Tag Archives: America

Jesse Lee Peterson: The Real Enemies of the People

by Jesse Lee Peterson

For the past 28 years, I’ve worked to wake up people across America and the world. Most are in a fallen state and don’t know it. Fathers are weak or absent, mothers are angry, and children disconnected from fathers and disconnected from God.

You will never know God unless you love your fellow man, beginning with your father.

Because men are weak, women have gone out of control. Together they’ve created excuses, a false religion in which “nobody’s perfect,” accepting wrong as right. Children grow up lost, and in some cases reject Christianity entirely.

Christ called out hypocrites who refused to enter the Kingdom of Heaven themselves – and sought to prevent others from doing so. This same hypocrisy goes on today in the world, with failing parents, deceptive false authority, “experts” and phony preachers. It’s especially ridiculous among “black leaders” and other liberals. But whites and “conservative” Christians are not innocent, which is why our country has sunken to the depths it has. Until Trump, the country was nearly swallowed up by evil. He’s standing against the madness, and now evil is desperate.

Everyone can see how insane the liberals, especially “black leaders,” have become. Many of them pretend to believe in God, but vote for the party of violence, lies, hate and abortion. The Democratic Party is evil, and anyone who votes for Democrats supports evil. When asked why, they point to Republican so-called “racism,” “sexism” or some other made-up “-ism.” They bring false accusations against Trump, and attack straight, white, conservative, Christian men – especially those of power. Liberals tout their phony compassion toward the “poor,” “minorities,” “women” and “children” – but only when the cause favors wrongdoing. They push injustice and call it “justice.”

We’ve all seen how extreme and evil the media is – CNN, New York Times, Washington Post and other leftwing outlets. They hate President Trump, a simple, strong white man who tells the truth and loves America. But they loved Obama, the feminist president who never stopped lying since he ran for president, who hates America. These liberals fanned the flames of the Black Lives Matter riots and cop-killings, but called the agitators “mostly peaceful.” The media support the violent communist Antifa thugs, uncritically calling them “anti-racist” or “anti-fascist.”

The media and liberals manipulate language to seduce blind people. They support illegal aliens, calling them “undocumented immigrants.” They welcome third-world Democrat-leaning Muslims as “refugees.” But they call the murder of white South African natives “fake news.” They support radical homosexuals pushing so-called “marriage equality” or “LGBTQ rights” (both phony, deceptive, destructive ideas). They paint pro-abortion radicals as “pro-choice” for “reproductive rights,” and downplay the ongoing holocaust of unborn children. But they call pro-lifers “anti-abortion rights” (as though being against killing babies in the womb is negative or oppressive).

They call whites “neo-Nazis,” men “rapists,” and non-leftists “far-right.” To them, a non-liberal who defends himself is “violent” and anyone who tells the truth is a “bigot.”

They’re no longer journalists, but activists – joining forces with the Democrats against America – truly the enemy of the people, as Trump said.

The mainstream media still cite the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a credible source. The SPLC is a far-left “nonprofit” organization pretending to track “hate” – primarily attacking outspoken whites and Christians. They inspired a terror attack on Family Research Council by putting them on their “hate map” for being “anti-gay.”

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

The SPLC recently labeled Proud Boys as a “hate group.” Proud Boys are a fraternity headed by talk show host Gavin McInnes, founded to promote pride in Western Civilization. Proud Boys typically show up to protect Trump supporters and free speech advocates at rallies. The media call the Proud Boys “violent” for getting into fights with Antifa’s “masked protestors.” The left don’t care that Antifa vandalizes property and attack people at events – including law enforcement and anyone with a camera.

Neither the SPLC, the liberal media, nor the Democratic Party has any authority on what constitutes “hate.” They themselves are full of lies and hatred. They have no love.

People who lack love don’t have real power – or truth. They only have intimidation and seduction. Unfortunately, many who want what’s right have been intimidated and seduced by the children of the lie. I’ve watched conservatives kiss up to women, blacks and “minorities” as though they deserve special treatment – afraid of being called “racist” or “sexist.” I’ve also witnessed many young people frustrated by this hypocrisy and injustice, taking the opposite extreme. They openly hate and blame women, Jews and even Baby Boomers. In anger, people get into the knowledge of good and evil, and Satan leads them by their intellect into darkness.

I am warning you, if you want to overcome evil, you cannot go with blame. People who blame are defeated – victims, pathetic losers and beta males. If you don’t forgive, God won’t forgive you, and you’ll be overtaken by evil.

President Trump is defeating his enemies because he deals with challenges perfectly, telling the truth with no fear or anger. Let’s have faith and do the same.

 

Raging War in America is about Morality

by Bill Lockwood

The war in Washington over the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a microcosm of the war occurring in America. It is a religious and moral battle for the soul of our nation. Our Republic was founded upon the one basic principle of the sacredness of life. This is why governments are instituted among men, wrote the Founders in the Declaration. But Democrats and many Republicans hate this honored cornerstone and are willing to bring the entire house of America down to defend the murder of the unborn.

That this is not overdrawn is seen in Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s tweet after her questioning of Judge Kavanaugh last week. “Brett Kavanaugh had no problem saying Roe v. Wade is ‘settled law’ but he refused to tell me if he thought it was correctly decided. His own email shows what he believes about the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn Roe.” Then she finished with this hashtag: “This is #WhatsAtStake, plain and simple.”

Jonathan Zimmerman, writing in USA Today (9-16-18), put it bluntly: “I don’t want Brett Kavanaugh to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. Based on what he has said and written, I fear that Kavanaugh will roll back reproductive rights, environmental regulations, and many causes that I hold dear.” Reproductive rights is lib-speak for killing the unborn. They demand the right to kill, but cannot say it very clearly lest the masses wise up.

The News Analysis of the National Catholic Register (9-27-18) headline that “Abortion politics are central to the dramatic and bitter political theater currently playing out in Washington.”

