Category Archives: Uncategorized

KATHLEEN MARQUARDT: CANCEL CULTURE: WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY – OUR OWN GOVERNMENT 4 (1)

by Kathleen Marquardt

The last time or two that my home alarm system repairman was here, we were talking about Operation Paperclip, the secret, illegal ploy used to spirit Nazi scientists from facing charges at the Nuremburg Trials and bring them to the United States. Yesterday, he sent me a video of author Annie Jacobsen (an excellent writer, researcher and New York Times bestseller), giving a presentation on her new book Operation Paperclip.

I watched Jacobsen’s talk and was bowled over by a statement she made in responding to a question from the audience. A gentleman asked about the scientists who were being held for the Nuremburg Trials, but were wanted by U.S. military and government officials to get these scientists brought to the US as “good scientists” i.e., not evil Nazis, instead of being tried for their war crimes. Jacobsen noted (not making excuses for the subterfuge of getting the scientists “off the hook“), that the hue and cry immediately after the war ended was  “. . .that the Soviet threat was considered extreme much earlier than we think. It was in the months after the war the Intelligence Committee, that reported to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a document to the JCO that said, ‘we must prepare for total war!’ That was the quote they used. The war would be with the Soviets and would involve ABC warfare – atomic, biological, and chemical. So, we say, we must get these scientists into Paperclip or the Soviets will.”

That was the political line if people heard about these scientists. Was it true? Were we really preparing for “total war” with the U.S.S.R?

Let’s get into that.

I’m often quoting Sun Tzu’s “know your enemy”. Great advice, but when you realize the enemy is your government, it can make you wonder if you are crazy. Especially when said government is being the hailed as the savior of both the world and western culture, and, at the same time, is handing over everything to our supposed archenemy, Soviet Russia.

In the six-part series I did recently on Cancel Culture, I defined the enemy as cultural Marxism and showed how it was embedded into every aspect of our lives by Americans who, for whatever reason hate the liberty provided by the United States and its founding documents (I believe that is the one-world government globalists working with the Marxists to achieve this). But, as I studied cultural Marxism and its tools of asymmetric warfare – political correctness, Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, and the plethora of other evil tactics to disable, then destroy, our culture, I just discovered what I think is equally as important and maybe more abhorrent than all of that. That a major part of our history was re-written. What we learned in school was such a distortion of the truth, it had to be written by masters of deception.

What’s so abhorrent about that? And what does it have to do with Cancel Culture? Today, we are living in a world where, thanks to moral relativism, many of us feel like we are reeling every day when we read the latest news. There is no black and white. But there are socially and politically acceptable truths (which are lies), and condemned speech which is truth.

My reason for bringing it up now is that the highest people in our government changed the whole course of events in the world, making enemies out of friends, and friends out of those wishing us dead. Now I understand why we have been known as ugly Americans. A major event, WWII, was a defining period where those in our highest government offices were effecting these truths to lies and vice versa, lies to truth.

How do we know the truth? A few individuals in our government questioned things that were said and done. In this case it was a senator from the Russell Committee[1] who was “deeply disturbed” and showed McCarthy what were proven to be the complete and correct intelligence reports from Yalta — the intelligence report of 50 of Chief of Staff in charge of War Planning, General George Catlett Marshall’s officers “all with the rank of colonel and above” – an intelligence report which urged a course directly contrary to what was done at Yalta and confirmed at Potsdam. Yet, Marshall, as Roosevelt’s military advisor, approve the Yalta agreement, which was drafted by Alger Hiss, Andrei‘ Gromyko, and Gladwyn Jebb.[2]

The deeply damning report of April 12,1945, that was not seen by President Roosevelt:

The entry of Soviet Russia into the Asiatic war would be a political event of world-shaking importance, the ill effect of which would be felt for decades to come. Its military significance at this stage of the war would be relatively unimportant. The entry of Soviet Russia into the Asiatic war would destroy America’s position in Asia quite as effectively as our position is now destroyed in Europe east of the Elbe and beyond the Adriatic.

If Russia enters the Asiatic war, China will lose her independence, to become the Poland of Asia; Korea, the Asiatic Rumania; Manchuria, The Soviet Bulgaria. Whether more than a nominal China will exist after the impact of the Russian armies is felt very doubtful. Chiang may well have to depart and a Chinese Soviet government may be installed in Nanking which we would have to recognize.  

To take a line of action which would save few lives now, and only a little time, at an unpredictable cost in lives, treasure, and honor in the future – and simultaneously destroy our ally China, would be an act of treachery that would make the Atlantic Charter and our hopes for world peace a tragic farce.

Under no circumstances should we pay the Soviet Union to destroy China. Theis would certainly injure the material and moral position of the United States in Asia.[3]

That was the catalyst for McCarthy’s review of Marshall’s actions during WWII which resulted in America’s Retreat from Victory. (Perhaps one of the reasons he was later denounced and ridiculed – McCarthyism is the lie named after him, early Cancel Culture.)

Diana West, in her excellent book, American Betrayal, writes of the early 1945 period and a letter from Roosevelt to former governor of Pennsylvania, special representative of FDR abroad, and outspoken patriot, George H. Earle, “I have read your letter of March 21, “. . . and have noted with concern your unfavorable opinion of one of our allies at the very time when such a publication from a former emissary of mine might do irreparable harm to our war effort.”

