Category Archives: Socialism

John Anthony: How to Annihilate U.S. Socialism and Force Washington to Listen

 How to Annihilate U.S. Socialism and Force Washington to Listen- In a socialist society, the government defines ‘fair’ and votes become a minor nuisance.”

by John Anthony

Socialism’s barbs have sunk deep into the heart of America’s soul. We see the Titanic struggle as Democrats and Republicans jointly hamper Trump’s attempts to return choices to the people. Washington will never willingly stop its progressive control, but we can make them.

As one who has studied the progressive/socialist movement from the Congressional halls to small communities across the country, I believe we have a rich opportunity to adapt an explosive method to defeat the anti-Constitutional forces in America. For years, Constitutionalists have joined marches, attended meetings, written articles, and built networks.

Through speeches, seminars and videos we have exposed regionalists for grabbing local authority, sustainable development for driving up housing costs, and federal regulations for usurping local land use and zoning laws. Experts in education, climate science, and Constitutional law have bared how our federal agencies and court system are turning the land of the free into regions of the fettered. Despite successes, every week reveals the incessant ‘tick-tock’ of the socialist advance.

In September 2016, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority used taxpayers’ money to reduce the monthly rents to $75 for HUD residents who visited relatives overseas for up to 3 months. The agency felt it was unfair that East Africans should have to save for so long to take an international trip most working Americans will never be able to afford.

In 2014, an affordable housing developer proposed building low-cost housing in a closed Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania warehouse. When the voters and officials rejected the plan for zoning reasons, the developer contacted HUD who sued Whitehall. By December 2016, Whitehall agreed to change their zoning laws, operate under a court-appointed monitor, and pay the developer $375,000 for costs including “out of pocket expenses.”

In a socialist society, the government defines ‘fair’ and votes become a minor nuisance. The progressive movement in America has advanced so far that in 2016, the unelected Thrive Regional Partnership consisting of 16 counties in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama, urged their faked regional community to take “inspiration” from the works of Parag Khanna.

Khanna is a global strategist who preaches that nations must merge into connected regions overseen by direct technocracy. He advocates that the American Democracy of our Founding Fathers, (he apparently does not realize the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic,) is “crumbling” and must be replaced by a technocratic intelligentsia.

Khanna’s technocracy model recommends we eliminate the U.S. Senate and replace the President with a 7-member panel of elite, ivy-league educated experts who are better equipped to make decisions than squabbling elected officials and uninformed citizens. The nation would consist of regions managed by unelected councils. Local community members would merely have an opportunity to offer input. (Think of a regional planning session where all opinions are welcome, but only those that meet the pre-determined outcomes are accepted.)

This Communist nightmare is closer than you think. Regions like San Francisco’s Association of Bay Area Governments and Minneapolis’ Twin Cities Regional Council, routinely force through transit lines, toll roads, complete streets, and housing projects against voter’s wishes. Along with dozens of other regions, these groups and hundreds of existing Councils of Governments are salivating to turn Khanna’s’ direct technocracy into your future.

President Trump has thrown a monkey wrench into the left’s relentless drive toward a centrally managed nation. He has been immensely successful in re-working bad trade deals, opening industries for growth, and reducing costly federal regulations. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment is the exposure of the vitriol and atrocities of the leftist establishment. Still, Trump is not enough.

HUD’s 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, handed the progressive movement a legal tool to bludgeon communities into central planning and assault the poor while masquerading as their rescuers.  AFFH represents the clearest threat to independence, property rights, and local autonomy in our history. Yet, HUD’s recent resolution of the AFFH-based Westchester case and the confirmation of Dr. Carson as HUD Secretary have left the rule fully intact.

We must disconnect local communities from federal dependence because it is the lifeblood of socialism. Big government does not help the poor, it feeds on them.  Since 1965 the U.S. poverty rate has not wavered from between 11% and 15%, ever! This, despite spending over $20 trillion. The left needs the poor to be poor. It is the only way they can garner the votes to remain office.  Imagine entering an election cycle knowing that 11% – 15% of the people think they need you for they fear they will not eat.

It is not just poverty that propels socialism. The socialist movement eliminated Christianity in government and education because they know what our Founders knew. Only a moral society can be a free society.  Without a Christian moral foundation, America devolves into more offenses and violence, which leads to more elitists and tighter state control.

It is time to attack the heart of the progressive beast. The only way to kill the socialist movement is to free the poor, eliminate the demand for federal money and reinstate the church as the center of community life.
A growing society of independent, financially successful, Christian practicing, and capitalist African-Americans and Latinos is the equivalent of an Ebola outbreak inside the haughty progressive political community. This much-abused base must be realigned with people who have no political axes and no concern other than to help them out of poverty and to share in freedom.

Community programs are already proving that low-income minorities will change their allegiances when they feel the benefits of new opportunities. That is why, in the Spring of 2017 I started the Miss Mary Project.  We are a church-based program that teaches working age members of low-income families in urban and suburban areas, not just how to get a job, but how to excel on the job and become indispensable, promotable employees. Rather than help people rise to just above poverty, we help propel them to a lifetime of success, reducing the need for federal programs.

Our work is based on 30 years of corporate leadership training experience and builds on existing successful programs for the poor. The Miss Mary Project has been so well-received that we are already opening publicly supported centers in Chattanooga, TN and Greenville, SC with plans to go nationwide.

We can defeat socialism, but not through reactionary and survivalist methods.  We must once again make the church the center of our community life and engage in and support positive local programs that truly help people become financially independent and free of government.

 

John Anthony is a nationally acclaimed speaker, researcher and writer.  He is the founder of Sustainable Freedom Lab. 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 February 2017, he was the keynote speaker on HUD and Property Rights at the Palmetto Panel at Clemson University and in August, the keynote speaker on HUD at the American Dream Coalition in Arlington VA.  Most recently John is the Founder and CEO of the Miss Mary Project.

Republicans are the Problem

Republicans are the Problem- “They are on the brink of allowing Obama to Trump them all. ”

by Bill Lockwood

As I have stated for a long time, it is not the socialist-Marxists of the Democratic Party who are problematic for Americans—it is the Republicans. The Democrats, with only a two-year window during Obama’s first term, quickly turned one-fifth of our economy on the road to socialized medicine. No fuss among them; no wrangling; no hesitation. We know where they stand. What Americans need is principled opposition to this onslaught. Now that the Republicans have control of not only the Congress but the White House, we are learning they are not the standard-bearers of these constitutional principles. They are on the brink of allowing Obama to Trump them all.

Since the Affordable Health Care Act passed in 2010 government mandates, gigantic premium hikes and loss of quality health care has become the norm. This was not a failure—it was the design. Throw Americans onto government-run socialized medicine, which Obama previously had announced was the entire goal.

Republicans whined, wrung their hands, and postured continually at home and in Washington, D.C. that “there was nothing we can do about it” as long as Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House.

Voters responded by giving the House of Representatives to the Republicans in 2011. Republican Representatives, however, complained to voters that that was not enough. The electorate responded in 2015 by turning over both houses of Congress, the Senate and the House, to the GOP. A huge defeat for the Obama machine.

But what occurred? With budget reins in hand, including the ability to defund each of Obama’s statist unconstitutional programs, Republican majorities in Congress continued to fund ObamaCare.

Rank and file Americans at the grassroots were suspicious—and rightly so. They suspected that the stock answer quipped by Republican lawmakers—“we have sent repeal bills to the White House; but until we have a Republican there to sign the bill, we have no hope”—was a ploy. Their suspicions are today turning into reality.

Secretly, many of the GOP evidently hoped they would never get the White House. Not because they do not know how to govern, but because too many of them fundamentally agree with government-run entitlement programs and Americans would call their bluff.

