Tag Archives: American Liberty with Bill Lockwood

Bill Lockwood: Sweet Home Alabama!

by Bill Lockwood

Alabama governor Kay Ivey just signed into law the toughest anti-abortion bill in America. The new law, which such groups as the ACLU plan to challenge in court, makes it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion at any stage of pregnancy—punishable by up to 99 years in jail.

Predictably, liberal groups are bewailing the measure. Staci Fox of Planned Parenthood Southeast said: “Today is a dark day for women in Alabama and across the country.” But it the meltdown prize goes, hands-down, to Alabama Democratic Senator Bobby Singleton. On the floor of the Senate he ranted,

“You don’t care about babies for real you just kicked them in the stomach, and you aborted them yourself! You just aborted the state of Alabama with your rhetoric with this bill!”

“You just aborted the state of Alabama yourself, and all of you should be put in jail for this abortion that you just laid on the state of Alabama! … Don’t come to me talking about giving big business some more incentive just to come to the state of Alabama to do business in the state of Alabama when you don’t care nothing about the citizens of the state of Alabama!” Singleton exclaimed.

“When you don’t care nothing about mothers in the state of Alabama! When you don’t care nothing about whether or not men take advantage of women and rape them and take something out of them and you still want them to have a child out of that bad act that’s on them, and you still want them to have a child! You just aborted the state of Alabama! You just raped the state of Alabama with this bill …!”

It is difficult to know where to begin with such an ungrammatical non-reasoning rant. What does “aborting the state of Alabama” mean? And why should it be punishable by death when Sen. Singleton thinks that murdering unborn children ought to be allowed? How is the state more valuable than its citizens?

Apparently, not everyone in the Bible belt is familiar with the prominent text from Psalms 139:13-14, “You [God] formed by inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”

How this will play out in the courts, who knows?

Jesse Lee Peterson, host of the Jesse Lee Peterson Show (Rebuildingtheman.com), commented only three words when asked about his home state of Alabama and its tough stance: “Sweet Home Alabama!”

AOC?

Now comes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter showing her true Democrat colors and blatantly lying about the law. She bemoaned the law this way: “Alabama lawmakers are making all abortions a felony punishable with jail-time, including women victimized by rape+incest.”

Of course, that is a bold lie. The law does not jail women who abort their babies, but the abortion providers. When called in the carpet for her lie, like a little child she lied again. Liz Wheeler of One America News Network put it clearly. “Under no circumstances would women be jailed for abortions. The abortionist would be penalized.”

To that public corrective, AOC responded to Wheeler with this: “Actually, it would be a felony for women—if those women are medical providers. See?” (Warner Todd Huston, godfatherpolitics.com).

Then follows another foolish statement repeated by AOC that too frequently goes unanswered. “This law forces people to be pregnant against their own consent.”

This reminds me of a pro-abortionist woman who told me upon one occasion, “If you [by government law] force me to keep the child, then you will have to help me raise it.” In other words, some of these women demand public hand-outs or welfare, financed by me, if they cannot abort (kill) their children.

No. There is the option that no one wants to discuss. Quit having sex outside of a legitimate marriage. Sexual activity has consequences—and it seeks to overturn the law of God to thrust the consequences of your sinful actions upon me.

But what about women who are victims of rape who are being “forced” to carry pregnancy to term? AOC gets all worked up about this. The answer is, if American went back to the standard of God which properly punished such crimes as sexual assault, then the issue would all but evaporate.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 prescribes the death penalty for both the man and the woman in consensual encounters. In the next verses, 25-27, a sexual assault, not consensual encounter, is described. In this case, “then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.”

Bringing back the death sentence, and execution in a timely fashion, shows that we are serious about these types of crimes. Instead, our soft penal system does not deter from crime, and sexual assault becomes rampant.

In the end, the question is: Is it life in the womb or not? The Bible and science agree that it is—from the moment of conception. Since that is the case—it is nothing less than murder to take willingly the life of the unborn. It is refreshing that lawmakers in the great state of Alabama understand this and will legislate accordingly.

Bill Lockwood: Nasty on the Streets of San Francisco

by Bill Lockwood

Adam Andrzejewski founded a website called OpenTheBooks.com. In it he and his team track wasteful spending of tax dollars by all levels of government. But there is another “waste” problem which Andrzejewski has documented. It is human waste on the Streets of San Francisco.

“Since 2011 there have been at least 118,352 reported cases of human fecal matter on city streets.” The number of these cases grows year by year. “Last year, the number of reports spiked to an all-time high at 28,084. In the first quarter 2019, the pace continued with 6,676 instances of human waste in the public way.”

The new mayor, London Breed, won election by “promising to clean things up. However, conditions are the same or worse.” “The city has taken steps to crack down on the crisis. Over the last year, the Department of Public Works instituted what the San Francisco Chronicle called a ‘Poop Patrol.’ Consisting of five teammates, the Chronicle estimated each employee earned a hefty $184,000 in pay, perquisites and pension benefits.”

What is the Cause?

What is the underlying cause or causes of this problem? First, the city is in trouble because it hosts an estimated homeless population of 7,500 people. That is quite remarkable for a city whose population is 884,000. “Affluent sections of the city have become dangerous with open-air drug use, tens of thousands of discarded needles, and sadly, human feces.”

Second, and more importantly, San Francisco boasts a godless culture. Hub of the aggressive homosexual agenda, the City by the Bay mimics Sodom & Gomorrah. The Old Testament prophet Isaiah observes regarding wickedness, “For wickedness burns like a fire; it devours thorns and thorn-bushes, it kindles the thickets of the forest and billows up in a mighty cloud … no man spares his brother” (9:18-19).

