Author Archives: AmLib1

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.

Have the Democrats Become the Face of Revolutionary Communist Party?

Have the Democrats Become the Face of the Revolutionary Communist Party? “…before Trump was even moved into the White House, Democrat lawless lawmakers were haranguing the public with cries of impeachment.

by Bill Lockwood

The Revolutionary Communist Party states as its goal to bring about “massive political resistance” to the system of capitalism, which they say, is “concentrated in the ruling class and institutions and agencies.” America is a system of “imperialism” to the communists, which demands more than simple reform. It requires revolution among the masses of people.

From the beginning of Donald Trump’s inauguration, before Trump was even moved into the White House, Democrat lawless lawmakers were haranguing the public with cries of impeachment. Maxine Waters (D-CA), for example, led the mutinous minions in Congress on a rampage against the president. Now comes Al Green (D-TX) to the forefront.

As reported by The Hill, Rep. Al Green announced on Wednesday that he will force a vote on the House floor to impeach President Trump before Christmas. On what charges will Green bring a vote on impeachment hearings? Says Green in a speech on the House floor: “… there will be a vote on the chief inciter of racism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, sexism, ethnocentrism. There will be a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on the impeachment of the president.”

Green has previously introduced articles of impeachment, being the loudest recent voice in the Democratic chorus calling for the removal of Donald Trump from office. The liberal MSM has also continually beat the drum for impeachment proceedings against our president, most recently by The New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg whose recent article is entitled, “Democrats Should Embrace Impeachment.”

The Constitution

Before making a few observations it is helpful to refer back to our Founding Charter, The Constitution. Not that the Democrats have any concern for the Constitution, because they do not in any way shape or form. Few Republicans do either. Nevertheless, the Constitutional word “impeachment” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5) refers simply to the bringing of formal charges in the House and Senate against an elected officer.

Constitutionally, a majority vote of the House of Representatives, where Al Green serves from the 9th District in Texas, is required to bring the charges which are then to be tried before the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Conviction of these charges demands a two-thirds Senatorial vote.

What is important here, however, is that the Framers placed the particular grounds of impeachment in the Constitution itself—Article II, Section 4. “…civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

These grounds were intentionally specified in order to prevent impeachment from becoming a tool by which political opponents might remove others from office. As noted in The Heritage Foundation, “…it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, …”

Democrats Have Become Revcom

Nothing demonstrates how radical leftist the Democrats have become than the promise of impeachment proceedings by Al Green. What specific charges does he mention? All political socialistic lefty nonsense. “An inciter of racism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia … blah blah blah.” Trump is a hater! And this from a man who has a law degree from Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston, TX.

This is precisely what the founders were trying to prevent—impeachment becoming a political tool. A logical outcome this to the complete trashing of our Constitutional system fostered by the likes of Green.

Al Green is acting more like a college child throwing temper tantrums and threatening to shut down free speech because he does not like the speaker. He is trying to stir up the street masses by his incendiary rhetoric, ala The Revolutionary Communist Party. Each and every charge he levels against Trump is totally in the eye of the beholder. No dereliction of duty against Trump, and certainly no impeachable offenses measuring up to “treason, bribery, or high crimes.”

Why America is Losing

But Al Green’s unfounded rants are the reason Republicans continue to lose the ground of freedom even though they remain in the majority in Congress and occupy the White House.

During the tenure of Barack Obama a good case could be made that he committed impeachable offenses—many of them. He opened his administration with illegal executive orders to the Department of Justice that they not enforce the law of the land regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Close on the heels of that was the lawless gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious, designed to remove our 2d Amendment rights in this nation. When Congress demanded documents related thereto, Obama said “no.” End of story. Lawless and unbridled.

The Iran Nuke Deal is an impeachable offense because Obama negotiated a secret “treaty.” Treaties are authorized only to Congress, but Obama thumbed his nose at the rule of law.  Hillary’s private illegal email server was well-known by the Obama White House, yet neither of these officials have been called to official account for this impeachable offense.