Republicans know how to govern. What they do not know how to do is govern from a soft-socialist position, which is where their hearts lie, while maintaining a conservative face for their constituents. It is easier to satisfy angry voters by chirping that they have tried to stall our slide into statism than actually to stop unconstitutional programs with which they fundamentally agree—ObamaCare being the case in point.

This is the only evident reason that many GOP lawmakers, including the John McCain’s and Paul Ryan’s, were reticent to support President Trump. They knew that Trump would call their bluff. This is where we are now. At least there was no deceit with the Democrats’ position on Health Care. They openly campaign for a single-payer socialized system. Republicans are mired in subterfuge. Vaunting love for a limited constitutional system, too many of them are on the socialist bandwagon.

Co-Exist!–Deceptive Diagnosis Leads to Deceptive Remedy

Co-Exist!–Deceptive Diagnosis Leads to Deceptive Remedy- Katy Perry’s worldview apparently has been formed by bumper stickers…”

by Bill Lockwood

Katy Perry, the social media pop star, commented on this week’s Islamic terror attack in Manchester, England. While on “The Elvis Duran Show” she related that she feels “devastated” by the attack. To solve the “horribleness” of these types of events, Perry suggested that we all need simply to “unite and love on each other, and like, no barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just co-exist.”

Katy Perry’s worldview apparently has been formed by bumper stickers that are prolific in the San Francisco Bay area. One version of the sticker uses an Islamic crescent moon for the “C”, a peace sign for the “O”, a combination of male and female symbols for the “E”, the Star of David for the “X”, a pentagram of modern occultism for the dot on the “I”, a yin-yang of eastern religions for the “S”, and a Christian cross for the “T.”

In a more sophisticated version of “just love each other” from Katy Perry, Omer Taspinar, in a 2009 SAIS Review of International Affairs, suggested that the “new strategy” to prevent radicalism is by American funding of “social and economic development” in the Middle East. In other words, siphon-off the wealth of taxpayers to put an end to Manchester, England-type of jihadi attacks.

The last administration of Barack Obama was larded with liberal Marxist academicians who preached this same “pop star” theology of Perry about “let’s just all learn to love each other.” Maria Harpf, the State Department spokeswoman for Obama boldly suggested that to “stop the slaughter” of innocent civilians by Islamic State militants Americans need to pony-up more money. Why? Because the main problem, per Harpf, is “poverty.” This is the “root cause” of jihadic violence and it becomes the duty of America to “help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.”

Lack of jobs. Lack of western money. Economic depression. Not enough love. Let’s just all agree to co-exist. Liberalism is steeped in these nonsensical and unrealistic views of the world. I suggest this is the primary problem facing America: liberalism’s delusional view of reality. What is its taproot?

Socialism

Socialism is worldview that is totally at war with Christianity. This is so because the foundation of socialism is a materialistic concept of the world. Every action of man is explained solely on the basis of what a person does or does not own or is able to “access” in society. This is the “devil’s gospel” of materialism, which is why materialists such as Harpf, Perry, and an academy full professors continually harangue “the system.”

The one cause of all human problem has a materialistic root. This means that all ills in society—be it violence, jihad, thievery, murder and mayhem stem directly from the lack of this world’s goods and opportunities or these types of “injustices” in the system.

What then is the remedy? How is the free world to help stop the violence in the world? The Devil’s Gospel is: “redistribute the wealth” and material possessions—or at least pay boatloads of money to establish better conditions. All problems can only be resolved by government-sponsored (not free-will giving) redistribution.

The above is what many preachers in nominal “Christian” pulpits apparently have not taken time to discover, as evidenced by their lack of cross-examination of materialistic and socialistic philosophies. Even the National Council of Churches majors in this mis-diagnosis of misbehavior, suggesting that the cure lies in more redistribution. The cultural malaise that is occurring in the western world is grounded almost totally on socialistic folly.

Pulpits have forsaken the God-given diagnosis of the world’s problems. Sin. And this forgetfulness is the more amazing since the entire biblical worldview demonstrates that sin embedded in the heart of man (Rom. 4:15; 6:23) is the source of all of society’s ills. And sin is the result of personal free-will choices that people make. Forgiveness in Christ is the remedy.

What our cultural elite absolutely refuse to entertain is the truth. Behavior of people is rooted in their ideology—not pocketbook. What a person, or group believes is the single motivating factor. Until the west totally abandons the worldview of socialism violence will increase. Jihadi terror will continue.

Islam

Specifically regarding Islam—the problem is the religious ideal itself. Not “extremists,” not “fringe radicals”—but the doctrine of Mohammed as codified in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sirah (his biography).

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, is the perfect example for those calling themselves Muslims. Yet, Muhammad’s authoritative biographer, Ibn Ishaq, made perfectly clear that conversion to Islam had little to do with religion and everything to do with violence and jihad. The last chapter that came from his mouth is his marching orders for future generations of Muslims: “Fight and slay pagans wherever you may find them” (Surah 9:4).

Katy Perry and the New Agers of San Francisco may sway and sing for “Co-Existence” and Maria Harpf, now a television commentator, may lament the lack of American tax-payer money sent to Islamic nations, but Americans who have not been brainwashed by socialistic or Islamic doctrine can see that the root is the ideology behind the behavior.

Kathleen Marquardt: SOCIAL ENGINEERING, CRONY CAPITALISM, REGIONALISM, URBANISM…

Social Engineering, Crony Capitalism, Regionalism, Urbanism are all happening in every state – “…Let’s look at Texas…”

by Kathleen Marquardt

Let’s look at Texas; these issues are not limited to Texas, but Texas’s population growth is higher than the U.S. as a whole and twice as fast sine the 1990s, so perhaps we can see some things better there.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE PHONY “TEXAS MIRACLE”
“Moving a business to Texas also turns out to have tax consequences that are inconsistent with the conservative narrative of the Texas Miracle.

Yes, some businesses manage to strike lucrative tax breaks in Texas. As part of an industrial policy that dares not speak its name, the state government, for example, maintains the Texas Enterprise Fund (known to some as a slush fund and to others as a “deal-closing” fund), which the governor uses to lure favored businesses with special subsidies and incentives.

But most Texas businesses, especially small ones, don’t get such treatment. Instead, they face total effective tax rates that are, by bottom-line measures, greater than those in even the People’s Republic of California.” [Read more]

BREAKING NEWS! JANUARY 23, 2017

The people of Texas have a vital interest in water.  Yet, the Texas Water Development Board is, in essence, holding a secret meeting—what they call a “unique opportunity” available only to their invited presenters and those who pay $525 to attend–to set their course on water allocation issues.”  [Read more]

AUSTIN’S ‘COMPLETE STREETS’ POLICY A COMPLETE CONGESTION NIGHTMARE

If Austin planners have their way, they’ll impose a California-style ‘complete streets’ congestion-inducing nightmare. Complete streets policies seek to elevate non-auto modes of travel by using already scarce road funds to construct bike, bus, and pedestrian facilities while reducing capacity and access for autos. Voters in San Francisco just passed Proposition A, a $500 million bond measure, last November to impose a variety of traffic calming measures, which actually do anything but calm traffic. Rather they induce traffic.

The measure includes speed bumps, road diets, traffic circles, intersection islands, train upgrades, expanding bus stops, special boarding islands or ‘bulbs’ for buses (which undoubtedly take up road space needed for efficient auto travel), and transit-only lanes. [Read more]

The water issue is not specific to Texas, but be assured wherever you live, you are in the same metaphorical boat.

