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.

Stockton, CA; Another Test Run for Socialism?

Stockton, CA; Another Test Run for Socialism?-“…why should Americans be concerned with continual forays into socialistic experiments?

by Bill Lockwood

Bankrupt Stockton, California is to be the first US city to guarantee a “universal basic income” to low-income residents. Stockton has double the state average of unemployment, and half of those working earn minimum wage, reports G. Edward Griffin in NeedtoKnow News. Michael Tubbs, the 26-year-old Mayor who is leading the plan to give low-income families $500 per month, said “I think it will make people work better and smarter and harder and also be able to do things like spend time with their families because we’re not robots.”

The plan is apparently mostly funded by The Economic Security Project, which is contributing $1 million to the first-year pilot program. Families that receive the money will be monitored to “see what they do with the money” and “how it affects self-esteem and identity.”

The Economic Security Project is co-led by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, last year said such a scheme could mark a “new contract” between government and citizenry.

Oakland, CA is also thinking of a broad welfare program. The city plans to give about $1,500 a month to a handful of welfare recipients. The goal is to study how financial health affects low-income families.

What of Guaranteed Income?

Besides the fact that our Constitution absolutely outlawed such a state—but who cares what the Constitution actually says–why should Americans be concerned with continual forays into socialistic experiments?

First, America already is a welfare-state. Close to three-quarters of our federal budget is due to government-run social welfare spending. As a matter of fact, when looked at in total, per capita, America is the second-largest welfare state in the world. Inclusive in this is housing, health care, pension benefits, and public education and a host of other expenditures (Tim Worstall, Forbes, 10-5-2015).

Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, argues similarly. “Contrary to conventional wisdom … noted scholars Irwin Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater, and Timothy Smeeding conclude in Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader? That ‘Welfare state programs are quite large in the United States.’”

According to Politifact.com, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collectively “account for a majority of federal spending.” Added to that is spending on food and agriculture and the percentage continue to rise while military spending, which is the only constitutionally authorized spending among these categories, is 16 per cent.

The point of this is simple. American already is a welfare state—the second largest in the world. Many students in high schools are living in subsidized housing, eating free or reduced lunches, living on welfare checks, bearing or fathering multiple children—all at the taxpayers’ expense.

And the social problems associated with each of these federal expenditures are increasing, not decreasing, because the basic truth is: the more money one throws at a particular problem causes that problem to grow.

Second, guaranteed income ignores man’s ability to make life choices and allowing people to bear the fruit of their choices. This is not to say that everything negative that occurs to people is always the direct result of personal mistakes, for that is certainly not the case. However, God has so constructed the world so that negative consequences are built into the system to encourage better selections in the future.

If two young men in jail for illegal drug use are both on the bottom of the income ladder, what are their choices when getting out? One man, Bob, chooses to continue a life of illicit behavior, perhaps ruining his health, bumping along on the bottom of society with multiple arrests, fathering several children, and looking like he is fifty when he is only thirty.

The second young man, Joe, decides to change his life when he is in his early twenties. He cleans up his life, his associates, and gets a job. A low-income job to be sure—but he is working and living above the law. He studies at night taking courses in college. After several years his sacrifices begin to pay-off. He lands a great job when he is thirty; buys a house, a car, is happily married with children.

There is absolutely income inequality between Bob and Joe. Now comes in Big Brother Government to “adjust” the “inequities” between Bob and Joe. Who will be in favor of forcibly taking from Joe to give to Bob? Their life-situations are primarily due to life-choices. What government cannot do—even in Stockton, CA—is make proper determinations as to why people are in poverty. It may be that Bob needs to suffer his consequences enough to encourage him to take Joe’s route.

Third, Stockton’s pilot program is flawed because it ignores the biblical model of man. It is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine which results when leaders drink from the wells of materialism and atheism instead of God’s Word. God designed work for man in which to find self-esteem and satisfaction—not a guaranteed amount of money regardless of how we spend our time.

Solomon wrote “There is nothing better for a man than he should … find enjoyment in his toil” (Ecclesiastes 2:24). This is “God’s gift to man that everyone should … take pleasure in his toil (3:13). “The best thing for a man was to be happy in his work; this is what he gets out of life” (3:22). Solomon went on to say (5:22) that this is man’s portion (lot or station) in life—to work.

This was God’s design from the beginning; that man should earn a living by the sweat of his brow. The Bible even mentions competition as a motivation to work (Prov. 27:17). “Iron sharpens iron.”

The New Testament is equally as clear. The apostle Paul forbade church financial assistance to those who could and should earn a living for themselves. He declared that people on indiscriminate assistance teaches them to be “idle, going about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies who talk nonsense … “ (1 Timothy 5:13). And as we can easily see from the streets of America, it gives many people not only room to be “busy-bodies” but lawbreakers as well.

What Stockton, CA will learn is that, not poverty, but idleness is a vice. It is a moral disease that is caused by a failure of the will that enslaves a person. Doling out money only encourages it. The final stage is that people will need to be managed like children. Any program that rewards idleness dooms itself in the self-image realm. On the other hand, real self-esteem is found in accomplishment, no matter how little. This is how God has made man.

As Robert Rector put it, “The key to improving self-sufficiency is to increase work … Increased self-reliance will lead to an enhanced self-achievement, a principal component of human well-being.” Only by productive work does man reduce poverty and increase his own happiness.

None of this is to ignore that real Christian charity is found in giving. But a “guaranteed income” monitored by government overlords does not qualify as charity. For this reason, Stockton, CA will see an increase in low-income families as people either re-locate there or quit low-paying jobs to qualify for “guaranteed income.” When California began MediCal in 1967 the initial program included 1 Million people. Within a couple of years the numbers had jumped to 2.5 million. When will California and America learn?

Government Shutdown: All You Need to Know About Democrats

Government Shutdown: All You Need to Know About Democrats “Either DACA is in the spending bill or Democrats are voting to block.”

by Bill Lockwood

All one needs to know about the Democratic Party in America can be seen in the current Government Shutdown. In spite of the flurry of misinformation that the Main Stream Media continues to pour forth, there are two basic facts about the party of Schumer and Pelosi that are as clear as it gets–to those who have eyes to see.

One, the Democratic Party prioritizes illegals over the military and citizens who receive government benefits. Remember first that DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) illegals are here because President Obama lawlessly legislated from the Oval Office. This Obama himself admitted. In October 2010, Obama responded to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally by saying “I am not king. I can’t do these things by myself.”

