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: Problems in Zion — Premillennialism

by Bill Lockwood

Timothy P. Weber, in his even-handed review of the history of Zionism, or Dispensational Premillenialism (On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend, 2004) exposes the many contradictions of the system. Beginning with the inception of modern dispensational premillennialism by the “disgruntled” Irish Anglican priest John Nelson Darby in the 19th century (1830’s) through the current Messianic Jewish movement, Weber historically exposes the many flaws, contradictions and changing currents within the premillennial fold. Such is to be expected in an unscriptural doctrinal setting. The following are some of the points made by Weber.

Varieties of Premillennialism

First, there are countless varieties of the Premillennial doctrine, most of which contradict one another. Through this contradiction, however, all varieties share one basic flaw—crass materialistic concepts of the kingdom of God.

This materialistic view, with predictions of a new Judaized state in the future complete with animal sacrifices and legalistic practices, is featured in the NT as the primary reason for the Jewish rejection of the Messiah. Caiaphas counseled the murder of Christ to his fellow Sanhedrists on the grounds that if Christ were not taken out of the way, “the the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (John 11:47-51).

Nevertheless, this materialism is the primary ingredient of all the flavors of Premillennial thought; from the Shakers (19th century) to the Mormons (whose ‘inspired’ writings included the fulfillment of the scheme in the state of Missouri) to the 7th Day Adventist Movement began by William Miller and continued by Ellen G. White to the popular Left Behind brand now current in denominationalism; and all of the rest.

Weber highlights this materialistic concept for us. “Because of their basic hermeneutical decision that all earthly prophecies belonged to Israel and not the church, dispensationalists believed that the ‘saints’ referred to a newly restored nation of Israel that would be regathered in Palestine” (70).

Note carefully: Weber is explaining that it is the false presumption that the entire OT prophetic program referred to physical Israel which is the base of Premillennialism.  That the kingdom of God is a political entity with physical boundaries—as Judaism at the time of Christ believed—has even caused many prominent dispensationalists, such as James Gray, C.I. Scofield and others to reject our “democratic government” while declaring favor for a “monarchy” (p. 84) Many wearing the name of Christ have not moved much further in spiritual thinking than Caiaphas.

Hijacking Conservatism

If materialism lies at the heart of Premillennialism, very close to it is the supplanting of missionary work with a political program that regards international meddling as part of the gospel. This is what Weber calls the “Hijacking of Conservatism” by Zionism. Simple Constitutional conservative values are ignored.

While many American evangelicals remain politically conservative on a social scale, their belief-system drives them to support America’s much “unconstitutional meddling” in the political affairs of foreign nations. Thus, the Constitution of the United States is thrown behind the Zionist backs.

Tied to this is the falsely-labeled missionary effort of the evangelical world. Converting individuals to Jesus Christ is the biblical idea of missions. It is very different however, among Zionists.

For example, foreign “intermeddling,” flying beneath the banner of evangelism, was the planting of an “American colony” in Jerusalem, Israel in 1881. No ordinary missionary movement this, it was an actual “American colony” led by the Spafford family (p. 106-08) and supported by such evangelical preachers as William Blackstone.

“By the 1930’s the colony ceased being primarily a religious community and started operating more like a family business” (109). The primary aim, of course, was the effort, not to convert Jews to Christ, but to “relocate in order to be present when God’s promises to Israel were fulfilled.”

To say the least, it is a skewed vision of the word of God that transforms evangelism into nothing more than a sitting in the hills waiting for the Lord to bless Israel.

This fostering of the political state of Israel is the hallmark of Zionist “evangelism.” In 1917 British forces were poised to capture Jerusalem in armed conflict.  Lord Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, wrote to Lord James Rothschild, a leader in the International Zionist Movement.

“His Majesty’s government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best efforts to facilitate the achievement of this object …”

Foreign interference was in full swing. Five weeks after the Balfour Declaration, Jerusalem was surrendered by the Turks to British forces.  Thus began a career of national intermeddling in the Middle East which is being happily continued by the American government with full backing of evangelicals. Constitutional it is not. Evangelistic it is not. But it does demonstrate how conservatism, which at one time was marked by non-interventionism, has been hijacked and now fits an internationalist mold.

As presented by Weber, the history of “evangelical missionary intermeddling” is rife with similar examples. The Likud Party in Israel recognized evangelical preachers such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson with awards all the while laboring to outlaw missionary work (245).

The tragic irony in all of this is that evangelicals demonstrate a complete lack of interest in Palestinian Christians but seem more interested simply in removing them from their ancestral territory (246).  Evangelicals show more interest in political and physical wars with Palestinians over who owns the Temple Mount than in spiritual teaching (250); or more interest in how the state of Israel is partitioned (168) than in law and justice as we know in America.

These are just a few items among dozens more that could be mentioned. If one wishes to know where conservatives lost their way, look no further than the seeming complete takeover of the Evangelical churches by Zionists.

Gathered in Belief or Unbelief?

