Tag Archives: Bill Lockwood

Bill Lockwood: True Religion Results in Free-Will Giving: Not Jizya or Socialistic Forcible Taxation & Redistribution

by Bill Lockwood

By speaking of the reign of Solomon (970-931 B.C.), which was a foreshadowing of Christ’s kingdom, the Psalmist in chapter 72 depicts the expansive coming reign as being from “sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth” (72:8). During this reign of the Messiah the kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts (10).

Charles Spurgeon, the matchless commentator on the Psalms, observed at these verses,

…true religion leads to generous giving; we are not taxed in Christ’s dominions, but we are delighted to offer freely to him… This free-will offering is all Christ and his church desire; they want to forced levies and distraints [to seize by distress], let all men give of their own free will, kings as well as commoners; …

Free will offerings. This is the only giving known in the New Testament. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 9:7 “Let each man do according as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly, nor of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver.” For this reason, Paul writes the letter and encourages by persuasion the churches to freely give. How beautiful is this precedent compared to other systems and man-made religions and systems!

Compare Giving to Islamic Jizya

Mohammed absolutely established that people of other religious persuasions must pay a poll tax to Muslims called the jizya. This was specifically that they might recognize they were inferior to Muslims. “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (Koran 9:29).

From the religionofpeace.com website:

Traditionally the collection of the jizya occurs at a ceremony that is designed to emphasize the subordinate status of the non-Muslim, where the subject is often struck in a humiliating fashion. M.A. Khan recounts that some Islamic clerics encouraged tax collectors to spit into the mouths of Hindu dhimmis during the process. He also quotes the popular Sufi teacher, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi:

The honor of Islam lies in insulting the unbelief and the unbelievers (kafirs). One who respects kafirs dishonors Muslims… The real purpose of levying the Jizya on them is to humiliate them… [and] they remain terrified and trembling.

The jizya (or extortion) is one of the main cornerstones of the entire system of Islam. It institutionalizes forever the fact that, in the eyes of Muslims, non-Muslims have an inferior status in Muslim nations.

Another example is this that there is no way to live peaceably with Islam. Where it has dominated a culture, it has exacted a forcible toll on all non-Muslim peoples throughout the centuries—without exception. As it develops and engulfs a culture, Islam is designed to extinguish all Kafir civilizations. It is but a reflection of Mohammed himself who did not stop the conquering of Arabia until 100% of his demands were met.

This is just one example that demonstrates that Islam is not a religion of God, depending upon thoughtful reasoning and persuasion by argumentation; but a man-made totalitarian system relying solely upon force. When one comes out of the dank dungeon of Islam, and stands upon the mountaintops of Christianity, he is able to breathe the clean fresh air of a religion of the heart whose founder, Jesus Christ, never used violence or force to subjugate man, but died on the cross for the sins of the world.

Compare Giving to Socialism or Social Justice

Social Justice is not simply doing humanitarian acts of kindness as Buckley and Dobson suppose in Humanitarian Jesus: Social Justice and the Cross. “The Social Gospel asks Christians to be concerned and invested in the world around them” (p. 42). The authors suggest that the entire issue is about whether first to give a tract or a sandwich to those in need? (p. 43) This is ignorance as to what is social justice or socialism.

The great author and thinker Thomas Sowell explains: “Central to the concept of social justice is the notion that individuals are entitled to some share in the wealth produced by society, and irrespective of any individual contributions made or not made to the production of that wealth.” (A Conflict of Visions, 216)

But if all people in society are entitled to a share in that which I produce, how shall this be enforced? For this reason, socialism by definition implies the “expansion of the government domain to produce social results to which particular individuals are morally entitled.”

So states The National Association of Scholars. The term “social justice”, or socialism, they explain, is today understood to mean the “advocacy of egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution.”

But state-sponsored redistribution of my production begins with theft. Forcible removing from me of the fruits of my own production to give to others. This is not even remotely associated with the free-will giving taught by Christianity. If it is, why must there be a gigantic state to enforce it?

The French writer, Frederic Bastiat was correct therefore to explain socialism as plunder.

See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. . . It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. (Bastiat, The Law, p. 17).

That the above has already occurred in America is obvious. The evil is already upon us. A gigantic welfare state. Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul summarizes it well.