When restraints are removed, which is the definition of godlessness, and “self” becomes all important, not only is God disrespected, so is man. Sin becomes a raging fire devouring everything, caring not for God nor man. Such is the very nature of sin.

Or, as Old Testament commentator, John Oswalt, observed: Sin is not a little misguided playfulness as it is so often depicted. It is a rebellion against God’s order for life. As such, it can only be destructive, like a grass fire which works its way through the brush at the edge of the forest deceptively slowly but then increases speed until it bursts into the woods with a roar and an upward rush of smoke. Because sin seeks gratification in denial of the created order, it can find such gratification only in increasingly flagrant denials. The sinful acts themselves cannot satisfy. Soon rebellion for its own sake, a raging fire, is all that is left.

Such it is in the once “Golden City” of San Francisco. Andrzejewski put it lightly, “lately there has been a brownout in the Bay Area.”

Bill Lockwood: The Evil of Socialism-Part Two

by Bill Lockwood

Dennis Prager, founder of the conservative PragerU, conservative talk show host, made an excellent observation regarding socialism while on Fox & Friends this past Tuesday. He was there to advertise the newest instalment of his 5-part popular commentary series on the Torah.

He noted that the founders were distrustful of human nature, and that therefore one’s personal liberty is best secured when as little control as possible is placed in the hands of leaders. Socialism, on the other hand, by definition, entrusts tremendous power over the lives of others in the hands of a very few. The contrast could not be more stark. Let’s explore it a little.

Distrust of Human Nature

The founders were optimistic about human nature, but they were realistic as well. Alexander Hamilton expressed the optimism, but at the same time the realistic view of human nature. “There is a certain enthusiasm in liberty, that makes human nature rise above itself, in acts of bravery and heroism” (The Famer Refuted, Feb. 23, 1775).

But it was James Madison, the father of the Constitution, that succinctly explained in Federalist No. 55 why limited government oversight was necessary:

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.

George Washington expressed the same sentiment in a letter to John Jay in 1786. “We must take human nature as we find it, perfection falls not to the share of mortals.”

Again, Madison outlined in Federalist No. 51 the importance of checks and balances in a government by viewing human nature.

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man, must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections of human nature?

The sole theme of the Constitution is to protect people from the concentration of power in the hands of a few government officials.

Illustrative of this skepticism of human nature to aggrandize power in the hands of the few is Article II, sec. 2 which pertains to the Electoral Vote of the states. The states considered collectively are the Electoral College. “Each state shall appoint …a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled.”

However, the founders added this caveat: “but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

What is the meaning of this negative note? “All human history … has demonstrated that concentrated government power is the greatest threat to individual freedom and states rights.” (1)

“Protecting the electoral system from conquest and occupation by the agencies of the federal government was the purpose of this provision.”

In other words, the only manner in which mankind could achieve happiness and liberty was by self-government. And this can only be gained by maintaining a system of limited government. But limited government would be surrendered if those in power could manipulate the system in their favor.

Socialism—Social Justice

Consider the contrast with socialism, by which we mean redistribution of wealth in the pursuit of so-called “equality.” The National Association of Scholars (NAS) defines “social justice”—socialism in a new dress—as “Advocacy of more egalitarian access to income, through state-sponsored redistribution.”

But what does this demand? In order to accomplish any state-sponsored redistribution, the state must be invested with more control over the lives of its members. This demands massive government power—power at the top.

Max Eastman, an elitist American in Woodrow Wilson’s time who became infatuated with socialism and actually traveled to the Soviet Union to learn how to implement it, later recanted. Would that our modern-day socialists of the Democratic Party would be as honest as Eastman.

Eastman’s book, Lectures in the Failure of Socialism, contains this definition of socialism: “A state apparatus which plans and runs the business of the country must have the authority of a business executive. And that is the authority to tell all those active in the business where to go and what to do, and if they are insubordinate, put them out.” It is all about power. Continuity of control.


(1) W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, p. 526.


At the root level, it amounts to the relinquishing of our sacred rights into the hands of the few at the top whom we have entrusted with gigantic levers of authority over our lives. Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, presses for socialized healthcare. What is that? This is to say that he wants the entire healthcare industry to become a government-run monopoly financed entirely by taxes.

How opposite the founders! It all begins with a wrong view of human nature as modern progressives consistently hold. This is the legacy of the so-called Progressive Era—a skewed, unrealistic view of mankind. A refusal to recognize that man’s problem is sin, not lack of material possessions. (2)  This is the evil of socialism.

And to pretend that we have a “Constitutional Crisis” on hand because Attorney General William Barr refuses to break the law and hand over federally-protected testimony to raging Democrats in the House boggles the mind.

There is a Constitutional Crisis in America—has been for over 100 years. It is the complete disregarding of constitutional barriers that forbids the federal government from intruding into the private lives of citizens via the tax code, welfare, government housing, education, health care, and a thousand and one other items. The Democrats are simply trying to lock evil socialism into place by the healthcare proposals of “Medicaid for all.”


(2) The Bible is emphatic, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 6:23).“God saw that the wickedness of man was great … and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was on evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). This is why the founders did not trust their freedoms, liberties, and rights into the hands of a few elitists.


Bill Lockwood: The Evil of Socialism

by Bill Lockwood

Socialism in its original form was defined as “government ownership of the means of production.” This is why the Soviet Union confiscated all business, factories, and farms while murdering millions of dissenters and resistors in the process.  However, aside from that classical definition, socialism has always referred to the redistribution of income and properties in the pursuit of equality—whether through the progressive income tax or various institutions of the welfare state.

