Tag Archives: Bill Lockwoood

Bill Lockwood: Atheistic Professor in England Explains that a Brain-Affecting Parasite May Cause Support for Trump and Brexit 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

American Thinker published a column by Andrea Widburg (Nov. 22, 2020) which exposes a Cambridge University constituent college professor who presents a theory as to why Americans voted for Donald Trump and why Brits supported Brexit. A parasite has infected their brains, which causes severe mental disorders and behavioral problems.

The academic, Dr. Robert Asher, is an evolutionary zoologist at England’s Trinity Hall and a one-time contributor to Huffington Post. Asher suggests a parasite named Toxoplasma gondi is the cause of politically-incorrect behavior, a parasite which has long known to affect cats. Toxoplasmosis feels like a bad flu, which can cause seizures and lung problems. Behavioral problems as well result from Toxoplasma infection.

Asher explains;

I would personally argue that one of the problems facing humanity is, is related to, um, you know, the influence of toxoplasma in, ah, cat owners, for example. One could argue why did Brexit happened or why did people in the United States elect Donald Trump? I suspect that it has very much to do with the mind-altering parasite called toxoplasma. And if you were interested in something like that, then taking a course like Evolutionary and Behavior would help you understand this truly nefarious problem. I don’t think anyone really realizes just how bad that particular problem is.

What Shall We Say to These Things?

Crazy as the professor may sound, his assumptions are the inevitable result of the worldview known as Naturalism. The assumption of Naturalism, upon which other assumptions begin and end—namely the General Theory of Evolution as well as Atheism itself--holds that all explanations of life and even thinking must ultimately make reference to materialistic causes. As atheist of yesteryear, Woolsey Teller, stated, “the brain secretes thoughts as the liver does bile.”

Delos McKown, a one-time a professor of Philosophy at Auburn University, wrote that “the more we understand our brains by ‘chemicalizing’ their functions, the more the person is ‘biologized,’ …” Everything must be seen through the prism of “biology.”

Based upon this assumption, McKown went on to question free will. He went on to note regarding How the Brain Works, that “some neuroscientists are beginning to suspect that everything that makes people human is no more than an interaction of chemicals and electricity inside the labyrinthine folds of the brain.”

If these professors are correct in their analysis of the brain, what follows?

First, there is no such thing as rationality in the materialistic worldview. How did professor Asher come to his conclusions? His brain also—not simply a Trump supporter—is a result of physical and chemical functions alone. Perhaps he hit his head on the way to the office the day he conferenced the above ideas about toxoplasma. Perhaps he slept wrong the night before and his brain malfunctioned. This caused his thinking processes to alter and ascribe to conservatives a “parasite problem.” The chemical and electrical reactions in his brain are what caused this “conclusion.”

Better yet, perhaps he himself has been infected with the dreaded toxoplasma! Toxoplasma is a mind-altering parasite, we are told. How do we know he himself, and his conclusions about conservatives, is not the result of the dreaded cat parasite? Do you have cats at home, professor Asher?

Again, the professors’ worldview of naturalism demands that all of his “thinking” is the result of “natural processes” such as chemicals squirting through the labyrinthine folds of the brain. Why trust your conclusions, Professor Asher?

Second, there is no such thing as free will, per the professors’ assumptions. If there is no free will, then there is no responsibility for thinking a certain way or voting for a specific cause or candidate. Not only so, but that would apply across the board. Professor Asher is no more responsible for his chemically-induced diagnosis of our brains than we are to have voted for Donald Trump. In reality, his “diagnosis” is not rational, nor could it be, given his assumptions. Isn’t it peculiar, that in denying God and the reality of rational thinking, atheistic professors actually cut off the ability to label their own conclusions as rational?

Third, what is the remedy to this parasite? Shall we prescribe medications to Donald Trump supporters? To Brexit supporters? Just what kind of chemicals must we pour into our bodies to alleviate this parasite? Perhaps before the next election, government will prescribe some medication before entering the voting booth.

In the end, Professor Asher cuts the legs from underneath himself. If we know, for example, that a person argues for the free market SOLELY because he is afraid of losing his money, we tend to discredit his argument as due to irrational causes. This is because when we know that an argument proceeds from an irrational source, we discredit it. According to the professor, all thought comes from an irrational source. Thought has no power. It is the result of physical and chemical pressures in your cranium. The atoms therein simply arranged themselves so that you believe in God, for instance, or in voting for Donald Trump. But atoms inside Asher’s brain have done the same thing. Therefore, we cannot trust his thoughts any more than he can trust the thoughts of a Trump supporter.

Bill Lockwood: The Bible and Slavery 5 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

The 1619 Project, sponsored by the New York Times, is a series of essays and multimedia creations designed to “reframe American history” by claiming America’s founding is based on racism and slavery instead of freedom and liberty. The chief writer for the project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, calls white people “savages” “bloodsuckers” and “murderers” who used Christianity as an excuse to enslave different peoples of the world. Her vitriol, which seems to know no bounds, is now being picked up by many others who are concerned about slavery in America’s history.

A slave is considered to be a person owned by another, without rights, and—like property—to be used and disposed of in whatever way the owner may wish. 1 The Encyclopedia of Religion defines slavery as “[A] social and industrial system in which the person and labor of one individual may be disposed of as the property of another.” 2

Setting aside Hannah-Jones’ ignorant vilification of “white people” as the sole perpetrators of this institution, as well as her abysmal lack of knowledge of American history, what is particularly concerning here is that she assails the Bible in her diatribes as somehow teaching the practice of chattel slavery.

What Does the Bible Actually Teach Regarding Slavery?

Moses writes by inspiration that are human beings are created in “the image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6). Of all the philosophies of the world, this Divine assertion alone gives all men and women equal dignity. All persons are equal in value to one another. Life itself is a gift of God.

Placing man in the Garden of Eden, God ordered him to “dress the garden and keep it” as well as to “eat of the fruit” which he gathered (Gen. 2:15). These commands imply freedom as well as the right to property. “Thou shalt not steal” is built into the very foundations of the created order.