He later confessed that he could not suspend deportations through executive order (October 2010) and could not “bypass Congress and change the immigration law” himself (May 2011). However, in 2012 he did it anyway. After Congress explicitly rejected bills to do what Obama wished, he himself put DACA in place to provide “legal status” to illegals. The DACA problem is the result of a lawless Obama. If this does not cause concerned citizens to understand how the leadership of the Democratic Party works, nothing will.

It continues. This weekend 224 House Republicans voted to keep the government open with a clean spending bill. SIX Democrats in favor of it. In the Senate 46 Republicans voted to keep the government open; FOUR Democrats voted to keep government open. This means that 95% of the Democrats voted to shut it down.

Why? Let Chuck Schumer tell us. He labels this a “Trump Shutdown” because of the president’s inability “to accept an immigration deal” on which Democrats have made some concessions. In other words, even though not one thing was cited by Democrats in the spending bill with which they disagreed, Democrats refused to vote for it because it did not contain their demands on DACA.

Schumer went on to say after the vote was taken this weekend: “Every American knows the Republican Party controls the White House, the Senate, and the House,” He argued that it is a failure of Republicans “to govern” and “to not consult the minority party.” (Slate.com)

This is blatant hypocrisy added to his “Trump Shutdown Lie.” Who cannot remember during the ObamaCare debates the pictures of the closed doors behind which Democrats worked out their socialized medicine without consulting a single Republican nor allowing them into negotiation?

But aside from this fact, Schumer confesses here that the reason the government is SHUT DOWN is a failure by the Republicans to “consult them.” On what? DACA. Either DACA is in the spending bill or Democrats are voting to block. Republicans must “accept an immigration deal” or it is no funding the government, including the military, for Democrats.

Two, Democrats routinely lie. This does not dispute that Republicans have lied as well, for sin goes to either side of the aisle. However, the entire Democrat narrative here, that this is somehow a Trump Shutdown, is an institutionalized lie. And this tactic has become routine.

A filibuster was in progress this weekend in the Senate by Democrats. This is an “obstructionist tactic” to prevent measures from being brought to a vote. How can this in any way be labeled a Republican shutdown?

Kamala Harris is a Democratic Senator from California. Hear her comment on the shutdown. “We need this government shutdown to end as quickly as possible. Make your voice heard right now and tell Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and all the Republicans to do the right thing. Sign my petition to Republican leaders demanding they pass a bipartisan resolution that will reopen the government and protect the Dreamers from deportation.”

There you have it. It is not simply about funding the government. There is no funding the government by Democrats unless their demands on so-called Dreamers is met. Holding government hostage. Dreamers over military. That is the name of the Democratic game.

But the Democrat lie continues. Schumer and fellow Democrats have categorized Congress as “Republican controlled.” This would only be true if a simple majority were required to pass any legislation or spending bill. However, 60 votes are required in the Senate to pass the spending bill which means that a minority might hold the entire Congress and nation hostage. And that is exactly what is occurring. But in the spirit of communism-socialism the bigger the lie and oftener repeated, the more likely many will be to believe it.

It’s Time to Bring the  Southern Poverty Law Center to Justice

It’s Time to Bring the  Southern Poverty Law Center to Justice

“There are two very serious reasons why the SPLC is in many ways more dangerous than other organizations…”

by Tom DeWeese

There are many powerful forces operating today across the nation to divide the American people and silence opposing views. One of the most active of these efforts is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

There are two very serious reasons why the SPLC is in many ways more dangerous than other organizations that are fueling the flames of the far left radicals who use violence and lies to stop honest political debate.

First, the SPLC has contracts with the federal government, specifically the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), serving as advisors to help define what a domestic terrorist or hate group is, even helping to write official policy for this agency of our government. Here are just a few examples:

  • In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report entitled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It targeted conservative groups that supported local rule over federal control. And it singled out groups that opposed abortion or illegal immigration.
  • Two weeks later, DHS issued a Domestic Extremism Lexicon to define Right wing extremists = those who are concerned over the economy, had antagonism toward the Obama Administration or oppose the UN.
  • According to these reports and many more, the list of potential terrorists, according to these reports and many more, included anyone who voted for Ron Paul for president, for example.

These reports were basically written by the Southern Poverty Law Center! And they were sent to law enforcement agencies across the nation. Soon after the issuing of these reports police department nationwide could be observed providing bulletins to their officers to be on the watch for dangerous right wing activity.

In 2010 DHS organized a “Countering Violent Extremist Working Group.” Its purpose is to teach local law enforcement how to counter terrorism. It was basically the root of militarizing local police forces.

Serving on this “advisory group” was Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society if North America, who has been accused of funding terrorist organizations. Also serving as an advisor to this group was Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The conclusion of this report is that conservative organizations and spokesmen are possibly bigger domestic terror threats than ISIS!

The SPLC also runs the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center which issues official certification to police groups all over the country for fighting “hate” groups, i.e. Right wing groups. And it is funded by the Department of Homeland Security!

In 2013, Brietbart.com released a report by Judicial Watch confirming a direct connection between the DOJ and SPLC. The report states, “Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C. based non-partisan educational foundation, released some two dozen pages of emails it obtained  revealing connections between the Department of Justice Civil Rights and Tax divisions and the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Continue Reading

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Shadow Government?: Obama’s Marxist Organizing for Action

Shadow Government?: Obama’s Marxist Organizing for Action “His advocacy group of Alinsky-style agitators is called OFA, “Organizing for Action.”

by Bill Lockwood

Former President Obama is a revolutionary Marxist. His roots all trace to the hard communist left; his lawless actions as president point to the same; and his post-presidency is about more street organizing to resist the Trump organization. True to his disruptive form, while still in office in 2013, Obama established an astro-turf organization by which, after he left the White House, he may continue efforts to overturn constitutional government and escort America into a socialistic nightmare. His advocacy group of Alinsky-style agitators is called OFA, “Organizing for Action.” OFA originally stood for “Obama for America” and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, IL. Its goal is to create communist-style pressure from below to produce society upheaval.

With over 30,000 members, Obama marshals OFA fellow-travelers from his Washington, D.C. nerve-center to create chaos such as we have witnessed since the election over a year ago. As The New York Post writer Paul Sperry put it, Obama has set up a “shadow government to sabotage” the Trump Administration through a “network of leftist nonprofits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide.”

