Category Archives: Government Tyranny

Bill Lockwood: Lexington & Concord Again? 0 (0)

by Bill Lockwood

In the early morning hours of April 19, 1775, the British regulars, stationed in Boston, marched up the quiet country road in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Their goal: to confiscate a cache of firearms that intelligence had informed them the colonists had stored in Concord. Patriot leaders, however, had sounded the alarm by horseback before dawn. Men such as Paul Revere and Samuel Prescott had roused the local militia’s who had been anticipating such an event.

As daylight was breaking the British regulars came out of the woods to a small village along the chosen route—Lexington. Major Pitcairn led the redcoats. Waiting for them were about 80 militiamen standing on the village “commons”—the town square, led by their Captain, John Parker. Determined to defend their God-bestowed right of self-preservation, even from a tyrannical government, the militia refused to disperse when Major Pitcairn ordered it.

Who fired the first shot is a matter left open to historical investigation. The result was that within the next few minutes 8 militiamen were killed during the confrontation. The Redcoats moved on to Concord but were met by several thousand farmers armed with their personal muskets as the news spread through the wooded communities. In the end, the Americans drove the British back to Boston. The Revolution had begun.

The entire event at Lexington was immortalized by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his famous poem, “Paul Revere’s Midnight Ride.”

The struggle actually had begun years before as the British government continually violated its own charters for the colonies that guaranteed them a free-hand governing themselves. One intrusive English law after another specifically violated those written promises. Colonial freedoms were being curtailed. In the end, these written guarantees in the form of charters were trampled by the gigantic growing British government that sprawled itself all over the world.

The United States

No one wishes to relive the bloody scenes of the past. Consider, however, the brewing trouble in our own nation and its similarities to 1775.

First, our Constitution was written for one specific purpose—to curtail the federal government. Our Founders felt so strongly about it that they included the 10th Amendment which in sum says that any power or authority NOT specifically delegated to the federal government by this Constitution remains with the people. All rights belong to the people by endowment from God. Government’s sole design is to protect these rights. Since governments throughout history have traditionally removed these rights, our national government was purposefully crafted to be limited.

The framers of the Constitution also realized from hard bloody experience that they must put into writing not only that the federal government needs to be restrained, but that individuals have a right of self-preservation from that government—even if by force. This is how America began. Thus, the 2nd Amendment. The primary reason for this Amendment—the right to keep and bear arms– is to defend rights that are historically lost by intrusive governments—not foreign invaders.

“The people” have a right to firearms. The ability of “the people” to defend themselves against dictators foreign and domestic is a divinely ordained right. As George Mason of Virginia put it, “to disarm the people—that is the best and most effective way to enslave them.”

The 2nd Amendment is, in effect, a “thou shalt not touch this” to the Federal Government. That includes whatever weaponry a citizen may deem necessary to maintain his or her freedom from authoritarian designs.

Second, the current slate of Democratic presidential hopefuls has sounded off about British-style confiscation of certain types of firearms. Beto O’Rourke has campaigned on the promise that the government will confiscate AR-15’s. In the ‘spirit of 1776’, Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain tweeted “My AR is ready for you Robert Francis.”

These words from Cain have simply enraged the statist-loving mob of the left who believe a person only has what rights a government may give. They see it as simply a threat to murder O’Rourke. But it is a far cry from that. Instead, it is exactly the same circumstances that were seen in 1775. Cain’s remark is no different than a Samuel Adams, or a Paul Revere, answering the arrogant British threat to remove this God-given right. At least we know where left stands when it comes to how we gained our freedom from Britain.

What should alarm the American people is the lawless, tyrannical, and totalitarian attitude from the O’Rourkes and Biden’s of the world that somehow the government can violate its own charters—the Declaration of Independence & Constitution—and impose its godless will on peace-loving American citizens. Beto and Biden sound no different than King George III.

Twitter removed Briscoe Cain’s “My AR is ready for you, Robert” tweet. That violates the rules of Twitter, it is said. Well, now we know what side of the Bill of Rights Twitter is on—King George’s. Making violent threats? No, that came from O’Rourke—“we’re going to take your AR 15” he repeated in the Democratic debate. If the socialist-Democrat party wishes to pursue this course, will we end up having another Lexington and Concord? I hope and pray not. But the lawless Democrats seem to push ahead wildly, regardless of whose rights they trample and the God from whom we own them.