Killing the unborn is paramount to the Democrat Party. In the “Borking” of Robert Bork, then-Sen. Ted Kennedy infamously drew the battle-line. He stated that the America of Robert Bork would be a country in which “abortions would be occurring in back-alleys.” Translation: we are going to kill our unborn, lawful or unlawful; neither we will not give up our sexual immorality that leads to it.

Our Constitution—The Civil Bible of America

A collective statement signed almost a half-century ago by dignitaries such as Herbert C. Hoover, Alfred E. Smith; Mrs. William H. Taft, Mrs. Calvin Coolidge, Mrs. Benjamin Harrison, Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt and others, found in the fronts-piece of Judge Thomas James Norton’s handbook on the Constitution, reads,

Menaced by collectivist trends, we must seek revival of our strength in the spiritual foundations which are the bedrock of our republic. Democracy is the outgrowth of the religious conviction of the sacredness of every human life. On the religious side, its highest embodiment is the Bible; on the political, the Constitution. As has been said so well, ‘The Constitution is the civil Bible of Americans.’” (emp. added)

J. Evetts Haley, the late Texas historian, in his A Texan Looks at Lyndon: A Study in Illegitimate Power, prefaces the text with this observation among many which adequately describe the current populace: a “…healthy, moral people, even when denied the facts of national life—the truth essential to their survival—intuitively sense that something is wrong.”

Indeed, something is wrong. Wrong in America. And it is not Judge Brett Kavanaugh. It is the moral fabric that holds any people together and legitimizes the existence of government. The disunity at the national and local level is “a natural and inevitable result of illegitimate government.” And legitimacy in government can only be restored by principle: “principle based on moral character.” In other words, unless we can restore moral character to our governing principles, America operates with an illegitimate government.

By defalcation of Congress on the one hand and Judicial usurpation on the other [Roe v. Wade, bl]—with the connivance and ready support of the Executive Branch—the Federal Government has been corrupted into a vehicle of vast and unrestrained power over the lives, the effects and the affairs of the American people.

The legitimacy of our government can only be restored by returning to an ethical base. It cannot be restored by “false fronts” such as eradicating “hate” as the cause of national tragedy and stresses between people; or the preaching of peace “while appeasing evil” (see Jeremiah 6:14). These types of propaganda only exacerbate “instead of healing the malady.” America’s derangement can only be healed by returning to God and His moral standard. This fight in Washington and across America is about the sacredness of life.

G. Campbell Morgan was a leading British evangelist who preached from the pulpit of Westminster Chapel in London during the early part of the 20th century. In his summary of the First Book of Kings in the Old Testament he laid out the obvious; every human government that leaves God out is doomed to end in disaster. This is the message of 1 Kings. Even “religious forms and ceremonies are grave-clothes if the spirit be not right with God.”

A nation cannot be governed by insisting that it shall adopt religious forms or ceremonies. Neither can a nation be governed by internal development, or commercial treaties, or ships which ply to Tarshish to bring back apes and peacocks [reference to Solomon’s reign, 970-931 B.C.; see 1 Kings 10:22]….shut God out of the question and democracy will be the most awful tyranny the world has ever seen.

Raging war in America is about moral character. Not Brett Kavanaugh’s—but the people. If Brett Kavanaugh is not confirmed, it will be because we could not find enough substance in our own standards to withstand diabolical onslaughts spearheaded by Democrats.

Guglielmo Ferrero, the Italian historian, in The Principles of Power, captures the essence of the battle.

Authority comes from above … legitimacy comes from below. [This] … explains why democracy cannot be legitimized without an internal spiritual unity if all the people are not in agreement both on the principle of legitimacy and on the great moral and religious principles of life. If that unity does not exist, the right of opposition becomes the battleground for a struggle to the death. [as quoted by Haley].

Times may change, but the motivations of human nature; the moral and spiritual principles upon which the life of our Republic hang, do not.

Soros-Funded “Beto” O’Rourke Wrong for Texas; Wrong for America

Soros-Funded “Beto” O’Rourke Wrong for Texas; Wrong for America“Beto O’Rourke’s cumulative score on the “Freedom Index” of The New American is a pitiful 27%.

by Bill Lockwood

It ought to be a fair warning to Texans that Robert “Beto” O’Rourke is heavily financed by communist agitator George Soros. But a glance at his ultra-liberal voting record while serving in the U.S. House of Representatives from El Paso seals the deal against him with those who have any respect left for what remains of the United States Constitution, and who value freedom from a Leviathan-Government.

Beto O’Rourke’s cumulative score on the “Freedom Index” of The New American is a pitiful 27%. There is not a big government program that O’Rourke does not like, nor a diminishing of liberty for citizens that he does not favor.

Health Care

He voted against the bill (December, 2017) known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that would cut corporate income tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent, cut individual tax-rates through 2025, and eliminate the tax penalty on Americans who do not purchase health insurance. This last was the cornerstone of the ObamaCare 2010 legislation.

On his website O’Rourke stumps for socialized medicine, using all the left’s fabricated lies to push voters in that direction. “It means,” says Beto, “that every one of us is able to get healthy and stay healthy. It means we have access to the providers, medications and help that keep us on our feet and moving forward.” This is achieved perhaps “through a single payer system, a dual system, or otherwise…”

As Beto knows, the issue has never been about “access to providers” of healthcare coverage—even though this was the patented lie of Obama. The trouble is not access but who is paying for it?  Our Emergency Rooms have been filled for over 30 years will illegals and others who have been funded by the taxpayers. Again, access is not the issue. What is at stake is a federal government program that robs one sector of society (the producers) to pay for others (the takers).