Really? Or was that harm to the Soviet war effort? The Roosevelt administration, penetrated, fooled, subverted, in effect hijacked, by Soviet agents, as a matter of national policy, mixed them up, much to the world’s deep, vast suffering. This ‘sell-out’ to Stalin as critics tagged it (and they didn’t know the half of it), would become a bone of sharpest and most vociferous contention that the conspirators of silence on the Left, in the Democratic Party, and among the Washington elites would bury for as long as possible, desperately throwing mud over it and anyone who wanted to let the sun shine in. Why? . . .the publication of the Yalta papers, for example, would ‘embarrass’ too many people and, in the acid paraphrase of Bryton Barron, fired Yalta archivist and author of Inside the State Department, ‘lead to demands for publication of the minutes of other conferences.

By 1956, as Barron notes, only a heavily edited version of Yalta had been released, and only after a Soviet-style (Soviet-inspired?) disinformation campaign promoted the notion that the crucial role Alger Hiss played at Yalta was, au contraire, ‘largely that of a notetaker.”[4]

During WWII, the powers of the West were Churchill and Roosevelt, with a sidekick, Stalin, who was going to help the West stop the Nazis and the Japanese.

As the saying goes, history is written by the victors, but I doubt if most people understand the depth of the lying and scheming that is hidden from us – supposedly forever. A quote from McCarthy’s introduction to the book speaks of truths virtually unknown today, “If I had named the men responsible for our tremendous loss, all of the Administration apologists and the camp-following element of press and radio led by the Daily Worker would have screamed ‘the Big Lie,’ ‘irresponsible.’ ‘smear,’ ‘Congressional immunity,’ etc., etc., etc. However, it was the Truman branch of the Democratic Party meeting at Denver, which named the men responsible for the disaster which they called a ‘great victory’ – Dean Gooderham Acheson and George Catlett Marshall. By what tortured reasoning they arrived at the conclusion that the loss of 100 million people a year to Communism was a ‘great victory,’ was unexplained.”

Why was the president not given that report?

Marshall had been passed over and passed on in his early Army career and was expected to drop out and get work as a civilian. But chance(?), instead, advanced him over many more senior and experienced men, to be named Military Chief of Staff, reporting to President Roosevelt. Harry Hopkins and Mrs. Roosevelt were two of his backers. The federal government was riddled with communists.

Almost the entire plans of the war were being side-tracked or otherwise having a spanner thrown in to mess with the West’s conducting of the war to achieve interests best suited to a free world.

First, we must consider what went on at Yalta. If, as Hanson John Baldwin observes, we lost the peace because of great political mistakes in WWII, (spelled out in first part of McCarthy’s book) then it is clear that those mistakes culminated in the controlling decisions made at the conference of Teheran and Yalta. It is my judgement that we lost the peace in Asia at Yalta. At Teheran, Marshall’s will prevailed in concert of that of Stalin regarding the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe. (emphasis, mine) At Yalta, Marshall’s will prevailed, with that of Stalin, regarding Russia’s entry into the far Eastern was as a full-fledged partner entitled to the spoils of such participation. . ..

The President, bearing the marks of his approaching dissolution, traveled the thousands of weary miles . . . to treat with the tyrant, to seek accord with him, and to make the bargains over Poland and China that today plague and shame us all. The principal, the most utterly damaging, of these bargains contained the bribe he paid to Stalin for his eleventh-hour participation in the war against Japan. (Which was by then, irrelevant.[5]

The one area I want address here is China. China was a great ally of the United States and the U.S. was, supposedly, working with China to keep the USSR from taking over Asia. Roosevelt thought and said so. But those working for him had other plans for China.

Manchuria is the richest part of China. In terms of area and natural resources it may be described as the Texas of China. …[6]

It was a rich, highly developed Manchuria that was at stake at Yalta. It was Manchuria which Franklin D. Roosevelt thrust upon the Russians; it was, moreover, conferred upon the new barbarians with full understanding that the United States was thereby satisfying an old imperialistic design of the Kremlin. The very language of the secret protocol which sealed the bargain at Yalta recognized this fact. What Roosevelt ceded to Stalin at Yalta, without the knowledge or consent of the Chinese, whose sovereignty there we always had upheld, was, and I quote from the work of Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., in restoration of the “former rights of Russia violated by the treacherous attack of Japan in 1904.” The testimony before the Russell Committee shows that Chiang Kai-shek was not invited to the Yalta Conference and that the terms of the agreement selling out Chinese interests were kept secret from him. At the Cairo Conference, however, it was solemnly agreed with him that China’s rights in Manchuria would be fully respected and protected. When Wedemeyer appeared before the Russell Committee, he testified that when Ambassador Hurley informed Chiang Kai-shek of the Yalta agreement which sealed the doom of the Republic of China, Chiang was so shocked that he asked Hurley to repeat it before he could believe it.