John Anthony: The Whitewashing of American Tyranny 0 (0)

The Whitewashing of American Tyranny –Suddenly the rights of people to live where they can afford is “exclusionary.”

by John Anthony

While Donald Trump maneuvers to cleanse government’s cesspool, communities face a bigger challenge at home.

Academics, classroom teachers, newspapers and television, movie stars and the Cultural Arts are seducing our children into believing it is their duty to relinquish their rights for a coveted scrunch into the bloated backseat of the global collective.

Like a crafty Tom Sawyer, who made the drudgery of whitewashing Aunt Polly’s fence so glamorous his friends eagerly surrendered their apples, tadpoles and marbles for the honor, our government persuades Americans that loyalty to fairness, the environment and climate change outweighs their rights over their own property.

Today, the government can uproot and relocate entire low-income families into strange neighborhoods merely by manipulating the value of their vouchers.

Our federally controlled education system collects sensitive, personally identifiable data on every public school student in America.  Even their most guarded medical history no longer bears privacy. We are raising generations of children to whom personal property rights have no value. When property rights lack value, human rights vanish.

Today’s young men and women accept as normal, events that two generations ago would have been the illustrator’s palette for a garish digest of Shocking Tales.

The Director of America’s National Security Agency recently admitted that his group regularly spies on Americans capturing metadata the department may easily translate into a log of your private life.
The government now legally sanctions a 35-year old mentally disturbed adult male, at the flick of his internal identity switch, to glide into the bathroom with 11 your year old daughter.

Practices once represented by colorful explosions of primary outrage are now bleached pastels of tacit acceptance. Community members working together can stop these violations. Trump may slow their progress, but we cannot afford to rely on one man. As the only group instructed to govern the governors, our window is closing. Not only is our government the driver behind these affronts, it is near the unstoppable stage where it governs its own will.

The House of Representatives, once the “peoples’ house” that reined in government, is now little more than a vestigial structure. Federal agencies issue 18 times as many laws as Congress and remain unanswerable beyond an abused regulatory “comment period” and a limp Congressional Review Act.

As government authority broadens, our children’s futures wither. Its outrageous claims against our property and our lives increasingly demand compliance. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College said in a recent speech, that compliance; “means adapting constantly to changing and complex instructions from central authorities, and it means the employment of specialists to interpret the regulations and make sure others conform.”

That conformity is our children’s future. Unless we teach them the meaning of private property and its relationship to their human rights; unless they learn that government is not their ally, agencies like HUD will socially engineer their tomorrows and programs like Common Core will turn mediocrity and conformity, into social and emotional imperatives.

We have a choice.  We can sit by the lamplight and educate our children. In his 1796 Farewell Address, President Washington warned Americans what would happen if government followed man’s natural instinct to grow more powerful; “The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism.”

Thomas Jefferson warned of a consolidation of federal power in an 1821 letter; “when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

Obliging our Founders’ fears, HUD recently distorted the Fair Housing Act granting themselves authority to threaten communities with civil rights violations for failure to assure “income integration” by building affordable housing in affluent areas where low-income families cannot afford to live.

Suddenly the rights of people to live where they can afford is “exclusionary.” When discussed at all, many instructors teach our children that property rights are distinct from human rights. That people have the right to “free speech” and “religion” but the state must have the ability to control property for society’s good.
What is one without the other? 

If the government controls the newsprint enabling the editor to share opinions, then they successfully muffle the speech. A government that controls the distance you can drive your automobile controls how you travel, where you live, and how often you visit your distant family. One United Nation’s document, agreed to by our own government, goes so far as to suggest that because land is unique and crucial, “it cannot be treated as an ordinary asset and controlled by individuals…”  It continues, “public control of land use is therefore indispensable…”

There is no more elegant dissolution of this absurd despotic idea than James Madison’s essay On Property.
In the words of Arnn, noting the government has grown so large that it is a major factor in every aspect of our society; “This [government] is the political crisis of our time. No policy question, with the exception of imminent major war, which we do not have right now, can matter so much.”

Placing government in its proper perspective and teaching our children why property and freedom are inseparable, are the first steps in clearing their minds of the cultural swamp.