Another of the many self-inflicted confusions of Zionism is the question as to whether fleshly Israel should be gathered back to Palestine only after belief in Christ or would their reconstitution to a state be accomplished before the nation believes? Gathered in belief or unbelief? Converted to Christ, then gathered? Or, gathered, then converted?

Historically, reaching back to its inception with John Nelson Darby, dispensationalism believed the Bible to be clear to teach that Jews would be converted first, then gathered to Israel. But this changed in the 20th century.

Weber explains:

In the nineteenth century, dispensationalists overwhelmingly believed that the final restoration would not occur until after the second coming, when Jews who survived the great tribulation would accept Jesus Christ …and would return to the Promised Land… for a thousand years. After the founding of Zionism, however, dispensationalists were faced with the possibility that significant numbers of Jews might return to Palestine prior to Christ’s return and without faith in Christ. (p. 168)

Zionism was organized in the 1890’s and came to full flower immediately after World War I. This question is not merely academic. First, it involves the trustworthiness of common-stock Premillennial interpretation of OT prophecies. Specifically, should we place any confidence in the interpretive keys that Zionists utilize in examining the Old Testament? Witnessing the many and vast confusions on this topic, particularly their contradictions as to whether Jews would be gathered in belief or unbelief, the answer is a resounding “NO.”

For example, the Weekly Evangel, a dispensationalist paper, editorialized in 1940 that of a truth “God swore that Israel would be re-gathered in her own land, unconverted, in the latter days. Ezekiel 36:24-38.”  Note carefully that the writer felt certain that Ezekiel 36 teaches a re-gathering while in unbelief.

Yet, as Weber points out, only one year later the editors took the opposite position and cited Luke 21:24 to establish the point!

We have all been thrilled to watch the rebuilding of Palestine and the return of many Jews to that land through the efforts of Zionism. … God’s Word teaches that ‘Jerusalem will be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.’ Luke 21:24. Not until Christ returns will the Jewish nation go to Palestine as a whole, nor will the Jews get full sovereignty over the land.

Something is vastly wrong with the entire interpretation system when it pits one passage against another. It needs to be realized that the political movement of Zionism, not Scripture, caused millennialists to change their mind!

Second, and more importantly, evangelical support today for the state of Israel is somehow thought to be the mandate from prophecy. Yet, Israel has not accepted Christ. Premillennial preachers, however, unanimously tell us that when Christ comes again all the Jews will accept Christ and be re-gathered to their ancient homeland. If that is so, then supporting the state of Israel while in their current state of repudiation of Christ has nothing at all to do with prophecy! In other words, if prophecy says that Christ is going to convert all Jews when He returns and then gather them in Palestine, then supporting Israel today has nothing to do with fulfilling prophecy.

Arno C. Gaebelein, one of the leading exponents of Premillennialism in the 1940’s, saw this problem. He insisted that the political movement of Zionism was not the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Unwilling however, to relinquish his doctrine, Gaebelein would say only that the current Zionist movement was somehow a “first step” in that direction. (Weber, p. 169).

Based upon Gaebelein’s “first step” concept, let’s pose this question for Premillennialists. If Christ is to return literally to the earth, convert the Jews, and re-gather them to Palestine—according to prophecy—how will any man or even nation of people possibly “assist” the Lord’s future judgment by political brokering today?  To suggest such is haughtiness in the extreme. Just as well assist the Lord on the throne of judgment.

Premillennialism is false doctrine. Let members of the Lord’s church beware!

 

Birthright Citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment & The Immigration Invasion

by Bill Lockwood

Some estimate the number of Central American citizens marching northward through Mexico to the United States to be upward of 14,000. Eighty percent of these immigrants are men younger than 35 years old. President Trump has issued a state of emergency and U.S. troops are being deployed to the Mexican border.

In the wake of this looming invasion of the sovereignty of the United States, several issues are being pushed to the forefront of national attention. The most notable is the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and its so-called Citizenship Clause. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Many cultural leaders and Constitutional commentators insist that these clauses mean that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students, or children born of illegal aliens who are unlawfully residing within our geographical boundaries automatically become U.S. citizens. This is known as “Birthright citizenship.”

This, however, is not what the text of the Constitution says or means, in spite of the fact that many people think that it does. For example, a recent article in the Chicago Tribune argues for birthright citizenship.

Chicago Tribune

“Trump eyes order to end birthright citizenship. Legal experts say that would violate Constitution,” blares the  headline.

President Donald Trump is vowing to sign an executive order that would seek to end the right to U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizens, a move most legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution and that was dismissed Tuesday by the top House Republican.”

John Wagner, a writer for The Washington Post and author of the above lines, adds that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) dismissed the idea in a recent radio interview, explaining that Trump’s proposal is not consistent with the Constitution. Ryan explained that not only can Trump not end “birthright citizenship” with an executive order, but that Republicans did not like it when Barack Obama changed immigration policy by executive action.

At the risk of taking on the Establishment legal experts but having confidence in the fact that the Constitution was written for all to understand, these “legal experts”, including Paul Ryan, are flat wrong. As a matter of fact, one of the “choke points” designed to minimize the likelihood “that an arguably unconstitutional federal law would pass and take effect” is the plain supposition that the Constitution speaks “not merely to federal judges, but rather to all branches and ultimately to the people themselves” (Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography, p. 62-63).