From lower-income Americans who rely on food stamps, public housing, and other government programs, to middle-class Americans who live in homes they could not afford without assistance from federal agencies like Fannies Mae and Freddie Mac, to college students reliant on government-subsidized student loans, to senior citizens reliant on Social Security and Medicare, to billionaire CEOs whose companies rely on bailouts, subsidies, laws and regulations written to benefit politically-powerful businesses, and government contracts, most Americans are reliant on at least one federal program. (Dec. 31, 2018. Ronpaulinstitute.org)

Make no mistake. The Welfare State is nothing akin to the free-will giving of Christianity. Once again, instead of relying on force to confiscate and redistribute, the early church in the book of Acts willingly and freely gave of their possessions to assist others (Acts 2:43-47; 5:1-4). There is a world of difference between the Bible and the systems of man.

Bill Lockwood: Lexington & Concord Again?

by Bill Lockwood

In the early morning hours of April 19, 1775, the British regulars, stationed in Boston, marched up the quiet country road in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Their goal: to confiscate a cache of firearms that intelligence had informed them the colonists had stored in Concord. Patriot leaders, however, had sounded the alarm by horseback before dawn. Men such as Paul Revere and Samuel Prescott had roused the local militia’s who had been anticipating such an event.

As daylight was breaking the British regulars came out of the woods to a small village along the chosen route—Lexington. Major Pitcairn led the redcoats. Waiting for them were about 80 militiamen standing on the village “commons”—the town square, led by their Captain, John Parker. Determined to defend their God-bestowed right of self-preservation, even from a tyrannical government, the militia refused to disperse when Major Pitcairn ordered it.

Who fired the first shot is a matter left open to historical investigation. The result was that within the next few minutes 8 militiamen were killed during the confrontation. The Redcoats moved on to Concord but were met by several thousand farmers armed with their personal muskets as the news spread through the wooded communities. In the end, the Americans drove the British back to Boston. The Revolution had begun.

The entire event at Lexington was immortalized by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his famous poem, “Paul Revere’s Midnight Ride.”

The struggle actually had begun years before as the British government continually violated its own charters for the colonies that guaranteed them a free-hand governing themselves. One intrusive English law after another specifically violated those written promises. Colonial freedoms were being curtailed. In the end, these written guarantees in the form of charters were trampled by the gigantic growing British government that sprawled itself all over the world.

The United States

No one wishes to relive the bloody scenes of the past. Consider, however, the brewing trouble in our own nation and its similarities to 1775.

First, our Constitution was written for one specific purpose—to curtail the federal government. Our Founders felt so strongly about it that they included the 10th Amendment which in sum says that any power or authority NOT specifically delegated to the federal government by this Constitution remains with the people. All rights belong to the people by endowment from God. Government’s sole design is to protect these rights. Since governments throughout history have traditionally removed these rights, our national government was purposefully crafted to be limited.

The framers of the Constitution also realized from hard bloody experience that they must put into writing not only that the federal government needs to be restrained, but that individuals have a right of self-preservation from that government—even if by force. This is how America began. Thus, the 2nd Amendment. The primary reason for this Amendment—the right to keep and bear arms– is to defend rights that are historically lost by intrusive governments—not foreign invaders.

“The people” have a right to firearms. The ability of “the people” to defend themselves against dictators foreign and domestic is a divinely ordained right. As George Mason of Virginia put it, “to disarm the people—that is the best and most effective way to enslave them.”

The 2nd Amendment is, in effect, a “thou shalt not touch this” to the Federal Government. That includes whatever weaponry a citizen may deem necessary to maintain his or her freedom from authoritarian designs.

Second, the current slate of Democratic presidential hopefuls has sounded off about British-style confiscation of certain types of firearms. Beto O’Rourke has campaigned on the promise that the government will confiscate AR-15’s. In the ‘spirit of 1776’, Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain tweeted “My AR is ready for you Robert Francis.”

These words from Cain have simply enraged the statist-loving mob of the left who believe a person only has what rights a government may give. They see it as simply a threat to murder O’Rourke. But it is a far cry from that. Instead, it is exactly the same circumstances that were seen in 1775. Cain’s remark is no different than a Samuel Adams, or a Paul Revere, answering the arrogant British threat to remove this God-given right. At least we know where left stands when it comes to how we gained our freedom from Britain.

What should alarm the American people is the lawless, tyrannical, and totalitarian attitude from the O’Rourkes and Biden’s of the world that somehow the government can violate its own charters—the Declaration of Independence & Constitution—and impose its godless will on peace-loving American citizens. Beto and Biden sound no different than King George III.

