Tag Archives: American Constitution

Jesse Lee Peterson: NOBODY LOVES AMERICA LIKE WHITE PEOPLE DO

Jesse Lee Peterson applauds those who support our country

by Jesse Lee Peterson

One man, President Donald Trump, is restoring America to its original greatness. God bless America, and God bless the Great White Hope, President Trump! With this year’s Salute to America on Independence Day in the nation’s capital, it’s finally clear that America is back!

I am 70 years old. I have not seen such an inspiring patriotic celebration since I was a kid. The president’s speech, and the event that he put together for the Fourth of July, expressed his pure love for our country.

I have noticed that no other group of people in the United States truly loves America as a whole like white people do. While growing up on the plantation, and throughout my life, I’ve watched white people proudly honor the country with visible displays of affection and respect. They support freedom, independence, true justice (not fake “social justice”), and adherence to our laws and Constitution like no one else. They work hard, create businesses, jobs and inventions, and – right or wrong – share these opportunities with others, and selflessly support others’ rights. President Trump is a perfect example of this love.

I wondered why it is that white people love the country so much, while blind people of color don’t share an appreciation for their opportunities. I realized that it’s because white men founded and built America, the greatest country on earth. Everybody and their mama want to come here – we can’t even keep the illegals out! But once they’re here, whether by choice or by force, they turn on the country and the white people who allowed them to be here. Nowadays, only whites have it in them to love and preserve America.

When I worked picking cotton as a boy with my grandparents, when blacks were moral and hard-working, we loved the country too. It only makes sense to love the place where you were born – especially the United States of America. But as blacks fell for the lies of socialism and communism, they also fell away from love. Blacks abandoned morals, fathers and real belief in God. Now they cling to false victimhood, government taking care of them, and insane hatred toward white people.

You can find some people of color who like the country. A few even really love the country, those who’ve awakened out of their fallen state. Thanks to the president, his courage and realness, many people of all races are awakening and finding that love.

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

I’ve been working for over 29 years, telling the truth, encouraging blacks to wake up, drop anger, and return to their fathers and to God. People of all races have tuned into my radio show, church services, and my interviews with people on “the Fallen State.” Many of them call in to talk on-air about the issues they’re going through, or get private counseling through my nonprofit, BOND. They commit to prayer, get to know themselves, forgive their parents – and their lives return to order.

Last year, I declared July to be White History Month. Doesn’t July just feel white? It’s because of white people that we have Independence Day in America. In this country, we have the ridiculous “Black History Month” for so-called “African Americans” who don’t feel like they’re part of America. Homosexuals get two separate months! One celebrates so-called “Pride” and the other “LGBT history,” as if there’s anything good about homosexuality, transgenderism or any of that crap. Why not White History Month? Decent whites are hated – for no reason – by the people of color and children of the lie.

Disgracefully, we’ve allowed communism to take hold in America – an evil, anti-American, hate-based ideology that demonizes good white men like Trump. Some filthy communist scumbags burned an American flag in front of the White House, clashing with the Proud Boys and other normal patriotic people celebrating. But one man wearing a “Make America Great Again” T-shirt grabbed the tattered flag from America’s enemies as it burned. A U.S. Marine Corps veteran, he refused to step on the flag, but put out the fire with his bare hands. It’s beautiful that a veteran would show this love.

Unfortunately, the children of the lie have propped up a mixed-race black thug to falsely demonize our country, our flag, our military and police. You’ll recall Colin Kaepernick was the former NFL football player who refused to stand for our National Anthem, turning his back on America. Knowing that most blacks support evil, the shoe company Nike sponsored him with an advertisement promoting him as a hero.

On the first of July, Nike bowed again to the thug Colin Kaepernick, canceling the release of their patriotic shoes. Retail stores reportedly already received Nike shoes emblazoned with a “Betsy Ross Flag,” styled after the American flag from the time of the American Revolution. But because Kaepernick complained that America’s founding represents white people and “slavery,” Nike cancelled the release of the shoes!

This is why I want white people to marry and make white babies. I call on all people of good will to appreciate white people. If we lose whites as a majority, we lose America.


WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/07/nobody-loves-america-like-white-people-do/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: Democrats: The Anti-God Party of Karl Marx?

by Bill Lockwood

Several recent agendas pushed by the Democrat Party indicate that they are not only the anti-America Party which pushes for Open Borders and a larger socialist confiscation/redistribution program than already exists, but are aggressively adversarial when it comes to belief in God. From chiding judicial nominees who believe in God to removing ‘so help me God’ from oaths—the Democrat Party is adopting the mantle of atheism.