The Civil War Amendments

The Fourteenth Amendment was the second of three amendments to the Constitution that was adopted in post-Civil War America. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery; the Fourteenth Amendment defined citizenship and guaranteed the rights of former slaves; and the Fifteenth Amendment granted the vote to African-American men.

The point of today’s conflict resides in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which actually reads: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens of the United States. Those who advocate birthright citizenship ignore the qualifying phrase.

What is the Meaning of the 14th Amendment?

First, consider Original Intent of the Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson pointed out the obvious, that “original intent” is the only legitimate interpretation.

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

This canon of interpretation is obvious, but Jefferson knew there were and would be forces which twist the meaning of written laws to make the Constitution conform to their desires.

James Madison agreed.

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution … What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.

James Wilson wrote that “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” And modern-day Justice Clarence Thomas underscored the point. If we are not interested in the “original intent” the Constitution has no more value than the latest football scores.

All such interpretive methodologies that speak of “various contexts” of the clauses of the Constitution, or that the text actually morphs over time and clime partake is nothing less than existential nonsense designed to free persons from the constraints of law.

Second, consider the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, specifically the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery within all the territories of the United States. It was adopted in December, 1865, only months after the conclusion of the Civil War. However, the 13th Amendment was found not to be enough.

Former slaves were forbidden to appear in “the towns in any other character than menial servants” and were required to reside upon and cultivate the land “without the right to purchase or own it.” They were excluded from many occupations of gain and were “not permitted to give testimony in the courts where a white man was a party” (Thomas Norton, The Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and Its Application).

These and other similar circumstances brought about the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in July, 1868. The chief architect of the Amendment was Ohio politician John Bingham. However, it was Senator Jacob Howard who was the author of the Citizenship Clause in question.

During debate over the clause he assured his colleagues in the Senate that the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States because, although born in the geographical boundaries of our nation, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Instead, they owed allegiance to their tribes.

One of Howard’s colleagues, Senator Lyman Trumball, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued in exactly the same manner. He explained to the Senate that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

“Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” That is as plain as it can be. Who can misread this? Illegal border crossers are not included in subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

It is for this reason the children of foreign diplomats do not automatically become citizens of the United States, although perhaps born on U.S. soil. There is no birthright citizenship.

Modern Constitutional writer Hons von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese Center, explains further:

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

Liberals prefer to believe that anyone present in the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction” of America. That is false, as a plain reading of the 14th Amendment shows, as well as the intention of its framers. Foreigners who jump our borders owe allegiance to other nations and are not only not citizens, neither are their children, though they may be born on this soil.

The above being the case, how did Americans, even lawmakers, come to adopt the position that “birthright citizenship” is the law of the land? Only by bureaucratic overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution. This is a perfect illustration of how governing authorities stretch the meaning of the Constitution to unlawful lengths, then assert their unauthorized position so frequently that the idea becomes settled as if it really is the law of the land.

Americans should be thankful for a president like Donald Trump who is bold enough to take on the establishment and its pretended authority to tell us what the Constitution means. The current crisis in immigration is caused solely by Big Government bureaucrats who have twisted the Constitution into their own mold and a complaisant citizenry which allows them to do so.

Bill Lockwood: To Alec Baldwin: What are You Waiting For?

by Bill Lockwood

Communists of Antifa riot in Portland and call for more revolts across the country. Republican members of Congress are receiving “death threats.” Soros-funded mobsters disrupt the Kavanaugh hearings. James T. Hodgkinson, animated by Democrat anger, shot Rep. Steve Scalise. Floyd Lee Corkins II, motivated by leftist rhetoric of the socialist-oriented Southern Poverty Law Center, shoots a security guard at Family Research Council headquarters.

Instead of denouncing these lawless rampages, Democrats continue to stoke the smoldering fires. Maxine Waters yells to crowds to “get in the faces” of Republicans and scream “You are not welcome here, or anywhere!” Now actor Alec Baldwin publicly advocates the “overthrow” of the Trump Administration. “We need to overthrow the government of the United States under Donald Trump,” Baldwin said.

Baldwin will slyly complain: “I said ‘not violently’”—but he knows the leftist insurrectionists and anarchists are already plunging into violence and the “overthrow” language is clearly added incitement.

What I want to know is: what are you waiting for, Alec? Lead your revolutionaries. Stop agitating impressionable college kids and angry nobodies and do it yourself. I am sure you will be joined by Hanoi Jane Fonda who recently screeched “We have to get in the streets—Nobody should work. We should shut down the country. Shut it down!” Gather your leftist comrades in Hollywood, Alec; shoulder your weapon; get at the head of the Fifth Column and head to Washington, D.C.

Be sure to march through Texas as you go.

The problem with these blow-hard actors and actresses is that they are childish weaklings who sit within posh security-enforced mansions and want other people—the ignorant minions of the  brainwashed masses—to do their dirty work for them. Baldwin is all bark, no bite. He is a wind-bag of vitriolic treasonous speeches. Jane Fonda is no better.

