promised to keep his feet to the fire if he didn’t do the job he promised. If President Trump is to eliminate 20,000 more regulations, if they aren’t to stop Sustainable Development, they will be useless.

I do not want to believe that Trump is just using blue smoke and mirrors to keep us mollified by making all these other good moves while Sustainable Development continues on with no slow down, destroying the greatest country every built. And I am not exaggerating! Sustainable Development should be the first focus for the President right now. We are so close to the tipping point; in fact, we could already be there.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/01/16/the-definition-of-is/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Jesse Lee Peterson: Are you an alpha or beta male?

Are you an alpha or beta male?- Jesse Lee Peterson reveals trouble with boys assuming identities of mothers

by Jesse Lee Peterson

Men are not men today. With few exceptions, men are insecure, emotional, out-of-control women in male bodies.

Most boys take on the identity of their mothers. Through anger, impatience or worry, mothers impose their will on children, causing them to lose innocence. A mother who resents her own parents, or her child’s father, passes her angry spirit down to the child. Although she may try to teach “religion,” she does not truly live it. She may apologize for doing wrong, yet never change. Children grow angry and become controlled by what they hate. The symptoms manifest in myriad ways.

One boy may rebel, and another conform. Both hate their mother. One is just more open about it. One gets into sex, drugs and crime. Another becomes “educated” and compliant. One becomes a nice, “Christian” family man. Another turns out homosexual or transgender. Neither is truly happy, independent, or himself. They suffer from the same lost identity, and become female in nature. Girls suffer in much the same way – I’ve counseled with so many men and women, attracted to what they hate, who feel they married their mothers!

If fathers are not around, or if they have not overcome their emotions rooted in anger – children grow up unprotected. In many cases, fathers themselves operate from a female spirit and spoil or destroy their children.

The black community is tattered by generations of males faking masculinity, raised by women faking Christianity (or some other religion). Few of them know God. Most believe in government – socialism.

For 28 years at BOND, a nonprofit dedicated to Rebuilding the Family by Rebuilding the Man, I’ve worked with men and women from around the world – the decline of good men affects them all.

The very thing men must overcome is what the world encourages them to embrace: the female nature.

Liberal magazine the Hollywood Reporter photographed four male comedians and actors together for a recent cover, three of them with their hand in the pocket of the man in front of them and the headline “Triumph of the Beta Male.” The display illustrates a feminist reaction against men like President Trump, universally recognized as a forceful and fearless alpha male.

President Trump is everything the left hates: A straight, white, conservative, Christian man of power.

Lying leftists conflate real masculinity with the cruelty, violence and abuse by males raised by angry women who don’t love their fathers.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

After the Florida school shooting by 19-year-old suspect Nikolas Cruz, whose adoptive father died when he was young, a girly, liberal comedian Michael Ian Black tweeted, “Boys are broken.” He encouraged males to express vulnerability and embrace feminism. NPR featured him in an interview. The New York Times published his op-ed. But he refused my interview invitation. When I tweeted about his cowardice, he called NewsMax TV “garbage” in a malicious tweet.

This week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson began a series for the month of March discussing the crisis facing men in America, featuring clinical psychologist and Toronto professor Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, whom I’ve also interviewed. Instead of applauding, as liberals did for male feminist Michael Ian Black, male “journalists” mocked Carlson and Peterson!

Liberals are very shallow. They won’t tell the truth because they’re spiritually blind. They are children of the lie who hate men and God. They don’t love women, but they cater to them. They are prideful people who despise President Trump because he does not live in their emotional-intellectual world. Rather, Donald Trump lives in reality, where men of action thrive.

This week, in an example of the president’s effectiveness, he agreed to meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. For decades, prior presidents failed to deal with North Korea’s growing nuclear threat – because none were men. Interestingly, none supported Trump, either. Barack Obama, the fallen messiah, proudly called himself a “feminist,” and Michelle his “boss” and “backbone.”

Obama inherited his mother’s disdain for America (especially white America – read “The Antidote“). He nearly brought the country to her knees in division and destruction, and left the world a more dangerous place. But now the Great White Hope may persuade Little Rocket Man to do right.

Real men, alpha men, are conservatives. Real women are conservatives. They love their fathers. No liberal is a real man (or woman). They hate men, and they don’t love their fathers.

Conservatives should observe the president, who loved his father. He appears to live without fear and work from a spirit of power, love and sound mind.

All human beings know that it’s an embarrassment for men to be “beta males.” Only a few will truly face reality and overcome the angry spirit of their mothers and grandmothers within them.

At my church at BOND, our theme this year is self-knowledge: Know thyself. I encourage every one of you to pray quietly and be honest with yourselves and with God. Then you might see the spirit of anger within you and recognize that you’re wrong. Go and forgive your parents where they failed, apologizing for hating them. Then go free as a real man (or woman), no longer a child of Satan, but of God.

Read more at: http://www.wnd.com/2018/03/are-you-an-alpha-or-beta-male/#qukcj4XqHQRhzq7D.99

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Tom DeWeese: A Challenge to The American Planning Association

A Challenge to The American Planning Association- 

“…it’s interesting to note that the American Planning Association is part of the Planners Network.”

by Tom DeWeese

In nearly every community of the nation the policy called Sustainable is the catch-all term for local planning programs, from water and energy controls to building codes and traffic planning. The term “sustainable” was first used in the 1987 report called “Our Common Future,’ issued by the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development (UNCED).  The term appeared in full force in 1992 in a United Nations initiative called Agenda 21.

According to proponents, the official definition of Sustainable Development is “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  In 1993, the UN further described its purpose, saying, “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.” The most often used phrase to describe Sustainable policy is that it’s a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.”

These are strong pronouncements concerning our future. How could such ideas be imposed? Who could coordinate such an effort to reorganize our entire society? There are many private non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and government agencies involved in creating and implementing the national sustainable policy program on the state and local levels. But there is one that seems to stand in the center of them all.