The project was not disguised. It was a nakedly imperialistic aggression over the prostrate body of China. What Roosevelt sealed and delivered in the protocol agreed upon by him and Stalin in a secret parley consuming only eleven minutes, and thereafter kept locked away in White House safe for many months, were the historic levers of power over China. …[7]

No wonder we are considered “ugly Americans” around the world. Obviously, deep in the bowels of our government, many Communists and commie sympathizers were working night and day to both sabotage the West’s efforts in the war to keep the Russians as far away as possible from Western Europe, and to keep the citizens in the dark about the machinations going on to cancel us. With their singlemindedness, they were corrupting our entire government with their actions, and destroying the integrity of our once great nation.

What does this whole sordid transaction teach us about the good faith of the advisers of Roosevelt and the assorted liberals, Communists, Communist sympathizers. And agents of the Kremlin – the Achesons, the Lattimores, the Phillip Jessups, and the Institute of Pacific Relations – who have for so long been insincerely befuddling the people with talk of imperialism and people’s rights in Asia.

Why, merely this, that in their minds the imperialism of the west, that decaying instrument of European expansion, is wicked and must be opposed. The imperialism of Russia is not only commendable but must be advanced by every means of diplomacy and war at whatever cost to the United States. That is the liber-leftist doctrine on imperialism. Have we heard one liberal voice raised in the Senate or elsewhere in condemnation Roosevelt’s surrender to Russian imperialism at Yalta? This is the test, and by it we may measure the monstrous hypocrisy of the liberal elements in Congress and in the country which have assisted in and applauded the surrender of all China to Russia without the firing of a single Russian shot.[8]

There was a lot of talk of the U.S. trying to entice Russia into the Japanese war, which was pure disinformation. Russia wanted to attack Japan and, far more important, wanted a seat at the peace table where the spoils of the war would be divided. Back in 1942, in a meeting with Averell Harriman in Moscow, “Stalin told Harriman then that Japan was the historic enemy of Russia and that her eventual defeat was essential to Russian interests. (emphasis, mine.) Roosevelt was (falsely) advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that “we had a long, hard row to hoe with the Japanese and that without Russia’s help we might not achieve victory”. The Japanese were already out peace feelers, but this fact was kept from Roosevelt.

As McCarthy sums it up: Was this a sincere endeavor by the master of global strategy to advance American interest? Did we sorely need Russian assistance? Or was it another in the baffling pattern of General Marshall’s interventions in the course of the great war which conduces to the well-being of the Kremlin.[9]

Re China, McCarthy again lays it out so that we can’t pretend not to understand: Was it to the Kremlin’s interest to march its armies into Manchuria, from which they had been barred since 1905 by the Kwantung army, and to be in possession there when the war ended? If some Americans did not grasp the strategic importance of Manchuria, there is certainly abundant evidence that the Kremlin, faithful to Lenin’s dictum that “he who controls China controls the world,” never lost sight of it. . . . Any intelligent American, after giving the matter sufficient thought, would know that the aim of Roosevelt and Marshall at Yalta should have been not how to get the Russians in, but how to keep them out.”[10]

John Stewart Service was one of the men whose job was to assure the Departments of War and State that “the Chinese Communists were moderate reformers, simple agrarians in the style of Thomas Jefferson, (emphasis, mine) with no subservience to Moscow. Service sent a report to the State Department in 1944, stating:

Politically, any orientation which the Chinese Communists may once have had toward the Soviet Union seems to be a thing of the past. The Communists have worked to make their thinking and program realistically Chinese, and they are carrying out democratic policies which they expect the United States to approve and sympathetically support. [11]

I could add ten or 50 more pages of notes and quotes, but I think anyone who wants to see can read the writing on the wall – or in the reports. The point I want to make is that Soviet Russia was never the enemy of the Deep State and the upper echelons of our federal government. So that statement: ‘we must prepare for total war!’, was pure disinformation, an asymmetrical warfare tactic that they have now pulled off for 80 years.

West said: . . .we were, the whole lot of us, with precious few exceptions, a nation of Captain Hillses, a nation of Roosevelts, a nation of Hisses, a nation . . . manipulated, inured, numbed, cushioned, silenced – continually protect from the sharpest of timely revelations, continually told to be afraid of them. We were impervious to the cries of the most plaintive Cassandras, who themselves were often pressured or consigned to mumble into their memoirs or grumble off to Samoa. Only the most principled, the most shrill, the most desperate, or the most stubborn were constitutionally (in the personal sense) able to rise above the overwhelming buss and static. It was on this level where the battle royal really began, pitting the long truth-teller against the forces of suppression, in a political and informational landscape that had been denuded of all vital context. This reality vacuum, this echo chamber of lies, was both created and preserved by what Kent Cooper (executive of AP) quite intriguingly paints as autocrats in charge of both governments (U.S. and USSR). “Clothed with autocratic powers,” he writes, ‘individuals in charge of both governments demonstrated how political censorship had helped Russia to win the war and the peace while England and America helped Russia win the war but lost the peace.”[12]

Everything we thought we were taught about history is a lie. Our country betrayed Chaing Kai-Shek, China, Eastern Europe, so many areas, and would have done so to more places like Japan, if we hadn’t had Generals with integrity in those places. All because we let our guard down and allowed people like the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Rothschilds, Harry Hopkins, Acheson, members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and George Catlett Marshall have any control.