From these simple premises it is easy to see that God never intended one human being to be the property of another. However, as is the case with polygamy which departed from the marriage institution that God created (Gen. 2:24)— mankind departed sharply from God’s design.

Separated from God men have concocted many schemes which ignore these plain biblical ideals, particularly regarding the value of human life. Aristotle, for example, developed the theory that some persons were servile by their very nature. 3 The school of philosophy known as Stoicism later considered slavery as a mere accident of fortune and therefore it was not a just cause about which one could complain.

The ancient world was actually steeped in slavery, whether it be the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman world—all practiced slavery. As Everett Ferguson writes, “Slavery was pervasive in ancient civilization.” Thomas C. Edwards, in his superb commentary on the book of 1 Corinthians, notes that the practice of slavery actually sprang from a rejection of God’s Word regarding the dignity of man. “Slavery was an institution that sprang from other fundamental ideas—namely, the superiority of men over women; the religious preeminence of Jew over Gentile; the Greek consciousness of creative political genius …” 4 It was the devaluing of human life that brought about slavery.

1 The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 1462. 2 Ed. Vergilius Ferm, p. 714. 3 Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 854 4 Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 182.

Old Testament

Slavery was almost universally practiced in all cultures during Old Testament times. Men and women were enslaved by capture in war (1 Sam. 4:9) or by purchase (Gen. 17:12-13, 27). The Law allowed Hebrews to purchase slaves from foreigners at home or abroad (Lev. 25:44ff). Children born “into the house” of slave-parents were evidently called “house-born slaves” (Gen. 17:12-13).

Interestingly, slavery could be entered by other methods as well. God legislated that if a convicted thief could not make “restitution” and pay his damages and/or fines, money could be raised for this purpose by selling him as a slave (Ex. 22:3). This law showed that slavery involved the production or labor of a person was considered to be his property, which now became the property of the one wronged.

The insolvent debtor, as well as his family, became enslaved to the creditor (2 Kings 4:1). It was also possible for one to sell himself and his labor to escape poverty (Lev. 25:39-43).

However, there are some important considerations that the Old Testament includes. First, in the case of the insolvent debtor, he was not to be treated as a chattel slave, but as a “hired servant” and to be released at the Year of Jubilee (every 50 years on the Jewish calendar) (Lev. 25:39-43). The person who purchased him was instructed “not to rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God.”

Second, to abduct a person and to reduce a stolen person to slavery was punishable by death (Ex. 21:16). Third, to murder a slave was punishable by death (Ex. 21:20; Lev. 24:17,22). The reason for this is once again because of the intrinsic value of a human being. Fourth, the enslaved debtor was to be released after six years (Ex. 21:2). There was no lifetime enslavement.

God, in the Old Testament, taking men where they were, regulated the practice of slavery and softened the edge of it. Contrast that with Roman law whereby a slave is not considered a person.

Old Testament scholar K.A. Kitchen summarizes the spirit of the Old Testament.

Generally, a more humane spirit breathes through the OT laws and customs on slavery, as illustrated by the repeated injunctions in God’s name not to rule over a brother Israelite harshly (e.g. Lev. 25:43,46,53,55; Dt. 15:14ff). Even when Hebrew law and custom on slaves shares in the common heritage of the ancient Semitic world, there is this unique care in God’s name for these people who by status were not people, something absent from the law codes of Babylon or Assyria. 5

 5 The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, p. 1464.

The New Testament

When asked about marriage, our Lord refers questioners back to the beginning and God’s initial intention with the sacred institution (Matt. 19:3-9). In similar fashion the New Testament elevates the dignity of man (Jas. 3:9) by carrying him back to God’s created order. The beautiful principles of Christianity, influencing cultures one heart at a time, eventually eradicated the practice of slavery by re-asserting the value of human beings.

It is important to see however, that New Testament teaching did not smash with a sledge-hammer one single social institution that had imbedded itself in society. Instead, the doctrine of Christ works as a leaven in the soul of individuals, nations, and cultures. Slavery was one of those institutions.

This explains why the inspired apostles, when discussing the the question of slavery, not only advise masters and slaves how to behave in their particular life-situations, but address themselves to the deep antagonisms in the social world. This will be brought out below.

A cursory reading of the NT might cause one to think that sometimes the apostles seem to sanction slavery; at other times to proclaim its abolition—in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female; all are one man in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).

But Christianity abolishes slavery by assimilating and sanctifying the relation of master and servant in its inmost nature. While it refuses to wield the sword and destroy civil institutions by violence, it so transforms their ruling ideas that those institutions become what they never were before. For instance, Christ bestows on the most degraded and despised slave who is a believer, spiritual endowments that cannot fail to inspire him with a consciousness of freedom. He ceases to be a slave by the very fact of knowing that in the sight of God he is free, and his service ceases to be a bondage because it is now a willing obedience to Christ. 6

What about those deep antagonisms that exist in all societies between different peoples? Paul’s overall theme in teaching is summarized in 1 Corinthians 7:10-24 which might be entitled, Live in Harmony with One Another. Like several NT passages in which slaves and masters are addressed, and who were part of local congregations to which the apostles ministered 7 some of the Corinthians were slaves and some were slave-owners. How did God counsel them?

“Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Were you called being a slave? Care not for it [that is, do not be overly concerned with your social condition. Your calling in Christ ECLIPSES this consideration]. Even if you can be free, use it rather …” (7:20-21).

The phrase “use it rather” following “even if you can be free” has been variously interpreted. It is either interpreted as (1) “… use your freedom,” or, (2) “use slavery …” Many modern commentators, and even the translators of the NIV, consider the phrase to be saying, “if you can gain your freedom, do so” –opting for the first alternative.

But it seems out of character with the theme of the entire section which is to Live in Harmony—even in challenging situations. Further, the next line in the passage (v. 22) begins with the word “for”—which is explanatory of that which has just been said. “FOR, he that was called in the Lord, being a slave, is the Lord’s freedman …” That explanation does not follow if Paul has just said, “if you can become free, do so.”