The Trans-Texas Corridor, aka the NAFTA Highway, was an early piece of social engineering. In 2006, Ron Paul said, “Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside. … The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union.”

By design, the corridor had few access ramps and bisected communities in order to shorten travel distances.  No additional border security was planned at the Mexico-Texas border.  Chinese-owned ports on the Mexican coast were to be offloaded in sealed containers, not to be opened until they reached their final destination.  The first upgraded security check was to take place at the corridor hub in Kansas City, Kansas where a “Smart Port” was to be installed that would allow the cargo to be scanned while moving through the facility.  Efficiency and expediency of goods was the stated mission of the NAFTA Superhighway.

The corridor itself was to hold six passenger lanes for commuter travel, four truck lanes for long hauls, freight rail and high speed rail. The right-of-way that would be condemned for the project was a quarter-of-a-mile wide, taking 146 acres per mile from Americans. The right-of-way was to be wide enough to not only house the transportation facilities, but also the hotels, gas stations and restaurants so that travelers would not need to leave the corridor.

The corridor was backed by international investors. They were to design and build the corridor and in return collect toll fees for the next 50 years.  In return, American’s land would be confiscated, their community and emergency services bisected, all for the privilege of paying a toll to drive their children to school.

In order to avoid national opposition to the facility, the corridor was not put forward as a project of the federal government; rather it was split into state segments, built by each state transportation department. The first critical leg of the corridor was the I-35 Trans-Texas Corridor which connected the Mexican border to Oklahoma.

In 2002, Governor Rick Perry unveiled the Trans-Texas Corridor concept as the new model for transportation in the state.  In 2003, his hand-picked House Transportation Chairman Mike Krusee held every transportation bill in committee until the final hour when he then unveiled a massive Omnibus Transportation package. The bill was voted on and passed without the time to closely examine its contents.  Included in this package was a 100-plus page Trans-Texas Corridor bill that gave Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) the green light to develop three separate TTC corridors in Texas.” [Read more]

The TransTexas Corridor was shot down in 2009, but it didn’t die. “In 2009, Perry scrapped the TTC plan after a series of combative town hall meetings throughout the state showed TxDOT it faced massive taxpayer resistance. “But now, the plan apparently is being implemented in small chunks, without the fanfare of divulging a statewide blueprint Perry and TxDOT may still have tucked away in their back pockets.” 
[Read more]

PUSH TO CONTINUE THE CROOKED RICK PERRY TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR QUIETLY

“Gridzilla, aka the California Water Model — is the ugly baby of State Rep. Lyle Larson (R-San Antonio) who is now the chair of the House Natural Resources Committee and Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), who chairs the Senate Agricultural, Water and Rural Affairs Committee. This picture of his “water grid” from the 2015 session tells you exactly where Lyle’s head is — the IH-35 growth corridor. That’s where he wants to send massive supplies of groundwater for hyper-development. Though some movement of groundwater is necessary, this is the California Water Model that took only 50 years to cause a water crisis of historic proportion.” [Read more]

The Independent League of Texas has a list of bills that need to be voted against. Texans can go to their website to find those. For Texans to find their legislators they can go here. For others, search state name, then legislature and there will be a link to a list where you can find your city, county, and state representatives.

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Socialism: Disruption of Society & Dakota Access Pipeline

Socialism: Disruption of Society & Dakota Access Pipeline – “…environmental-rent-a-mobs have actually polluted the environment.”

by Bill Lockwood

The Entertainment Industry has become, in large measure, one big propaganda stage for the socialist left. This past weekend featured The Grammy Awards in which there was no shortage of calls to collectivist activism. Paris Jackson, for instance, used her moment in the spotlight to advocate more protesting of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Her call to arms was as follows: “We could really use this kind of excitement at a pipeline protest guys! #NoDaPL.”

From obstructionism in the halls of Congress to an overt disruption of society, socialists are intent on destroying what little freedom we have remaining in America.

Dakota Access Pipeline

The Dakota Access Pipeline is a $3.8 billion, 1,100-mile pipeline under construction in the Upper Midwest that would carry approximately 500,000 barrels of crude oil through four states. The point of origin is what is called The Bakken Formation in North Dakota. Named for the family upon whose farm the deposit of oil was originally found in 1953, the pipeline is to run to Pakota, Illinois.

Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) is the company building the pipeline. According to Popular Mechanics magazine, estimates from ETP range between 8,000 to 12,000 construction jobs and $156 million in tax revenue alone will result from merely the construction of the pipeline. Added to that, there is an estimated $129 million annually in property and income taxes that the pipeline will provide.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) notes that, “an estimated $50 million annually in property taxes and nearly $74 million in sales taxes” will be funneled to the “states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois to support services such as schools, roads, and emergency services.”

Economic advantages aside, what is more concerning to many is the possible environmental impact of the pipeline. Wading through government red tape on this one is more than a minor challenge. Yet, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers deemed the pipeline safe in an official government study. In a further evaluation of ETP itself, the Corps wrote that the ETP itself has “developed response and action plans, and will include several monitoring systems, shut-off valves, and other safety features to minimize the risk of spills and reduce …any potential damages.”

Brian McNicoll of the Daily Caller noted that, in all, ETP had received “approval from environmental bureaucracies in four states. It took negotiating with local and federal officials, working painstakingly with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior to identify the safest, most environmentally friendly route available.”

Because of all of these considerations, not the least of which is a huge jobs boon, the Dakota Access Pipeline received the endorsement of various groups and individuals. The Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) stated, “From improved access to domestic fuel to a $5 billion economic infusion in the form of jobs, tax payments and reimbursements for landowners, communities stand to gain much from construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline … For the highly skilled and trained men and women of LIUNA, projects like the Dakota Access are more than just pipelines. They are crucial lifelines to family-supporting jobs.”

Laborers Local 563 Agent Cory Bryson said, “We’ve been inundated with calls from all over the country from people wanting to work on this pipeline project. Mainline pipeline projects like Dakota Access provide excellent working opportunities for our members and tremendous wages. The Laborers excel at this work.”

This common sense has not been lost on the political figures of North Dakota. Doug Burgum, the last Governor of North Dakota, and the current Governor, Jack Dalrymple, have both supported the pipeline. Governor Dalrymple wrote in the Star Tribune the following on December 15, 2016:

A 13-month review process included public-input meetings held across the state. As a result of these meetings, the route was modified 140 times to ensure environmental safety, including a shift to follow an existing gas pipeline corridor so as not to create an entirely new pathway. The final route was legally approved and permitted by the state, the location for the crossing of the Missouri River was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the easement was forwarded to the corps’ assistant secretary for signature.”

Nevertheless, in spite of the above simple facts, protestors, acting more like misinformed masses of Marxists in Lenin’s Soviet Union than American citizens, have been fomenting rebellion and disruption of lawful society, declaring that the pipeline would possibly pollute drinking water and cultural sites important to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North Dakota. Turbulence is boiling on the bottom of our society and the likes of Paris Jackson is delighted to stir it.

The Protests

Since rabbles and mobs mobilized for agitating society have little reasoning powers, it is not supposed that the following will turn these hordes of lefties into thoughtful statesmen. But the facts are difficult things to overcome.

First, the pipeline is not on or near Indian Land. In reality, the pipeline is 70 miles distant from the Standing Rock Reservation’s water supply. Governor Dalrymple added that the pipeline has a “permitted route” that “never crosses tribal land.” “Those opponents who cite the 1851 Treaty of Fr. Laramie to dispute who owns the lands conveniently ignore the later treaty of 1868.” This is why the U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C. ruled against a request for an injunction.