What are Obama’s OFA’s Issues?

First, Climate Change. OFA’s website tells that Obama’s activists are to “turn up the heat” on “climate change deniers.” The “stakes are too high” for us not to act, it is claimed. His radical left environmental agenda, in sync with the socialist United Nations world government plan, is to use “Climate Change” to redistribute America’s wealth to foreign nations while at the same time shutting down the progress of American industry. That’s progressivism for you.

Environmentalism is the mechanism by which socialists wish to control Americans and curtail their freedom. So whether it is global warming, global cooling, climate change or whatever—it is all “human caused” per Obama and that calls for Big Brother to control the rest of us. Liberty be trashed.

Regulate industry, nationally and internationally. Place new controls on business. Ban drilling for American-based companies while allowing it for foreign companies. Steal money from American businesses (carbon penalties) and give it to foreign nations. Malign deniers of government orthodoxy. Orchestrate thousands of unwitting college students who have been trained by leftist professors and are looking for a cause for which to march. Pluck the feathers of the eagle of American freedom. Karl Marx would be proud.

Second, Abortion. Obama has always been radically pro-abortion. Killing the unborn bothers him not in the least. He even voted in 1997 while in the Illinois State Senate to allow the abominable Herod-like procedure of “partial birth abortion” to continue. In a comment years later to a questioner in western Pennsylvania Obama said if his daughters made a mistake in getting pregnant he would not want them “punished with a baby.”

The Bible teaches that “children are a heritage from the Lord and the fruit of the womb is His reward” (Psalm 127:3). To Obama however, children are the instruments of a curse to people whose goal is free sexual activity. This reminds me of a Democrat woman who recently told me, “If you want me to carry a baby until birth, then you help pay for it!” No, ma’am. If you do not wish for children, control your sexual activity.

Perhaps no issue is quite as revealing as this one. Those who proudly enlist in the “Democrat” army of the OFA apparently have seared their consciences by supporting this public policy of infanticide. It is a pro-death culture in America encoded into legislation.

Third, Homosexual Deception. In keeping with his Marxist Alinsky-style roots which proudly utilizes lying and deception as tools for advancement, Obama repeatedly and blatantly lied about his feelings on this issue in order to manipulate the masses. David Axelrod, the primary adviser to Obama during his campaigns for president, admitted this in his 2015 memoir:

Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union.’”

Obama followed Axelrod’s advice and publicly announced in 2008 that he believed marriage was between a “man and a woman.” The simple-minded were deceived. According to researcher Charles Scaliger, as early as 1996, while an Illinois state Senator, Obama answered a questionnaire in which he boldly stated that he supported “legalizing same-sex marriage” and would “fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” All of his “public support” for Christian marriage was a calculated lie.

Fourth, Socialized Medicine. That socialized medicine has never been as successful as the free-market in any country it has been tried is evident. America herself tried two general forays into socialism both at Massachusetts Bay Colony and Jamestown. Both were colossal failures.

Partly because of these failures, the founding generation outlawed any and all re-distribution schemes in America by the Constitution. Samuel Adams wrote,

The Utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional.”

Of course, Obama is not the first nor the last to push unconstitutional communism. In the words of Samuel Adams, ObamaCare is “arbitrary and despotic.”

It is arbitrary in that it removes any connection between responsible living and healthcare. If one by personal choice burns his brain with drugs and alcohol—those result of those choices ought not be saddled on others who choose to live clean godly lives. Exactly the same thing is true pertaining to sexual activity and childbirth. Personal responsibility is anathema to Obama and OFA. This is why abortion itself is listed as “women’s healthcare.” ObamaCare cuts the connection between personal responsibility in lifestyle choices and the natural consequences that flow from those choices.

It is despotic because rulers and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. make many of the decisions for a patient. Not the patient him or herself; not the family; not the local community of doctors—but government employees at a desk. Whether it be procedures, medicines, which doctor one may utilize, which healthcare plan one desires, how much money one must pay for the “uninsured”—all controlled by government.

Predictably, ObamaCare is a complete failure. Tax hikes and premium increases of over 100% in many cases continue to punish the workers in favor of those who either choose not work or who, by life-choices, have landed in low-earning jobs. More citizens saw their “pre-ObamaCare benefits” completely “disappear under the spiraling deductibles and premiums. But this loss was small potatoes to an ex-president who cared not but to kill the unborn.

The American people rejected Obama’s policies with the election of Donald J. Trump. This apparently only signaled street-war to the community-organizer who now mobilizes thousands of dupes against lawful society. Obstruction, riots, protests, and revolution are now in store for America.

Calloway’s Socialism & Slavery

Calloway’s Socialism & Slavery “His “poor class” that is simply “down on their luck” everyone knows will not fare very well.

by Bill Lockwood

Donald Calloway, Jr., former Democratic state representative from Missouri, was pitted this week in a short interview-style debate with Star Parker on Fox & Friends regarding the Trump Administrations’ proposal to drug-test recipients of public welfare. Parker logged in favorably to the proposal, but predictably, Calloway opposed it. No drug testing ought to be conducted on those who receive “public benefits,” Calloway said. He offered several arguments as to why he believed drug-testing ought not be conducted. Examining his “arguments” reveals a shocking and skewed view of the world and of reality itself, which seems to be Democratic stock-in-trade.

Calloway’s First Argument

Calloway’s first argument, repeated several times in the course of a few minutes, was that this “vilifies the poor” and if we wanted to be equal we would drug-test all those corporation-heads and household-heads that have just received a tax cut from the Trump Administration! Get it: Calloway the Democrat believes that tax cuts equate with government hand-outs to the poor—hand-out money that has been confiscated from the middle-class. If my taxes decrease from 40% to 20% that is the same thing as the government handing me a welfare check. Both are “benefits,” Per Calloway– Unbelievable.

Well, Donald Calloway, bring it on! For argument’s sake: do it– drug-test every single person in the country; those that fail will receive nothing. No tax cuts, no welfare, no write-offs—nothing. His “poor class” that is simply “down on their luck” everyone knows will not fare very well. The average person of common observation ability knows that illegal drug use is rampant among the poor, among the minority-classes, and among those who receive government welfare. In every community the story is the same. I’ll take that challenge, Calloway!!