As John Peter Lange points out in his classic commentary, the “whole drift of the argument is—to make men content with their lot …” 8 That being the case, the translation is, “but even though you may be made free, use your servitude rather [as a means of discipline, and an opportunity for glorifying God by showing fidelity therein].”

6 Edwards, p. 186 7 See Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-4:1; 1 Pet. 2:18ff. 8 Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 10, p. 153.

In any case, the main point should not be lost on us. The important thing is to serve God “and the slave should not worry unduly about the fact that he is a slave. If God has called him as a slave, He will give him grace to live as a slave.” 9

F.W. Grosheide understands the verse as simply saying, Use your vocation—whether slave or free. 10 The entire argument of Paul is that the over-riding concern for the Christian is that of spiritual blessings “in Christ”, and this outweighs all other concerns—including slavery! The dominant factor is being a Christian.

How does this fit within the current context of so many churches and Christians all at once becoming extremely exercised about black slavery in history, or stirred to the point of anger about discrimination in the Jim Crow era? How does Paul’s advice comport with emotionally driven screeds today that demand a removal of a Christians’ name from Christian college buildings because those preachers lived during the segregation era but did not stomp it out with vengeance?

Onesimus

An interesting New Testament episode involves the runaway slave Onesimus. Paul met him while a prisoner in Rome (circa 63-64 A.D.), converted him to Christ, and sent him back to his owner, Philemon, a Christian man who lived in Colossae. A cover letter was sent with the returned slave (Col. 4:7,9). It is the book of Philemon.

In it Paul admonishes Philemon to “receive him back” and treat him no longer as a slave, but as a brother in Christ. “Not now as a slave, but more than slave, a brother beloved specially to me, but how much more unto you, both in the flesh and in the Lord?” (16) It is noteworthy that Paul does not command Philemon to “free him” but appeals to him on the basis of brotherhood. It is also worth mentioning that Paul actually sent Onesimus back to his slave master.

Once again, Christianity revolutionizes and changes the world, but not by pouring out into the streets, holding a nation hostage with violence and smashing its cultural symbols. It does so with the teaching of the peace of Jesus Christ.

Summary

John Peter Lange summarizes the entire disposition of biblical Christianity to slavery. Christ and his followers “assailed no existing social institutions from without—marriages, callings, and conditions were to remain as they were.” Christianity wrought “from within” a “sanctifying and ennobling” influence over individual character.

Biblical principles “employed the existing bonds of society as conductors through which to diffuse its saving power—sanctifying wives through husbands, and husbands through wives, children through parents, and parents through children; and even servants through masters and masters through servants.”

Further, as seen above, Christianity aims at the preservation of peace in a society—as far as possible—in consistency with being faithful to God (See Rom. 12:17-21). Christ wants us to “ignore outward distinctions—counting outward distinctions as of little moment, in comparison with the inward state.” How our society needs this lesson! What a difference this would make to the writers of the New York Times and the 1619 Project!

9 Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 1 Corinthians, p. 113. 10 NICNT, 1 Corinthians, p. 170.

Christ’s teachings “begot contentment with the outward estate, by imparting a blessing which more than counterbalanced all earthly ill.” Not only so, but the Lord Jesus “reconciled the opposite poles of human condition, freedom and obligation in the love it engendered, making the slave a freeman, and putting the freeman under obligations to serve, and making all alike free, and all alike obligated.”

Finally, the Bible places “all in the presence of God, in whose sight it constrained believers to live; whose honor it urged all to sub-serve, and from whom it invited all to derive their chief good.” 11

The gospel brings to mankind a belief and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. Faithfulness is commanded which involves the improvement of one’s character which in turn improves the conditions of society. When people place the glory of God foremost, not only is slavery eradicated as a social condition, but it is seen to be a very little thing in the ultimate scheme of things. It is past time for people to come to Christ and lift themselves above the grievances of slavery past or racism present.

11 Lange, p. 156.

 

Bill Lockwood: The Left: A Coven of Neo-Canaanites 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the pagan religious orientation of the left than the recent effort by Democrats to begin turning our entire economy Greenward as their input into the recent COVID-19 stimulus package. According to Jeff Brady of NPR, “Clean energy and climate advocates say the huge stimulus bill Congress is negotiating should address not only the economy, but also climate change.” To Democrats, the Corona Virus pandemic is not about helping the American people—it is about fundamentally transforming the American economy. 

For example, eight Democratic U.S. senators also called upon fellow lawmakers, according to NPR news, to tie financial help for airlines and cruise lines to new environmental requirements that would reduce their carbon footprints.” According to Michael Greenstone, who served as the Chief Economist for President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “We can both stimulate the economy … and we can lay the foundation for a lower-carbon future.”

Environmental Paganism

The Green Agenda, sponsored by all socialists and Democrats, is not about science. It is more nearly akin to a paganistic religious belief which jettisons real science in favor of doctrine. Like the Canaanite paganism of the Old Testament which involved itself in nature-worship and sacrificing in “sacred groves”, the New Green Deal advocates root themselves in a false ideology.

In what was called the “Eco-shot heard ‘round the world,” Berkeley historian Lynn White, before the American Association for the Advancement of Science over 30 years ago, frankly admitted that the source of our environmental “crisis” was the “victory of Christianity over paganism.” Plainly siding with ancient Canaanite paganism, he went on to say that “Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of detachment to the feelings of natural objects …Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt.” He went on to predict that “more science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion.” 

Note carefully the Environmental Activists were sounding apocalyptic alarms over 30 years ago. They haven’t changed. Noteworthy it is as well that it is all about religion.

The same thing is true according to Green Grandfather Al Gore. His infamous book Earth in the Balance made a frontal attack on the Genesis account of creation by re-writing the entire first few chapters of Moses’ account. The end result was a complete VALUE SHIFT from a human-centered world view to what the Clinton Administration called A Biocentric Worldview. This tells us that humans are seen as merely another species inhabiting a democratic “ecosystem.” No more value a human being than a bug.

