Tag Archives: God

Bill Lockwood: The Supreme Value of Man-Religious Roots to Political Warfare 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

America is in turmoil. It may be playing out on a “political” field, but it goes much deeper than that. It reaches down into the patterns of beliefs, values, ideas, and concepts upon which our culture is built. It is western culture, built upon a God-centered worldview, that is under assault. Political wars have religious roots.

Consider the biblical view of man. What is it that gives man value? Reaching further, what worldview encompasses principles which give value to humankind? The answer: only one basic understanding of the world recognizes that man has any intrinsic value—the biblical worldview.

Creation of Man

The creation of man is set forth in Genesis 1:26-27 in wherein God said, “Let us make man in our image and after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, …And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him, male and female he created them.”

Only man is said to be “created in God’s image and after His likeness.” The same is repeated in Genesis 5:1,3 as well as in 9:6. The latter specifically demonstrates that “the image and likeness of God” is not shared by the animal creation (see 9:3 where animals are for man’s consumption) whereas the taking of human life is that which merits the charge of “murder.”

Genesis 5:1,3 clearly echoes 1:26-27 and evinces the fact that “the image and likeness of God” continues even after man’s sin in the garden. New Testament passages such as Jas. 3:9 show that value is attached to man due to this “likeness.”

“The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts …” (Prov. 20:27). Professor Plumptre, educated at Oxford a century ago, remarked of this verse: “the higher life, above that which he has in common with lower animals, coming to him direct from God.” Then he adds, “Such a life, with all its powers of insight, consciousness, reflection, is as a lamp which God has lighted, throwing its rays into the darkest recesses of the heart.”

What is the Image and Likeness of God?

The “image of God” is a distinction that sets humanity apart from the animate creation. We have but to ask, what does the Bible teach about man that is not taught about animals? Since man shares a biological make-up like that of animals, as well as the animation of the body, the single factor which sets man apart is the fact that man has an eternal spirit within him that is answerable to God (see 1 Thess. 5:23; Ecc. 12:7). What does this entail?

First, man is a rational being. This is not to argue that all of us act rationally at all times, but it is to say that we have the capacity to weigh matters and make informed decisions about them. Man has the ability to think, the power of problem-solving, the power to frame hypotheses, gather materials, gain insights into reality, test explanations, and to determine whether or not the test worked or did not work. As Professor Plumptre put it, only man has powers of insight and reflection.

Second, man is a moral being. Once again, this is not to say that we all act morally upright at all times, but only humankind has the capacity of “moral sensitivity.” Even evolutionist of yesteryear, G.G. Simpson stated, that unlike the rest of the animal creation, “Man is a moral animal.” Only man feels obligated to to obey moral principles. Only man distinguishes between what IS, and what OUGHT TO BE. All men have a sense of duty, and the sense of obligation to this duty regardless of personal safety.

Third, man has free will. When options are laid out before a person, only man has the ability to weigh these options for action and move on them—sometimes to the detriment of his own personal safety. It is solely from this biblical basis that our entire culture is predicated upon the proposition that “all men are created equal.”

These are the qualities which Solomon in Proverbs called “a candle of the Lord.”

Worldviews that Deny the Value of Man

I mentioned above that political wars have religious roots. Take paganism, both ancient and modern. Paganism begins with a denial that all men are created equal. Kenneth Matthews authored the two volumes on Genesis for The New American Commentary series. Reflecting upon ancient pagan beliefs, Matthews had this to say:

In the ancient Near East it was widely believed that kings represented the patron deities of their nations or city-states. Among the Mesopotamians and Canaanites, royal figures were considered ‘sons’ adopted by the gods to function as vice-regents and intermediaries between deity and society. Egyptian society recognized pharaoh as divine who was Horus in life and Osiris in death. Some royal stelae describe the king as the ‘image’ of God.

Some are born to rule. They have the “image of God.” Others are born to serve. Not much different from socialism. If we but allow the elite ruling class to organize and manage the rest of us, all will be well. This is the “gospel of socialism.”

How about the “Green Gospel” of Environmentalism? The grandfather of the modern environmental movement is former Vice-President Al Gore. His magnum opus, Earth in the Balance, specifically attacked the Genesis passages mentioned above.

“…major scientific discoveries have often undermined the Church’s tendency to exaggerate our uniqueness as a species and defend our separation from the rest of nature.” “It is my own belief that the image of God can be seen in every corner of creation, even in us, but only faintly.”

I believe that the image of the Creator which sometimes seems so faint in the tiny corner of creation each of us beholds, is nonetheless present in its entirety—and present in us as well. If we are made in the image of God, perhaps it is the myriad slight strands from the earth’s web of life—woven so distinctly in our essence … By experiencing nature in its fullest … with our senses and with our spiritual imagination, we can glimpse, bright shining as the sun, an infinite image of God.