Then we have Obama’s DOJ actually being caught spying on AP reporters while Obama’s IRS was illegally targeting conservative groups. And who can forget Benghazi-gate of 2012 and the blatant bold lies issuing from the White House itself from Obama’s spokeswoman Susan Rice?

After this comes the infamous lie supporting ObamaCare: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” This is followed by the Illegal-Alien Amnesty that President Obama issued by executive order—a completely illegal and unconstitutional move. There are recess-appointments, the appointment of czars, the line-item veto on Congressional laws sitting on his desk—and more.

Yet in all of this the Republicans maintained a weak-spined, weak-kneed, milquetoast position, refusing to bring formal charges against a communist rogue president who was destroying our very constitutional system. Guardians of the Republic they were not.

Instead, they were concerned that the American public would find them unfavorable. To add insult to injury, the Republicans refused to defund any of Obama’s unconstitutional programs such as ObamaCare. Budget after budget was passed in which they funded every thing the Democrats wished.

But let a Republican occupy the White House and the Democrats are unashamed to go to the very extreme. Democrats are always ready to fight—even for socialist revolution. Faint-hearted Republicans is why America has moved so very far left.

Tom DeWeese: How the Media Twists Facts To Enforce its Propaganda Bias

How the Media Twists Facts To Enforce its Propaganda Bias- 

“There has always been some kind of force loose in the world seeking domination over others.

by Tom DeWeese

It’s become obvious that our fight against Agenda 21/2030 is beginning to have an affect when a reporter writes not one, but two attack articles about the same event. That’s what happened as a result of my recent talk in Rexburg, Idaho.

In mid-October I traveled to three cities in Idaho (including Rexburg) and to Spokane, Washington, speaking about Agenda 21 and the growing assault on private property and individual choice. Below is one of two reports on the Rexburg event, as reported by reporter Bryan Clark. I’ve inserted my remarks in the body of his article to show what I actually said in contrast to his innuendos and lack of facts.

Conspiracist warns of plot for global domination

Posted: October 19, 2017 5:31 p.m.

By BRYAN CLARK, Post Register

His original article is in blue

REXBURG — Most people don’t think concentration camps and bike paths have much in common, but Tom DeWeese sees a connection. He sees lots of connections. Everywhere.

Of course, I never mentioned concentration camps in my talk. For that matter I didn’t mention FEMA camps or chemtrails either.

DeWeese is one of the nation’s most prominent exponents of the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory, which has gained increasing traction among Idaho’s far right, being recently invoked in the debate over proposed wildlife overpasses near Island Park.

Of course, using terms like “conspiracy theory” and “far right” are a direct attempt to bias the reader from the start. It’s a common tactic in political advocacy, but has no place in legitimate journalism. In truth, I actually spent considerable time at the beginning of my talk producing official government documents showing that specific government programs clearly claimed to be implementation of Agenda 21. Each of these documents used the exact same description for the purpose of Agenda 21 as a “comprehensive blueprint” with the intention of reorganizing human society.

Here are my exact words as I held up each document:

In 1994, the American Planning Association (one of the largest and most respected planning groups in the nation) put out a newsletter calling Agenda 21 a Comprehensive Blueprint for Sustainable Development that was adopted at the recent UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro (the Earth Summit).

In 1997 the United States issued a 70-page report to the United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, detailing the progress the US was making to implement Agenda 21. The second chapter of that report is titled “International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries and related domestic policies.”

In 1998, the Federal Register issued a report on the EPA’s Challenge Grant Program. That report says, “The EPA’s Challenge Grant Program is also implementation of Agenda 21.”

In 2011, the EPA issued a revised report entitled “History of Sustainability.” It details how EPA policy on Sustainability was developed. The Fifth item on that report is Agenda 21, calling it a “comprehensive process of planning and action to attain sustainability.”

And on and on it went, about Agenda 21. The blueprint. The plan. The consensus. The direction for changing how people live. Here was the plan for the 21st Century!

Of course, my point in bringing out these official documents was to show their excitement, support, and determination to impose this “plan to reorganize human society” domestically and worldwide. Again – that was the entire point of my presentation.