Twitter removed Briscoe Cain’s “My AR is ready for you, Robert” tweet. That violates the rules of Twitter, it is said. Well, now we know what side of the Bill of Rights Twitter is on—King George’s. Making violent threats? No, that came from O’Rourke—“we’re going to take your AR 15” he repeated in the Democratic debate. If the socialist-Democrat party wishes to pursue this course, will we end up having another Lexington and Concord? I hope and pray not. But the lawless Democrats seem to push ahead wildly, regardless of whose rights they trample and the God from whom we own them.

 

Bill Lockwood: Preaching against Homosexuality?

by Bill Lockwood

Many voices in the Catholic Church are exulting in the September 1 appointment by Pope Francis of pro-homosexual Archbishop Matteo Zuppi of Bologna, Italy to the position of cardinal. Zuppi was one of 13 individuals promoted. PinkNews, an online news agency for the global LGBT+ community, praised the new appointment precisely because Zuppi is a “pro-LGBT+” advocate.

Another celebrant to the appointment is Fr. James Martin, author of a pro-LGBT+ Catholic book called Building a Bridge. Zuppi had written the “Foreward” to Martin’s book. According to PinkNews, “Zuppi identifies that there is ‘a bridge that needs continuous building’ between the Church and the LGTB+ community, who he describes as ‘people of God.’”

Amazingly, so far from the word of God have many Catholics strayed that Archbishop Zuppi calls the homosexual network in the world “the people of God.” The fact that Zuppi has been named as “cardinal” means he will be able to vote for the next pope when that time arrives (Michael Chapman, CNSnews.com; 9-9-19).

According to PinkNews, the appointment is also “celebrated” among “more progressive Christians, who hope the Pope’s choice of cardinals reflects his vision for ‘a Church of dialogue.’”

So here it is. The Roman Catholic Church is setting a trajectory for pro-homosexual teaching in the future, discarding not only hundreds of years of teaching, but more importantly, the clear biblical teaching which describes homosexuality as not only sin, but “perversion” (Jude 7, NIV). But such is expected to be the case in a church not found on the pages of the New Testament.

Reaction

The real shocker in all of this is the reaction which many in the “Christian world” have exhibited. Instead of lamenting the direction of society, including those who claim to be “spiritual leaders,” many are celebrating it. If not celebrating—at least defending it.

One person wrote in response to the posted simple news story—“So if you are a Christian or go to church you have to hate gays?”

This is the knee-jerk reaction of people who cannot take biblical teaching regarding sin of any kind. They hurl accusations of “hatred” upon those who point out sin. By this logic Jesus Himself was a “hater” because he taught against “fornication”—which includes homosexuality (Matt. 19:9).

Another responded: “Let him that is without sin, cast the first stone.”

Once again, an anemic effort to thwart the biblical teaching against sin. Since all have sinned (Rom. 3:23) we might as well just put a cork in our mouths when it comes to quoting passages that condemn sin. But more than this, the Bible nowhere teaches that all sin is the same sin.

It is true that all sin separates us from God (Isa. 59:1-2); but it is also true that some sins have a much more deleterious effect upon society and upon one’s soul than other sins. Even Jesus referred to some sins “as greater” (John 19:11). Paul wrote that some sins have more serious effect upon one’s body (1 Cor. 6:18), perhaps by twisting the mind more wickedly.

It is difficult to believe that modern people have come to the conclusion that the sin of burning children alive in the fires to false gods—as did some Israelites in the OT (see 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35, et. al.)—is no more culpable than a “white lie” spoken to one’s parents. Both are sins—but one not only has many more harmful effects on society as a whole but indicates a deeper depth of depravity than the other.

So it is with homosexuality. Inspired Apostle Paul called the sin of homosexuality “unnatural” (Rom. 1:26) and a “vile passion.” It occurs when God “has given up a society” (1:24). Jude referred to it as “going after strange flesh” (Jude 7, ASV) or “perversion” (NIV). God said plainly in Leviticus that there were a number of particular sins, including bestiality and homosexuality, for which the “land will vomit you out” (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22). Not all sins fell into this category. Not all sins are classed as “perverted.”

Still another asks, “Do you love the sinner when you point out sin?” Once more, this sounds as if the biblical doctrine against homosexuality makes us just simply nervous. We immediately dodge by questioning the motives of someone pointing out the sin of homosexuality.