Do I personally desire a revolution? No, I do not. But I grow weary of communist-inspired leftists who continue, ever since the Obama Administration emboldened them, to threaten to remove our God-given right of self-government. It is disgusting that they wish to destroy our constitutional system that has given us a peaceful country.

I know that the Alec Baldwin’s and Jane Fonda’s of the world love dictatorships—and Obama would have loved to have been yours, Alec. But it is getting to the point of absurdity for these pinkies to continue to threaten us with revolution.

Vogue Writer Maya Singer

Gabriel Hays of MRC Newsbusters exposes another socialist who tries to stoke a revolution from her armchair. Maya Singer wrote an opinion piece in Vogue Magazine entitled Who’s Up for Burning It All Down? With the acidic ink of an anarchist she begins, “I am going to try to write this calmly. I want to remain calm because I want to remain lucid. Also, if my hands are shaking with rage I cannot type.”

Maybe Alec Baldwin will hold your hand, Maya. Perhaps you both can begin your march to the nation’s capital. “If you’d asked me,” she wrote, “before last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings… where we were on the road to revolution, I’d have said we were somewhere around ‘the people are very mad but they’re working within the system.’”

But now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed on the Supreme Court, Maya Singer says the dynamic has changed. Women might begin the firebombing, she wrote. “I really wouldn’t be surprised if millions of American women spend the weekend Googling, ‘how to make Molotov cocktails.”

“They’ll have no one to blame but themselves if we riot,” she added. So, Baldwin has another volunteer to join his riotous army—unless she, too, chooses to stay seated behind her computer. The communists about which generations before us have warned are upon us. They are the very Hollywood celebrities, columnists of slick-covered magazines, opinion-writers of a fawning press, and self-confessed communist professors who lecture from taxpayer-paid podiums.

The trouble with all of these public figures is that they are so deluded with their own inflated sense of importance and power and so devoid of character that they care not about the rights of the common people who are paying the taxes. That the common man will lose his liberties under God—which is what big government always does—is nothing to them. After all, they are the wealthy elite who despise “we the people.” But this is why we have selected Donald J. Trump to roll back Big Government.

Bill Lockwood: Hillary Clinton Proves that Incivility is in the Left’s DNA

by Bill Lockwood

Hillary Clinton is trying to get ahead of the frenzied riotous forces that she helped unleash, voicing that “civil discourse” cannot be—as long as the left is out of power. Being interviewed by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Clinton stated: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for.”

Clinton added, “That’s what I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or Senate, that’s when civility starts again. But until then, the only thing Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”

As Rick Moran comments in PJMedia.com, “The most prominent Democrat in the country has, for all intents and purposes, just given a green light to every left-wing kook and violent sociopath to be uncivil to Republicans.”

Besides the fact that the eruptive and unrestrained mobs ransacked the nation’s capital as the Kavanaugh hearings were underway; and prominent conservatives such as Senator Ted Cruz have been chased out of restaurants by tumultuous crowds; and paid screamers recently burst on the Capitol; and one Congressman, Steve Scalise has already been shot in an attempted assassination that was specifically fueled by leftist rhetoric—Hillary Clinton waves for more ungovernable mob action. Why? This is the Left’s DNA.

Observations from a Cattleman

J. Evetts Haley (1901-1995) was a famed Texas historian, rancher and conservative politician who is best known for his biography on Texas cattleman Charles Goodnight of the Palo Duro country. He taught at UT from 1929 to 1936. But these were the days of the rising tide of “progressivism”, specifically FDR’s New Deal, which Haley rightly saw as socialism. His voiced opposition brought about his dismissal. “I was fired because of my vigorous fight against the invasion of socialistic federal power.”

It is this socialistic federal power which is the topic of his 1964 book, A Texan Looks at Lyndon: A Study in Illegitimate Power. His assessments and incisive logic regarding the growth of unconstitutional government cannot be matched. Represented by the Clinton’s nasty power-machine, Haley’s warnings are coming to pass.

Haley exposes two factors that encourage Illegitimate Government in the following. One of them is deceit of the politicians; the other is a compliant and partisan press. As if writing about the Obama-era corrupted Administration, including the FBI and DOJ, Haley says,

When deceit and duplicity become accepted government policy, no sage is wise enough to anticipate the ultimate and possibly violent end. Inherently this means the abrogation of the God-given right of free speech, the perversion and hence destruction of the freedom of the press, and the denial of that indispensable ingredient of all legitimate governments, the consent of the governed.

Although speaking of the Dwight Eisenhower through Lyndon Johnson periods, Haley’s observations regarding the media are classic.

After steady if not studied attrition of these rights and principles through many years, through preferential treatment of some, and coercion and blackmail of others, vast portions of the news media in America have been reduced to sycophantic if not criminal confederates of the Establishment or the man in power. This was no less obvious in the successful buildup of a politically inexperienced army man by politicians and press to the stature of a hero worthy to be President, than in the instant, repulsive reversal of position toward Lyndon B. Johnson when adverse fate elevated him to the presidency.