Steven C. Rockefeller of Middlebury College, a theology professor and environmentalist, explains: “In a biocentric approach, the rights of nature are defended first and foremost on the grounds of the intrinsic value of animals, plants, rivers, mountains, and eco-systems rather than simply the basis for their utilitarian value or benefit to humans.”

This biocentric approach was formally adopted by the Clinton Administration. Alton Chase, in his book In a Dark Wood: The Fight Over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology, describes the new faith of the elite, as it sprang to life in the Clinton Administration. “The Administration, under the rubric of ‘reinventing government’ … adopted biocentrism as the guiding philosophy of all federal land management.”

Recent COP25 Conference

In December of last year the United Nations sponsored a COP25 conference in Madrid, Spain. Attendee Alex Newman writes that the “cult-like nature of climatism was on full display.” An alternative conference occurred in Madrid which was totally ignored by the Main Stream Media. It was called “Climate Reality Conference” hosted by a coalition of environmental groups that reject climate alarmism, including The Heartland Institute, the CO2 Coalition, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).

The Climate Reality Conference featured numerous scientific experts which totally debunked the UN Global Alarmists. But what is particularly interesting is that a number of these world-class scientists likened the Green Agenda to so much religious propaganda.

William Happer, for instance, an international renowned Princeton physicist, put it plainly. “I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the phoniness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end.” MIT Meteorologist Richard Lindzen has frequently referred to the Global Warming crowd as a “cult” because they refuse to change their beliefs in response to evidence and proof. (See Alex Newman, “Dangerous Climate ‘Cult’ Ignores Science,” in The New American, 2-17-20).

Lindzen even stated it this way in a 2015 radio interview: “Think about it: You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!” Dr. Ivstan Marko, a chemistry professor at the Catholic University of Louvain and head of the European Chemical Society, told The New American magazine that “the climate cult had perverted Christianity to develop its dangerous theology. Instead of repenting of sins, climate cultists want you to believe that you must repent of your ‘carbon footprint.’”

“It’s a new religion going on,” Marko explained. Many other top scientists and political leaders are also calling the Green Agenda pushed by Democrats and soft-shelled Republicans a religion. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott as well as Eco-activist Stuart Scott have so likened it.

The entire Green debate illustrates the throes of a religious conflict occurring in America. Unless enough American Christians, oriented and educated sufficiently in the Holy Scriptures to combat the growing forms of ancient Canaanite religious beliefs, engage in the cultural wars, America has seen its better days.

Bill Lockwood: An Exciting Time to be a Commie Again 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

“Communists and socialists rally under ‘Trump Resistance’, write Joshua Delk and Paul Kengor of The American Spectator. “it’s an exciting time to be a commie again.” They are speaking of claimed recent surges in the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America since the election of Donald Trump. However, it is more than that. Our entire cultural landscape is buzzing with socialism as activists attach themselves to one leftie organization then another. Many of these come together in what is known as #The Resistance Movement. But, as Julienne Davis of Fox News observed last year, these Marxist-style organizations are not “battling the establishment.” They are the Establishment.

The Establishment today includes,

Academia. The entire education industry, unconstitutionally wrested from local and state controls by the federal managers, is completely laced with social justice, environmental justice, evolutionism, earth justice, women’s rights (aka abortion), Islamism, and every other propaganda piece that the left may conceive. At the University level open Marxist professors poison the minds of the students.

Entertainment. Few and far between are conservative actors and actresses. Awards programs have featured anti-Trump diatribes dressed up as comedy. Movies and television regularly include liberal indoctrination themes as well as hate pieces against Christianity.

The Media. Main-stream media has become indistinguishable from the Democratic Party. News-casters grow openly vitriolic against conservative values, against the Republican Party, and especially against President Trump. Every tweet of his becomes the occasion for more harangues that remind the viewer more of a rabid dog than an even-handed commentator.

The Main-Stream-Media fosters communistic-style class warfare, dividing the nation along ethnic, religious, political, sexual and every other line imaginable. According to a recent article in The Guardian America’s “identity politics went from inclusion to exclusion.” Reviewing a book by Amy Chua the article states we are at an “unprecedented time” in America. “Political tribalism has reached a new peak” leaving the US “in a new perilous situation.”

The Churches. Especially shocking to many is the fact that many mainline denominations that self-identify as Christian have become megaphones for socialism and World Government under the auspices the United Nations. The website of the National Council of Churches (NCC)  includes preachments for ‘restorative justice’ and “end to death penalty”; public education for all, affordable and accessible health care; social security; “tax and budget policies that reduce disparities between the rich and poor” (read, redistribute wealth); “sustainable communities” (rationing of goods and services); “limits on the power of private interests”; “equitable global trade”; “nuclear disarmament”; “environmental justice among the world’s religions”; and more.

#The Resist Movement

Much of today’s socialism is coalescing behind what has become known as #the Resist Movement. But what is #The Resist Movement?

From their own website they claim roots back to the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960’s. Those who have followed that movement know its communistic-inspired taproot complete with paid agitators, even though the Resist website claims that it has always been a “grassroots” activism that “explodes” across the country. “Resist” is about changing the “unequal distribution of power and money.” That can only come, of course, by Big Government interference.

“Unequal distribution of power and money” has always been communism’s mantra. In other words, all of this socialistic hype about which we hear so much is nothing less than communism in America’s face.

Weekly Standard’s Chris Deaton pointed out that “the progressive grassroots organization Indivisible” “created to ‘resist the Trump Agenda.’” Once more, issues of importance to Indivisible include such liberal bullet points as abortion “rights,” ObamaCare—socialized medicine, LGBTQ rights, and “our democratic institutions”—whatever that may mean. This is a communist-inspired laundry list for re-casting America.

Truthout.org glorifies the Resist Movement showing its alliance with socialistic/communistic organizations such as Earthjustice and MoveOn Civic Action as well as alignment with socialist Bernie Sanders. Earthjustice president Trip Van Noppen, for example, interviewed by truthout.org, warned that upon the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court Americans could “jeopardize” the “ability to rely on the courts to protect their health, safety, and the environment.”