The American Planning Association (APA) is the premier planning group operating across the nation. It has a long history in the development process, thus is trusted by elected officials to be a responsible force as they spread the gospel of “common sense” community planning to assure healthy, happy neighborhoods from which all may benefit. Above all, the APA strenuously denies any connection to the United Nations or any silly conspiracy theories like the so-called Agenda 21! Everything the APA promotes, they assure us, is based on local input for local solutions to local development planning. Here is a solid group you can trust!

So, it’s interesting to note that the American Planning Association is part of the Planners Network. The network is officially run by a group called the Organization of Progressive Planners. According to the Network’s website, it’s “an association of professionals, activists, academics, and students involved in physical, social, economic, and environmental planning in urban and rural areas, who promote fundamental change in our political and economic systems.”

On a visit to the website PlannersNetwork.org, one will find in its Statement of Principles this quote: “We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources…and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society … because the free market has proven incapable of doing this.”

That statement is advocating redistribution of wealth, social justice and even aspects of psychological manipulation, also called social engineering. That, then, is what nearly every planning group in nearly every community advocate in their planning programs. It is clearly the official policy of the American Planning Association. Still the APA insists that its planning has nothing to do with Agenda 21, even though APA’s planning goals are the exact goals of Agenda 21, and its undated version called the 2030Agenda.

Tactics used by the American Planning Association

Okay, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. How do planning groups like the APA really control opinions and gain support for their planning ideas? How do they overcome the fears as they impose plans that destroy private property and change the entire structure of the community?

Here’s a recent example:

A few years ago, with great fanfare, the American Planning Association (APA) reported results of a survey the group had conducted, “Planning America: Perceptions and Priorities,” showing that the anti-Agenda 21 “crowd is slim.” Said the report, only 6% of those surveyed expressed opposition to Agenda 21, while 9% expressed support for Agenda 21 and 85%, “the vast majority of respondents, don’t know about Agenda 21/2030.”

Typically, APA is using the survey to formulate the image that opponents to Agenda 21/Sustainable Development are just a lunatic fringe with no standing and of no consequence in the “real” world. They continue to portray Agenda 21 as simply a 20- year-old idea, and just a suggestion that planners and local governments might consider.

However, a closer look at the full survey, plus additional APA reports reveal some interesting and, in some cases, astounding facts.

First the survey:

It was designed to show public support for “Planning.” This has become an obsession with the “planning community” because of the growing opposition to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development.

According to the APA, the findings of the Survey reveal that: only one-third believe their communities are doing enough to address economic situations; it says that very few Americans believe that market forces alone (the free market) improve the economy or encourage job growth; 84 % feel that their community is getting worse or staying the same; community planning is seen as needed by a wide majority of all demographics.

Those are pretty astounding findings. It looks like these “honest” planners have their fingers on the pulse of the nation. Well, not so fast. Let’s look at the actual questions the APA asked to get these results.

For example, Finding #4: Community planning is seen as needed by a wide majority of all demographics (79% agree; 9% disagree; and 12% don’t know). Wow!

But here is the actual question that was asked: “Generally, do you agree or disagree that your community could benefit from a community plan as defined above?” The definition provided in order to answer the question was this: “Community planning is a process that seeks to engage all members of a community to create more prosperous, convenient, equitable, healthy and attractive places for present and future generations.”

Asking the question in that manner is akin to holding up a picture of a rent-a-wreck car,  along side one of a Ferrari and asking which one would they want to drive. Give me the pretty one please – say 79%. In fact, in some actual planning meetings they do just that – hold up a picture of the downtown area depicting decaying, dreary buildings versus one of a shining, beautiful utopia, and they literally say, “which one do you want?” If the answer is (of course) the pretty one, then, YES, the community supports planning!

It’s obvious that the APA is playing word games with its surveys and definitions of planning. No wonder such an overwhelming majority answer in the affirmative to such questions. And, yes, maybe a lot of Americans don’t know what Agenda 21 really is. However, if the APA asked real questions that gave a solid clue as to the planning they actually have in mind, it’s fairly certain they would get a much different response – whether the person answering had ever heard of Agenda 21 or not.

For example, listed below are some sample questions that could help the APA take the real pulse of the community – if they wanted to be honest. I challenge the American Planning Association to ask

THESE questions in their next survey:

10 Real Questions Planners Should Ask the Public

1. How do the citizens feel about planning policy that forces them to move from their single- family homes with the garage for the car/s and a backyard for the kids to play with the neighbor kids? Do they want to live in a high-rise where they have to take their kids down 12 flights of stairs and walk to the designated play park? Do they still support such “Planning?”

2. How do the citizens feel about planning with a goal to eventually ban cars? This will be accomplished by planning programs that will narrow or eliminate roads, making it harder to drive cars, then eliminates parking spaces, then forces cars to “share the road” with bicycles and foot traffic as regulations are put in place to make it illegal to even pass this slower traffic? Do they still support such “Planning?”

3. How do the citizens feel about planning that enforces the creation of light- rail public transportation with a limited number of riders – yet cost overruns could triple or quadruple their taxes so much that it would literally be cheaper to buy each potential rider a brand new Rolls Royce, and even throw in a chauffeur for good measure? Do they want to live without a car that would take them wherever they want to go, be it the grocery or the beach, on their schedule instead of a government created train or bus schedule? Do they still support such “Planning?”

4. How do the citizens feel about planning with today’s mandatory smart meters that can overcharge users by 284%? What if such planning forced you to buy all new appliances which can be controlled and even turned off by the utility company without warning – all to enforce energy-use levels as required by arbitrary and unsubstantiated “planning standards,” Do they still support such “Planning?”

5. How do the citizens feel about planning that forces taxpayers to pay for plug-in stations for electric cars that hardly anyone wants or uses, for the specific purpose of eventually forcing people to buy electric cars? Do they still support such “Planning?”

6. How do the citizens feel about planning that creates non-elected boards, councils, and regional governments to enforce their UN-inspired policies, which actually diminish (if not eliminate) the power of the local officials they elected, severely reducing citizen input into policy? Do they still support such “Planning?”

