Tag Archives: Christianity
Socialists Are Really Digressives, Not Progressives –“God’s system is not only productive, but is moral and right.”
by Bill Lockwood
Leftist miseducation during the past century has mislabeled “socialism” as “progressivism” to make it more palatable to consumers. In point of fact the Socialist Progressive Movement in American history, which textbooks date from about 1890 to 1920, radically expanded the size of government. This, we are told, that it might become “more efficient” in caring for the lives of citizens. This set our nation on a course toward totalitarianism in which some candidates for political office are even toying with limiting the size of families by government fiat. Ironically, socialism, which is the rage today in the Democrat Party, has dropped the “progressive” label. But it was never progressive at all–but a digression to the failed experiments of the past.
William Bradford was the first governor of the Plymouth Bay Colony, taking office in the beleaguered outpost in April, 1621. He had been a signatory of the Mayflower Compact a month before the Pilgrims landed in December, 1620.
Part of the text of that Compact reads,
Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and the Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of King and Country, a voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern parts of Virginia…solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation …
Though honoring God in their declaration, neither Bradford nor the rest of the Pilgrims came to a full realization of the ungodliness of a socialistic system until they tried it to a miserable failure.
As first set up, the Colony set up a system of rationing from a common storehouse to which they labored to contribute their produce from the field. But, as Henry Hazlitt describes it, “a vicious circle seemed to set in. The people complained that they were too weak from a want of food to tend the crops as they should.” After that, though deeply religious, “they took to stealing from one another.” Bradford observed that the general famine that resulted would necessarily continue under those conditions.
Captain John Smith had a similar experience in the Jamestown Colony of Virginia. After the socialistic system was in place, he observed, “When our people were fed out of the common store, and labored jointly together, glad was he that could slip from his labor, or slumber over his task, he cared not how.” Even the most “honest among them” cared little for the increase, “presuming that howsoever the harvest prospered, the general store must maintain them, …”
Complaints Harvested from Socialism
It was not long before the complaints began mounting in Plymouth. Bradford says in his Journal Of Plymouth Plantation,
For the young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice.
Injustice it was! And a failure as well. The problem was seeking to circumvent what God had ordered for the welfare of mankind: “If a man does not work, neither let him eat.” They further expressed their dissatisfaction: “And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.”
Unjust. Slavery. Failure. Pretty well sums up our own complaints from the middle class who are now forcibly enrolled in America to serve the poor.
Bradford tells us how the Pilgrims lighted on the remedy. The colonists,
Began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length [in 1623], after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular [for himself and his family], and in that regard trust to themselves … And so assigned to every family a parcel of land …
The result of allowing God’s order of things to preside was remarkable.
This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before alleged weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
God’s system is not only productive, but is moral and right. To the extent that America has become a socialist nation of redistribution is the extent of our trouble and misery.
More to the point, however, is the fact that the Democrats do not represent progress by championing the Karl Marx philosophies of confiscation and redistribution—they represent digression. Whether by means of ObamaCare; Section 8 housing, food stamps, disability payments and a host of other handout programs–all of them are doomed not only to failure—but to make America miserable again. Real PROGRESS is moving ahead to freedom and unshackling the machinery of government regulation from the producers in our great nation.
Democrats Sound Alarm as Far-left Fringe Takes Over Party – “On the far-left, though, there seems to be little coherence to the agenda… “
by Alex Newman
The Democrat Party is cracking up, but there are efforts underway to bring it back from the brink. As socialist-ruled nations across the Americas implode into violence and mass starvation, the fringe left-wing allies and supporters of those murderous strongmen in America are said to be on the verge of taking over the Democratic Party. Democratic Bernie Sanders (shown) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are both offered as examples of the “future” of the party. But after tolerating, encouraging, and flirting with the far-left fringe for years, supposedly more moderate Democrats anxious about an electoral pummeling are finally starting to speak out as a quasi-civil war breaks out in the party.
But with self-described liberals making up less than half the party and just one fourth of the electorate, the ultra-liberal Democrat Party may be too far gone to be salvaged. Consider that Communist Party USA leaders openly brag about how they “utilize” the Democrat Party to advance their totalitarian agenda in America. And consider, too, that a number of known communists and socialists were on the Democrat Party’s Platform Committee in 2016. In short, the party is wildly out of touch with mainstream America — and becoming even more so with every day that passes.
Some analysts have suggested that President Donald Trump now has the Democrats exactly where he wants them: Looking like absolute fools on national television praising the regime in Venezuela, seeking to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), calling for open borders, demanding government-controlled healthcare, behaving like fascist savages or overgrown children while terrorizing conservatives, and more. But as self-proclaimed “moderate” Democrats try to bring the party back from the brink of destruction, it remains to be seen who will win out. Plus, by pushing amnesty and mass migration, establishment Republicans could still save the Democrat Party and destroy their own.
But for now, it does not look good for Democrats. When overconfidence on the part of an incumbent allowed self-styled “Democratic Socialist” Ocasio-Cortez to defeat a longtime congressman in a primary in ultra-liberal New York, the divisions that became apparent in the 2016 Democrat primary came into focus. Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez, for instance, proclaimed that Ocasio-Cortez was the “future” the party. A number of far-left candidates are even bringing Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders in to endorse them, hoping to capitalize on her sudden fame and her improbable victory and Sanders’ status as an outsider.
But then she started talking, making outlandish statements so far detached from reality that even the far-left “fact checkers” have called her out. She also revealed that her positions are more fluid than her comrades believe gender to be; for instance, she went from supporting a two-state solution regarding Israel and Palestine to opposing it almost immediately afterward. Conservatives celebrated, hoping to make her the face of the Democrats. “We need more people like her,” Trump ally and Brexit architect Nigel Farage told a group of young U.S. conservatives. “The more loophead socialists, the crazier — the crazier people that they put up for the other party, the better it’s going to be for you guys.”
But after she repeatedly made a fool of herself on national television in the weeks since her win, and after poll results showed three in four American voters would not knowingly vote for a socialist, Democrat bigwigs and the establishment behind them are re-thinking their strategy.
Former FBI boss James Comey, a Deep State swamp creature under fire for improperly protecting Hillary Clinton from prosecution, urged Americans to vote Democrat in the mid-terms. But a few days later, he was warning the Democrat Party that they would scare away normal people if they keep acting like kooks. “Democrats, please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left,” Comey wrote on social media. “This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership.”