More to the point, however, Calloway gives Americans a glimpse into the Democratic view of the world. There is no such thing as “individual rights” before God. You are nothing but a cog in a society wheel to be utilized at the leaders’ discretion.  Everything you make; every penny you earn belongs to the government—and when the government lowers taxes “allowing” you to “keep” more of what you earned—you need to realize that 100% of it belongs to the government to begin with. You are a slave to the state and are to kiss the hand that feeds you. Nothing belongs to you. Period. That is the underlying assumption of Calloway.

The only way that an educated person could possibly equate government taking from some and re-distributing to others (welfare) with lowering your taxes and allowing you to keep what you yourself have earned is on the assumption mentioned above. I wonder if this is what is taught at Alabama A&M where he majored in Political Science and English?

But this is common belief among Democrats. Listen to Nancy Pelosi who tweeted this unbelievable comment last week—before taking it down.

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 America from being great, ‘Mr. President.’”

There you have it again. Keeping money you earn is a “theft of public resources.” Individuals are a “public resource” to be utilized as the managers of society see fit. How these people ever get elected to office can only be explained on the grounds that the constituents they represent must have their own head in drug-induced clouds. It also explains the wickedness of Socialism. No individual human rights—at least not to the reward for your own labor.

Calloway’s Second Argument

Calloway’s second argument was that drug testing has constitutional hurdles because of the Goldberg v. Kelly Supreme Court decision of 1970. Here, the Warren Court decided that the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment requires a hearing before a public beneficiary of government handouts may be deprived of them.

Here it is important to see that the Court held that welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlements for persons who are qualified. The majority stated that welfare benefits is the private property of the recipients of which one cannot be deprived without “due process” of law. Food, housing, clothing, and medical benefits paid for by others and forcibly redistributed by the state actually belong to the recipients! This is the definition of entitlement.

Due Process simply means that no one can confiscate your private property or deprive a person of his life or liberty without due process of law. Calloway’s second argument may be on target with the Goldberg decision, but just as in the Dred Scott decision of 1857 in which Supreme Court ruled that “blacks were not citizens” of the United States but were considered “property”—the Goldberg decision is simply wrong and unconstitutional to boot. It is interesting also that Roger Taney, the chief justice at the Dred Scott decision, relied upon the “due process” clause of the Constitution in the Fifth Amendment. Slaves were private property of slave owners and these could not be removed “without due process of law.” How would Calloway answer this?

Anyone with just a smattering knowledge of the Constitution recognizes at once Calloway’s error. It is the same as Roger Taney’s mistake.

That welfare benefits are “private property” of the recipients is clear violation of Natural Law. Government has no right by nature to steal from one segment of society and give to another, period. So all the founders who wrote the Constitution believed and encoded into law. 

But the New Deal period turned this common law maxim upside down and theft of private property and redistribution to others by an all-knowing government became commonplace. Then came the extreme “decision” (Goldberg v. Kelly) that this confiscated money actually belongs as private property to the recipient of welfare benefits! Calloway and the Goldberg decision is wrong just the same as Taney and the Dred Scott decision was wrong.

Calloway’s Third Argument

Calloway’s third and final argument was that “drug testing” of welfare recipients is “unchristian.” Here Calloway’s argument becomes a farce. Like all socialists, he misuses and abuses the Word of God.

That there are biblical injunctions to care for the poor is common knowledge. However, all of these commands are either individual mandates or apply to local churches of Christ. Not one of these biblical commands has even the remotest equivalence to government taxation and redistribution.

As a matter of fact, if Calloway wants Bible, let him see 1 Timothy 5 where the apostle Paul set forth criteria by which the young evangelist Timothy might help leaders of churches decide which persons ought to receive financial benefits and which ones should not. Even inspired Paul put forth a test. In the words of our Lord, Calloway needs “go learn what this means.” Paul forbade assistance to those who did not meet certain standards, going so far as to say that assisting those who should and could be working causes people to be idle, busybodies (involved in ungodly activities) and, saying things they ought not (v. 13). Exactly the point.

Far from being “unchristian”, setting out certain criteria, namely drug-testing, by which welfare distribution might be determined, is a common-sense beginning to cutting down our out-of-control spending in America. And if the Democrats of the country like Calloway and Pelosi want real constitutional reform—let’s go back and re-establish the Original Intent of the Founders. Public welfare as we know it would disappear in a heartbeat.

Scientific Socialism

Scientific Socialism “This labeling became a weapon.

by Bill Lockwood

One of the lesser remembered items regarding communism is that Karl Marx, the founder of modern forms of communism, dubbed it Scientific Socialism. Marxism, as a philosophy, was claimed by Marx to be “scientific.” This label was habitually used by him “to distinguish himself from his many enemies. He and his work were ‘scientific,’ they were not” (Paul Johnson, Intellectuals). This labeling became a weapon. With the seeming onslaught of socialism engulfing America today, we would do well to learn the lesson of “labeling.”

Karl Marx

First, by expressing his theory as “scientific socialism” Marx was expressing his kinship with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. “He felt he had found a scientific explanation of human behavior in history akin to Darwin’s theory of evolution.” However, just as today, Darwin’s theory was the unprovable thesis that began on the assumed premise that the explanation of the world had nothing to do with God. Communism begins and ends with atheism. This goes a long way in explaining how American culture has changed into an irreligious one.

After reading Darwin’s Origin of the Species, Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels. “Although developed in a coarse English manner, this is the book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view” (Quoted by Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany).

As pointed out by Weikart, “many pacifists, feminists, birth control advocates, and homosexual rights activists … were enthusiastic Darwinists and used Darwinian arguments to support their political and social agenda.” Darwinism, like Marxism, is an entire worldview. As German biologist Arnold Dodel stated in in 1904, Darwinism is a “new worldview” which actually “rests on the theory of evolution. On it we have to construct a new ethics … All values will be revalued.”

Magnetic Pull

Second, to label Marxism “science” exerted a “magnetic pull” on the intellectual class of the United States which had already rejected a God-centered worldview. Many Americans, from the Civil War period forward, adopted a materialistic view of the world. This included President Woodrow Wilson, who was himself a “historical materialist.” This notion basically states that material conditions alone determine the course of history. Man’s spiritual nature is excluded from consideration. This concept appealed to elitists such as Wilson who was bred in the halls of higher education. It appealed to their vanity.