About the Author: John Anthony, Founder Sustainable Freedom Lab John Anthony is a nationally acclaimed speaker, researcher and writer. Mr. Anthony is the former Director of Sales and Marketing for Paul Mitchell Systems, Inc.  In 1989, he founded Corporate Measures, LLC, a management development firm. In 2012, Mr. Anthony turned his attention to community issues including the balance between federal agency regulations and local autonomy.

In January 2016, Mr. Anthony was a guest at the prestigious Rutgers University School of Management Fellowship Honoring Dr. Louis Kelso.  In March 2016, he was the keynote speaker on HUD and Property Rights at the Palmetto Panel at Clemson University.

Government Gone Rogue 0 (0)

 Government Gone Rogue –“…Obama knew exactly what had occurred in Libya. “

by Bill Lockwood

As our Founders were well aware, people lose their God-given rights primarily due to the governments under which they live. For this reason, the American experiment in freedom structured government small at the top and larger at a local level. The only safe government is one that is controlled by the people and that can only be done effectively at a local level.

Conversely, the larger governments become the less liberty people enjoy. It is as simple as general mathematics. This is in part due to the fact that it is much more difficult to redress wrongs committed against citizens the further one moves the locus of power away from the people at the bottom. Losing control of the governing powers always leads to tyranny.

This is exactly where America is on the brink of this election. After two hundred plus years of constant unconstitutional growth from the top down, whereby power has gravitated toward Washington D.C., the United States government under the leadership of Barack Obama has gone completely rogue. Tyranny is in the offing.

That which was to serve as a watchdog against unconstitutional drifts, the Media, has shown a total and complete disdain for the biblically-based principles of freedom upon which our Republic was founded. In an absolute shameful collusion with the socialists of the Democratic Party, they have long-ago neutered themselves.

Hillary Clinton

First, the Department of Justice. With approval from a Republican Congress Loretta Lynch is operating a fabulous cover-up for Hillary Clinton’s violation of federal law. As new State Department records reveal—which were forced public by Judicial Watch—the Obama Administration was giving Hillary significant fore-warning and cover for her email scandal.

Loretta Lynch, who owes her entire political career to Bill Clinton (She was his first appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York), secretly met with Bill Clinton during the Hillary investigation.  But more than that. Lynch’s DOJ has dropped all charges against Marc Turi, a weapons broker who armed the anti-Qadhafi rebels.

Lynch has ensured that Turi would not be investigated because it was Hillary Clinton, the then-Secretary of State, who directed Turi in this gun-running scandal. As reported by Life and Liberty PAC, Turi refused to back down against DOJ charges and threatened to defend himself with Hillary’s PRIVATE ACCOUNT EMAILS to expose Clinton’s gun-running to rebels in Libya. Lynch dropped the charges.

These are the same firearms that would be used to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens and other patriotic Americans in the deadly attack in Benghazi. Which brings us to other lies of the Clinton’s. Blaming the attack on some particular anti-Muslim video was a pre-fabricated LIE that Team Obama foisted upon the public. The facts are clearly known that Obama knew exactly what had occurred in Libya. It had nothing to do with a video. But once more, the media loves to lie for the President and much of the public loves to be on the receiving end of those lies.

Second, the FBI. Whatever reputation James Comey had enjoyed, it has evaporated in the wake of this power-grasping administration. The FBI allowed destruction of evidence for Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, Clinton insiders on the email scandal.

Then, last Friday another 189 pages of released Clinton documents demonstrate that while Clinton was corresponding electronically with Huma Abedin (another Clinton insider) that an additional person was on the email thread—Barack Obama.

The corruption is deep. These facts barely touch the tip of the iceberg. This is why this election is about whether we will have any “republic” left at all—or will we sink into the abyss of a socialistic state in which freedom will be a faint remembrance of the past.

Back to Homepage

Texas Secession or Borderless, Which? 0 (0)

Texas Secession or Borderless, Which?

by Bill Lockwood

What exactly is involved in Texas Secession? In simple terms, the removal of Texas from the United States by popular vote. However, any kind of Texas Independence talk quickly draws the anger of the establishment. Many constitutional conservatives worry as well. Will we enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution?

