Tag Archives: Bill Lockwood

Bill Lockwood: What is Cancel Culture? 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Western culture is built upon Christian presuppositions. The word cult, in its original connotation, meant religion. Religious ideals at the foundation of society make up what we call “a culture.” This is why almost every definition of the word “culture” includes such items as values, beliefs, and customary views of a society.

These “customary beliefs” of America, which many have taken for granted, are summed up in the Declaration of Independence; specifically, that our individual rights are gifts from God and that the prime role of government is simply to protect those rights. Biblical values all. Our culture not only sprang from these concepts, but is the only culture in the history of the world to provide this framework for a nation.

This is all anathema to Marxists who play a heavy hand in America today. Karl Marx, one of the founders of what we know of as Marxism/communism, whose efforts to explain the world solely in terms of materialistic philosophy is well-known, actually began at the starting point of atheism. His Manifesto called for “the abolition of religion.” His Marxists followers, whose number are legion, Goosestep with the same hatred for all things religious—particularly Christian.

Antonio Gramsci was an Italian communist, born in 1891. After founding Italy’s Communist Party, he moved to Russia where he expected to find that Marxism was a success. On closer inspection, however, he concluded that Stalin’s terror was unnecessary. But he did not relinquish the atheistic worldview which was at the center of Marxism. Instead, after moving back to Italy and then being imprisoned by Mussolini, he gathered his thoughts on how a nation could be made into a “Marxist paradise.” These thoughts are in nine volumes, known as Prison Notebooks.

His notes included the following.

Any country grounded in Judeo-Christian values can’t be overthrown until those roots are cut … Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity … in the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.

In these revolutionary ideas is the “cancel culture” being carried out in America today. First, there is the “overwhelming” of Christianity, the basis of western culture. Cut the Christian roots of society. Second, replacing Christianity is the “new order,” the “religion of socialism.” As with Karl Marx, criticizing, even condemning and blaspheming Christianity, would be the very foundation of the new world order. This is socialism—a new religion.

In the “German Ideology” (1845), Marx and Friedrich Engels opined that “for the widespread generation of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause, it is necessary that man himself should suffer a massive change.”

Georg Jung, a Marx contemporary and member of the Doctors’ Club along with Marx himself, reflected that Marx was not a political revolutionary, but a theological-philosophical revolutionary who was attempting to overthrow the entire social system, not just an economic system.  This is the “massive change” required for cancel culture—the overthrow of Christianity.

Bill Lockwood: Is Secession Constitutional? 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

An Open Letter to Citizens of Texas: An Answer to Rep. James Frank (District 69)

Representative James Frank (TX-District 69) recently announced that he will not support the House Bill 1359, which calls for a secession referendum in the State of Texas. His reasons are three; (1) His Love for this Country, (2) The US and Texas Constitutions—there is no specific “provision” in either of these for secession; (3) The Profound Consequences for Texas.

What follows is not an open call to secede, but a challenge to consider the principles upon which secession is grounded. To dismiss the possibility of secession as “illegal and ill-advised,” as Frank does in his letter, is what I am challenging. At the same time, I will overlook his dismissive remarks that those who wish to “leave the Republic” are some “self-described patriots.” Patriotism is not the issue; it is liberty.

While acknowledging the “profound consequences” (Frank’s #3), such as pensions, social security, status of Texans serving in the military, etc. that a separation would bring, it should be remembered that the consequences for remaining attached to the United States might be profound as well—loss of free speech; indoctrination in halls of learning; excessive taxation; a wildly out-of-control unconstitutional welfare system; a ministry of Truth (propaganda) that is already being organized at the Federal level; the crushing of Texas jobs, cancellation of 2nd Amendment; the loss of free and fair elections, and more. The only issue here is if we will allow people to weigh the profound consequences for themselves.

Pertaining to love of country (Frank’s #1), it must be stated that all of us love this country. The issue is not whether we love this country, but whether we love the gifts of God such as life and liberty more than the United States of America. The main issue I wish to address is his second objection, pertaining to the Constitution.

No Specific Provision for Secession?

Rep. Frank fails to understand the very essence, the nature of the U.S. Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #78, explains the entire principle.

There is no position which depends upon clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority [federal government] contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy [federal government] is greater than his principal [the people which created the deputy]; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Hamilton was arguing for the interposition of the Courts to protect people, but the principle is the same. That principle is that the people delegated only so much authority to the federal government; that the federal government is merely the deputy created by the principal, the people; that the master is the people and the federal government is the servant. The Federal government is the creation of the people, and it is “we the people” that give to the government its right to exist.

Why was it thus created? Not an instrument to grant rights to people, but a creation of the people to protect what God gave us; namely, life, liberty and property. Authority flows upward from the people, which is why the Constitution begins, “We the People.” Rights to life, liberty, property, and self-government preceded the creation of government.

This is the basic fundamental premise upon which all of our statecraft was built and explains why the Founders would sign a document that reads, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …” They did not look for permission for secession from England in English statutes. This same concept is built right into our own Constitution, for the 10th Amendments provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The right of self-government is one of these.

The argument for secession therefore has never been that one can find its justification in a specific statute which provides for it, but is man’s appeal to Almighty God for the right of self-government, an argument based upon natural law. Ignoring this basic fact throws our entire system into wild confusion, a confusion represented by Frank’s reasoning of the “illegality” of secession on the basis that “there is no provision” in the Constitution that grants this right. The Constitution never did grant us rights—those come from God.

Rep. Frank turns the entire nature of our Constitution on its head. Such reversal of authority is a common error, but a fatal one. American governing is such that it is the people who grant to the Federal Government its rights, not the other way around. To accept the alternative revokes Hamilton’s main point and asserts that the “deputy” is indeed greater that the “principal,” that the “servant” is greater than “the master,” for the servant does not give us a provision to withdraw!

When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia 1787 to draw up a new constitution, they were not creating a national system to “grant rights” — they already owned these rights from God. What was done in Philadelphia was to create a central government by granting to it certain specified powers that had previously belonged to their several states. The right of secession therefore, is based upon the presupposition of an inalienable right of free people to consent to the form of government under which we must live.

William Rawle, in one of the first commentaries on the Constitution, written in 1825 and used for many years at West Point Military Academy, stated, “The secession of a free state from the Union depends upon the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution.” Again, “The United States were formed into a federal body, with an express reservation to each state of its freedom, sovereignty and independence.”