What if I had no love of God in my heart for any sinner? Would that change the truth? Absolutely not. Jonah preached the truth of God to Nineveh (Jonah 3). Nineveh would be overthrown unless they repented. I wonder if the Ninevites squirmed beneath this message by saying—“do you have LOVE for us Ninevites?” –as if to say that somehow the message would be changed if he did not.

But as a matter of fact, Jonah did NOT have love of people in his heart. He was very angry (Jonah 4:1) that Nineveh was spared upon their repentance. He wanted them destroyed!! As all can easily see however, this had nothing to do with the message itself. Jonah delivered the message faithfully even though his motives were not what they ought to be.

It is a perfect illustration of the modern generation being non-thinking, even practicing “avoidance behavior,” on the topic of sin. Whenever sin is pointed out or preached against, we dismiss the teaching by suggesting that “too many people hate.”

Reality is: we are so unaccustomed to God’s Unfiltered Word that we perform many mental gymnastics to avoid its impact—including charging preachers of the Word with being “haters.”

If I do not love one person in the world as I preach it does not change the fact that I am to preach and people need to accept the truth of God. The issue of homosexuality is not whether I love or hate. The issue is: What does the Bible teach, and am I to teach it? If I do not love as I am commanded to do, that is another issue entirely. And what IS occurring today is an overturning of society by the false prophets of the Roman Church by the appointment of pro-homosexual bishops to higher leadership positions.

Bill Lockwood: Christianity in the Cross-hairs

by Bill Lockwood

The Democrats have Christianity in their cross-hairs. It must be eliminated. According to presidential candidate Joe Biden, his top priority in the Oval Office, should he be elected, will be to pass and enforce the “Equality Act”—a proposed bill that normalizes deviant sexual behavior while penalizing biblical Christianity.

Recently, Joe Biden honored the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for moving “the moral arc in this nation towards justice.” The HRC is a prominent homosexual advocacy group. He was referring to the so-called Equality Act, which passed the House Judiciary Committee in May. The Equality Act would effectively gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which has protected Americans with a Christian conscience from interference from Big Brother Government. As Bill Donohue, president and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, wrote in May:

The Equality Act is the most comprehensive assault on religious liberty, the right to life, and privacy ever packaged into one bill in the history of the United States. …this act is based on the idea that sexually challenged men and women—those who think they can transition to the other sex—should be treated as if hey were members of a minority race.

In short, the Equality Act takes “political correctness” and puts a statist government’s teeth into it. Let’s see the background.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The RFRA began as a reaction following a 1990 Supreme Court decision (Employment Division v. Smith) which concerned Christians that religious liberty might be threatened. In 1993 none other than Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced the RFRA, a bill which was intended to keep federal laws from burdening a person’s religious convictions. The bill passed and was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

It is important to note that this resulted from a huge national movement of Christians to protect their First Amendment God-given rights. The Left, however, has never appreciated it, to say the least. For example, in 2014, the RFRA was used as a basis to challenge the ObamaCare mandate that required all for-profit companies to cover abortion-inducing drugs in their health-care plans. Hobby Lobby successfully challenged in Court Obama’s iron-fisted unconstitutional law.

The Left, therefore, has not only despised Christianity itself, but the basic protections that our Constitution has guaranteed them, including the First Amendment. After the 1993 RFRA, the war began to rage openly.

In 1997 the Supreme Court “ruled” that the RFRA could not apply to the states—only the federal government. This left the states open to irreligious assaults. The Christian communities around the country then began to pass at state levels their own religious freedom bills. Enough!, says the Left. We will eradicate Christian liberty once and for all—hence, the Equality Act.

The Equality Act

This historic proposal will take the 1964 Civil Rights Act and apply it to the Homosexual Network operating in the United States. It will therefore gut the RFRA by granting homosexuals and other deviant sexual behaviors preferential treatment in hiring; houses of worship would be turned into places of “public accommodations” where the Equality Act would rule; beginning in kindergarten children will be indoctrinated with the LGBTQ agenda; freedom of speech by Bible-oriented Christians would be endangered by law; privacy rights in bathrooms and gym locker rooms would be a thing of the past as would parental rights to teach children the sin of homosexuality. In short, liberty would be lost.