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of socialistic redistribution and the collectivist drift toward the left by growing government. They all warned against it as an evil that burdens society. Samuel Adams, for example, pointed out that the founders had done everything in their power to make socialism unconstitutional.

The Utopian schemes of leveling [re-distribution of wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.

Thomas Jefferson warned against our modern welfare state. “If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” Jefferson rightly pointed out the immorality of it simply in the fact that it is unjust for one generation to pass on the results of its extravagance in the form of debt to the next generation. Our current debt of about $20 trillion is almost entirely owing to our socialistic quagmire of government taking care of people.

Jefferson added, “…we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life [expectancy] of the majority.” Plainly, to pass on debt to the next generation, which is part and parcel of socialism, is itself immoral.

In Jefferson’s second inaugural address in 1805, he observed that the redistribution of wealth was a violation of the basic and fundamental right of mankind. “Our wish … is that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good,…equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers.”

In other words, there never will be financial equality among members of a society because wealth and the accumulation of goods is the direct result of one’s own industry—or that of his fathers, as Jefferson put it.

He went on to point out that:

to take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.

Such things as the income tax and the infamous “death tax” come to mind as examples of violations which the sage of Monticello had in mind.

Benjamin Franklin wrote on this topic at length. He told one of his friends in England why America would not adopt a welfare state. “I have long been of your opinion, that your legal provision for the poor is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness. We have followed your example, and begin now to see our error, and I hope, shall reform it.”

A summary of Franklin’s views on welfare is as follows: (1) Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkenness is counterproductive. (2) Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counterproductive. (3) Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counterproductive. (4) Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counterproductive.

Providing the means to increase immoral actions; breeding debilitating dependency; blunting the desire or necessity to work; smothering the instinct to excel—sadly, this is an apt description of America today. Such is the destructive nature of socialism. Franklin added:

To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.

Would that America had paid closer attention, not only to the advice from our founders, but to the structure and prohibitions of the law of the land—the Constitution—which made wealth redistribution illegal. But who studies the Constitution today? Certainly very little in public schools, if at all. And who reads the founders any more?


2 W. Cleon Skousen’s summary in The Making of America, p. 219.

Bill Lockwood: Reparations and the Failure of Affirmative Action

by Bill Lockwood

All recent talk coming from the Democrats is about current “reparations” to black Americans for yesteryear’s slavery. White America must begin paying financial compensation for sins of history. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) announced a bill this week to form a commission to recommend “reparations for slavery.” Booker says this could solve the “persistence of racism, white supremacy, and implicit racial bias in our country. It will bring together the vest minds to study the issue and propose solutions that will finally begin to right the economic scales of past harms and make sure we are a country where all dignity and humanity is affirmed.”

Beto O’Rourke was against “reparations” when he was in Congress but has switcherooed to favor Booker’s commission. Whatever is vogue is what the Democrats support. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, another Texas Democrat, has supported reparations as well. Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Elizabeth Warren both cannot get on the bandwagon quickly enough.

Reparation talk is growing elsewhere. Black Princeton Seminary students in New Jersey are asking their school for reparations for slavery due to the fact that the early founders and faculty of the University had ties to slavery. A group of black seminarians have collected more than 400 signatures in an online petition calling on the Princeton to “make amends” by setting aside $5.3 million annually—15% of what the seminary uses from the school’s endowment for its operating expenses—to fund tuition grants for black students and establish a Black Church Studies program (Selwyn Duke, in The New American, 3.27.19).

What Shall We Say to These Things?

This is all a tacit admission that Reparations Do Not Work to the End for Which They are Intended. Why?  Booker says reparations will “right the economic scales of past harms.” This is exactly, almost word for word, the reason Affirmative Action was instituted in America in the first place.

Consider Pres. Lyndon Johnson, in a commencement address at Howard University in 1965 on affirmative action, who opined this way about Affirmative Action:

You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying, ‘now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair …This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.

We were going to have equality “as a fact and as a result” provided by Big Brother Government in its meddlesome Affirmative Action programs. Compensate for past discrimination and persecution is the “reason.” The original purpose for Affirmative Action in the United States was to “pressure institutions into compliance” with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

According to the clintonwhitehouse2.archives.gov website,

The current scope of affirmative action programs is best understood as an outgrowth and continuation of our national effort to remedy subjugation of racial and ethnic minorities and of women — subjugation in place at our nation’s founding and still the law of the land within the lifetime of “baby-boomers.

Apparently, the government remedy did not take. Instead of a “remedy” affirmative action has exacerbated the racial problem, so much that Democrats are seeking again to “right the economic scales” in America—exactly what Affirmative Action was supposed to do—by government fiat.

Questions

There are a few hundred questions we need answered by the Booker’s, Harris’, Warren’s and O’Rourke’s of the world before “reparations” are underway. Just a sampling of those questions are these:

Since slavery is solely of the Democrat Party in America, why not make the DNC pay the reparations?

Since American Indians practiced slavery regularly, and photos exist of Indian tribes holding white captives as slaves, will whites receive payments as well? Will the government “shake down” the Indian tribes for their historical practice of slavery?

Since “slavery” is, by definition, for all practical purposes, the process by which one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another, how is it that modern-day forcible financial re-distribution (slavery) supposed to “right” slavery of the past? Will modern-day slavery via the tax code be repaired? What is the difference in principle between slavery to the government and slavery to a plantation owner?