As a matter of fact, Darwin’s theory of evolution was and is at the bottom of the entire “progressive” movement—which is nothing less than socialism. This doctrine of “historicism,” Wilson’s faith, is described as the evolutionary theory applied to history and politics (Ronald J. Pestritto, Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism). This, in turn, was rooted in Hegel’s philosophy; precisely the scholastic who influenced Karl Marx. There is little difference between Marx’s dialectic, which he borrowed from Hegel while emphasizing that economic conditions of men determine the course of man’s development and Wilson’s historicism, which posited that history must run a predetermined materialistic course and one cannot transcend one’s historical environment (Pestritto). For Marx, all of reality was framed in “economics”; for Wilson, all of reality was framed in the historical time-frame from which one could not escape.

All of this is simply materialism—there is no reality beyond the material world—but labeling it “scientific” gave it an air of snobbish superiority. After all, once one sides with the “infallibility” of “science,” the “theories” spawned in those halls are beyond review by the rest of us ordinaries.

Ironically, Marx was anything but a scientist. He not only was temperamentally unfit to be a scientist, for there was nothing scientific about him, but in a “deeper sense he was not really a scholar at all.” Marx was not interested in finding truth, but merely in proclaiming theories whether they squared with reality or not (Johnson, 54).

Marx, along with his fellow communists, were only interested in devising weapons for building a totalitarian dictatorship and for “fomenting unrest and ill will between man and man everywhere in the world.” And wherever class warfare rages there is the hobgoblin of communism—scientific socialism.

The New Birth

The New Birth “Not even this great ruler of the Jews could enter the kingdom of God but by a New Birth!

by Bill Lockwood

One of most powerful interviews in the NT is that of Jesus by Nicodemus recorded in John 3. In it the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God are explained. “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus was going against scholarly public opinion of that day by coming to Jesus. Their disposition was flat rejection. Not interested in considering the Lord’s teaching, the Sanhedrin council, of which Nicodemus was a member, instead plotted to murder Christ. For that reason, Nicodemus was a “secret disciple” (7:51,52).

Prominent in Jesus’ teaching to Nicodemus was that noted above: The New Birth—without which no one would see the Kingdom of God (3:3). Not even this great ruler of the Jews could enter the kingdom of God but by a New Birth! Do not miss the point that one is not saved simply by being a faithful Jew. The kingdom cannot be a Jewish entity. Imagine the shock Nicodemus experienced. Jews supposed they would be members of the Messiah’s kingdom by virtue of natural birth. This is wrong. “How could this be?” asked Nicodemus.

Baptism

Jesus explains: The New Birth consists of “water and spirit” (3:5). One birth, two elements. The fact is given in v. 3. The details in v. 5. Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit. A person is led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:12) into a New Birth. The Spirit speaks to us through His word. Water refers to the water of baptism. Richard Hooker (1533-1600), one of the “divines” if the Church of England, wrote a three-volume study. In it he stated: “Of all the ancient writers there is not one to be named who ever expounded the text otherwise than implying water baptism.”

Another Church of England leader of 1638, John Boys, expanded: “ …Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Beda, Theophylact … Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory …” all understood the text as referring to water baptism as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God.

How then do many moderns seek to explain the passage as having nothing to do with the essentiality of water baptism? Henry Alford, Greek scholar and Bible translator of yesteryear, puts it succinctly: “All attempts to get rid of baptism in this passage have sprung from doctrinal prejudices by which views of expositors have been warped.” Examples of these abound.

Not

It is NOT: “Water—which is Spirit” (John Calvin). It is NOT: “Water alone” which equals infant baptism or “baptismal regeneration” as taught by the Catholic Church. Baptism, “merely as a rite, apart from the operation of the spirit, does not impart new life” (Vincent, Word Studies, II, 92).

Neither is it that “water” represents physical birth and “spirit” represents “spiritual birth.” Many modern day Baptists have sought refuge in this to avoid the implication of water baptism. They suggest that Jesus in essence answers Nicodemus this way when asked about the New Birth: “One must be born of his mother in natural birth THEN he may be born again by the Spirit.”

Several things need be said here: (1) The form of the expression “water and spirit” makes water and spirit inseparable. One birth—two elements. So states Greek scholar B.F. Westcott, one of translators of the ASV. (2) This overlooks that the whole expression ‘water and Spirit’ defines the manner in which one is born again. G.R. Beasley-Murray, a modern-day Baptist, notes that “suggestions like these do not do justice to the text and have not commended themselves to scholarly opinion.” (3) A parallel is found in John 4:24 where we are commanded to “worship in spirit and truth.” One preposition governs both nouns—spirit and truth. One worship; Two aspects. So also here in John 3:5.

One cannot enter into the kingdom of God but by a spiritual birth (led by the Spirit) through water baptism. Strange ideas to Nicodemus who supposed that traditional Judaism was the door into the Messianic kingdom. Strange ideas to denominations today who seek to avoid water baptism as essential to salvation.

Loss of Civility in America

Loss of Civility in America “It is another to revile or abuse a person with words

by Bill Lockwood

People have always and will always disagree with one another. Unanimity of opinion is unrealistic where God’s free-will creatures are concerned. What is blatantly evident however, in modern America, is the increasing loss of civility in dialogue. This sad result is predictable in a society where godlessness has become the norm.

The apostle Peter, in his Second Letter (2 Peter), describes the current situation that unfortunately prevails in the streets, in the halls of Congress, in the collegiate and public school classroom, and in the marketplace. His remarks are deadly accurate.

2 Peter 2

Beginning in verse 10, the apostle explains what it is to “walk after the flesh”—a biblical phrase denoting pleasing our own base desires. Those who do so are libertines—who by lack of training and correction throughout their development—are devoid of moral or sexual restraints. They spurn normal behavior while putting a premium on on physical pleasures. The phrase “after the flesh,” taken in connection with “their foul lust” in the connecting sentence suggests sodomy (Green, TNTC, 103).

Regarding these libertines: Peter explains, “they despise authority.” Rejecting authoritative statements from God and man, they are “Brazen ones, and self-willed” (v. 10). Brazen means unashamed. The description of these individuals the apostle goes on to explain “they fear not to rail at dignitaries.”