To kick-off the modern environmental movement Gore felt the need to re-write Genesis. He recognized that a value shift was necessary to accomplish his green socialism.

The 1992 Biocentric United Nations Treaty did exactly the same thing. “Nature has an integral set of values (cultural, spiritual, and material). Where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore, the natural way is the right and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.”

And just how might it be ensured that “human activities” be “molded along nature’s rhythms” and that humans recognize the “equality” of nature, since all of nature has God’s image, per Al Gore? Big Government—that’s how. It forces us to honor this “value shift” by recognizing humanity as no more valuable than a free-flowing stream, beautiful giant mountain, or a tall tree in the forest. And it is not “all men are created equal, but all living creatures.” No supreme value to mankind.

Denying the supreme value of man by jettisoning the biblical worldview lies at the bottom of the political left today. As Joe Biden himself stated on January 27, 2021, after one week into his presidency, his entire agenda is a “whole-government approach to put climate change at the center of our domestic national security, and foreign policy.”

That about sums up the entire machinery of government. All rooted in anti-biblical concepts that are the heartbeat of the Environmental Green Agenda. As stated in The First Global Revolution, a 1991 report by the Club of Rome, a powerhouse establishment group populated by people such as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, George Soros, David Rockefeller and Mikhail Gorbachev, “The common enemy of humanity is man.”

Bill Lockwood: A Biblical View of Corrupt Political Leaders 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Psalm 58 is David’s passionate prayer about corrupt judges (political leaders) who devastate and destroy the righteous by unjust public laws and regulations. The first verse reads, “Do you indeed decree what is right, you gods?”  The question implies a “no” answer, just as v. 2 states, “No in your hearts you devise wrongs … your hands deal out violence on the earth.”

Here, the Hebrew Bible refers to civic leaders and judges as “gods,” just as does Psalm 82:6. What about this reference to political or civic rulers as “gods?”

In Psalm 82:6, Jesus makes clear that these judges are so called because “to them the Word of God came.” That is, they were inspired of God. The explanation here, however, “lies in the conception of such power as bestowed by God, and in some sense a delegation of His attribute …” This is to say that leaders, popularly elected by a democratic process or not, are invested with such authority as to enable them to be entrusted with God’s blessings of my liberty. To oversee that my freedom is protected and guarded in the civic sphere.

This is why Thomas Jefferson referred to the official obligations of political leaders as guarding “the sacred deposit” entrusted to them. What is the “sacred deposit?” Nothing less than the “rights and liberties of their fellow citizens.” For this same reason John Adams referred to politics as a “divine science.”

Cicero was an ancient Roman writer before Christ whom our Founding Fathers loved to quote. Remarkably, Cicero was able to see this same principle clearly enough in spite of his pagan environment. Regarding the function of civic rulers Cicero observed: “For there is really no other occupation in which human virtue approaches more closely the function of the gods than that of founding new States or preserving those already in existence.”

Old Testament scholar John Goldingay summarizes this well. “When the New Testament talks about these dynamics, it sometimes refers to powers and authorities … in a way that might suggest that there is something supernatural about them.”.

In sum, elected leaders in American society are actually invested with authority by the people that empower them to operate in positions which, in some ways, make them spokesmen of God. Hence, the Bible’s reference to them as “gods.”

Does This Reference Shield Leaders from Criticism?

Some suppose that, because the New Testament commands “honor the king” (1 Pet. 2:17), that critical review of a political leader or his or her policies, is off-limits to the Christian. Nothing could be further from the truth.

David was struck with deep sorrow regarding the leadership of Israel at the time of composing this Psalm. His prayer to God (Psalm 58) recognizes the reality that the forces of government were anything but honorable. Instead, their decisions were not founded upon any law, nor supported by any principle of justice! Because of this, his language is sharp, strong and even harsh.

Not only did these leaders not “exercise authority uprightly” (v. 1), but “with their mind” they “devise acts of wrongdoing in the country.”

Where leadership of a nation lacks sound principles of honor and personal integrity, the people suffer. “ … their rulers do not rule in a way that gives priority to integrity an concern for the people.”  Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

“With their hearts they devise wrongs” and with their “hands” they “deal out violence” (v. 2). There is no justice in their policies. “Their poison,” or speech proceeding from their mouths, is “like the venom from a snake; like a “cobra that has stopped its ears” (v. 4). In the ancient world there were persons that charmed, lulled into inactivity, serpents, so as to prevent them from biting.

The singer of Israel then prays (v. 6-8) that God would “smash the teeth in their mouth and break the fangs of the lions.” Not a pretty picture of the wicked character of political leaders. They are like “lions,” tearing apart their prey (the people) by their unrighteous policies. In the position of “gods,” yet acting like hungry lions (see also Isa. 5:29).

America Today?