7. How do the citizens feel about planning that forces all housing to conform to specific government design, including projects of multi-family buildings that are forced into their neighborhoods, resulting in the reduction of property values and freedom of choice as to where and how each may live? Do they still support such “Planning?”

8. How do the citizens feel about planning that enforces international building codes and international electrical and plumbing codes designed to require major retrofitting in existing and new buildings to comply, including enforcing every building to look alike, have the same setbacks and even the same trees and shrubs. The result is the creation of a one size fits all society, ignoring local needs and desires of the residents? Do they still support “Planning?”

9. How do the citizens feel about planning that forces rental property owners and landlords to take in tenants that can’t afford their properties, so that they are forced to accept far less income for their investment, which will mean they cannot afford to maintain the property and earn their living,  thereby destroying the rental industry and reducing housing choices? Do they still support “Planning?”

10. How do the citizens feel about planning that uses the power of eminent domain to take property and destroy small, locally owned businesses from lower income and ethnic neighborhoods, forcing the former residents into federal housing programs where their only option is to rent rather than having the chance to build equity and personal wealth through home ownership in the American Dream? Do they still have compassion for such “Planning?”

These are the realities of Sustainable Development planning programs, usually under the term Smart Growth. These policies are taking over local governments across the nation and the victims are mounting. Yet the planners ignore these results as they get fat off the federal grants that enforce the Sustainable plans.

Challenge the American Planning Association to stop whitewashing their plans into sounding like innocent, non-intrusive local ideas for community development. Ask the questions so that they reflect the real consequences of the plans, and then see if the 85% now are so eager to ignore the effects of Sustainable Development. The number one truth about the Sustainable policies that the APA imposes on every community is that none of it is LOCAL!

There is only one right approach for a community to come together to discuss and solve common problems: open discussion, honest debates and votes, and above all, a full concentration on the protection of private property rights as the ultimate decider.

This article is taken from information included in Tom DeWeese’s new book, “Sustainable, The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property, and Individuals.” Book details and ordering may be found at www.sustainabledevelopment.com

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/04/04/a-challenge-to-the-american-planning-association/?mc_cid=6366d56868&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Jesse Lee Peterson: How Sharpton exploits Stephon Clark’s death for political clout

How Sharpton exploits Stephon Clark’s death for political clout
Jesse Lee Peterson accuses ‘race hustler’ of inciting riots,’ seeking fame, money, power

by Jesse Lee Peterson

What happens when a race hustler is allowed to incite riots, destroy lives and is never held accountable? He continues to do it over and over again. Case in point:

Stephon Clark, 22, was shot and killed by Sacramento police responding to reports of a suspect attempting to break into a home and vehicles. A video shows police chasing Clark on foot. They repeatedly tell Clark to stop. Then officers shout, “Gun! Gun! Gun!” before shots are fired. The item Clark was holding turned out to be a cell phone. Clark was shot dead on March 18.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

The Sacramento police chief is black, and one of the officers involved in the shooting is black, but Al Sharpton still rushed into town to make it about race. Sharpton spoke at Clark’s funeral, and, without knowing the facts, he blamed the officers.

Sharpton told reporters, “There is no way that we can understand why an unarmed young man in his grandmother’s backyard, five feet from where she sleeps, was shot at 20 times and killed.”

Sharpton said police could have knocked on the door or called for backup.

Why was the immediate thing to draw lethal force?” Sharpton asked.

Stephon Clark’s brother, Stevante Clark, has been everywhere in the days since his brother’s death. Along with Black Lives Matter activists, they’ve faced off with police and have created chaos in Sacramento.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg (another weak liberal Democrat) held a press conference saying policies can prevent shootings like this. Angry black protesters showed up at a Sacramento City Hall to protest Clark’s death. Stevante Clark interrupted the city hall meeting, rushed the city council’s dais and jumped on it, chanting “Stephon Clark!” The meeting erupted into chaos. When the mayor called for order, Stevante told him to “shut the f— up!” Protesters then marched on the streets and shut down major freeways and blocked Sacramento Kings fans from attending a game.

According to Clark family friend Jamilia Land, “Stevante has post-traumatic stress disorder.” Land said, “He has lost two of his brothers to violence … and he is starting to lose his mind. He needs help.”

We know! But this didn’t stop Sharpton from embracing this out-of-control thug. Sharpton said the shooting death of Stephon Clark has “brought us back” and this is a national issue.

Sharpton loves these cases. He has built his career exploiting racial tensions and inciting riots. He’s been waiting for an issue like this to catapult him back into the limelight.

But without a race-baiter like Barack Obama as president to help him, Sharpton is not getting the national attention he wants. The fake news media are doing their part to push the story, but Sharpton wants to drag President Donald Trump into this mess.

Read more at WND: http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/how-sharpton-exploits-stephon-clarks-death-for-political-clout/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Freedom and Firearms

Freedom and Firearms– “…governing authorities therefore do not have any inherent right in themselves to rule the rest of us.”

by Bill Lockwood

This is about self-government. Do we have an inalienable right before God to determine our own government? To organize our own governing principles by which we live? The foundational platform of our entire system of political rule is the concept that human beings, all persons, have been created in the image of God and due to that inherent individual value in each one of us, we have a right to manage our own political future. From that single point of reference–the very core of our governing values–that we have a right to manage our own affairs– we have delegated to certain representatives which we call government. Government owns no more authority than we have delegated to it.

The opposite side of this coin is that governing authorities therefore do not have any inherent right in themselves to rule the rest of us. Their rule is delegated to them by us and goes so far as we allow. This is why we vote. They must have our approval. If this be not true, then let’s have a king to decide who gets what and who doesn’t. Who lives and who does not.

This also means that legislators, law enforcement, as well as the military have duties and responsibilities that inherently belong to ‘we the people.’ We have simply “delegated” to them the power that they have for protection of an orderly society and to fight enemies, foreign and domestic. We cannot delegate that which we do not have.

What does this mean to firearms? The 2d Amendment was not written in order to “give” us the right to anything. It is a part of self-determination and self-government. We the people composed it to remind governing authorities that they could not touch this sacred right, nor any of the others that are mentioned or not even mentioned (9th and 10th Amendments). These rights are God-bestowed and belong to us by nature.