Is Booker man-enough to note that the Koran teaches slavery and Muslims have practiced slavery throughout the centuries? Shall Muslims in America pay reparations for subjugating populations of Europeans in history? Will those that support Mohammed and the fact that he owned a black slave be forced to disown Mohammed? After all, those theological students at Princeton say that “Restitution is evidence of repentance.”

While thinking of Islam, since each and every black slave that was captured in Africa and sold to English slave-traders originated with Muslim slave-traders in Africa, will those who practice Islam be forced to pay reparation? After all, why target just a few Englishmen involved in slavery? Why not cast a wider net for reparations?

Since “righting past wrongs” is Booker’s game, what about abortion? Since abortion is the taking of innocent life, will the Democrat legislation force those who have aborted children to pay into a general fund for usage by others? Or, is our grievance against sin selective? Only some sins need apply.

And since abortion rates are higher in black communities than in white communities does this mean that more blacks will be paying than whites? Or, is abortion off-the-table as far as discussion is concerned?

Since the black Princeton Theology students tell us that “reparation is evidence of repentance” do they also teach that it is the government’s job to force repentance among the population? Is asking for free-will contributions the same as a government shakedown?

Ezekiel 18

While on theology students, perhaps a biblical passage will help us. Ezekiel 18.

Israelites in Babylonian captivity were self-righteous. They were disposed to shift blame off of themselves and lay it partly upon their fathers and partly upon God. Shifting blame to some other quarter that we might be just and God unjust is still prevalent among men!

Their Illusion is that they were suffering, not for their own sins, but the transgressions of their fathers. Their proverbial statement to that effect was, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and set the children’s teeth on edge.” An old proverb repeated by the modern-day Democrat-Socialist. The prophet dispels this idea in the balance of the chapter.

Ezekiel lays out four cases to illustrate Divine Justice. Number one: the righteous man (v. 5-9) is just (dealings with others) and will live. Number two: a wicked son of a righteous man (v. 10-13). The father will not be held accountable for the sin of the son. Number three: a righteous son of a wicked father (v. 14-18). Here is where liberal idea of reparation rests. Must wickedness of past generations be paid today? The inspired prophet’s answer: NO. The principle is: The soul that sins, IT is the one that shall die! (v. 2).

Number four: Ezekiel has one more scenario (v 21-24). The wicked AND the righteous. If the wicked repents, then he is forgiven. If the righteous apostatizes, he is lost. This involves a change, not in the character of one generation to the next, but in the character of the individual. Such is repentance. Princeton Theology students and the Cory Booker’s of the world notwithstanding.

Bill Lockwood: Spiritual Guidance & Modern Superstition

by Bill Lockwood

In Mexico, and in Mexican communities in places such as Los Angeles, there’s a lively movement of prayer to Santa Muerte, Saint Death. You pray to her for protection from the dangers of the night, in the conviction that she can protect you from attack, accident, and violent death. She can also bring trouble to someone who has attacked you unjustly. Prayer to Santa Muerte goes back to the religious life of people in the area before the gospel came to the Americas. (1)

Our modern era is supposed to be a bold new age that has cast off its need for God and the supernatural. According to modernists who signed the Humanist Manifesto’s I & II and the Humanist Manifesto 2000 mankind has outgrown its need for “God.” In reality, however, modernists who reject God eventually opt for the false religious ideas of man—the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4).

By the “god of this age” the apostle Paul, who penned 2 Corinthians, referred to “all the floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, aspirations at any time current in the world.” (2) These are precisely what are lauded by today’s cultural leaders.

A recent Pew Research study found that a large and growing percentage of Americans believe in reincarnation, astrology, psychics, and the presence of spirits in nature. The shock comes, however, in that not only do 6 in 10 Americans accept these beliefs, but that the numbers are the same among those who are self-professed Christians. Even agnostics have adopted occult ideas.

According to a new research by Trinity College in Connecticut, Wicca is one of the fastest-growing religions in the country. Between 1990 and 2008, it saw a forty-fold increase in the number of adherents. One-and-a-half million Americans now identify as either Wiccan or Pagan. As The Christian Post put it, “Wicca functions as a spiritual patina on progressive politics.” The occult is becoming mainstream in America. Such is a culture that continues to reject God.

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is not simply the recognition that there are various cultures in the world, or even represented in the United States. According to Charles Tesconi at the College of Education at the University of Vermont, multiculturalism specifically views “all value systems as equal.” The multicultural view treats all diverse groups and ways of life as equally “legitimate.”  “Moral diversity” is the idea. This multicultural perspective therefore de-values biblical concepts as no more valid than any pagan or heathen belief. This is what is integrated into nearly all areas of public education and entertainment. “Diversity” is the watchword.

An example is the recent Disney movie Coco, a beautifully animated film that celebrates the Mexican tradition known as Dia de Muertos (Day of the Dead). Dia de Muertos has its roots in a “pre-Hispanic commemoration of deceased loved ones that is practiced by some Latin American indigenous populations” (Smithsonian.com). The film “draws its cultural inspiration from several Mexican variations of this tradition, which also happen to be those most commonly found in the United States.”

In the story-line, Miguel, a young boy is transported to the place of the dead in order to speak with his deceased ancestors. Cynthia Vidaurri, the writer of Smithsonian’s review, then asks:

So here is the big question: Did Disney Pixar get it right? My first response is to ask another question, ‘Right by whose standard?’ Are we talking about the indigenous traditions of celebrating ancestors as they were practiced before the arrival of the Europeans? … What about the Day of the Dead that merged with Roman Catholic practices after the arrival of the Europeans in the Americans? What about the Mexican national celebration? What about the Day of the Dead tradition introduced to the U.S. by Mexican Americans during the Chicano Movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s? Or maybe the Day of the Dead Traditions that are practices by recently immigrated Indigenous Latino populations in the U.S.?