It is reflecting upon these types of Psalms that our Founding Fathers insisted that, if we wish to enjoy God’s temporal blessings on the earth, leaders need to exhibit personal virtue and morality. But this is exactly what we do not have. Instead, like David’s lament, we have an American government filled with wicked people that “devise wrongs”, “deal out violence” by their policies, “speak lies,” and spew out “venom like that of a serpent,” and shreds apart the country “like lions.”

Consider two broad facts that demonstrate this. These two facts are the unjust, immoral and unconstitutional establishment of a Welfare State, while at the same time opening the Border to allow invasion of our nation.

The initial sin is the diabolical Welfare State by which the fruits of one’s labor becomes stolen property by ruling forces so they may redistribute to the poorer. In this bribery fashion followers of the Democrat Socialist Party pretend to be assisting the poor! Non-thinkers suppose Joe Biden is actually aiding people.

The second sin is the wicked policy of Open Borders which invites the entire world to be supported by the American taxpayer via this Welfare State. These two political legacies, working in tandem, will end America as we have known it.

It is ironic that powerful people in office, such as the Joe Biden’s, are compared by inspired David to deadly poisonous snakes that refuse to listen to any reasonable voice that tries to stop them from injecting their venom into the populace.

One other note needs be made here. It is the solid link between:

Character and Conduct

This is an important feature in human composition that cannot be overlooked.

Steven J. Lawson  notes that:

An inseparable connection exists between a person’s character and his conduct. The former is the source of the latter. Some people claim that a leader’s private life does not matter, that we should be concerned only about his public performance. But what a leader is internally will always show up externally. This is the focus of Psalm 58.

The key lesson to remember about the Psalm, however, is this. David gives a scathing indictment of unjust rulers. Their hands meted out violence and injustice. Their words were as “venom” and they spoke like “snake charmers” (58:5). But David, nor any inspired spokesman, called upon men to take matters into their own hands. Instead, leave vengeance to the Lord. Recognize and call out the evil—but let the Lord settle the accounts.

Bill Lockwood: Joe Biden’s Plan to Disarm Americans 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Strictly speaking, the right to “keep and bear arms” is not a “Constitutional right.” It is a right I own from God to protect my life, my family, and my property—whether individually or collectively. I have a God-given responsibility to protect myself and my family from harm. This is a law of nature and it is prior to the Constitution itself. So, it matters not what the Constitution says or does not say on the subject.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment with this in mind. It is a “Thou shalt not touch” list written to the federal government. As a matter of fact, the Bill of Rights itself is a list of prohibitions, not rights. The reason this is the case is because the founders recognized the presence of Natural Law—such as self-preservation and self-government– upon which the laws of nations should be built.

The Neo-Marxist Democrat Party problem begins here. They do not, even if some of them believe in God, operate upon the premise that God gives us anything. To them, everything is a grant of the government—including the “right to keep and bear arms,” which may be repealed if they see fit. What the government gives, the government can take away.

Biden/Harris

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are the worst of the worse of the totalitarian gun-grabbers. Joe Biden and the Socialists who run this country want to repeal the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. They are back-door thieves. Passage of this Act makes it easier for gun manufacturers to be held civilly liable for people who commit crimes with their products, for the law was designed to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits in cases where guns were used in crimes.

Last February 24, Joe Biden made the following statement on the campus of The College of Charleston in South Carolina. “I’ve got news for you gun manufacturers. I’m coming for you and I’m going to take you down.”

Biden has promised to sign an executive order—something with which he is intimately familiar—to ban “assault weapons.” But, first, he does not know what an assault weapon is. Biden includes in this list AR-15’s and other semi-automatic weapons. Second, the facts of American gun violence do not point to semi-automatic weapons. But no matter. Biden will have his foot in the door.

More concerning than this, however, is the current rash of Red-Flag Laws that have been supported not only by the Biden-Harris team, but politicians of both parties.  Ron Paul warns that “Police officers in 20 states and the District of Columbia already have the authority to take away an individual’s Second Amendment rights based in allegations and without giving the individual due process.”

Even a “psychological evaluation could … be used to deny an individual Second Amendment rights because they may engage in ‘domestic terrorism.’” Paul added that “Among those likely to be considered as potential ‘domestic terrorists’ are opponents of US foreign policy, mass surveillance, the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and, ironically—gun control.”

Biden’s Staff

Consider also the rabid anti-gun stance of Biden’s hand-picked staff. VP Kamala Harris’ anti-freedom position is well-known. Xavier Becerra, Biden’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has advocated for more onerous gun-control measures. He is on record as saying that AR-type rifles are “not in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.”

Dr. Vivek Murthy is Biden’s choice for U.S. Surgeon General. Murthy tweeted: “Tired of politicians playing politics w/ guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of the NRA. Guns are a health care issue. #debatehealth.”