To suggest therefore, that “we the people” do not have a right to own firearms is to suggest we have no more right to self-government. We no longer have a right to determine our own destiny. Instead, it is to say that we must have managers set over us to determine our course. It is to state that “we the people” have no right to rule ourselves.

John Paul Stevens

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for a repeal of the 2d Amendment. In a column last Tuesday in The New York Times, Stevens admonished Americans to “respect” the demonstrations for Gun Control. Added to that he encouraged “the demonstrators” to “demand a repeal of the 2d Amendment.” That amendment, he added, “is a relic of the 18th century.”

Justice Stevens shows exactly what is wrong with America. He does not believe we have an inherent right to govern ourselves. What’s more: this abysmal ignorance of the fundamentals of American governance sat on the Supreme Court and helped decide the course of our nation. Adding to the insulting statements he made in which he basically denied our right to self-government, he indicated that during the years that Warren Burger served as chief justice from 1969 to 1986, no judge, “as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment.” So the Supreme Court itself does not believe “we the people” have an inherent right to self-government.

Shocking, but not so. Exactly what Constitutionalists have been complaining about for decades. We have been crammed into a progressive top-down government-control system unheard of in the halls of freedom. Progressive lies have turned the Constitution on its head and up-ended the very foundation of liberty before God. Socialistic thinking has become the cancer on our society.

Justice Stevens should have been reading the Founding Fathers who crafted the 2d Amendment instead of the liberal law professors who filled him with progressive lies. Every single Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) was designed to demonstrate the limited ability of government to manage, not the limited ability of people to enjoy their freedoms. It is a “thou shalt not” touch list. If Stevens does not understand that, he does not understand the building blocks of our system.

Richard Henry Lee of VA stated, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Note that Lee connected firearms to freedom. Power rests with the people; not to elitists who suppose they are above us.

Samuel Adams: “The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Why this? Because daddy government allows people to have firearms? Absolutely not. Because I have a right to determine my own destiny, to protect my freedom and my family—even if by force against an all-powerful out-of-control government. God gave me this right.

Patrick Henry added, “The great object is that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun.” George Mason, also of Virginia, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British government of having a plot to “disarm the people.” Why? As Mason stated, that was the best and most effective way to enslave them.” This is still true.

Justice Joseph Story served on the Supreme Court from 1811 until 1845. He published his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in 1833. In these he considered the right to keep and bear arms as “the palladium of the liberties of the Republic” which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizens of our nation to overthrow dictatorial powers should that ever occur. This is why the Second Amendment reminds us that every law-abiding individual has the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment is a “relic of the 18th century”, as Stevens stated, only if freedom is also such a relic. Apparently, it is with the Supreme Court of his day as well as with many who are pouring into the streets stupidly to protest our right to self-government. The lines are being drawn.

Civil Liberties?

Civil Liberties?“Civil Liberties is by political scientists and legal experts defined as the limitation on government power …”

by Bill Lockwood

Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan signed a bill into law that bans “material support or resources” for warrantless federal surveillance programs (reported by the tenthamendmentcenter.com). The bill originally was introduced in the Michigan House by Rep. Martin Howrylak (R-Troy) last spring (HB4430).

The new law prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from assisting, participating with, or providing “material support or resources, to a federal agency to enable it to collect, or to facilitate in the collection or use of a person’s electronic data” unless certain conditions apply. The Right to Privacy is to be sacrosanct.

Howrylak commented that this bill “safeguards the fundamental rights of all Michigan residents, who are guaranteed protection of their property and privacy rights by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

The Fourth Amendment, which some Constitutionalists argue, is the most abused portion of the law by government entities, is the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Civil Liberties

Civil Liberties is by political scientists and legal experts defined as the limitation on government power intended to protect the liberty of the citizen. These rights may not be legally trampled upon by government powers.

To get a clearer picture, step back a moment. The entire framework of our Constitution was crafted to control our government. To be a governor on the powers-that-be was the very intention of having a written Constitution.

Before publishing it, many of the framers, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason, refused to sign the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights be attached that pointedly specified once more a “thou shalt not” list to the Federal Government. This attachment was finally made and the entire compass of our Charter is characterized by Thomas Jefferson as “chains that bind” leaders of government from wayward legislation, which he called “mischief.”

Therefore, America legislated a limited government in order that the individual might enjoy the maximum freedom God intended for him or her. All this because history is replete with freedoms lost or removed from people by their own governing authorities—elected or not.

Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights, or the First Ten Amendments, is not designed to be an exhaustive list of liberties to be retained by the people and the states, but to recognize some of the basic God-bestowed liberties that the founding generation recognized would be necessary to safeguard.

That it is not to be an exhaustive list is seen clearly from the 9th Amendment which basically states that all rights belong to the people and if we (the writers of the Constitution) fail to mention some of these liberties in the amendments themselves, it does not mean the federal government can remove these either!

The 10th Amendment re-phrased the same, except from a different angle. The states and the people retained all rights and freedoms unless it has been specifically delegated by the Constitution to the States or to the People. One cannot even pretend that America has been faithful to these bold laws.

The famed 5th Amendment prohibited the government from depriving persons of life, liberty or property without due process of law, which simply meant there must be government fair play in the legal and judicial process. It assumes the fundamental idea that I myself am to be regarded as a unique creation of God and that my property is an extension of myself. Further, I am to have the presumption of innocence if charged with a crime.

To witness how far our leaders, who are tolerated by the voting populace, are from these basic concepts of liberty, consider this amazing statement from Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), which she tweeted in December in the wake of Trump’s Tax Reform. Pelosi’s tweet, before she removed it, gives a window into the socialist soul, which is in direct opposition to basic liberty.

I am disgusted with ‘President’ Trump allowing people to keep more of the money they earn. It is this type of wide spread theft of public resources that keeps American from being great ‘Mr. President.’ Dec. 20, 2017.