If Rep. Frank is correct, that secession is “illegal” and “ill-advised” then never is there an escape from a government that works to usurp the will of the people, for that is a dictum that admits of no recourse.  This cuts the legs out from beneath the Founders themselves. He takes the position that he does not favor a proposed referendum vote (HB 1359), which is only to allow the people to voice their opinions in the ballot box as to whether they would favor secession. Rather than withholding a vehicle whereby the people can speak, the earnest invitation is to give the people voice. Vote HB 1359 and liberate the will of the people. 

Bill Lockwood: LBJ Steals An Election-But Did America Learn? 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

The year is 1948. The man is Lyndon Baines Johnson, an operative of ruthless power with no moral compass to guide him. The arena is the Democratic Primary for a Senate seat vacated by W. Lee (Pappy) O’Daniel. Opposing him for that seat in the U.S. Congress is Coke Stevenson, a strict conservative who boasted he had “never voted for a tax bill.” Stevenson was the product of the hills of Texas, had been a cowboy, a country lawyer, and spent time as a freighter.

The lesson that follows is pertinent to America in 2021: it is a story of stuffing ballot boxes, stealing an election, and twisting the Constitutional system completely out of shape. Did America learn?

LBJ Goes to Washington

Richard Kleberg, of King Ranch fame, had been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from the 16th District in south Texas in 1931. Accompanying him to Washington was his secretary, LBJ. Once there LBJ, ever the wheeler-dealer, became solidly in the New Deal socialistic camp of FDR. “The devious ways of Washington were duck-soup” to LBJ.  In 1935 FDR put him over that boondoggle of a program, the National Youth Program.

In 1937, after resigning from the NYP, Johnson became a Congressman from Texas’ 10th Congressional District. LBJ was unsuccessful in a 1941 bid for a Senatorial seat that Pappy O’Daniel eventually won. Coke Stevenson became governor of Texas that same year.

However, in 1948 O’Daniel decided not to re-run for Congress, which set the stage for a Democratic Primary contest between LBJ and Coke Stevenson. Coke was popular in Texas, and the New Dealers were his enemies by principle. LBJ was a leading socialist, supported by FDR, the Washington establishment, and the Brown & Root Texas contractors whose war-time contracts had become a scandal in itself. Also in LBJ’s corner was George Parr, a multi-million-dollar criminal whose profits from illegal liquor, gambling establishments and houses of prostitution landed him in jail. He became a huge power-broker in south Texas after his incarceration.

Perhaps the saddest part of the saga is that the New Deal socialism had already begun showing its deleterious effects on the American people by means of a steady erosion of character with its sordid appeal to the most selfish traits of human nature.  Ideological confusion was the order of the day, class warfare had begun in earnest and hatred was growing—the full flowering of this one can witness today.

Jim Wells County

Just west of Corpus Christi, Texas is situated Jim Wells County with its county seat being the community of Alice. With the voting in the Democratic Primary being extremely close on July 24, Johnson was behind. Stevenson’s lead began to dwindle, however, as more precincts reported. Then, Johnson votes began to “magically appear.” Yet, Stevenson maintained a lead by a mere 349 votes and election officials declared him the winner. But the “counting” was not finished.

Johnson calls George Parr, the “Duke of Duval” County, whose family machine controlled much of the politics in south Texas. Parr told Johnson “not to worry.” Jim Wells County “re-canvassed the votes” and by September 3, Jim Wells County called in a 200-vote change that gave Johnson an 87 vote-lead.

The State Democratic Executive Committee convened in Fort Worth before their official meeting time, their subcommittee having already met in Austin, and they said they accepted the votes from “Box 13”—Jim Wells County. As R. Cort Kirkwood noted, Coke “Stevenson wasn’t fooled.”

Stevenson, the man who taught himself bookkeeping by campfire light and had caught rustlers with friend and now Texas Ranger Frank Hamer, traveled personally to Jim Wells County to check the vote tallies. Hamer went with him, along with two lawyers. They went to the bank in Alice and demanded to see the records which were kept in a vault. Parr’s henchmen, armed with Winchesters, were guarding the bank. Neither Hamer nor Stevenson were intimidated.

Once inside the bank an election official allowed them to see the election records where the evidence was in plain sight that the entire election had been stolen. Looking at the poll list, they found that 200 names had been added to the list, all in the same handwriting, all in alphabetical order, all written in blue ink—which was distinct from the black ink in which the other names had been registered. They had their proof.

An LBJ crony, Judge Roy Archer in Austin, however, gave an injunction against Stevenson and Hamer and forbad the County Committee to meet. Friends in high places. The counter attack came to a standstill. Stevenson appealed to a Federal Court where Judge T. Whitfield Davidson presided.

When Davidson heard the evidence from Stevenson’s lawyers and had listened to LBJ’s attorneys, he became at one point personally enraged against the LBJ team. Not only were Stevenson’s contentions completely unchallenged, but LBJ’s lawyers, in typical liberal fashion, spent all of their time berating Stevenson on a personal level for being a “poor loser.” Judge Davidson cut them short. “There has not been one word of evidence submitted!” he thundered against the LBJ team. He put off the final decision until September 28.

LBJ’s connections to the “powers that be” seemingly knew no bounds, however. Perhaps it is simply that socialism creates its own fraternity. Be that as it may, Hugo Black, the former Ku Klux Klansmen, and ardent supporter of the New Deal, now on the bench at the Supreme Court, issued a sweeping order in behalf of Johnson and ending the hearings in Davidson’s court in Ft. Worth.

Judge Davidson, knowing that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this matter—it being a State primary over a party nominee–nevertheless was forced to close shop. “The US Supreme Court has altered my opinion,” quipped Davidson, “but it hasn’t changed my mind.”

Johnson goes to Washington as Senator, later as President. His Great Society finished establishing the New Deal socialism into America as a ubiquitous nightmare.

What Are We to Learn?

Lessons come hard for “we the people.” Vote stealing, stuffing ballot boxes, loss of integrity of the election process—it has been occurring for a long time, generally at the hands of socialists who intend to change America, trashing the Constitution in their wake. We are seeing the same thing today, only now it appears to have swept the entire nation, placing Joe Biden where he should not be.

More importantly, America is now encased in a socialistic cage which has all but destroyed our nation. The Welfare State in which we currently live has entrenched globalists and Marxists in positions of power while at the same time gnawing the morals and ethics of people like an aggressive cancer eating away the organs of a body. Citizens hardly know the difference between government theft and redistribution and personal charity, and frequently put the former for the latter.