“Healthcare is a basic human right, not a privilege,” says his website. Wrong. Healthcare is a service provided by those who have invested much personal time and money into their profession. O’Rourke thinks that by calling it his “right” that these professionals serve him he has created the “right” that that somehow mandates that I must pay for his services. No wonder Soros loves him. Liberals always miss the basic issue as to what a “right” is.

Immigration

Politifact says that it is “mostly true” that Beto O’Rourke wishes to disband ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) as accused by Ted Cruz. According to a Texas Tribune news story (July 2, 2018), at a town hall in San Antonio, O’Rourke was asked about “abolishing ICE.” Politifact writes,

O’Rourke discussed the need to eliminate fear in immigrant communities under Trump and to find a better way to enforce immigration laws. ‘And if that involves doing away with this agency, giving that responsibility to somebody else, changing how this agency performs, I’m open to doing that,’ O’Rourke said.

Yet he went on to flatly answer no when directly asked if he would abolish ICE, explaining that he does not currently know enough about how immigration law would be enforced without the agency.

‘I understand the urgency of this,’ O’Rourke said in conclusion. ‘I just want to make sure that we’re constructive in how we talk about meeting this challenge and that I understand what abolishing ICE would mean in terms of enforcing our laws going forward.’

Stop here a moment. Universal health care in Texas—socialized medicine paid for by taxpayers. No border enforcement, which means open borders. That is a simple recipe to say good-bye to the Lone Star State. Let’s just turn it over to Mexico, as is already being called for by some liberal groups. Perhaps Robert needs to be nicknamed “Reconquista” O’Rourke.

Other Issues

On Abortion, O’Rourke has proved consistent—consistently immoral. He has voted to fund the murder of the unborn with federal taxpayer-supplied funds; when a bill came before him to deny federal subsidies in ObamaCare from funding abortion, he voted NO; when the issue was to limit abortions, he was against that limitation; he refused to defund Planned Parenthood even for one year unless Congress could certify that that “healthcare provider” did not perform abortions. His website claims he wants a “chance for everyone to succeed”—unless, of course, you are a person awaiting birth from inside your mother’s womb.

Beto voted for raising the spending cap during Obama’s presidency; he is pro Common Core; and voted against the Death Tax Repeal which would have put to rest an ungodly law Robin Hood-style system of robbery. He is weak on the 2d Amendment as he promises to “close the gun show loophole.”

Another issue of keen interest to liberty-minded Texans is Beto’s support of the EPA’s “Waters of the United States” rule. As described by one writer, this bill (H.R. 2, May, 2018) was the “poster child of government overreach during the Obama administration” as it gives “unelected bureaucrats at the EPA the power to broadly interpret what is a navigable waterway” under the Clean Water Act. The practice of the EPA was to interpret the rule “so broadly” that “even a puddle in a farm’s drainage ditch could be subjected to Federal regulation.”

This is exactly the kind of kingship government that Beto prefers—an unconstitutional socialistic-style system that lawlessly regulates each patch of dirt in the great state of Texas. Beto is wrong for Texas; he is wrong for America.

Alex Newman: Atlanta School Ends Morning Pledge of Allegiance to be “Inclusive”

Atlanta School Ends Morning Pledge of Allegiance to be “Inclusive” “The globalist establishment is working overtime to sideline nations, national identity, self-government, and patriotism…  “

by Alex Newman

A tax-funded school in Atlanta, Georgia, announced that students would no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning. Instead, the school said students would be expected to recite the “Wolf Pack Chant” that will “focus on students’ civic responsibility to,” among other things, “our global society,” officials said. It was all in the name of “diversity.” But the backlash was fast and furious.

The controversial decision at the K-8 Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School, announced earlier this month, was made “in an effort to begin our day as a fully inclusive and connected community,” elementary Principal Lara Zelski said in a statement. “Over the past couple of years it has become increasingly obvious that more and more of our community were choosing to not stand and/or recite the pledge.”

Apparently, a number of pro football players choosing to protest during the national anthem inspired some of the faculty and students to refuse to participate in the pledge at school. “There are many emotions around this and we want everyone in our school family to start their day in a positive manner,” Zelski continued. “After all, that is the whole purpose of our morning meeting.”

She noted that students would continue to “lead the meeting.” But instead of standing at the meeting to pledge allegiance to their Republic, under God, with liberty and justice for all, the students would participate in the yet-to-be-developed “Wolf Pack Chant.” As part of that “chant,” the students would pledge responsibility to “our global society,” a frequent term used by globalists to refer to the dictator-dominated United Nations. Then the pledge could be said in classrooms if students wanted to.

When the news got out, it caused outrage across Georgia and beyond. “I’m sure our House Education Committee will examine whether taxpayer funds should be used to instill such a divisive ideology in our students,” warned Georgia House Speaker David Ralston, a Republican. Other top officials and political leaders echoed those remarks, citing Georgia law that requires tax-funded schools to have a time set aside for the pledge.

After the statewide and national uproar, the school quietly backtracked. “It appears there was some miscommunication and inconsistency in the rollout,” Board Chair Lia Santos said. “Starting next week, we will return to our original format and provide our students with the opportunity to recite the Pledge during the all-school morning meeting.”

The globalist establishment is working overtime to sideline nations, national identity, self-government, and patriotism in its quest to build what multiple former presidents have described as a “New World Order.” And of course, school children are in the crosshairs. Obama’s “Education” Secretary Arne Duncan boasted repeatedly that the UN and the Obama administration were both aiming “to prepare better global citizens.”

With government schools and the establishment working overtime to demonize America in the minds of children using lies and fake history, it is no surprise that a growing number of students refuse to say the pledge. Those numbers will continue to grow. And fixing this problem will require more than just pressuring schools to continue the pledge.

What is needed instead is a total overhaul of the education system to stop the indoctrination and the dumbing down. In the meantime, parents must do everything possible to protect their children from the anti-American, globalist agenda being force-fed to them in government schools.