Bill Donohue adds,

If anyone thinks this is an exaggeration, check out what has happened to religious liberty in New Jersey and Ohio where Catholic hospitals have been targeted. Unless they agree to perform a hysterectomy on a woman who claims to be a man, they can be sued. The ACLU has been suing Catholic hospitals all over the nation trying to force them to adopt its anti-Catholic agenda. While it typically loses, this legislation will reverse that record.

In short, the Equality Act could put people out of work for their beliefs, according to the Heritage Foundation. Those who believe the Bible will be disallowed by law from expressing those beliefs in public. The biblical definition of marriage will be relegated to your closet. Your family will have been invaded by the federal mandates that favor homosexuality as a “protected class.”

What is occurring in Great Britain will be occurring here as well. There, the Muslim community is seeking protection from criticism by having Islam classified as a “race” via the United Nations. Those who criticize the teachings of Mohammed become “racists” with all that that word carries. No open dialogue, no open thought—just conformity. So here. No dialogue. No debate. No scientific proof—just a statist government enforcing its will.

Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, your sins have hid his face from you …therefore justice is far from us, neither does righteousness overtake us; we look for light, but behold, darkness; for brightness, but we walk in obscurity. – Isaiah 59:1,9

Bill Lockwood: Bart Lubow and Social Justice

by Bill Lockwood

Bart Lubow has been a left-wing radical for many years. Once a member of Students for Democratic Society (SDS), a front-group for communism which terrorist Bill Ayers helped to found, Lubow was even at one time deported from the Philippines for attempting to distribute communist anti-government literature. However, like the ascendency of other Marxist-oriented agitators during the current White House Administration, Lubow, having directed the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) for the Annie E. Casey foundation since 1994, is becoming influential in states such as Texas. The JDAI program is to “require states to work to reduce the disproportionate representation of minority juveniles in secured facilities.” Plainly, the goal of the JDAI is the revamp the detention and incarceration procedures in the United States along “social justice” lines.

Social Justice

Social Justice has little to do with actual “justice” but focuses attention upon “outcomes.” Decrying disparities in society, social justice advocates cry continually about unequal distribution of properties, of monies, of college degrees, and even jail sentences in America. As Walter Williams puts it, “Outcomes of human relationships are often seen as criteria for the presence or absence of justice or fairness. Outcomes frequently used as barometers of justice and fairness are: race and sex statistics on income and unemployment, income distribution in general, occupational distribution, wealth ownership, and other measures of socio-economic status.” In other words, no attention at all is paid to any underlying reason for differences, it is simply assumed that different outcomes among people is the result of crass prejudices or favoritism.

If, for example, wealth distribution is uneven among various races of people, “social justice” demands the assumption that foul play must be involved. So also, if as is the case, a greater percentage of a minority population is incarcerated than is the case with white America, the automatic conclusion among socialists is that injustices have been committed by “white society” against people of color. Differences among people or subcultures as a possible cause is never considered as that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do. The underlying assumption by Lubow is that the American system of justice is “profoundly racist” given the statistics. And for socialists on the rise, that is all that is required—show disparity in statistics. No examination of personal choices, no study of various cultural differences between races, no time wasted pondering divergent habits or pressures among minority populations—simply announce that America continues to be a “racist” state.

For obvious reasons Lubow does not seek to show that disparities between races in other areas are also caused by “white racism.” For example, the out-of-wedlock birth rates for different racial and ethnic groups in 2008 was just over 40%. The breakdown of that statistic shows that among white non-Hispanic women, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 28.6 percent while among Hispanics it was 52.5 percent and among blacks the figure jumps to a startling 72.3 percent. Consider abortion. In 2005 the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is almost 5 times that for white women. Similar “disparities” are found in almost every measurable statistic. It is clearly evident that minority cultures are fostering immoral lifestyles to an alarming degree. Yet, when it comes to discrepancies among incarceration rates, Lubow wishes us to believe that sub-culture has nothing to do with it, but that it is the result of “white racist attitudes.” That is what a good communist would do. Drive that “racist” wedge.

Lubow on “Structural Racism”

In a 2007 speech before the Chicago Council on Urban Affairs, Lubow laments the “grossly disproportionate representation of people of color” in the criminal or juvenile justice system. That 30% of African American males born “into this society will spend part of their lives in prison” should be reason enough to infuriate Americans, says he. “More than two-thirds of youth confined in secure detention nationally are youth of color” is demonstration to Lubow that our nation “mocks our claims to freedom and justice for all and, therefore, undermine[s] the very fabric upon which this society is supposedly founded.” “White people,” Lubow pontificates, “have been and still are the purveyors of racial injustice.” The blanket indictment against white society is that “white people accrue and rely upon” privileges “by virtue of skin color.”