In mid-July, a group of “leading moderate Democrats,” as the press described them, gathered in Columbus, Ohio, to argue that the party should quit bashing the free-market system and obsessing over income inequality. The conference, organized by the establishment-backed think tank “Third Way,” called on Democrats to focus more on promoting “opportunity.” The self-styled “center-left” organization, which would have been considered radical left just a few years ago, backs virtually the entire agenda of the globalist establishment and the far-left. But it does it using more deceitful rhetoric.
Congressman Jim Himes (D-Conn.), one of the participants in the Ohio conference, urged “progressives” to tone down the extremism. “It harms us in areas where we need to win,” he was quoted as saying. “To my progressive friends who got excited about Abolish ICE, I understand the emotions, the moral vacuum that is involved in splitting up families. But when you go out there and say, ‘This is who we are,’ you’ve now made life harder for the 60 or 70 Democrats fighting in districts where we need to win if we ever want to be in the majority. Abolishing ICE is not a real political proposal.”
But for many of his increasingly unhinged colleagues demanding open borders and socialism, it is a very real political proposal. In fact, as this magazine documented in 2016, the party’s platform committee was dominated by open communists and socialists, who used their positions to push the Democrat Party further to the totalitarian left than it has ever gone in history. Even radical leftists like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) are no longer far enough left for the communist- and socialist-controlled Democrat Party of California, which endorsed her socialist primary challenger.
In some cases, the radical left wing of the Democrat Party is openly allying itself with mass-murdering communist regimes against the United States. Consider California Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, who forged an unconstitutional treaty with communist China, the most murderous government on the face of the earth. The plan: In defiance of the U.S. government, continue implementing a globalist scheme to destroy the state’s economy and further centralize power over everything under the guise of stopping “climate change.” More than a few analysts suggested Brown was committing treason.
On the far-left, though, there seems to be little coherence to the agenda — except in terms of bringing down Western Christian civilization, the U.S. Constitution, and the God-given liberties enshrined in America’s founding documents. As an example of the cognitive dissonance now afflicting the far-left fringe working to take over the Democrat Party, consider a July 23 e-mail by the George Soros-funded MoveOn.org. The message touts two Muslim women running for Congress as “progressives,” Rashida Tlaib in Michigan, an Arab, and Somali immigrant Ilhan Omar in Minnesota, who apparently got involved in Democrat Party politics as a child just six years after arriving in America. Of course, Islam takes a dim view of “women’s rights,” and homosexuality is a capital offense under Islamic law known as Sharia. And yet, the the e-mail soliciting support for the two Muslim women candidates says they will take on unspecified “attacks on women’s rights and the LGBTQ community” by Trump and Republicans.
One of several fringe groups involved in pushing the party even further to the left is known as “Justice Democrats.” After the Third Way “Opportunity 2020” event by supposedly moderate Democrats, the outfit release a statement slamming the “establishment wing” of the Democrat Party for its “losing strategy” that has resulted in “thousands of lost seats across the country.” “We believe Democrats should engage with working class Americans, we believe we have an obligation to mobilize disenchanted voters and give them a political home,” the group said, demanding government healthcare, “guaranteed jobs,” an end to “systemic racism,” and more. The outfit, founded by former staff of Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign, has endorsed almost 80 “progressive” candidates seeking public office.
But there is a growing amount of anecdotal and data-driven evidence suggesting that moving further to the left will decimate the Democrat Party even further. And despite the foaming at the mouth in the establishment media, even the establishment’s propaganda polls suggest Trump is doing just fine. In fact, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey showed Trump’s job approval rating rose to 45 percent, the highest level of his presidency in that particular poll. Among Republicans, Trump remains massively popular, with 88 percent of GOP voters approving of his job so far.
By contrast, at this point in Obama’s term, just 81 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing. Indeed, aside from George W. Bush, whom the nation rallied behind after the September 11 attacks, Trump was the most popular president within his own party of any other on the list, stretching back to Truman. That is bad news for Democrats who hope to peel away from supposedly disaffected Republicans to help win in 2020. And keep in mind, those numbers come despite a constant barrage of fake news and anti-Trump propaganda aimed at the president, something that is increasingly becoming obvious even to the president’s critics.
Ultimately, as readers of this magazine know well, the “establishment” of both major parties cares little about the voters or what they want. Instead, top Republicans and top Democrats are all part of the Deep State Swamp — a network that includes semi-secret organizations such the globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg meetings, as well as true secret societies such as the Bohemian Grove and the Skull and Bones society. As such, rather than obsessing over controlled partisan politics, Americans who truly hope to preserve liberty and the Constitution should get involved in educating their communities about the Deep State and other key issues. Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts.
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe but has lived all over the world. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Are you an alpha or beta male?- Jesse Lee Peterson reveals trouble with boys assuming identities of mothers
by Jesse Lee Peterson
Men are not men today. With few exceptions, men are insecure, emotional, out-of-control women in male bodies.
Most boys take on the identity of their mothers. Through anger, impatience or worry, mothers impose their will on children, causing them to lose innocence. A mother who resents her own parents, or her child’s father, passes her angry spirit down to the child. Although she may try to teach “religion,” she does not truly live it. She may apologize for doing wrong, yet never change. Children grow angry and become controlled by what they hate. The symptoms manifest in myriad ways.
One boy may rebel, and another conform. Both hate their mother. One is just more open about it. One gets into sex, drugs and crime. Another becomes “educated” and compliant. One becomes a nice, “Christian” family man. Another turns out homosexual or transgender. Neither is truly happy, independent, or himself. They suffer from the same lost identity, and become female in nature. Girls suffer in much the same way – I’ve counseled with so many men and women, attracted to what they hate, who feel they married their mothers!
If fathers are not around, or if they have not overcome their emotions rooted in anger – children grow up unprotected. In many cases, fathers themselves operate from a female spirit and spoil or destroy their children.
The black community is tattered by generations of males faking masculinity, raised by women faking Christianity (or some other religion). Few of them know God. Most believe in government – socialism.
For 28 years at BOND, a nonprofit dedicated to Rebuilding the Family by Rebuilding the Man, I’ve worked with men and women from around the world – the decline of good men affects them all.
The very thing men must overcome is what the world encourages them to embrace: the female nature.
Liberal magazine the Hollywood Reporter photographed four male comedians and actors together for a recent cover, three of them with their hand in the pocket of the man in front of them and the headline “Triumph of the Beta Male.” The display illustrates a feminist reaction against men like President Trump, universally recognized as a forceful and fearless alpha male.
President Trump is everything the left hates: A straight, white, conservative, Christian man of power.