DeWeese, who bills himself as an expert on property rights (though he claims only a degree in journalism), gave an extended lecture on his theory Wednesday night at the Romance Theater in Rexburg. The event was put on by the John Birch Society and local activists. Conservative activist Maria Nate emceed the proceedings, and several government officials, including state Rep. Ron Nate and Rexburg Mayor Jerry Merrill, were in attendance.

First, I do not have a degree in journalism and never claimed to. I simply worked for two small newspapers in my younger days. Second, I have been involved in the property rights issued for over thirty years. My organization has been invited to testify before Congressional committees on the subject several times. I have met with legislators in several states, including Maine, Michigan and Virginia. I regularly work directly with elected officials at many levels, helping them to craft property rights legislation. I was even invited to debate the UN issue before a 200-year-old debating society at England’s Cambridge University. In fact, that night in Cambridge I debated the former UK Ambassador to the UN, the head of the UN’s Millennium Project, along with a member of the British Parliament. Those people apparently thought I was an expert or they wouldn’t have gone to the expense of flying me to England.

It’s in things such as zoning, bike paths and conservation easements that DeWeese sees the advent of global totalitarianism. DeWeese invoked Hitler and Stalin, Mussolini and Napoleon, saying this time things would be much worse. He warned that unspecified “secret societies” sought to organize the entire world under a single “diabolical plan,” which he variously characterized as communist and fascist.

I only “invoked” Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon in saying there have always been those who have sought to rule the world. In fact, here’s what I actually said:

“There has always been some kind of force loose in the world seeking domination over others.

Usually it’s a drive for power for power’s sake. Conquer other tribes, kingdoms or nations. Grab their resources. Enslave their people. Build wealth and power. Rule the World!

Kings saw it as their duty. Megalomaniacs like Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin lusted for the control and power to satisfy their hatred, mistrust, and insecurities. Secret societies have plotted global control for their causes, however demented it might be.”

I was pointing out that these forces used war and violence to try to take over the world.

Then I said: “However, what if such power-mongers could find a way to keep their aggression under wraps, out of sight from those they intend to conquer – until it was too late?

Better yet, what if they could actually get their targeted victims to help them achieve that goal to control them? No armies in the field. No shots fired. Instead, they quietly pull in the Trojan Horse and celebrate its arrival.

What if there was a way to organize the world under a single unifying plan, accepted by nearly everyone as fact and necessary?

Everyone would be convinced that to oppose such a plan would be a direct threat to humanity. Acceptance of that plan would see every nation voluntarily surrendering its independence and sovereignty — to the aggressors. They would even raise money to pay for the aggressor’s system of control.

These new rulers would issue exact orders to be followed by all, gaining more and more power with each dictate. People would voluntarily forget their history, reject their culture, and never ask questions about it. Was it not always so, they would later ask?

What could be such a threat, so powerful that the entire world would lie down to accept such global servitude?  How about the threat of Environmental Armageddon? Who could be opposed to saving the planet?

“There is such a plan for world domination,” DeWeese said, his voice rising in volume and urgency as he went on. “It is rapidly taking over with a pace and scope that no force or power ever experienced in history. Hitler would be so envious watching what is being done, so powerful and controlling is this force.” Continue Reading

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Treason in the White House

Treason in the White HouseThe real key in all of this will be the Republican Congress.

by Bill Lockwood

Collusion with a foreign hostile government. Presidential campaign coffers filled with foreign cash in return for government favors such as high level sensitive assignments awarded to agents of foreign powers. Military technology traded for illicit cash laundered through various entities. Subpoena’s from Congress ignored by the Justice Department. Pretty much the textbook example of the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution—treason.

But this is not the Trump White House. It is the former Bill Clinton Administration. In order to grasp and maintain power the Clintons granted to The People’s Republic of China access to political and military secrets in exchange for cash. It is a similar scenario that has been replayed by Hillary Clinton with Russia during the 2016 campaign.