The masses, excluding the ruling elite such as Pelosi herself, who revel in their wealth, are not entitled to private property at all. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as “private property” with this view. Instead, “we the people” and all of our possessions are merely “public resources” to be used at the whim of the rulers! No such thing as individual rights from God. This goes a long way explaining why the Left so vehemently hates Trump. Rolling back the leviathan socialist government is not easy when this is the mindset in Washington, DC.

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects people against illegal searches and seizures by governing authorities. The Founding generation had experienced a “train of abuses” of their persons and properties by the Crown of England by what were called “Writs of Assistance.” These were generic “search warrants” which allowed the government to engage in fishing expeditions to discover smuggled goods among the colonists’ possessions. James Otis in 1761 referred to them as a “form of tyranny.”

That we have practically lost this liberty to an all-powerful manager named Uncle Sam goes without saying. The 16th Amendment, the Income Tax Law, actually shreds the Fourth Amendment, by allowing the government to search through all of private affairs and financial transactions during the year, and shifts the burden of proof upon the citizen that he or she has not committed a crime!

The American taxpayer is now faced with the onus of “proof”—which by nature ought to be borne by the accuser (in this case, the government)—and forces him to be a “defendant”. This in spite of the fact that the Bill of Rights requires the accuser to have “probable cause” against me. The IRS is the enforcement arm of this tyranny one can understand how the Lois Lerner’s of the world can transform the tax-collection agency in America into a despotic piece of equipment by targeting conservatives. It is not a coincidence that this liberty to be “free from warrantless searches” was lost during the period of Progressive (read, Socialist) Woodrow Wilson.

NDAA

The sweeping National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which funds military spending, allows the United States to capture and detain “enemy combatants”—including Americans, indefinitely. A clear violation of the 6th Amendment which guarantees a speedy trial before an impartial jury to American citizens.

Because we are continually involved in a “War on Terror” those arrested can be designated “enemy combatants” by whichever administration is in power—perhaps those who have “guns and religion.” That this involves a clear violation of the Bill of Rights can be seen in the first iteration of the bill in 2012. The Obama Administration threatened to veto the bill if wording in one of the bills’ sections designed to protect American citizens was not removed.

Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta sent a letter to Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) stating that adding such wording to protect the citizen “restrains the Executive Branch’s options to utilize, in a swift and flexible fashion, all the counter-terrorism tools that are now legally available” (as reported by Steve Byas, The New American, 3-19-18).

Shades of King George! Now we understand why Gov. Rick Snyder signed the Michigan bill into law which forbids warrantless searches via federal surveillance programs. The trampling of our Constitution by the Federal Government, which Founding Charter was designed to restrain, is fast underway. It has not changed with a Republican Administration.

The Christian and Politics

The Christian and Politics“Politics in America are a part of religion.”

by Bill Lockwood

Charles G. Finney was an old-school Presbyterian preacher revivalist who flourished in the pulpits of America during the period of 1825-1835. His leadership in what has been called the “Second Great Awakening” reminds American citizens today that what is needed is another awakening and that it is our Christian duty to influence the direction of our country. Seeing that many preachers and worshippers alike are avoiding the conflicts of our culture, listen to what Finney he has to say regarding confronting sin and the political arena:

The church must take right ground in regard to politics … the time has come that Christians must vote for honest men, and take consistent ground in politics, or the Lord will curse them. They must be honest men themselves, and instead of voting for a man because he belongs to their party … they must find out whether he is honest and upright, and fit to be trusted….And if he will give his vote only for honest men, the country will be obliged to have upright rulers … God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, … unless the church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God.

Exactly. Politics in America are a part of religion. According to Webster’s 1828 original dictionary definition of “Politics,” it is a “the Science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state …”

One cannot logically separate religion and politics. Politics is the extension of our ethical beliefs, which in turn are founded upon religious concepts. If Christians abandon the political arena, irreligious humanists lay the planks of secular godless government.

Regarding the foundations of our political system, Finney went on to say:

It seems sometimes as if the foundations of the nation were becoming rotten, and Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you, he does see it, and he will bless or curse this nation, according to the course they take.

But our ethics in America are so weak and anemic that some wish to belong to a political party whose Party Platform includes the murder of unborn children (abortion) and the enshrining of sodomite marriages (homosexuality) as some kind of “right.” Yet, these wish to be known as “Christians.” God will not so tolerate the prostitution of the name of Christ by such ungodliness.

That Christians need to participate in the political arena, consider something else.

The Bedrock of Family

America is a “family-oriented” culture. “Mom, Dad and the kids” has been the hallmark of community life since America’s inception. From whence comes this cultural norm? It is solely due to the influence of one book—The Bible.

First, the woman is honored only by biblical teaching. “Honor thy father and mother” (Exod. 20:12) demands equal respect from children to the female partner in a marriage as well as to the male. “Ye shall fear every man his mother and father” Moses warned in Lev. 19:13. The New Testament is just as clear. “Children, obey your parents” (Eph. 6:1).

For those who long for “other cultures”—just which one honors the woman as does holy Scripture? Islam? Go to Muslim countries and witness the woman who cannot be seen on the streets except four paces behind her husband, or whose word, by Muhammed’s edict, is not counted as worthy as a man’s in a court of law.

Christianity’s elevation of womanhood is particularly noteworthy due to the fact that this week the world celebrated International Woman’s Day. The United Nation website has the following pertaining to this:

Over the years, the UN and its technical agencies have promoted the participation of women as equal partners with men in achieving sustainable development, peace, security, and full respect for human rights. The empowerment of women continues to be a central feature of the UN’s efforts to address social, economic and political challenges across the globe.

In view of the fact that the UN is primarily controlled by Muslim nations wherein women have no rights as compared to a man, this is a blatant propaganda statement. Perhaps people should once again turn to the God of the Bible.

Second, men and women are equal before God. “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, no male or female, for we are all one man in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Equal access to God for men and women. Paul may here be alluding to Genesis 1:27 wherein it is stated that God made mankind “male and female.” Note in the Genesis passage that both man and woman were created “in God’s image” (1:26).