It is one thing to disagree with another and even press one’s opinion. For the free expression of ideas and principles and concepts the First Amendment was composed–that open discussion on the issues would never be curtailed in America. “To rail at dignitaries” however, carries a completely different idea. The word “rail” is literally “blaspheme.” It means to “defame” a person. It means to slander or to crudely disparage another.

To put a fine point on this, Peter carries us to the court in heaven where good angels brought accusation against evil angels before the Almighty at some point in history. But even these angels refrained from bringing a reviling judgment against them. It is one thing to make accusation. It is another to revile or abuse a person with words. They abstain from no affront (Bigg, ICC, 280).

Almost as if describing the current malaise of civility among moderns, Peter continues his diatribe in v. 12 that “these are creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed; railing in matters wherein they are ignorant; shall in their destroying surely be destroyed” (ASV).

A “creature without reason” literally is an irrational person. Sensible discussion or thoughtful disagreement is beyond them.  One has observed that “they preen themselves on their knowledge (a palpable dig at their pretensions to superior gnosis)” while in fact they have no more knowledge than does a brute beast (Kelly, BNTC, 339). Peter strengthens this description with the statement that these “have been born as mere animals that are caught and killed.” The idea is of a person whose only reaction is one of physical instinct—not thoughtful or respectful dialogue. A graphic picture this of individuals who live for themselves and their own desires.

What an … indictment of the effect on a man of living like a beast! First he gets captured and then he gets destroyed by his passions. As Barclay points out, sensuality is self-destructive. ‘the aim of the man who gives himself to such fleshly things is pleasure; and his tragedy is that in the end he loses even the pleasure. … for a while he may enjoy what he calls pleasure, but in the end he ruins his health, wrecks his constitution, destroys his mind and character and begins his experience of hell while he is still on earth.’” (Green, Ibid.)

In just a few short verses Peter shows what we are witnessing with increasing regularity in our nation. Is it possible to disagree without becoming ugly and uncivil? Must one “take to the streets” with boiling anger to make a change? Is it no longer possible to debate the issues while refraining from toilet talk and cursing? Must people literally “howl at the moon” to demonstrate disagreement? Must people show rage to show a different view? Have we lost all civility?

The only answer to this morass of ugliness, of course, is a turning to Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World. May our nation bow its knee to God this holiday season.

NOTES

Bigg, Charles. International Critical Commentary, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the   Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude.

Green, Michael: Tyndale NT Commentary, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude.

Kelly, J.N.D.: Black’s NT Commentary, The Epistles of Peter and Jude.

BC/AD or BCE/CE?

BC/AD or BCE/CE?The Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians.

by Bill Lockwood

Since the Middle Ages calendars have been dated from the central point of history–Jesus Christ. “Before Christ” (BC) and “Anno Domini” (AD)—a Latin phrase meaning “the year of our Lord.” Theoretically, the Lord was born on the year zero.

Our present calendar is based upon the Gregorian calendar of 1582 which was named after Pope Gregory XIII. This calendar was actually a reform of the earlier Julian calendar put together in the year 45 B.C. and named after Julius Caesar.

The labels BC and AD were not added until 525 A.D. by Dionysius Exiguus, who used them to compute the date of Easter (Robert. R. Cargill, bibleinterp.com, 2009). Dates comprise the backbone of history and the BC/AD point of reference has been the backbone of western civilization.

This system has come under increasing criticism, however, and today “scholarship”—even Christian– recommends another option that removes Christ from that pivotal place in history. It is advised that the favored option B.C.E. and C.E., standing for Before the Common Era and Common Era, replace the older B.C./A.D. system.

Since both numerical systems utilize Jesus Christ as the point of reference (“Before Common Era” is equivalent to the time before Christ), how is it that tension exists on this?

First, by usage of BCE/CE the world of “scholarship” is insisting that the world of “science” has demonstrated the Bible to be inaccurate. Those of us in the less-educated circles need to get on board. Robert Cargill frankly states his case.

Despite the rise of science, Christians have used—and many times have insisted upon—the continued use of the labels ‘AD’ and ‘BC’ to designate calendrical years, and thereby portray human history as directly relative to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. But in our modern world of scientific reason and religious plurality, the battle over whether or not to use the increasingly accepted international scientific standard of BCE … and CE … has not waned, but rather has intensified.

Cargill plainly implies that the biblical record is inaccurate. The marvels of science have fortunately saved us from believing the historicity of the Good Book! This is continually cast in the framework of “scholarship.” As Professor Alan Bloom stated, “Every scholar I know uses B.C.E. and shuns A.D.” (quoted by William Safire, August 1997). The implication: insistence on the BC/AD referents comes from the unlearned masses.

Second, the more modern designations reflect “religious plurality.” This is also echoed in Cargill’s statement above. Plurality simply means a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in their traditional culture.

That many various groups make up America and western civilization cannot be denied.

But those who have taken the pulse of academia and other cultural leaders know perfectly well that this has occurred by design, not accident. From the purposeful changing of immigration policies favoring non-Christian countries to the revamping of educational goals to celebrate other cultures while denigrating our own—Christian people have rightly been alarmed.

Even Friedrich Nietzsche of yesteryear recognized that the Christian faith was the undergirding of western civilization—not only of its religious beliefs but also of social values and its fundamental view of human nature (Os Guinness, The Dust of Death, 37). It is this Christian foundation that is under assault by continued emphasis upon “religious plurality.”

William Safire relates that the “shunning of A.D. …goes clear up to the Supreme Court.” He tells of Adena K. Berkowitz, who has both a law degree and a doctorate in Hebrew literature, who applied to practice before the Court. “In the application,” she wrote, “I was asked if I wished ‘in the year of our Lord’ to be included as part of the date listed on the certificate or omitted.” She chose to omit. “Given the multicultural society that we live in, the traditional Jewish designations—B.C.E. and C.E.—cast a wider net of inclusion, if I may be so politically correct.”