Sometimes even the “T” word is pulled out of the bag. Treason is the charge leveled against those who suggest removing the political bands that attach Texas to the United States. At a recent Republican meeting in Jefferson County, Texas, Independent-minded members were charged with “sedition” for the suggestion that a vote be taken on Texas sovereignty.

Instead of becoming heated over Texican-Americans who favor Independence, perhaps politicians should become more inflamed over the political left, for it is from this quarter that calls have been originating for the removal of Texas from the United States by splicing the entire nation into a New World Order. Texas as a sovereign state, as well as the very sovereignty of the nation of the United States, will be history. As a matter of fact, the socialist one-worlder crowd on the left side of the political spectrum have been beating this drum for decades.

Swift-Boat Kerry

Swift-boat Secretary of State John Kerry gave the most recent voice to the erasure of the borders of Texas and the United States in his commencement speech last Friday evening. To graduates from Northeastern University Kerry exulted in a “borderless world” which he is assisting to craft. Kerry then lashed out at Donald Trump and his American supporters who, according to Kerry, long-for a “nostalgia for some rose-tinted version of the past that did not really exist… You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world.”

So, I ask: Why be excited about the Texas Nationalist Movement, even using the words “sedition” and “treason,” when the Obama Administration is doing its dead-level best to completely remove the borders and sovereignty of Texas? John Kerry is doing nothing more than following the globalist script that has been publicized for the past forty years. It is called “Reconquista.” Professor Charles Trujillo of the University of New Mexico boasted of the burgeoning Hispanic immigration in the Southwestern U.S. He openly declared that secession is an “inevitability.” Piping Kerry’s borderless doctrine he added, “We may join Mexico… Throughout history, nations and empires rise and fall. No nation’s borders have been permanent.” Perhaps this is where the words “treason” or “sedition” should be used instead of giving him a post to brainwash young minds.

Globalist Vicente Fox, while speaking in Chicago on June 16, 2004, expressed his idea of a borderless continent this way: “We are Mexicans that live in our territories and we are Mexicans that live in other territories. In reality, we are 120 million people that live together and are working to construct a nation.” This explains why Fox supported the North American Union and why he is currently going ballistic against Donald Trump who actually proposes that America protect its own borders.

Fox’s predecessor, Ernesto Zedillo, affirmed on July 27, 1997 that “… the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important- a very important – part of it.” These bold calls for Reconquista and Borderless territories prompted Steve Murdock, demographer and sociologist at Rice University, to conclude that due to the major influx of Hispanics into Texas “It’s basically over for Anglos.”

Art Moore, writing in WorldNetDaily in 2002, quotes University of California at Riverside professor Armando Navarro as follows: “If in 50 years most of our people are subordinated, powerless, exploited and impoverished, then I will say to you that there are all kinds of possibilities for movements to develop like the ones that we’ve witnessed in the last few years all over the world, from Yugoslavia to Chechnya.” Navarro goes on to state, “A secessionist movement is not something that you can put away and say it is never going to happen in the United States. Time and history change.”

As early as July, 1982 Carlos Loret de Mora was quoted in Exelsior, a major Mexico City newspaper, as saying “The American southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing of a single shot” (July 20, 1982 “The Great Invasion: Mexico Recovers Its Own.”)  After visiting Los Angeles, CA he was enthused that such dreams were becoming reality. Loret de Mora continued that the conquering of the southwest as a whole would occur “by means of a steady, spontaneous, and uninterrupted occupation … The territory lost in the 19th century by a Mexico torn by internal strife and under centralist dictatorships led by paranoid chiefs, like Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, seems to be restoring itself through a humble people who go on settling various zones that once were ours …”

Harvard Professor Samuel P, Huntington, Chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, wrote The Hispanic Challenge in Public Policy Magazine, (April, 2004). In it he observed, “[t]he persistence of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two people, two cultures, and two languages… The United States ignores this challenge at its peril… Mexican immigration differs from past immigration due to a combination of six factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration, [in the American Southwest], persistence, and historical presence… Demographically, socially, and culturally, the reconquista (re-conquest) of the Southwest United States by Mexican immigrants is well underway.”