Third, God provides honor to the woman as well as the man by arranging a monogamous marriage relationship and rejecting polygamy. When Jesus was asked pertaining to marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:3-9) our Lord answered by recalling to our minds God’s original plan wherein God brought the woman unto the man and it was written, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” One man and one woman. The duty of husbands therefore is to “love his wife” (Eph. 5:25) and the wife is to honor her husband (Eph. 5:22).

The bedrock of family life is squarely rooted in the God’s Word and the true honoring of womanhood is rooted in biblical concepts. It is no accident that inimical forces in America such as the ACLU have as their agenda not only the institutionalizing of homosexual marriage, but polygamy as well. It is an all-out assault on our God-inspired biblical foundations. To save what is left of our Godly heritage, Christians need to engage in the cultural war.

What we need is another “Great Awakening” in America in which the family is honored and Christians participate in the political arena in accordance with their creed, the Bible.

Annie E. Casey Foundation, Broward County, Bart Lubow and Nicolas Cruz

Annie E. Casey Foundation, Broward County, Bart Lubow and Nicolas Cruz“Chaos in the streets is what socialists have always wanted.”

by Bill Lockwood

What is going on in Broward County, Florida? The story is deeper and wider than most might imagine. After the horrific shooting by suspect Nikolas Cruz, a troubled teenager who had been expelled from school for “disciplinary reasons,” national attention is focused upon gun control. An easy “target” for the thoughtless. Much more sinister, however, and much more to the point is the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) program that was put in place several years ago in Broward County by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and its leader, a former SDS member (Students for Democratic Society), Bart Lubow.

In an article posted January 5, 2017, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which began in 1948 and is headquartered in Baltimore, MD, showcases one of its successful “detention alternative” pilot programs — Broward County, Florida. The specific project, JDAI, has as its goal is to reduce “incarceration rates” among juveniles—especially kids of color and ethnic minorities.

Lubow, officially the “Senior Associate and Initiative Manager” of The Annie E. Casey Foundation, touts that the JDAI program in Broward County saves taxpayers $5 million by reducing “detention population” sixty-five per cent. This, it is said, “without any sacrifice of public safety.”

Lubow’s JDAI program began in 1992 “to reduce he number of children inappropriately incarcerated; to minimize the number of youth who fail to appear in court or commit delinquent acts; to redirect public funds towards successful alternatives; and to improve the conditions of confinement.”

How to achieve these goals? Bottom line: Law enforcement is pressured to stop incarcerating teenagers of color by de-classifying their offenses or ignoring them. Student arrests therefore drop and juvenile delinquency is decreased. Who can argue with statistics?

However, like the quota system in hiring, the JDAI program that Broward County Schools has been involved in only changes statistics—not real behavior—as the Nicolas Cruz shooting amply demonstrates. Now you know why the Sheriff’s office in Broward County refused to arrest a young man who had publicly threatened so many that even his fellow students at school speculated that he would become a school shooter. Let’s back up for an overview.

Bart Lubow and Social Justice

Bart Lubow has been a left-wing radical for many years. Once a member of Students for Democratic Society (SDS), a front-group for communism which terrorist Bill Ayers helped to found, Lubow was even at one time deported from the Philippines for attempting to distribute communist anti-government literature.  However, like the ascendency of other Marxist-oriented agitators during the Obama Administration, Lubow became influential in various states, even conservative ones such as Texas. 

The JDAI program specifically states that it is to “require states to work to reduce the disproportionate representation of minority juveniles in secured facilities.” The goal of the JDAI is the revamp the detention and incarceration procedures in the United States along “social justice” lines.

Social Justice

Social Justice has little to do with actual “justice” but focuses attention upon “outcomes.”  Decrying disparities in society, social justice advocates cry continually about unequal distribution of properties, of monies, of college degrees, and even jail sentences in America.

As Walter Williams puts it, “Outcomes of human relationships are often seen as criteria for the presence or absence of justice or fairness.  Outcomes frequently used as barometers of justice and fairness are: race and sex statistics on income and unemployment, income distribution in general, occupational distribution, wealth ownership, and other measures of socio-economic status.”  In other words, no attention at all is paid to any underlying reason for differences, it is simply assumed that different outcomes among people is the result of crass prejudices or favoritism.

If, for example, wealth distribution is uneven among various races of people, “social justice” demands the assumption that foul play must be involved.  So also, if as is the case, a greater percentage of a minority population is incarcerated than is the case with white America, the automatic conclusion among socialists is that injustices have been committed by “white society” against people of color.

Differences among people or subcultures as a possible cause is never considered as that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do. The underlying assumption by Lubow is that the American system of justice is “profoundly racist” given the statistics. And for socialists on the rise, that is all that is required—show disparity in statistics. No examination of personal choices, no study of various cultural differences between races, no time wasted pondering divergent habits or pressures among minority populations—simply announce that America continues to be a “racist” state.

For obvious reasons Lubow does not seek to show that disparities between races in other areas are also caused by “white racism.” For example, the out-of-wedlock birth rates for different racial and ethnic groups in 2008 was just over 40%.  The breakdown of that statistic shows that among white non-Hispanic women, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 28.6 percent while among Hispanics it was 52.5 percent and among blacks the figure jumps to a startling 72.3 percent.

Consider abortion.  In 2005 the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is almost 5 times that for white women. Similar “disparities” are found in almost every measurable statistic.  It is clearly evident that minority cultures are fostering immoral lifestyles to an alarming degree.  Yet, when it comes to discrepancies among incarceration rates, Lubow wishes us to believe that sub-culture has nothing to do with it, but that it is the result of “white racist attitudes.” That is what a good communist would do. Drive that “racist” wedge.

Lubow on “Structural Racism”

In a 2007 speech before the Chicago Council on Urban Affairs, Lubow laments the “grossly disproportionate representation of people of color” in the criminal or juvenile justice system.  That 30% of African American males born “into this society will spend part of their lives in prison” should be reason enough to infuriate Americans, says he.  “More than two-thirds of youth confined in secure detention nationally are youth of color” is demonstration to Lubow that our nation “mocks our claims to freedom and justice for all and, therefore, undermine[s] the very fabric upon which this society is supposedly founded.”  “White people,” Lubow pontificates, “have been and still are the purveyors of racial injustice.”  The blanket indictment against white society is that “white people accrue and rely upon” privileges “by virtue of skin color.”