Lying leftists conflate real masculinity with the cruelty, violence and abuse by males raised by angry women who don’t love their fathers.
After the Florida school shooting by 19-year-old suspect Nikolas Cruz, whose adoptive father died when he was young, a girly, liberal comedian Michael Ian Black tweeted, “Boys are broken.” He encouraged males to express vulnerability and embrace feminism. NPR featured him in an interview. The New York Times published his op-ed. But he refused my interview invitation. When I tweeted about his cowardice, he called NewsMax TV “garbage” in a malicious tweet.
This week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson began a series for the month of March discussing the crisis facing men in America, featuring clinical psychologist and Toronto professor Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, whom I’ve also interviewed. Instead of applauding, as liberals did for male feminist Michael Ian Black, male “journalists” mocked Carlson and Peterson!
Liberals are very shallow. They won’t tell the truth because they’re spiritually blind. They are children of the lie who hate men and God. They don’t love women, but they cater to them. They are prideful people who despise President Trump because he does not live in their emotional-intellectual world. Rather, Donald Trump lives in reality, where men of action thrive.
This week, in an example of the president’s effectiveness, he agreed to meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. For decades, prior presidents failed to deal with North Korea’s growing nuclear threat – because none were men. Interestingly, none supported Trump, either. Barack Obama, the fallen messiah, proudly called himself a “feminist,” and Michelle his “boss” and “backbone.”
Obama inherited his mother’s disdain for America (especially white America – read “The Antidote“). He nearly brought the country to her knees in division and destruction, and left the world a more dangerous place. But now the Great White Hope may persuade Little Rocket Man to do right.
Real men, alpha men, are conservatives. Real women are conservatives. They love their fathers. No liberal is a real man (or woman). They hate men, and they don’t love their fathers.
Conservatives should observe the president, who loved his father. He appears to live without fear and work from a spirit of power, love and sound mind.
All human beings know that it’s an embarrassment for men to be “beta males.” Only a few will truly face reality and overcome the angry spirit of their mothers and grandmothers within them.
At my church at BOND, our theme this year is self-knowledge: Know thyself. I encourage every one of you to pray quietly and be honest with yourselves and with God. Then you might see the spirit of anger within you and recognize that you’re wrong. Go and forgive your parents where they failed, apologizing for hating them. Then go free as a real man (or woman), no longer a child of Satan, but of God.
The Christian and Politics–“Politics in America are a part of religion.”
by Bill Lockwood
Charles G. Finney was an old-school Presbyterian preacher revivalist who flourished in the pulpits of America during the period of 1825-1835. His leadership in what has been called the “Second Great Awakening” reminds American citizens today that what is needed is another awakening and that it is our Christian duty to influence the direction of our country. Seeing that many preachers and worshippers alike are avoiding the conflicts of our culture, listen to what Finney he has to say regarding confronting sin and the political arena:
The church must take right ground in regard to politics … the time has come that Christians must vote for honest men, and take consistent ground in politics, or the Lord will curse them. They must be honest men themselves, and instead of voting for a man because he belongs to their party … they must find out whether he is honest and upright, and fit to be trusted….And if he will give his vote only for honest men, the country will be obliged to have upright rulers … God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, … unless the church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God.
Exactly. Politics in America are a part of religion. According to Webster’s 1828 original dictionary definition of “Politics,” it is a “the Science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state …”
One cannot logically separate religion and politics. Politics is the extension of our ethical beliefs, which in turn are founded upon religious concepts. If Christians abandon the political arena, irreligious humanists lay the planks of secular godless government.
Regarding the foundations of our political system, Finney went on to say:
It seems sometimes as if the foundations of the nation were becoming rotten, and Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you, he does see it, and he will bless or curse this nation, according to the course they take.
But our ethics in America are so weak and anemic that some wish to belong to a political party whose Party Platform includes the murder of unborn children (abortion) and the enshrining of sodomite marriages (homosexuality) as some kind of “right.” Yet, these wish to be known as “Christians.” God will not so tolerate the prostitution of the name of Christ by such ungodliness.
That Christians need to participate in the political arena, consider something else.
The Bedrock of Family
America is a “family-oriented” culture. “Mom, Dad and the kids” has been the hallmark of community life since America’s inception. From whence comes this cultural norm? It is solely due to the influence of one book—The Bible.
First, the woman is honored only by biblical teaching. “Honor thy father and mother” (Exod. 20:12) demands equal respect from children to the female partner in a marriage as well as to the male. “Ye shall fear every man his mother and father” Moses warned in Lev. 19:13. The New Testament is just as clear. “Children, obey your parents” (Eph. 6:1).
For those who long for “other cultures”—just which one honors the woman as does holy Scripture? Islam? Go to Muslim countries and witness the woman who cannot be seen on the streets except four paces behind her husband, or whose word, by Muhammed’s edict, is not counted as worthy as a man’s in a court of law.
Christianity’s elevation of womanhood is particularly noteworthy due to the fact that this week the world celebrated International Woman’s Day. The United Nation website has the following pertaining to this:
Over the years, the UN and its technical agencies have promoted the participation of women as equal partners with men in achieving sustainable development, peace, security, and full respect for human rights. The empowerment of women continues to be a central feature of the UN’s efforts to address social, economic and political challenges across the globe.
In view of the fact that the UN is primarily controlled by Muslim nations wherein women have no rights as compared to a man, this is a blatant propaganda statement. Perhaps people should once again turn to the God of the Bible.
Second, men and women are equal before God. “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, no male or female, for we are all one man in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Equal access to God for men and women. Paul may here be alluding to Genesis 1:27 wherein it is stated that God made mankind “male and female.” Note in the Genesis passage that both man and woman were created “in God’s image” (1:26).
Third, God provides honor to the woman as well as the man by arranging a monogamous marriage relationship and rejecting polygamy. When Jesus was asked pertaining to marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:3-9) our Lord answered by recalling to our minds God’s original plan wherein God brought the woman unto the man and it was written, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” One man and one woman. The duty of husbands therefore is to “love his wife” (Eph. 5:25) and the wife is to honor her husband (Eph. 5:22).
The bedrock of family life is squarely rooted in the God’s Word and the true honoring of womanhood is rooted in biblical concepts. It is no accident that inimical forces in America such as the ACLU have as their agenda not only the institutionalizing of homosexual marriage, but polygamy as well. It is an all-out assault on our God-inspired biblical foundations. To save what is left of our Godly heritage, Christians need to engage in the cultural war.
What we need is another “Great Awakening” in America in which the family is honored and Christians participate in the political arena in accordance with their creed, the Bible.