Continuing in this vein regarding the complicit media complex in America, Haley writes,

One wonders if these prostitutes of the media are simply so deluded by their own inflated sense of important position and power as really to believe what they say, or whether they are so devoid of character as to slant and distort the truth for personal expediency, or whether they, like the late utterly cynical Harry Hopkins, simply believe the people are just “too ____ dumb to understand.”

With disunity in America at an all-time high, and unbridled “incivility” encouraged, violence that has already been erupting amongst the Lefties may continue to explode. Haley points out that this will only beget more violence from the right.

The existence of such a phenomenon in such an area of vital interest and concern, with its eventual effects upon the morals of the people and the national character and unity, is staggering in its potential effect. Its surface influence is reflected in the idiom of the street, in the repeated and pervasive comment that ‘you can’t believe a thing you read in the papers!’ Nor can this sweeping indictment of a once vaunted ‘free and independent’ press be swept aside as popular caprice or a momentary passion.

It is something of far deeper and more somber significance. It is a combination of the long frustrations of the little but honest people who want and seek truth, of resentment of propaganda and designed deception by those in power, of a sense of betrayal in past deed and action by those of influence and authority! More than that it is cumulative in force and effect. It is impervious to pious platitudes in political forum, press or pulpit. It is a sign of national disunity, the dangerous undertones of largely forgotten and inarticulate masses stirring with potential violence—one of the most historic, most natural and yet most terrifying reactions of people who have been denied the truth by illegitimate power. (Emp. added)

As new ugly revelations continue to explode across the political landscape indicating the abject corruption of the Obama presidency, whose administration was also illegally assisting via the FBI the much-anticipated Hillary Clinton presidency, we might suppose that J. Evetts Haley was a prophet. But deceit and corruption are simply a part of the Left’s DNA.

When men are once convinced that they are consistently being denied the truth essential to their survival, imagination alone is left with which to anticipate tomorrow, upon which to predicate their future. Even at its most adverse, an honest and healthy people with national unity solidly based on spiritual faith and morality can face and live with reality. With venality on the prowl, and corruption widely condoned if not an actual part of government policy, public apprehension feeds on imaginative fears, and the specter of the gods of wrath and violence hang over such unfortunate and uneasy lands.

Haley, the “Salty Texas Rebel” from the Staked Plains, is right on the mark. We, the honest little people, perhaps not understanding the depths of the Left’s depravity, or the twisted conniving of the Obama Administration, at least have enough common sense to smell a rat. This is why we threw out the politicians and hired Donald J. Trump—To Make America Great Again.

Raging War in America is about Morality

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

Our Constitution—The Civil Bible of America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is America in the Throes of a Soft-Communist Revolution?

by Bill Lockwood

Make no mistake about it. We are at war. We do not want it, but it is forced upon freedom-lovers in America. The assault is led by the Democrat Party which despises liberty under law. Though there is not the force of military tactics running the streets–thuggery, riotous behavior, and “popular revolts” are becoming common scenes—even in the Senate Chambers where Judge Brett Kavanaugh is under diabolical attack.

When people disobey the laws with which they disagree they break the foundations of all law. If this atrocity was being committed by a few lawless gangs of harmless onlookers, that would be one thing. This charge is being led by leaders of the Democrat Party itself, such as Maxine Waters, who regularly encourages flocks of rabble-rousers to jostle conservative members of Congress as well as Trump Administration officials in public places. Flouting defiance instead of working through the established Constitutional system is the modus operandi of all communists.

Former President Obama routinely excused and encouraged black hordes to roam the streets of Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri. They need to “express their displeasure”, was the Left’s excuse. Bands of students motivated by socialist and communist-professors created havoc from California to Oregon destroying private property. Smashing windows and burning cars has become a common scene.

Regarding the lawless immigration which has encouraged up to 20 million illegal aliens into our country, once more the Democrat Party mobilizes masses to “protest” incarceration and “separation of families” at the border. Again, preferring mob action carrying placards rather than operating through the established system of law-makers, Democrats and socialists join hands in an effort to increase the Hispanic population.

It makes no difference to Democrats that lawlessness increases exponentially with uncontrolled immigration or that American citizens may live in fear of being victimized–as long as more Democratic voters can come into our nation. So is apparently the position of “Beto” O’Rourke, the Democrat running against constitutionalist Ted Cruz. To O’Rourke, 20 million illegals being supported by the American Taxpayer is evidence of “Jim Crow.” Shocking it is that any self-respecting person supports O’Rourke, who himself is sponsored by communist George Soros.

Consider the Democrats and President Trump. There is not one single law that President Trump has sought to enforce on immigration that has not already been passed by Congress and has the force of settled law. Trump is constitutionally mandated to enforce existing law. Yet, with Democrat encouragement, mobs rule the country even protesting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement! Exactly the same mob-mentality as nations that have already succumbed to communism. Beto O’Rourke even has openly considered getting rid of ICE. So much for the border.

