Author Archives: AmLib1

The Christian and Politics

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bedrock of Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bart Lubow and Social Justice

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

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

Social Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lubow on “Structural Racism”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom DeWeeese: Sustainable Development-Code for Reorganizing Human Society

Sustainable Development-Code for Reorganizing Human Society 

by Tom DeWeese

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

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

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

Psalm 11:3

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

If You See Something, Say Something?

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, 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.” (

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, 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.


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.


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.

« Older Entries