To remedy racist America, JDAI has begun to implement core strategies “through racial equity lens.” In other words, force diverse population representation in incarceration facilities. Further, like the communist strategy of manipulating American citizens to their own demise, Lubow preaches that it is “white responsibility” to take on the issue with great fervor to change the system. We must create a “level playing field.”

So, for the citizen who thought that racial hiring quota’s were an assault on real fairness and individual responsibility, not to mention a vast overreach of federal government, much more seems in store regarding incarceration rates, if Lubow and the Annie E. Casey foundation have their way. And if Americans thought that the financial market fiasco, caused in part by federal officials leaning on lending institutions to provide loans to low-income persons who would not otherwise qualify, was a total disaster to the Housing Market, wait until our streets become more populated with criminal elements because of “racial quotas” that govern incarceration. Chaos in the streets is what socialists have always wanted. Old SDS members have not changed their stripes.

Bill Lockwood: Responsibility Deficit Disorder

by Bill Lockwood

Linda Sapadin, Ph.D, writing for Psychcentral.com, has coined a new term appropriate for too many in our generation. RDD—Responsibility Deficit Disorder. “Our entire culture is plagued with this virus,” she writes. “RDD is prevalent in our society and is a growing problem.”

However, unlike other “clinical” disorders, RDD effects people differently. “Those who have it do not suffer from it. Quite the contrary. The people who ‘suffer’ are those loved ones who must deal with the rat’s nest that is so often dropped in their laps.” How true.

On the lighter side, consider the following real-life excuses people have given to lessen their “responsibility” in motor vehicle accidents. “An invisible car came out of nowhere, struck my car and vanished.” Or try this one: “As I approached an intersection a sign suddenly appeared in a place where no stop sign had ever appeared before. I was unable to stop in time to avoid the accident.” Or this: “In an attempt to kill a fly, I drove into a telephone pole.”

Mothers-in-law will appreciate this one. “I pulled away from the side of the road, glanced at my mother-in-law and headed over the embankment.”

However, in a very real and somber way, Ms. Sapadin is exactly correct about our society and its failure to own-up to responsibility. Not only is it a growing problem, but our political landscape actually encourages RDD. Everything from obesity to “unsocial” behavior to political socialism falls under the umbrella of RDD. Colleges that once taught people how to think now offer “safe spaces” for students who become upset over conservative ideas.

Steve Siebold, writing for The Huffington Post, notes that:

It used to be that hard work was the American way. If you wanted to lose weight, you knew it took a good diet, exercise and a lot of hard work and dedication. If your wanted to make money and achieve the American dream, you worked hard, learned everything you could about your industry and created the life you wanted. Those days are over. Quitting and complacency are the norm. In fact, if our ancestors were alive today—the very men and women who came to this country to fight for the chance at a better life—they would be embarrassed, shocked and devastated at what we’ve turned into.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder

Social Justice is a concept that carries with it RDD virus. This is because “social justice” has very little to do with actual “justice” but focuses upon “outcomes.” Walter Williams puts it this way,

Outcomes of human relationships are often seen as criteria for the presence or absence of justice or fairness. Outcomes frequently used as barometers of justice and fairness are: race and sex statistics on income and unemployment, income redistribution in general, occupation distribution, wealth ownership, and other measures of socio-economic status.

In other words, no attention is paid to any underlying reason for differences, it is simply assumed that different outcomes among people is the result of crass prejudice and favoritism. For example, wealth distribution is uneven among various races of people. Social justice demands the assumption that foul play must be involved. But this must not be spoken out loud. Our political machinery just moves along as if this were true and prescribes mandates based on race—whether it be in job hiring or incarceration rates.

Differences among people or subcultures as a possible cause is never considered because that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do.

The American justice system must be “profoundly racist” according to Bart Lubow of Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative. No examination of personal choices, no time wasted pondering different habits of sub-cultures—simply announce America to be a “racist” culture. This is how Lubow feeds RDD.

Reginald Denny

In April, 1992 during the Los Angeles riots, Reginald Denny, a white truck driver, was beaten nearly to death by four black men. The attack ended when Damian Monroe Williams took a cinderblock and bashed Denny’s skull, fracturing it in 91 places and causing severe brain damage.