Translated from socialistic lingo, that means the liberals wish the Supreme Court to act as an oligarchy to force working Americans to pay for the health care of others while also submitting to a world governing force that restricts the way we do business so that the “environment” may be protected.

Democratic Socialists of America

That the Resist Movement is a communistic strategy to create chaos in the streets can be seen by listening to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which itself is a communistic organization. Not only claiming a surge in membership in the wake of Donald Trump’s election (18% per David Duhalde, The American Spectator), the DSA has planted itself, alongside the Communist Party, USA, (CPUSA) in the middle of the Resist Movement.

John Bachtell of the CPUSA trumpets “we are not dropping Leninism or the ideas of Lenin.” That, of course means revolution as the goal and blood will be the result. Bachtell plainly warns
“Tens of thousands will die as a direct result of the cruel and ruthless Trump and the GOP congressional policies.”

Ben & Jerry’s

Now comes Ben & Jerry’s ice cream company to join the communistic revolt against America. “Pecan Resist” is their new “flavor” featuring a label sporting a black woman holding a “Resist” sign. “Together we can build a more just and equitable tomorrow. We can peacefully resist the Trump administrations’ regressive and discriminatory policies and build a future that values inclusivity, equality, and justice for people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, refugees, and immigrants. Pecan Resist supports four organizations that are working on the front lines of the peaceful resistance, building a world that supports our values.”

It is plain that the America as we now know it or have known it to be is not what is intended. From top to bottom communism plans to change society. It is also clear from these lefties that the direction of America under former President Obama was considered to be socialism.

The four organizations that Ben & Jerry’s plans to fund are: the black activist group Color of Change; the “nativist/environmental activist effort called Honor the Earth”; the radical feminist Women’s March; and Neta, described as “an independent media platform” led by “people of color along the Texas-Mexico border” (Dave Bohon, The New American, 11-7-18).

Color of Change was co-founded by James Rucker and his self-described communist partner Van Jones. Rucker also serves on the communist-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center. Before that Rucker was a grassroots organizing director at the Soros-funded group MoveOn. Color of Change claims as “partner and ally” Islamist Keith Ellison. Enough said.

Honor the Earth is an “indigenous people” movement connected to environmental legislation. Their website not only glorifies the United Nations, which promotes World Government, but blatantly preaches the complete erasure of property rights. “Rather than treating nature as property under the law, the time has come to recognize that nature and all our natural communities have the right to exist…the eco-system itself can be named as a rights-bearing subject with standing in a court of law.”

All of these rights were “codified”, it is claimed, in the Ecuadorian constitution in 2008. “Soon after, in Bolivia, the World’s People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth drafted the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.”

“Rights of nature is the recognition and honoring that natural ecosystems including trees, oceans, animals, mountains have rights just as human beings have rights.” So, there you have it. Boldly repudiating the biblical concept of man created in God’s image while asserting in pagan fashion that non-animate objects are equal in value as man, Honor the Earth appeals to a World Government to cancel American values.

Support from Ben & Jerry’s for the radical Women’s March is followed by financial contributions to Neta. What is Neta? This organization claims to be “one of the fastest-growing Latinx-run progressive media platforms in Texas and the U.S” based in the Rio Grande Valley along the US/Mexico border. It is intent on “engaging young people of color on important social issues and politics.” Neta launched on January 19, 2017, the day before Donald Trump’s Presidential inauguration.

And which “social issues” are there about which Neta is concerned? Claiming that the “border of the U.S and Mexico” is a “talking point”, Neta is interested in immigration, health care, reproductive justice, LGBTQ, and education.”

Same song; this time the Neta stanza. ‘Immigration’ means simply open borders; “reproductive justice” means socialism in the sense that taxpayers foot the bill for their abortions; LGBTQ and education is another way of saying they plan to indoctrinate all children in government schools along homosexual and queer lines.

So, the Resist Movement is nothing less than old-fashioned communism–now dressed up in ice cream packages, activist organizations for young people, earth-worshipping man-degrading concepts of the American Indian religions—all with one goal in mind. Destroying the America we know. An exciting time to be a communist, indeed.

Have the Democrats Become the Face of Revolutionary Communist Party? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment
Have the Democrats Become the Face of the Revolutionary Communist Party?– “…before Trump was even moved into the White House, Democrat lawless lawmakers were haranguing the public with cries of impeachment.“

by Bill Lockwood

The Revolutionary Communist Party states as its goal to bring about “massive political resistance” to the system of capitalism, which they say, is “concentrated in the ruling class and institutions and agencies.” America is a system of “imperialism” to the communists, which demands more than simple reform. It requires revolution among the masses of people.

From the beginning of Donald Trump’s inauguration, before Trump was even moved into the White House, Democrat lawless lawmakers were haranguing the public with cries of impeachment. Maxine Waters (D-CA), for example, led the mutinous minions in Congress on a rampage against the president. Now comes Al Green (D-TX) to the forefront.

As reported by The Hill, Rep. Al Green announced on Wednesday that he will force a vote on the House floor to impeach President Trump before Christmas. On what charges will Green bring a vote on impeachment hearings? Says Green in a speech on the House floor: “… there will be a vote on the chief inciter of racism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, sexism, ethnocentrism. There will be a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on the impeachment of the president.”

Green has previously introduced articles of impeachment, being the loudest recent voice in the Democratic chorus calling for the removal of Donald Trump from office. The liberal MSM has also continually beat the drum for impeachment proceedings against our president, most recently by The New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg whose recent article is entitled, “Democrats Should Embrace Impeachment.”

The Constitution

Before making a few observations it is helpful to refer back to our Founding Charter, The Constitution. Not that the Democrats have any concern for the Constitution, because they do not in any way shape or form. Few Republicans do either. Nevertheless, the Constitutional word “impeachment” (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5) refers simply to the bringing of formal charges in the House and Senate against an elected officer.