If the Foundations Be Destroyed: What Can the Righteous Do?–“If America’s foundations of God, Truth, and Morality are not re-laid, our society will be lost.”
by Bill Lockwood
“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3). The foundations of which David speaks are those of truth, virtue, and morality.
In the wake of terrible tragedies such as occurred in Parkland, Florida last week, it is helpful, though painful, to examine our entire cultural malaise. America has aborted more living babies just this morning through Planned Parenthood than lives have been taken by mass shootings at High Schools. The message: Life is meaningless.
Our entire educational outlook regarding the origin of man is humanistic and evolutionary. We came from rocks and dirt and human life is of no more value than an animal in your backyard. Violence has become the common fare in movies and music entertainment. Pornography continues to feed upon children as erotic material is readily available to anyone who has access to the internet.
Young people in mass are violating marijuana laws in a culture in which, it has become so commonplace that it is difficult to find a student who has not at least once smoked weed. This, in spite of laws banning weed. Respect for law and order, the Christian foundation for orderly society, has evaporated.
Unwed mothers and illicit sexual behavior is becoming standard. The state has encouraged this by its financial assistance. Civil government is replacing the father in the home as that basic civil institution is unraveling before our eyes.
David of the Old Testament, later to be king of Israel, decried a similar situation—perhaps not to the same alarming degree as we are experiencing– in his day. Saul was currently king when David, the sweet Psalmist of Israel, composed the poem of Psalm 11. The maladministration of Saul’s court actually punished the upright in Israel (Psalm 11:2).
David wondered, If the very administration of government–which is designed to punish the wrong, protect the good—is up-ended, what is our recourse? The civil state was unhinged and out of course (Psalm 75:3; 82:5). If these foundations are eroded, there is nothing that remains but a turning to God.
If America’s foundations of God, Truth, and Morality are not re-laid, our society will be lost.
In 1889, John Fiske, who himself was not a Christian, wrote The Beginnings of New England. Pertaining to our founding as a nation he observed, “To keep the sacred flame of liberty alive required such a rare and wonderful concurrence of conditions that, … had it not been for the Puritans, political liberty would probably have disappeared from the world.” Political liberty in America is based upon religious concepts that derive from Christianity. But it is Christianity that we continue to ban as readily as many wish to ban weapons.
Henry Campbell Black, in his Handbook of American Historical Law (1927) shows us the place of Christianity in the fundamental laws of our land.
…that Christianity is a part of the law of the land is true in this sense, that many of our best civil and social institutions, and the most important to be preserved in a free and civilized state, are founded upon the Christian religion, or upheld and strengthened by its observance; that the whole purpose and policy of the law assume that we are a nation of Christians, and while tolerance is the principle in religious matters, the laws recognize that the existence of that system of faith, and our institutions are based upon that assumption.
The prevalence of sound morality among the people is essential to the preservation of their liberties and the permanence of their institutions, and to the success and prosperity of government, and the morality which is to be fostered and encouraged by the state is Christian morality, and not such as might exist in the suppositions ‘statute of nature’ or in a pagan country… that which lies within the jural sphere, and which is enforced by positive law, is Christian morality.
Perhaps it is time to restructure our foundations. The encouragement by the state of Christian morality. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”
If You See Something, Say Something?–“Our nation once more grieves the senseless taking of life.”
by Bill Lockwood
What a tragedy in Parkland, FL! Nicolas Cruz, a 19-year-old orphan who had been kicked out of school, walks into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School with an AR-15 and calmly murders 17 people. It has been labeled the “deadliest school shooting” since Newtown, Connecticut more than five years ago. Our nation once more grieves the senseless taking of life.
At the risk of being “political” one cannot but wonder about the continual refrain from the Governor of Florida on down to local law enforcement and school officials—“if you see something, say something.” This is not to voice opposition to that but to throw a major question mark over our resolve to be consistent. In turn, this should make us question whether or not our society is serious about it at all.
From the time President Trump was inaugurated he has been opposed—not simply with political ideas from the left—but with hateful violent-laden threats that are publicly made. “If you see something or hear something—say something?” Ok. Here goes.
Celebrity Kathy Griffin posed with a shocking “beheading” photograph of President Trump. It was fake, of course, but it was published to influence people to violence. Instagram or Snap Chat will not need to be checked, for this was out there for everyone to see.
Pop-singer Madonna publicly threatened to “blow up the White House” while speaking at a “Woman’s March” last year. Her “radical feminism” contains dire predictions of violence against our Commander-in-Chief. She said she was “ready to shake up the world.” Her influence over millions of young people is in order to “rebellion.”
Rapper Snoop Dogg “shoots” Trump in a video production. Living down to his “rap culture” Snoop Dogg pulls the trigger on a “fake gun” mimicking the murder of our president. That the music industry has major impact in our world is without question.
Oscar-winning actor Robert DeNiro unleashed a profanity-laced verbal assault against President Trump saying, “I’d like to punch him in the face.” Real role model, that one.
And how about the Shakespeare in the Park production that stabs President Trump to death in their performance of Julius Caesar las summer in 2017? The brutally violent play glamorized the murder of our president and the actors who participated we are hereby calling out since we are to “say something” if we “see something.” The theater defended the production even after it sparked outrage.
David Simon, the creator of the HBO drama The Wire commented that if President Trump fires Robert Mueller, then “pick up a ‘blank’ brink. That’s all that’s left to you.” That was published on Twitter. This incitement to violence by another prominent figure should be investigated.
Mickey Rourke and Lea DeLaria, both prima donna actors, threated to beat President Trump with baseball bats. The latter included “every Republican” as well as Donald Trump. Her suggestion was, “[O]r pick up a baseball bat and take out every ‘blank’ republican and independent I see.” This should qualify as something of substance in our society in which when we are to take threats seriously.
There is at least one public threat against our President whose perpetrator was contacted by the Secret Service—or their record label was. Rappers YG and Nipsy Hussle released a “song” in 2016 in which were the lyrics, “I like white folks, but I don’t like you/ All the n*ggas in the hood wanna fight you/ Surprised El Chapo ain’t tried to snipe you/ Surprised the Nation of Islam ain’t tried to find you/ …”
Marilyn Manson kills Trump in a music video. Once again, Trump is depicted as decapitated lying in a pool of blood. Larry Wilmore “jokes” about suffocating Trump with a pillow. Sarah Silverman suggested overthrowing the Trump Administration with military force. And on and on it goes.