Most of the pernicious doctrines of communism were formulated by a lazy, egotistical, repulsive atheist, Karl Marx, who busied himself cooking up criminal plots in order that the rabble might overthrow governments while his own family suffered in wanton squalor and poverty. His own personal hypocrisy knew no bounds.

More than coincidence it is that leading Democrats of today have taken on the same appearance. And it is no mere coincidence either that prominent Democrats now openly champion socialism—a communistic system that simply lacks the razor-sharp teeth of forced compliance. As Gus Hall, once leader of the Communist Party in America, admitted years ago, they had at that time only 10,000 official members, but they had “ten times that many in ‘state-of-mind’ members.” A “state-of-mind” partisan of communism. Such is the Democrat Party today.

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

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

Health Care

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

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

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

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

Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

Other Issues

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

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

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

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

Bill Lockwood: Socialists Are Really Digressives, Not Progressives

Socialists Are Really Digressives, Not Progressives “God’s system is not only productive, but is moral and right.”

by Bill Lockwood

Leftist miseducation during the past century has mislabeled “socialism” as “progressivism” to make it more palatable to consumers. In point of fact the Socialist Progressive Movement in American history, which textbooks date from about 1890 to 1920, radically expanded the size of government. This, we are told, that it might become “more efficient” in caring for the lives of citizens. This set our nation on a course toward totalitarianism in which some candidates for political office are even toying with limiting the size of families by government fiat. Ironically, socialism, which is the rage today in the Democrat Party, has dropped the “progressive” label. But it was never progressive at all–but a digression to the failed experiments of the past.

William Bradford was the first governor of the Plymouth Bay Colony, taking office in the beleaguered outpost in April, 1621. He had been a signatory of the Mayflower Compact a month before the Pilgrims landed in December, 1620.

Part of the text of that Compact reads,

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and the Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of King and Country, a voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern parts of Virginia…solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation …

Though honoring God in their declaration, neither Bradford nor the rest of the Pilgrims came to a full realization of the ungodliness of a socialistic system until they tried it to a miserable failure.

As first set up, the Colony set up a system of rationing from a common storehouse to which they labored to contribute their produce from the field. But, as Henry Hazlitt describes it, “a vicious circle seemed to set in. The people complained that they were too weak from a want of food to tend the crops as they should.” After that, though deeply religious, “they took to stealing from one another.” Bradford observed that the general famine that resulted would necessarily continue under those conditions.

Captain John Smith had a similar experience in the Jamestown Colony of Virginia. After the socialistic system was in place, he observed, “When our people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he that could slip from his labor, or slumber over his task, he cared not how.” Even the most “honest among them” cared little for the increase, “presuming that howsoever the harvest prospered, the general store must maintain them, …”

Complaints Harvested from Socialism

It was not long before the complaints began mounting in Plymouth. Bradford says in his Journal Of Plymouth Plantation,

For the young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice.

Injustice it was! And a failure as well. The problem was seeking to circumvent what God had ordered for the welfare of mankind: “If a man does not work, neither let him eat.” They further expressed their dissatisfaction: “And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.”

Unjust. Slavery. Failure. Pretty well sums up our own complaints from the middle class who are now forcibly enrolled in America to serve the poor.

The Remedy

Bradford tells us how the Pilgrims lighted on the remedy. The colonists,

Began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length [in 1623], after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular [for himself and his family], and in that regard trust to themselves … And so assigned to every family a parcel of land …

The result of allowing God’s order of things to preside was remarkable.

This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before alleged weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

God’s system is not only productive, but is moral and right. To the extent that America has become a socialist nation of redistribution is the extent of our trouble and misery.

More to the point, however, is the fact that the Democrats do not represent progress by championing the Karl Marx philosophies of confiscation and redistribution—they represent digression. Whether by means of ObamaCare; Section 8 housing, food stamps, disability payments and a host of other handout programs–all of them are doomed not only to failure—but to make America miserable again. Real PROGRESS is moving ahead to freedom and unshackling the machinery of government regulation from the producers in our great nation.

Bill Lockwood: How Our Socialist Welfare System Distorts Reality

 

How Our Socialist Welfare System Distorts Reality“It is the fact that socialism itself is immoral.”

by Bill Lockwood

In one discussion after another conservative commentators correctly point out that socialism “does not work.” Charlie Kirk, for example, has absolutely destroyed socialist arguments in one episode after another on YouTube. Reminding the uneducated Millennials that people have fled socialist nations, he highlights the failure of that totalitarian system. Since socialism has proved to be such an abysmal failure, it is a wonder that many young Americans wish to adopt it.

But there is one argument against socialism that needs more emphasis than it is receiving. It is the fact that socialism itself is immoral. It creates an immoral society and to the extent it has has already invaded America since the Progressive Era, it has eroded our value system as well as the concepts of private property.

Only two methods exist by which money may flow from my pocket to yours. Either by my free-will contribution or your theft. The first is obviously voluntary. The second is forced. Socialists of all colors and stripes always are interested in using force to remove my goods to use it themselves or distribute it to others. But it is still theft. The fact that the United States government is now the legislative tool to accomplish this does not change its nature—it is unethical. And, because it is unethical our concept of reality has become distorted.