Constitutionally, a majority vote of the House of Representatives, where Al Green serves from the 9th District in Texas, is required to bring the charges which are then to be tried before the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Conviction of these charges demands a two-thirds Senatorial vote.

What is important here, however, is that the Framers placed the particular grounds of impeachment in the Constitution itself—Article II, Section 4. “…civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

These grounds were intentionally specified in order to prevent impeachment from becoming a tool by which political opponents might remove others from office. As noted in The Heritage Foundation, “…it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, …”

Democrats Have Become Revcom

Nothing demonstrates how radical leftist the Democrats have become than the promise of impeachment proceedings by Al Green. What specific charges does he mention? All political socialistic lefty nonsense. “An inciter of racism, bigotry, hatred, xenophobia … blah blah blah.” Trump is a hater! And this from a man who has a law degree from Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston, TX.

This is precisely what the founders were trying to prevent—impeachment becoming a political tool. A logical outcome this to the complete trashing of our Constitutional system fostered by the likes of Green.

Al Green is acting more like a college child throwing temper tantrums and threatening to shut down free speech because he does not like the speaker. He is trying to stir up the street masses by his incendiary rhetoric, ala The Revolutionary Communist Party. Each and every charge he levels against Trump is totally in the eye of the beholder. No dereliction of duty against Trump, and certainly no impeachable offenses measuring up to “treason, bribery, or high crimes.”

Why America is Losing

But Al Green’s unfounded rants are the reason Republicans continue to lose the ground of freedom even though they remain in the majority in Congress and occupy the White House.

During the tenure of Barack Obama a good case could be made that he committed impeachable offenses—many of them. He opened his administration with illegal executive orders to the Department of Justice that they not enforce the law of the land regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Close on the heels of that was the lawless gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious, designed to remove our 2d Amendment rights in this nation. When Congress demanded documents related thereto, Obama said “no.” End of story. Lawless and unbridled.

The Iran Nuke Deal is an impeachable offense because Obama negotiated a secret “treaty.” Treaties are authorized only to Congress, but Obama thumbed his nose at the rule of law.  Hillary’s private illegal email server was well-known by the Obama White House, yet neither of these officials have been called to official account for this impeachable offense.

Then we have Obama’s DOJ actually being caught spying on AP reporters while Obama’s IRS was illegally targeting conservative groups. And who can forget Benghazi-gate of 2012 and the blatant bold lies issuing from the White House itself from Obama’s spokeswoman Susan Rice?

After this comes the infamous lie supporting ObamaCare: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” This is followed by the Illegal-Alien Amnesty that President Obama issued by executive order—a completely illegal and unconstitutional move. There are recess-appointments, the appointment of czars, the line-item veto on Congressional laws sitting on his desk—and more.

Yet in all of this the Republicans maintained a weak-spined, weak-kneed, milquetoast position, refusing to bring formal charges against a communist rogue president who was destroying our very constitutional system. Guardians of the Republic they were not.

Instead, they were concerned that the American public would find them unfavorable. To add insult to injury, the Republicans refused to defund any of Obama’s unconstitutional programs such as ObamaCare. Budget after budget was passed in which they funded every thing the Democrats wished.

But let a Republican occupy the White House and the Democrats are unashamed to go to the very extreme. Democrats are always ready to fight—even for socialist revolution. Faint-hearted Republicans is why America has moved so very far left.

Defacing Confederate Monuments: The Latest Communist Destruction of American Culture 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Defacing Confederate Monuments: The Latest Communist Destruction of American Culture- “This is not about slavery.”

by Bill Lockwood

It is happening in Charlottesville, VA; Durham, NC; Baltimore, MD; Jacksonville, FL; Gainesville, FL; Lexington, KY; Brooklyn, NY; Hollywood, CA; New Orleans, LA; Wilmington, NC—the list goes on. Statues honoring Confederate soldiers are being toppled and defaced. In a similar vein, earlier this year at Pepperdine University a statue of Christopher Columbus was removed in the wake of protests.

This is not about slavery. No one honors slavery in any form in America. This is about destroying the culture of America. To do that history must be revoked. Violent protests are therefore being organized, funded and implemented by hardcore leftists, communist, socialist, and anarchist groups. They are not spontaneous.

The World Workers Party (WWP), which helped organize the Durham, NC anarchy, proudly states on its website that participating mobsters are “freedom fighters.” The WWP describes itself as “a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party dedicated to organizing and fighting for socialist revolution in the United States and around the world.” Other groups at the rally included members of the Triangle People’s Assembly, Industrial Workers of the World and the Democratic Socialists of America, reported The Herald Sun. It is the culture of America that is being toppled.

If this was about slavery we would be seeing mosques picketed and destroyed while stacks of Korans would be burning in the streets. Islam sanctions and encourages slavery. Mohammed himself, the founder of Islam, was a slave owner, slave wholesaler, slave retailer, slave torturer and sex slave user. Enshrined for all time in the Koran is the command from Allah that each Muslim man may have up to four wives plus “those whom his right hand may posses” (4:3). These commands are being carried out in Islamic countries.

On the subject of slavery in America it is worth noting that Muslim slave traders sold America every slave that came to our shores, yet Islam has never acknowledged this fact nor apologized.

If this was about slavery America would quit honoring the Native American or Indian culture of yesteryear. Indian tribes throughout America regularly captured, bought, sold, and used slaves from enemy tribes as well as the whites. Slavery was a part of their culture.

Perhaps Pepperdine president Andrew Benton, who quickly ceded to a small minority demand to remove the Columbus statue, should have considered this fact. Instead, he participated in mourning the “painful human tragedy” that Columbus supposedly represented by bringing the terrible “white man” to these shores.

Even socialism itself is a system of slavery. On the Socialist Alternative website the placard “Health Care for People, Not Profit” is displayed in prominent fashion. If I am a health-care provider their goal is for me to “serve” for free the public needs—in spite of years of personal training and financing to earn my credentials. What is this? Forced labor is slavery. This boldly requires the government arm to force my service. Let Bernie Sanders wrestle with this—for socialist organizations are calling upon him to assist them in their “struggle” for a socialist America.