Perhaps most pertinently, the alternative conservatives seek of recourse to the Court system to stop the onslaught against freedom is a placebo. Oh, there may be a few court wins here and there. But look at the big picture.

We live in an unconstitutional welfare state—with the imprimatur of the Court system. God has been exiled from classrooms and public places—thanks to activist courts. Murdering the unborn continues unabated—by “rights” invented by the Court. Homosexual marriage has been installed as a legitimate civil union—once again by the Court, overstepping the will of the people. California itself has had ballot initiatives successfully voted on by the citizens of the state—against same-sex marriages and another denying taxpayer funding to illegals—both to be cancelled by activist courts and judges. Self-rule by citizens is effectively dead. We live in a black-robed oligarchy.

Add to this now that censorship of conservatives is on steroids; we have no effective border any longer; and Marxists rule in Washington behind chained-linked fences. Will we ever see freedom again? Will the Court System save us? Hardly.

Maybe instead of “waiting for the next election,” of which the integrity is in serious question anyway, it is time to drive toward State Sovereignty by Nullifying at a State Level federal unconstitutional laws. If our state representatives and senators have not the backbone for this, then perhaps a people’s move toward secession is in order.

Bill Lockwood: Inquisitions and Book Burnings 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Most are unaware that the Roman Catholic Church is a secular as well as religious organization. It weds church and state. As such, throughout the centuries, it has fielded armies, raised taxes, occupied territories—as it does today at the Vatican. As all governments do that are opposed to freedom, the Roman Catholic Church has conducted “inquisitions” and “book burnings” to “root out error.”

An example of this is during the 16th century in Germany. Martin Luther was a friar who served as professor of biblical studies in out-of-the-way Wittenberg. Luther posted his ninety-five theses (objections) regarding the “selling of indulgences” on the church door of Wittenberg, the local bulletin board. This created a firestorm throughout Europe. The local inquisitor (official appointed by the RCC to handle such problems) was Thomas Cajetan. Luther’s works were later burned in the town square by men such as Cajetan, and Luther himself was taken before an august assembly known as a Diet—an official inquisition by the Roman Catholic Church.

Everything that was taught must conform to the official doctrine of the Catholic Church. Non-conformity was punishable by death by burning at a stake. This is the nature of a communistic-totalitarian-style government that ruled from the Vatican in Rome.

We do not see much literal flames burning hardcover books today—but we do have the deletion and censorship on social media of what is considered anything outside the orthodoxy. So powerful has it become that Big Tech has censored the former President, Donald Trump, even before he left office. The new DHS put out this statement this past week: “We remain concerned that individuals frustrated with the exercise of governmental authority … and ideological causes fueled by false narratives could continue to mobilize a broad range of ideologically-motivated actors to incite or commit violence.”

So, false “ideas” that fuel “false narratives” [speech]—that are outside this orthodoxy—are banned. In November, a member of the Democratic National Committee, David Atkins, said on Twitter that “de-programming” is needed for every one of the Trump supporters in America. Add to this the newly proposed bill by Rep. Adam Schiff called “The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021” that targets “extremists” that need de-programming. Then we have Rep. Stephanie Murphy’s “Security Clearance Improvement Act of 2021” that proposes forbidding security clearances to conservatives.

Inquisitions and Book Burnings. I wonder which book they will be after next?

Bill Lockwood: Christian Nationalism? 5 (3)

by Bill Lockwood

A new bogeyman has supposedly made an entrance in the American scene: Christian Nationalism. Multitudes of Christians – specifically white people who support the Republican Party platform–are said to be in its clutches. The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), a humanist organization that attacks all things Christian, co-founded by atheist Dan Barker and whose board boasts rabid anti-Christian heavy-weights such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, summarized what the concept means in a 2007 article by Michelle Goldberg.

She explains that it is a political ideology masquerading as a faith. Christian Nationalism basically holds that America was founded as a Christian nation, that the founders never intended to separate church and state, and that church/state separation is a lie and a fraud perpetrated by secularists in the last 100 years, which has to be undone so America can reclaim its ‘former glory.’

Christian Nationalism is the charge against those who believe America was founded as a “Christian Nation.” Goldberg worries that “this movement” seeks to “Christianize all the institutions of American life, from the schools to the judiciary to the federal government, the presidency, Congress, etc.” A similar screed by FFRF (10-14-19) blasted former Attorney General William Barr with “Christian Nationalism” for referring to the values upon which our nation was founded as “Judeo-Christian” ethics.

A 2017 booklet entitled Christian Nationalism in the United States, edited by Mark T. Edwards, a professor of US History and Politics at Spring Arbor University in Michigan, likens Christian Nationalism to the belief that America is a “Christian Nation,” even when the verbiage itself is absent. The accusation includes that even in the early 19th century, “lettered men and women were ‘reinventing’ the United States as a Christian nation. Outspoken Christian nationalists like Justice Joseph Story joined [Alexis de] Tocqueville in solidifying the Pilgrims and the Puritans as the foundation of religious and political liberty present in antebellum America.”

Kevin Kruse, professor of history at Princeton University, in his book, One Nation Under God (2015), makes the identical accusation against conservatives. George S. Benson, long-time president of Harding University, is heavily criticized for having advanced the cause of “religious nationalism.” The thesis of Kruse’s book is that America was “re-branded” as a “Christian Nation” in the 20th century. The chief culprits for such a plot were the religious professors, conservative politicians, and preachers, including Harding’s National Education Program, headed by Benson.

Fred Schwarz, the Baptist preacher from Australia who began the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, who worked in the same fields as did Benson’s NEP, is also called out by Kruse for pressing “religious nationalism.” As a matter of fact, the NEP’s model of a nation which is founded upon a “Fundamental Belief in God,” is singled out by Kruse for harsh criticism as being completely erroneous (p. 71).

The Christian Nationalism charge was picked up by Christianity Today in an article by Michael Horton (What Are Evangelicals Afraid of Losing? 8-31-2018). In it he lambasts preachers and professors who are on board with President Trump’s “America First” agenda as, “courting political power and happily” allowing “themselves to be used by it.” “This always happens when the church confuses the kingdom of Christ with the kingdoms of this present age. Jesus came not to jump-start the theocracy in Israel, much less to be the founding father of any other nation.” That which is “at stake” here, according to Horton, is “whether evangelical Christians place their faith more in Caesar and his kingdom than in Christ and his reign.”