I certainly haven’t covered all the lies, misdirection, and treachery here, but I hope I have shown enough to help you understand that there is a confederacy of evil men and women working against everything we represent. They should be hung.

Are we now preparing for total war? Now that we gave China (Stalin’s key to world power), and it has become such a powerful force of Marxist Communism, will they, perhaps with Iran, realize it is time to finish up the business started in the 1940s to destroy America with its Liberty loving people? We are the last bulwark. If America goes, Liberty may survive, for a while, in some small areas of the world. But not for long.

As we are working to take back our local governments, we need to be sure to remove any Marxists, Communists, or those who abet them to the detriment of our Republic and our Liberty. Otherwise, we are moving backwards.


[1] During World War II, Richard Russell chaired a special committee that traveled extensively to observe the quality and effectiveness of war materiel under combat conditions.

[2] Alger Hiss, an American Communist, Andrei Gromyko, a Russian emissary, and Gladwyn Jebb, who helped set up the United Nations and served as temporary Secretary General until the first Sec/Gen was named.

[3] McCarthy, Joseph R., America’s Retreat from Victory, The Devin-Adair Company, NY, 1954. p 5.

[4] West, Diana, American Betrayal, St. Martin Press, NY, 2013, pp 320-321.

[5] McCarthy, p. 348.

[6] Ibid, p.349

[7] Ibid. pp 350, 351.

[8] Ibid. pp 52-53.

[9] Ibid. p. 15.

[10] Ibid. p. 35.

[11] Ibid. p 69.

[12] West, p. 326

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2021/03/23/cancel-culture-we-have-met-the-enemy-our-own-government/


Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.

Wayne Allyn Root: Meet the New President of the United States…Barack Obama 4 (1)

by Wayne Allyn Root

I’ve written thousands of columns and commentaries. This is the most important I’ve ever written.

This is my chance to play the modern-day version of Paul Revere. “The commies are coming. The commies are coming.” Yes, I am reporting a communist takeover. But the leader of this attack is not who it appears to be.

Republicans, Conservatives, patriots and capitalists are sick right about now. We’re in shock. We can’t believe Trump isn’t president. We can’t believe Americans voted against the greatest economy, perhaps in history. And the greatest jobs picture ever. And the greatest improvement in middle class incomes ever. And after the Covid lockdown and economic collapse, Trump produced the greatest economic comeback ever. Remember 33% GDP in Q3 2020? That was the biggest number in history. Who would vote against all that? You’d have to be self-hating and suicidal.

We also can’t believe America voted for a feeble old man with dementia who mumbles “I don’t know what I’m signing, but I’m gonna sign these Executive Orders.” And who says “There was no vaccine before I became president.” Even though he got his two vaccine shots before he became president.

We all believe the election was rigged and stolen. We all know the feeble old man now called “President” would be more at home in an assisted living home, than the White House. That man can’t be our new president.

I have news for my fellow conservatives, Republicans, capitalists and patriots. Biden’s not president. He’s a puppet. Yes, we have a new president. But his name is…

Barack Obama. 

Admit it. Now that I’ve said it out loud, it all makes sense. Obama is the real president, back for his third term, to finish the job.

Biden’s job was to stand there and look moderate, and credible, and reasonable. So as not to scare the voters. But Biden isn’t the real president. Obama is the man with the power.

Look at the radical Executive Orders, the most in history. And they all sound like Obama wrote them. This third term is “Obama Unmasked.” With Biden as the front man, Obama can finally be himself. Obama is able to do all the radical things he never dared do as the actual president.

Look at the executive orders and new laws and policies
proposed…

• Open borders. No more wall. Everyone gets in, during a pandemic, with no testing for Covid. Illegal alien felons must be released from jail. Halt to deportations. Full legalization for
millions of alien lawbreakers. Include illegal aliens in the US census. Once into the country, give them the right to bring all their relatives in too, with no requirement for education, skills or background checks. Ban the use of the word “illegal alien.”

• Make every action and economic policy about “racism” “social justice” and “racial equity.” Even climate change is about “racism.”

• Re-start the Iranian nuclear treaty. Give murdering Mullahs everything they ever dreamed of, and then some, endanger our best friend Israel’s existence, and get absolutely nothing in return. And for good measure, wait over a month to call Israel’s Prime Minister, so the whole world knows we no longer have Israel’s back.

• Kill the lucrative US energy industry and make us dependent on foreign oil from our enemies again. Kill the Keystone Pipeline. Kill oil, coal, natural gas, fracking, even permits for drilling. Re-enter the Paris Climate Agreement that kills all our jobs, while allowing China to pollute all it wants. This will decimate our economy and make us dependent on the same kind of green energy that just caused the meltdown in Texas.

• Ban the use of the term “China virus.” End the trade war with China. Give China access to the US energy grid.

Even the players in Biden’s cabinet and staff are all Obama re-treads.

Trust me, I’m Obama’s Columbia college classmate. I know how he thinks. I understand his plan. This has Obama’s fingerprints all over it. This is the Cloward-Piven plan we learned at Columbia University, almost 40 years ago.