“Hands Off My Healthcare!”

Our near-socialist system (government theft and redistribution now make up 2/3 of the federal budget) has been ingrained in the populace for nearly 100 years. It has in turn dissipated our thinking. Consider the following.

How many placards have we seen carried by those who love socialistic systems that read, “Hands Off My Healthcare!”? Stop and think for a moment.

When your teenage son or daughter has had an automobile that is paid for by parents; whose insurance is subsidized by mom and dad; and auto-repair bills covered by parents—what would one think if dad said, “I am not paying your insurance or car payments for the next 6 months”—and the child demands, “Keep your hands off of my car!”

The child is so spoiled it has warped his view of reality. “It is not YOUR car, my son.” If you want a car—go buy your own, pay the insurance, buy your own gas and get it repaired yourself.

Exactly. Healthcare is a service that is provided by the taxpayer via government force. Those who chirp, “Keep your hands off of my healthcare!” have lost perspective. It is not your healthcare as long as the working men and women of the middle class are paying for it.

Dulls the Incentives

Hunger and pain are not always bad things. God has built these into the natural world as incentives for us to WORK. Just as pain induces me to keep my hand off of a hot stove so hunger teaches me that idleness is unproductive. This is why God said, “Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). Reaping pain encourages me to avoid the same trap in the future.

But what happens when the welfare checks are doled out? Idleness is encouraged. Indolence grows. Instead of being incentivized to work, people are encouraged to avoid it. This is why we now have an entire third and fourth generation of people who are living off of the workers in society. The natural incentives God put into place are re-arranged. Pain has now shifted to taxpayers who frantically search for methods to avoid more pain of paying higher taxes while working longer hours.

Politicians are Compassionate?

From the “compassion” of socialism to the “conservative compassion” of the George Bush’s of the world, we have adopted a skewed view of the world when it comes to helping the poor. Politicians promise nothing to one segment of society that they have not unconstitutionally stolen from another class of people. In other words, it is easy to be “compassionate” with other people’s money, isn’t it?

Our entire system is structured along these lines. Bigger schools, more healthcare, more government housing, more free food, etc. Workers can hardly afford their own insurance because they are busy paying for others’. The politician who promises the most frequently gets elected. But they never give from their own pockets. It is with the licentious tax and spend stick that they take from the “rich” to give to the “poor.” And, just as noted above, once this begins, it snowballs.

Now the receivers have become the majority of the population. In reality, there is no compassion in this model. It is self-enrichment by political animals who maintain power and position by continuing this Robin Hood system.

Re-arranging What is Important in Life

Socialistic welfare spending causes individuals to re-arrange their priorities in life. It is common knowledge that the entire tattoo industry is funded by hand-outs. Casino gambling has become habitual. And much of this occurs with government welfare checks.

So, what is the lesson? Providing people relief in one area of life—giving them money or subsidizing their housing—encourages them to spend money foolishly. And how often have we heard criticisms of the Millennials or Generation X not saving money for retirement?

Why should they save money for retirement? We have handed them a platter full of goodies and they have glutted themselves on other people’s labors.

Only one remedy remains. Get back to the Constitution whereby it was illegal for government to confiscate property of one person to give it to another. The cancer of socialism has grown exponentially, however, and it is a massive tumor burdening our culture.

Bill Lockwood: Genocide Against the American Indians?

Genocide Against the American Indians?“The term “genocide” was coined in 1944 by a Polish Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959)…”

by Bill Lockwood

Part of the hate-America program designed to erase our cherished ideals of freedom is the continual program that portrays early American white settlers and the United States Government itself as having committed planned genocide against the American Indian. For these “historical crimes” Americans are now being called upon to pay “reparations” to the noble Red Man.

For example, in the DePaul Law Review (2002), appeared a piece entitled The Need for Accountability and Reparation: 1830-1976, the United States’ Government Role in the Promotion, Implementation, and Execution of the Crime of Genocide Against Native Americans, author Lindsay Glauner argues that in the “colonization” of America, our ancestors engaged in one of the most heinous acts of criminality against mankind—Genocide. This “international crime,” Glauner insists, now demands reparation.

Writer S.L.A. Marshall, an acclaimed military historian, reminds us in Crimsoned Prairie (1972), however, that this is all simply vogue. It is the bash-America curriculum fashionable at multi-levels of education. “Not all Indians were virtuous and trustworthy, and not all white men were greedy and unscrupulous.”

It is true that the United States government and individuals many times grievously wronged the tribes of Indians on this continent. But a balanced view of history is not so one-sided. The wars of the West were unavoidable, not because of the greedy white man, but because of a complete clash of cultures. And, far from falling into a category of systematic extermination or even planned genocide, our government had a multi-faceted and changing approach to the West, seeking to adapt itself to an increasing volatile situation.

Genocide?