The Smithsonian plainly challenges the cultural norm that was once common-stock in America—Christianity. Right by whose standard? There is no ultimate standard to multiculturalists. This is what we are being constantly fed, from the entertainment industry to the schoolhouse where “diversity” reigns. Little wonder that various forms of superstition such as Wicca, occultism, and prayers to Santa Muerte are being practiced. Remove the One True God from the culture and everything else becomes fashionable.

Isaiah 8

Many of Isaiah’s day (8 centuries B.C. in Israel) felt the same way. Turning away from God, however, they turned to superstition. Isaiah, the inspired prophet of God, relates that they sought spiritual guidance from “familiar spirits” and “wizards.” Some of these “chirped” and “muttered” out their instructions. Others among the Israelites assumed that dead people had access to information that was normally inaccessible to the living. They therefore sought to contact “dead people” in Sheol, especially their relatives to get guidance for the future or advice about coping with the crisis at hand—the threats from foreign nations (Isaiah 8:19).

Isaiah “bursts out” against all such occult practices that seek guidance from anything but God. “To the law and to the testimony!—if they will not speak according to His Word, there is no dawn of morning for them!” (8:20). Our culture condemns itself to the night from which there is no morning—if we do not seek spiritual guidance only from God.

(1) John Goldingay, Isaiah for Everyone, p. 37.

(2) Fritz Rienecker & Cleon Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 463.

Bill Lockwood: Mixing Politics and Religion

by Bill Lockwood

In a letter to his wife Abigail in May, 1780, John Adams famously wrote:

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

To John Adams the most important element of life was family. His continual service to the nation included that he was a delegate to the Continental Congress, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, an official Minister to England on behalf of the United States, and the second President of the United States. But this service he considered a “necessary evil” in order that he might enjoy pleasures of family and that his own future generations might enjoy the same.

In our modern era where warnings against “mixing politics and religion” are memorized and repeated without any real deep thought as to why or even what this means, Adams teaches us a few things about it. His keen mind was able to probe the issues of life and distill the principles and realities involved.

In analyzing what Adams meant when he said “I must study politics that my sons may have liberty to study …”, note the following.

What is Politics?

First, what is Politics? Politics simply means the management or administration of society. The word “politics’ is from the Greek word ‘politika’ meaning the “affairs of a city.” It is “the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group” (Wikepedia). Frequently the word “politics” is used negatively, such as in “play politics.” The root idea of the word, however, refers to principles by which people are to be governed.

The question now becomes, by what set of principles shall we govern society? Shall we use biblical principles or humanistic ones? Shall we use God-inspired principles upon which to base human laws, or shall we simply drift off into allowing people to do “what every man thinks is right in his own eyes?” The only issue in our society therefore is whether or not we plan to manage ourselves according to Christian principles.

This applies to a wide variety of social levels: the workplace, the office, the team, the church, or cities and nations; there is even “international politics.” All policies that are adopted in these various groups are called “public policies” precisely because those policies effect others. Once again, these policies will either reflect Christianity or humanism (non-religion).

These facts being so, whence comes the idea that Christian people should remain free from “politics?” Is it somehow inconsistent with biblical values that Christians should not influence public policy?

Freedom Politics is Pro-Family

Returning to Adams’ quote above, note that he was interested in freedom for his family. He wanted to construct a society along Christian principles that by this framework of freedom his family in future generations might continue to enjoy liberty. Specifically, limited government would allow personal freedom to flourish while at the same time curtail dictatorships or top-down controls that destroy freedom.

A sidebar note: Many confuse Roman Catholicism with New Testament Christianity. Not only were the colonists almost 95% Protestant in their belief-systems, but were afraid of Catholicism. The reason for this is clear. Roman Catholicism is an unbiblical political system that was constructed through the centuries to mimic Old World kingdoms such as the Roman. It too, therefore, is dictatorial and stifles freedom. Its record as a tyrannical power is matched only by other forms of government absolutisms.

Adams was well-aware of all of this. This is why that during the tumultuous formation of the United States he felt that he needed to invest time in order to create a political landscape such that allowed freedom to ring—but this was in order that his children might be able to enjoy more pleasurable pursuits. The political machinery of a nation is a direct reflection of religious values and presuppositions that underlie the society. For future family freedom, Christian politics was necessary.

Politics was not just one “hobby” that Adams chose among others he might have chosen, even though that is the casual way people view politics today. Adams showed this by couching it in his word “must.” In other words, politics was his “duty.” It functioned as an obligation. Political freedom is foundational to other freedoms.

To illustrate, Adams used “war.” Those who enjoy freedom and liberty rely on the sacrifices of untold thousands who study war and become warriors. A warriors’ occupation is not like playing sports, or collecting old cars or antiques. Without a fight for freedom, there would be no games to play or antiques to collect. Someone must do this business of war if we are to have pleasures of life. If we were all running for our lives from enemy soldiers, who cares about playing games?

So also is managing people by politics. It is foundational to freedom at large. For this reason, Cicero, the ancient Roman statesman at the time of Julius Caesar, observed: “For there is really no occupation in which human virtue approaches more closely the august function of the gods than that of founding states or preserving those already in existence.”

So exactly. Christians, being correctly informed, can change the character of the political landscape. By bringing the moral standards of Christ into the civic arena, society itself is transformed. The gospel of Christ not only changes lives and hearts of men, but the course of civil government. Why should Christians not be involved in politics?