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe but has lived all over the world. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

Bill Lockwood: Universal Basic Income: Roaring Back to Slavery

Universal Basic Income: Roaring Back to Slavery-“So, who are the slaves?”

by Bill Lockwood

Much is being said today about a “universal basic income.” The concept is that every person ought to enjoy as a “human right” a minimum living wage—no work required. Former President Obama touted this in his recent South Africa speech honoring communist Nelson Mandela.  He explained that the world needs to “’re-image’ our social and political arrangements” in order to provide “universal income.” That is Obamaspeak for finishing off the change of the structure of our government. Make it a dictatorship. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO, suggests that “we explore the idea of universal basic income.” Other socialists have begun to openly champion this communistic philosophy—but it is nothing more than slavery.

How is it slavery? Let’s back up for a moment. To begin, in thinking about “universal basic income” we are setting the Bible aside. God’s Word is ignored and ridiculed by major power-brokers and community-organizers of politics. Inspired testimony requires “if a man does not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). God’s order from the beginning has been “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread” (Gen. 3:19). But this concept is ruled out of court before we begin.

Secondly, we are setting aside the Constitution. Issues like basic income are normally discussed in terms of economics and political effects, not the Constitution. Besides, apart from skirmishing over miniscule issues such as “how many terms may a President serve?” or “how often must elections be held?”—the Constitution is defunct. We no longer have a Constitution nor anything that can be accurately described as constitutional law. To test this thesis, consider the issues of the day—government run health care; welfare; education, environmental concerns, etc. Each of these is debated in terms practical costs—can we afford it? Rarely, if ever, is the Constitution brought to bear on the subjects.

Back to our question. How is “universal basic income” a “roaring back to slavery?” Slavery, for all practical purposes is the process by which one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. When a slave produces, that production does not belong to that slave, but to another—his or her owner. This is the basic assumption of the Democrat Party—those who favor slavery.

For example, not long ago, Donald Calloway, Jr., a political advocate for the Democrat Party, objected to “drug testing” those who are recipients of welfare. His objection stated that those who are given a “tax break” by President Trump’s new plan ought also be tested if we are to be equal. Get it. He believes if my taxes decrease from 40% to 20% that is the same thing as the government handing me a welfare check. Keeping my own money is a “government benefit.”

Why? Because in theory Calloway believes all you earn and all of your potential production belongs to the government. Government decides what of your hard-earned money you can keep. It decides how much you must cough up to the “common good.”

This is the bare-bones definition of slavery. All of my production does not belong to me but to another—this time the government. This is slavery.

Government

So, how is the government going to guarantee a basic income of anything for anyone? Look at the definition of government. Govern is “To exercise authority over; direct; control; rule; manage.” Government is the system by which this is accomplished. It is to control the affairs of a state or group of people. Or, as George Washington put it succinctly, “Government is force.”

By definition there is no possible method by which the “system” of organization can provide or guarantee any person anything at all except opportunity for fair play. Government has no money of its own—theoretically.

But how can a weak, small and limited by design government actually provide any person an income? This is impossible. By design its force is negligible. But that is not where we are, is it? Our government now has become so large, unmanageable and confiscatory that it strides like a leviathan over every natural boundary that exists. It therefore pilfers from the producers to give to the non-producers. All things are now possible.

So, who are the slaves? The workers. The producers. The laborers. You and me. Who owns them/us? The government, as seen by the Obama and Calloway-type statements above. Our production is considered government property. Therefore, to provide one person a “minimum living income” that government must confiscate even more from the workers such as myself to redistribute to another. This it readily does and promises to increase that taking at will, or as the mobs demand.

The bottom line is that the workers in America, owned by the world plantation at the United Nations headquarters in New York, or the Washington, D.C. plantation crowd in the nation’s capital, are being used by the slave masters to produce. The slave masters become popular to the non-producers who are now marching in mass on the streets with placards to demand more. President Trump’s efforts to roll back the size and scope of the plantation owners is being met with fierce opposition—by the plantation owners and the beneficiaries of their theft—the welfare class. Only one group has become slaves—the working middle class.

NATO is Operating as Designed—to Siphon Off American Wealth

NATO is Operating as Designed—to Siphon Off American Wealth“The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.”

by Bill Lockwood

President Trump this week once more rocked the globalists and internationalists with his renewed criticism of what has been considered one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump’s criticism focused upon the fact that the United States continues to pay the lion’s share of operating costs of the organization, while other member nations pay pittance by comparison.

For 2017, NATO’s military budget is $1.38 billion, the civilian budget is $252 million and its NATO Security Investment Program is $704 million. In this budget the U.S. contributes over 22 percent followed by Germany with a little over 14.65 percent, France at 10.6 percent and Britain 9.84 percent. There are 13 more members of NATO that pay less than 1 percent of their GDP to its budget.

Why Does America Pay the Lion’s Share?

Established in 1949 in the aftermath of WWII, NATO was sold to the American public as well as to the Senate as a necessity to keep the Soviet Union out of Western Europe. But as informed citizens are aware, NATO was specifically structured to be one of those “entangling alliances” to siphon off American wealth, as well as a stepping-stone to World Government. This is easily understood when one considers the roots of NATO.

The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.  The basic 5-point plan for communistic global conquest is summarized in the following four points.

  1. Confuse, disorganize, and destroy the forces of capitalism around the world.
  2. Bring all nations together into a single world system of economy. [The United Nations’ International Monetary Fund as well as the World Bank helped achieve this goal. So also have the so-called “Free Trade Agreements.” BL]
  3. Force the advanced countries [read, United States] to pour prolonged financial aid into the underdeveloped countries.
  4. Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage to total world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regionals [such as NATO] can be brought all the way into a single world dictatorship of the proletariat. (Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, 1942, as quoted by G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, A Second Look at the United Nations, 1964, p. 68)

One can readily see that the entire design or “regional” organizations was to be “transitional” to world government. More importantly, “regional governments”—or treaties—were necessary to bleed the American taxpayer to bankroll the entire scheme. This is exactly what is occurring and the frequent mantra that today’s world is a “new global community” plays directly into the orientation of Stalinist Russia.