This is the 3rd  term of Obama. In his first two terms Obama tried his best to destroy the economy, high-paying jobs, healthcare, the US energy industry, the great American middle class, our relationship with Israel, American exceptionalism, and capitalism itself. He damaged us badly, but he fell short.

Now Obama’s back to finish the job.

GWP: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/wayne-root-meet-new-president-united-statesbarack-obama/


Wayne Allyn Root is a CEO, entrepreneur, best-selling author, nationally syndicated talk show host on USA Radio Network and the host of “The Wayne Allyn Root Show” on Newsmax TV nightly at 8 p.m. ET.

Alex Newman: School: Individualism and Objectivity Are “White Supremacy” 4 (1)

by Alex Newman

Elementary school children in at least one government school in Virginia were taught the outrageously racist lie that “objectivity,” “perfectionism,” “individualism,” and a dozen or so other traits are actually characteristics of “white supremacy.” Parents were outraged. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the real world, of course, countless people of all “races” believe in those values. Anyone who implies that those characteristics and values are inherently tied to European and Western peoples would be a racist by definition, more than a few critics observed in response to the scandal.

Prominent India-born writer Asra Nomani, for instance, slammed the dangerous propaganda, calling it “political corruption at its most lethal — for the soul of our kids.” She also ridiculed the silly narrative that proper punctuation and grammar are racist.

Other critics were even more forceful. “Ironically, this type of ‘anti-racism’ indoctrination is alarmingly racist and ignorant,” observed Rita Panahi, a prominent Australian columnist of Iranian origin, in commenting on the toxic propaganda being force-fed to captive children in America.

And yet, students ages 6 through 11 at the Belvedere Elementary School in Virginia were subjected to this and more. And children all over the nation and beyond are stewing in this sort of ignorant racism being peddled by government schools, evidence available all over the Internet shows.

This particular bit of propaganda originated in the 2001 “Dismantling Racism Workbook.” It was produced by fringe leftwing extremists Kenneth Jackson Jones and Tema Okun, a vocal self-declared supporter of proud communist terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. There is a method to the apparent communist madness.

Other traits and values that are listed in the program as characteristics of “white supremacy” include having a “sense of urgency,” “defensiveness,” “quantity over quality,” “worship of the written word,” “only one right way,” “either / or thinking,” “power hoarding,” “fear of conflict,” “progress is bigger, more,” and “right to comfort.”

Of course, these ramblings are so idiotic and racist that they would normally just be laughed off by normal people as the product of a pathetic lunatic with too much time on their hands and hatred in their heart. Unfortunately, the lunacy is being forced on gullible, naive children without any context or reference for them to understand just how absurd it is. That makes it extremely dangerous.

Consider the almost comical levels of idiocy here. Objectivity, for instance, is defined in the dictionary as a “lack of judgment, bias, or prejudice.” Do only white supremacists lack bias, judgment, or prejudice? The irony is off the charts, though it was not immediately clear if perceiving irony was also a white-supremacist trait.

Individualism, meanwhile, is defined in the dictionary as “belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence.” Do only white supremacists believe in self-reliance and personal independence? If a fair-skinned person said something so dumb, they’d be slammed as a racist — and rightfully so. And yet children are being taught this garbage as truth.

The latest scandal comes as Americans nationwide recoil in horror in response to revelations that “Critical Race Theory” was being forced on federal employees thanks to the Obama administration. President Trump promptly rescinded the Obama-era measure. But massive damage has already been done. And in public schools, it continues uninterrupted.

THE TAKEAWAY

This clown-world level absurdity in “education” is only possible in an absurd system such as the tax-funded public-school monopoly that exists today. In a free market, no sensible parent would ever pay anything to have their child indoctrinated with hateful, racist, and ridiculous propaganda such as the garbage described above.

If parents do not wake up, it will be their children and their nation who will pay the enormous price.

 

FPM: https://freedomproject.com/blog/2020/10/13/school-individualism-and-objectivity-are-white-supremacy


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Socialism as a Religion: Mathew Staver – Liberty Counsel (05/21/2020) 0 (0)

Recorded 05/21/2020

 

American Liberty with Bill Lockwood is about the culture of America — not simply about politics. Bill Lockwood is a preacher, teacher, writer, and longtime radio host dedicated to educating the people. Read his blog AmericanLibertyWithBillLockwood.com 

SUPPORT MONTHLY: Patreon.com/BillLockwood | SubscribeStar.com/BillLockwood 

PODCAST: Apple | Castbox | PodcastAddict | Spotify | Stitcher | Google | PodBean | TuneIn | Deezer | Podchaser | RSS Feed 

VIDEO / SOCIAL MEDIA: 

BILL ON-RADIO IN TEXAS: 

Bill Lockwood is a preacher at Iowa Park church of Christ. 

Catch Bill on The Jesse Lee Peterson Show last Tuesday of the month, 8am U.S. Central Time (Jesse’s first hour). YouTube Playlist

Warren, Waters and The Tsunami of Tolerance 0 (0)

Warren, Waters and The Tsunami of Tolerance- “See how quickly leftist tolerance is replaced by violence and vitriol.”

by Bill Lockwood

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) epitomize the Democratic Socialist Obstructionist Party. Both radical women are leading candidates for Lenin’s Disruption of Society Award. Unfortunately, these twin-sisters of the communistic left are chieftains in the Democratic Party, even if one of them is not really of “Native American” bloodline, as she had boasted.