Further, not one person from the Standing Rock Tribe has met with ETP or any regulator in any meeting or hearing of public notice for the course of two years. Socialist policies are not established by rational discussion and debate, but by power-plays blueprinted by community-organizers.

Second, many of the protestors are funded by communist George Soros. Brian McNicoll of The Daily Caller exposed this months ago. Camps of protestors were funded by Soros’ “anti-energy, anti-environment, anti-jobs activists journeying from the coasts” to draw international attention to the supposed plight of the Sioux Indians. Up-ending society is what Soros has in mind.

Ironic isn’t it? Socialist International website claims big bad Trump is a “billionaire” with designs on America while the communists frame themselves as poor grassroots activists who only wish to protect the environment from the greedy rich. Another communist lie. Socialist International fails to mention that the protestors themselves are bank-rolled by one of the wealthiest communists in the world—George Soros. Sponsored by more billionaire money SI calls for protestors to “occupy” peaceful cities this spring, such as Fargo and Bismark in order to further disrupt society.

Third, the protests have escalated into violence. Ignoring real property rights, protestors have encamped on private land and have blocked off bridges and roads. Fires ignited by protestors have caused $2 million in damage; protestors have hurled Molotov cocktails at police officers and guns were fired injuring at least one person. Sounds like Woodstock of old, hating “the establishment”—but leaving millions of dollars worth of cleanup for someone else to finance.

At one point police arrested 141 protestors, according to NBC News reports. Another report shows that over 260 were arrested upon another occasion. Predictably, most of those arrested were “out-of-state protestors” likely bussed in by leftist activists. Rent-a-mob for hire.

Socialism always spawns violence and disorder. One might think that the DOJ under Obama last fall would have interfered. Wrong. Obama’s AG, Loretta Lynch “refused to deploy federal forces” to assist the beleaguered in North Dakota even though violence had begun. Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw suggested that the reason was political, as the protestors “are very big with the Democratic base and there’s an election coming up.” Per IER, then-President Obama listened to 31 environmental groups to side with the socialist movement.

Fourth, environmental-rent-a-mobs have actually polluted the environment. So much for being “at one with nature.” But the environment is not what this is really about. Bob Adelman reports that after the exit of the protestors “so much trash and human waste had accumulated that the cleanup is expected to take weeks. Once the debris has been cleared, an environmental cleanup will follow” (The New American).

So grotesque was the environmental damage that even “Dave Archambault, the tribal chairman for the Standing Rock Sioux and leader in the protest movement, was astonished at just how much trash, garbage, rotting food, tents, teepees, sleeping bags, blankets, canned goods (open and sealed), food, equipment, human excrement, and even dozens of automobiles had been left behind.”

The cleanup will take weeks,” Archambault noted. The mounds of trash left behind by protestors are in danger of polluting the very environment they said they cherished, wrote Adelman. “Most of the cost will be borne by the tribe, which has received an estimated $6 million in donations from those supporting the protestors. The balance will be provided by volunteers from nearby Cannonball, and local health and environmental agencies supported by local taxpayers.”

This abject hypocrisy is built right into the socialist system of liberal thinking. Wherever liberalism has taken root, it is not hard to find. Maybe Paris Jackson and the Hollywood elite will sponsor the clean-up? Maybe they will protest the filthy protestors who leave mounds of trash in beautiful North Dakota?

Socialism: The Devil’s Gospel

Socialism: The Devil’s Gospel- “Our society seems to be going the way of all the earth—in a hand-basket…”

by Bill Lockwood

Genuine biblical principles of Christianity are frequently corrupted when the ill-informed blend deviant concepts with them. The resulting combination usually is more fatal than bald error because people are more willing, perhaps innocently, to adopt the hybrid. They cannot see the underlying fallacy. For example, the simple biblical teaching of creation is soiled by those who wish to mix with it the general theory of evolution. The result? Theistic Evolution. In the same vein, naturalistic theories of mankind have spoiled the pure sterling fundamentals of giving resulting in socialism. Consider both of these dangerous hybrids, emphasizing the latter.

Evolution

Charles Darwin, the popularizer of the theory of evolution, wrote to his evangelist, T.H. Huxley, on August 8, 1860. Referring to the general theory of evolution he said, “My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel—i.e., the devil’s gospel” (Francis Darwin, Editor, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1898, II, p. 124). As a scientist Darwin thought he knew, through the theory of evolution, all about life’s forms and particularly its origins. For the philosophy of evolution endeavors to explain the universe, our solar system, life’s origin and its manifold forms, the past, the present, the future, morality, and society in terms of natural processes. Consistent evolutionism erases the supernatural and explains all in terms of the natural.

As Bert Loewenberg put it: “Once a man was swept into the evolutionary orbit, the logic of science became applicable to all forms of human activity. The logic of science applied not only to rocks but to animals, not only to animals but to man. Hence the logic of science and the dynamics of evolution applied to mind, to morals, and to society. This was the Darwinian revolution. It was not a revolution in science alone; it was a revolution in man’s conception of himself and his works” (Darwinism: Reaction or Reform?)

Due to the influence of evolution, even the biblical teaching of mankind, as made in the image of God, was re-created into the humanistic model of a mere matter-machine that reacts, not to ideas and doctrines, but to mere physical pressures. “The Devil’s Gospel.” Medicate the man with chemicals, but certainly do not hold persons accountable for their actions.

Socialism

The political left is all about “Social Justice.” What exactly is Social Justice? Putting it most succinctly, the National Association of Scholars says the term is understood to mean the “advocacy of egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution.” Egalitarianism means that all outcomes will be equal. The wealthy need be less so. Families in poverty need to share in the former’s wealth. This is to be accomplished through the all-powerful state. After all, property is not to be privately acquired or owned but should be the commonwealth of all.

Now we know why the Al Sharpton’s of the world blame “the system” for the deaths of people like Michael Brown, the thug who was the catalyst for the Ferguson, MO riots. This he did at the Brown funeral. Sharpton is preaching the Devil’s Gospel of Socialism.

Socialism is constructed upon two main pillars. One, the collective ownership of goods and properties; and Two, that human behavior is solely determined by what one owns or is able to “access” in a society. Improvement of society therefore is tied to material possessions and the “collective ownership” concept justifies the strong arm of government making this happen.

How is this in reality “The Devil’s Gospel” of materialism? Because it causes man to look outside of himself and to blame others (or society) for his problems and ignore personal sin. Materialists and socialists therefore love to harangue the “injustices” of the system. However, the root cause, the heart of man out of which are determined the issues of life, is left unnoticed.

This is like a drug addict who blames the drug dealer for his problem or blames the system that has not removed drugs from society. The missing ingredient in this diagnosis is the all-important one: Personal Responsibility or Personal Behavior. Our society seems to be going the way of all the earth—in a hand-basket—and the Al Sharpton’s of the world are pleased to dither in false diagnoses.

But he is not alone. Even the National Council of Churches majors in the “devil’s diagnosis” of materialism by demanding a re-distribution of goods and services all across the spectrum of America. That the purity of God-inspired free-will giving has been confused with socialism of the first order by the National Council of Churches as well as other religious institutions and individuals who name the name of Jesus Christ, it does not speak well of our understanding of biblical principles.

Government re-distribution of America’s resources, even to non-citizens of America, is in reality The Devil’s Gospel of Socialism. Government thievery with the veneer of Christianity. Nothing to do with the Bible. At least Donald Trump sees this much.

Immigration and the “House of America”

Immigration and the “House of America”- “Controlling our borders and securing the House of America is not only not on their agenda; it is the very opposite.”

by Bill Lockwood

America is on fire. Mobs rove about the streets, harass passengers at airports and erupt over social as well as Main Stream Media and a placard-bearing rabble has become a daily sight around the country. Hollywood itself has become one gigantic Democratic Political Action Committee as awards banquets turn into more vitriolic spleen-venting against our president. Disruption of society is socialism on the march.