To remedy racist America, JDAI has begun to implement core strategies “through racial equity lens.” In other words, force diverse population representation in incarceration facilities. Further, like the communist strategy of manipulating American citizens to their own demise, Lubow preaches that it is “white responsibility” to take on the issue with great fervor to change the system. We must create a “level playing field.”

So, for the citizen who thought that racial hiring quotas were an assault on real fairness and individual responsibility, not to mention a vast overreach of federal government, much more seems in store regarding incarceration rates, if Lubow and the Annie E. Casey foundation have their way.

And if Americans thought that the financial market fiasco, caused in part by federal officials leaning on lending institutions to provide loans to low-income persons who would not otherwise qualify, was a total disaster to the Housing Market, wait until our streets become more populated with criminal elements because of “racial quotas” that govern incarceration. Chaos in the streets is what socialists have always wanted. Old SDS members have not changed their stripes.

This is exactly what has occurred in Broward County, Florida. Nikolas Cruz was a threat to society. Instead of local law enforcement handling their own problems as it deems necessary, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office bought into the JDAI lie.

More frightening still is the fact that the JDAI program will not likely go away quietly. With continual Justice Department backing and financial grants flowing to various counties, the Casey Foundation now boasts that its JDAI program is already followed by over 300 counties nationwide. Neither is it likely to go away easily. It is hard-wired into George Soros’ Tides Foundation as well as scores of other ultra-liberal policy-changing clubs, and thus has deep pockets.

Tom DeWeeese: Sustainable Development-Code for Reorganizing Human Society

Sustainable Development-Code for Reorganizing Human Society 

by Tom DeWeese

It’s in every community in the nation. We hear it talked about in county commission meetings and state legislatures. It’s even used in advertising as a positive practice for food processing and auto sales. It’s used as the model for building materials, power sources and transportation policy. It’s sold as the bold visionary plan for the future. The nation is being transformed under the banner of “Sustainable Development.”

We are assured by elected officials that Sustainable Development is simply a tool or a guideline to help direct the carefully-planned growth of our cities and rural areas while protecting our natural resources for future generations. “We must guard against a chaotic, unregulated growth in our cities,” say its earnest proponents as they sell the concept through familiar, non-threatening words and beautiful pictures.

Citizens are assured by their community leaders that all such plans are just local, local, local, created with the participation of the whole community. Sustainable Development policy, they say, is just an environmental land conservation policy, a sensible development policy. Sustainable…what’s wrong with that?

Read Tom Deweese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

As usual, the answers are hidden in the details. Are we hearing the truth? What are the consequences of the policy that has taken over every level of government? Are there hidden dangers most just can’t see? Or, as its proponents claim, is opposition to Sustainable Development really just a silly, overblown conspiracy theory found in a twenty-year-old meaningless document called Agenda 21?

The UN’s Brundtland Commission on Global Governance described Sustainable Development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future.” It’s just common sense to assure we don’t overuse our resources, say proponents. If everyone will do their part, we can achieve total sustainability.

A couple of years later, in 1992, at the UN’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates approved a plan describing in great detail how to meet those future needs. They issued a document called Agenda 21, which the UN labeled as a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The UN sold Agenda 21 as a “soft law” policy, meaning it was an idea that nations would need to take up and impose through their own mechanisms.

To that end, in 1993, newly elected President Bill Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Serving on the Council were the representative of nearly every federal agency, along with representatives of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) who had helped to write Agenda 21 on the international level. Also on the Council were representatives of major global corporations. Their task was to create the policies to turn the Agenda 21 goals into official government policy and provide the means to fund it.

The President’s Council released a report describing its Sustainable Development goals, saying, “Sustainable communities encourage people to work together to create healthy communities where natural resources and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health care is accessible, and all citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives.”    

It all sounds pretty neat. Nothing to fear here! It sounds like Utopia is truly ours for the taking. Again, what are the details? How do we put such ideas into action? What are the consequences? Is the environment better off? Are we better off? Well, let’s take each of these glowing ideas one at a time and just see where it all leads! CONTINUE READING

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2017/07/10/barbarians-at-the-school-house-door/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

If the Foundations Be Destroyed: What Can the Righteous Do?

If the Foundations Be Destroyed: What Can the Righteous Do?If America’s foundations of God, Truth, and Morality are not re-laid, our society will be lost.

by Bill Lockwood

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3). The foundations of which David speaks are those of truth, virtue, and morality.

In the wake of terrible tragedies such as occurred in Parkland, Florida last week, it is helpful, though painful, to examine our entire cultural malaise. America has aborted more living babies just this morning through Planned Parenthood than lives have been taken by mass shootings at High Schools. The message: Life is meaningless.

Our entire educational outlook regarding the origin of man is humanistic and evolutionary. We came from rocks and dirt and human life is of no more value than an animal in your backyard. Violence has become the common fare in movies and music entertainment. Pornography continues to feed upon children as erotic material is readily available to anyone who has access to the internet.

Young people in mass are violating marijuana laws in a culture in which, it has become so commonplace that it is difficult to find a student who has not at least once smoked weed. This, in spite of laws banning weed. Respect for law and order, the Christian foundation for orderly society, has evaporated.

Unwed mothers and illicit sexual behavior is becoming standard. The state has encouraged this by its financial assistance. Civil government is replacing the father in the home as that basic civil institution is unraveling before our eyes.

Psalm 11:3

David of the Old Testament, later to be king of Israel, decried a similar situation—perhaps not to the same alarming degree as we are experiencing– in his day. Saul was currently king when David, the sweet Psalmist of Israel, composed the poem of Psalm 11. The maladministration of Saul’s court actually punished the upright in Israel (Psalm 11:2).