During the debate over whether or not to nominate Senator Jeff Sessions as Trump’s Attorney General, Elizabeth Warren boldly violated the standing rules of the Senate by calling the conservative icon a “disgrace.”

Endeavoring to skirt around the Senatorial regulations which forbid such name-calling, Warren did her nefarious work of trying to besmirch the character of Sessions by “quoting” the late Senator Ted Kennedy. She nevertheless violated Rule XIX which reads, “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words, impute to another Senator or to other Senators, any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” The presiding officer at the Senate, Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) rightly sat Warren down.

Warren’s comrade-in-arms, U.S. Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), meanwhile has launched a full-fledged publicity campaign on television saying that “she believes there may be reason to impeach Donald Trump.” She echoed this sentiment on Capitol Hill last Monday.

This is the tolerance of the Radical Left. 

Tolerance” has been the primary doctrine of the left for several decades. It has been preached on television, in the schools, in the halls of Congress, in collegiate classrooms, in editorial columns; in movies, music festivals and other forms of entertainment. Churches have been boycotted for supposed lack of it; Christians have been shamed for supposing there are still some activities which are sinful; legislation and judicial decisions have been handed down demanding that private businesses be more inclusive in spite of religious views; sports teams have refused to compete in states that seem to be less than “tolerant” on bathroom issues; and on and on.

This tsunami of tolerance with its creeds of “open-mindedness” and “inclusion” have always been suspected to be in reality a cover to stifle the free flow of ideas, particularly concepts of biblical morality and the Constitution.

Donald Trump’s election has completely verified this judgment.  Even such pleasantries as “reaching across the aisles” and “compromise” were crafted to bring to heel Constitutionalists. “Compromise” has resulted in a complete disfigurement of the Constitution and the concept of Limited Government under God as conceived and crafted into law by our Founders.

See how quickly leftist tolerance is replaced by violence and vitriol. This is because of the nature of left-wing is revolutionary to orderly society. Liberalism is not broad-minded at all, nor has it ever been. It is foolish for those on the right to have ever supposed it was.

With their hair on fire the socialistic left is no longer making any pretense of being magnanimous. From the state house to the court house to the field house the pink leftists in our nation are fomenting rebellion against the rule of law the likes of which we have never seen. They will not be mollified by the economic success of Trump’s policies nor placated by expanding freedoms of Americans. Tolerance was always and only a sham to gain political control.

Free Market Pulpit 0 (0)

Free Market Pulpit

by Bill Lockwood

When the British first landed in New York during the Revolutionary War, their first order of business was to burn down one half of the churches. The obvious reason was that the pulpits of America were, in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, ‘ablaze with righteousness’ to free us from the British oppressor. The Frenchman would say, “Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions.” Or, as stated in the sacred text, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

But many pulpits today have lost that spirited edge. However, it is more than the “spirited edge” that has been destroyed. It is FREEDOM of SPEECH. As the federal government nanny state curtailed what can and cannot be spoken in the churches, many Christian communities simply grow accustomed to receiving their marching orders from Uncle Sam. In place of a “Free Market Pulpit,” we have now a manipulated lectern. Instead of blazing righteousness against Obama’s trans-sexual bathroom edict, they remain silent.

How Did This Occur?

The year was 1954. Lyndon Johnson was in the Senate, having been first elected in 1948. Conservative and liberal historians agree that his election to the Senate had been won by massive voter fraud. He had won by only “87” votes. Coke Stevenson, his opponent, had challenged his election even showing evidence that hundreds of votes had been faked. With court injunctions Johnson blocked Stevenson’s efforts. Now in 1954 the liberal Johnson was being hammered by anti-communist groups, which in those day, were frequently directed by informed preachers.

Johnson therefore retaliated by pushing through Congress language into the IRS code that prohibited non-profit organizations, including churches, from actively participating in political elections. Conservative churches in Texas had been a thorn in the side to Johnson. Now he had his gag order in place. This in spite of the fact that the First Amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …” Thumbing their nose at the Constitution, a compliant Congress went along with devious Johnson on this removal of First Amendment protection of rights.

What Shall We Say To These Things?

First, as stated above, it is a blatant violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Americans have for too long been complacent about this matter. Consider the words of IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson at the City Club of Cleveland, Ohio on February 24, 2006. “Freedom of speech and religious liberty are essential elements of our democracy. But the Supreme Court has in essence held that tax exemption is a privilege, not a right, stating, ‘Congress has not violated [an organization’s] First Amendment rights by declining to subsidize its First Amendment activities.’”

In other words, the tax code extends “privileges” not “rights” by means of exemption. And, extending or removing this exemption status is reward or punishment for speech, clear and simple. Thus, churches operate under threat of punishment for “political” speech or activity. Note Everson’s language: “Freedom of speech and religious liberty are essential elements ….BUT…” A clear signal that liberty is lost. Just as the government holds hostage various states by means of federal money extracted by heavy taxation it also threatens churches with its tax code.