Many other nationally-known figures could be cited who have encouraged our youth to resort to acts of violence against Trump, Republicans, Christians, etc. All of these unprincipled vents are public record designed to prompt action. If we are serious about speaking up when something is questionable, why would we give a pass to these celebrities?
I personally opposed Barack Obama, labeling him a Marxist in philosophy and action. But I know of no conservative Christian who openly threatened him in the mainstream of America. The Bible teaches that it is the ideas, concepts, and philosophies against which we are to war (Eph. 6:10-12; 2 Cor. 10:4). To have frank discussions pertaining to one’s agenda is far different from calling for violence against a person.
So, in the wake of Parkland, FL; by all means—check out the social footprint of potential perpetrators of crime. Report Facebook rants, Instagram threats, Snap-Chat warning-signs, whatever. But quit giving celebrities a pass. We are sending elementary grade-school children to Juvenile Detention of they simply draw a picture of a gun or knife. When a Madonna threatens to “blow up the White House” or a Snoop Dogg mimics murdering President Trump, perhaps a timely arrest will stifle violent-laced dissent in others.
Stockton, CA; Another Test Run for Socialism?-“…why should Americans be concerned with continual forays into socialistic experiments?”
by Bill Lockwood
Bankrupt Stockton, California is to be the first US city to guarantee a “universal basic income” to low-income residents. Stockton has double the state average of unemployment, and half of those working earn minimum wage, reports G. Edward Griffin in NeedtoKnow News. Michael Tubbs, the 26-year-old Mayor who is leading the plan to give low-income families $500 per month, said “I think it will make people work better and smarter and harder and also be able to do things like spend time with their families because we’re not robots.”
The plan is apparently mostly funded by The Economic Security Project, which is contributing $1 million to the first-year pilot program. Families that receive the money will be monitored to “see what they do with the money” and “how it affects self-esteem and identity.”
The Economic Security Project is co-led by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, last year said such a scheme could mark a “new contract” between government and citizenry.
Oakland, CA is also thinking of a broad welfare program. The city plans to give about $1,500 a month to a handful of welfare recipients. The goal is to study how financial health affects low-income families.
What of Guaranteed Income?
Besides the fact that our Constitution absolutely outlawed such a state—but who cares what the Constitution actually says–why should Americans be concerned with continual forays into socialistic experiments?
First, America already is a welfare-state. Close to three-quarters of our federal budget is due to government-run social welfare spending. As a matter of fact, when looked at in total, per capita, America is the second-largest welfare state in the world. Inclusive in this is housing, health care, pension benefits, and public education and a host of other expenditures (Tim Worstall, Forbes, 10-5-2015).
Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, argues similarly. “Contrary to conventional wisdom … noted scholars Irwin Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater, and Timothy Smeeding conclude in Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader? That ‘Welfare state programs are quite large in the United States.’”
According to Politifact.com, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collectively “account for a majority of federal spending.” Added to that is spending on food and agriculture and the percentage continue to rise while military spending, which is the only constitutionally authorized spending among these categories, is 16 per cent.
The point of this is simple. American already is a welfare state—the second largest in the world. Many students in high schools are living in subsidized housing, eating free or reduced lunches, living on welfare checks, bearing or fathering multiple children—all at the taxpayers’ expense.
And the social problems associated with each of these federal expenditures are increasing, not decreasing, because the basic truth is: the more money one throws at a particular problem causes that problem to grow.
Second, guaranteed income ignores man’s ability to make life choices and allowing people to bear the fruit of their choices. This is not to say that everything negative that occurs to people is always the direct result of personal mistakes, for that is certainly not the case. However, God has so constructed the world so that negative consequences are built into the system to encourage better selections in the future.
If two young men in jail for illegal drug use are both on the bottom of the income ladder, what are their choices when getting out? One man, Bob, chooses to continue a life of illicit behavior, perhaps ruining his health, bumping along on the bottom of society with multiple arrests, fathering several children, and looking like he is fifty when he is only thirty.
The second young man, Joe, decides to change his life when he is in his early twenties. He cleans up his life, his associates, and gets a job. A low-income job to be sure—but he is working and living above the law. He studies at night taking courses in college. After several years his sacrifices begin to pay-off. He lands a great job when he is thirty; buys a house, a car, is happily married with children.
There is absolutely income inequality between Bob and Joe. Now comes in Big Brother Government to “adjust” the “inequities” between Bob and Joe. Who will be in favor of forcibly taking from Joe to give to Bob? Their life-situations are primarily due to life-choices. What government cannot do—even in Stockton, CA—is make proper determinations as to why people are in poverty. It may be that Bob needs to suffer his consequences enough to encourage him to take Joe’s route.
Third, Stockton’s pilot program is flawed because it ignores the biblical model of man. It is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine which results when leaders drink from the wells of materialism and atheism instead of God’s Word. God designed work for man in which to find self-esteem and satisfaction—not a guaranteed amount of money regardless of how we spend our time.
Solomon wrote “There is nothing better for a man than he should … find enjoyment in his toil” (Ecclesiastes 2:24). This is “God’s gift to man that everyone should … take pleasure in his toil (3:13). “The best thing for a man was to be happy in his work; this is what he gets out of life” (3:22). Solomon went on to say (5:22) that this is man’s portion (lot or station) in life—to work.
This was God’s design from the beginning; that man should earn a living by the sweat of his brow. The Bible even mentions competition as a motivation to work (Prov. 27:17). “Iron sharpens iron.”
The New Testament is equally as clear. The apostle Paul forbade church financial assistance to those who could and should earn a living for themselves. He declared that people on indiscriminate assistance teaches them to be “idle, going about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies who talk nonsense … “ (1 Timothy 5:13). And as we can easily see from the streets of America, it gives many people not only room to be “busy-bodies” but lawbreakers as well.
What Stockton, CA will learn is that, not poverty, but idleness is a vice. It is a moral disease that is caused by a failure of the will that enslaves a person. Doling out money only encourages it. The final stage is that people will need to be managed like children. Any program that rewards idleness dooms itself in the self-image realm. On the other hand, real self-esteem is found in accomplishment, no matter how little. This is how God has made man.
As Robert Rector put it, “The key to improving self-sufficiency is to increase work … Increased self-reliance will lead to an enhanced self-achievement, a principal component of human well-being.” Only by productive work does man reduce poverty and increase his own happiness.
None of this is to ignore that real Christian charity is found in giving. But a “guaranteed income” monitored by government overlords does not qualify as charity. For this reason, Stockton, CA will see an increase in low-income families as people either re-locate there or quit low-paying jobs to qualify for “guaranteed income.” When California began MediCal in 1967 the initial program included 1 Million people. Within a couple of years the numbers had jumped to 2.5 million. When will California and America learn?