Christian Nationalism in the churches of Christ?

From here the idea has been uncritically picked up and repeated in articles by members of the churches of Christ. In a blog entitled, For King, Not Country, Brian Casey (7-8-2020) informs us that “’Christian Nationalism’ is a contradiction in terms. ‘God and country’ is a misleading amalgamation.” “Things get very confused as Christian and national identities are blended indiscriminately and ignorantly. The mixture is so toxic to the Christian life…”

He introduces the article by criticizing with heavy-hand Harding’s George Benson for the mistake of confusing the church and the country. “…he promulgated the false marriage of the Kingdom of God (and the ideal of Harding) with the political machine of the United States. The National Education Program became the center of conservative political activism.” The madness in America today could have been avoided, says Casey, if Benson “not merged” nationalistic ideals” with “Christianity.”

Benson, the tireless missionary to China and president of Harding College, according to Casey even confused evangelism for Christ with “making America safe for democracy.” This is an “ill-blended mindset,” he intones.

Now comes The Christian Chronicle with articles written by Bobby Ross, Jr. (10-30-2020; 1-13-21) which carries the same ill-informed charges of Christian Nationalism against members of the churches of Christ who happen to be conservative Trump supporters. Interviewed in the articles are a number of ministers and church workers. The recent rash of attention on the topic is supposedly because some Trump supporters rioted and broke into the Capitol building on January 6. But that wrong-doing merely highlights a much more sinister sin, per these ministers.

Jeremie Beller, congregational minister of the Wilshire church of Christ in Oklahoma City and adjunct professor at OCU, repeats the Michael Horton charge (Christianity Today) that “Christian nationalism is the intertwining of the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of men.”

Tanya Smith Brice is the dean of the College of Professional Studies at Bowie State University in Maryland. She gravely warned that Christian Nationalism is a “form of civil religion that places one’s earthly citizenship above one’s obligation as a follower of Christ.” Those who do this “falsely” give to a “nation-state a Messianic identity.” The “nation-state” is seen as the “primary mechanism for ‘saving’ human history.”

Tanya Smith Brice, who is black, now levels the racist charge. “White evangelicals are more likely to support the oppressive class and behaviors of our current federal administration than those who don’t identify as White evangelical.” She then remarks, “Christian nationalism has become inextricably linked with White Supremacy.”

Lee Camp, professor of theology as David Lipscomb University, goes so far as to say that this Christian Nationalism is “idolatry.”

Melvin Otey, former U.S. Justice Department trial lawyer for the Obama Administration and law professor at Faulkner University, says that “People believe that being an American or being a patriot or being a part of a political party is part of their faith. It absolutely is not. That’s what keeps people divided.” He admonishes with words of the apostle Paul, that we are “citizens of heaven.” Says Otey, “we have too many people in the church who aspire to be Christian Republicans, Christian Democrats …Their alliances and their allegiances are not first and foremost to Christ.”

Divided allegiances; white supremacy; confusing the church with Americanism; mistaking missionary activity for Christ for Americanism; idolatry invented in the 20th century—a heavier list of dark sins is hard to be found.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

First, America was founded as a Christian Nation. This is no “re-invention” by later generations, for the Founding generation spoke almost with one voice on this topic. It is noteworthy that celebrated authors such as Kevin Kruse of Princeton, in his One Nation Under God, hardly takes a glance at what the founding generation of Americans actually said. He assumes that in the mid-20th century the entire concept was invented, and he moves forward from there.

When our Founding Fathers referred to this nation, as “Christian Nation,” as did John Jay, one of authors of Federalist Papers, they did not intend that this be understood in the sense that an official church had been established, or that a “Theocracy” was in place, but rather that the principles upon which our republic rests were Christian in origin. Benjamin Morris, a second-generation American, in surveying the mass of material on this topic, summarized:

“Christianity is the principle and all-pervading element, the deepest and most solid foundation, of all our civil institutions.  It is the religion of the people—the national religion; but we have neither an established church nor an established religion.”

Some of founders even referred to America as a “Christian Republic.” That generation demonstrated this by the fact that they adorned public buildings with biblical symbols such as Moses crossing Red Sea; or Moses holding tablets of stone carved on the building of the Supreme Court; or that the state papers of the Continental Congress that are filled with Christianity.

One of the formative laws of the United States, listed in the U.S. Code, is the Declaration of Independence. It reads more like a theological statement that a political thesis. Our republic posited that rights come from God and that the single role of government is to protect what God gave us, inclusive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Republic itself is an outgrowth of Christian principles.

Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, one of the most influential of the founders, having signed not only the Declaration of Independence, but the Articles of Confederation as well as the Constitution. He wrote to Samuel Baldwin in 1790 that “his faith in the new republic was largely because he felt it was founded on Christianity as he understood it.”

Joseph Story, a jurist who served on the Supreme Court during the founding era and wrote the first lengthy Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, commented as follows:

Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal sentiment was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

The Supreme Court in numerous cases has referred to this as “A Christian Nation.” Most notable is the 1892 case entitled The Church of the Holy Trinity v. The United States. Here the Court packed its decision with a litany of precedents from American history to establish “this is a religious people, … this is a Christian Nation.”

The First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion …” simply forbade the establishment of an official National Denomination in the sense of a state church supported by federal taxes. Fisher Aimes, who offered the wording of the Amendment, makes clear from his original version that “religion” meant “a single Christian denomination.” This is also how Thomas Jefferson understood the Amendment in his comment upon it in which he used the phrase “separation of church and state.”

Even Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1989 expressed the same.

It was never intended by the Constitution that the government should be prohibited from recognizing religion …The Christian religion was always recognized in the administration of canon law, and so far that the law continues to be the law of the land, the fundamental principles of that religion must continue to be recognized … (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573).

The charge therefore that our Founders desired “Christian Nationalism” because they spoke of a Christian Nation reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. The modern pretension misfires completely by suggesting that some of our brethren have been guilty of “re-inventing history” when they point to a Christian foundation of America.

Second, the blanket charge that great evangelists of modern times, such as George Benson, somehow confused the kingdom of God, or heavenly reward, with a Christian America is flagrant falsehood. I challenge any of these who make such an outlandish charge to produce one statement from Benson or James D. Bales, who also worked for the National Education Program, or any other prominent evangelist such as Baptist Fred Schwarz, who has made any statement that remotely resembles these accusations.