Globalist Founders

Alger Hiss was one of FDR’s top advisors and was an ardent Soviet spy, having been convicted and sent to prison in 1950 for perjury involving statements relating to his communist activities. He was directly involved in the creation of The United Nations. His good friend, and advisor to later presidents, was John Foster Dulles. Dulles also was an avid globalist, pushing the United States towards Lenin’s world dictatorship. When Harry Truman signed America into the UN’s NATO alliance Dulles was enthusiastic. The “treaty” was part of the regional strategy towards globalism.

NATO involves first, a military “entangling alliance.” Article 5 of the NATO treaty binds the United States in an “agreement” that in the case of an “armed attack” against any NATO member other members of NATO, such as the United States, would consider it “as an attack against them all.” This contravenes the U.S. Constitution which assigns to Congress the power to declare war.

But NATO is not simply a military alliance. It is political as well (Steve Byas, article on John Foster Dulles, The New American, 3-5-2018). Dulles told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the treaty should be ratified “not as a military instrument but as a step in a political evolution that has behind it a long and honorable history, and before, it a great and peaceful future.” Note the language. NATO was considered by insiders to be a transitional stage toward a more solid global government.

The treaty itself states that member-states “will encourage economic collaboration between any and all of them.” Clarence Streit, Dulles’ fellow globalist, wrote in 1939 that he recommended the creation of regional groupings with the eventual goal of putting them together into a functioning world government. Streit pushed for the creation of NATO as a regional government within the framework of the United Nations. This is why Articles 51 and 52 of the UN Charter encourage the forging of “regional groupings” and cooperation.

United States Independence has always been in the crosshairs of the globalists behind NATO. In 1960, just 11 years after NATO’s founding, Elmo Roper of the Atlantic Union Committee stated:

For it becomes clear that the first step toward world government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political, and the social … the Atlantic Pact [NATO] need not be our last effort toward greater unity. It can be converted into one more sound and important step in working toward world peace. It can be one of the most positive moves in the direction of the One World. (Quoted by John McManus, in Changing Commands, The Betrayal of America’s Military, p. 20).

Jumping ahead to the Bush Administration of 1991, NATO was “reorganized.” Thousands of American soldiers were for the first time placed under German, British, and other blue-helmeted foreign commanders. Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary for the Administration, termed the move “an important milestone in the transformation of the alliance.” The transformation continues. Republican or Democrat, the goal is a world organization overriding the US Constitution.

Another precedent was established in during the Clinton Administration in 1994 when a British UN troop commander ordered US fighter planes from NATO to attack positions in Bosnia. Neither the British general, nor Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the UN Secretary-General, bothered to contact President Clinton nor our own Congress. The UN had already been given authority to employ US forces serving in NATO, a UN subsidiary, to utilize American military and money.

Now one can clearly see why Trump’s pressure on European countries to pay equivalent payments to NATO rattles socialist cages. Republican or Democrat, both sides of the aisle are grieved at the hindrance of their globalist designs. But the American people love President Trump, who has been the first president with backbone enough to lay it out for the American public by telling negotiators at the Brussels table that enough is enough.

Bill Lockwood: The Bible and Illegal Immigration

The Bible and Illegal Immigration  “…those that you let remain of them be as pricks in your eyes, and as thorns in your sides, and they shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell… “

by Bill Lockwood

As illegal immigration assists dragging our culture downward into a more godless, violent and confused society, it is shocking that many preachers, who should be reflecting biblical values, have taken the position that somehow the liberal multicultural goal of open borders is beneficial for evangelism. People are becoming confused as to whether or not America should even have boundaries and borders and whether it is godly to protect those borders.

First, God Himself established borders of nations. In Acts 17:26 Paul, speaking to Greeks in Athens, stated that “God has made of one, every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth; having determined their appointed seasons, and bounds of their habitation.

Note the several elements of the passage. (1) God has made of every nation one—or He made from one every nation of mankind. This is in direct opposition to the then current Greek belief that their own origin was superior to other races. (2) God determined their appointed times, that is, their divinely appointed periods. Nations do not rise and fall without God. It is not a survival of the fittest. (3) Boundaries of nations are divinely fixed. However modern man wishes to understand the providence of God, Paul plainly states that God has a hand in national boundaries.

The classic Old Testament text on this subject is Deut. 32:8. “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance; When he separated the children of men …” The last comment, about “separating” the children of men refers to God’s division between peoples at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:8).

Second, God demanded that Israel respect borders of other nations. As Israel came out of Egypt, the people were to by-pass some of the nations respecting their borders because God had given them that territory. One of those nations was Edom. “I have given Mt. Seir to Esau for a possession,” said the Lord, therefore, Israel was not to enter it (Deut. 2:5). He said the same regarding the country of Moab.

Later (Num. 20), when Israel, under the leadership of Moses, applied to Edom to pass through its territory on their way toward Canaan, Edom said no. After a second application and refusal Israel turned to go another way. A nation has the right to determine who comes into its territory and even God’s selected leader Moses could not violate that right.

On the other hand, God had prior appointed that the territory of the Amorite and Canaanite (Palestine) would be given to Israel (see Deut. 1). This was a divine judgment upon those Canaanite nations (see Gen. 15:15-16) because of their extreme wickedness including child sacrifice.

Consider also the fact that at one point in Genesis history Abraham, God’s chosen, immigrated to Egypt (Gen. 12). Abraham, however, lied about the status of his wife Sarah at one of the checkpoints. When his lie was discovered by the Egyptians he was deported! God did not step in and demand that Abraham and his family be protected at the expense of the Egyptian government.