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.

Bill Lockwood: King Cuomo of NY: Shades of Herod!

by Bill Lockwood

Shockingly, the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, recently signed into law measures to expand abortion rights across the state. Mislabeled the Reproductive Health Act, the state of New York wanted to put protective barriers around Roe v Wade which Democrats feared could be overturned by a more conservative Supreme Court under Donald Trump. Cuomo stated: “With the signing of this bill, we are sending a clear message that whatever happens in Washington, women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body.”

The bill allows women to abort their babies up to the very moment of birth, even as they prepare for delivery. This grotesque ignoring of the value of children’s lives by abortion—properly called infanticideis alarming and should serve as a wake-up call to all Americans as to the wicked direction of leftist politics.

Herod the Great, the unusually cruel king of Judea who served under the auspices of Emperor Augustus at the time of our Lord’s birth, was in the last years of his reign when he learned that “the King of the Jews” was to be born in Bethlehem. In an effort to exterminate Jesus Christ, the newborn king, Herod ruthlessly slaughtered all of the babies of Bethlehem from two years old and younger (Matt. 2:16). Cuomo is cut out of the same cloth.

What’s next? Allowing the murder of children up to two years old? New York’s reasoning is that their bill involves the Reproductive Health of a woman. What about her Psychological Health? Here is how two Italian utilitarian professors argued for infanticide-even after birth-due to a woman’s psychological health.

However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health

of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.

Giubilini & Minerva

The above statement was published in a prestigious online Journal of Medical Ethics several years ago. If that is not an argument for infanticide, it would be difficult to determine what would constitute one. It was co-authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. Their position is that killing of a newborn baby is “ethically permissible” in all circumstances where abortion would be.

To soften our minds to this horrific suggestion, they tell us that the unborn child as well as the newborn is “only a potential person.” Further, feeling that “infanticide” is too strong a term, they therefore “propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion.’” This emphasizes “that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than a child.” In other words, quit thinking in human terms like “child” or “baby.”

The “circumstances” which would “ethically” allow “abortion” include such considerations as when the “well-being of the family” is at risk. And then, almost unbelievably, the professors tell us that “The best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice…”

Biubilini & Minerva’s reasoning is simply an extension of the justification for Cuomo’s abortion bill. Let New Yorkers or any pro-choice person give a coherent answer as to the conceptual difference between a woman’s reproductive health and her psychological health. This cannot be done precisely because abortion itself is infanticide: the killing of innocent God-given life.

Once a society begins wickedly exterminating its unborn children (America has murdered more than 1 million babies a year since 1973—financed in large part by taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood) a hardening of the conscience begins that inevitably leads to open Herodian-style infanticide. New York proudly leads the way downward.

One might ask the professors, or the Governor, who sets himself forth as some great one on this issue, just how long after birth might a baby be murdered? The professors are not certain on this point. That will have to be settled by “neurologists and psychologists” who advise the “king.” And that advice will be skewed depending upon the interest of the crown.

Bill Lockwood-The Value of History

by Bill Lockwood

George Santayana famously remarked, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” History is an insightful teacher which helps guide us in the future. But if it is to be helpful and not harmful, we must have a realistic view of the past. For this reason, in order to turn societies on their heads, Karl Marx observed that “the first battlefield is to re-write history.” William Z. Foster, long-time head of the Communist Party in America, said “Our teachers must re-write history from the Marxian viewpoint.”

The reason that communists, progressives, and socialists wish to re-write history is perhaps best described by George Orwell. “Those who control the present, control the past; and those who control the past control the future.”

Distorting history has long been the stock-in-trade of all leftists in Western culture, from socialists, progressives, humanists, atheists, feminists, to Marxists and communists. Environmentalists paint grim pictures of Industrial America. Nativists wish to perpetuate the “indigenous” Indian culture on this continent in opposition to the Christian ideals of freedom and respect of human life enshrined in our Constitution.

Practically the only fact of history recited by schoolchildren from kindergarten to college is that America once had black slaves. The message inherent here is that the current generations should pay some kind of reparation.

This hatred of Americana is evident everywhere.  History classes regularly excoriate the founding generation for allowing slavery while completely ignoring the fact that not one slave was brought to America that did not originate with Muslim pirates who enslaved over 180 million Africans and over a million Europeans. Every single slave that came to America had been purchased from Muslim slave-traders. Not only is this a fact of history, but the Koran actually depicts Allah as teaching and demanding slavery. Yet, Islam is taught in a positive light in the same public schools. How can this be?

The point is: this lop-sided instruction demonstrates that our culture is seeking to make some value-judgments of these things. Cultural leaders are almost completely leftists who are controlling the past and thereby controlling the future. Scholars call this “historical negation”—an illegitimate distortion of the historical record.

Columnist Bill Federer (World Net Daily, 9.12.17) reminds us of the methodology of communism. (1) Say negative things about a country’s founders so people emotionally detach from them. (2) Then the people are moved into a neutral position where they don’t remember where they came from. (3) Then they can be easily brainwashed into the communist future planned for them.

This sums up well what is occurring in America. Consider the ways this distortion of history influences society.

First, a political influence. The beginning point of shaping the future is to shape the politics of the day. Once historical myths such as Indian Genocide by Americans is perpetuated, politics are influenced. The Welfare State as a means of “reparation” continues—regardless of the plain facts that joblessness, alcoholism, fatherless families, depression, suicide and other societal problems are sky-high on Indian reservations. But these are directly related to the fact that those who live on reservations have been on the government dole for over 100 years. Individuals have little or no dignity remaining.