Sen. Cory Booker, for example, recently asked judicial nominee Neomi Rao if she believed that same-sex relationships were immoral. Rao has been nominated to be on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She would replace Brett Kavanaugh if confirmed.

Booker pressed her. “So you’re not willing to say here … whether you believe it is sinful for two men to be married, you’re not willing to comment on that?”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Amy Coney Barrett, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” in a 2017 hearing. Barret was then a nominee for the 7th Circuit Court. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said to Barrett in that same hearing: “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.

Brian Buescher was nominated to be on a district court in Nebraska. His membership in the Catholic Knights of Columbus was something that brought out the hostility of Democrat Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA). The thought patterns of these prominent Democrats is obviously that any sort of Christian belief is a hindrance to public service.

Removing “So Help You God”

Next, as reported by The Hill, the newly-minted Democrat-led House Committee on Natural Resources is seeking to have the words “so help you God” removed from the oath cited by witnesses who testify before the panel. The proposal was originally obtained by Fox News.

The rules proposal states that witnesses that come before the committee during its hearings would be administered the following oath: ‘Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [so help you God]? According to Fox News, the “so help you God” phrasing is in brackets in red in the draft and indicates that the words are slated for removal.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) probably summarized this Democrat-led move with the best critique: “It is incredible, but not surprising, that the Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of the first acts in the majority…They really have become the party of Karl Marx.”

Art. VI. Sec. 3–No Religious Test

Some may suppose that these godless Democrats are in line with the Constitution at Art. VI, sec. 3 which forbids a “religious test” for public officers in government. But this is ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution gives Americans several General Provisions. One of them involves an “Official Oath” that is to be required of Senators and Representatives and all “executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states.” They shall be “bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

First, there is to be an ‘oath’ of office. What seems to have escaped the modernist anti-theism approach is that the very nature of an oath assumes that the one giving that oath believes in God. By definition an oath is a solemn “calling upon God to witness the truth of what one says.” In effect it is to say: If I am not telling the truth then I call upon God to strike me down or to punish me

This is why Washington, when taking the first oath of presidential office, added “so help me God.” In the Old Testament an oath was to be taken in God’s name for the same purpose. To “take the Lord’s name in vain” (Exod. 20:7) then, is making a profession in “God’s name” and failing to live up to that profession. Primarily, this involved a legal oath. By extension the command meant “You shall not use the name of God, either in oaths or in common discourse, lightly, rashly, irreverently, or unnecessarily, or without weighty or sufficient cause” (Matthew Henry).

Obviously, by the flippant and irreverent manner in which Americans misuse the name of God has muddied their thinking about Deity and the very nature of an oath. And none are more confused than the Democrats who press for an “oath” without realizing the nature of it.

Second, the oath is itself is a recognition of God. James Iredell, a Justice of the State Supreme Court of North Carolina (1751-1799), during the founding period, commented on Article VI in the following manner.

According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a ‘solemn appeal to the supreme being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which will bind his conscience most.’ It was long held that … none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens were altogether excluded…Men at length considered that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a supreme being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments…. Indeed, there are few people so grossly ignorant or barbarous as to have no religion at all.

We have reached the point at which the “barbarians” are now running the government from the Democrat side. Iredell explained further pertaining to the oath:

…it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it [the oath] believes in a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to bind his conscience that could be relied on; since there are many cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury would not be dreaded.

Third, what then of the No Religious Test? Article VI also states that “there shall be no religious test.” Many of the colonies were established by groups of people who subscribed to certain tenets of various faiths—that is, branches of Protestantism (see Thomas Norton, The Constitution of the United States, 183-84). Their state oaths would automatically exclude at a state level those who had contrary views.

But when it came to the federal government these same delegates insisted that it had no jurisdiction over religious matters. They were particularly fearful that a “federal test might displace existing state test oaths and religious establishments” (David Barton, “A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore,” Wallbuilders.com). In other words, the framers believed that religion was a matter better left to individuals and to their respective state governments, not to the federal government. No religious test primarily referred to the various exclusive doctrinal tests at the state level and kept the federal government in a neutral position.