Just what is their beef today? Obedience to and enforcement of immigration laws by President Donald Trump. According to PolitiFact the presidential order “targets people from countries originally listed by the Obama administration as terrorist hotbeds—Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.” Refugees fleeing from Syria are also affected. President Trump pointed out that “This is not about religion—this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.”

But the riotous left is unhappy. Controlling our borders and securing the House of America is not only not on their agenda; it is the very opposite. Let’s examine it—assuming that there are enough lefties remaining out of socialistic clutches who will soberly consider facts instead of ranting about the countryside.

First, consider the Founders’ position on immigration. As explained by Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia, it is for the happiness and tranquility of a society that states actually join league together to form a federal government. Regarding that union, “Every species of government has its specific principles. … To these [principles] nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. …They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, form one extreme to another.”

America will change dramatically from the God-given principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence in which “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Instead of individual rights we will see, Jefferson warned, a “heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass” precisely because they will “infuse into it [America] their spirit” and “warp and bias its direction.”

That this has already occurred cannot be doubted. Sharing identical or similar values is the key. For this reason, until the late Ted Kennedy practically single-handedly changed our system, immigration into America was regulated by the federal government taking into consideration the countries of origin of immigrants. Today, masses of people pour across our borders with little regard for our laws or Constitutional system founded upon God-given individual rights.

Second, America must beware of Muslim immigrants, period. Trump and the Republicans are laboring to explain to recalcitrant hordes that “this is not about religion” as evidenced by the fact that Muslims from over 40 different countries are not affected by this order. Be that as it may. In spite of the words of former president Obama on “Climate Change”– “the debate is closed”—the debate has not yet even occurred on Islam. Islam is much less a religion than a political system which is in the world to conquer. Islam is defined by three books called “The Trilogy.” All three volumes, the Koran, the Biography of Mohammed, and the Hadith, are nothing but basic strategy manuals on how to conquer a civilization by violence and bloodshed.

When Mohammed himself died in Arabia there was not a single person on the peninsula that disagreed with the man. This cannot be explained on the basis of freedom, but upon an authoritarian system at war with mankind—and America. If America cannot come to grips with this fact it is doomed.

Third, mob-actions mobilized by the socialists to disrupt society are unabashedly hypocritical. Elliot Abrams, in Newsweek (9-13-16), pointed out what has been obvious to many. His article is entitled “The U.S. Bars Christian, not Muslim, Refugees from Syria.” Abrams recognizes that “the headline for this column—the U.S. Bars Christian, Not Muslim, Refugees From Syria—will strike many readers as ridiculous. But the numbers tell a different story.”

Abrams goes on to show that as of September, 2016, America has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, “of whom 56 are Christian. Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say, one-half of 1 percent.” However, “10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, which would mean 2.2 million Christians. It is quite obvious, and President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry have acknowledged it, that Middle Eastern Christians are an especially persecuted group.”

So how is it that one-half of 1 percent of the Syrian refugees we’ve admitted are Christian, or 56, instead of about 1,000 out of 10,801—or far more, given that they certainly meet the legal definition?”  This gross injustice, Abrams explains, is because even in the refugee camps, there is a persecution against Christians by refugee Muslims. Christians are therefore forced to flee their own United Nations refugee camps. The result: very few Christians enter America.

The point here is: Where were all those righteous placard-carrying street organizers or Hollywood elitists to protest this injustice against Christians? Why no protests against Obama or the Muslims he consistently defends in spite of their persecution of Christians? The legs of the lame are not equal.

Further, perhaps the American people ought to awaken from the stupor of political correctness to recognize that what is mentioned above regarding Islam in general is valid. Even less violent Muslims, who do not as consistently practice Mohammed’s jihad, are dangerous themselves, even if persecuted by their own kind. This is what America is allowing to enter the doors of our house.

Fourth, it is admitted that travel bans and immigration enforcement alone will not solve the problem. But it is a start. The real issue is the welfare state. Our republican government, as conceived by the Founders, was designed to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.

Samuel Adams stated, “The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods [central ownership of all the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown.” He adds that these concepts are “in our government unconstitutional.”

But what has occurred? Over the past 75 years our nation has repudiated sound constitutional principles and turned into a socialistic morass in which government regularly plunders its citizens for redistribution. Ron Paul, former Congressman from Texas, adequately sizes up the situation in a recent column.

The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.”

Paul adds that, “The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.”

Get America back to a Constitutional government is the true solution.

Fifth, the Leftists in America complain against Trump’s immigration policies that they are “unchristian.” Christianity should be about caring for the poor and downtrodden, not closing borders against the persecuted.

Confusion reigns here. America has always cherished its Christian principles. Above and beyond the Welfare Plunder State which is the legacy of the FDR’s and Lyndon Johnson’s, American churches continue to give away much more than any other peoples in history, whether it be to the foreign poor or to the home-born poverty-stricken. It is with little grace or reflection that street hordes denigrate the charity of America.

Charity, however, only encompasses individual action or congregational action. Government programs do not begin to answer God’s demands.

The centerpiece of socialism, on the other hand, is that individuals or groups are entitled to the wealth produced by society— to the material goods produced by others.  The “poor” are entitled to education, healthcare, food and the necessities of life. But these necessities are provided by someone else. Dig deeper into this idea.

The transfer of necessities or goods may occur in only one of two ways: (1) Free-will giving (contribution); or (2) Theft. As every American understands, our national leaders, both Republican and Democrat, are solidly in the second category. This has created the modern welfare state. But this is only about one thing: government forcibly removing from one citizen to re-distribute to another. To call this Christian charity betrays an abysmal ignorance as to the true nature of Christianity as well as of socialism.

To mask the real nature of this stealing the Left uses the phrase “Social Justice.” Liberals are demanding forcible redistribution, but are re-branding THEFT as “Justice.” As the National Association of Scholars defined it: “social justice” it is the “advocacy of egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution.” That is, others have a “right” to my income. So preaches Obama. So preaches socialists.

The French economist of yesteryear, Frederic Bastiat, provided us with a simple test to determine if something is actually “giving” or “stealing.” He wrote, “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. . . It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.”

This is exactly where we are in America. So accustomed have the insurgents in our nation become to this mass stealing under socialism that they are now rioting from the State House to the streets and airports when any attempt is made to curtail it.

What all of this really is about is explained by Ann Coulter when she noted that “Democratic political strategists Ruy Teixeira and John Judis have been gloating for 20 years about how post-1965 immigration would soon produce a country where Republicans could not win an election, anywhere. Then Democrats could do whatever they want. They called the new emerging majority ‘George McGovern’s Revenge.’”
Nothing we are seeing in the wake of Trump’s executive orders has a thing to do with Christianity or charity. It has to do with turning America’s house upside down.

Divine Science: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Politics

Divine Science: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Politics- Plainly put, politics is not simply about who has what or enjoys what. ”

by Bill Lockwood

Multitudes of Christians seem to be far too-short sighted when it comes to understanding the implications of their own faith. Especially is this the case regarding how the principles of God work themselves out in the affairs of men. For example, biblical teaching of God’s creation eliminates any compromise with evolutionary theories that dominate the educational system. Not only are there bold contradictions between them, but both creationism and evolutionary theory are expressions of an entire world view. There are also principles involved in each which are at cross-purposes with the other.

Yet, many there are who name the name of Christ but also wish to honor the name of Charles Darwin. Sad is the state of the complacent Christian mind that does not recognize the disconnect and even contradiction between these or thinks it not substantial enough to “give answer” to designed assaults against its worldview (see 2 Pet. 3:15).