Exactly the same issue regards admissions into colleges, universities and graduate schools. Minorities, whose ancestors, it is held, have been oppressed in one fashion or another, have preference over other potential students regardless of academic qualification. We do not have an even playing-field nor are we likely to see one as long as history continues to be misrepresented and abused.

Second, an ideological influence. Michael d’Ancona, a columnist for The Guardian and one of the UK’s liberal political journalists, stated that historical “negationists” “seem to have been given the task in [a] nation’s cultural development, the full significance of which is emerging only now: To redefine [national] status in a changing world.”

He was speaking of Great Britain and the desire by many Brits to exit the European Union. In other words, history is being used as a “social resource” that helps shape “national identity” as well as the culture and its “public memory.” “Through the study of history, people are imbued with a particular cultural identity; therefore, by negatively revising history, the negationist can craft a specific, ideological identity,” correctly notes an article on Wikipedia.

There is that ideological identity which speaks to who we are as a nation. History is being manipulated to re-shape our identity as an American nation under God.

Third, a religious influence. The Bible in the Old Testament continually admonished the Hebrews to “teach their children” not only the ways of the Lord (Dt. 6:4-6); but to constantly remind them of their own past.  When Joshua led the Israelites through the Jordan River safely to the western bank, he erected a monument with the specific instruction: “When your children ask in time to come, What means these stones?” they were to remind them of the event it commemorated. The entire 78th Psalm can be entitled: “Remember to Remember.” Don’t forget your history.

The psalm tells the Hebrews “do not forget.” Teach your children (v. 4); Do not forget the works of God (v. 7); the generations before us “forgot God’s doings” (v. 11); the generation of Jews that came out of Egypt ended up “not believing God” (v. 22); they “did not remember his hand when He redeemed them from the adversary” (v. 42). Because of their forgetfulness God delivered them to enemies (v. 61). The nation finally went to captivity and slavery in foreign nations.

Americans have the same forgetfulness. Our nation was established to be “A Christian Nation” precisely because of biblical and Christian principles that were engrafted into its legal fabric. For this reason and this reason alone we have enjoyed the greatest liberties that history has ever known in any society. But who reads history any more? Our forgetfulness of these fundamentals is turning us into a secular society that more closely resembles a socialistic state of Europe than the free nation of our forefathers.

Bill Lockwood: Democratic Machine Showing its Communist Orientation

Democratic Machine Showing its Communist Orientation Maxine wants the masses to “encounter Republican officials from the Trump Administration in pubic” by harassment, yelling, and protesting.”

by Bill Lockwood

The atmosphere in America is highly charged with political unrest. This is entirely of Democrat-Communist making. Maxine Waters is now openly calling for more unrest, social irritation and public anger to spill over against Trump Administration officials. It is not enough that individuals have been so manipulated by the Democratic anger machine so that one of them tried to kill Congressmen while playing baseball or that another became so enraged by the leftist socialist rhetoric that he walked into the headquarters of the Family Research Council to murder employees. Now the call is for more street thuggery.

Maxine wants the masses to “encounter Republican officials from the Trump Administration in pubic” by harassment, yelling, and protesting. Here’s Waters’ statement.

Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.

This is classic communism—which is exactly what the Democratic Party has become. That this mob attack strategy is not owned only by Maxine Waters is shown clearly by Democratic “strategist” Mary Anne Marsh, former Senior Advisor to Secretary of State John Kerry, who refuses to condemn the violence mongers in an interview on Fox News. Deflecting the question on a number of occasions, Marsh continued to harangue about separating families at the border. No condemnation for mob action designed to harass public officials in any social setting. Where is the one Democrat pubic official who has publicly condemned Waters?

Lawlessness. The only strategy remaining for those who are determined to change our culture after they lose the debate in public discussion and in the voting-booth. This is why Cynthia Nixon, an actress who is running for the governor’s office in New York against Andrew Cuomo, is openly calling for the disbanding of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). No borders. No law enforcement. A recipe for communist-socialist revolution. Enflame the masses on the bottom, disarm the enforcement arm on the top.

In a recent speech Nixon labeled ICE a “terrorist organization” and has started a petition called “Abolish ICE.” Yes, Communist philosophy, which has been sanitized by leftists in America for a century by labeling it ‘progressivism’, is on the move.

Communism is nothing but socialism with force. Getting socialists out of their arm-chairs for revolution is the goal of communists and Maxine Waters and her ilk show that that is exactly what they are about.

Class struggle and revolution are integral parts of communism. This is why Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were concerned not simply with “theory” but also with action. Marx said many times he was not interested in merely “understanding” the world, but in “changing” it. This is why anything that develops class antagonisms is good in communist eyes. They must sharpen them to hasten the day of revolution. For this reason, communists insert themselves into every sore spot in society to fester and widen breaches. Where no sore spot exists, they will try to create one. This will bring about the destruction of capitalist society.

This is exactly what was played out in Russian during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Hearing Maxine Waters and the Democrats is reminiscent of what history records regarding Leon Trotsky as he stirred the masses and workers to unite against the Romonov government. The stirring of the masses by officials on the top is now being duplicated by our own elected officials and their associates. There is little difference between the incitement to mob action and illegal activity, which has already resulted in violence, by leading Democrats and what occurred during the Russian revolution.

These linkages to communist revolution is not simply that Waters’ just sounds like a communist or is utilizing communist strategy. Waters has been hard-wired into communism for decades. As documented by Bob Adelmann at The New American:

In 1982 Waters “lent her name to a pamphlet published for a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) group that was led by Angela Davis, Charlene Mitchell, Anne Braden, and Frank Chapman.