It may be indeed a “wider net of inclusion” but the fact that it is a “Jewish designation” shows that it was not originally intended to be so much “inclusive” as simply “excluding Jesus Christ.” Those familiar with blasphemous Jewish Talmudic references to Jesus Christ can readily understand this erasure of Jesus Christ. That it has gained popularity in the world of “scholarship” may point more to the skepticism that now undergirds academia. This brings me to another reflection:

Third, the designations BCE/CE originated in Jewish unbelief.  Even Wikipedia recognizes, as Adena Berkowitz confessed, that these terms “became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish academics. In the later 20th century, the use of CE and BCE was popularized in academic and scientific publications, and more generally by authors and publishers wishing to emphasize secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians, by not explicitly referring to Jesus as ‘Christ’ …”

Besides secularists, another group preferring the more modern designations are Muslims. They date their lunar calendar from the date A.D. 622, the day after the Hijra, or flight of the Prophet Mohammed from Mecca to Medina. How eager does the reader suppose Muslim scholars would be to accommodate Christians in Islamic societies by usage of the Gregorian calendar? How successful does one think would be the efforts to erase Mohammed from their calendars—no longer dating with the traditional Muslim A.H. (After Hijra)?

The State of Israel uses an official Jewish calendar which is based upon a lunar cycle. I would suspect that efforts for them to adopt the Hijra calendar of reckoning by Islam would meet with stiff resistance, even claiming that it would be tantamount to melting cultural supports of Israel. I wonder how Israel would meet the argument of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who stated:

The Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of all faiths and cultures—different civilizations, if you like—that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era.

Multiculturalism and plurality always demand Christians—not Muslims or Hindus or Humanists– to be accommodating. This reminds me of the modern usage, even by conservative Christian writers and authors, of “Judeo-Christian Culture.” This term only became vogue in the 1950’s and one never read such a statement from the Founding Era of our nation. To those men it was “a Christian culture.” The change occurred in the 1950’s and does not represent the views of earlier generations. And the alteration of “Christian culture” or “Christian nation” to “Judeo-Christian nation” represents a change in philosophy.

I choose not the modern scholarly option on dating, not because I “cling to … the symbolic superiority [I] feel”, as Robert Cargill patronizes—or because I “deny the facts and use different labels (i.e., ‘intelligent design’)”—but because the facts upon which Cargill relies are not so factual. Most of all, I oppose the world of naturalistic assumptions cornering the market on the label “scholarship”, then demanding we must all fall in line; even to the point of reframing history. Jesus Christ is the center point of all history. His life is historical; the Gospels factual; and His resurrection from the dead defensible.

Bill Lockwood, Anno Domini (The Year of our Lord), 2017.

The Constitution, Christianity, and Patriotism

The Constitution, Christianity, and Patriotism “…The Constitution is the civil Bible of Americans…

by Bill Lockwood

Some suggest that biblical commands never enjoin one to be “patriotic” regarding America. Patriotism, it is supposed, is not commended in scripture; therefore, Christians need emphasize Americanism less.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of America and Americanism; specifically, the God-inspired freedoms which form our core. It is true that most peoples love their own country, the place of their nativity. And if that was all that is involved in American patriotism–love of the fatherland–then the criticism might be well-founded. But America is different. It is unique in the history of the world. And it is not simply that it is unique that ought to cause Christians to be patriotic—but due to the substance of that uniqueness. This substance makes it superior.

John Adams, the second president of the United States, gives us a clue to the singular character of our nation. America is the first time in history, he noted, since even the time of Adam and Eve, that humanity might be able to enjoy, by the framework of governing principles, the freedoms which come from God. He was reflecting upon the sad fact that all governments and nations throughout history curtail the liberty which can only come from God since these governments do not begin with the fundamental premise of the sacredness of human life.

More to the point, a statement drafted first in 1922 by the Committee for Constitutional Government and signed by such dignitaries as Herbert Hoover, Alfred E. Smith, Mrs. Calvin Coolidge, Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt, Mrs. William H. Taft and others, recommended a study of the Constitution on the following grounds.

Menaced by collectivist trends, we must seek revival of our strength in the spiritual foundations which are the bedrock of our republic. Democracy is the outgrowth of the religious conviction of the sacredness of every human life. On the religious side, its highest embodiment is the Bible; on the political, the Constitution. As has been said so well, ‘The Constitution is the civil Bible of Americans.’ Next to the Bible, the best book on the Constitution should be in every home, school, library and parish hall.

Our republic is the direct outgrowth of Christianity. The founding generation understood exactly what they were doing. For the first time in recorded history biblical values were enshrined as the basis of a limited government called a republic in which individual freedom was based upon individual worth.

This is why founder Noah Webster admonished, “Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion … and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.” For the same reason Patrick Henry, a long time preacher, insisted that our nation was actually founded upon Jesus Christ. Strange sounds for modern ears.

Practically every founder which wrote on the subject agreed with Henry. Alexander Hamilton observed, for example, that “The law … 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.”

Another signer of the Constitution, Rufus King, stated, “The … law established by the Creator … extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind….This is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control.”

None of the above is to say that pulpits ought to draw their texts from particular Articles of the Constitution upon which to preach; for they are to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2).  But it is to say that a failure to recognize Christianity as the bulwark of our nation’s charter betrays a very limited understanding of America as well as the Bible. 

The very concepts of the sacredness of life, liberty, and private property—which the entire construct of the Constitution is designed to protect–are biblical in nature and are not traceable to any other source. The “transcendent values of Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic,” summarizes constitutionalist David Barton (Original Intent).

For this cause, Abraham Lincoln advised regarding the Constitution:

Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges, let it be written in primers, in spelling books and in almanacs, let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation, and, in particular, a reverence for the Constitution.

Again, it is education in the principles behind our founding charter which Lincoln was encouraging. The same is true for western culture as a whole. It is superior to other cultures precisely because of the undergirding concepts upon which it is based. As Herbert Schlossberg put it in Idols for Destruction,

Cultures are equal in value only if there is no standard against which to judge them. The culture of the West, infused as it is with Christian values, is superior to any other, and all the valid charges against the West are indications that it has betrayed its own heritage. It is not superior because it is wealthy; it is wealthy because it is superior, because it believes that work is a calling, that matter is important, that reason is a gift of God. This culture, God’s gift, transmits its material blessings along with its interpretation of reality.

America’s greatness is only assessed by the eternal standard of God’s Word. Alexis de Tocqueville is credited with this famous passage in which the Frenchman searched for the greatness of America. His answer was, “Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Ezra Taft Benson, God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties).

It is not commendable that many modern pulpits cannot seem to recognize that when they preach on the sacredness of an individual life they are preaching God-given values which, because of the Bible, became the foundation of Americanism—a unique event in world history. Is this not worthy of Christian homage?