This is the problem with BIG government that transgresses its assigned Constitutional role. It takes in hand to decide what it will and will not allow. In this case it is free speech that is hampered. Just who is to decide if pulpit speech is “political” or not? Will preaching against abortion be considered political? Many liberal politicians think that is exactly what is taking place when they hear sermons against killing the unborn. Will preaching against the sin of homosexuality be penalized as that lifestyle choice is now becoming “protected” by government manipulation? American Christians should be galvanized into resistance against the government sitting in the seat of Herod deciding what teaching may issue forth from our churches. Curtailing FREEDOM is what is occurring.

Second, many church-goers perhaps agree with the IRS that churches should not be mentioning political issues from the pulpit. But that again gets into the question as to who defines what is political? The main issue here is that America was founded upon freedom of the marketplace, and that includes the marketplace of ideas, religion included. What if worshippers do not appreciate what is being preached in a particular church? They have the option, just as in the economic realm, to go elsewhere. Purchase a different product; go elsewhere to worship—find a teacher more to their liking.

How did churches manage to maintain their integrity prior to the Johnson Amendment of 1954? Without Big Brother Government watching out for the churches it is a wonder that churches survived. Policing the pulpit is all for our own good, we are told.

Third, where is the IRS in monitoring the National Council of Churches as they propagate their radical socialistic agenda, even supporting President Obama’s nationalized health care? Where are the G-men from Washington, D.C. curtailing the Green Agenda as is espoused by the false theologians at the NCC? It is amazing to witness the blatant double-standard at play here. Only conservative churches seem to be singled out—such as are opposed to the socialistic agenda issuing forth from Washington.

Preachers have not only a Constitutional right to address issues of the day in their churches, but an obligation to do so. This includes speaking out boldly pertaining to the behavior of elected officials or their ungodly policies. If we believe in the Free Market idea of the economy, and we do, we need also to uphold the Free Market concept of the Pulpit. Church-goers are adults who have the right to support or shun the pulpit of their choice without government watchdogs overseeing all of the flocks.

Back To Homepage

Scalia, God and the Constitution 0 (0)

Scalia, God and the Constitution

by Bill Lockwood

Visiting a suburb of New Orleans this month Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience that though it was that the United States was founded without an official “established church,” it was never intended to be “neutral” toward religion itself. It is “absurd,” said Scalia, to think the Constitution bans the government from supporting religion.

More than that. There is “no place” for radical secularism in our constitutional tradition, he said. “To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?” [emp. added]
Scalia noted that favoring religion was common practice in the United States until the 1960’s when “activist judges” began imposing their own ideas. Atheists should not try, per the judge, to “cram” secularism “down the throats of an American people that has always honored God on the pretext that the Constitution requires it.”

Justice Scalia is exactly right in this interpretation of the Constitution and the place of religion. I would, however, add that it is not merely “religion” which has a place in our society, but Christianity itself. Benjamin Morris, in his magnum opus work, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the Unites States, summarizes the Founders’ intention: Christianity is the principle and all-pervading element, the deepest and most solid foundation, of all our civil institutions. It is the religion of the people—the national religion; but we have neither an established church nor an established religion.

John Jay, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers referred to this as a “Christian Nation” and Roger Sherman wrote to one of his acquaintances in 1790 pointing out that “his faith in the new republic was largely because he felt it was founded upon Christianity as he understood it.” Similar sentiments from the Founding generation could be added almost endlessly.

Justice Joseph Story, who spent 34 years on the Supreme Court and founded Harvard Law School even went so far as to remark that concept of “neutrality” in religious matters, to which modern society goosesteps and Scalia criticizes, “would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation” had it been suggested in early America.

First Amendment
What then is the meaning of the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? “Establishment of religion” simply refers to “National denomination” in the sense of an official State Church supported by taxes. “Congress” singles out the “federal government.” The Federal Government was to establish no National Denomination. Remembering that both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison encouraged future generations to interpret the Constitution according to its original intent, and that that ALONE is the “legitimate Constitution,” how do we know that the forbidding of a National Denomination by the Federal Government is the meaning of the First Amendment?

George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights, commented that “no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.” Madison himself commented upon the First Amendment: “…nor shall any national religion be established.” In the Annals of Congress (June 8, 1789 to September 25, 1789) is noted this: “August 15, 1789: Mr. Peter Sylvester of New York had some doubts … He feared it [First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether.” Well might he fear, knowing the onslaught of atheists and secularists throughout history to deny simple truths!

In response to Sylvester, Elbridge Gerry suggested in Congress that the First Amendment would better read, “[N]o religious doctrine shall be established by law.” But that was not quite broad enough to meet the Founders’ intention. Fisher Aimes, who authored the final version of the Amendment, offered this: “Congress will not make any law establishing any religious denomination.” One version even added the words “in preference to others” to the clause “religious denomination.” The final draft simply reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion …” It is crystal clear what these great minds desired.

Capitalizing on ignorance of the people plus animus to Christianity, modernists which fill the press as well as Congress wish us to be satisfied that our Constitution demands the government to be “neutral” between atheism and theism, between Christianity and Islam. Nonsense. Justice Scalia is correct. Legally speaking, in the context of the Constitution, there is no place for “secularism.”