In 1983 she participated in a communist rally designed to coincide with the Los Angeles Summer Olympics. In 1984 she spoke at a UC-Berkeley event sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America and Socialist Review, the monthly magazine of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

In 1998 Waters voted for a House resolution that called on Castro’s communist government to extradite fugitive cop-killer Assata Shakur, and then wrote a letter to Castro apologizing for her vote. (Shakur had escaped from U.S. prison in 1979 and fled to communist Cuba where Castro gave her asylum). Instead of referring to Shakur as a convicted murderer, Waters called her a ‘political activist’ who was persecuted for her political beliefs and affiliations.”

Waters is a powerful person in the Democratic wing of Congress. She is openly calling for revolution and there is apparently no public official of the Democratic Party or affiliated members who are denouncing her open incitement to lawlessness. America is on the edge of a huge upheaval against our Constitutional order.

*Since this article was written several Democrats have disavowed the tactics of Maxine Waters, although they have negated their distance from Waters by blaming Donald Trump for “setting the tone” of political differences. This, of course, is clearly another effort to shirk responsibility for the Left’s revolutionary rhetoric since many Democrats and Hollywood elite were calling for Trump’s impeachment before he actively occupied the White House. One even suggested “blowing up the White House.” Blaming Trump for this terroristic threat is ridiculous.

Obama’s last ditch regulations that devastate 
your property rights

Obama’s last ditch regulations that devastate 
your property rights –In past years, this may not have been problematic since HUD generally left planning up to local communities.”

by John Anthony

In the final days of Obama’s presidency two rules slid under the radar that drive explosive local planning and building costs, transfer control of certain grant-related planning to the government, and render local officials helpless to combat them.

 Federal agencies often enact onerous regulations by couching them in dry sounding names, or titles that appear so munificent only a dark-hearted bean counter would question them.



The first regulation appeared on October 28th of 2016, as Americans focused on the discovery of Hillary-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer. The administration issued a new rule requiring HUD assisted or financed new housing in flood plains to be elevated 2 – 3 feet above the “base flood elevation.”

The rule also applies to “substantial improvements” of existing homes and those covered by HUD’s mortgage insurance. 

The rule, “Flood Plain Management and Protection of Wetlands; Minimum Standards for Flood Hazard Exposure; Building to the Federal Flood Risk Management in Standard,” aligns the agency with Obama’s executive order 13690 which redefined a flood plain to accommodate “climate change.”

Developers argue the rule sharply increases the costs of single and multi-family homes, making home construction less viable. The National Association of Homebuilders notes that President Obama’s EO provides no “scientific or technical documentation”, “no cost-benefit analysis and no floodplain maps.”

In fact, under the order, each agency has the authority to define a flood plain based on its own interpretation of climate change science.

 In their rule, HUD addressed the documentation issue by referencing NOAA’s “2012 Global Sea Rise Scenarios for the United States.” But the controversial report has since been contested and NOAA’s own credibility has suffered from careless documentation and questionable data manipulation.

For homeowners in flood plains, even though HUD’s sources may be unreliable, the consequences for failure to follow the agency’s demands can be hard to escape. Once ensnared in HUD’s grants or financing, there is little local officials can do to mitigate the potentially needless additional construction costs and financial burdens to residents.

The second obstructive rule creates a legal basis for HUD to investigate and potentially sue communities that fail to address climate change in their grant-related planning activities.

 With its tortuous name, “Modernizing HUD’s Consolidated Planning Process to Narrow the Digital Divide and Increase Resilience to Natural Hazards,” the rule forces communities that accept HUD grants under the agency’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation to predict how climate change will affect their neighborhoods. They must then design consolidated plans that reduce the “impacts of climate change on low and moderate income residents.”
 
Like AFFH, this rule fails to define what the agency means by climate change nor how grant recipients are to respond to the increased hazards.

In past years, this may not have been problematic since HUD generally left planning up to local communities. Since 2011, HUD has initiated an unprecedented number of legal actions that have smacked grant recipients including Marin County, CA, Westchester County, NY, Nassau County, NY, Whitehall, PA and many others across the nation for failing to comply with poorly defined demands.

The agency’s actions have led to the loss of grant money, the imposition of massive financial penalties, and the ‘forced’ acceptance of HUD’s “Voluntary Compliance Agreement” that gives the agency even greater control over local land use actions.

 The issue of HUD’s climate change demands in itself is problematic. At best, catastrophic man-made climate change is an idea that has yet to support its originator’s predictions.  At worst, it is a politically driven tool to force socio-economic change based on mass distribution of easily manipulated data.

There is simply no way for a community to plan for a hazard whose definitions are malleable, but whose failure to address them are subject to exorbitant fines and mandates. 

Communities deserve greater clarity about HUD’s climate change expectations, and verifiable data before diving into costly and potentially endless federal campaigns to address a problem that may not exist.

There is good news and a caution. In my report for North Carolina Representative Mark Meadow’s office I did recommend both rules be reversed by the 115th Congress. There is good reason to believe that will happen. Congressman Meadows is the Chairman of the Freedom Caucus, and has included the reversal of these and other regulations as a front-line effort.

Still, this does not relieve our job as community members to work with our local officials and inform them of these rules and begin weaning off federal grant money.

 Call your congressional representatives and tell them to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to remove HUD’s regulations on Floodplain Management (81 FR 74967) and on Modernizing HUD’s Consolidated Planning (FR 5891-F-02.)





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

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

« Older Entries