Third, once settled in Canaan, the Israelites were sternly warned on multiple occasions to “drive the Canaanites out.” Even forty years previously, when Israel was still at Mt. Sinai, God had promised to drive out the inhabitants of the land (Exod. 33:2). Once Joshua took the leadership and conquered most of Canaan, he commanded the cooperation of the Israelites in “driving out” the Canaanites (e.g. Joshua 17:17-19).

The stated reason for driving out the nations that formerly inhabited Israel was to preserve the culture of Israel. The word “culture” itself refers to the religious presuppositions that lie beneath a society.

When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places [of idol worship], and ye shall take possession of the land …” (Num. 33:51,52)

Moses continued. “But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that you let remain of them be as pricks in your eyes, and as thorns in your sides, and they shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell” (v. 55). That Israel did not drive out the Canaanite people from Israel is the theme of the book of Judges (see chapter 1). The rest of the book shows perfectly well what occurs when a culture is not preserved.

As one professor wisely told me, “marriage is not a reformatory school”—so also “open borders is not a missionary program.” It is a recipe for the disintegration and complete annihilation of what is left of America’s Christian culture.

After Israel’s settlement in Canaan each tribe had a sovereign boundary that was detailed in the sacred record (Joshua 15). Not only was tribal territory to be respected in Israel, but private property was considered sacred and one of the sins that was prosecuted was “moving boundary markers” of someone’s property—which is the same as stealing private land. In no text in Holy Writ does anyone find the concept that people are not to own private property or that there is no such thing as Israelite tribal territory or national boundaries.

Fourth, God forbade Israelites from making any personal and marital contracts with the pagan people that formerly inhabited the land. Deuteronomy 7:1-5 is emphatic. If individual Israelites mixed in marriage relationships with the idolaters and pagans known as the Canaanites, the pure religion of Israel would be eroded.

You shall make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them; … for he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods …” For this reason, God instructed, “You shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.”

God strictly warned the Israelites again through Joshua, the next generation leader: “For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, The Lord will not continue to drive them out, but they will become a share and a trap for you; a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes until you perish from the land” (Joshua 23:12,13).

The point here is not to recommend an induction program for those seeking citizenship in the United States, but to point out that biblically speaking, the concept of sovereign borders is paramount in Old Testament Israel. The idea therefore that America should have no borders, and thereby no border enforcement, is certainly not biblical. There is nothing ungodly about having borders or boundaries around a nation and having boundaries implies that those whose boundaries they are have the right to manage them. Less than this is confusion on the face of the deep.

John Locke pointed out that unless society can provide a code of fixed and enforceable laws, man might as well stayed in the jungle (Skousen, 5,000 Year Leap, 244).

To this end it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of Nature.

Is America a sovereign nation? Many on the left apparently disdain that idea and are pushing for open borders. That may be their preference, but don’t come to the Bible with such an agenda.

Jesse Lee Peterson: ROSEANNE’S LYNCHING IS AN INSULT TO BLACKS

ROSEANNE’S LYNCHING IS AN INSULT TO BLACKS- Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson skewers leftist double-standards

by Jesse Lee Peterson

After Memorial Day, longtime actress and comedian Roseanne Barr was fired from her number-one hit TV show reboot “Roseanne.” ABC cancelled the entire program, reportedly pulled reruns of the sitcom and began considering an off-shoot show without Roseanne’s character.

Why such strong, sudden moves by elitist media giant ABC? Roseanne put out a funny tweet discussing a Wikileaks report about the corrupt Obama administration. Valerie Jarrett’s name came up – a wicked woman who was Barack Obama’s senior advisor. Roseanne wrote on Twitter in the early morning hours Tuesday: “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj” – meaning Valerie Jarrett.

Many people, including Roseanne apparently, didn’t know that Valerie Jarrett is mixed-race “black.” People do know Jarrett wears short, straight hair not unlike a “Planet of the Apes” movie character. Many also know Jarrett was born in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The “Fallen Messiah” Barack Obama and his allies oppressed and marginalized Christians, but supported and covered for Muslims any time Jihadists committed terror attacks.

One of the stupidest, politically correct, media-enforced “rules” against free speech is you cannot compare black people (at least not liberal blacks) to monkeys or apes, either in jest or insult. Through lies and propaganda, people are brainwashed to see blacks as poor, helpless victims of so-called “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has). It’s actually an insult to black people that whites are conditioned not to speak freely around them, and it only feeds black suspicion over white people’s true feelings. The left treat blacks like mentally handicapped children who can’t handle anything and can’t control themselves.

This mentality toward blacks enables them to continue their moral decline, having up to 77 percent of children out of wedlock, aborting a third of their pregnancies, complaining and lying about “racism,” faking hate crimes and falsely accusing whites and police, making excuses and blaming the system for their failure, begging for free stuff and “reparations,” continuing in unemployment double the national average, creating ghettoes, selling drugs and killing one another at a disproportionate rate.

The irony is that Roseanne Barr has a long history of trying to help black people, and being a pro-diversity, so-called “anti-racist” activist. She has a black godson, and pushed for a black granddaughter in her TV show’s revival. She once tweeted the purported home address of George Zimmerman, who shot the thug Trayvon Martin in self-defense – she apparently wanted a protest or citizen’s arrest of the Hispanic “white” man falsely accused of “racist” murder.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

Roseanne is a bit all-over-the-place politically – somewhat like Kanye West, by the way. Like Kanye, her “unforgivable” sin against the children of the lie (the liberal media, Democratic Party, RINOs and Never Trumpers) is thinking for herself and being pro-Trump. She’s extremely socially liberal – formerly a supporter of the anti-capitalist Green Party and socialist “Peace and Freedom Party.” Her nixed TV show “Roseanne” featured a transgender grandson who dresses like a girl, promoting mental and spiritual illness as normal and right. But the left’s only problem was that Roseanne is a Trump supporter!