Denny was hospitalized for 33 days with a compound skull fracture, almost 100 broken bones and internal injuries. Doctors said he was only moments from death before being rescued by four good Samaritans. Denny had taken what he thought would be a short-cut off of the Santa Monica Freeway.

At the trial social scientists from UCLA cited “mob behavior” which is “spontaneous.” Damian Williams was found “not guilty” of attempted murder because he had been caught up in “mob mentality.” Williams was “acting out his frustrations, his disappointments.” So argued his defense attorney; so agreed the judge. His only conviction was a 10-year “felony mayhem” sentence—the others were not sentenced at all. Responsibility Deficit Disorder is not only a retreat of the immature—it is encouraged by the judicial system.

Quota Systems

The International for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), a world organization with the imprimatur of the United Nations, founded in Stockholm, Sweden in 1995, has as its goal Sustainable Democracy.

Specifically, IDEA pushes “gender quotas” in politics and positions of power. “An increasing number of countries are currently introducing various types of gender quotas for public elections: In fact, half of the countries of the world today use some type of electoral quota for their parliament.” The goal is to have more “gender balance” in governmental representation.

What is the excuse for this top-down pressure to conform? Once again, the assumption that women suffer from male prejudice against women in power positions. Out-of-bounds is the question that there are differences between men and women and that many women may not prefer these roles in society. This is another facet of Responsibility Deficit Disorder. We simply disallow that women have control over their own lives and occupations.

The Gun Debate

The entire Democratic Party is afflicted with Responsibility Deficit Disorder. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in Democratic positions on firearm ownership. Witness the recent debates between 20 presidential candidates in Miami and what they propose as solutions to gun violence in America.

Many of the candidates advocate an outright repeal of The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for criminal misuse of their products (Frank Minter, in Freedom, September, 2019, p. 16). These candidates want gun manufacturers out of business. They UNANIMOUSLY refuse to understand that criminals that use firearms have a personal responsibility in their criminal behavior, and that the rest of us should not be punished.

Joe Biden, for example, said “we should have smart guns. No gun should be able to be sold unless your biometric measure can pull that trigger. It’s without our right to do that, we can do that, our enemy is the gun manufacturers, …” Smart guns, but not smart politicians. The gun manufacturers? RDD.

Biden even stated he would be willing for the federal government to confiscate millions of popular semi-automatic rifles from the public. Biden is not constitutionally-minded either.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren claims that “Gun violence is a national health emergency.” She advocates universal background checks and new bans on some guns. RDD. Sen. Cory Booker has the same disorder. So also Sen. Amy Klobuchar. She proposes a forced gun “buyback” program.

Not to be outdone, former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke opined that semi-automatic rifles are “weapons of war” and do not belong on our streets. Sen. Kamala Harris has threatened an unconstitutional executive order if Congress did not pass a new gun-legislation within her first 100 days in office. Sen. Bernie Sanders runs on a platform of “banning assault rifles” as well as “ending the gun show loophole.”

Not one of these candidates cares about the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the God-given rights owned by each citizen of America. They all function with RDD and suppose that you will as well. They will never even address the real issue as to rising crime and gun violence—lack of moral responsibility and moral character in America. That would be getting too close to “religious values” which they disdain.

If we are going to solve the growing Responsibility Deficit Disorder in our nation, begin by taking responsibility for your own actions. Desert any institution that refuses to recognize personal responsibility. Translated, that means, leave the Democratic Party. Because, as Dr. Linda Sapadin advises, “Dream on that the other person will change. He’s got it good—especially if you’re are enabling his dysfunction.” Quit enabling Democratic dysfunction.

Bill Lockwood: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

by Bill Lockwood

With the recent shootings in America liberal politicians have proposed curtailing the God-given unalienable right to keep and bear arms as a method to stem the violence. From presidential hopeful Joe Biden recently telling Anderson Cooper, “Bingo” when asked about the government coming for “guns” to Kamala Harris’ proposal that if she is elected president she will enact “executive orders” to confiscate “assault weapons” when Congress fails to act, the Second Amendment needs to be re-asserted.

It is a historical fact that in nations where political leaders wish to remove properties and freedoms of the citizenry, they always begin by disarming the populace. This normally begins by requiring registration of firearms and imposing penalties when they do not. This is followed in many cases by federal governments deliberately provoking rioting and violence which is then used as an excuse to confiscate firearms.