Our Founders recognized that our gifts from God; life, liberty and ownership of private property could only be realized by keeping government bound in tight constricting chains. Those chains have now been broken by an oversized super-state that aggressively pursues its own policies—including allowing our nation to be overrun with Mexican nationals who have no intention of assimilating. If our elected representatives would be more interested in upholding the rule of law instead of pandering to various minority groups or power brokers of the New World Order we would be in a much safer place. There is no doubt that the Obama Administration is in a full-court press to cram America into a regional, if not global government wherein our liberties will have been forever lost.

In light of current realities, there are only two viable options for those who wish to enjoy any of the liberties bestowed by God. One, return swiftly to a limited Constitutional government. If this type of reformation is possible at this late hour I have yet to see its formation. The current rupture in the Republican Party demonstrates the challenges facing this course.

Two, various states separate from the lawless socialist monstrosity that is destroying the few freedoms that remain and go it alone.  In this option self-governance is to be preferred over slavery to the behemoth in Washington. If all men have a right before God to live free—as our forefathers believed and died to obtain—then this is not an incidence of treason or sedition. Those labels belong to the powers-that-be that insist on erasing not only our borders but our Constitutional way of life as well.

Back To Homepage

Obama’s Communistic Amerika? 0 (0)

Obama’s Communistic Amerika?

by Bill Lockwood

Prosecution against non-believers in government doctrine. Announcing on March 29 at a press conference in the once-free state of New York in the formerly-free America a group of state attorney’s general promised full-scale “investigations” into any company that denies the official state doctrine that “climate change is real” and is “human-caused.” This belief-system or dogma of Climate Change has the imprimatur of Barack Obama. American businesses who do not accept the tenets thereof will be labeled as heretics and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman spoke in behalf of a group of 17 attorney’s general when he said that companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change and forthwith will be prosecuted. The 17 AG’s, like so many Jesuits of 16th century Spain, have coalesced into a society labeled “AG’s United for Clean Power”—a part of Obama’s enforcement arm. Members include AG’s from California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington State. Included in the list is the AG from the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.
Harassment investigations against suspected heretic companies have already been launched by Schneiderman himself as well as Kamala Harris, the Attorney General of California. ExxonMobil heads their list. According to The Daily Signal allegations against the suspected oil company include “funding research that questioned climate change.” Exxon has defensively rocked back on its heels denouncing the accusations. Little matter. This is how communism works. Shut down any possible dissenting voice with heavy-handed government threats. One may not question official doctrine. Few patriots will let their voices squeak out against this Obama-driven onslaught.

Obama’s Fingerprints

Recall that our dictator-in-chief already has issued Climate Change proclamations, signaling to the Sustainability Socialists that he was ready to prosecute doctrine-deniers. His ex cathedra dictates followed recent encouragements from one of his colleges of cardinals. In a letter composed by a team of 20 professors Obama was urged to begin prosecuting heretics under the anti-mafia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). A heretic is one who does not believe the “debate is over” and denies that “climate change is real and human-caused.”

In that letter the professors stroke Obama. “We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.” [The people’s representatives are not buying Washingtonian Doctrine]. “One additional tool,” they go on to suggest, “is a RICO investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.” The only disseminator of knowledge must be government sponsored.

The United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch has indicated that the entire Justice Department has already been transformed into Obama’s heresy-hunters in which civil legal actions against climate change deniers are being sharpened. This, of course, explains why Hillary Clinton has not yet been indicted. Real and actual violation of law is not of interest to Obama’s Justice Department. Violation of law is secondary to transgressing the tenets of the King.

To alter the figure, Obama’s Amerika is rapidly taking on characteristics of the communist dictatorships of the twentieth century. Atheism was the “official dogma” of the Soviet Union and anti-religious propaganda was meant to demonize believers while fostering public hostility against Christians. Brainwashing was the recognized technique to soften peoples’ belief-systems and government force used to weaken resolve.

Various “public organizations” sprang up to assist the government indoctrinators. Komsomol, the Young Pioneers, the League of the Militant Godless, and others began linking denial of State Doctrine to psychological disorders which created more hostility against Christian people. Textbooks were composed to evoke contempt for Christianity as well as America. Learning was state-sponsored where real history could easily be “revised” to bring into into communistic line.