Exactly so pertaining governing concepts or the polity in a society. Too many Christians have been fooled so as to consider the realm of politics to be divorced from any religious or biblical principle. “These are two different realms and never the twain shall meet,” seems to be the motto. The exact opposite is the case. As Founding Father John Adams instructed, “The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature, then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government.”  Adams recognized the plain simple fact that there are only two basic worldviews. One, theism; Two, atheism.

In spite of the many subsets that may be offered of the two basic worldviews– whether pagan, polytheism, socialism, fascism, communism—all fall neatly into two categories; Theism or Atheism. Every form of governance, be it the United Nations or the United States of America, or any other political organization, is an offspring of one of these two philosophies. Governments are the outworking of principles that flow from a God-centered worldview or a Naturalistic worldview.

Divine Science of Politics

The above is the very reason why a host of the founding generation sacrificed their fortunes to serve in politics. John Adams even described “politics” by the well-known phrase divine science. “Politics are the divine science, after all. How is it possible that any man should ever think of making it subservient to his own little passions and private interests? Ye baseborn sons of fallen Adam, is the end of politics a fortune, a family, a gilded coach, a train of horses, and a troop of livery servants, balls at Court, splendid dinners and suppers? Yet the divine science of politics is at length in Europe reduced to a mechanical system composed of these materials.”

Plainly put, politics is not simply about who has what or enjoys what. It involves whether or not God has bestowed upon man certain rights and whether or not we are enabled by God Almighty to construct any formulation government to protect those rights based upon those principles. This alone explains why Adams thusly wrote, “What is to become of an independent statesman, one who will bow the knee to no idol, who will worship nothing as a divinity but truth, virtue, and his country? I will tell you; he will be regarded more by posterity than those who worship hounds and horses; and although he will not make his own fortune, he will make the fortune of his country.”

What Adams realized, and what is surprisingly so lacking today in the churches and pulpits, is a cross-examination of the basic principles behind prevailing winds of political doctrine.

Illustrations

The American Revolution. As illustrative of these basic concepts one might consider the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. John Quincy Adams explains that they were “actuated upon very different principles” (Forward to Frederick Gentz; The American and French Revolutions Compared, iv). Our American “principles of religious liberty did not result of indiscriminate contempt of all religion whatever.”

“The essential difference between these two great events, in their rise, their progress, and their termination, is here shown in various lights … A modern philosopher may contend that the sheriff, who executes a criminal, and a highwayman, who murders a traveler, act upon the same principles; the plain sense of mankind will see the difference between them …”

Either Christian principles are at work in society or not. The French Revolution proved, at least in France, they were not. The American Revolution ended in a very different place, precisely because of differing principles.

Communism. Writing with reference to the worldviews of Communism versus Christianity, Lester DeKoster observes, “The American Declaration of Independence is the last significant political document which attributed human freedom to a superhuman force. Its immediate successor, the French Declaration of the Rights of Men, its title betraying already the shift of emphasis, ignores the Creator; and fifty years later, the Communist Manifesto sneers at Him” (Communism and Christian Faith).

Like it or not, both communism and socialism are the out-workings of religious principles. For a modern counterpart to the French Declaration one might peruse the United Nations’ Declaration of Rights and be enlightened on the very different principles that inspired America.

Socialism. The philosophy of socialism is a competing worldview with Christianity. In the Encyclopedia of Religion Vergilius Ferm writes, “American socialism is heir to the tradition of materialism and atheism. It relies on the growth of automatic perfection, not indeed by virtue and the given faculties of man, but as the product of causally inevitable economic changes. The result is parallel to that of the liberal utopia …this is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine” (720).

Socialism is “an anti-Christian doctrine.” It is a matter of no little concern that hardened atheists such as Karl Marx, who popularized a socialist state through The Communist Manifesto, readily recognized that his mandates for government were a direct thrust against the God of the Bible. Materialistic philosophy was a bold and direct repudiation of a God-centered and biblical worldview and so it continues today.

For the same reason the early 20th century Swiss socialist-theologian Karl Barth came to a crisis point in his faith. Having bound himself to the eternal “progress” of man, he had a re-thinking in the wake of World War I. Either man was continuing onward and upward in an evolutionary trajectory as taught by his utopian socialism; or man was a creature made in God’s image whose fallen state demanded governing principles of a different sort. It was all about religion.

What a person believes about mankind, about the future, and about God, has everything to do with how he will behave in the present. That includes what kind of governing principles we will own upon which to operate a society. Call it politics or civic society or whatever, but the administrative concepts which govern decisions at a local and national level are religious in nature. If Christians remain unaware of the implications of their own belief-system, little shall we expect them to “give an answer” to the political assaults that arise from atheistic socialism. Even Donald Trump cannot change this.

Selected Slavery: Loving to Hate America at UVA

Selected Slavery: Loving to Hate America at UVA-Why is it necessary to define slavery for the professors at UVA and other institutions of selected learning?

by Bill Lockwood

According to The Daily Caller, a group of 469 professors and students “at the University of Virginia (UVA) are calling for the school’s president to stop quoting school founder Thomas Jefferson, on the grounds that Jefferson was a slave owner.” The public letter composed by the group went on to add that “We would like for our administration to understand that although some members of this community may have come to this university because of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, others of us came here in spite of it.”

In a related story, “the president of San Francisco’s board of education wants to remove George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from the names of all tax-payer funded schools in the city because the forefathers owned slaves.” The San Francisco Examiner reports that “Board of Education President Matt Haney is expected to introduce a resolution as early as next week encouraging schools in the San Francisco Unified School District that bear the names of men with questionable human rights legacies to consider proposing new monikers.”

The Examiner explains that “The idea came to him after listening to a sermon Sunday at Third Baptist Church, a black church in the Western Addition, about 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick protesting the national anthem in recent weeks. The song’s slave-owning author, Francis Scott Key, has a school named after him in the Outer Sunset.”

Why the Selected Slavery?

What shall we say to these things? First, I suppose the UVA crowd and the San Francisco authorities will be banning the reading of the Koran and building mosques. If it is SLAVERY that they so despise, then consistency drives them to ban the Koran because it teaches “chattel slavery” as a continuing positive institution endorsed by Allah. “Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; But if ye fear ye shall not deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive [slave] that your right hand possesses …” (Surah 4:3).

Mohammed himself was involved in every aspect of slavery. He had non-believing men killed so that their women and children could be made slaves (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Mohammed, 466). He gave away slaves as gifts. He owned slaves, even a black slave by the name of Safina, whom he called “ship” because he carried Mohammed’s baggage for him.

Mohammed passed around slaves to his lieutenants that they might be used for sex. He stood by while others beat slaves. After one major battle he enjoyed the pleasures of forced sex with the widows of men he had recently slain. He captured slaves and wholesaled them in order to finance jihad. Mohammed received slaves as gifts from other rulers.

Mohammed’s pulpit from which he preached was made by slaves; he ate food prepared by slaves; he approved of an owner’s having sex with his slaves. The “prophet of Islam” put it right into the Koran for modern-day Muslims that they may “own those whom their right hand possesses.”  Slavery has always been a part of Islam; it is taught in the Muslim holy book.

Will our professors and student body at UVA therefore ban the Koran, or ban mosques, or ban Muslims? No. Because like all wild-eyed liberal, socialist and/or communistic societies, it is only our America, and its foundations, that they love to hate—not the institution of slavery.