The truth is, our modern-day professorships completely misunderstand the concept of a Christian Nation. The reason our founders desired to have a nation established on a Christian principles was that it provided—for the first time in modern history—a zone of order established upon the fundamental concepts that God provided us our rights, including life, liberty, and property—that the government was merely an institution designed to protect those rights.

And instead of inventing charges of “Christian Nationalism” against fellow Christians, as if someone somewhere wishes to establish a theocracy where an official State Church would rule, I would like one of these ministers to take in hand to defend how a Christian can in any way subscribe to the Democratic Party platform, that enshrines as a principle the destruction of innocent human life through infanticide and abortion and champions the practice of sodomy in our land. It would be interesting to hear one of these professors defend supporting a political platform that sounds as if had been written by King Herod.

Professor Otey’s rebuke is that Christians are “citizens of heaven.” The logical conclusion to that argument in this context is that one should not be involved at all in anything that partakes of civil government. Yet, he is one who continually calls for “conversations” about “race” in the church. What does “race” have to do with being a citizen of heaven? (Gal. 3:28). Apparently there are things about which he thinks we should be concerned as citizens of the United States as well.

Politics is nothing more than the organizing of human society and its institutions upon certain principles. Why should not Christians desire biblical principles to help regulate conduct at various societal levels? The apostle Paul’s ultimate citizenship was in heaven, but that did not stop him from appealing to his Roman citizenship (Acts 22) and ultimately to Caesar (Acts 25) to prevent miscarriage of justice in civil society.

Earlier Paul had been beaten with rods—unjustly by Romans in the city of Philippi. When the magistrates of the community discovered his Roman citizenship they were fearful and invited him to leave quietly (Acts 16:22ff). The apostle would have none of it. He utilized his Roman citizenship to his own benefit. “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out.”

Did Paul do wrong to press his Roman citizenship and fair treatment in Roman society? Should we have remonstrated with him that his “citizenship is in heaven” and not to worry about such matters? Was Paul “blending his Christian and national identities,” in the words of Brian Casey? Was he “conflating” Roman citizenship with being a citizen of heaven?

There is nothing more erroneous about speaking of a Christian Nation than of a Christian Family. What is a Christian family? It is one where biblical principles are implemented. Does that mean it is a perfect family? Is this family absent of sins committed by mother, father, children? No. But the principles there taught we recognize as Christian and refer to it as a Christian family. No one objects by suggesting that the entire family has not been baptized into Christ, or that not every family member is a Christian. But we still recognize what is a Christian family. So also a Christian nation.

More importantly, shall we say that when someone uses the phrase “Christian family” that we have “conflated the concepts of heaven and the family?” Have we laid ourselves open to the charge that we have “confused the Lord’s church with the family?” The answer is obvious. Brother Benson and others who worked with the NEP merely recognized that just as a godly, Christian family is more conducive in which to rear children to love and respect God, so also the nation.

Cultural Marxism

Third, perhaps the most dangerous element revealed of the above critiques of Christian Nationalism is that they are born of Cultural Marxism. Classical Marxism, revealed in The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is rooted in atheism. This atheistic creed demands that the sole factor that determines a person is his economic status. A person thinks and moves as he does because of the class into which he is born.

Society is divided between the bourgeois (land-owners, middle-class) and the proletariat (the workers, who do not have property to sell, but only their labor). Between these classes there is an inevitable class struggle. This is the dialectic. People are not considered as individuals, but as part of a class.

The Italian philosopher, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), built on Marx’s materialistic base and developed the concept of “cultural hegemony” meaning that the dominant ideology of society reflects beliefs and interests of the ruling class. Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D. explains:

Cultural hegemony refers to domination or rule maintained through ideological or cultural means. It is usually achieved through social institutions, which allow those in power to strongly influence the values, norms, ideas, expectations, worldview, and behavior of the rest of society.

Cultural hegemony functions by framing the worldview of the ruling class, and the social and economic structures that embody it, as just, legitimate, and designed for the benefit of all, even though these structures may only benefit the ruling class. This kind of power is distinct from rule by force, as in a military dictatorship, because it allows the ruling class to exercise authority using the “peaceful” means of ideology and culture.

Gramsci would argue that “consent to the rule of the dominant group” in a nation is achieved by the “spread of ideologies—beliefs, assumptions, and values—through social institutions such as schools, churches, courts, …” The dominant values in America—designed solely to maintain power of this class—is white male heterosexual.

To Gramsci’s Marxism the founders were only “a group of white men” constructing a government to protect their own cultural dominance. So also today. Laws in America supposedly reflect whiteness; the proof of this is the fact that minorities comprise the majority of prison populations. The assumption is that white America—the dominant culture– is racist. Hence, Cancel Culture rages in our streets.

Tanya Brice Smith’s blanket charge of sin of White Supremacy among Trump supporters is nothing less than this cultural Marxism. An entire class of people—white males—are guilty. Period. No need for evidence or fact. It just is. White people may insist continually the opposite of these things, but to no avail.

Cultural hegemony also explains why Jim Wallis, the “spiritual advisor” to Barack Obama, lambasted America by saying that “Racism is America’s Original Sin.” Sin attaches to white people because of whiteness. Again, no proof necessary. Whites are guilty. Lamentable as it is, now there are black preachers among us who will sound more like Jim Wallis than the Apostle Paul. Some suggest white people have “racism” in their “DNA.” Again, no proof necessary before a bar of justice. Just assume and blast away. Cultural Marxism.

It is indeed a sad day in America when preachers of the gospel of Christ will be more about beating the drums against an entire culture that has provided the greatest freedom to preach since the days of Adam and Eve. And that a Christian paper would allow these types of blanket Marxist-style charges indicting a large portion of the brotherhood of Christians shows how far we have gone.

Bill Lockwood: De-programming Conservatives 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Katie Couric, former co-anchor of NBC’s “Today” show as well as anchor of “CBS Evening News,” shows how far afield the liberals in America have gone. Last week she was a guest on “Real Time with Bill Maher.” She commented on Trump supporters.

I mean, it’s really bizarre, isn’t it, when you think about how AWOL so many of these members of Congress have gotten. But I also think some of them are believing the garbage that they are being fed 24/7 on the internet, by their constituents, and they bought into this big lie. And the question is now, are we going to really almost deprogram these people who have signed up for the cult of Trump?

According to Fox News, media critic and Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson warns that these types of “threats of ‘deprogramming’ Trump supporters have become common among liberal journalists.”

Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton called for all 70 million Trump supporters to be identified as “Domestic Terrorists” in a recent Washington Post op-ed (1-12-21). This is a downgrade from a “basket of deplorables.” She openly suggested Trump supporters be tracked and “surveilled,” because Trump “whipped a dangerous element of our country into a frenzy.”

No idea is so grotesquely extreme but that it is offered with straight face by an academic. Dr. Robert Asher, an evolutionary zoologist at England’s Trinity Hall and one-time contributor to Huffington Post, posited that a “parasite” has infected the brains of conservatives who voted for Trump and who supported Brexit in England. He went so far as to name the parasite as “Toxoplasma gondi” which causes severe mental disorders and behavioral problems.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

Besides the obvious fact that the left sounds much like Adolph Hitler, in spite of their continual hurling the charge of “Nazism” to those on the right, shows where the true Nazi’s are encamped– consider the following.

First, these kinds of condescending and elitist comments demonstrates that with the liberals, they believe they have won the entire war with the defeat of Donald J. Trump. Occasionally, wild-eyed comments like these are made in the halls of academia, but it is not frequent that these types of statements are doled out publicly and with regularity. The Socialistic Establishment is back in control with Biden and these types of remarks indicate that the Left does not believe it will ever swing back the other way. With an air of triumphalism of a final battle the Left now is becoming uncorked in their aggression. If there ever was an inkling of thought with these socialists that in four more years another “Trump” would be elected, it is unlikely they would freely speak about “re-education” camps for conservatives, or mental illnesses on the Right.

Second, the idea of reconciliation between the Right and Left is a chimerical idea. It is a fantasy. It always has been. The gap between these two poles is so wide that the North-South War Between the States looks small in comparison. But that was an armed conflict! you say. Indeed, it was, but the worldview between southerners and northerners in the 19th century was not as wide as it is now. And “re-education camps”—as the left now banters about—speaks of gulags and barbed wire, not reconciliation.

Third, the blaming of Trump for whipping the Right into a “frenzy” is a snobbish and ignorant view. Hillary Clinton wants to censure Trump and all of those who supported him on the grounds that he stirred the masses unnecessarily. Being “whipped into a frenzy” has nothing to do with the Biden’s threats to cancel the Second Amendment; the Open Borders policy which has already attracted huge caravans of Third World illegals on their way to crash our borders with promises of free taxpayer money; the mandates from the Left that we recognize Sodomy as a legitimate institution by law; the plans to eliminate the right to private property as dictated by “The Great Reset” of the United Nations; the robbing of the American worker to pay for those who do not work; the indoctrination of our youth by Marxism in the education system; the murder of the unborn since 1973—no. Nothing to do with that. It is all about Trump “whipping people into a frenzy.”

Fourth, these elitists, including Bill Maher and Katy Couric, fall on their own sword. If their worldview is correct, that all is matter in motion, and there is no God, then there is no such thing as rational thinking to begin with. Everything, including my brain, operates solely on a system of naturalistic causes. All is solely the result of chemical reactions and physical pressures inside one’s skull. There is therefore, no such thing as “rationality.” That being the case, perhaps it is those on the LEFT who need “re-programming.” No opinion can be right or wrong, no more than a current of electricity can be so calculated.

So, who needs re-programming? It just depends upon who is in power, doesn’t it?

Bill Lockwood: Capitol Violence 4.5 (2)

by Bill Lockwood

Hypocrisy is not simply failing to live up to a standard, but is rooted in deceit. Our Lord accused the Jewish leadership of being “hypocrites” in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, not because they had failed to live faithfully to the law, but because they were power-brokers, establishing their own system while purposefully ignoring God’s Revealed Law. Hypocrisy points to ulterior motives. It is steeped in hidden agendas, double-dealing, dishonesty and duplicity.

The utter shock continued to be displayed by the MSM, the communists/socialists of America (aka Democrats), Big Tech, and the Main Stream Culture over what occurred at the Capitol last week is a case in point. No one, least of all myself, agree with violence or storming the Capitol building by anyone, be it a MAGA supporter or anyone else.

However, to continue to blame Donald J. Trump for what occurred, and beating the drums for his head on a platter, to use another biblical reference, illustrates hypocrisy in its deepest dye. We need to ask, what hidden agenda, what ulterior motive has the left for such blaming? Consider the constant hypocrisy Americans have witnessed over the past four years, all with the imprimatur of our cultural leaders.

Past Four Years

Lefty Madonna, before Trump sat in the Oval Office one day, spoke of “blowing up the White House” while Democrats present cheered by the hundreds. Remember also the riots where cars were set ablaze in Washington, D.C. because Trump had been elected. Which voice on the left did we hear condemning this?

Not to be outdone, Kathy Griffin posted a bloody picture of her holding “Trump’s head” in her hand. Democrats defended the violence-mongering. Then there was the Hamilton: An American Musical play, which openly challenged President Trump with VP Mike Pence in the audience. No voice was heard from the left in protest for “creating a violent atmosphere.” Another play, Julius Caesar, depicts the famous Roman dictator dressed as Donald Trump, being assassinated. The New York audience whooped and cheered, while Democrats sat silent. Liberal Snoop Dogg, the rapper, shot a “Lavender” video in which he portrayed the same thing. No objections from the left.

How about communist-lover Rep. Maxine Waters? A year after liberal James Hodgkinson actually shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, as well as others—being completely motivated by leftist rhetoric of violence and killing—Maxine Waters, not seeking to “tone down the rhetoric,” infamously yelled at an open-air gathering to “get into their [Republican] faces” and tell them they are not wanted here or anywhere! One might think that one wicked witch haranguing against Republicans does not a case make. But the point is: when did we hear one single Democrat calling for her removal, discipline, or a tech company censoring her? Any MSM pundits condemn her? No. The underlying message was clear: violence is approved if against conservatives.

The atmosphere has been electrically charged by these Democrat war-mongers who encourage more violence against Republicans. Sarah Sanders, press secretary for Donald Trump, was run out of a public restaurant. Sen. Ted Cruz was publicly heckled and mobbed to leave another eating establishment. Attempted murder on a ball field made no difference to any Democrat. Aggression. Tucker Carlson and his family were harassed and threatened by leftist mobs. Sen. Rand Paul was attacked with a hammer in his yard by a leftist and sent to a hospital.