The official state dogma in America, conceived in the United Nations, is called “Sustainability.” It is defined as the ideological concept which seeks to curtail economic, political and intellectual liberty through government force resulting in the rationing of resources, goods and finances. Global Catastrophe (Climate Change) is the lever which supposedly makes this oversight necessary. According to the National Association of Scholars “sustainability” has become a discipline of its own in the University. There have been 1,438 degree programs at 475 colleges and universities in 65 states and provinces focusing on or relating to sustainability studies. For example, Middlebury College offers 422 courses in sustainability—about 25% of all course offerings.

Over five-hundred universities in the United States report to the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) where they are graded by a rating system. Points for each institution can be earned for such things as “growing organic gardens, subsidizing child care for employees, and offering gender-neutral housing.” Very little science is actually required for these studies. Changing behavior is the goal, not learning truth. That behavior is now moving from the suggestion stage to mandated stage as students are goose-stepping out of the universities chanting the tenets of Sustainability.

With less than a year remaining in office, Obama is “fundamentally transforming” a once-free republic, or what remains of it, into a totalitarian nation. Totalitarian– by definition –means even re-orienting the belief-systems of the people as well as their behaviors. Pressures from below at the educational- level is now beginning to squeeze citizens against the pressure from above—the Justice Department and the “AG’s United for Clean Power.”

Back To Homepage

Sanctity of Family 0 (0)

Sanctity of Family

by Bill Lockwood

The God-designed family is the basic unit of any stable society. The apostle Paul writes to the Ephesians, “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church, being himself the Savior of the body. … Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for it…” Earlier, he addressed himself to wives to “be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” Finally, he reminded them of the basic institution of family God ordained from the beginning, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and the two shall become one flesh.” (5:22-31).

As a basic building block of society the family was recognized as a “sacred” institution in the ancient Roman Empire (F.W. Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity). “Family life among the Romans had once been a sacred thing, and for 520 years divorce had been unknown among them” (p. 5).  Farrar notes that the “greatness” of the Roman “state was founded on the sanctity of family relationships.” However, just as in America, the dissolution of the entire Roman way of life was at hand as the family began to tear apart.  “[M]arriage” came to be “regarded with disfavor and disdain. Women … married in order to be divorced, and were divorced in order to marry; the noble Roman matrons counted the years not by the Consuls, but by their discarded husbands.”

Soon the entire bond of society began to dissolve. “Literature and art were infected with the prevalent degradation. Poetry sank in great measure into exaggerated satire, hollow declamation, or frivolous epigrams. Art was partly corrupted by the fondness for glare, expensiveness …and partly sank into miserable triviality, or immoral pettiness.” Finally, the welfare state totally corrupted the culture and ultimately dissolved what was left of the family. For example, just above the “slave class” the “freeborn inhabitants of the Roman Empire” were, for the most part, beggars and idler. “Despising a life of honest industry, they asked only for bread and the games of the circus, and were ready to support any Government, even the most despotic, if it would supply these needs.

They spent their mornings in lounging about the Forum, or in dancing attendance at the levees of patrons, …enjoying the polluted plays of the theater, or looking with fierce thrills of delighted horror and the bloody sports in the arena. And night they crept up to their miserable garrets [apartments] in the sixth and seventh stories of the huge ‘insulae’—lodging houses of Rome … into which drifted all that was most wretched and vile.”  So dependent was the population upon government funding that the entire populace of Imperial Rome “might be trembling lest they should be starved by the delay of an Alexandrian corn-ship …”
These crushing societal problems begin with the dissolution of the family.

The recent Obergefell decision at the Supreme Court actually redefined the family unit. Open relationships, multiple partners, temporary partners are in the wake of this pro-Sodomite dictatorship. Make no mistake. This is exactly how the pro-homosexual crowd sees the decision. We are tracking along the ruin of Rome. E.J. Graff, a leading  LGBT advocate, exults that the Court is “sending a message” which will “ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers.” She argues “it announces that marriage just changed shape.” Professor Ellen Willis delighted that “conferring legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.” This is the point.

Michelangelo Signorile, a pro-homosexual advocate, urges couples to “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk the myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” Same-sex couples should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.” (Ryan Anderson, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, 42). The most important construction site Christians will ever occupy is the family unit. Make yours a godly one. Our culture seeks to destroy it and is already celebrating over its expected demise. It is past time for Christians to take a principled stand against our overreaching federal government.  

Back to Homepage