Second, it would be interesting to hear the professors at UVA define slavery. I am going to launch out here and suggest that they do not even understand what is slavery. What is slavery? We normally say, “one person owned by another.” But what is it to “own” another? It means that all my production belongs to someone else. In other words, I work for free for someone else, and not on a voluntary basis.

Slavery is a “legal or economic system” in which the “principles of property law” are applied to persons. In other words, “While a person is enslaved, the owner is entitled to the productivity of the slave’s labor, without any remuneration” (Encyclopedia Britannica online).  A person is a SLAVE if he or she is “forced to work for another person without ability on the worker’s part to unilaterally terminate the arrangement.” Forcibly using one person by another. Forced labor is “the forced exploitation of a person’s labor.”

Why is it necessary to define slavery for the professors at UVA and other institutions of selected learning? For this. Many college students are completely in the dark, made so by liberal professorships. A government that forcibly removes the production of my labor, or forces me to labor for others is practicing slavery. But this is exactly the definition of SOCIALISM. Socialism is slavery at the government level. But this the professors want! See the vast numbers of college students who supported Bernie Sanders—the avowed socialist.

ObamaCare, which is on the way out, is a perfect illustration of socialism. Doctors may have financed their own education to the tune of a million dollars and need to re-coup their costs by the fees they charge—but Big Brother Government FORCES them to work for free. It steals their production and re-distributes it among others. This forcible labor the government calls “caring for the poor.” Collegiate masses favored this system of plunder!

If UVA professors or the San Francisco mayor wish to oppose slavery, they can start with the modern-day version of it—socialistic government. The legs of the lame are not equal. Slavery to the White House is fine with them; but slavery to a white’s house in American history is criminal.

Third, the Founding Fathers with one voice condemned slavery. It was a horrific institution which they tried to expunge from America from the colonial period forward. Thomas Jefferson’s first effort as a representative at the Virginia state assembly was to abolish slavery. The year was 1776. He and Madison both wished to clear out the “rubbish of feudalism, aristocracy, and slavery.” His proposed bill would eradicate slavery in one generation. The reason it did not occur was due to the fact that England forbade it. The founders later put right into the Constitution that slave trafficking would cease within 20 years of 1787 (Article 1.9.1).

At least the Founders were honest about it, recognizing that an institution which they had been born with was evil. They all set it on a course for extinction. The UVA letter also repeats the unfounded allegation against Thomas Jefferson that he had illegitimate children by Sally Hemings, a black slave he owned. Once again, what is occurring on campuses or in the halls of San Francisco government is nothing less than hatred of America. It is on display as they continue to libel the Founders of our great nation.

Socialism is a Denial of the Reality of Human Nature

Socialism is a Denial of the Reality of Human Nature –“Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps”  -Karl Marx

by Bill Lockwood

Socialism is an anti-God philosophy which is born and incubated in the atheistic laboratory. How is this the case? The philosophy of socialism is a sub-category of the world-view of Materialism. At the heart of the system is the basic premise that the behavior of man is shaped solely by the economic system. All factors determining human action have a materialistic base, per Socialism.

Vergilius Ferm, in his Encyclopedia of Religion, explains this gross error of socialism. “American socialism is heir to the tradition of materialism and atheism. It relies on the growth of automatic perfection, not indeed by virtue of the given natural faculties of man, but as the product of causally inevitable economic changes. The result is parallel to that of the liberal utopia, a self-contained world of man, individualistic here, collectivist there, and redeemed from evil, once and for all, by the economic process, much as this requires men conscious of their opportunity. This is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine.”

Again, Oscar Jaszi, the famed Hungarian social scientist and politician, noted that socialists insist that the “immorality of the established order is traceable NOT to the …nature of man, but to ‘corrupt institutions.’”  Therefore, socialism always seeks to transform the institutions of society because they are somehow “unjust.”

Socialistic Societies Unravel

Consider the fact that, in order to improve human behavior, God has “built into the system” negative repercussions for poor choices, just as in the natural sphere. If I jumped off a two-story building, I am going to suffer. People do not voluntarily behave that way unless they are mentally disabled. Negative consequences curtail my behavior.

So also in the economic field. My failure to labor results in hunger. That pain eventually drives me to be productive. This might be called God’s Corrective Mechanism. It is natural. “If a man does not work [refusing in the context] neither let him eat.” In the end, improvement of society as a whole is accomplished by improving behavior at a personal level.

FAILURE is a teacher in all realms of life. It forms a corrective that impels me to make adjustments in my performance in sports, in my production at work or at school. If I refuse to study in school, my lack should result in the same outcome: failure. That is the built-in pain producer that causes me to improve.

Socialism, on the other hand, takes this corrective mechanism (failure, pain, etc.) and artificially transfers this to others by force of government, be it school or in the civic arena. The polarities are reversed and misguided people who make poor choices are robbed of this corrective mechanism. No one is impelled to correct or adjust their behavior. Instead the “pain” of poor choices is placed upon the working class which is financing failure. Government fiat is responsible for this while poor choices continue to mushroom.

The Working Middle Class today is paying for (carrying the load of punishment) for HEALTH CARE for others. I am being forced by government to pony up for my neighbor’s health care. All natural incentives to live a healthier life (high costs of Health Care) has been removed from my neighbor’s back and saddled on mine. Very little incentive remains to avoid a dissipated life of alcohol, drugs, tobacco, etc. The pain has actually become mine and makes me less inclined to be productive.

I am being forced by government to pay for the HOUSING of low-income individuals. All incentives for those persons to stay in school, get a good job, and persevere are effectually removed. The burden and natural incentive to improve behavior has been artificially moved to me. But I don’t need those incentives, I am already working three jobs. Their lives continue to be impoverished because they have little incentive outside of personal pride to improve.

For that matter I am paying for the EDUCATION of other families’ children. I may have already sent my children through the educational system, but now I am paying for my neighbor’s children to receive an education. Thereby, the incentive for my neighbor not to have as many children is removed. This is exactly why middle class families are having less children and lower classes produce more. Society is thereby unraveling, but guaranteeing votes for the Democratic Party.

FOOD STAMP distribution has reached an all-time high. No accident under President Obama. These are doled out regardless of whether or not a person works or even cares to. This disgrace has reached such astronomical proportions that all the amenities of a comfortable life are now enjoyed by those in poverty: cell phones, televisions, and automobiles.

“My Baby-Daddy”

If one supposes this to be mere philosophizing about nonrealistic possibilities, I invite them to visit their local school. Single teenage girls are producing children at an alarming rate. They even talk about it as if one was visiting a breeding farm for animals—“My ‘baby-daddy’.” No fathers—just “baby-daddies.” Our culture is exploding with fatherless children and the teenage mothers have little idea that it actually COSTS something—quite a bit of something—to birth a child. Why are they so ignorant? Once again, our government has FORCED the middle-class worker to absorb the costs, those prohibitive repercussions.

None of this is to say that one’s duty is not to assist the poor. But that remains, as it should always have been, under private practice or church contribution, never government. We now have a huge under-belly in society that work little, live licentiously, produce babies, and continually make poor choices in life. Natural negative consequences that would impel them to make better life choices have been shifted by government to the middle-class.  Soon enough, it too will vanish in this false Utopia that refuses to recognize the realities of human nature.

Back to Homepage

Bill Lockwood: Socialism Breeds Corruption

Socialism Breeds Corruption- “What are the consequences of such a perversion? … In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.”

by Bill Lockwood

Listening to the current news should cause thinking Americans to stop and contemplate one of the prime causes of our deep-seated corruption. Corrosion in government seems to have reached new depths while personal integrity in leaders appears to be a thing of the past. Hillary Clinton, for example, following the lying pattern of Barack Obama (“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”), piles one fabrication on top of another. She actually lies about the lies she tells.