The Second Amendment—A Prohibition

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The first thing to be noted is that the 2d Amendment is a strict prohibition against the federal government. It is not a declaration of rights, period. The right to keep arms was assumed to be God-given by the founders, but they added the Amendments to ensure that the national government would not touch these freedoms.

The Bill of Rights opens with this bold statement, “Congress shall make NO LAW …” What Joe Biden and his Democrat cohorts propose is unconstitutional on its very surface. Federal government has no say so in the matter. Making “no law” is pretty clear.

Second, there is a popular view today, though erroneous, that the 2d Amendment means that the National Guard should be able to keep and bear arms, but that the guarantee does not extend to ordinary citizens. Those who advance such an argument either have not read the Founders themselves who wrote the 2d Amendment, or hope you do not—or both.

The concern has always been, from the time of the creation of America until today, that a centralized federal government would evolve into a dictatorship or totalitarian state. The framers, with one voice, stated that the only counter measure to such gravitational pull over time was the populace itself. Alexander Hamilton, for example, in The Federalist Papers, asserted that liberty would always be ensured as long as the people were allowed to be “properly armed and equipped.”

James Madison, who authored the 2d Amendment, wrote that under the Constitution “the ultimate authority …resides in the people alone [due to the] advantage of being armed which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” Joseph Story, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court (8112-1845), a foremost Constitutional authority, wrote:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

George Washington, commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, noted that

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence….From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.

Sam Adams, introduced in the Massachusetts convention the call to ratify the Constitution. In it he said that the “Constitution never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own guns.”

Sir William Blackstone (1725-80), though not a founder of this nation, was one of the top four quoted authorities on Common Law. Lawyers in America until the time of Abraham Lincoln normally carried Blackstone with them. Of the right to keep and bear arms, Blackstone said,

“Of the absolute rights of individuals: the fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject … is that of having arms for their defense …”

He explained that the basis for this right is the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression” (Alan Gottlieb, The Rights of Gun Owners, 1983, p. 6). It is as if Blackstone was mirroring current day America and the push of Democratic and Socialist lawmakers to open our borders to the entire third world, turning our streets into combat zones in some cases.

State Militia

Still, some cling to the wording of the 2d Amendment which states a “well-regulated militia” is necessary for the security of a free people to insist that this right to keep and bear arms be reserved for a specialized unit which one must join. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most Americans do not realize that they themselves belong to the state militia where they reside. Title 10, section 31 of the U.S. Code defines the militia of each state as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or have [made] a declaration of intent to become citizens” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, p. 694).

The United States Congress has weighed in on this topic as well. In 1982 a Senate subcommittee on the Constitution carefully documented the 2d Amendment understanding in a public report. After lengthy pages of history, it noted that in various states after the War for Independence many proposals called it a general duty for all citizens to be armed. Richard Henry Lee, for instance, observed that “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them …”

George Mason of Virginia, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted to “disarm the people—that was the best and most effective way to enslave them.” Patrick Henry said that the “great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun.”

St. George Tucker, one of the earliest commentators on the Constitution and Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, published in 1803 his annotations. He followed Blackstone’s citations (noted above) and pointed out regarding the 2d Amendment that it is “without any qualification.” So also, William Rawle’s “View of the Constitution” published in 1825. He emphasized that,

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

The 1982 Congress summarized some of the above material. First, subsequent legislation in the Second Congress “supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States.”

They went on to add that these persons “were obligated by the law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment.” “There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress … spoke of a ‘militia’, they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard.” (Skousen, p. 699).

Second, the prohibition is strict and broad against the federal government or its officers from being able to address the issue of firearms or weaponry in the hands of its citizens. The reason is clear. As Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution put it this way: the right to keep and bear arms is “the palladium of the liberties of the republic.” This is a natural deterrent to tyranny.

So, whether it is Elizabeth Warren, who wants to have the federal government involve themselves in background checks, or Kamala Harris, who has dictatorship-style plans to move unilaterally on guns if elected president, or Joe Biden, who plans to implement bans on “assault weapons” at the federal level, or Bernie Sanders, who promises some type of executive action on firearms—all of these are theorizing in unconstitutional territory. If the federal government can step into this arena—no matter how small a role—history shows that this foot-in-the-door will expand to larger roles as Constitutionally illiterate people pouring out of the colleges demand more federal control. Voters, beware.

 

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.

« Older Entries