And who can forget the Brett Kavanaugh hearings? His life destroyed by Democrat lies on top of lies, Capitol Hill was turned practically into a war zone as Republican lawmakers were continually cornered and threatened by mobs roaming the halls. Offices were stormed, people were arrested. But the Democrats and MSM celebrated this as somehow the “working of Democracy.”

Finding their stride now, the Leftist Revolution led by Democrats continued. Eighteen months after the Kavanaugh hearings, Antifa gangs showed up at Trump rallies and marches in San Diego, in Phoenix, and other places. Violence occurred. This is what the right deserves, was the MSM take.

Then there were the George Floyd protests that invariably turned violent. Washington, D.C. had burning buildings; Chicago, Milwaukee, Seattle, Portland, Baltimore, and other cities all saw huge acts of riotous violence in which entire towns look like downtown Baghdad after bombers had struck. America watched on television as police headquarters were burned, enforcement officers were beaten, and Trump supporters were physically assaulted.

Did the communist-inspired left speak in condemnation of any of this? No. Instead, VP-elect Kamala Harris, bailed out of prison some of the rioters. She later publicly declared in debates, as did Joe Biden, that this was all “peaceful protest.”

Instead of mourning for this mayhem, the only thing we heard from Democrats when President Trump went to a burned-out Cathedral in Washington, D.C., and held up his Bible, was that he was the hypocrite taking advantage of a photo op. No remorse. No outrage. No unity to pull America out of the ashes. Just more hate.

In response, Democrat/communist leader in the House, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, tweeted that all violence was necessary. The whole point of protesting is the make ppl feel uncomfortable.” “That’s the point.” Sally Kohn, liberal political commentator, could only say, “I don’t like violent protests, but I understand them.” (5/3/20).

Communist-inspired mobs attacked the Portland, OR courthouse for more than 60 days. Twenty-one Police officers were hospitalized. Portland mayor Ted Wheeler even joined rioters and participated in demonstrations. Finally, the mayor had to be escorted to safety. Seattle mayor Jenny Durkin encouraged and lauded the anarchists as they set up an “autonomous zone” in her city. Insurrection has been afoot for years and it is encouraged by the left. Monuments of America culture, including Confederate statues, memorials to presidents, and others have been ransacked—all encouraged by Democrats.

Dallas, TX saw the breakdown of the rule of law. Viewers could watch on television as young blacks beat into unconsciousness white people running down the street. Yet, no outrage from Democratic lawmakers. Why? Because their Marxist playbook calls for it. Burn it down. Police were told in these cities to “stand down.”

A piece in the left-wing journal Current Affairs argues that “destroying property is not in and of itself a violent act.” “The word ‘violence’ should be reserved for harm done to people,” wrote editor Nathan J. Robinson. CBS News’ Hannah Jones agrees. “Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man’s neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”

And what about the Republican National Convention, the aftermath of which saw leaders such as Rand Paul physically attacked by Democrat-inspired mobs? Or the thousands of goose-stepping Democrats who literally occupied the Wisconsin Capitol building in Madison and physically occupied it for two weeks? “This is what Democracy looks like,” said the left. Even President-elect Joe Biden refused to condemn Antifa in the public debate with Donald Trump, chirping the liberal catch-line: “Antifa is only an idea.” Well, there are many people in America who are physically injured from this “idea.” But Joe could not bring himself to condemn any of it.

Then we are treated to AOC as well as Ilhan Omar both refusing to condemn any of this violence when asked about it on camera. Instead, they smugly walked by reporters who taunted them with the question of whether or not they were against the violence. And let us not forget Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demonstrably on camera tearing up the State of the Union speech immediately after Trump finished speaking.

Colin Kaepernick, the infamous America communist-sympathizer, responded to all of these years of leftist violence with this tweet. “When civility leads to death [speaking of George Floyd], revolting is the only logical reaction.” “We have a right to fight back.” So violence and destruction is all right—as long as the cause is justified. He has been endorsed by major sports teams as well as corporate America.

We deplore the Capitol violence. But for the reasons above we do not condemn the thousands of peaceful protestors who went to Washington, D.C. last week to legitimately exercise their patriotic and constitutional right to voice their opinion on the election. We uphold them and champion them. And we will not be so naïve as to vilify them by lumping them all into the category of the lawbreakers who stormed the Capitol.

Most of all, we do not intend to be lectured about the besieging of the Capitol by the Marxist Left that has sponsored, endorsed, and excused violence for four solid years.

For the MSM and the Democrats to feign outrage over the type of violence that they have patronized is diabolical hypocrisy. Their true agenda is the total overthrow of American liberty. As our Lord put it, these liberals have “compassed sea and land to make one proselyte” but they have made them “more than a twofold son of hell more than” themselves (Matt. 23:15).

Harsh words. Tough times.

Bill Lockwood: Coming Civil War to America? 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Hatred causes people to do unimaginable things. Pouring forth from the leftist cultural elites, directed toward conservatives, has been the most poisonous and vile attacks we have ever witnessed. It was exacerbated from the very moment Donald J. Trump was announced the winner of the presidency in 2016. It continues until this hour, even after Biden “defeated” Trump for the White House.

One of the chief purveyors of the gall of bitterness is the former First Lady herself, Michelle Obama. She proposes that Trump be banned from social media platforms forever. First Amendment be hanged. Socialist Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, without one scintilla of real evidence, blames Trump for inciting this week’s attack at the US Capitol. Today, the Democrats of Congress are pressuring Trump’s cabinet to remove him office or else face another impeachment debacle. Never again will a conservative be brave enough to raise his or her head out of the bunker.

Not to be outdone, president-elect Joe Biden throws more fuel on the seething fire in America by ignorantly and ludicrously stating that resistance to rioters in Washington, D.C. would have been treated differently had they been Black Lives Matter protestors.

A more willfully ignorant and inciting commentary could not be made. BLM and Antifa, as well as all other of the Marxist leftists in America, have burned cities to the ground so that at the epicenter of these riots look like Baghdad in the aftermath. These are styled “peaceful” by the establishment, and one would be hard-pressed to find one single BLM person killed in any of the mayhems that engulfed our cities this past four years.

Yet, practically every single one of them occurred because police were told to “stand down.” Apparently, no one wants to “anger” the thugs that dance on cop cars and smash store windows or set fire to buildings lest they be called the forbidden term “racist.”