The New Birth– “Not even this great ruler of the Jews could enter the kingdom of God but by a New Birth! “
by Bill Lockwood
One of most powerful interviews in the NT is that of Jesus by Nicodemus recorded in John 3. In it the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God are explained. “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus was going against scholarly public opinion of that day by coming to Jesus. Their disposition was flat rejection. Not interested in considering the Lord’s teaching, the Sanhedrin council, of which Nicodemus was a member, instead plotted to murder Christ. For that reason, Nicodemus was a “secret disciple” (7:51,52).
Prominent in Jesus’ teaching to Nicodemus was that noted above: The New Birth—without which no one would see the Kingdom of God (3:3). Not even this great ruler of the Jews could enter the kingdom of God but by a New Birth! Do not miss the point that one is not saved simply by being a faithful Jew. The kingdom cannot be a Jewish entity. Imagine the shock Nicodemus experienced. Jews supposed they would be members of the Messiah’s kingdom by virtue of natural birth. This is wrong. “How could this be?” asked Nicodemus.
Jesus explains: The New Birth consists of “water and spirit” (3:5). One birth, two elements. The fact is given in v. 3. The details in v. 5. Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit. A person is led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:12) into a New Birth. The Spirit speaks to us through His word. Water refers to the water of baptism. Richard Hooker (1533-1600), one of the “divines” if the Church of England, wrote a three-volume study. In it he stated: “Of all the ancient writers there is not one to be named who ever expounded the text otherwise than implying water baptism.”
Another Church of England leader of 1638, John Boys, expanded: “ …Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Beda, Theophylact … Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory …” all understood the text as referring to water baptism as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God.
How then do many moderns seek to explain the passage as having nothing to do with the essentiality of water baptism? Henry Alford, Greek scholar and Bible translator of yesteryear, puts it succinctly: “All attempts to get rid of baptism in this passage have sprung from doctrinal prejudices by which views of expositors have been warped.” Examples of these abound.
It is NOT: “Water—which is Spirit” (John Calvin). It is NOT: “Water alone” which equals infant baptism or “baptismal regeneration” as taught by the Catholic Church. Baptism, “merely as a rite, apart from the operation of the spirit, does not impart new life” (Vincent, Word Studies, II, 92).
Neither is it that “water” represents physical birth and “spirit” represents “spiritual birth.” Many modern day Baptists have sought refuge in this to avoid the implication of water baptism. They suggest that Jesus in essence answers Nicodemus this way when asked about the New Birth: “One must be born of his mother in natural birth THEN he may be born again by the Spirit.”
Several things need be said here: (1) The form of the expression “water and spirit” makes water and spirit inseparable. One birth—two elements. So states Greek scholar B.F. Westcott, one of translators of the ASV. (2) This overlooks that the whole expression ‘water and Spirit’ defines the manner in which one is born again. G.R. Beasley-Murray, a modern-day Baptist, notes that “suggestions like these do not do justice to the text and have not commended themselves to scholarly opinion.” (3) A parallel is found in John 4:24 where we are commanded to “worship in spirit and truth.” One preposition governs both nouns—spirit and truth. One worship; Two aspects. So also here in John 3:5.
One cannot enter into the kingdom of God but by a spiritual birth (led by the Spirit) through water baptism. Strange ideas to Nicodemus who supposed that traditional Judaism was the door into the Messianic kingdom. Strange ideas to denominations today who seek to avoid water baptism as essential to salvation.
BC/AD or BCE/CE?– “The Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians.“
by Bill Lockwood
Since the Middle Ages calendars have been dated from the central point of history–Jesus Christ. “Before Christ” (BC) and “Anno Domini” (AD)—a Latin phrase meaning “the year of our Lord.” Theoretically, the Lord was born on the year zero.
Our present calendar is based upon the Gregorian calendar of 1582 which was named after Pope Gregory XIII. This calendar was actually a reform of the earlier Julian calendar put together in the year 45 B.C. and named after Julius Caesar.
The labels BC and AD were not added until 525 A.D. by Dionysius Exiguus, who used them to compute the date of Easter (Robert. R. Cargill, bibleinterp.com, 2009). Dates comprise the backbone of history and the BC/AD point of reference has been the backbone of western civilization.
This system has come under increasing criticism, however, and today “scholarship”—even Christian– recommends another option that removes Christ from that pivotal place in history. It is advised that the favored option B.C.E. and C.E., standing for Before the Common Era and Common Era, replace the older B.C./A.D. system.
Since both numerical systems utilize Jesus Christ as the point of reference (“Before Common Era” is equivalent to the time before Christ), how is it that tension exists on this?
First, by usage of BCE/CE the world of “scholarship” is insisting that the world of “science” has demonstrated the Bible to be inaccurate. Those of us in the less-educated circles need to get on board. Robert Cargill frankly states his case.
Despite the rise of science, Christians have used—and many times have insisted upon—the continued use of the labels ‘AD’ and ‘BC’ to designate calendrical years, and thereby portray human history as directly relative to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. But in our modern world of scientific reason and religious plurality, the battle over whether or not to use the increasingly accepted international scientific standard of BCE … and CE … has not waned, but rather has intensified.
Cargill plainly implies that the biblical record is inaccurate. The marvels of science have fortunately saved us from believing the historicity of the Good Book! This is continually cast in the framework of “scholarship.” As Professor Alan Bloom stated, “Every scholar I know uses B.C.E. and shuns A.D.” (quoted by William Safire, August 1997). The implication: insistence on the BC/AD referents comes from the unlearned masses.
Second, the more modern designations reflect “religious plurality.” This is also echoed in Cargill’s statement above. Plurality simply means a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in their traditional culture.
That many various groups make up America and western civilization cannot be denied.
But those who have taken the pulse of academia and other cultural leaders know perfectly well that this has occurred by design, not accident. From the purposeful changing of immigration policies favoring non-Christian countries to the revamping of educational goals to celebrate other cultures while denigrating our own—Christian people have rightly been alarmed.
Even Friedrich Nietzsche of yesteryear recognized that the Christian faith was the undergirding of western civilization—not only of its religious beliefs but also of social values and its fundamental view of human nature (Os Guinness, The Dust of Death, 37). It is this Christian foundation that is under assault by continued emphasis upon “religious plurality.”