Most disconcerting in all of this is the complete capitulation jelly-spined political leaders have demonstrated. Jim Gray, the mayor of Lexington, hurries himself to cleanse that city of Kentucky of Confederate memorials. We must please the revolutionaries.

Spineless and ill-informed Governor Cooper of NC tells that “My first responsibility as governor is to protect North Carolinians and keep them safe. The likelihood of protestors being injured or worse as they may try to topple any one of the hundreds of monuments in our state concerns me. And the potential for those same white supremacist elements we saw in Charlottesville to swarm the site, weapons in hand, in retaliation is a threat to public safety.”

Cooper was referring to the Durham incident where leftist Antifa and communist Black Lives Matter agitators clashed with white nationalists. But Durham only focused on white nationalists in the incident.

All of this reminds one of the Universities during the 1960’s. Once again, fomented by communist and socialist organizations, student hippie brigades lawlessly took over administration buildings on various campuses to demand a hearing with the authorities. Instead of forcibly expelling these thugs, school presidents and superintendents sheepishly sat down in the halls with Marxist protestors to pow-wow about their discontent.

Surrendering to this lawlessness which is bent on erasing American culture means feeding the Left enough oxygen to complete the destruction of our way of life. Mobs are organizing across the United States which behave more like ignorant juvenile delinquents than reasonable adults. They are coming to a town near you.

Policing the Pulpit & The Johnson Amendment 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Policing the Pulpit & The Johnson Amendment- “People of faith do not want partisan political fights infiltrating their houses of worship.”

by Bill Lockwood

In a letter sent to members of Congress earlier this month, 99 signatory churches, including Baptist and Muslim churches, appealed to lawmakers not to repeal the 1954 Johnson Amendment. The Johnson Amendment, a revision to the tax code sponsored by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson and agreed upon by a compliant Congress, “updated” the language of the IRS code to prohibit non-profit organizations, especially churches, from actively participating in political elections. It was effectively a gag order on the pulpits.

Why was the future president so intent on policing the pulpit via the tax code—threatening churches with removal of tax-exempt status if they logged in on “political issues?” Because conservative churches in the state of Texas, Baptist churches and churches of Christ, for example, had been a thorn in Johnson’s side during the election processes that put him in Congress. Preachers in that era had been regularly involved in Anti-Communist efforts and many of them connected Johnson with philosophies of socialism. Johnson had his revenge.

Now, more than 50 years later, President Trump has promised during the presidential campaign to rid America of the “very unfair” Johnson Amendment so that “great pastors and ministers, rabbis and priests and everybody can go and …participate in the election process.”

Just for the record, preachers worth their salt do not need government approval; IRS code or no tax code; or President Trump’s assistance– to speak forthrightly on the issues of the day—whether it be abortion, homosexuality, evolution, slavery, or the ungodly forcible transfer of wealth flying under the false flag of “social justice,” or even to object to women in the pulpit. But we appreciate his desire to erase unconstitutional restrictions.

The problem, however, is that many pulpiteers are fearful and timid. They like the government control because, as Chuck Baldwin correctly puts it, it gives them cover for their cowardice. The letter from the 99 in part reads, “Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system. People of faith do not want partisan political fights infiltrating their houses of worship.”

No, what these preachers really want is a big excuse to give to their members as to why they steadfastly refuse to address the burning issues of the day. Wringing their hands when accosted by furious pew-sitters, the pulpiteers squeak out that the “government disallows” them from addressing these issues “lest we lose our tax exempt status.” Cannot these denominational overlords manage their own flocks without grasping for government aid?

What is Happening?

First, the Johnson Amendment is flagrantly anti-Constitutional. The First Amendment clearly settles the issue. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”—meaning there would be no state-sponsored religious institutions. “Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …” – government is in a “hands-off” mode as far as monitoring, suggesting or regulating the speech in any church-related or religious institution. The freedom is God-given and the First Amendment promises that government intrusion will never occur, period.

IRS Commissioner in 2006, Mark W. Everson, showed that he understood perfectly well the issue. Speaking at the City Club of Cleveland, Ohio, he opined, “Freedom of speech and religious liberty are essential elements of our democracy. But the Supreme Court has in essence held that tax exemption is a privilege, not a right, stating, ‘Congress has not violated [an organization’s] First Amendment activities by declining to subsidize its First Amendment activities.”

In other words, the tax code extends “privileges” not “rights” by means of exemption and the punishing of churches for “political” speech or activity via taxation does not violate their free speech! That is the government position.

This is the problem with big government to begin with. It takes in hand to decide what it will and will not allow as far as “free speech” is concerned. Politicians apparently refuse to confess that free speech is a God-bestowed right by Natural Law, and prefer to suppose that it is a grant from themselves.

Second, the heart of the issue is to define what is “political” speech and what is “not?” Who decides? As long as we allow the government to set the parameters of discussion here, it will stuff a sock in the mouth of preachers. Is social justice (aka socialism) solely a “political” issue? It is in essence the theft of money from one person or one group and a re-distribution to another. This includes education, health care, environmental regulations, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules, and scores of other schemes. Social Justice is, in reality, an immoral concept.

What about slavery, homosexuality, abortion, or cloning? Slavery was once a part of the law of the land. A “political issue.” Should pulpits have remained silent on this moral atrocity? At least the Founding generation were not devious as have been the Democrats and Republicans of the current generation for they would have included government control over the pulpits of that era which united to condemn it.

Third, the 99 churches are outright hypocritical. The National Council of Churches (NCC), representing thousands of churches, has a website that reads like a laundry list created by Karl Marx himself. Under “A 21st Century Social Creed” the NCC’s “vision of society” includes “civil, political, and economic rights” for all people; “employment for all at a family sustaining living wage”; a “system of criminal rehabilitation”; “enactment of policies” to abate “hunger and poverty”; “universal public education” and “healthcare”; “sustainable use of earth’s resources”; “tax and budget policies to reduce disparity between rich and poor”; “sustainable communities”; and the list goes on.