Biden, in bed with the MSM, continues to demonize Trump and half of the American electorate all of the time by blaming them for everything wrong in America. This turns everything into a powder keg—and they know it.  They are daring the American right to act out.

In the wake of the Capitol riot on Wednesday of this week, news stations are now all telling us that “this nation needs to come together and heal.” I hate to break this news to America, but that is not going to occur. Not because those of us on the right do not wish for it and pray for it. Not because we endorse violence. But because ultimately, our worldview is completely at odds with those on the left—and it has been for over 100 years. The gap is widening.

The differences between left and right today are irreconcilable. America is on the road to tyranny, and only the foolish or late-comers to the game fail to realize it. Those of us who live on the right want to live in law-abiding freedom and liberty, unhindered by government control. The left wishes to control us and take our hard-earned money for every globalist, socialistic, communistic, and selfish project that they can conceive. Confiscation of middle-class earnings today is close to 50% in many cases—all so that the left can redistribute it and ingratiate to them the masses of people who know no better.

It needs not even be said that the Constitution makes no difference whatsoever to the socialist Democrat Party. Citing the law of the land and the basic principles upon which our nation was founded is an exercise in futility. We are preaching to the choir.

But the differences go much deeper than this. At the heart of the issue is the belief in God and His Holy Word. God places responsibility for sin and all its consequent societal problems in the heart of man. “Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life” (Proverbs 4:23).

Socialism/Communism sees the root of societal problems in the amount of money one possesses or opportunities that are offered. Redistribution is the sole solution. Vergilius Ferm, in his Encyclopedia of Religion, explains this gross error of socialism.

American socialism is heir to the tradition of materialism and atheism. It relies on the growth of automatic perfection, not indeed by virtue of the given natural faculties of man, but as the product of causally inevitable economic changes. The result is parallel to that of the liberal utopia, a self-contained world of man, individualistic here, collectivist there, and redeemed from evil, once and for all, by the economic process, much as this requires men conscious of their opportunity. This is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine.

The fact that even those who occupy pulpits, such as Raphael Warnock, recently elected to Congress in GA, pipe the false gospel of “social justice,” shows how deeply rooted socialism has become.

The most bitter pill in all of recent events is the fact that for all intents and purposes, free elections, and thus freedom, is a thing of the past in America. Evidence of voter fraud in this election is massive. The evidence is there for those who wish to see. Was it enough to turn the election to Trump? Who knows? A very reasoned and principled request was made by Senators such as Ted Cruz (TX) and Josh Hawley (MO) to have a 10-day waiting period of examination simply to discover how deep the fraud had been perpetrated.

This was cast aside by the powers-that-be. No light of day will be shed. Those on the right, who believe with justification, that the election was fraudulent, are to lump it. Instead, they, and President Trump, are being blamed for the ruckus that occurred on Capitol Hill. Now there is an online petition to remove Ted Cruz from office and Josh Hawley has lost a book deal with Simon & Schuster. Our cultural leaders continue to beat the drums for their heads on a platter.

Is it time for the heartland of American states to go their own way? Would that be better than a civil war that certainly is brewing? What does the future hold? I don’t know for certain the answer to any of these questions. But you can bet on one thing. The communistic left (aka Democrats) are going to drive hard and fast to finish the job of socializing America and erasing what vestige remains of our liberty. There will be no more free elections.

Bill Lockwood: Pickled Minds in Seattle 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Pickling is the process by which foods are soaked in various solutions to increase the acidity of the food so that microorganisms that cause illness and food spoilage cannot grow. Socialism, and liberalism in general, takes on the form of a similar “fermenting process” by which logic, reasoning, and simple common sense cannot any longer grow in one’s mind. A case study—a Seattle City Councilwoman named Lisa Herbold.

It is not enough that our unconstitutional socialistic systems such as found in Seattle champion taking money from the “rich” to give to the poor in a multiplicity of government programs including: unemployment benefits, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, government grants, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, Federal Student Financial Aid (FAFSA), Free School Meals for Children, Disaster relief programs, WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) subsidies, Senior Citizens’ Aid programs, government assistance with home energy, prescription drug aid, assistance in telephone services, Social Security, disability money, public housing vouchers, and the list goes on.

This is not to mention the fact that there is plenty of voluntary assistance to the poor by a multitude of churches and charitable organizations.

Enough is never enough with the lawless such as Councilwoman Lisa Herbold. She has proposed legislation whereby misdemeanor suspects can escape charges if they can show “symptoms of mental illness or addiction or if they can prove the crime provided for a need to survive.” This is the infamous “poverty defense.”

Herbold says that these defendants need to have an “opportunity to tell their stories” and allow the judges and juries “to hear their stories and make a decision based on the values of our city.” Sounds like spoiled children who cannot handle a teachers’ authority and have to “tell their side of things” when told simple commands in the schoolhouse, such as “sit down.”

The explanation for the “poverty defense” is explained by another on a Seattle television station. “In a situation where you took that sandwich because you were hungry and you were trying to meet your basic need of satisfying your hunger; we as the community will know that we should not punish that. That conduct is excused.”

Yet Lisa Herbold, being a government official, does not wish to live by the “values of her city.” When a man threw a rock through her house window, the councilwoman … yes … called the police. My Northwest reported that Herbold “was on the west side of the living room near the kitchen when she heard a loud noise that sounded like a gunshot and dove into the kitchen for cover.”

Not only is Lisa Herbold unable to see that no one wishes to live by Seattle’s valueless values—for a value does not respect persons rich or poor—but she herself refuses to abide by her own proposals. As a matter of fact, the entire city is seeing a huge spike in crime since the city of Seattle has approved an 18% cut to the Seattle Police Department. Consequently, murders have sky-rocketed. So much for Seattle’s take on values.

This is what occurs when you empty values of any meaningful content by excusing crime because of “poverty,” or organize to cut law enforcement.

Perhaps when Lisa Herbold phoned the police, she should have been told that the police that would have been sent was a part of the 18% cut and that she was on her own. And why call the police to begin with, Ms. Herbold? As Scott Lindsay, former mayoral Public Safety Advisor stated,” If you are engaged in 100 misdemeanors that are in our criminal justice system code, you are not going to be held liable. You are not going to be held accountable.”  So why call against a man committing a misdemeanor?

What do you wish the police to do, Lisa? Arrest the man so that you can gather your friends on the streets and harangue in front of the cameras about “police brutality” and moan about law enforcement harassing people over misdemeanors?

Pickled minds in Seattle.

« Older Entries