As was the case with husband Bill, Hillary’s seditious activity is aided and abetted by the Main Stream Media. Distraction is the name of the game. In the case of Bill, it was Monica Lewinsky. In the case of Hillary, it is the Paul J. Manafort and Richard Gates indictment issued this week by Special Counsel Stephen S. Mueller III.

In common to both Bill and Hillary’s cases a complicit establishment media cartel is aided by spineless Republicans on Capitol Hill whose only apparent recourse is wringing of the hands while the liberal movers and shakers of our society aggressively move their agenda toward totalitarian control.

Days before the House began the impeachment debate of Bill Clinton, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to then House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) urging Congress to examine Chinagate and the manner in which Bill Clinton committed a “betrayal of our national security.” Moorer pointed out that the president had “allowed these men whose hands are stained with the blood of martyrs to freedom [Tiananmen Square massacre in which 4,000 to 6,000 Chinese freedom lovers were slaughtered] into the highest reaches of our military defenses, and made available to them significant portions of our advanced military technology.”

Charles LaBella, the head of the Justice Department’s campaign finance task force during Clinton’s presidency, also sent a memo to Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno urging the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate fundraising activities of the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. Then FBI director Louis Freeh made the same recommendation to Reno in a memo of his own. AG Janet Reno ignored these requests.

She also ignored official subpoena’s sent by Congress to hand over these memo’s as a part of the Chinagate investigation. Although Reno was bound by law to comply, it was ‘nothing doing’ on her part. A faint-hearted Republican Congress simply complained at Clinton’s lawlessness. Bill Clinton’s treason remains unpunished.

Hillary’s Treason

Unpunished crime encourages more. Now it’s Hillary’s turn. As noted by Constitution.com “The Real Russia Conspiracy is That Hillary and the Democrat Party Are the Real Russia Colluders.” “After months of lies form the left that a fake dossier contained evidence between President Donald Trump and the Russians, now we find out that the whole ‘report’ was a false flag effort invented by an outfit bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat National Committee to destroy Trump’s campaign for president.”

It has also been discovered that “the heart of the Russia/Clinton collusion was a deal to allow the Russian company Uranium One to buy a significant part of America’s uranium supply.”

Like a series of bombs last week came revelation after revelation of Hillary’s Russian Conspiracy—Russiagate—while she served as Secretary of State for Barack Obama.  As reported by Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, “The Podesta Group [connected with Hillary Clinton] has lobbied for Uranium One, the Canadian-based energy company that has come under scrutiny …In 2010, the Obama Administration allowed Uranium One to be sold to Russian energy company Rasotum, giving the company control over one-fifth of American uranium-mining capacity to Russia, despite an ongoing FBI investigation into a Rosatum subsidiary involved in a racketeering scheme. The Podesta Group received $180,000 from Uranium One over several years between 2012 and 2015 …”

Hillary approved this sale and husband Bill received a cool $500,000 for a single speech from Russia in return. Chinagate-Russiagate. All eyes are turning once more to the Clinton’s.

Now Robert S. Mueller III, the Special Counsel appointed to investigate possible Russia connections with the Trump campaign, is on the hot seat to turn attention away from Hillary—in a Lewinsky-style move. In matters that are completely unrelated to the Trump campaign he was assigned to investigate, Mueller issued indictments against Paul J. Manafort, Jr. and Richard W. Gates III. The charges? Evading taxes on millions of dollars over a period of years among others.

Manafort managed the Trump campaign from June to August 2016. He was replaced by Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon. But the real Mueller goal here is a smokescreen to divert attention from criminal activities that have obviously occurred in the Clinton-Obama camp.

Mueller should have been fired by President Trump long ago. Having served under Marxist Obama his interest now is not in upholding the truth or the law, but providing protective cover for the past administration while also appeasing the radical lawless Democratic Party on the Left.

The real key in all of this will be the Republican Congress. Will they grow a backbone enough to investigate the real Russia Collusion story involving Bill and Hillary Clinton, and possibly Barack Obama? Or, like the days of the Clinton Administration of yesteryear, will the Republicans completely capitulate? Radical forces are after our president. It is past time for Republicans to stand for the rule of law while protecting the CEO of our nation.