Or, when preachers “invite” sinners to obey the gospel (1 Pet. 4:17) they are celebrating the concept of liberty and free choice protected by our wise founders.  Does this protection not call forth our reverence? Or, when pleading for donations they are assuming that God has invested people with private property which they can dispose of at their own volition; and because the founders believed in these biblical principles they constructed a lawful system of protection to guard that property. Should we not pay homage to this system?

Patriotism runs much deeper than love of my birthplace or attachment to the language I speak. It glories in God’s grace that enabled our founders to infuse the ideals of God into the framework of society. No other nation has ever attempted such a project. American patriotism is in reality a loyal adhesion to Christian principles which were grafted into a governing system.

The red, white, and blue therefore, evoke deep feelings not merely because I was born here—but due to the fact that these colors represent the fundamental godly doctrines which my forefathers died to protect. Not all of them lived in accordance with these values—to be sure– but they believed in them.   

America is not merely exceptional. This means “better than average; not normal.” It is that. But it is also unique in that it is unequalled. It is superior. And this distinction lies in its reliance upon Christianity by which our nation was forged.

Shocked by Scandals? Welcome to the New Amerika

Shocked by Scandals? Welcome to the NEW AMERIKA! “Samuel Adams Warned that “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

by Bill Lockwood

Sexual misconduct is rampant. National degeneracy and indecency have become so widespread that Congressional lawmakers now have a secret mysterious slush fund financed by the American taxpayers to help pay their legal bills and settle accusations against them. Unbelievable.

In the wake of increasing revelations of Congressional misconduct and disregard for decent standards of morality, Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (R-VA) has sponsored a resolution that requires all House members, officers, employees, including interns, detailees, and fellows, to complete “anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training during each session of Congress.” She is also exploring the prevention of further use of taxpayer money to assist offending members of Congress, such as Democrat John Conyers, who is reportedly raided that fund four times.

Let’s back up. The exponential increase of sexual misconduct is the result of three things.

First, the continual concentrated assault against Christian morals throughout our culture. The underpinnings of our society have been unapologetically Christian. In his Farewell Address, George Washington reminded the nation of the following:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens….And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education … reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

By “religion” Washington meant the “Christian religion.” Rising up like a prophet the father of our country warned us that not only are Christian principles the “pillars of human happiness” but without these principles there is no patriotism. The entire founding generation reverberated with the same admonitions.

Samuel Adams Warned that “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” James Madison observed that if there be no virtue among us “we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”

The entertainment industry has made it a staple fare to mock Christianity, while Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and even paganism of the Indian culture receives favorable treatment. Public schoolhouses openly teach Marxist principles which are grounded in atheism, while Bible reading, Christian prayer-offering and the teaching of biblical morality has been purposefully excised from all curriculums. The past several generations which has been reared on godless humanistic principles is having a telling effect.

Second, the deliberate removal of Constitutional restraints on federal spending. Today, at least two-thirds or more of all government spending might be classified as “benevolent expenditures.” From HUD housing grants, NEA education, welfare, block grants to states, incentives to green energy, farm subsidies, business subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, National Endowment of the arts, ad nauseam—the only limit to Congressional spending is the lack of new imaginative programs to be conceived by Congressmen and Senators.

The fact is all such spending is strictly unconstitutional. The only legitimate use of public funds is that public monies must benefit the entire population. The Constitution empowers Congress (Art. 1, Sec. 8) to expend monies only to the extent that it benefits the entire nation. Alexander Hamilton explains,

The welfare of the community [of states] is the only legitimate end for which money can be raised from the community. Congress can be considered only under one restriction, which does not apply to other governments. They cannot rightfully apply the money they raise to any purpose merely or purely local … The constitutional test of a right application must always be, whether it be for a purpose general or local in nature.

It is unlawful and illegal to remove money from one segment of the population to redistribute it to another. This common-sense approach to Congressional spending has been hated by the liberal left since the inception of our Charter—The Constitution. Finally, in 1936, during the Roosevelt Administration, “general welfare” was twisted to teach “special welfare” and America has not been the same since. Nor do mild tax relief bills such as are now before Congress hope to reform us—because Congress continues to flagrantly violate the spirit and letter of the Constitution by out-of-control spending.

Once that socialistic racket started, there is no way to stop the runaway train but by a total financial collapse. Money is so freely earmarked by Congress for pork projects and special interest spending that the ability to divert public funds for private use becomes part of the program.

Third, the decided gravitational shift toward a more centralized statist government. The same forces that began pushing for taxpayer subsidized welfare spending have been drawing all power to Washington, D.C. for over a century. Termed “the swamp” by President Trump, the locus of power is settled in the nation’s capital.

Every minute of private life is decided by masters in Congress, from housing codes, land use, school curriculum, health care decisions, workplace salary, workplace hours, hiring standards in mom-and-pop shops, banking standards, building procedures, regulating down even to how much water one has in his or her toilet. Everything is legislated by federal regulators. This does not even smell like freedom.

Every goal of a bottom-up government envisioned by the Framers has been turned upside down. We now suffer from top-down power control. Practically speaking, this means that representatives at the federal level are almost completely out of reach by those who hired them and those for whom they supposedly work—the taxpaying citizen.

Having shown some of the causes of the current immoral morass in which we find ourselves, here are some suggestions addressed to the immediate problem at hand. (1) Forget mandatory “sensitivity and sexual harassment training” for Congress and staffers. Laudable as is Rep. Comstock’s efforts, they are not enough. Cancer is not cured by such light measures. Besides, these public servants do not need sexual harassment “training.” They already know it is wrong. Matt Lauer is already out there apologizing for his misconduct. These guys already recognize what is right and wrong—they simply lack the moral fortitude to act in harmony with principle.

(2) Impose mandatory expulsion hearings. Such is provided for in our Constitution in Article 1, Section 5. Follow it. Adam Clayton Powell was expelled from Congress in 1985 for fraud and forgery—Congress needs grow a backbone and begin expulsion hearings on Conyers and Franken and others. Quit asking them to step down. Get them out.

(3) Prevention of further use of taxpayer money for nefarious purposes is commendable—we appreciate Congresswoman Comstock’s goal here—but how about demanding these lecherous Congressmen pay it back? It is our money. If they refuse—jail time. Let these measures be the sensitivity and sexual harassment training. Stop playing games.

« Older Entries