Her Benghazi fabrications, for example, are universally known and undeniable. A private email server in her bathroom in violation of federal law continues to cause people to lose their lives in Iran. The Clinton family is rife with valueless living. Obama pays ransom to the Iran government and flat-footedly denies it is a ransom. This brand of criminality is trickling down to the bottom in our once great nation. The number of people who will vote for Hillary Clinton is indicative of this.

One of the primary causes of this demise of character is SOCIALISM ITSELF. In the very nature of things socialism as a system actually breeds more corruption, both individually and in the community. Why is this?

The beginning point of socialistic theories is grounded in a deceptive sophistry. That hard-boiled lie takes the words “assist” or “help” and uses them as a club to steal from a person which he/she has earned. Under the false flag of “compassion” government lawlessly steals from one person to redistribute to others. Predictably, any opposition to this form of government plunder is met with by charges of lack of compassion.

Let’s illustrate it. President Obama pitches for an increase in welfare payments and/or recipients. Our entire system is larded with this style of government, be it Social Security, Food Stamps, Section 9 Housing, etc. This is sold to the American people from the time of FDR (Obama is not the first duplicitous chief) as a form of compassion.

Whose Compassion?

Just whose compassion services the welfare state? The productive citizen from whom the government forcibly takes to give to another? Absolutely not. If it is compassion in the citizen no forcible taking is required. The outlet of compassion is freewill giving, not paying taxes. If the socialists (aka Democrats) deny this, let them cut out the IRS tax code and learn how much compassion really exists.

Is it compassion on President Obama’s part? Not at all. No compassion for the poor exists in strong arm agent of the government who shakes down, with threat of prison, the working man to hand over earned dollars and cents to give to another. Forcing my neighbor to give his/her earnings to my other neighbor does in no way constitute compassion on my part.

For me to call this compassion is deception in its rawest form. But the above scenario is the very definition of socialism.  It is next to impossible to maintain any godly standard of morals or individual character when society has deceptively re-written its lexicon of definitions.

It is on the above understanding that the 19th century French economist, statesman, and author Frederic Bastiat wrote, “It is impossible to introduce into society any greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. What are the consequences of such a perversion? … In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.”

He was talking about socialism as the great evil. This is where we are in America. The socialistic system is a grave evil precisely because it must plunder by force the private property of the producer to begin. This in turn is justified by a deception in which the face of THEFT is masked by COMPASSIONATE GIVING. Corruption is bred into the system.

Back to Homepage

Bill Lockwood: Socialism is Slavery

SOCIALISM IS SLAVERY- “It is the mainspring of socialism as well. Not only do these superior beings need to recognize the equality of all men, having been created by God, but to count others better than themselves (Philippians 2:1-4).”

by Bill Lockwood

Socialism begins with the basic tenet that some people are superior to others and should therefore manage the activities of the lesser. All men are created equal but some of us are more equal than others. It is a dictatorship of the elite who are required by the very nature of things to govern the lives of others.

Oscar Jaszi, the famed Hungarian socialist, explained socialism as: (1) A condemnation of the existing political and social order; (2) Advocacy of a new order; (3) A belief that this ideal is realizable; (4) A conviction that the immorality of the established order is traceable not to a fixed world order or to the unchanging nature of man but to corrupt institutions; (5) A program of action leading to the ideal through a fundamental remolding of human nature or of institutions or both; and (6) A revolutionary will to carry out this program.

Max Eastman, in his 1962 book Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, mused about the years he wasted in the doctrine of Socialism. Referring to socialism as a “Marxian religion” he emphasized that the real issue is “the usurpation of power” and that the “tyrant has no honest instinct for the liberties of man.”

The common denominator of all socialist theories, be they fascism, communism, Nazism, environmental paganism, economic theories championed by humanism—or whatever, is the following: “… that society can be made more free and equal, and incidentally more orderly and prosperous, by a state apparatus which takes charge of the economy, and runs it according to a plan.” Bottom Line: some people consider themselves to be naturally endowed to govern the rest of us.

Slavery

This is why Socialism is in reality another system of slavery. Socialism is a theory of government which requires the strong arm of the state to re-distribute private resources according to its plan. As an institution slavery begins with exactly the same assumption, both in the ancient and modern world. Some people are “more equal” than others.

Thomas Edwards, in his classic commentary on the biblical book of 1 Corinthians (p. 182), explained slavery on these terms while discussing the apostles’ remarks in chapter 7:11-24: “Slavery was an institution that sprang from other fundamental ideas—namely, the superiority of men over women; the religious pre-eminence of Jew over Gentile; the Greek consciousness of creative political genius; so that in discussing the question of slavery, the apostle [Paul] not only arbitrates between master and slave, but addresses himself to the antagonisms most deeply seated in the religious, political, and social condition of the time.”

It is THIS that Christianity alters—the view of mankind.  “All men are created equal” is a Christian axiom. The fact that biblical principles reconstruct one’s view of humankind from the ground up also explains why Christianity did never create firebrands of people to march in the streets demanding the overthrow of the social order, but instead operates over a period of time as leaven on a society.

As Edwards put it, “The distinction between master and slave ceases at the door of the church. But Christianity abolishes slavery by assimilating and sanctifying the relation of master and servant in its inmost nature. While it refuses to wield the sword and destroy civil institutions by violence, it so transforms their ruling ideas that those institutions become what they never were before.”

For instance, Christ bestows on the most degraded and despised slave who is a believer, spiritual endowments that cannot fail to inspire him with a consciousness of freedom. He ceases to be a slave by the very fact of knowing that in the sight of God he is free, and his service ceases to be a bondage because it is now a willing obedience to Christ.

See the slow but constant growing influence of these principles in the early ages of the church. Christians began “manumitting slaves” at Easter; then later on the Lord’s Day; at last they were freed on a daily basis. In the law Constantine forbade the owner of slaves to break up slave families; later came the sentiment that led rich men to consider the education and manumission of slaves an act of piety; finally, one witnesses the election of slaves to offices of the church, such as Calixtus, once an indentured servant, who became a bishop of Rome in 3d century.

Warped View of Mankind

Both slavery and socialism begin with a warped view of mankind, namely, that some people are more sufficient to manage the lives and activities of others. In reality, socialism is another face of slavery. This also demonstrates why the environmentalists continue to tend towards the socialistic Democratic Party.

In the following quotes, centered chiefly around the doctrines of environmentalism, one finds recommendations for massive population control, eugenics, and euthanasia. All of these require an elitist disposition. These geniuses are clearly positioning themselves to be the caretakers of ‘we the people.’

David Graber, once a biologist with the National Park Service, declared that “a particular species of a free-flowing river is of ‘more value’ to me than another human body, or a billion of them. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

The late Jacques Cousteau was quoted in the UNESCO Courier in November 1991 and again in November 1994 as saying, “The United Nation’s goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, forced sterilization, and control of human reproduction, and regards two-thirds of the human population as excess baggage, with 350,000 people to be eliminated per day.” It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. ” But say it he did.

Barbara Marx Hubbard, former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, prominent futurist and occult leader, in her The Book of Co-Creation, (self-published, 1980, Part III, p. p. 59), says, “The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.”

Barack Obama’s top science advisor, John P. Holdren, opined that “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. “The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Quotations like these are endless. They demonstrate that the very mindset which produces slavery throughout history and around the world– the supposed superiority that too many nurture in their own minds when they compare themselves to others–is alive and prevalent today. It is the mainspring of socialism as well. Not only do these superior beings need to recognize the equality of all men, having been created by God, but to count others better than themselves (Philippians 2:1-4).

Back to Homepage

 

« Older Entries