Collectivism, Individualism & Freedom

Collectivism, Individualism & Freedom “…persons are considered to be only cogs in a collectivist wheel.

by Bill Lockwood

ObamaCare specifically, but collectivist socialism generally, is not only unconstitutional in America, but immoral. This does not mean that we have not or do not practice socialism via the redistribution of wealth. America has become a leading fascist or socialist nation. The Affordable Care Act is a perfect illustration. But it is at root level, immoral, and goes a long way in explaining why our streets are exploding with violence.

Think about a few concepts, then an illustration.

Consider first, individualism. As a political philosophy, America is to be a nation in which individuals, not the collective, is emphasized. Translated, this means that it is “individual freedom” which is stressed in our Constitution and other founding documents. As a concept it is rooted squarely in biblical teaching whereby “individuals” are held accountable before God—not families or societies.

For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God, for it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, to me, every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:11,12).

Connected with this is the worth of each individual. We are crafted by God “in his image” (Gen. 1:27). “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

The biblical doctrine of individualism is the dominant feature of western civilization precisely because our society is founded upon God-given rights, per the Declaration of Independence. This means that the interests of individuals and the rights of persons are held paramount. This is where morality lies.

Turn attention to its opposite: collectivism.

Collectivism is any species of political and economic system in which the government, or people, as a group, own land, factories, and other means of production. It flows from philosophy where de-emphasis is upon individuals and “classes” or “groups” of society are dominant. Various species of this include socialism, communism, and fascism.

The key element here, however, is that the moral worth of the individual is counted as very little and persons are considered to be only cogs in a collectivist wheel. The “greater good” of society rules. In practice this means that whatever group or powerful politician needs to sustain his office-holding is favored. Collectivism or statism is a moral stance that removes worth of the individual. This is how America has become not only immoral but that immorality is actually encoded into our system.

I illustrate it with the story of one of my friends, named Carl.

The Story of Carl

Carl is a great Christian friend. He is self-employed as a housing contractor, builder, welder, and pretty much a doer-of-everything kind of guy. Hard working by nature, his integrity is outstanding, laboring many over-hours to accomplish his tasks.

Carl comes from the old-time school, as thousands of other Texans, where one’s word is your bond. If he tells you he will do a certain project; it will be done—under budget. It is not that Carl is slower than corporate executives that he has a blue-collar job, but because he loves to work with his hands in the great outdoors. He needs no overseer because he is conscientious about his work.

Frugal by nature, my friend saves his money. When traveling, for example, he sleeps on the side of the road in a tent to avoid paying hotel costs. A self-made man that could survive if lost on the prairie. When his truck breaks down, he fixes it; when his roof needs replacing, he does the work; when the fields need mowing, he does them.

He now has a wife and daughter. Providing for his family in a God-ordered manner is his joy. Part of this provision involves health insurance—which cost him—prior to the arrival of Barack Obama on the scene, about $300 per month. This included the entire family. Enter ObamaCare. Carl’s insurance premiums sky-rocketed to over $1000 per month.

We must take from” the workers, said Obama, and distribute to those who are not as “fortunate” as Carl. Carl was forced to drop his own insurance in order to purchase it for his wife and child. So now, he himself is without.

He continues to work just as hard as ever, laboring as a private contractor for different people. But no health insurance for himself—it is too expensive. Where is Carl’s money going?

One can witness it in a thousand neighborhoods. Free health care clinics; what used to be called Section 8 housing; free education to many children who could not care less if they were there; free medical care including costs of having children for unwed mothers; babysitting, and medical care for the children. Then, to sweeten the pot, there is the Earned Income Credit for teenagers and others who bounce around through society on a continual marijuana high and who wait for that big EIC check at the first of the year so they might purchase another car, or spend it at the Casino.

The real workers of America, such as Carl, are not the Forgotten Men of America, they are The Exploited Men. This system cannot continue; nor should it.

« Older Entries