Back to Homepage

America’s War Against Christ 0 (0)

America’s War Against Christ

by Bill Lockwood

The handwriting on the wall translates pretty simply. America has an elected leadership that openly wars against Jesus Christ and those who call Him Lord. Issuing from the White House and running through all departments of the government, Barack Obama’s hostility to God is manifest. Nothing that comes before the citizenship of America overturns that conclusion, but rather reinforces it.

Homosexual Marriage

If Americans were somehow in the dark about this hostility, the Supreme Court Obergefell decision this summer dispels that mist. For the first time since mankind has been managed by governments, God, all of history, Natural Law, and common decency were boldly cast behind its back by redefining marriage as to officially include same-sex unions.

As Justice Alito pointed out during oral arguments, there have been many “cultures that did not frown upon homosexuality …Ancient Greece is an example. It was well accepted within certain bounds.” And yet, America is the first culture to engraft this into law. Homosexuality has always existed, but never did any peoples confuse it with legitimate marriage—until the liberals in America captured politics and the media. The fallout of this Supreme Court Sodomite decision will be enormous, and our nation is already feeling its effects. Obama’s lawyer, Donald Verilli, stated to the Supreme Court during Obergefell argumentation when asked about the impact on churches and other non-profit groups, “That WILL BE an issue.”  But this is just the beginning.

Equality Act of 2015

Before the current Congress is a bill introduced into the House and the Senate called the Full Equality Act of 2015. Sponsored by Democratic and homosexual lawmakers it would expand existing federal laws to include legal protections for LGBT individuals in areas such as housing and employment. As reported by CBS News its “most sweeping move” is to “add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of classes protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.” It proposes to forbid businesses from discriminating against LGBT people in hiring, firing and supposedly would “exempt” religious schools and hospitals from the legislation.

But WorldNetDaily noted that a recent Chicago event hosted by a “gay rights group” called Human Rights Campaign, the LGBT leaders discussed their agenda for The Equality Act. They proudly boast of gutting the protections written into the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Their agenda? “[B]eliefs cannot provide a claim, defense or basis against the progressive agenda of the LGBT special interests.” Governing authorities agree. We cannot allow personal beliefs to trump state doctrine.

Illustrative of this is the 2013 case of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. The owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, Barronelle Stutzman, was asked to arrange flowers for a same-sex wedding for Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed. The state of Washington had redefined marriage the previous year. Robert Ingersoll had been a regular customer of Arlene’s Flowers for nearly a decade and Stutzman was his friend. There never was any refusal to serve Robert Ingersoll. However, when Ingersoll asked Stutzman to serve his “wedding” to Curt Freed she kindly refused citing her relationship to Jesus Christ. She knows what common sense Americans also realize: There is a difference between serving homosexual individuals and being forced to participate in a homosexual wedding.

The homosexual agenda does not allow a religious conscious to operate freely in the market. Friendships, niceties and even familial relationships are mere facades for an aggressive trampling of Christianity. A lawsuit against Arlene’s Flowers therefore ensued and the state’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, pointed to violations of the state’s sexual orientation laws. A judge ruled against Ms. Stutzman and her property is still at risk of government seizure.

Misdirection by CBS

Having seen the case above, now read the recent “news coverage” of The Equality Act by CBS News (7-23-15) in the article mentioned above. It reports that The Act is needed because it would “clarify that RFRA cannot be used to sanction businesses’ discrimination against LGBT customers.” (emp. added) But Baronelle Stutzman never refused to do business with her homosexual friends. No case of which this writer is aware has a private business—whether florist, photographer, wedding chapel, or any other—refused services to a homosexual. What has been refused is PARTICIPATION in celebrating a homosexual “wedding or honeymoon.” There is a vast difference and CBS News does not want you to find it.

Let’s see if the government itself knows the difference.

When it comes to accommodating Islamic faith, our government bends over backwards to assist. From the Live Trucking website is this current headline: “Muslim Truck Drivers Who Refused To Haul Alcohol Awarded $240,000 In Religious Discrimination Suit.” “They were fired after refusing the load due to religious beliefs.”
Two Muslim truck drivers who refused to transport alcohol were awarded $240,000 by an Illinois judge for their termination. Mahad Abass Mohammed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale had been fired from Illinois-based Star Transport in 2009 for their refusal to transport alcohol, citing religious faith as the reason.

On their behalf the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a government arm, stepped up to sue Star Transport. Star Transport now is ordered to pay the punitive damages. This is the same EEOC of which Chai Feldblum of Georgetown University Law is a member and has gone on record against CHRISTIAN RESERVATIONS on the homosexual issue. Feldblum wrote: “For all my sympathy for the evangelical couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried, straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the ‘zero-sum’ nature of the game inevitably comes into play … I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.”

With all the manufactured soberness at her disposal, EEOC’s Feldblum must come down against Christianity in favor of homosexual marriage. It is a serious civil rights issue, after all. But violate a Muslim’s faith and the same EEOC will side with Islam. What is the difference? Only one explanation exists for those who still have eyes to see. Our culture is not deteriorating beneath a “religious war.” It is an all-out assault specifically against Jesus Christ and His Church. As explained by Paul, “Our wrestling [fight] is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places.”

Back to Homepage

« Older Entries