Each of these issues includes proposals of political policies to be enacted to achieve them. But now the 99 churches want to be free from politics and wishes the government to serve as the “valuable safeguard” to ensure it? Absolutely unbelievable.

No. What the 99 signatories wish is that the liberal politicians like a Barack Obama continue trampling the Word of God with hob-nail boots and the pew-packers continue to swallow it. Preachers have not only a Constitutional right to address the issues of the day in their churches, but an obligation to do so. This includes speaking out against ungodly practices of politicians as well as exposing their wicked stratagems that they place into law. We need no more government policing of the pulpit. What mankind needs is not only a Free Market economy but a free marketplace of religious ideas.

The Abject Hypocrisy of the Left 5 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

The Abject Hypocrisy of the Left-“Through the past decades, liberalism shamed conservatives to give it a place at the table. ”

by Bill Lockwood

Liberalism is a dangerous cancerous disease that erodes one’s common-sense. It brags on inclusion; but lacks inclusion for conservative values. It boasts “multi-cultural” standards, but despises the American limited government under God standard enshrined in our Constitution. Liberals major in ferreting out “hate speech” from schools while they are exploding with hateful rhetoric against Trump across the country. Liberals have replaced traditional education with “anti-bullying” education while their leading mayors like Rahm Emanuel or Bill De Blasio are trumpeting lawless bullying tactics before our eyes on television.

As we knew all along, anti-bullying, hate speech, “ inclusion” standards  and a hundred other progressive mantras have been nothing more than slates by which to further the liberal agenda. That agenda is to move us away from liberty into socialism. Through the past decades, liberalism shamed conservatives to give it a place at the table. Now there is only one item on the menu—liberal unconstitutional immoral nonsense.

Then came the election of Donald Trump. Honest Americans who were being edged out of their cherished God-given freedoms have been overjoyed. Tired of seeing our nation forcibly taken from them by soft-shell Republican and Democrat-controlled Illegal Immigration, Americans heard Trump promise to enforce our immigration laws.

Sickened by the erosion of our national sovereignty via international “trade” agreements, Trump recognized that America’s economy should work for Americans first. Laboring under increasing tax burdens which siphons off hard-earned wealth, citizens long for the tax relief upon which Trump campaigned. Irritated by Marxist and socialistic indoctrination taught via Common Core, Americans across the nation heard Trump promise to “give back” education to the parents. Government, per Barack Obama, does not know best how to train our children.

Frightened more by socialized medicine than supposed Global Warming, liberty lovers have been anticipating a Donald Trump to repeal ObamaCare and push government off of the backs of producers and job-creators. People are weary of being lied to about The Environment so that more socialized control can be levied. War-weary Americans who have been puzzled as to why our tax dollars should be utilized to police the world have felt fresh air when Trump resolves to put an end to endless military commitments.

Thoughtful Americans are worn-out being lectured by liberal intelligentsia that Islam is a “religion of peace” while they watch the followers of Mohammed explode with violence throughout the Middle East and Europe while quoting the Koran. Tired of being slammed for suggesting a vetting process for Muslims entering the country, conservatives are relieved that at least one man, Donald Trump, seems to understand that Islam is not a religion of peace.

Energy producing states which have been hammered by Obama’s regulatory crush are seeing some light with president-elect Trump. Allowing people to labor without demonizing the Coal Industry, for example, is a welcome boon to our livelihood.

Reaching Across the Aisle? With Trump’s victory, we hear Democrats chattering about “reaching across the aisle.” There is that inclusion talk again. The message: Trump will only be successful if he includes Democrat-socialists in his plans. Where was that inclusion speech during the ObamaCare debates? What impertinence! What abject unabashed hypocrisy! Reach across the aisle to the party that gave us socialistic nightmares and continues at this moment to threaten even our freedom of speech?

For more hypocrisy, consider that we are told Hillary won “popular” election (no, she did not gain more than 50% of popular vote). Therefore, Trump’s presidency is “illegitimate.” What do Democrats care about the majority? ObamaCare (socialized medicine) always has had more than 50% disapproval rating. Yet, Obama pompously informed America that “elections have consequences” and it was full steam ahead as they crammed it down our throats. Obama is going to have to take his own “medicine” though we may have to hold his nose for him to swallow it!

Today, liberals are threatening disruption of the entire country if ObamaCare is repealed. Where is your “anti-bullying” campaign now, Barack Obama? Where was the anti-bullying exemplified from the liberal ignorant actors of “Hamilton” who blind-sided a “captive” audience about the dangers of Trump?

Trump is “not my president!” screams The Marxist Left. When Obama was elected it was the left which was incensed that conservatives simply did not “celebrate” his inauguration. I was one of those that did not rejoice. I did not march or threaten, but as most of my fellow Constitutionalists, I simply mourned and prayed. No marches. No riots. No threats. No weeping episodes on U-Tube. Just a deep lament that America was thumbing its nose at the conservative values that made America great.

For my non-celebratory attitude I was harangued continually by Democrats who walk in the darkness. They were “offended” that Constitutionalists showed alarm that a Marxist-trained community-organizer began occupying the White House. They were absolutely indignant that we did not celebrate. It must have been because I was “racist” they said. Where are you Democrats now?

Brandon V. Dixon, the ‘Hamilton’ star who lectured Mike Pence and America and who declares he has “nothing to apologize for” must have been motivated by racism against a white president. Is that what we are to conclude? When conservatives rightly recognized the Marxist label that describes Barack Obama, liberals lectured that “He is your president!” They wanted absolutely no examination of Obama’s credentials or lack thereof. Now that Trump is president-elect, it is open season on mocking and openly challenging what is the anticipated agenda. Where is that “He is your president!” talk now?

The Whoopi Goldberg’s of the world have lost their right to be heard. The hypocrisy is disgusting. By the way, wasn’t she to leave the country?