The term “genocide” was coined in 1944 by a Polish Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959), who documented Nazi government policies of “systematically destroying national and ethnic groups, including the mass murder of European Jews.” The term “genocide” combines the Greek term geno, meaning tribe or race, with the Latin suffix –cide, meaning “to kill.” Lemkin defined the term as a “coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”

Official United States’ policy toward the Indian was never one of planned systematic extermination. Thoughtful reflection on the root causes of the Indian Wars of the West shows that the causes were multiple and on the whole, unavoidable.

Marshall observes that,

The wars were not the poison fruit of bureaucratic negligence, nor were they strictly the evil consequence of white exploiters cheating the Plains Indians of his lawful property, though all too frequently they were given that appearance with Government giving its backing to the exploiters. Rather, violence beset the western frontier and lasted and lasted because the fundamental interests of the two sides were so wholly irreconcilable as to leave little or no room for compromise.

Consider the following.

First, before the coming of the white man to the Great Plains, life was not an idyllic existence and the “spirit of live-and-let-live” did not exist—in spite of what popular opinion may be. Pawnees killed hundreds of Navajo’s, Comanche’s made war on the Apache’s, The Sioux hated the Pawnee and the Crow. The territory of the Northern States occupied by the Sioux and earlier the Blackfeet belonged traditionally to other tribes which they displaced by incessant war.

Intertribal warfare developed out of the desire to dominate the richest game land, enlarge the pony herds, and loot weapons.” The Indian tribes continued aggressively to push one another all over the map. The “ancestral lands” belonging to particular tribes and villages was continually changing. To believe that European settlers introduced wars to the Great Plains and were the Great Perpetrators of violence is to ignore history.

Greedy whites may be guilty of many crimes against the Indian and so may the army, but neither one nor the other may be rightly accused of making warlike the Sioux Confederation.”

Added to that is that the structure of Indian society, frequently misunderstood by the white man, did not lend itself to making treaties. The United States Government was not able to control the flowing population of settlers moving West and neither was a chief of an Indian tribe able to bind braves to a council decision to which the chiefs had agreed.

As a matter of fact, Indian males “achieved status and political importance from their deeds in war or from their feats of as plunderers, either actual or what they could make others believe they had done. For extra claiming and great boasting were expected of them.” These deeds were accomplished on an individual basis. One of the outstanding unusual features of the Oglala Sioux warrior Crazy Horse was the fact that he did not participate in self-congratulation of deeds accomplished. So peculiar was this to Indian society that it is noted by all of his biographers.

Second, official U.S. Government policy continued to change as time moved forward. In the 1820’s, for example, a line of ten small forts was built, “running from Minnesota in the north to Louisiana in the south. These lightly manned and insignificantly armed garrison points were intended to serve as a Western World ‘Great Wall of China.’ Their placement established what was officially termed the ‘Permanent Indian Frontier.’” That it was impossible to maintain this boundary of westward expansion can readily be seen. Encroachment began in earnest in the 1840’s by American moving west, but it was hardly a planned program of Indian extermination which inaugurated it. The country was open country and tribal territory only by force of numbers. There is nothing evil about settlers roaming the West as had the Indians for decades and centuries.

This brings us to a third consideration, which is the fact that the inevitable traffic flow that moved toward the Pacific coast is what caused friction—not government policy. Differences between white and red men were “moving to a dead end.” The clash of cultural concepts in this movement was inevitable. “It was no more possible for Indians to keep their hand off of a carelessly guarded horse corral or a vulnerable herd of cattle,” writes Marshall, “than it was for the white man to abandon the rule that private property was sacred.”

The Indian knew no law against raiding. Horse stealing or the running off of someone else’s beeves was to his mind an achievement, a stroke to his credit, a coup. The two scales of values were as unlike as crimson and cream and totally irreconcilable.” Government bureaucracies may have been blind to these realities, but they were hardly the conniving villains they have been made out to be.

In this clash of value-systems the white settlers naturally called upon the U.S. Government for protection. In turn, deployed protection forces by the United States Army pushed deeper and deeper into Indian territory.

On the subject of flow of traffic across the Great Plains, the Indian culture might be called what Marshall refers to as a “rootlessness.” “It was the freedom of movement, the privilege of ranging far and wide seasonally, that gave his life meaning and dignity. Once that freedom became threatened, his culture, his creature habits and customs, his manner of providing for his family, all of these were imperiled.”

The white man’s way of limiting him to a piece of ground upon which to settle was to suggest “to him the loss of everything that made his spirit proud.” The migratory manner of living being curtailed, it was only a matter of time that this pressure point would explode into open warfare.

In conclusion, Gen. Marshall offers this. “So we are speaking of wars that virtually had to be, though the notion that there is always a viable and less violent alternative is today no less popular than is the theme that the Plains Indians were without sin and were made the victims of predatory whites.”

While I myself lament the Indian Wars of the West it is well to remember that American Western history is not so lopsided as to render the government or the American people as culpable of genocide. Even less to consider the Indian wars on the whole as monstrous crimes against humanity.

Bill Lockwood: Universal Basic Income: Roaring Back to Slavery

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government

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

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

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

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

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

« Older Entries