However, whether one believed in God or did not subscribe to general biblical principles was far from what was intended in Art. VI, sec. 3. The idea that America might one day become a “godless state” as the current Democrat Party embodies was not in the framer’s minds. As Richard Dobbs Spaight (1758-1802), a representative from North Carolina to the Constitutional Convention, put it: “I do not suppose an infidel or any such person will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion.”

This is what makes the comments of the Cory Booker’s and Dianne Feinstein’s so distasteful. They are not even in a “neutral position.” Their anti-God agenda, which is reflected across the board in the Democratic Party, is open hostility against Christian principles. Little wonder then that the socialism of Karl Marx appeals to them. It begins upon an atheistic platform.

The Efficiency of Obama

The Efficiency of Obama

by Bill Lockwood

As escalating national crises continue to occur with greater frequency, President Obama continues to receive the benefit of the doubt on his leadership abilities. Donald Trump charged, “He is a weak and ineffective leader”.  He goes on to say, “We must get tough.” Whether it be the San Bernardino, California, Killeen, Texas Islamic shootings, the Orlando Islamic massacre or the communistic Black Lives Matter murdering policemen from Dallas to Baton Rouge – Donald Trump gives President Obama way too much credit to charge him with incompetency.

Racially divided with violent marchers in the streets is exactly what Obama desires. Our national unity and freedom have not mysteriously vaporized, they have been purposefully eroded by Barack Obama. If America had elected communists Frank Marshall Davis or Bill Ayers to the presidency, the violent streets of America would look no different than they do today.

Donald Trump: “It is not incompetency or ineffectiveness. It is Obama’s philosophy, and it has been purposeful and effective.”

Prior to Obama’s election to the presidency, while he was still a candidate, I wrote the following: Let’s look into the intellectual roots of Barack Obama. He represents himself as a candidate for Social Justice, and as such, based upon socialist ideas, he despises the roots of America – life, liberty, and property under God. Obama believes more in social justice than in the American Constitution and will seek to change American life in deference to principles originating out of radical leftist critiques of Capitalism and of Western Society.

Obama will exploit class, race and gender narratives in order to achieve his vision of social justice. As Max Eastman of a generation ago observed, he ‘will attempt to transform the political consciousness of America by convincing it that its principles of equality as envisioned by the Founders were insufficient to sustain a moral society. This vision of social justice will of necessity hew to principles of Marxism.’

As President, Obama would be necessarily constrained to effect significant changes in the way America works, but his emphasis and attempts would all come in defiance of the individual for the purposes of the collective. Obama is not incompetent, but a first-class deceiver, even until this very hour. This is because social justice or socialism itself is a philosophy conceived in deception. Envy, though condemned in the Bible (Titus 3:3), is the taproot of socialism.

This is why masses cheer when government promises to steal from the “haves” and give to the “have not’s.” People are taught to “demand benefits” from the government – goods and services that were actually produced by the labor of others since government does not actually produce anything. Socialism is that philosophy which “transforms” the services and work that others provide (such as health care) into a “right” that all individuals somehow own. ENVY is cloaked in CHARITY. This is why, even though Obama himself has been immensely successful in fundamentally transforming America, the United States of America will ultimately fail – unless we change courses radically, and very soon. Socialism has always failed because people naturally yearn for freedom, its opposite.

Max Eastman explained why socialism will always fail in his Reflections on the Failure of Socialism. “It seemed perfectly clear, once the question was boldly put, that if the socialist hypothesis were valid in general, some tiny shred of the benefits promised by it would have appeared when the Russian capitalists were expropriated and production taken over by the state, no matter how untoward the circumstances. By that time everything in Russia was worse from the standpoint of socialist ideals that it had been under the regime of the Tsar.  I did not need any additional experiments such as that of Nazi Germany, or in England, to the obvious drift in other countries, to convince me. I was sure that the whole idea of extending freedom, or justice, or equality, or any other civilized value, to the lower classes through common ownership of the means of production was a delusive dream, a bubble that had taken over a century to burst.”

So powerful was the deception of socialism upon Eastman that it required many long years to come to his senses and reject it. “I sadly regret the precious twenty years I spent muddling and messing around with this idea, which with enough mental clarity and moral force I might have seen through when I went to Russia in 1922.”

America is burning, thanks to the philosophy of Obama. Will America, the once “land of the free and home of the brave,” have enough mental clarity to see the truth? Will we have moral force enough, or be brave enough to retrace our steps to liberty?

Back to Homepage