This is an unjust and un-American public lynching of Roseanne Barr, meant to shut white people up and put fear in them. The media made sure everybody called her funny tweet “racist,” overreacting and emotionalizing the situation to make it seem so important and “abhorrent.” Even normally down-to-earth conservatives called her tweet “racist.” Logically, her tweet was either fair or inappropriate – but it was not “racist,” and she had a right to say it. Shamefully, Roseanne apologized repeatedly and profusely. Stop apologizing to the children of the lie!

They don’t care when President Trump is called an “orangutan,” or when black conservatives are called monkeys. It is acceptable to hate whites and Trump supporters. It’s a double standard. They falsely labeled Republicans “Nazis” and the Tea Party “racists” and “terrorists.” The word “racist” is more dehumanizing and destructive to whites than the so-called “N-word” is to blacks. The only solution is for whites to drop their fear.

The left seeks to regain power through intimidation of white people, the people who most support truth and freedom in America.

Some years back they made a similar example of a “white person” in the lynching of L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling. He was recorded in private not wanting his “girlfriend” to take pictures in public with blacks. He had a right to express this. But the wicked lynch mob called him “racist” and took his team away from him!

This is pure evil – oppressing white people for expressing “incorrect” opinions.

The only man they have not been able to destroy is President Trump, whom I call the Great White Hope for all Americans. Donald Trump has God on his side. He tells the truth, speaks his mind and has no fear. And he shows love for all people. He does not apologize for doing and saying nothing wrong. If we want to save our country and make America great again, we must stand up for truth and freedom of speech without apology.

Read more at: http://www.wnd.com/2018/03/are-you-an-alpha-or-beta-male/#qukcj4XqHQRhzq7D.99

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

The Christian and Politics

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bedrock of Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loss of Civility in America

Loss of Civility in America “It is another to revile or abuse a person with words

by Bill Lockwood

People have always and will always disagree with one another. Unanimity of opinion is unrealistic where God’s free-will creatures are concerned. What is blatantly evident however, in modern America, is the increasing loss of civility in dialogue. This sad result is predictable in a society where godlessness has become the norm.

The apostle Peter, in his Second Letter (2 Peter), describes the current situation that unfortunately prevails in the streets, in the halls of Congress, in the collegiate and public school classroom, and in the marketplace. His remarks are deadly accurate.

2 Peter 2

Beginning in verse 10, the apostle explains what it is to “walk after the flesh”—a biblical phrase denoting pleasing our own base desires. Those who do so are libertines—who by lack of training and correction throughout their development—are devoid of moral or sexual restraints. They spurn normal behavior while putting a premium on on physical pleasures. The phrase “after the flesh,” taken in connection with “their foul lust” in the connecting sentence suggests sodomy (Green, TNTC, 103).

Regarding these libertines: Peter explains, “they despise authority.” Rejecting authoritative statements from God and man, they are “Brazen ones, and self-willed” (v. 10). Brazen means unashamed. The description of these individuals the apostle goes on to explain “they fear not to rail at dignitaries.”

It is one thing to disagree with another and even press one’s opinion. For the free expression of ideas and principles and concepts the First Amendment was composed–that open discussion on the issues would never be curtailed in America. “To rail at dignitaries” however, carries a completely different idea. The word “rail” is literally “blaspheme.” It means to “defame” a person. It means to slander or to crudely disparage another.

To put a fine point on this, Peter carries us to the court in heaven where good angels brought accusation against evil angels before the Almighty at some point in history. But even these angels refrained from bringing a reviling judgment against them. It is one thing to make accusation. It is another to revile or abuse a person with words. They abstain from no affront (Bigg, ICC, 280).

Almost as if describing the current malaise of civility among moderns, Peter continues his diatribe in v. 12 that “these are creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed; railing in matters wherein they are ignorant; shall in their destroying surely be destroyed” (ASV).

A “creature without reason” literally is an irrational person. Sensible discussion or thoughtful disagreement is beyond them.  One has observed that “they preen themselves on their knowledge (a palpable dig at their pretensions to superior gnosis)” while in fact they have no more knowledge than does a brute beast (Kelly, BNTC, 339). Peter strengthens this description with the statement that these “have been born as mere animals that are caught and killed.” The idea is of a person whose only reaction is one of physical instinct—not thoughtful or respectful dialogue. A graphic picture this of individuals who live for themselves and their own desires.

What an … indictment of the effect on a man of living like a beast! First he gets captured and then he gets destroyed by his passions. As Barclay points out, sensuality is self-destructive. ‘the aim of the man who gives himself to such fleshly things is pleasure; and his tragedy is that in the end he loses even the pleasure. … for a while he may enjoy what he calls pleasure, but in the end he ruins his health, wrecks his constitution, destroys his mind and character and begins his experience of hell while he is still on earth.’” (Green, Ibid.)

In just a few short verses Peter shows what we are witnessing with increasing regularity in our nation. Is it possible to disagree without becoming ugly and uncivil? Must one “take to the streets” with boiling anger to make a change? Is it no longer possible to debate the issues while refraining from toilet talk and cursing? Must people literally “howl at the moon” to demonstrate disagreement? Must people show rage to show a different view? Have we lost all civility?

The only answer to this morass of ugliness, of course, is a turning to Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World. May our nation bow its knee to God this holiday season.

NOTES

Bigg, Charles. International Critical Commentary, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the   Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude.

Green, Michael: Tyndale NT Commentary, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude.

Kelly, J.N.D.: Black’s NT Commentary, The Epistles of Peter and Jude.

BC/AD or BCE/CE?

BC/AD or BCE/CE?The Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians.

by Bill Lockwood

Since the Middle Ages calendars have been dated from the central point of history–Jesus Christ. “Before Christ” (BC) and “Anno Domini” (AD)—a Latin phrase meaning “the year of our Lord.” Theoretically, the Lord was born on the year zero.