Jen O’Malley Dillon, Biden’s campaign manager, worked for Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, the candidate who said, “Yes, we’re going to take your AR-15’s.” Pete Buttigieg has been selected by Biden to head the Department of Transportation. He has openly pushed for gun registration and banning AR-15’s as well as desiring to hold the gun industry accountable.

Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, has openly written that the gun violence problem in America is due to the “widespread availability” of guns in America. Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan, is Biden’s nominee for energy secretary. She too has called for an “assault weapons ban.”

Deb Haaland has been confirmed as the new secretary of the Department of the Interior. Her calls for stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms, starting at “background checks,” “closing gun-show loopholes,” and “taking on the NRA” are public record. The bold-faced liar, Susan Rice, who heads Biden’s Domestic Policy Council, is an infamous anti-gunner.

Biden’s AG pick, Merrick Garland, has also sated he would support the The White House’s efforts to restrict gun ownership in America.

All in all, Biden’s Administration is the most anti-freedom, anti-American, pro-totalitarian government that we have seen. If Biden gets his way on gun control, America has seen the last of its freedoms.

Robert Spencer: In Iraq, pope views mosques and churches destroyed by the Islamic State, laments ‘our cruelty’ 4 (1)

by Robert Spencer

The pope was making a theological point, that all human beings are sinful, and that this destruction is a manifestation of that sinfulness. But it is also noteworthy that he ascribed the destruction he saw to all of humanity, and decried nations that sell weapons, but never said a word about why the ruined buildings he saw were destroyed in the first place. The Islamic State destroyed mosques because the people who attended them did not accept their authority, and were thus apostates in rebellion against the caliphate. It destroyed churches because they were places of unbelief (see Qur’an 5:17, 9:30, etc.) and shirk, the association of partners with Allah in worship. But there was never any possibility that the pope might ask the assembled Muslim leaders to fight against jihad violence and teach their people to refrain from jihad violence. After all, the pope has committed himself and the Catholic Church to the proposition that Islam is peaceful and has nothing to do with terrorism, so as far as he was concerned, there was nothing for him to ask the Muslim leaders about. And that rendered the trip a useless and indeed counterproductive exercise.

“Pope Francis dismisses ‘heresy’ charges for his commitment to Christian-Muslim dialogue,” by Claire Giangravé, Religion News Service, March 8, 2021:

VATICAN CITY (RNS) — Aboard the papal flight back from Iraq, the first papal trip since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Pope Francis addressed criticism of those who have accused him of being “one step away from heresy” in his commitment to promoting human fraternity among the world’s faiths.

“There are some critics who say the pope is not brave but reckless, that he’s taking steps against Catholic doctrine, that he’s one step from heresy,” the pope told journalists on Monday (March 8).

Francis said that his decision to speak with Muslim religious leaders and promote interreligious dialogue is “always made in prayer, in dialogue, asking for advice.” He said that his efforts to mend Christian-Muslim relations, far from being “capricious,” are in keeping with the doctrine laid out by the Second Vatican Council….

On Saturday (March 6), the pope met in Najaf, a holy city to Shia Muslims, with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most prominent Shiite leader. The historic meeting, which lasted roughly 45 minutes, was the first official meeting between a pope and a prominent Shiite representative.

The pope described al-Sistani as “a humble man” who has “wisdom and prudence,” adding that “it was good for my soul to encounter him.” Francis said the meeting was “a duty in his pilgrimage of faith” to promote human fraternity among religions….

It was the tragic decimation of the Yazidi ethnic community by the Islamic State group following the 2014 occupation of Northern Iraq that inspired the pope to make the trip, he said. The book “The Last Girl” by Nobel Peace Prize-winner Nadia Murad, which described the suffering of the Yazidi people, “provided the background for the decision,” he said.

On Sunday (March 7), Francis viewed the ruins of mosques and churches in Mosul, the capital of the Islamic State during the occupation. He said he “had no words” after seeing the scale of destruction. “Human cruelty, our cruelty, is impossible to believe,” he added.

The pope also criticized those nations selling weapons, though he didn’t single out any particular country….

Among the topics addressed by the pope during the trip was the question of the suffering of immigrants, which has been a main focus of this pontificate. Francis met with the father of a 3-year-old boy who died attempting to cross the Mediterranean Sea. The picture of Alan Kurdi’s body became a symbol of the plight of immigrants and refugees in Europe and beyond….


Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Follow him on Twitter here

Bill Lockwood: Is Secession Constitutional? 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

No Specific Provision for Secession?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

LBJ Goes to Washington

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

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

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

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

Jim Wells County

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Are We to Learn?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Lockwood: Christian Nationalism? 5 (3)

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian Nationalism in the churches of Christ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Shall We Say to These Things?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1989 expressed the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Marxism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Lockwood: Capitol Violence 4.5 (2)

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

Past Four Years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harsh words. Tough times.

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Older Entries