Tag Archives: Bill Lockwood

Bill Lockwood: Spiritual Guidance & Modern Superstition

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

Multiculturalism

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

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

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

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

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

Isaiah 8

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

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

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

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

Bill Lockwood: Mixing Politics and Religion

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

What is Politics?

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

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

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

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

Freedom Politics is Pro-Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

Removing “So Help You God”

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

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

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

Art. VI. Sec. 3–No Religious Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

Giubilini & Minerva

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Lockwood: Catholic High School Students Harassed by Indians & The Liberal Culture

by Bill Lockwood

Covington Catholic high school students waiting for buses to pick them up after participating in the annual March for Life last Friday at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. were accosted by Indians led by Nathan Phillips.

Chanting an American Indian Movement religious song while beating a hand-held drum, Phillips approached the group of teens from Covington, KY, some of whom were wearing MAGA hats, and singling out one white boy, invaded his space continuing to chant. Other Indians joined Phillips as he confronted the teenagers. The boys appeared to remain calm and respectful.

The incident was recorded and has gone viral. Immediately, a firestorm of hatred was unleashed against the Catholic High School boys by the Main Stream Media, actors, and politicians for the boys’ supposed terrible treatment of “Native Americans.”

MSNBC announced that “Covington High School students wearing MAGA hats surrounded and taunted a Native American man as he performed the ‘American Indian Movement’ song about strength and courage.” How dare he!!

Reza Aslan tweeted: “An honest question: Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kids’?” So much for toning down the rhetoric in America. In another tweet he referred to the boys as a “frothing mass of MAGA youth.”

Bishop Talbert Swan, an American prelate of the Church of God in Christ, referred to the students as “racist little white punks in MAGA hats spawned from the seeds of white supremacists harassed, mocked and ridiculed a Native American elder.” Talbert seems to be trying to get in front of the liberal hate-fest and lead it.

Jack Morrissey wrote, “#MAGA kids go screaming, hats first, into the wood-chipper.” He illustrated it with a bloody image.

Kathy Griffin wrote, “Name these kids. I want NAMES. Shame them.” The insinuation here is frightening.

Alyssa Milano added, “Without white boys being able to empathize with other people, humanity will continue to destroy itself.”

Not to be outdone, Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) intoned: “I am calling for a total and complete shutdown of teenagers wearing MAGA hats until we can figure out what is going on. They seem to be poisoning young minds.”

Probably worse than the frenzied rush to judgment by public figures, The Diocese of Covington and Covington Catholic High School hurriedly fell over themselves to apologize to the entire nation for the misconduct of the High School boys.

We condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general, Jan. 18, after the March for Life, in Washington, D.C. We extend our deepest apologies to Mr. Phillips. This behavior is opposed to the Church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person. The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion. We know this incident has tainted the entire witness of the March for Life and express our most sincere apologies to all those who attended the March and all those who support the pro-life movement.

What is the Message?

The message is loud and clear to America. If you are a white conservative male, and especially if you profess Christianity—or if you are a Trump supporter: which is a double jeopardy against you; you are a cancer to society. You have always been the disease; you continue to be the plague that destroys the entire welfare of the planet. That is the plain bold unspoken assumption that moves our un-civilization at this point: there is nothing else that explains how our main stream culture so consistently ran with a patent lie and continues to spin the same negative news cycle on a daily basis.

This assumption also drives the ridiculous accusation of White Privilege that commentators continually chirp.

Some of the afore-mentioned comments about the Catholic boys from public figures are so grotesquely inappropriate as to stoke fires of rage across our nation.  These public figures, including the Congressman, are doing everything but putting guns into the hands of the ignorant minions and pulling the trigger.  To what other action could Kathy Griffith’s or Jack Morrissey’s tweets lead? And it only empowers these leftist haters that those who should bring some adult common-sense to the table—such as the Covington Diocese—are running backwards so quickly that they cannot see facts.

Actually, the Covington Diocese that apologized to Mr. Phillips regarding the incident appears to have been written before any incident occurred. The Diocese probably keeps this apology on hand for any future incident—because it will always be the white male that is blamed—regardless of facts. Any future altercation involving professing Christians will be the Christians’ fault. The cultural message here: “don’t embrace Christianity; we are sorry some people do.”

The same is true on Talbert Swan’s take. Since any controversy or dispute between a minority and a white person –especially if they are wearing a MAGA hat–will be the white person’s fault; don’t wear a MAGA hat. This is exactly what spineless mindless Rep. John Yarmuth said. Stop supporting Trump.

Further, as the Diocese and the Congressman shamed themselves by suggesting eliminating freedom of speech for conservatives, that in itself emboldened the communist-inspired American Indian Movement (AIM) to schedule a protest outside of Covington Catholic High School.  It was later moved to the Archdiocese of Covington.

Lest any question the communist connection of AIM, note that the communist publication People’s World (which began as Daily Worker in 1924), champions AIM as necessary to divide America. The SocailistWorker.org also glorifies the AIM as a socialist movement designed to destroy the United States. The usage of American Indians to this end is clear. From an article published just last August on its website:

As we see a wave of Indigenous resistance on a scale not seen since the 1970s, with the rise of Idle No More in Canada, fights against pipelines at Standing Rock and countless other locations and the #NativeLivesMatter movement, its vital for us to learn the radical history of AIM.

The best way to honor that history is to continue to resist and fight racism and discrimination while calling on the U.S. for reparations and self-determination — and to put forward a vision of socialism and Native liberation that ends the exploitation of the earth and the destruction of Indigenous land, and puts the fight against capitalism and settler-colonialism at the core of our resistance.

America is already in the throes of a civil war. Carnal weapons on a bloody field are not yet in use—but not because the left is not seeking to inspire it. The daily news cycle shows one thing: facts do not matter. Only communist ideology of divide and conquer does.

Bill Lockwood-The Value of History

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Lockwood: 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.

« Older Entries