William Safire relates that the “shunning of A.D. …goes clear up to the Supreme Court.” He tells of Adena K. Berkowitz, who has both a law degree and a doctorate in Hebrew literature, who applied to practice before the Court. “In the application,” she wrote, “I was asked if I wished ‘in the year of our Lord’ to be included as part of the date listed on the certificate or omitted.” She chose to omit. “Given the multicultural society that we live in, the traditional Jewish designations—B.C.E. and C.E.—cast a wider net of inclusion, if I may be so politically correct.”
It may be indeed a “wider net of inclusion” but the fact that it is a “Jewish designation” shows that it was not originally intended to be so much “inclusive” as simply “excluding Jesus Christ.” Those familiar with blasphemous Jewish Talmudic references to Jesus Christ can readily understand this erasure of Jesus Christ. That it has gained popularity in the world of “scholarship” may point more to the skepticism that now undergirds academia. This brings me to another reflection:
Third, the designations BCE/CE originated in Jewish unbelief. Even Wikipedia recognizes, as Adena Berkowitz confessed, that these terms “became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish academics. In the later 20th century, the use of CE and BCE was popularized in academic and scientific publications, and more generally by authors and publishers wishing to emphasize secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians, by not explicitly referring to Jesus as ‘Christ’ …”
Besides secularists, another group preferring the more modern designations are Muslims. They date their lunar calendar from the date A.D. 622, the day after the Hijra, or flight of the Prophet Mohammed from Mecca to Medina. How eager does the reader suppose Muslim scholars would be to accommodate Christians in Islamic societies by usage of the Gregorian calendar? How successful does one think would be the efforts to erase Mohammed from their calendars—no longer dating with the traditional Muslim A.H. (After Hijra)?
The State of Israel uses an official Jewish calendar which is based upon a lunar cycle. I would suspect that efforts for them to adopt the Hijra calendar of reckoning by Islam would meet with stiff resistance, even claiming that it would be tantamount to melting cultural supports of Israel. I wonder how Israel would meet the argument of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who stated:
The Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of all faiths and cultures—different civilizations, if you like—that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era.
Multiculturalism and plurality always demand Christians—not Muslims or Hindus or Humanists– to be accommodating. This reminds me of the modern usage, even by conservative Christian writers and authors, of “Judeo-Christian Culture.” This term only became vogue in the 1950’s and one never read such a statement from the Founding Era of our nation. To those men it was “a Christian culture.” The change occurred in the 1950’s and does not represent the views of earlier generations. And the alteration of “Christian culture” or “Christian nation” to “Judeo-Christian nation” represents a change in philosophy.
I choose not the modern scholarly option on dating, not because I “cling to … the symbolic superiority [I] feel”, as Robert Cargill patronizes—or because I “deny the facts and use different labels (i.e., ‘intelligent design’)”—but because the facts upon which Cargill relies are not so factual. Most of all, I oppose the world of naturalistic assumptions cornering the market on the label “scholarship”, then demanding we must all fall in line; even to the point of reframing history. Jesus Christ is the center point of all history. His life is historical; the Gospels factual; and His resurrection from the dead defensible.
Bill Lockwood, Anno Domini (The Year of our Lord), 2017.
The Constitution, Christianity, and Patriotism– “…The Constitution is the civil Bible of Americans…“
by Bill Lockwood
Some suggest that biblical commands never enjoin one to be “patriotic” regarding America. Patriotism, it is supposed, is not commended in scripture; therefore, Christians need emphasize Americanism less.
This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of America and Americanism; specifically, the God-inspired freedoms which form our core. It is true that most peoples love their own country, the place of their nativity. And if that was all that is involved in American patriotism–love of the fatherland–then the criticism might be well-founded. But America is different. It is unique in the history of the world. And it is not simply that it is unique that ought to cause Christians to be patriotic—but due to the substance of that uniqueness. This substance makes it superior.
John Adams, the second president of the United States, gives us a clue to the singular character of our nation. America is the first time in history, he noted, since even the time of Adam and Eve, that humanity might be able to enjoy, by the framework of governing principles, the freedoms which come from God. He was reflecting upon the sad fact that all governments and nations throughout history curtail the liberty which can only come from God since these governments do not begin with the fundamental premise of the sacredness of human life.
More to the point, a statement drafted first in 1922 by the Committee for Constitutional Government and signed by such dignitaries as Herbert Hoover, Alfred E. Smith, Mrs. Calvin Coolidge, Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt, Mrs. William H. Taft and others, recommended a study of the Constitution on the following grounds.
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.’ Next to the Bible, the best book on the Constitution should be in every home, school, library and parish hall.
Our republic is the direct outgrowth of Christianity. The founding generation understood exactly what they were doing. For the first time in recorded history biblical values were enshrined as the basis of a limited government called a republic in which individual freedom was based upon individual worth.
This is why founder Noah Webster admonished, “Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion … and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.” For the same reason Patrick Henry, a long time preacher, insisted that our nation was actually founded upon Jesus Christ. Strange sounds for modern ears.
Practically every founder which wrote on the subject agreed with Henry. Alexander Hamilton observed, for example, that “The law … dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”
Another signer of the Constitution, Rufus King, stated, “The … law established by the Creator … extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind….This is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control.”
None of the above is to say that pulpits ought to draw their texts from particular Articles of the Constitution upon which to preach; for they are to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2). But it is to say that a failure to recognize Christianity as the bulwark of our nation’s charter betrays a very limited understanding of America as well as the Bible.
The very concepts of the sacredness of life, liberty, and private property—which the entire construct of the Constitution is designed to protect–are biblical in nature and are not traceable to any other source. The “transcendent values of Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic,” summarizes constitutionalist David Barton (Original Intent).
For this cause, Abraham Lincoln advised regarding the Constitution:
Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges, let it be written in primers, in spelling books and in almanacs, let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation, and, in particular, a reverence for the Constitution.
Again, it is education in the principles behind our founding charter which Lincoln was encouraging. The same is true for western culture as a whole. It is superior to other cultures precisely because of the undergirding concepts upon which it is based. As Herbert Schlossberg put it in Idols for Destruction,
Cultures are equal in value only if there is no standard against which to judge them. The culture of the West, infused as it is with Christian values, is superior to any other, and all the valid charges against the West are indications that it has betrayed its own heritage. It is not superior because it is wealthy; it is wealthy because it is superior, because it believes that work is a calling, that matter is important, that reason is a gift of God. This culture, God’s gift, transmits its material blessings along with its interpretation of reality.
America’s greatness is only assessed by the eternal standard of God’s Word. Alexis de Tocqueville is credited with this famous passage in which the Frenchman searched for the greatness of America. His answer was, “Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Ezra Taft Benson, God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties).