David wondered, If the very administration of government–which is designed to punish the wrong, protect the good—is up-ended, what is our recourse? The civil state was unhinged and out of course (Psalm 75:3; 82:5). If these foundations are eroded, there is nothing that remains but a turning to God.

If America’s foundations of God, Truth, and Morality are not re-laid, our society will be lost.

In 1889, John Fiske, who himself was not a Christian, wrote The Beginnings of New England. Pertaining to our founding as a nation he observed, “To keep the sacred flame of liberty alive required such a rare and wonderful concurrence of conditions that, … had it not been for the Puritans, political liberty would probably have disappeared from the world.” Political liberty in America is based upon religious concepts that derive from Christianity. But it is Christianity that we continue to ban as readily as many wish to ban weapons.

Henry Campbell Black, in his Handbook of American Historical Law (1927) shows us the place of Christianity in the fundamental laws of our land.

that Christianity is a part of the law of the land is true in this sense, that many of our best civil and social institutions, and the most important to be preserved in a free and civilized state, are founded upon the Christian religion, or upheld and strengthened by its observance; that the whole purpose and policy of the law assume that we are a nation of Christians, and while tolerance is the principle in religious matters, the laws recognize that the existence of that system of faith, and our institutions are based upon that assumption.

Again,

The prevalence of sound morality among the people is essential to the preservation of their liberties and the permanence of their institutions, and to the success and prosperity of government, and the morality which is to be fostered and encouraged by the state is Christian morality, and not such as might exist in the suppositions ‘statute of nature’ or in a pagan country… that which lies within the jural sphere, and which is enforced by positive law, is Christian morality.

Perhaps it is time to restructure our foundations. The encouragement by the state of Christian morality. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

If You See Something, Say Something?

If You See Something, Say Something?“Our nation once more grieves the senseless taking of life.

by Bill Lockwood

What a tragedy in Parkland, FL! Nicolas Cruz, a 19-year-old orphan who had been kicked out of school, walks into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School with an AR-15 and calmly murders 17 people. It has been labeled the “deadliest school shooting” since Newtown, Connecticut more than five years ago. Our nation once more grieves the senseless taking of life.

At the risk of being “political” one cannot but wonder about the continual refrain from the Governor of Florida on down to local law enforcement and school officials—“if you see something, say something.” This is not to voice opposition to that but to throw a major question mark over our resolve to be consistent. In turn, this should make us question whether or not our society is serious about it at all.

From the time President Trump was inaugurated he has been opposed—not simply with political ideas from the left—but with hateful violent-laden threats that are publicly made. “If you see something or hear something—say something?” Ok. Here goes.

Celebrity Kathy Griffin posed with a shocking “beheading” photograph of President Trump. It was fake, of course, but it was published to influence people to violence. Instagram or Snap Chat will not need to be checked, for this was out there for everyone to see.

Pop-singer Madonna publicly threatened to “blow up the White House” while speaking at a “Woman’s March” last year. Her “radical feminism” contains dire predictions of violence against our Commander-in-Chief. She said she was “ready to shake up the world.” Her influence over millions of young people is in order to “rebellion.”

Rapper Snoop Dogg “shoots” Trump in a video production. Living down to his “rap culture” Snoop Dogg pulls the trigger on a “fake gun” mimicking the murder of our president. That the music industry has major impact in our world is without question.

Oscar-winning actor Robert DeNiro unleashed a profanity-laced verbal assault against President Trump saying, “I’d like to punch him in the face.” Real role model, that one.

And how about the Shakespeare in the Park production that stabs President Trump to death in their performance of Julius Caesar las summer in 2017? The brutally violent play glamorized the murder of our president and the actors who participated we are hereby calling out since we are to “say something” if we “see something.” The theater defended the production even after it sparked outrage.

David Simon, the creator of the HBO drama The Wire commented that if President Trump fires Robert Mueller, then “pick up a ‘blank’ brink. That’s all that’s left to you.” That was published on Twitter. This incitement to violence by another prominent figure should be investigated.

Mickey Rourke and Lea DeLaria, both prima donna actors, threated to beat President Trump with baseball bats. The latter included “every Republican” as well as Donald Trump. Her suggestion was, “[O]r pick up a baseball bat and take out every ‘blank’ republican and independent I see.” This should qualify as something of substance in our society in which when we are to take threats seriously.

There is at least one public threat against our President whose perpetrator was contacted by the Secret Service—or their record label was. Rappers YG and Nipsy Hussle released a “song” in 2016 in which were the lyrics, “I like white folks, but I don’t like you/ All the n*ggas in the hood wanna fight you/ Surprised El Chapo ain’t tried to snipe you/ Surprised the Nation of Islam ain’t tried to find you/ …”

Marilyn Manson kills Trump in a music video. Once again, Trump is depicted as decapitated lying in a pool of blood. Larry Wilmore “jokes” about suffocating Trump with a pillow. Sarah Silverman suggested overthrowing the Trump Administration with military force. And on and on it goes.

Many other nationally-known figures could be cited who have encouraged our youth to resort to acts of violence against Trump, Republicans, Christians, etc. All of these unprincipled vents are public record designed to prompt action. If we are serious about speaking up when something is questionable, why would we give a pass to these celebrities?

I personally opposed Barack Obama, labeling him a Marxist in philosophy and action. But I know of no conservative Christian who openly threatened him in the mainstream of America. The Bible teaches that it is the ideas, concepts, and philosophies against which we are to war (Eph. 6:10-12; 2 Cor. 10:4). To have frank discussions pertaining to one’s agenda is far different from calling for violence against a person.

So, in the wake of Parkland, FL; by all means—check out the social footprint of potential perpetrators of crime. Report Facebook rants, Instagram threats, Snap-Chat warning-signs, whatever. But quit giving celebrities a pass. We are sending elementary grade-school children to Juvenile Detention of they simply draw a picture of a gun or knife. When a Madonna threatens to “blow up the White House” or a Snoop Dogg mimics murdering President Trump, perhaps a timely arrest will stifle violent-laced dissent in others.

« Older Entries