Our present calendar is based upon the Gregorian calendar of 1582 which was named after Pope Gregory XIII. This calendar was actually a reform of the earlier Julian calendar put together in the year 45 B.C. and named after Julius Caesar.

The labels BC and AD were not added until 525 A.D. by Dionysius Exiguus, who used them to compute the date of Easter (Robert. R. Cargill, bibleinterp.com, 2009). Dates comprise the backbone of history and the BC/AD point of reference has been the backbone of western civilization.

This system has come under increasing criticism, however, and today “scholarship”—even Christian– recommends another option that removes Christ from that pivotal place in history. It is advised that the favored option B.C.E. and C.E., standing for Before the Common Era and Common Era, replace the older B.C./A.D. system.

Since both numerical systems utilize Jesus Christ as the point of reference (“Before Common Era” is equivalent to the time before Christ), how is it that tension exists on this?

First, by usage of BCE/CE the world of “scholarship” is insisting that the world of “science” has demonstrated the Bible to be inaccurate. Those of us in the less-educated circles need to get on board. Robert Cargill frankly states his case.

Despite the rise of science, Christians have used—and many times have insisted upon—the continued use of the labels ‘AD’ and ‘BC’ to designate calendrical years, and thereby portray human history as directly relative to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. But in our modern world of scientific reason and religious plurality, the battle over whether or not to use the increasingly accepted international scientific standard of BCE … and CE … has not waned, but rather has intensified.

Cargill plainly implies that the biblical record is inaccurate. The marvels of science have fortunately saved us from believing the historicity of the Good Book! This is continually cast in the framework of “scholarship.” As Professor Alan Bloom stated, “Every scholar I know uses B.C.E. and shuns A.D.” (quoted by William Safire, August 1997). The implication: insistence on the BC/AD referents comes from the unlearned masses.

Second, the more modern designations reflect “religious plurality.” This is also echoed in Cargill’s statement above. Plurality simply means a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in their traditional culture.

That many various groups make up America and western civilization cannot be denied.

But those who have taken the pulse of academia and other cultural leaders know perfectly well that this has occurred by design, not accident. From the purposeful changing of immigration policies favoring non-Christian countries to the revamping of educational goals to celebrate other cultures while denigrating our own—Christian people have rightly been alarmed.

Even Friedrich Nietzsche of yesteryear recognized that the Christian faith was the undergirding of western civilization—not only of its religious beliefs but also of social values and its fundamental view of human nature (Os Guinness, The Dust of Death, 37). It is this Christian foundation that is under assault by continued emphasis upon “religious plurality.”

William Safire relates that the “shunning of A.D. …goes clear up to the Supreme Court.” He tells of Adena K. Berkowitz, who has both a law degree and a doctorate in Hebrew literature, who applied to practice before the Court. “In the application,” she wrote, “I was asked if I wished ‘in the year of our Lord’ to be included as part of the date listed on the certificate or omitted.” She chose to omit. “Given the multicultural society that we live in, the traditional Jewish designations—B.C.E. and C.E.—cast a wider net of inclusion, if I may be so politically correct.”

It may be indeed a “wider net of inclusion” but the fact that it is a “Jewish designation” shows that it was not originally intended to be so much “inclusive” as simply “excluding Jesus Christ.” Those familiar with blasphemous Jewish Talmudic references to Jesus Christ can readily understand this erasure of Jesus Christ. That it has gained popularity in the world of “scholarship” may point more to the skepticism that now undergirds academia. This brings me to another reflection:

Third, the designations BCE/CE originated in Jewish unbelief.  Even Wikipedia recognizes, as Adena Berkowitz confessed, that these terms “became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish academics. In the later 20th century, the use of CE and BCE was popularized in academic and scientific publications, and more generally by authors and publishers wishing to emphasize secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians, by not explicitly referring to Jesus as ‘Christ’ …”

Besides secularists, another group preferring the more modern designations are Muslims. They date their lunar calendar from the date A.D. 622, the day after the Hijra, or flight of the Prophet Mohammed from Mecca to Medina. How eager does the reader suppose Muslim scholars would be to accommodate Christians in Islamic societies by usage of the Gregorian calendar? How successful does one think would be the efforts to erase Mohammed from their calendars—no longer dating with the traditional Muslim A.H. (After Hijra)?

The State of Israel uses an official Jewish calendar which is based upon a lunar cycle. I would suspect that efforts for them to adopt the Hijra calendar of reckoning by Islam would meet with stiff resistance, even claiming that it would be tantamount to melting cultural supports of Israel. I wonder how Israel would meet the argument of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who stated:

The Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of all faiths and cultures—different civilizations, if you like—that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era.

Multiculturalism and plurality always demand Christians—not Muslims or Hindus or Humanists– to be accommodating. This reminds me of the modern usage, even by conservative Christian writers and authors, of “Judeo-Christian Culture.” This term only became vogue in the 1950’s and one never read such a statement from the Founding Era of our nation. To those men it was “a Christian culture.” The change occurred in the 1950’s and does not represent the views of earlier generations. And the alteration of “Christian culture” or “Christian nation” to “Judeo-Christian nation” represents a change in philosophy.

I choose not the modern scholarly option on dating, not because I “cling to … the symbolic superiority [I] feel”, as Robert Cargill patronizes—or because I “deny the facts and use different labels (i.e., ‘intelligent design’)”—but because the facts upon which Cargill relies are not so factual. Most of all, I oppose the world of naturalistic assumptions cornering the market on the label “scholarship”, then demanding we must all fall in line; even to the point of reframing history. Jesus Christ is the center point of all history. His life is historical; the Gospels factual; and His resurrection from the dead defensible.

Bill Lockwood, Anno Domini (The Year of our Lord), 2017.