It is not commendable that many modern pulpits cannot seem to recognize that when they preach on the sacredness of an individual life they are preaching God-given values which, because of the Bible, became the foundation of Americanism—a unique event in world history. Is this not worthy of Christian homage?
Or, when preachers “invite” sinners to obey the gospel (1 Pet. 4:17) they are celebrating the concept of liberty and free choice protected by our wise founders. Does this protection not call forth our reverence? Or, when pleading for donations they are assuming that God has invested people with private property which they can dispose of at their own volition; and because the founders believed in these biblical principles they constructed a lawful system of protection to guard that property. Should we not pay homage to this system?
Patriotism runs much deeper than love of my birthplace or attachment to the language I speak. It glories in God’s grace that enabled our founders to infuse the ideals of God into the framework of society. No other nation has ever attempted such a project. American patriotism is in reality a loyal adhesion to Christian principles which were grafted into a governing system.
The red, white, and blue therefore, evoke deep feelings not merely because I was born here—but due to the fact that these colors represent the fundamental godly doctrines which my forefathers died to protect. Not all of them lived in accordance with these values—to be sure– but they believed in them.
America is not merely exceptional. This means “better than average; not normal.” It is that. But it is also unique in that it is unequalled. It is superior. And this distinction lies in its reliance upon Christianity by which our nation was forged.
Shocked by Scandals? Welcome to the NEW AMERIKA!– “Samuel Adams Warned that “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.“
by Bill Lockwood
Sexual misconduct is rampant. National degeneracy and indecency have become so widespread that Congressional lawmakers now have a secret mysterious slush fund financed by the American taxpayers to help pay their legal bills and settle accusations against them. Unbelievable.
In the wake of increasing revelations of Congressional misconduct and disregard for decent standards of morality, Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (R-VA) has sponsored a resolution that requires all House members, officers, employees, including interns, detailees, and fellows, to complete “anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training during each session of Congress.” She is also exploring the prevention of further use of taxpayer money to assist offending members of Congress, such as Democrat John Conyers, who is reportedly raided that fund four times.
Let’s back up. The exponential increase of sexual misconduct is the result of three things.
First, the continual concentrated assault against Christian morals throughout our culture. The underpinnings of our society have been unapologetically Christian. In his Farewell Address, George Washington reminded the nation of the following:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens….And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education … reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
By “religion” Washington meant the “Christian religion.” Rising up like a prophet the father of our country warned us that not only are Christian principles the “pillars of human happiness” but without these principles there is no patriotism. The entire founding generation reverberated with the same admonitions.
Samuel Adams Warned that “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” James Madison observed that if there be no virtue among us “we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”
The entertainment industry has made it a staple fare to mock Christianity, while Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and even paganism of the Indian culture receives favorable treatment. Public schoolhouses openly teach Marxist principles which are grounded in atheism, while Bible reading, Christian prayer-offering and the teaching of biblical morality has been purposefully excised from all curriculums. The past several generations which has been reared on godless humanistic principles is having a telling effect.
Second, the deliberate removal of Constitutional restraints on federal spending. Today, at least two-thirds or more of all government spending might be classified as “benevolent expenditures.” From HUD housing grants, NEA education, welfare, block grants to states, incentives to green energy, farm subsidies, business subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, National Endowment of the arts, ad nauseam—the only limit to Congressional spending is the lack of new imaginative programs to be conceived by Congressmen and Senators.
The fact is all such spending is strictly unconstitutional. The only legitimate use of public funds is that public monies must benefit the entire population. The Constitution empowers Congress (Art. 1, Sec. 8) to expend monies only to the extent that it benefits the entire nation. Alexander Hamilton explains,
The welfare of the community [of states] is the only legitimate end for which money can be raised from the community. Congress can be considered only under one restriction, which does not apply to other governments. They cannot rightfully apply the money they raise to any purpose merely or purely local … The constitutional test of a right application must always be, whether it be for a purpose general or local in nature.
It is unlawful and illegal to remove money from one segment of the population to redistribute it to another. This common-sense approach to Congressional spending has been hated by the liberal left since the inception of our Charter—The Constitution. Finally, in 1936, during the Roosevelt Administration, “general welfare” was twisted to teach “special welfare” and America has not been the same since. Nor do mild tax relief bills such as are now before Congress hope to reform us—because Congress continues to flagrantly violate the spirit and letter of the Constitution by out-of-control spending.
Once that socialistic racket started, there is no way to stop the runaway train but by a total financial collapse. Money is so freely earmarked by Congress for pork projects and special interest spending that the ability to divert public funds for private use becomes part of the program.
Third, the decided gravitational shift toward a more centralized statist government. The same forces that began pushing for taxpayer subsidized welfare spending have been drawing all power to Washington, D.C. for over a century. Termed “the swamp” by President Trump, the locus of power is settled in the nation’s capital.
Every minute of private life is decided by masters in Congress, from housing codes, land use, school curriculum, health care decisions, workplace salary, workplace hours, hiring standards in mom-and-pop shops, banking standards, building procedures, regulating down even to how much water one has in his or her toilet. Everything is legislated by federal regulators. This does not even smell like freedom.
Every goal of a bottom-up government envisioned by the Framers has been turned upside down. We now suffer from top-down power control. Practically speaking, this means that representatives at the federal level are almost completely out of reach by those who hired them and those for whom they supposedly work—the taxpaying citizen.
Having shown some of the causes of the current immoral morass in which we find ourselves, here are some suggestions addressed to the immediate problem at hand. (1) Forget mandatory “sensitivity and sexual harassment training” for Congress and staffers. Laudable as is Rep. Comstock’s efforts, they are not enough. Cancer is not cured by such light measures. Besides, these public servants do not need sexual harassment “training.” They already know it is wrong. Matt Lauer is already out there apologizing for his misconduct. These guys already recognize what is right and wrong—they simply lack the moral fortitude to act in harmony with principle.
(2) Impose mandatory expulsion hearings. Such is provided for in our Constitution in Article 1, Section 5. Follow it. Adam Clayton Powell was expelled from Congress in 1985 for fraud and forgery—Congress needs grow a backbone and begin expulsion hearings on Conyers and Franken and others. Quit asking them to step down. Get them out.
(3) Prevention of further use of taxpayer money for nefarious purposes is commendable—we appreciate Congresswoman Comstock’s goal here—but how about demanding these lecherous Congressmen pay it back? It is our money. If they refuse—jail time. Let these measures be the sensitivity and sexual harassment training. Stop playing games.